ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT ON THE PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE

Transcription

1 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT ON THE PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE June 216

2 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT ON THE PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Submitted to: Kristi Abrams, PE Community Development Director City of Gilroy 7531 Rosanna St. Gilroy, California 952 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc Fifth Street Berkeley, California June 216

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 II. INTRODUCTION AND REPORT BACKGROUND... 5 A. REPORT ORGANIZATION... 5 B. DESCRIPTION OF INITIATIVE... 5 C. APPROACH Definitions of Development Adopted 22 General Plan Designations Draft 24 General Plan D. DETAILED SUMMARY OF SCENARIOS ANALYZED IN THIS REPORT Adopted 22 General Plan Adopted 22 General Plan with Initiative Draft 24 General Plan Draft 24 General Plan with Initiative E. COMPARISON OF ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT CITYWIDE III. ANALYSIS OF INITIATIVE IMPLEMENTATION A. INTRODUCTION B. LAND USE AND HOUSING Background Citywide Development of Vacant and Underutilized Lands Housing Element Availability and Location of Housing Voter Approval Requirement and Process to Change General Plan Conclusions C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Approach Economic Impact Findings Conclusions D. TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND FUNDING Scope of Study Traffic Volume Forecasting Methodology Analysis Methodologies and Level of Service Standards Land Use Assumptions Transportation Network Assumptions Significant Impact Criteria Intersection Level of Service Analysis Freeway Segment Levels of Service Potential Transportation Improvements Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) i

4 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE 11. Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities Traffic Impact Fee Program Potential Effect of Initiative on Draft 24 General Plan Conclusions E. PUBLIC UTILITIES, SERVICES, AND AMENITIES Wastewater Treatment/Sewer System Water Solid Waste Energy Police Services Fire Services Library Services Schools Parks/Open Space/Agriculture Conclusions F. FISCAL Sales Tax Retail Sales Tax Revenues Business-to-Business Sales Tax Revenues Property Tax Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues Transient Occupancy Tax Utility User Tax Other Revenues Summary of Annually Recurring Revenues General Fund Expenditures Impact Fees for Schools and Other Infrastructure Conclusions IV. CONCLUSION V. REPORT PREPARATION A. REPORT PREPARERS B. REFERENCES APPENDICES Appendix A: Gilroy Urban Growth Boundary Initiative Text Appendix B: Elections Code 9212 Appendix C: Traffic Analysis Appendices Appendix D: Fiscal & Economic Analysis Appendices P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) ii

5 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 1: Location and Regional Vicinity Map... 7 Figure 2: Aerial View of City Boundaries... 8 Figure 3: City of Gilroy 22 General Plan Land Use Map Figure 4: City of Gilroy 22 General Plan Land Use Map with Urban Growth Boundary... 2 Figure 5: City of Gilroy 24 General Plan Land Use Map Figure 6: City of Gilroy Draft 24 General Plan Land Use Map with Urban Growth Boundary Figure 7: Important Farmland Map Figure 8: Summary of Existing Annually Recurring General Fund Revenues TABLES Table 1: Summary of Potential Effects or Impacts of Initiative Approval... 4 Table 2: Comparison of Citywide Development of Vacant and Underutilized Lands by Land Use Category for Adopted 22 General Plan and Adopted 22 General Plan With Initiative Table 3: Comparison of Citywide Development of Vacant and Underutilized Lands by Land Use Category for Draft 24 General Plan Scenario and Draft 24 General Plan Scenario with Initiative Table 4: Comparison of Citywide Population and Employee Population at Development Buildout of Vacant and Underutilized Lands for Adopted 22 General Plan and Adopted 22 General Plan with Initiative Table 5: Comparison of Citywide Population and Employee Population at Development Buildout of Vacant and Underutilized Lands for Draft 24 General Plan Scenario and Draft 24 General Plan Scenario with Initiative Table 6: ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation, City of Gilroy Table 7: Inputs for Economic Impact Analysis Table 8: Comparison of Annual Industry Output and Economic Multiplier Effects at Buildout under Adopted 22 and Draft 24 General Plans With and Without Initiative Table 9: Comparison of Industry Output and Economic Multiplier Effects from Annual Construction Activity under Adopted 22 and Draft 24 General Plans With and Without Initiative Table 1: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definition Based on Delay Table 11: Freeway Levels of Service Based on Density Table 12: Roadway Network Changes with Initiative... 5 Table 13: Intersection Level of Service Results Table 14: Freeway Segment US 11 Level of Service Results Without Initiative Table 15: Freeway Segment US 11 Level of Service Results With Initiative P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) iii

6 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Table 16: Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Comparison Table 17: City of Gilroy Development Growth Projections... 6 Table 18: Demand for Traffic Facilities 22 General Plan Buildout With and Without Initiative... 6 Table 19: Transportation System Planned Improvement Costs to Accommodate Growth Table 2: Traffic Impact Fee Program Administration Cost Table 21: Traffic Impact Fee Program Administration Charge Table 22: Evaluation of Traffic Impact Fee Changes Due to Proposed Initiative Table 23: Traffic Facilities Fee Schedule Comparison With and Without Initiative Table 24: Projected Annual Sales Tax Revenues from New Retail Table 25: Projected Annual Business-to-Business Sales Tax Revenues Table 26: Projected Increase in Annual Property Tax Revenues Table 27: Projected Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues... 8 Table 28: Projected Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues Table 29: Projected Annual Utility User Tax Revenues Table 3: Other Projected Annual Revenues to the City of Gilroy General Fund Table 31: Summary of Projected Annually Recurring Revenues Table 32: Summary of Projected Annual General Fund Expenditures Table 33: Summary of Projected Annual Net Fiscal Impact to the City of Gilroy General Fund Table 34: Gilroy Unified School District Impact Fee Revenues from Adopted 22 General Plan Table 35: Gilroy Unified School District Impact Fee Revenues from Draft 24 General Plan Table 36: City of Gilroy Impact Fee Revenues from Adopted 22 General Plan and Draft 24 General Plan P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) iv

7 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On June 2, 216, the Gilroy City Council requested that City staff and consultants prepare an analysis of a proposed initiative, the Gilroy Urban Growth Boundary Initiative (Initiative), which would amend the City of Gilroy s General Plan. This report contains an analysis of the potential effects of the Initiative, as authorized under California Elections Code Section Appendix A of this report contains the text of the Initiative and Appendix B contains the Elections Code 9212 requirements. California law requires each city and county to adopt and maintain a general plan that establishes permissible land uses and maximum development densities and intensities for all properties within that jurisdiction. The general plan effectively serves as a jurisdiction s living constitution for all future land use decisions, which can be amended up to four times per year. The City s adopted general plan is the Gilroy 22 General Plan (Adopted 22 General Plan). Therefore, this report focuses primarily on the effects of implementation of the proposed Initiative on the Adopted 22 General Plan. However, as the City has recently undergone an extensive planning effort to update its 22 General Plan to guide development of the City through the year 24, this report also examines the effects that the proposed Initiative would have on implementation of the Draft 24 General Plan, should it be adopted by the City. As such, this report provides an analysis of the effects of the Initiative under the following four development scenarios: Adopted 22 General Plan Development in the City of Gilroy under the existing adopted General Plan; Adopted 22 General Plan with Initiative Development in the City of Gilroy as envisioned by the Initiative and assumes the City s General Plan is amended by the Initiative as proposed; Draft 24 General Plan Development in the City of Gilroy under the Draft 24 General Plan; and Draft 24 General Plan with Initiative Development in the City of Gilroy as envisioned by the Initiative, assuming the 24 General Plan is adopted and amended by the Initiative as proposed. The proposed Initiative, the full language of which is included in Appendix A of this report, and which is described in greater detail below, would change the General Plan (either the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan, if adopted) in the following ways: 1. The Initiative would amend the General Plan Land Use Map to include an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), outside of which only limited development would be allowed; P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 1

8 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE 2. The Initiative would amend the General Plan to add Policies 2.13 and 2.14, which would establish and provide the framework for implementation of the UGB, to the City of Gilroy General Plan Community Design and Development Element; 3. The Initiative would further amend the General Plan to promote internal consistency among the various elements of the Plan through text amendments to the Strategic Direction Element of the General Plan in regard to establishment of the UGB; and, 4. With certain limited exceptions where the City makes specific findings, the UGB could not be amended until December 31, 24, except by a vote of the citizens of Gilroy. Based on the above changes to the General Plans, this report analyzes the topics described in Elections Code Section 9212 (see Appendix B of this report) to determine what potentially significant effects the Initiative, if approved by the voters or the City Council, would have on the City. As described below, the analysis contained in this report has yielded the following conclusions: Under each of the four development scenarios analyzed in this report, the amount of allowable development outside of the proposed UGB would be reduced and citywide development plans of vacant and underutilized lands would be altered; Implementation of the Initiative, under either the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan, would reduce projected population growth; Under the Adopted 22 General Plan with the Initiative, the number of acres available for the development of Residential uses would decrease by 64 acres, and the number of potential dwelling units would decrease by 2,929 dwelling units; Under the Draft 24 General Plan with the Initiative there would be a decrease of approximately 45 acres of land available for Residential Development, with an associated decrease in approximately 4,344 potential dwelling units; The potential for non-residential development would decrease by approximately 8,313,344 square feet under the Adopted 22 General Plan with the Initiative and by approximately 4,2,198 square feet under the Draft 24 General Plan with the Initiative; With the Initiative, land designated as Open Space would increase by approximately 2,25 acres under the Adopted 22 General Plan and by approximately 2,89 acres under the Draft 24 General Plan; While the Initiative would result in an overall reduction in the lands available for the development of Residential uses under both the Adopted 22 General Plan and the Draft 24 General Plan, the Initiative would be consistent with and supports the goals of the Housing Element; Implementation of the Initiative under the Adopted 22 General Plan would result in a decline of over 45 percent in potential jobs, labor income, and economic output and a decline of 13 to 14 percent in potential jobs, labor income, and economic output under the Draft 24 General Plan; Under the Adopted 22 General Plan with the Initiative, potential annual jobs, labor income, and economic output from construction would decline approximately by 3 percent; and under the Draft 24 General Plan with the Initiative in place, potential annual jobs, labor income, and economic output would drop by approximately by 25 percent; P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 2

9 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Under either the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan, implementation of the Initiative would result in roadway network changes that would affect the City of Gilroy Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program; Under the Adopted 22 General Plan, the TIF would need to increase by approximately 4 percent for each development type with implementation of the Initiative; The cost per trip for traffic facility improvements would increase from $4,612 under the Adopted 22 General Plan without the Initiative to $6,444 with implementation of the proposed Initiative; Under either the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan, the Initiative would improve intersection level of service (LOS) to some degree at most intersections; however, at existing deficient locations, intersections would continue to operate at unacceptable levels; With the Initiative, the number of roadway extensions or improvements that would be needed outside of the proposed UGB would be reduced under the Adopted 22 General Plan and the Draft 24 General Plan; Because job numbers would likely decrease to a greater degree than population, implementation of the Initiative would slightly increase Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the City; With implementation of the proposed Initiative, projected traffic volumes on the freeway would decrease slightly on some segments and increase slightly on others from 22 General Plan conditions. Despite these traffic volumes changes, the same freeway segments projected to be deficient under 22 General Plan buildout conditions without the proposed Initiative would also be deficient under conditions with implementation of the Initiative; The freeway segments projected to be deficient under Draft 24 General Plan buildout conditions would likely continue to be deficient even with implementation of the proposed Initiative; Implementation of the Initiative would eliminate the need for one new school site as required as part of full buildout of the Draft 24 General Plan; As implementation of the Initiative would result in a decrease in the potential for Residential development under both the Adopted 22 General Plan and the Draft 24 General Plan, it would reduce the demand for police services, fire services, library services, water, solid waste, and electricity and gas services; No effect to designated agricultural lands would occur with the Initiative, either under the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan; Retail sales tax revenues would decrease by approximately $1 million with the Initiative under the Adopted 22 General Plan, and by approximately $2.9 million with the Initiative under the Draft 24 General Plan; Property tax revenues would be reduced by about $3 million under the Adopted 22 General Plan with the Initiative and by approximately $2.7 million under the Draft 24 General Plan with the Initiative; Annual Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fee Revenues would decrease with the Initiative under the Adopted 22 General Plan and the Draft 24 General Plan; P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 3

10 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Utility User Tax revenues from gas, electricity, steam, telecommunications, and video services would decrease under the Adopted 22 General Plan and the Draft 24 General Plan with implementation of the Initiative; Franchise tax revenues would be lower with the Initiative under both the Adopted 22 General Plan and the Draft 24 General Plan; General Fund Revenues would be reduced by approximately $9 million with the Initiative under the Adopted 22 General Plan and the Draft 24 General Plan; and General Plan Fund Revenues are expected to exceed costs under either the Adopted 22 General Plan with the Initiative or the Draft 24 General Plan with the Initiative. Table 1 summarizes how the main provisions of the Initiative could potentially affect the City relative to the topics covered in this report. Chapter III of this report provides an analysis of the potential effects associated with implementation of the Initiative, should it be passed by the voters. Table 1: Summary of Potential Effects or Impacts of Initiative Approval Potential Effects According to Analysis a Land Use and Housing Policy Development Patterns Economic Development Infrastructure Infrastructure Funding General Plan Amendments Proposed by Initiative General Plan Land Use Map Amendments Land use map amended to include an Urban Growth Boundary Designates as Open Space all lands outside of the UGB but within the 2-year Planning Boundary, except those lands designated as Educational Facility and those designated as Park/Recreational Facility that are located adjacent to lands designated as Educational Facility General Plan Text Amendments Add Policy 2.13 (Urban Growth Boundary), which describes the scope and purpose of the Initiative, to the City of Gilroy General Plan Community Design and Development Element Add Policy 2.14 (Urban Growth Boundary Implementation), which outlines the procedures for amending or repealing the UGB Initiative, to the City of Gilroy General Plan Community Design and Development Element General Plan Conforming Amendments Further amend the General Plan, within the Strategic Direction Element, in order to promote internal consistency among sections of the General Plan relative to implementation of the Urban Growth Boundary a Chapter III of this report analyzes the potential effects of the Initiative. Indicates potential effects resulting from implementation of the Initiative that could occur related to the identified topic. Fiscal P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 4

11 II. INTRODUCTION AND REPORT BACKGROUND This report was prepared pursuant to State of California ( State ) Election Code Section 9212, which allows the City of Gilroy City Council to authorize preparation of a report on the effects of the Gilroy Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Initiative (Initiative) dated February 26, 216, covering any topics for which the City Council desires more information. As required by Section 9212, this report was prepared and submitted within 3 days of the City Council s acceptance of the City Clerk s certification of the sufficiency of the Initiative petition. After reviewing this report, the City Council must either adopt the Initiative without any amendments or schedule an election for consideration of the Initiative by City voters. On June 2, 216, the City Council certified the petition signatures and ordered the preparation of this report pursuant to State Election Code Section A. REPORT ORGANIZATION This report is framed around the four development scenarios associated with implementation of the City s Adopted 22 General Plan and the Draft 24 General Plan, with and without the proposed UGB Initiative. The executive summary included in Chapter I summarizes the proposed Initiative and its potential effects. This chapter, Chapter II, provides a description of the proposed Initiative and the changes it proposes to the City s General Plan. Chapter II also provides a summary of the four scenarios (22 General Plan, 22 General Plan with Initiative, 24 General Plan, and 24 General Plan with Initiative). Chapter III presents the analysis of potential effects of the proposed Initiative. The potential effects and impacts of the Initiative are analyzed for the following topics: land use and housing, development patterns, economic development, transportation infrastructure, infrastructure funding, and fiscal. As noted above, the full text of the proposed Initiative is included as Appendix A and documentation related to Elections Code 9212 requirements is included as Appendix B. B. DESCRIPTION OF INITIATIVE The proposed Initiative, sponsored by Gilroy Growing Smarter, is an initiative to amend the Adopted 22 General Plan to establish an Urban Growth Boundary ( UGB ). The UGB is a boundary outside of which urban development would not be allowed except under certain circumstances. While the UGB is, in places, coterminous with the City s 2-year Planning Area Boundary, the City Limit, and/or the Urban Service Area Boundary, it is independent of these boundaries. Figure 1 shows the City of Gilroy limits and the City s regional location, and Figure 2 depicts an aerial view of the City limits, the Urban Service Area, the 2-year Planning Boundary, and the area within the proposed UGB. The intent of the Initiative is to promote the health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of Gilroy s residents by: Encouraging efficient growth patterns that protect Gilroy s rural character and quality of life while allowing for economic development and concentrating future development largely within existing developed areas; P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 5

12 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Promoting and protecting continued agricultural and open space uses on lands outside of the UGB; Promoting sustainable job creation through in-fill development and downtown revitalization, guiding growth in a compact manner, promoting a well-planned community, and fostering neighborhood development; Avoiding premature expansion of infrastructure in order to safeguard the City s prosperity and fiscal health; Directing development of housing into areas where services and infrastructure are more efficiently available; Promoting stable, but flexible, long-term planning within the City; and, Ensuring that the City s General Plan Update includes an Urban Growth Boundary. The Initiative proposes to amend the City s General Plan Land Use Plan Map to designate as Open Space all lands outside the UGB, but within the 2-Year Planning Boundary, except for: 1) lands designated Educational Facility, and 2) lands designated Park/Recreation Facility that are located adjacent to lands designated Educational Facility. With limited exceptions, no development could occur outside the UGB without a separate vote of the citizens of Gilroy. Allowable uses and exceptions outside the UGB would include: public parks; public educational facilities, including public schools and colleges; specific job-producing industrial projects of up to 5 acres per year, affordable housing (if needed), and public wastewater, sewer, storm drain and water recycling facilities. Under the Initiative, the text of the General Plan (either the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan, if adopted) would be amended to specify the circumstances under which development of such uses would be allowed outside of the UGB. Implementation of the Initiative also would include text amendments to the General Plan as well as conforming amendments to ensure internal consistency within the General Plan. C. APPROACH In order to provide a basis for evaluating how the Initiative might impact the City of Gilroy, this report defines, examines, and compares four development scenarios: Adopted 22 General Plan Development in the City of Gilroy under the existing adopted General Plan; Adopted 22 General Plan with Initiative Development in the City of Gilroy as envisioned by the Initiative and assumes the City s General Plan is amended by the Initiative as proposed; Draft 24 General Plan Development in the City of Gilroy under the Draft 24 General Plan; and Draft 24 General Plan with Initiative Development in the City of Gilroy as envisioned by the Initiative, assuming the 24 General Plan is adopted and amended by the Initiative as proposed. These scenarios are described in greater detail below. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 6

13 Service Layer Credits: 21 NAVTEQ AND 216 Microsoft Corporation Project Stanislaus Vicinity County Project Location Santa Clara County 11 Santa Cruz County à 1 à 152 à 129 Monterey County à 25 à 156 San Benito County LEGEND FIGURE 1 Gilroy City Limits 3 6 FEET SOURCE: Bing Maps (214); City of Gilroy (216) I:\CGL161\GIS\ProjectLocation_Streets.mxd (5/12/216) City of Gilroy Urban Growth Boundary Initiative 9212 Report Location and Regional Vicinity Map

14 Service Layer Credits: Harris Corp, Earthstar Geographics LLC Earthstar 3 6 FEET SOURCE: Bing Maps (214); City of Gilroy (22; 216) I:\CGL161\GIS\ProjectLocation_Aerial.mxd (6/22/216) LEGEND City Limits (216) Area Within Proposed Urban Growth Boundary (216) " " " " " " " " Urban Service Area (22 General Plan) 2 Year Planning Boundary (22 General Plan) FIGURE 2 City of Gilroy Urban Growth Boundary Initiative 9212 Report Aerial View of City Boundaries

15 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE A Public Review Draft of the proposed 24 General Plan update was circulated for public review in December 215, but has not been adopted by the City. Therefore, the Adopted 22 General Plan remains the City s governing land use planning and policy document. As such, the analysis contained in this 9212 Report will focus on the potential effects of implementation of the Initiative under the Adopted 22 General Plan, but will also contain a comparison analysis of potential effects of the implementation of the Initiative if the Draft 24 General Plan were to be adopted. This analysis includes an assessment of the potential for new development on vacant and underutilized lands, as identified by the City of Gilroy, up to the maximum allowable development buildout by land use category under the Adopted 22 General Plan, the Adopted 22 General Plan with Initiative, the Draft 24 General Plan, and the Draft 24 General Plan with Initiative. Per the Initiative, a limited number of uses would be allowed outside of the UGB: public parks; public educational facilities, including public schools and colleges; specific job-producing industrial projects of up to 5 acres per year; affordable housing (if needed); and public wastewater, sewer, storm drain, and water recycling facilities. All of the exceptions must be shown to be impossible to accommodate within the UGB, and must be located adjacent to the UGB while minimizing impact on water and sewer infrastructure. Under the Initiative, the text of the City s General Plan would be amended to specify the circumstances under which development of such uses would be allowed outside of the UGB. For the purposes of this analysis, however, it is assumed that beyond minor public facility improvements, no new development would take place outside of the proposed UGB with passage of the Initiative. This assumption was derived from discussions with the City, the Gilroy Unified School District, and other public service providers, regarding the need for development of affordable housing, school facilities, and job-creating industrial uses beyond what could be accommodated within the proposed UGB. Based on the availability within the UGB of adequate affordable housing opportunities to meet the City s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the City has determined that at this time, no additional affordable housing beyond what is already planned or under development within the UGB is currently required. Further, the City has determined that allowable industrial development within the UGB is adequate to meet the City s current and projected demand for jobs. Lastly, as discussed in the analysis below, the demand for schools within the City could be met through the provision of additional facilities within the UGB under all four potential development scenarios. It is further assumed, based on the language of the Initiative, that the UGB may not be amended until December 31, 24, except by a vote of the people of Gilroy. Where limited exceptions are allowed, the City must make specific findings. While not all potential development may actually occur under any of the given scenarios, projecting the maximum allowable development of designated land uses is intended to provide an equal basis for comparison of the potential effects of the Initiative on the General Plan. It should be noted, however, that the amount of development at buildout, or the maximum allowable development that could be built under a given land use scenario is not anticipated to be completed by the respective horizon years of 22 and 24. Further, it is important to note that this report does not reflect the purpose of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as it is not intended to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and therefore does not contain a CEQA-level analysis of the Initiative s impact as a change from existing conditions. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 9

16 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE 1. Definitions of Development The Adopted 22 General Plan describes the various stages of development in the City, and this report uses similar definitions in order to analyze how much development could occur as follows: Development Buildout is defined as the maximum allowable development that could be built under each scenario. Adopted 22 General Plan Buildout is defined as the maximum buildout under the Adopted 22 General Plan. Adopted 22 General Plan Buildout with Initiative is defined as the maximum buildout under the Adopted 22 General Plan with the Initiative. Draft 24 General Plan Buildout is defined as the maximum buildout under the Draft 24 General Plan. Draft 24 General Plan Buildout with Initiative is defined as the maximum buildout under the draft 24 General Plan with the Initiative. Net Increase in Potential Development is defined as the difference between Current Built/Approved and Development Buildout. 2. Adopted 22 General Plan Designations As variations in allowable land uses are a critical component of this analysis, potential new development by land use type is defined below. The Adopted 22 General Plan consists of four general categories of land use: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Other (including parks and recreation, schools, public facilities, etc.). The specific uses within each category are defined in the text that follows. These definitions build upon the existing land use designations of the City, and provide greater detail and direction in terms of minimum and maximum allowed densities and consistent zoning districts. a. Residential Land Use Designations Rural - This designation applies to areas designated for part-time farming and the keeping of livestock. Only very low density residential development is considered appropriate, and is generally considered to be ancillary to agricultural use of the site. This designation is not consistent with urban levels of development, and is only mapped in areas located outside the City limits (but within the Planning Area), where County zoning of rural residential densities would be considered consistent. The City s Zoning Ordinance does not have a Rural Residential district. It is expected that, over time, these areas will transition to more urbanized land uses as they are annexed to the City and come under the City s zoning authority. Hillside Residential - This designation is generally applied to developable hillside areas with slopes of 1 percent or greater (but less than 3 percent). Developments in these areas must follow special design and siting criteria to preserve the sensitive hillside environment, as specified in the Residential Hillside Zoning District regulations and in the City s adopted Hillside Development Guidelines. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 1

17 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Low Density - This designation is applied to existing areas of predominantly single-family detached homes, with lot sizes generally ranging from 6, square feet to 14,5 square feet. Lots ranging from approximately 3, square feet and above are found in the Eagle Ridge development, more recent planned unit developments, and in older parts of the City. Appropriate residential uses include single-family detached homes as well as duplexes and secondary ( accessory ) dwelling units that comply with City standards. Other compatible uses include religious facilities, day care and group care facilities, schools, and parks. Medium Density - This designation encourages residential development with a minimum site area of 2,722.5 square feet per unit and maximum site area of 5,445 square feet per unit. It is intended primarily for multi-family structures (duplexes, townhomes, condominiums, apartment buildings) but can also contain single-family detached homes, with or without secondary units. Buildings are typically two stories tall, and are usually located in transition areas between lower density neighborhoods and higher density developments or commercial areas. They are also usually located on or near arterials or collector streets and in close proximity to neighborhood facilities such as a school or park. Compatible nonresidential uses include religious facilities, day care and group care facilities, schools, and parks. High Density - This designation encourages higher density apartments and condominiums within walking distance of commercial areas. The minimum site area allowed is 1,452 square feet per unit, up to a maximum of 2,722.5 square feet per unit. The predominant housing type is multi-family structures, such as apartments or condominiums, with buildings typically being two or more stories. High density developments are usually located along major transportation corridors, in close proximity to commercial areas, transit stops, and neighborhood facilities such as a school or park. Compatible non-residential uses include religious facilities, day care and group care facilities, schools, and parks. Neighborhood District - This residential category aims to encourage a mix of housing types in new areas of development. The intent is to create new neighborhoods that reflect a similar mix of housing to that found throughout the City, avoiding concentrations of specific housing types in some areas. New neighborhoods will be predominantly single family in character, with duplexes, townhomes, condominiums and apartments interspersed. Higher density housing types will be sited and designed in accordance with the City s zoning and development regulations. Neighborhood-serving amenities such as schools, parks, open space, and neighborhood commercial (subject to strict siting, design and use controls) will be integrated into the neighborhood design. The minimum required mix of residential land uses in the Neighborhood District (excluding land required for streets, schools, parks, resource protection, neighborhood commercial, or other infrastructure and/ or amenities) provides for at least: 5 percent two-family (duplex) uses (R2) 1 percent medium density residential uses (R3) 3 percent high density residential uses (R4) The remainder of the residential land is allocated for single-family homes. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 11

18 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE b. Commercial Land Use Designations Professional Office This designation allows for uses that provide professional services to the surrounding residential areas. Typically, these establishments are only open on weekdays from 8 am to 6 pm. As in the Neighborhood Commercial designation, structures should be sited and designed so that they are in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Professional office uses should also be located at the entrances to residential neighborhoods, typically at the intersection of two Collector Streets or a Collector Street and an Arterial Street. Neighborhood Commercial This designation encourages low-intensity uses that cater to residents of the immediate neighborhood, rather than to the entire City. These can include small retail establishments such as cafes, bakeries, small grocery stores, daycare centers, small bank branches, and cleaners. All structures must be sited and designed in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. The 22 General Plan does not map this designation on the Land Use Plan Map, as it is a use encompassed under the Neighborhood District designation. However, the General Plan maintains this designation for potential application in specific plans and other more detailed land planning efforts. General Services Commercial This designation allows for commercial uses that, due to the nature of their operations, are not compatible with residential uses. They typically have a larger market area and a greater volume of customers than establishments in the Neighborhood Commercial category (e.g., a furniture store, department store, or supermarket). As a result, they generate considerable traffic volumes and require large parcels with large parking lots. This designation also allows for commercial industrial uses. These are low intensity commercial operations with a light manufacturing or light industrial nature (e.g., glass shops, small welding shops, and plumbing shops). Also included are establishments for Automobile Sales and Service that require large lots to house their equipment and merchandise. Examples of establishments that would be compatible with this category include automobile sales, boat sales, recreational vehicle sales, and body shops. Visitor-Serving This designation allows for uses that cater to travelers passing through Gilroy. Examples of compatible uses include motels, restaurants, drive-through (fast food) restaurants, and gas stations. The Gilroy Gardens Theme Park is the largest visitor serving use in the City. All other Visitor-Serving Commercial areas are located in close proximity to US 11 and its access ramps, where they are easily accessible by car and highly visible from the freeway. c. Industrial Land Use Designations General Industrial Establishments located in these areas characteristically require large parcels of land with good truck and/or rail access. Due to the nature of their operation (potential noise, truck traffic, outside storage, lighting, odors, etc.), uses in this category typically require special mitigations (e.g., landscape buffers, limited hours of operation, etc.) when located adjacent to residential areas. Examples of activities in a General Industrial area include largescale manufacturing, assembly, storage, distribution, and wholesaling. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 12

19 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Campus Industrial This designation encourages development of attractive business in integrated, relatively compact campus settings. Users of such developments might include software developers, research and development companies, customer service centers, and high tech or information-based industries, including high-tech manufacturing operations. Site design will provide extensive open space and landscaping, with storage areas and loading bays kept out of sight. The design and operation of such developments will allow them to be located in close proximity to residential areas, though they must be sited to provide direct access to an arterial without impacting adjacent residential streets. Light manufacturing operations may be compatible in these areas if they have similar use characteristics and impacts, and meet similar site design requirements. Industrial Park This designation allows developments similar to those in the Campus Industrial designation in that they demonstrate by the quality of their development and the nature of their operations that they can locate in close proximity to residential and commercial uses with a minimum of environmental conflict. Although they still must meet strict landscaping, buffering and design standards, they do not require a campus setting or integrated open space areas. Typical activities include light manufacturing operations, electronics assembly plants, and large warehouses. While Campus Industrial uses might be considered more office and less industrial, uses in this category might be considered more industrial and less office. d. Other Land Use Designations Public/Quasi-Public Facility This designation is applied to existing and planned public or quasi-public facilities. Examples of public facilities include City Hall, the library, the fire stations, and utility sub-stations; examples of quasi-public facilities include the cemetery and the hospital. Educational Facility/Schools This designation is applied to existing and future school facilities, including both public schools (owned and operated by the Gilroy Unified School District and Gavilan College) and private schools (except where the school is part of another facility, such as a church). Open Space This designation is applied to areas where urban development is either inappropriate or undesirable. Specifically, it is used to preserve and protect lands with environmental value, including: Natural resource areas such as the Uvas Creek and Llagas Creek corridors and the southwestern foothills; and, Hazardous areas such as fault zones and floodways. While some limited activities and structures may be allowed, these are subject to sitespecific environmental review and must be limited in scope to ensure preservation of natural resources and protection of public health and safety. Park and Recreation Facility This designation is applied to existing and future developed park lands, including existing and planned linear parks that serve both a circulation and recreation function. It is also applied to public recreation areas such as the golf course. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 13

20 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE e. Specific Plans Hecker Pass Special Use District This designation is intended to establish specific use controls and development guidelines for the Hecker Pass Specific Plan area, as designated on the General Plan Land Use Map. It encourages preservation of the natural features and unique qualities of this important community asset, while allowing limited, compatible development. Of special concern are: Preservation of open space, agricultural lands, and the Uvas Creek riparian corridor; Maintaining views to the southern hills; Protection of significant natural features such as the cedar trees along Highway 152; Limiting access points along Highway 152; Creating an integrated trail network that will include extension of the Uvas Creek Park Preserve from Santa Teresa Boulevard to Gilroy Gardens Theme Park and creation of a bicycle staging area; and, Enhancing the area s potential as a tourist destination, building upon its agricultural character and scenic qualities Residential uses in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan area are limited to lower density developments, situated along the southern part of the corridor area towards Uvas Creek and in the Hoey Ranch area north of Highway 152. Commercial uses are limited in scale and type to ensure compatibility with the agricultural character of Hecker Pass. These agri-tourism uses might include wineries, fruit stands, and gift shops specializing in agricultural products. Small restaurants and bed-andbreakfast establishments would also be compatible if limited in scale and quantity. All developments are required to meet strict landscaping, site design, signage, and architectural design standards to ensure visual compatibility with the unique atmosphere of the Hecker Pass area. Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan The Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area has the Neighborhood District General Plan and zoning designation. The area comprises approximately 392 acres located in the southwestern part of the City of Gilroy, between Santa Teresa Boulevard and the Uvas Creek corridor. The Glen Loma Specific Plan area allows for a wide range of densities and residential product types. The Specific Plan area is divided into 19 distinct neighborhoods. The Specific Plan includes a Town Center (a mixture of retail and commercial uses with residential units), two schools, two city parks and public open space, buffers and other open space, residential, a fire station, Other Commercial opportunities along Club Drive, and streets. Downtown Specific Plan This designation applies to the historic core of the Downtown and expands both to the north and south. It encourages pedestrian-oriented uses that are compatible with the unique historic character and small scale of this important area of the City. Examples of such uses include specialty shops, cafes, restaurants, small hotels, and professional offices. Mixed use developments with retail uses on the ground floor and residential or office uses above are especially encouraged. Emphasis is given to restoration and adaptive reuse of historic buildings, compatibility of architectural styles, and P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 14

21 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE enhancement of the area s overall visual character. Parking is provided in shared public facilities in those areas covered by the Downtown Parking District and/or on-site for developments with a residential component that are outside of the Parking District. 3. Draft 24 General Plan Land Use categories for non-residential land use designations under the Draft 24 General Plan differ somewhat from those in the Adopted 22 General Plan. New land use designations under the Draft 24 General Plan include Mixed Use, City Gateway District, Employment Center and Rural County. Non-residential land use designations considered under the Adopted 22 General Plan but not included under the Draft 24 General Plan include Campus Industrial, Professional Office, and Educational Facility. New land use designations under the Draft 24 General Plan include: Mixed Use The purpose of this designation is to encourage a mix of high-density retail, office, and retail uses. Multi-story structures and more intense uses should be located at major intersections and lower intensity uses adjacent to neighborhoods. Street-level frontage of mixed-use projects shall be developed with pedestrian-oriented uses. Residential uses can be integrated on the same site with other uses in either a vertical or horizontal design. Access to reliable, frequent transit service is a key feature of this designation. The streetscape should have landscaping, lighting, public art, and other amenities.. City Gateway District This designation emphasizes streetscape improvement and pedestrian-friendly building design. It allows for retail, office, and visitor-serving uses, as well as gathering places such as plazas, courtyards, parks, and other compatible public and quasi-public uses. Areas within this designation are designed to welcome visitors and residents to Gilroy though street beautification, distinctive architecture, and commercial services. Areas within this designation are located near high traffic entrances to the City and balance the needs of drivers with the needs of other transportation modes. Parking lots and filling stations are screened and beautified, attractive landscaping frames the view of the visitor, and new development embraces the sidewalk edge. New parking lots are located to the side of behind buildings. Developments in the City Gateway District are subject to design standards that ensure buildings and landscaping create an inviting gateway to the city. Employment Center Employment Center plays an important role in the City by supporting businesses and providing a designation that offers a broader range of employment types and intensities. This designation is suitable for office development, light industrial, limited retail uses, research and development, medical, and high-tech uses. Developments in this designation contribute to an overall district identity. Multiple transportation connections are available such as pedestrian and bicycle trails, sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit stops. A variety of employment mixed-use development, including worker-supportive retail, embraces the street and creates a vibrant district for employees. Site design will provide urban-style landscaping, with storage areas and loading bays kept out of sight. Allowed uses include industrial or manufacturing that occur entirely within an enclosed building or a visually screened area with appropriately landscaped setbacks; office campuses; research and development facilities; retail uses, both to support employees and attract visitors; and, compatible public and quasi-public uses. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 15

22 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Rural County The purpose of this designation is to provide for agricultural production and associated processing, sales, and support uses. This designation generally applies to land outside of the City limits and outside areas planned for urban development where soils are capable of producing a wide variety of crops and/or support grazing. Typical building types include low-intensity structures associated with farming and agricultural processing and sales. One single dwelling unit per parcel is allowed in the Rural County designation. The Draft 24 General Plan also included a proposed Urban Reserve Overlay designation intended to allow additional requirements regarding when land can be considered for inclusion in the Urban Service Area. This designation is not addressed in this report. D. DETAILED SUMMARY OF SCENARIOS ANALYZED IN THIS REPORT As noted above, this report considers the effects of implementation of both the Adopted 22 General Plan and the Draft Gilroy 24 General Plan, with and without the UGB Initiative. As such, four potential development scenarios are evaluated herein: Adopted 22 General Plan Development in the City of Gilroy under the existing, Adopted 22 General Plan; Adopted 22 General Plan with Initiative Amendment and implementation of Adopted 22 General Plan per the UGB Initiative; Draft 24 General Plan Development in the City of Gilroy under the Draft 24 General Plan; and, Draft 24 General Plan with Initiative Development in the City of Gilroy as envisioned by the Draft 24 General Plan, as amended per the UGB Initiative. 1. Adopted 22 General Plan The 22 General Plan Land Use Map identifies land uses for the area within the 2-Year Planning Boundary of the General Plan. The 2-Year Planning Boundary also includes some open space areas (most notably the southwestern hillside area) that would not be developed with urban uses, but were included to facilitate their protection and management as scenic community resources. The distribution of land uses under the Adopted 22 General Plan generally locates residential uses to the west of US 11 and non-residential uses to the east of US 11. However, the western portion of the City does include supporting non-residential uses, such as General Services Commercial, Educational Facilities, and Open Space interspersed throughout. Figure 3 shows the citywide land use designations under the Adopted 22 General Plan. 2. Adopted 22 General Plan with Initiative Development patterns under the Adopted 22 General Plan with implementation of the Initiative would be similar to those under the 22 General Plan without the Initiative, with the following exceptions. With the Initiative, lands designated for Residential, Commercial, and Industrial use outside of the UGB would be changed to the 22 General Plan Open Space designation and remain undeveloped. Lands designated for Residential and Commercial use that would fall outside of the UGB are located north of Day Road/Buena Vista Road. Additionally, lands designated for Campus P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 16

23 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Industrial use, located east of US 11would remain undeveloped. Figure 4 shows the 22 General Plan Land Use Map with the establishment of the UGB. 3. Draft 24 General Plan The Draft 24 General Plan is focused around a vision of strengthening the local economy and increasing job opportunities in Gilroy to enable more residents to work closer to home, balancing growth and open space preservation, and providing housing to meet the diverse needs of all residents. It differs from the 22 General Plan in the following primary ways: It designates a Northern Neighborhood District with Neighborhood District North instead of Neighborhood District; It redesignates some Rural Residential land between Monterey Street and US 11 south of Masten Avenue to Neighborhood District North, increasing the potential housing units from 1 to 1,; It designates some existing Agricultural land as General Services Commercial; It preserves the General Industrial land in the Adopted 22 General Plan, but redesignates some of the General Services Commercial land to Employment Center; and, It converts 513 acres of Campus Industrial land east of US 11 south of Leavesley Road to Rural County. Figure 5 shows the citywide land use designations proposed under the Draft 24 General Plan. 4. Draft 24 General Plan with Initiative As with implementation of the Adopted 22 General Plan with the Initiative, implementation of the Draft 24 General Plan with the establishment of an UGB would eliminate from potential development some lands designated for Residential and Industrial use. Lands designated for Residential use that would fall outside of the UGB are located in the northern portion of the City, within the Neighborhood District North designation. Adjacent lands in this portion of the City that would also fall outside of the UGB include lands designated as Industrial Park and General Services Commercial. In the southern portion of the City, lands designated as Public and Quasi-Public Facility would fall outside of the UGB, and would thus, with some exceptions, no longer be eligible for development with implementation of the Initiative. Figure 6 shows the Draft 24 General Plan Land Use Map with establishment of the UGB. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 17

24 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE E. Comparison of Allowable Development Citywide Tables 2 through 5 below provide a comparison of future development that could occur on vacant and underutilized lands under the four scenarios described above. Table 2 shows the potential development of vacant and underutilized lands that could occur under the Adopted 22 General Plan and the Adopted 22 General Plan with the proposed Initiative. Table 2 also shows the change in acres, dwelling units, and square feet that would occur with implementation of the Initiative. Table 2: Comparison of Citywide Development of Vacant and Underutilized Lands by Land Use Category for Adopted 22 General Plan and Adopted 22 General Plan With Initiative Citywide Land Uses Adopted 22 General Plan Adopted 22 General Plan w/initiative Change w/initiative Residential dwelling units acres dwelling units acres dwelling units acres Rural Residential (units) (77) (233.39) Hillside Residential (6) (33.) Low Density Residential (56) (14.) Medium Density Residential High Density Residential (11) (.58) Neighborhood District a 7, , (2,725) (359.) Non-Residential square feet acres square feet acres square feet acres Professional Office 45, , General Services Commercial 3,335, ,831, (53,742.5) (49.48) Visitor-Serving Commercial 66, , General Industrial 1,797, ,579, (217,611) (14.69) Industrial Park 35, ,815.93sf Campus Industrial 8,34, , (7,591,99.8) (512.62) Public/Quasi-Public Facility 315, , Educational Facility 368, , Open Space b 1, ,95.93 n/a 2,24.8 Park and Recreation Facility Specific Plan Areas dwelling units acres dwelling units acres dwelling units acres Downtown Specific Plan c 1, ,33 38 Hecker Pass Special Use District d Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan e 1, , TOTAL Residential (2,929) du ( ac) Non-Residential f (8,313,344.3) sf ac a This District includes a mix of Residential uses, as well as some Neighborhood Commercial and Professional Office uses. b For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that under the Initiative, lands outside of the Urban Growth Boundary that would remain undeveloped would revert to Open Space use. c The Downtown Specific Plan Area includes both Residential and Commercial uses. Downtown residential uses consist of multi-family dwelling units (City of Gilroy Vacant Land Inventory, November 215). d The Hecker Pass Special Use District includes primarily residential uses. Other uses include Agriculture, Park/Recreational Facility, Community Facility, and Open Space. Residential uses consist of single-family dwelling units (City of Gilroy Vacant Land Inventory, November 215). e The Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan includes primarily residential uses. Other uses include Park/Recreational Facility, Public/Quasi-Public Facility, Town Center Commercial, Open Space, and Educational Facility. Residential uses include 1,41 single-family dwelling units and 586 multi-family dwelling units (City of Gilroy Vacant Land Inventory, November 215). f This total does not include Open Space. Source: Mintier-Harnish, 216; City of Gilroy 216; LSA, 216; City of Gilroy Vacant Land Inventory, November 215. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 18

25 Service Layer Credits: 21 NAVTEQ AND 216 Microsoft Corporation LEGEND City Limits General Services Commercial Visitor-Serving Commercial Neighborhood District FIGURE 3 22 Land Use Non-Residential Campus Industrial Educational Facility General Industry Industrial Park Open Space Park and Recreation Facility Professional Office Public/Quasi-Public Facility Residential Hillside Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Rural Residential Specific Plan Areas Downtown Hecker Pass Special Use District.5 1 Miles SOURCE: Bing Maps (214); City of Gilroy (216) I:\CGL161\GIS\LandUse_22.mxd (6/22/216) City of Gilroy Urban Growth Boundary Initiative 9212 Report City of Gilroy 22 General Plan Land Use Map

26 Service Layer Credits: 21 NAVTEQ AND 216 Microsoft Corporation.5 1 Miles LEGEND City Limits Proposed Urban Growth Boundary 22 Land Use Non-Residential Campus Industrial Educational Facility SOURCE: Bing Maps (214); City of Gilroy (216) I:\CGL161\GIS\LandUse_22_UGB.mxd (6/22/216) General Industry General Services Commercial Industrial Park Open Space Park and Recreation Facility Professional Office Residential Public/Quasi-Public Facility Visitor-Serving Commercial Hillside Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood District Rural Residential Specific Plan Areas Downtown Hecker Pass Special Use District FIGURE 4 City of Gilroy Urban Growth Boundary Initiative 9212 Report City of Gilroy 22 General Plan Land Use Map with Urban Growth Boundary

27 Service Layer Credits: 21 NAVTEQ AND 216 Microsoft Corporation MILES LEGEND City Limits 24 Land Use Non-Residential City Gateway District Employment Center Professional Office General Services Commercial SOURCE: Bing Maps (214); City of Gilroy (216) I:\CGL161\GIS\LandUse_24.mxd (6/22/216) Visitor-Serving Commercial General Industrial Industrial Park Mixed Use Corridor Rural County Open Space Residential Park and Recreation Facility Public/Quasi-Public Facility Hillside Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood District South Neighborhood District North Specific Plan Areas Downtown Specific Plan FIGURE 5 Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Area Hecker Pass Special Use District City of Gilroy Urban Growth Boundary Initiative 9212 Report City of Gilroy 24 General Plan Land Use Map

28 Service Layer Credits: 21 NAVTEQ AND 216 Microsoft Corporation MILES LEGEND City Limits Proposed Urban Growth Boundary 24 Land Use Non-Residential City Gateway District Employment Center SOURCE: Bing Maps (214); City of Gilroy (216) I:\CGL161\GIS\LandUse_24_UGB.mxd (6/22/216) Professional Office General Services Commercial Visitor-Serving Commercial General Industrial Industrial Park Mixed Use Corridor Rural County Residential Open Space Park and Recreation Facility Public/Quasi-Public Facility Hillside Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood District South Neighborhood District North Specific Plan Areas Downtown Specific Plan FIGURE 6 Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Area Hecker Pass Special Use District City of Gilroy Urban Growth Boundary Initiative 9212 Report City of Gilroy Draft 24 General Plan Land Use Map with Urban Growth Boundary

29 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Table 3 below shows the potential development of vacant and underutilized lands that could occur under the Draft 24 General Plan and the Draft 24 General Plan with the proposed Initiative. Table 3 also shows the change in acres, dwelling units, and square feet that would occur with implementation of the Initiative. While a Public Review Draft of the 24 General Plan was released in 215, this plan has not been adopted by the City. Table 3: Comparison of Citywide Development of Vacant and Underutilized Lands by Land Use Category for Draft 24 General Plan Scenario and Draft 24 General Plan Scenario with Initiative Citywide Land Uses Draft 24 General Plan Draft 24 General Plan w/initiative Change w/initiative Residential dwelling units acres dwelling units acres dwelling units acres Hillside Residential (including Miller Pond Site) Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Neighborhood District South a 1, , Neighborhood District North b 7, , (4,344) (45.31) Non-Residential square feet acres square feet acres square feet acres General Services Commercial 2,642, , (1,686,427.8) (177.62) General Industrial 9,844, ,843, (1,473.) (.1) Industrial Park 6,427, ,113, (2,314,46.7) (156.24) Public/Quasi-Public Facility 86, , Mixed Use 227, , City Gateway District 1,455, ,455, Park and Recreation Facility Employment Center 2,36, ,36, (25.4) (.2) Open Space c 1, , ,89.82 Specific Plan Areas dwelling units acres dwelling units acres dwelling units acres Downtown Specific Plan d 1, , Hecker Pass Special Use District e Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan f 1, , TOTAL Residential (4,344 du) (45.31) ac Non-Residential g (4,2,197.9) (333.98) ac a a The Neighborhood District South is comprised primarily of Medium- to High-Density Residential uses, and also includes Neighborhood Commercial and other neighborhood-serving amenities such as schools, parks, and open space. b The Neighborhood District North is comprised primarily of Medium- to High-Density Residential uses, and also includes Neighborhood Commercial and other neighborhood-serving amenities such as schools, parks, and open space. c For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that under the Initiative, lands outside of the Urban Growth Boundary that would remain undeveloped would revert to Open Space use. d The Downtown Specific Plan Area includes both Residential and Commercial uses. Downtown residential uses consist of multi-family dwelling units (City of Gilroy Vacant Land Inventory, November 215). e The Hecker Pass Special Use District includes primarily residential uses. Other uses include Agriculture, Park/Recreational Facility, Community Facility, and Open Space. Residential uses consist of single-family dwelling units (City of Gilroy Vacant Land Inventory, November 215). f The Glen Loma Specific Plan area has the Neighborhood District General Plan designation, which includes a mix of Residential uses, as well as schools and other public facilities, commercial, and city park uses. Residential uses include 1,41 single-family dwelling units and 586 multi-family dwelling units (City of Gilroy Vacant Land Inventory, November 215). g This total does not includes Open Space. Source: Mintier-Harnish, 216; City of Gilroy 216; LSA, 216; City of Gilroy Vacant Land Inventory, November 215. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 23

30 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Comparison of Citywide Resident and Employee Population Table 4 below presents the total population and employee growth that would occur under the Adopted 22 General Plan versus under the 22 General Plan with implementation of the Initiative. As shown in Table 4, overall population and employee growth would decrease with the removal of lands from potential development under the Initiative. Table 4: Comparison of Citywide Population and Employee Population at Development Buildout of Vacant and Underutilized Lands for Adopted 22 General Plan and Adopted 22 General Plan with Initiative Citywide Population and Employees at Development Buildout Adopted 22 General Plan Adopted 22 General Plan w/initiative Change w/initiative Population 3,742 22,15 (8,727) Employees Retail 6,451 5,575 (876) Service 3,89 1,89 (1,199) Office 16,41 3,998 (12,43) Agriculture (13) (4) 9 Manufacturing 16,576 1,743 (5,833) Wholesale 2,86 2,6 (26) Total Employees 44,433 24,186 Net Change Total Employees with Initiative (2,247) Source: Mintier-Harnish, 216; City of Gilroy, 216 Similar to Table 4, Table 5 presents the total population and employee growth that would occur under the Draft 24 General Plan versus under the Draft 24 General Plan with implementation of the UGB Initiative. As shown in Table 5, overall population and employee growth would decrease with the removal of lands from potential development under the Initiative. Table 5: Comparison of Citywide Population and Employee Population at Development Buildout of Vacant and Underutilized Lands for Draft 24 General Plan Scenario and Draft 24 General Plan Scenario with Initiative Citywide Population and Employees at Development Buildout Draft 24 General Plan Draft 24 General Plan w/initiative Change w/initiative Population 41,199 27,734 (13,465) Employees Retail 9,28 6,47 (2,81) Service 4,16 3,37 (79) Office 9,418 8,873 (545) Agriculture Manufacturing 14,341 12,522 (1,819) Wholesale 1,96 1, Total Employees 38,92 33,36 Net Change Total Employees with Initiative (5,865) Source: Mintier-Harnish, 216; City of Gilroy, 216 P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 24

31 III. ANALYSIS OF INITIATIVE IMPLEMENTATION A. INTRODUCTION This chapter contains an analysis of the potential effects and impacts associated with implementation of the Initiative for the following topical areas: Land Use and Housing Economic Development Transportation Infrastructure and Funding Public Utilities, Services, and Amenities Fiscal As noted previously, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that beyond minor public facility improvements, no new development would take place outside of the proposed UGB with passage of the Initiative. This assumption was derived from discussions with the City and the Gilroy Unified School District, regarding the need for development of affordable housing, school facilities, and jobcreating industrial uses beyond what could be accommodated within the proposed UGB. Based on the availability within the UGB of adequate affordable housing to meet the City s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the City has determined that at this time, no additional housing beyond what is already planned or under development within the UGB is currently required. Further, the City has determined that allowable industrial development within the UGB is adequate to meet the City s current and projected demand for jobs. Lastly, the demand for schools within the City could be met through the provision of additional facilities within the UGB under all four potential development scenarios. It is further assumed, based on the language of the Initiative, that the UGB may not be amended until December 31, 24, except by a vote of the people of Gilroy. Where limited exceptions are allowed, the City must make specific findings. While not all potential development may actually occur under any of the given scenarios, projecting the maximum allowable development by land use is intended to provide an equal basis for comparison of the potential effects of the Initiative in the following analyses. B. LAND USE AND HOUSING As the Initiative proposes to amend the City s General Plan, the effects on land use and housing are first considered because they provide the context for the rest of the analysis in the remainder of this report. A key focus of the analysis is the Initiative s effect on the consistency of the Initiative with the City s land use policies and programs. It also evaluates how the Initiative could affect use of land for housing, impact the availability and location of housing, and potentially impair the City s ability to meet its regional housing needs. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 25

32 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE 1. Background California law requires every city and county in the State to adopt a general plan with policies and objectives to guide land use and development. The law requires that the general plan be comprehensive, forward-looking, and internally consistent, and requires that all zoning regulations, capital planning, and individual land use decisions be consistent with that general plan. The 22 General Plan serves as a guide to help ensure that each land use decision is made in the best interest of the City s long-term future. The goals, policies, and implementing actions contained in the 22 General Plan establish clear community priorities and development policies to ensure the protection of public health, safety and welfare, and future community goals while respecting the needs of individual property owners and businesses in the City. Some of the City s 22 General Plan policies are quite specific, establishing minimum parcel sizes and allowable land uses within the various land use designations, while others are more general. The 22 General Plan also contains specific policies for three designated Specific Plan Areas: Downtown Specific Plan, Hecker Pass Special Use District, and Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan. All three designated Specific Plans are located within the proposed UGB. The City of Gilroy last revised its 22 General Plan in June 22. The Initiative would further revise the General Plan (either the 22 General Plan or the 24 General Plan, if adopted) through amendments to the Community Design and Development Element of the General Plan, in the form of new General Plan policies that would affect the level and pattern of development of vacant and underutilized lands. As described above, the Initiative also includes proposed revisions to the Strategic Direction Element to ensure General Plan consistency. Whether and how the proposed Initiative affects the General Plan s internal consistency and the "vertical consistency of the City s Zoning Ordinance and subordinate plans with the General Plan (as amended by the Initiative) is one of the key legal aspects that must be analyzed. These terms are defined as follows: Internal Consistency State law requires that the General Plan, which functions as the constitution for the City s land use decisions, must comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies. This is known as the internal (or horizontal) consistency requirement. As the California Supreme Court has explained, it is unlawful for an initiative to cause a city s general plan to become internally inconsistent or otherwise defective. Vertical Consistency State law also requires that the City s Zoning Ordinance must be consistent with its General Plan. This requirement is referred to as vertical consistency. An action, program, or project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. The Initiative s effect on both internal and vertical consistency is analyzed below in relationship to land use and housing. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 26

33 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE 2. Citywide Development of Vacant and Underutilized Lands Implementation of the Initiative, including establishment of the UGB, would modify citywide development of vacant and underutilized lands. However, implementation of the Initiative would not modify land use designations established under either the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan, and the Initiative would be generally consistent with the goals and associated policies set forth in the Community Design and Development Element of the Adopted 22 General Plan and the Land Use Element of the Draft 24 General Plan. Implementation of the Initiative under the Adopted 22 General Plan would be generally consistent with the applicable goals and associated policies set forth in the Community Design and Development Element of the Adopted 22 General Plan. Goal 2, Growth Management, for instance, promotes a well-managed development process that ensures that (a) the rate of growth does not outpace the City s and other agencies ability to provide necessary infrastructure and services; (b) the demands created by new growth do not exceed resource and system capacity constraints; (c) new growth is directed first to areas where municipal services are available and capacity exists; (d) the incremental public service costs generated by new growth are paid for by new growth; and (e) the resulting pattern of development is compact, efficient, and contiguous. The proposed Initiative is consistent with this goal in that it seeks to promote managed growth within urbanized areas and avoid the unnecessary infrastructure investments by encouraging infill development. The Initiative is also consistent with Goal 3, Economic Development, which calls for a mix of traditional and new businesses and industries, a diversity of economic opportunities, and a stable tax base to support City services, with a vital city center in and around Gilroy s historic Downtown, in that it seeks to promote job creation and overall economic development by encouraging infill development that will revitalize Downtown. Insofar as the Initiative also promotes the preservation of open space, including agricultural uses, it is consistent with 22 General Plan Goal 4, Agriculture, which promotes the continued viability of agriculture and the preservation of agricultural lands in the Gilroy area. As noted above, implementation of the Initiative would include amending the General Plan, either the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan, if adopted, to include two new policies (Policy 2.13 and Policy 2.14) outlining the purpose of and process for implementing the UGB. Following is the proposed text of these policies: Policy 2.13, Urban Growth Boundary. In 216, the people of the City of Gilroy approved an Urban Growth Boundary ( UGB ) by initiative to protect the unique character of the City of Gilroy and the agriculture and open space character of the surrounding areas. The UGB is a line beyond which urban development is not allowed. Except for public parks, public educational facilities (such as public schools and public colleges), and public wastewater, sewer, storm drain, and water recycling facilities, only uses consistent with: (1) the General Plan Open Space land use designation as this designation existed on February 26, 216; and (2) the uses of open space land as set forth in Government Code section 6556, subsections (b), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4) are allowed outside the UGB. The City of Gilroy s UGB reflects a commitment to direct future growth within the City s existing urban areas in order to prevent urban sprawl into the agriculturally and environmentally important areas surrounding the City. The UGB protects the health, P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 27

34 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE safety, welfare, and quality of life of the residents of Gilroy by concentrating future residential, commercial, and industrial growth in areas already served by urban services. The policies implementing the UGB allow sufficient flexibility within its limits to respond to the City s changing needs over time. The UGB complements General Plan policies encouraging infill development and supporting a thriving downtown center. Policy 2.14, Urban Growth Boundary Implementation. Until December 31, 24, the following General Plan provisions, as adopted by the Gilroy Urban Growth Boundary Initiative, may not be amended or repealed except by a vote of the people: Policy 2.13 and Policy 2.14 of the Community Design and Development Element. (a) Until December 31, 24, lands outside the UGB as shown on the General Plan Land Use Plan Map may be redesignated, and the location of the UGB depicted on the Land Use Plan Map may be amended, only by a vote of the people, or by the City Council pursuant to the procedures set forth in subsections (b) through (e) below. (b) The City Council may, if it deems it to be in the public interest, amend the location of the UGB depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, provided that the amended boundary is within or coextensive with the limits of the UGB as established by the Gilroy Urban Growth Boundary Initiative. The City Council, may, if it deems it to be in the public interest, redesignate lands outside the UGB, provided that the new designation allows only uses consistent with (1) the General Plan Open Space land use designation as this designation existed on February 26, 216; and (2) the uses of open space land as set forth in Government Code section 6556, subsections (b), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4). (c) The City Council may amend the location of the UGB located on the Land Use Plan Map, and/or redesignate lands outside the UGB, if the City Council determines that doing so is necessary to comply with State law regarding the provision of housing for all segments of the community. The City Council may do so only if it first makes each of the following findings based on substantial evidence: (1) That the land proposed to be brought within the UGB and/or redesignated is immediately adjacent to: (i) the existing UGB; and (ii) available water and sewer connections; and (2) That the proposed development will consist primarily of low- and very low-income housing pursuant to the Housing Element of this General Plan; (3) That there is no existing vacant or undeveloped residentially-designated land within the UGB to accommodate the proposed development and it is not feasible to accommodate the proposed development by redesignating lands within the UGB for low- and very low-income housing; and (4) That the proposed development is necessary to comply with State law requirements for the provision of low- and very low-income housing and the area of land within the proposed development will not exceed the minimum area necessary to comply with State law. (d) To promote sustainable job creation, the City Council may amend the location of the UGB located on the Land Use Plan Map and/or redesignate lands outside the UGB in order to allow uses consistent with the General Plan General Industrial land use P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 28

35 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE designation as this designation existed on February 26, 216, provided that no more than 5 acres of land may be brought within the UGB and/or redesignated pursuant to this subsection in any calendar year. The City Council may do so only if it makes each of the following findings based on substantial evidence: (1) That the land proposed to be brought within the UGB and/or redesignated is immediately adjacent to: (i) the existing UGB; and (ii) available water and sewer connections; and (2) That the land proposed to be brought within the UGB and/or redesignated is the subject of a pending application to the City for a specific development proposal; and (3) That there is no existing appropriately designated land within the UGB that could accommodate the development as proposed or with modifications, and that would provide substantially the same benefits; and (4) That it is not feasible to accommodate the proposed development by redesignating lands within the UGB for the proposed development. (e) Upon request of an affected landowner with a pending development application, the City Council may amend the location of the UGB depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, and/or redesignate lands outside the UGB, if it makes both of the following findings based on substantial evidence: (1) That the application of the UGB depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, or of the Gilroy Urban Growth Boundary Initiative s designation of land outside the UGB, would constitute an unconstitutional taking of the landowner s property; and (2) That the UGB amendment and/or land use redesignation will allow additional land uses only to the minimum extent necessary to avoid such a taking of the landowner s property. (f) Prior to amending the location of the UGB or redesignating lands outside the UGB pursuant to subsections (c) through (e) of this Policy, the City Council shall hold at least one noticed public hearing for the purpose of receiving testimony and evidence from the applicant and the public on the proposed amendment and any findings proposed in connection with such amendment. This hearing shall be in addition to any other public hearings required for a General Plan amendment. (g) The General Plan may be reorganized or updated, and individual provisions may be renumbered or reordered in the course of ongoing updates of the General Plan in accordance with the requirements of State law, but Policy 2.13 and Policy 2.14 of the Community Design and Development Element shall continue to be included in the General Plan unless earlier amended or repealed by the voters of the City. After December 31, 24, this Policy 2.14 shall have no further force and effect, and the City Council, if it deems it in the public interest, may amend the Land Use Plan Map and other General Plan provisions addressed by this Policy 2.14 in accordance with State law without a vote of the people. (h) The City, and its departments, boards, commissions, officers, and employees, shall not approve any general plan amendment, zoning amendment, specific plan, specific plan amendment, rezoning, subdivision map, conditional use permit, or take any other P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 29

36 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE discretionary action, that is inconsistent with Policy 2.13 and Policy 2.14 of the Community Design and Development Element of the General Plan. Any general plan amendment, zoning amendment, specific plan, specific plan amendment, rezoning, subdivision map, conditional use permit, or any other discretionary approval granted by the City that either redesignates land outside the UGB or brings land within the UGB under subsections (c) through (e) of this Policy 2.14 must be consistent with the findings made to support that land s redesignation or inclusion within the UGB. These additional policies do not appear to conflict with the General Plan in light of the Plan s goals and associated policies related to community design, growth management, economic development, agriculture, historic preservation, and scenic highways. Therefore, these policies would be considered horizontally consistent with the Adopted 22 General Plan. Similarly, under the Draft 24 General Plan, implementation of the Initiative would generally be consistent with the proposed Land Use Element goals and associated policies. As noted above, the overarching vision of the Draft 24 General Plan is to enhance Gilroy s existing neighborhoods and districts with a mix of uses and amenities that will expand the economy, protect environmental resources, and improve overall quality of life. Toward this end, a number of goals and supporting policies and programs have been proposed to strengthen the City s economy and increase job opportunities; restore the City s Downtown to a vibrant destination; balance growth with open space preservation; and provide housing to support the needs of a diverse population desiring to work closer to home. For instance, the Land Use Element includes the following Goals, with which the Initiative would be consistent: Goal LU 1: Protect and enhance Gilroy s quality of life and unique identity while continuing to grow and change. Goal LU 2: Ensure the orderly development of large areas of Gilroy through specific plans. Goal LU 3: Provide a variety of housing types that offer choices for Gilroy residents and create complete, livable neighborhoods. Goal LU 4: Encourage the growth and development of retail, office, service, and entertainment uses in Gilroy to provide jobs, support City services, and make Gilroy an attractive place to live. Goal LU 6: Support agricultural uses in and around Gilroy that have and will continue to influence Gilroy s identity and economy. Goal LU 9: Encourage the growth and revitalization of Downtown to create a vibrant, high quality place for residents, businesses, and visitors. Insofar as the Initiative promotes managed growth within urbanized areas that would encourage infill development, encourage Downtown growth and revitalization, promote economic development, retain Gilroy s existing Specific Plan areas and policies, and preserve open space, including agricultural, uses, it would be generally consistent with these Draft 24 General Plan Land Use Element goals and the policies that support them. As described below, the Initiative also would be consistent with the City s existing Specific Plans, in that it would not alter the Specific Plan land areas, policies, or land use designations. Internal General P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 3

37 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Plan consistency would be ensured by the proposed amendments to the Strategic Direction Element of the General Plan, as outlined in the text of the proposed Initiative. This would insure internal consistency of the proposed Initiative policies with the Adopted 22 General Plan, and with the Draft 24 General Plan, if adopted. The following analysis is based on the comparison of the type and extent of development that would occur under the four development scenarios as depicted in Table 2 and Table 3 in Chapter II. a. Residential. The City s Adopted 22 General Plan identifies approximately 1,497 acres of vacant and underutilized Residential land use citywide. Implementation of the Initiative is anticipated to decrease the number of acres available for the development of Residential uses, along with the number of potential dwelling units by approximately 64 acres and 2,929 dwelling units. As shown in Table 2, implementation of the Initiative under the 22 General Plan would cause the largest decrease in the number of dwelling units (du) and acreage (ac) within the Residential Neighborhood District land use designation, with a decrease of 2,725 du/359 ac. The next largest decrease would occur in the Rural Residential designation (77 du/233 ac), followed by Hillside Residential (6 du/33 ac), Low Density Residential (56 du/14 ac), and High Density Residential (11 du/.58 ac). The Draft 24 General Plan identifies approximately 1,338 acres of vacant and underutilized Residential land use within the City. Under the Draft 24 General Plan implementation of the proposed Initiative would result in a decrease in the amount of land available for residential development by approximately 45 acres. This would in turn decrease the number of dwelling units that could be constructed with implementation of the Initiative. Under the Draft 24 General Plan this reduction would occur within only one residential land use designation, Neighborhood District North, resulting in a net decrease of 4,344 du. b. Non Residential. Implementation of the Initiative would result a net decrease in the total number of acres available for non-residential development, and thus in the square footage of nonresidential land uses under the Adopted 22 General Plan. As identified in Table 2, implementation of the Initiative under the Adopted 22 General Plan would cause the largest net decrease in square footage within the Campus Industrial land use designation (7,591,99.8 sf/ ac), followed by General Services Commercial (53,742.5 sf/49.48 ac), and General Industrial (217,611 sf/14.69 ac). There would be no net change within the Public/Quasi-Public Facility, Educational Facility, or Park and Recreation Facility land use designations. With undeveloped lands outside of the UGB reverting to Open Space use, there would be an increase of approximately 2,24.8 acres of land designated as Open Space under the Initiative. Under the Draft 24 General Plan, there would also be a decrease in the number of acres available for the development of non-residential uses, and thus in the potential square-footage of nonresidential uses. As shown in Table 3, implementation of the Initiative would result in a decrease of approximately 334 acres of land designated for non-residential use. This would result in a decrease in approximately 1,686,427 sf of General Services Commercial uses, 1,473 sf of General Industrial uses, 2,314,46 sf of Industrial Park uses, and 25 sf of Employment Center uses. With undeveloped lands outside of the UGB reverting to Open Space use, there would be an increase of approximately 2,89.82 acres of land designated as Open Space under the Initiative. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 31

38 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE c. Specific Plan Areas. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, implementation of the Initiative under either the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan would have no effect on any of the Specific Plan areas. Each of the Specific Plan areas the Hecker Pass Special Use District, Glen Loma Specific Plan, and Downtown Specific Plan would remain intact with the Initiative, as each of these areas falls within the proposed UGB. The goals of the Downtown Specific Plan, to facilitate compact development and to locate jobs and services within close proximity to residential uses, may, in fact, be supported by implementation of the Initiative, by promoting growth within the Downtown area. 3. Housing Element California local governments are required to prepare and adopt a housing element as part of their general plan. The City of Gilroy s Housing Element Policy Document and Background Report (Housing Element), adopted December 1, 214, include existing and projected housing needs, resources, and constraints to address these needs. This document outlines the City of Gilroy s goals, policies, and scheduled programs intended to maintain and implement programs for the preservation, conservation, improvement, and production of housing for the planning period. The Housing Element also identifies specific actions to provide adequate residential sites to accommodate projected housing needs and encourage the production of a variety of housing types. 4. Availability and Location of Housing The City of Gilroy s Housing Element strives to ensure adequate land is available at a range of densities to meet existing and projected housing needs. The City also encourages a mix of housing in new development areas to avoid the overconcentration of specific housing types in some areas of the City. In addition, the City supports the development of workforce housing to enable the manufacturing workforce to live in the community, encourages the development of executive housing to promote entrepreneurs to locate to Gilroy, and encourages mixed-use development. The City aims to promote the development of housing that is affordable to a variety of groups. As described below, the Initiative remains consistent with the Housing Element and aligns its purpose with the goals delineated with the Housing Element. a. Ability to Meet Regional Housing Needs. The Initiative is consistent with and supports the goals of the Housing Element, in that its considerations include promoting the City to meet its demand for housing for all economic segments of the population, especially low- and very low-income households, by directing the development of housing into areas where services and infrastructure are more available. More specifically, the development of housing within the UGB could accommodate the City s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), as defined in Table 6 below. The Initiative would also promote stability in long-term planning for the City by establishing cornerstone policies in the General Plan that designate the geographic limits of long-term urban development and allow sufficient flexibility within those limits to respond to Gilroy s changing needs over time. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 32

39 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Table 6: ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation, City of Gilroy Extremely Low- Income Very Low- Income Low- Income Moderate -Income Above Moderate- Income Total Need Number of Housing Units ,88 Percent of Total 1.8% 1.8% 14.7% 19.9% 43.7% 1% Source: City of Gilroy General Plan Housing Element, December 214 The City of Gilroy s Housing Element promotes efficient and affordable housing in Gilroy through measures that encourage mixed use development in the Downtown area, infill housing, and the construction of accessory dwelling units. As a result, the land use policies and provisions established in the General Plan are sufficient to address the expected increase in the City s population, with or without the Initiative. Ultimately, the Initiative would not limit Gilroy s ability to continue to meet the housing needs of all economic segments of the population, including lower and moderate income households. As part of the analysis, it was assumed that no new affordable housing would occur outside of the UGB under the Initiative, based on verification of Gilroy s Housing Element Policy Document and Background Report information, 1 depicting ample space for affordable housing within the current City limits. Based on this assumption, the Adopted 22 General Plan with the proposed Initiative would result in a decrease of approximately 64 acres of land designated for Residential development. Thus, while this would reduce the land available for development of housing in general, and affordable housing, in particular, implementation of the proposed Initiative would not result in a significant housing impact under the Adopted 22 General Plan and would remain consistent with the goals of Gilroy s Housing Element Policy Document. As with the Adopted 22 General Plan analysis, it was assumed that, based on verification of General Plan Housing Element information depicting ample space for affordable housing within the current City limits, no new affordable housing development would occur outside of the UGB under the Draft 24 General Plan with the Initiative. It is also assumed for the purposes of this analysis that under the Initiative, lands outside of the UGB that would remain undeveloped due to the establishment of the UGB would revert to Open Space use. With implementation of the Initiative, the net loss in the number of acres designated for Residential development would be approximately 45 acres. Overall, because it is assumed that the City s requirements for affordable housing could be met through development of the lands within the UGB that are designated for Residential use, implementation of the Initiative would not result in a significant housing impact under the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan and would be consistent with Gilroy s Housing Element Policy Document and Background Report. b. Consistency of the Initiative with State Law. The City of Gilroy s General Plan and Housing Element Policy Document and Background Report (Housing Element) is one of the required General Plan elements, as articulated in Sections 6558 to of the California Government Code. The Housing Element plans for the provision of housing for all economic 1 Gilroy, City of, Housing Element Policy Document and Background Report. December. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 33

40 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE segments of the population. As part of the Housing Element update process, the City of Gilroy implements the State s public participation requirements in the Housing Element Law, set forth in Government Code Section 65583(c)(7), that jurisdictions shall make a diligent effort to achieve participation of all economic segments of the community in development of the housing element. Among the Initiative s objectives is to allow the City to continue to meet its reasonable housing needs for all economic segments of the population, especially low- and very low-income households, by directing the development of housing into areas where services and infrastructure are more efficiently available. This is consistent with the City s Housing Element goals, which seek to provide adequate Residential sites to accommodate housing needs; encourage and support the provision of affordable housing; and maintain and conserve the City s existing housing stock. Implementation of the Initiative would have no bearing on the City s ability to maintain a current and legally adequate housing element. 5. Voter Approval Requirement and Process to Change General Plan The Initiative proposes that with certain limited exceptions where the City makes specific findings, such as for affordable housing or for job-creating industrial development consistent with the General Plan General Industrial land use designation as it existed on February 18, 216, the UGB may not be amended until December 31, 24, except by a vote of the people. Per the text of the Initiative, until December 31, 24, the following General Plan provisions, as adopted by the Gilroy Urban Growth Boundary Initiative, may not be amended or repealed except by a vote of the people: (a) Until December 31, 24, lands outside the UGB as shown on the General Plan Land Use Plan Map may be redesignated, and the location of the UGB depicted on the Land Use Plan Map may be amended, only by a vote of the people, or by the City Council pursuant to the procedures set forth in subsections (b) through (e) below. (b) The City Council may, if it deems it to be in the public interest, amend the location of the UGB depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, provided that the amended boundary is within or coextensive with the limits of the UGB as established by the Gilroy Urban Growth Boundary Initiative. (c) The City Council may amend the location of the UGB located on the Land Use Plan Map, and/or redesignate lands outside the UGB, if the City Council determines that doing so is necessary to comply with State law regarding the provision of housing for all segments of the community. The City Council may do so only if it first makes each of the following findings based on substantial evidence: (1) That the land proposed to be brought within the UGB and/or redesignated is immediately adjacent to: (i) the existing UGB; and (ii) available water and sewer connections; and (2) That the proposed development will consist primarily of low- and very low-income housing pursuant to the Housing Element of this General Plan; P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 34

41 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE (3) That there is no existing vacant or undeveloped residentially designated land within the UGB to accommodate the proposed development and it is not feasible to accommodate the proposed development by redesignating lands within the UGB for low- and very low-income housing; and (4) That the proposed development is necessary to comply with State law requirements for the provision of low- and very low-income housing and the area of land within the proposed development will not exceed the minimum area necessary to comply with State law. The General Plan may be reorganized or readopted in different format, and individual provisions may be renumbered or reordered, in the course of ongoing updates of the General Plan, provided that the provisions of Section 2.A and 2.B of this Initiative shall remain in the General Plan through at least December 31, 24, unless earlier repealed or amended by vote of the people of the City of Gilroy. 6. Conclusions With implementation of the Initiative, restrictions on new development outside of the proposed UGB would have the effect of reducing the overall amount of potential residential and non-residential development under both the Adopted 22 General Plan and the Draft 24 General Plans. As shown in Tables 2 and 3 above, implementation of the Initiative under the Adopted 22 General Plan is anticipated to decrease the number of acres available for the development of land designated for Residential use, along with the number of potential dwelling units, by approximately 64 ac and 2,929 du. Under the Draft 24 General Plan implementation of the proposed Initiative would result in a decrease in the amount of land available for Residential development of approximately 45 ac and 4,344 du. While the Initiative would result in an overall reduction in the lands available for the development of Residential uses under both the Adopted 22 General Plan and the Draft 24 General Plan, the Initiative is consistent with and supports the goals of the Housing Element, in that its goals include promoting the City to meet its demand for housing for all economic segments of the population, especially low- and very low-income households, by directing the development of housing into areas where services and infrastructure are more available. Under the Adopted 22 General Plan, implementation of the Initiative would cause the largest net decrease in the potential square footage (sf) of non-residential development within the Campus Industrial land use designation (7,591,99.8 sf/ ac), followed by General Services Commercial (53,742.5 sf/49.48 ac), and General Industrial (217,611 sf/14.69 ac). Under the Draft 24 General Plan, implementation of the Initiative would result in a decrease in potential nonresidential development of approximately 1,686,427 sf of General Services Commercial uses, 1,473 sf of General Industrial uses, 2,314,46 sf of Industrial Park uses, and 25 sf of Employment Center uses. Lands designated as Open Space would increase under both the Adopted 22 General Plan and the Draft 24 General Plan with implementation of the initiative by 2,24 ac and 2,89 ac, respectively. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 35

42 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The following analysis estimates the economic impacts of the increment of new growth that would be possible at full buildout for each of the four development scenarios defined above: Adopted 22 General Plan; Adopted 22 General Plan with Initiative; Draft 24 General Plan; and Draft 24 General Plan with the Initiative. The increment of new growth is the difference between what is currently built and the full development potential of each scenario. These impacts are estimated in constant 216 dollars. It is important to note that this analysis is not tied to current market conditions, but represents the full potential of developing currently underutilized or vacant parcels in the City of Gilroy. Furthermore, given the long time horizon of the 22 or 24 General Plans, the market may shift due to currently unforeseen factors. 1. Approach BAE evaluated the four scenarios using an input-output model to estimate the different economic impacts within the economies of Gilroy and Santa Clara County overall. Economists use regional and national input-output models as a tool to understand the complex interactions among the various parts of an economy. The economic model used in this analysis, IMPLAN ( IMpact analysis for PLANning ), is a PC-based computer software package that automates the process of developing input-output models for regions within the United States. The IMPLAN model is well respected as the industry standard for projecting economic impacts resulting from current or future economic activities often called events. In this study, the creation of jobs per each land use category, as defined in Tables 1 and 2 above, and the development costs associated with buildout make up the events that the analysis uses as the IMPLAN model s inputs. For this analysis, the impact area has been defined as Santa Clara County. At the heart of the IMPLAN model is a county-level trade flow called the Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) constructed from the production functions of 536 industries, using data from a variety of sources including the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and US Census. The SAM uses each county s observed economic relationships between government, industry, and household sectors, allowing IMPLAN to model payments between industries, between households and industries, between government and industries, and between government and households. Thus, for a specified region, the input-output table accounts for all dollar flows between the different sectors within the economy. IMPLAN then applies county-level price and wage data, as well as considering the availability of goods within the study area (in this case, Santa Clara County), to estimate the specific impacts to these areas. Once the economic events have been entered into the model, IMPLAN reports the following types of impacts: Direct Impacts. Direct impacts refer to the set of jobs and producer or consumer expenditures applied to the predictive model for impact analysis. It is the amount of spending available to flow through the local economy. IMPLAN then displays how the local economy will then respond to these initial changes. The direct impacts may equal up to the amount of spending input into the model, depending on a variety of factors. By definition in this analysis, the direct impacts all occur in the City of Gilroy. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 36

43 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Indirect Impacts. The indirect impacts refer to the impact of local industries buying goods and services from other local industries. The cycle of spending works its way backward through the supply chain until all money leaks from the local economy, either through imports or by payments to income and taxes. For capital projects this would include payments for construction inputs such as wood, steel, office supplies, and any other nonlabor payments that a construction firm would purchase in the building process. Since the direct impacts are based on full buildout which by definition would leave no vacant space available in the City of Gilroy itself, any indirect impacts would occur elsewhere in the County. Induced Impacts. The induced impacts refer to an economy s response to an initial change (direct impact) that occurs through re-spending of income according to household spending patterns. When households earn income, they spend part of that income on goods and services, such as food and healthcare. IMPLAN models households disposable income spending patterns and distributes them through the local economy. As with the indirect impacts, these impacts would occur in Santa Clara County outside of the City of Gilroy itself. The particular methodology used in this economic impact analysis was driven by the buildable square footages, number of dwelling units, and jobs under each of the four scenarios as presented above in Tables 1 through 4. IMPLAN allows the use of these estimates of direct jobs by sector to in turn estimate labor income and economic output (output is generally equivalent to gross revenues). Employment density factors per the General Plan scenarios are then used to estimate the total square footage by land use and major job category to derive square footage by land use, and then, using typical per unit or per square foot costs associated with the various kinds of residential and commercial development, a construction cost estimate is generated per each major job category. These costs can then be used to estimate average annual construction impacts, assuming a 25-year build out period. For both the general and the construction impacts analyses, the major job categories are distributed among the 536 IMPLAN sectors by assigning each IMPLAN sector to one of the major job sectors and then, based on the current mix of employment by sector, estimating the future distribution of jobs (and square footage of space) by IMPLAN sector within that major job category. To be consistent, for all scenarios, buildout is assumed over a 25-year period ending in 24. For each of the four development scenarios, Table 7 on the following page presents data on the number of dwelling units, jobs by major industry category, estimated square footage by job category, and construction costs associated with each of the major job categories, providing the inputs for the IMPLAN economic impact analysis. 2. Economic Impact Findings Table 8 provides the results of the impact analysis for the four scenarios with respect to overall buildout and job creation. Overall, buildout per the Adopted 22 General Plan would result in 66,31 jobs, $4,694.2 million in annual labor income, and $12,5.4 million in total annual economic output. As noted above, the indirect and induced impacts would occur outside Gilroy elsewhere in Santa Clara County. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 37

44 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Under the Adopted 22 General Plan with the Initiative, job generation at buildout would decline to 35,524 jobs, $2,415.5 million in annual labor income, and $6,638.2 million in annual economic output. These figures represent a decline of over 45 percent in potential jobs, labor income, and economic output due to the Initiative. For the Draft 24 General Plan baseline scenario, buildout would result in 57,5 jobs, $3,866. million in annual labor income, and $1,475.5 million in annual economic output. Under the Draft 24 General Plan with the Initiative, jobs at buildout would decline to 48,87, annual labor income would decline to $3,379.9 million, and annual economic output would decline to $9,153.4 million. These decreases are in the range of 13 to 14 percent. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 38

45 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Table 7: Inputs for Economic Impact Analysis Gross Acres Single-Family Units Multifamily Units Total Dwelling Units Total Non- Residential Square Feet (SF) Retail SF Service SF Other SF Agriculture SF Manufacturing SF Wholesale SF Adopted 22 General Plan Acres/Units/SF 4, ,981 4,357 11,338 25,766,191 3,641,762 1,742,283 7,881,749-1,34,953 2,159,444 Construction Costs $2,555,46, $67,978, $728,352,339 $348,456,613 $1,576,349,841 $ $2,68,19,547 $431,888,88 Jobs 44,473 6,451 3,89 16,41 (13) 16,576 2,86 Adopted 22 General Plan w/initiative Acres/Units/SF 5, ,987 3,488 8,475 17,28,828 3,152,758 1,21,329 2,89,79-7,911,28 2,115,922 Construction Costs $1,825,242, $537,152, $63,551,695 $242,65,898 $578,158,8 $ $1,582,25,559 $423,184,44 Jobs 24,226 5,575 1,89 3,998 (4) 1,743 2,6 Change w/initiative Acres/Units/SF (1,994) (869) (2,863) (8,485,363) (489,3) (531,954) (4,99,959) - (2,429,925) (43,522) Construction Costs -$729,84, -$133,826, -$97,8,644 -$16,39,714 -$998,191,762 $ -$485,984,988 -$8,74,44 Jobs (2,247) (876) (1,199) (12,43) 9 (5,833) (26) Draft 24 General Plan Acres/Units/SF 3,76.8 7,37 5,642 12,949 23,911,93 3,418,832 1,246,257 4,46,8-12,725,67 1,968,925 Construction Costs $2,674,299,714 $868,866,7 $683,766,497 $249,251,439 $881,359,941 $ $2,545,121,4 $393,784,94 Jobs 38,961 9,28 4,16 9,418-14,341 1,96 Draft 24 General Plan w/initiative Acres/Units/SF 2, ,712 3,9 8,612 19,68,473 1,955,48 84,182 3,897,841-1,873,263 1,968,63 Construction Costs $1,724,595,295 $6,617,83 $391,9,68 $168,36,38 $779,568,221 $ $2,174,652,684 $393,725,984 Jobs 33,96 6,47 3,37 8,873-12,522 1,924 Change w/initiative Acres/Units/SF (784.34) (2,595) (1,742) (4,337) (4,231,457) (1,463,784) (46,76) (58,959) - (1,852,344) (295) Construction Costs -$949,74,419 -$268,249,617 -$292,756,889 -$81,215,131 -$11,791,72 $ -$37,468,716 -$58,92 Jobs (5,865) (2,81) (79) (545) - (1,819) 18 SF/Unit MF/Unit Retail/SF Service/SF Other/SF Agriculture /SF Manufacturing/SF Wholesale /SF Development Costs $366, $154, $2 $2 $2 $ $2 $2 Sources: Mintier Harnish; City of Gilroy; LSA; U.S. Census Bureau; BAE, 216. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 39

46 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE This page intentionally left blank. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 4

47 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Table 8: Comparison of Annual Industry Output and Economic Multiplier Effects at Buildout under Adopted 22 and Draft 24 General Plans With and Without Initiative Direct Effect Indirect Effect Induced Effect Total Effect Adopted 22 General Plan Employment 44,472 11,293 1,266 66,31 Labor Income ($ millions) $3,134.5 $928.2 $631.5 $4,694.2 Output ($ millions) $8,532.2 $2,313.7 $1,654.5 $12,5.4 Adopted 22 General Plan w/initiative Employment 24,227 6,15 5,282 35,524 Labor Income ($ millions) $1,586. $54.6 $324.9 $2,415.5 Output ($ millions) $4,519.4 $1,267.5 $851.3 $6,638.2 Change w/initiative Employment (2,245) (5,278) (4,984) (3,57) Labor Income ($ millions) ($1,548.5) ($423.6) ($36.6) ($2,278.7) Output ($ millions) ($4.12.8) ($1,46.2) ($83.2) ($5,862.1) Draft 24 General Plan Employment 38,961 9,582 8,462 57,5 Labor Income ($ millions) $2,549.8 $795.7 $52.5 $3,866. Output ($ millions) $7,19.7 $2,2.1 $1,363.7 $1,475.5 Draft 24 General Plan w/initiative Employment 33,99 8,375 7,397 48,87 Labor Income ($ millions) $2,231. $694. $455. $3,379.9 Output ($ millions) $6,25.8 $1,755.5 $1,192. $9,153.4 Change w/initiative Employment (5,862) (1,28) (1,65) (8,135) Labor Income ($ millions) ($318.8) ($11.7) ($65.5) ($486.) Output ($ millions) ($885.9) ($264.6) ($171.6) ($1,322.2) Notes: Impacts expressed in 216 dollars. Numbers may vary from other sources due to independent rounding. Sources: City of Gilroy; Mintier Harnish; LSA; IMPLAN; BAE Urban Economics, 216. Another way to assess potential impacts with IMPLAN is to look at construction activity, as shown below in Table 9. For a typical project, construction impacts are a one-time occurrence supporting jobs only during the construction period, while the operations after construction provide ongoing permanent jobs. However, for the buildout period here, assumed at 25 years, as buildout occurs gradually, construction jobs would be supported throughout the buildout period. The analysis here takes the total construction value at buildout and assumes that it is spread over a 25-year period. It is important to note that these impacts are not in addition to the overall impacts discussed above, since the overall impact already includes an allocation of jobs in the construction sector to industrial space, and construction companies are potential occupants of this kind of space for workshops, equipment storage, etc. At least some of those jobs will be tied to the construction activity assumed in order to achieve buildout in Gilroy; so while neither impact is necessarily entirely inclusive of the other, they overlap and should not be combined in assessing economic impacts. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 41

48 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE For the Adopted 22 General Plan, average annual construction activity would support a total of 2,652 jobs, $187.7 million in labor income, and $468.9 million in economic output. Under the Adopted 22 General Plan with the Initiative, average annual job generation from construction would decline to 1,842 jobs supported, $13.3 million in annual labor income, and $326.2 million in annual economic output. These figures represent an approximately 3 percent decline in potential impacts due to the Initiative. Under the Draft 24 General Plan without the Initiative, construction-related economic impacts would be similar to those for the Adopted 22 General Plan without the Initiative, with annual support for 2,628 jobs, $185.7 million in labor income, and $465.8 in economic output. Under the Draft 24 General Plan with the Initiative in place, annual jobs, labor income, and economic output would drop approximately 25 percent to 1,976 jobs, $14.4 million in labor income, and $348.3 million in economic output. Table 9: Comparison of Industry Output and Economic Multiplier Effects from Annual Construction Activity under Adopted 22 and Draft 24 General Plans With and Without Initiative Direct Effect Indirect Effect Induced Effect Total Effect Adopted 22 General Plan Employment 1, ,652 Labor Income ($ millions) $134.2 $28.3 $25.1 $187.7 Output ($ millions) $335.2 $67.8 $65.8 $468.9 Adopted 22 General Plan w/initiative Employment 1, ,842 Labor Income ($ millions) $92.9 $19.9 $17.4 $13.3 Output ($ millions) $232.7 $47.7 $45.7 $326.2 Change w/initiative Employment (58) (15) (125) (81) Labor Income ($ millions) ($41.3) ($8.4) ($7.7) ($57.4) Output ($ millions) ($12.4) ($2.1) ($2.1) ($142.7) Draft 24 General Plan Employment 1, ,628 Labor Income ($ millions) $132.2 $28.7 $24.9 $185.7 Output ($ millions) $331.9 $68.8 $65.2 $465.8 Draft 24 General Plan w/initiative Employment 1, ,976 Labor Income ($ millions) $1.8 $2.8 $18.8 $14.4 Output ($ millions) $249.3 $49.8 $49.2 $348.3 Change with Initiative Employment (444) (19) (99) (652) Labor Income ($ millions) ($31.3) ($7.9) ($6.1) ($45.3) Output ($ millions) ($82.6) ($19.) ($15.9) ($117.5) Notes: Assumes 25-year buildout for all scenarios. Impacts expressed in 216 dollars. Numbers may vary from other sources due to independent rounding. Sources: City of Gilroy; Mintier Harnish; LSA; IMPLAN; BAE Urban Economics, 216. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 42

49 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE 3. Conclusions In summary, under both the Adopted 22 General Plan and the Draft 24 General Plan, the implementation of the Initiative and the proposed UGB would result in potentially lower numbers of jobs, lower labor income, and lower economic output in Gilroy and Santa Clara County when comparing the four scenarios at buildout. As discussed above, key findings with respect to the effects of the Initiative on economic development include the following: The Adopted 22 General Plan with the Initiative would see a decline of over 45 percent in potential jobs, labor income, and economic output; The Draft 24 General Plan with the Initiative would see declines of 13 to 14 percent in potential jobs, labor income, and economic output; Under the Adopted 22 General Plan with the Initiative, potential annual jobs, labor income, and economic output from construction would decline approximately 3 percent; and Under the Draft 24 General Plan with the Initiative in place, potential annual jobs, labor income, and economic output would drop approximately 25 percent. D. TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND FUNDING This section presents the results of the traffic analysis conducted to determine the effects of the Initiative on traffic volumes, travel patterns, and associated infrastructure requirements. The traffic analysis included a quantitative assessment of the effects of the Initiative under the Adopted 22 General Plan and the Adopted 22 General Plan with the Initiative. Because the Draft 24 General Plan has not been adopted by the City, the effects of the Initiative on traffic conditions under the Draft 24 General Plan were analyzed qualitatively. The purpose of this traffic analysis is to reassess traffic conditions projected under 22 General Plan buildout conditions with the UGB, to determine what changes could be made to the planned transportation network, what affect those changes would have on future traffic patterns, and to assess the associated effect on the City of Gilroy Traffic Impact Fee. The proposed UGB, relative to the City limits, the City s Urban Service Area, and the City s Urban Service Boundary, is shown on Figure Scope of Study The study includes an analysis of traffic conditions for the following 24 intersections and 7 freeway segments under 22 General Plan buildout conditions: a. Study Intersections: 22 General Plan 1. Santa Teresa Boulevard and Fitzgerald Avenue 2. Monterey Road and Masten Avenue/Fitzgerald Avenue 3. US 11 SB Ramps and Masten Avenue CT 4. US 11 NB Ramps and Masten Avenue CT 5. Santa Teresa Boulevard and Day Road (W)/Buena Vista Avenue P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 43

50 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE 6. Wren Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue (future) 7. Monterey Road and Buena Vista Avenue 8. US 11 SB Ramps and Buena Vista Avenue (future) CT 9. No Name Uno and US 11 NB Ramps (future) CT 1. Santa Teresa Boulevard and Sunrise Drive/Cohansey Avenue 11. Monterey Road and Cohansey Avenue 12. Monterey Road and Leavesley Road/Welburn Avenue 13. US 11 SB Ramps and Leavesley Road CT 14. US 11 NB Ramps/San Ysidro Avenue and Leavesley Road CT 15. Arroyo Circle and Leavesley Road 16. Cameron Boulevard/Marcella Avenue and Leavesley Road 17. Camino Arroyo and Gilman Road 18. Cameron Boulevard and Gilman Road (future) 19. US 11 SB Ramps and Tenth Street CT 2. US 11 NB Off-Ramp and Pacheco Pass Highway CT 21. Camino Arroyo and Pacheco Pass Highway CT 22. Cameron Boulevard and Pacheco Pass Highway CT 23. US 11 SB Ramps and Monterey Street CT 24. Monterey Street and US 11 NB Ramps CT CT = Caltrans intersections b. Study Freeway Segments: 22 General Plan 1. US 11, between Dunne Avenue and Tennant Avenue 2. US 11, between Tennant Avenue and San Martin Avenue 2. US 11, between San Martin Avenue and Masten Avenue 3. US 11, between Masten Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue (future interchange) 4. US 11, between Buena Vista Avenue (future interchange) and Leavesley Road 5. US 11, between Leavesley Road and 1 th Street/Pacheco Pass Highway 6. US 11, between 1 th Street/Pacheco Pass Highway and Monterey Road 7. US 11, between Monterey Road to SR 25 c. Study Time Periods. Traffic conditions at the study intersections and freeway facilities were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The weekday AM peak hour of traffic generally falls within the 7: to 9: AM period and the weekday PM peak hour is typically in the P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 44

51 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE 4: to 6: PM period. It is during these times that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average day. d. Study Scenarios. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios: (1) Scenario 1 Adopted 22 General Plan. This scenario represents General Plan build out conditions according to the current/existing City of Gilroy 22 General Plan, or for the purposes of this traffic analysis, baseline General Plan conditions. The City of Gilroy travel demand forecasting model was used to evaluate traffic conditions associated with the current General Plan. This involved evaluating the traffic associated with the current General Plan land uses on the current General Plan transportation network. (2) Scenario 2 Adopted 22 General Plan with Initiative. This scenario represents 22 General Plan buildout conditions with implementation of the proposed Initiative. Under this scenario, Adopted 22 General Plan buildout land uses were modified to eliminate planned growth outside of the proposed UGB. Additionally, the 22 General Plan roadway network was adjusted under this scenario to reduce or eliminate roadway infrastructure improvements in areas with no development growth and lower projected traffic volumes. 2. Traffic Volume Forecasting Methodology This section presents the methods used to determine the traffic conditions for each scenario described above. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis methodologies, and the applicable level of service standards. The model chosen for use in the analysis is the current Gilroy Travel Forecasting Model (Gilroy Model). The Gilroy Model was developed as an extension and refinement of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Model (VTA Model). The Gilroy Model is a subarea model of VTA s Model and provides a more detailed roadway network and zone system within Gilroy. The Gilroy Model is consistent with the VTA Model in terms of trip generation, distribution and mode choice. However, VTA s peak-hour (or diurnal) factors were modified to better match existing traffic flows in the larger Gilroy area. The Gilroy Model was most recently validated for the 213 base year and forecasts traffic patterns in and around Gilroy under General Plan buildout conditions. The travel forecasts developed for this project were based on City of Gilroy 22 General Plan land use data. The traffic forecasts produced by the Gilroy Model take into account the changes in number of trips and trip lengths as a result of the interaction between the different and complementing land uses within the City. These include pass-by trips to commercial uses, diverted trips associated with complementary land uses included in the City s land use plan, and changes in work trip lengths due to variations in the jobs-housing balance. Traffic volume forecasts were completed by Hexagon using the Gilroy Model and are based on the Adopted 22 General Plan Land Use Plan, with and without the proposed Initiative. These forecasts are considered raw model volume forecasts, which on their own do not represent future volume conditions, but are simply used to forecast growth and travel pattern changes expected in the future due to the land use changes and development associated with 22 General Plan buildout. To obtain the final traffic volume forecasts, adjustments are made to raw model volume forecasts and used in conjunction with existing count data. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 45

52 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Traffic volumes for each of the scenarios analyzed were derived based on existing turn-movement volumes and model forecasts. The traffic volume components utilized in the analysis are summarized below and included in Appendix C. Adopted 22 General Plan. 22 General Plan buildout volumes without the proposed UGB were obtained from the Gilroy Model. These volumes represent traffic conditions that would occur with buildout of all projects included in the Adopted 22 General Plan with the current General Plan roadway network and without the proposed Initiative. Adopted 22 General Plan with Initiative. 22 General Plan with the proposed UGB traffic volumes were obtained from the Gilroy Model with adjustments to the model land uses and roadway network to reflect the UGB. 3. Analysis Methodologies and Level of Service Standards Traffic conditions at the study intersections and freeway segments were evaluated using level of service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, or freeflow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays. The various analysis methods are described below. a. Intersection Analyses. Some of the study intersections are located within the City of Gilroy, some are located within unincorporated Santa Clara County, and others are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. The County of Santa Clara does not have adopted intersection level of service standards nor significant impact criteria. Based on direction received from Santa Clara County Roads and Airports staff, on previous traffic studies in the City of Gilroy, the Santa Clara County intersections were evaluated based on City of Gilroy standards and impact thresholds. The remaining Caltrans study intersections were evaluated against the adopted Caltrans level of service standards and thresholds. (1) Gilroy and Santa Clara County Signalized Intersections. The City of Gilroy uses the Santa Clara County CMP level of service methodology, TRAFFIX, for evaluation of signalized intersections. TRAFFIX is based on the 2 Highway Capacity Manual (2 HCM) method for signalized intersections. TRAFFIX evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average control delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. The correlation between average delay and level of service is shown in Table 1. The City of Gilroy level of service standard for most signalized intersections located west of US 11 is LOS C or better. For signalized intersections located east of US 11 and those in the commercial area designated in the City of Gilroy General Plan (LOS D Area), the City standard is LOS D or better. The level of service D area includes all areas east of US 11 and the Tenth Street corridor from Monterey Street to US 11, the Luchessa corridor east of Monterey Street, and the Monterey Street corridor from Luchessa Avenue to the Monterey Street/US 11 interchange. Some of the intersections within the LOS D Area are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. At these locations, Caltrans level of service standard (LOS C or better) was used to evaluate impacts. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 46

53 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Table 1: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definition Based on Delay Level of Service A B C D E F Description Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2, Washington, D.C., 2. Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (sec.) Up to to to to to 8. Greater than 8. (2) Caltrans Intersections. Caltrans intersections were evaluated using the HCM method for signalized intersections, as recommended in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies and as described above. The Caltrans level of service standard for intersections is LOS C or better. b. Freeway Segments. In Santa Clara County, freeway segments are evaluated using Congestion Management Plan (CMP) procedures and methodologies. As prescribed in the CMP technical guidelines, the level of service for freeway segments is estimated based on vehicle density. Density is calculated by the following formula: D = V / (N*S) where: D= density, in vehicles per mile per lane (vpmpl) V= peak-hour volume, in vehicles per hour (vph) N= number of travel lanes S= average travel speed, in miles per hour (mph) The vehicle density on a segment is correlated to level of service as shown in Table 11. The CMP requires that mixed-flow lanes and auxiliary lanes be analyzed separately from HOV (carpool) lanes. The CMP specifies that a capacity of 2,3 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) be used for segments six lanes or wider in both directions and a capacity of 2,2 vphpl be used for segments four lanes wide in both directions. The CMP defines an acceptable level of service for freeway segments as LOS E or better. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 47

54 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Table 11: Freeway Levels of Service Based on Density Level of Service Description Average operating speeds at the free-flow speed generally prevail. A Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Speeds at the free-flow speed are generally maintained. The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and the B general level of physical and psychological comfort provided to drivers is still high. Speeds at or near the free-flow speed of the freeway prevail. Freedom to C maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted, and lane changes require more vigilance on the part of the driver. Speeds begin to decline slightly with increased flows at this level. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is more noticeably limited, D and the driver experiences reduced physical and psychological comfort levels. At this level, the freeway operates at or near capacity. Operations in this E level are volatile, because there are virtually no usable gaps in the traffic stream, leaving little room to maneuver within the traffic stream. Vehicular flow breakdowns occur. Large queues form behind breakdown F points. Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2, Washington, D.C., 2. Density (vehicles/mile/lane) -11 >11-18 >18-26 >26-46 >46-58 >58 c. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis. The traffic analysis includes an evaluation of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) within the City. VMT can be used as an indicator to evaluate the extent to which land use alternatives could be expected to increase or decrease the average travel distance on the roadway system within a defined geographic area, such as the City of Gilroy. In general, whenever new trips are added to the transportation system, VMT will increase proportionally to the number of trips being added. A land use increase generally results in higher overall VMT within the area of the projected growth. However, there are several types of land use changes that can be exceptions to this generalization. Land use changes that tend to minimize the increase in VMT are those that involve adding new housing closer to jobs or new jobs closer to housing. When the number of jobs and the number of housing units are in balance, the average trip length, or VMT, is likely to be shorter compared to land use alternatives where the number of jobs far exceeds the number of housing units, or vice versa. VMT per service population is a measure of the daily vehicle miles traveled divided by the number of residents and employees within the City of Gilroy. VMT per service population (residents + employees) is used for the analysis as opposed to VMT per resident, since per service population more accurately captures the effects of land use on VMT. The City not only has residents that travel to and from jobs, but also attracts regional employees that travel to and from the City to work. VMT is calculated based on the number of vehicles multiplied by the distance traveled by each vehicle in miles. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 48

55 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE The City of Gilroy does not currently have an established VMT standard for what is considered acceptable or a threshold for what change in VMT would constitute a significant impact. For this reason, the VMT analysis is included in this report for informational purposes. 4. Land Use Assumptions The traffic analysis was carried out using the City of Gilroy Travel Demand Model which includes land uses and development intensities associated with the existing 22 General Plan. The land use and development intensities included in the City s model include full buildout according to the Adopted 22 General Plan. The land use data coded into the travel demand model for General Plan buildout was evaluated, as it relates to the proposed UGB, and modified accordingly to remove all planned growth that is situated outside of the proposed UGB. This condition forms the basis for the underlying land use assumptions for the Scenario 2 model runs. 5. Transportation Network Assumptions The Adopted 22 General Plan transportation network is assumed to be in place for Scenario 1. With the implementation of the proposed Initiative, there would be less development in certain areas of the City, which means that in those areas, there could be less of a need for new transportation improvements. A series of model runs were conducted in order to determine which of the Adopted 22 General Plan transportation improvements would likely no longer be needed with the Initiative. With each model run, roadway network features that appeared to be underutilized were removed or scaled back until there were no other logical roadway network changes that could be removed without degrading traffic conditions below acceptable standards. Based on this preliminary evaluation, the following changes to the planned General Plan roadway network described in Table 12 on the following page were assumed with the proposed Initiative. Table 12 also indicates the potential effect of each roadway network change on the City s Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program. A full analysis of the effect of the Initiative on the TIF Program is contained below under the heading Traffic Impact Fee Program. It should be noted that a complete and detailed assessment of the City s 22 General Plan transportation circulation network would be needed if the Initiative is implemented. A detailed assessment may find additional roadway network improvements that are no longer needed with the implementation of the proposed Initiative. The level of service analysis results presented below for Scenario 2 (22 General Plan with Initiative) include the roadway network changes discussed above. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 49

56 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Table 12: Roadway Network Changes with Initiative Roadway Facility 22 GP Improvement Action with Initiative TIF Impact Rucker Avenue Extension, Monterey Road to Santa Teresa Boulevard Delete segment No change to TIF segment was fully developer funded Rucker Avenue Upgrade to 2-lane collector, Monterey Road to Murray Avenue Improvement no longer needed No change to TIF segment was fully developer funded Murray Avenue Murray Avenue Denio Avenue Denio Avenue Leavesley Road Marcella Avenue Cameron Boulevard Cameron Boulevard Gilman Road Santa Teresa Boulevard and Fitzgerald Avenue Wren Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue Monterey Road and Buena Vista Avenue Upgrade to 2-lane arterial, Masten Avenue to Rucker Avenue Extension, Rucker Avenue to Buena Vista Avenue Extension, Monterey Road to Santa Teresa Boulevard Upgrade to 2-lane collector, Monterey Road to Murray Avenue Upgrade to 4-lane arterial, Arroyo Circle to Marcella Avenue Extension to future Cameron Boulevard Build 2-lane arterial, Leavesley Road to Gilman Road Build 4-lane arterial, Gilman Road to Renz Lane Upgrade to 4-lane arterial, Camino Arroyo to Cameron Boulevard Improvement no longer needed Delete segment Delete segment Improvement no longer needed Downgrade to 2-lane arterial Delete segment Downgrade to 2-lane collector Downgrade to 2-lane arterial Downgrade to 2-lane collector Intersection improvements Remove one northbound through lane TIF would be reduced Build new signalized intersection Intersection improvements Eliminate north leg of intersection and turn lanes feeding the north leg Eliminate jug-handle grade-separated interchange and replace with standard signalized intersection No change to TIF segment was fully developer funded No change to TIF segment was fully developer funded No change to TIF segment was fully developer funded No change to TIF segment was fully developer funded TIF would need to be increased with no adjacent development to share costs, the improvements would need to be fully funded by the TIF. No change to TIF segment was fully developer funded TIF would need to be increased with no adjacent development to share costs, the improvements would need to be fully funded by the TIF TIF would need to be increased with no adjacent development to share costs, the improvements would need to be fully funded by the TIF TIF would need to be increased with no adjacent development to share costs, the improvements would need to be fully funded by the TIF TIF would be reduce No change to TIF the current TIF only has funding for a standard signalized intersection. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 5

57 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Table 12: Roadway Network Changes with Initiative Roadway Facility 22 GP Improvement Action with Initiative TIF Impact Murray Avenue and Build new signalized Eliminate north leg of intersection and TIF would be reduced Buena Vista Avenue intersection turn lanes feeding the north leg Cameron Boulevard and Leavesley Road Build new signalized intersection Remove one eastbound and one westbound through lane TIF would need to be increased with no adjacent development to share costs, the improvements would Marcella Avenue and Leavesley Road Marcella Avenue extension and Cameron Boulevard Camino Arroyo and Gilman Road Cameron Boulevard and Gilman Road Camino Arroyo and Pacheco Pass Highway Cameron Boulevard and Pacheco Pass Highway Cameron Boulevard Bridge at Ronan Channel Wren Avenue Bridge at Llagas Creek Masten Avenue and US 11 Interchange Buena Vista and US 11 Interchange Intersection improvements Build new signalized intersection Intersection improvements Build new signalized intersection Intersection improvements Eliminate south leg, one eastbound land, and one westbound throughlane Delete intersection Remove one westbound left-turn lane and dedicated northbound right-turn lane Remove one southbound through lane, one northbound through lane, and the dedicated eastbound right-turn lane Remove one southbound right-turn lane and one southbound left-turn lane need to be fully funded by the TIF TIF would need to be increased with no adjacent development to share costs, the improvements would need to be fully funded by the TIF TIF would be reduced Intersection improvements Remove one southbound right-turn lane and one southbound left-turn lane Build new bridge Downgrade bridge to 2-lane arterial TIF would be reduced Build new bridge Eliminate bridge TIF would be reduced Freeway interchange improvements Build new freeway interchange Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 216. Planned improvements at this interchange potentially could be reduced with implementation of the proposed UGB The size of this new interchange potentially could be reduced with implementation of the proposed UGB No Change to TIF intersection has already been built out TIF would need to be increased with no adjacent development to share costs, the improvements would need to be fully funded by the TIF No Change to TIF intersection has already been built out and only changes due to proposed UGB would be minor striping changes TIF would be reduced TIF would likely be reduced. Potential change to TIF was not quantified because reevaluating interchange configurations and associated improvement costs is beyond the scope of this analysis. TIF would likely be reduced. Potential change to TIF was not quantified because reevaluating interchange configurations and associated improvement costs is beyond the scope of this analysis. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 51

58 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE The review of the roadway network with the proposed Initiative found that a number of roadway extensions or improvements would be needed outside of the UGB, even with the lower amount of development associated with the proposed Initiative. Most notable of these include the following: Masten Avenue/US 11 interchange improvements Buena Vista Avenue/US 11 interchange construction Buena Vista Avenue extension to Santa Teresa Boulevard Cameron Boulevard extension from Pacheco Pass Highway to Leavesley Road Santa Teresa Boulevard extension southward to the US 11/SR 25 interchange Masten Avenue capacity improvements Santa Teresa Boulevard capacity improvements north of Buena Vista Avenue These planned roadway improvements would be needed with the UGB in place to provide for acceptable traffic operations and traffic flow in and around the City. 6. Significant Impact Criteria Significance criteria are used to define what constitutes an impact. For this analysis, impacts on intersections are based on the City of Gilroy and Caltrans Level of Service standards. a. City of Gilroy and Santa Clara County Definition of Significant Signalized Intersection Level of Service Impacts. The City of Gilroy uses two sets of impact criteria, one for intersections located west of US 11 and another set for intersections located in the LOS D commercial area designated in the City of Gilroy General Plan, primarily east of US 11. (1) LOS C Area. For intersections located west of US 11 in the LOS C areas, a project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection if for any peak hour: 1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS C or better under no-project conditions to an unacceptable LOS D or worse under project conditions; or 2. If the intersection is already operating at an unacceptable LOS D and the addition of project traffic causes the average delay to increase by two (2) second or more; or 3. If the intersection is already operating at an unacceptable LOS E or F and the addition of project traffic causes the average delay to increase by one (1) second or more. (2) LOS D Area. For intersections located in the LOS D area, a project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection if for any peak hour: 1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS D or better under no-project conditions to an unacceptable LOS E or F under project condition; or 2. If the intersection is already operating at an unacceptable LOS E or F and the addition of project traffic causes the average delay to increase by one (1) second or more. A significant impact is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore intersection levels of service to baseline conditions or better. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 52

59 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE b. CMP Definition of Significant Freeway Segment Impacts. A project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions on a CMP freeway segment if for either peak hour: 1. The level of service on the freeway segment degrades from an acceptable LOS E or better under no-project conditions to an unacceptable LOS F under project conditions; or 2. The level of service on the freeway segment is an unacceptable LOS F under no-project conditions, and the number of project trips added to that segment constitutes at least one percent of the capacity of that segment. A significant impact by CMP standards is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that would restore freeway conditions to LOS E or better. c. Caltrans Intersection Level of Service Standards and Impact Criteria. Caltrans identifies a level of service standard of LOS C for its intersections. Based on Caltrans level of service impact criteria, the project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a Caltrans intersection if for either peak-hour: 1. The level of service at the study facility degrades from an acceptable LOS C or better under no-project conditions to an unacceptable LOS D or worse under project conditions; or 2. The project results in the addition of trips to a facility that is already operating at unacceptable levels (LOS D or worse). These standards are applied to Caltrans-controlled intersections. In Santa Clara County, CMP standards and thresholds are used for freeway segments. 7. Intersection Level of Service Analysis The results of the intersection level of service analysis under 22 General Plan conditions with and without the proposed Initiative are discussed below and summarized in Table 13. The results indicate that four of the study intersections are projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service during at least one of the peak hours under 22 General Plan conditions: Santa Teresa Boulevard and Day Road (W)/Buena Vista Avenue Monterey Street and Leavesley Road/Welburn Avenue Camino Arroyo and Pacheco Pass Highway Monterey Street and US 11 NB Ramps The remaining study intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service under 22 General Plan conditions. With implementation of the proposed Initiative, traffic conditions would improve to some degree at most intersections. At the deficient locations listed above, two would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service during at least one peak hour with the proposed Initiative. However, at Monterey Road and Leavesley Road/Welburn Avenue and at Camino Arroyo and Pacheco Pass Highway, these intersections would improve to acceptable levels with implementation of the proposed Initiative. At the other locations the average delays would be slightly improved over conditions without the proposed Initiative. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 53

60 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Table 13: Intersection Level of Service Results Int. No. Intersection 1 Santa Teresa Boulevard and Fitzgerald Avenue 2 Monterey Road and Masten Avenue/ Fitzgerald Avenue 3 US 11 SB Ramps and Masten Avenue 4 US 11 NB Ramps and Masten Avenue 5 No Name Uno and US 11 NB Ramps 6 US 11 SB Ramps and Buena Vista Avenue 7 Monterey Road and Buena Vista Avenue 8 Wren Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue 9 Santa Teresa Boulevard and Day Road (W)/Buena Vista Avenue 1 Santa Teresa Boulevard and Sunrise Drive/Cohansey Avenue 11 Monterey Road and Cohansey Avenue 12 Monterey Road and Leavesley Road/ Welburn Avenue 13 US 11 SB Ramps and Leavesley Road 14 US 11 NB Ramps/San Ysidro Avenue and Leavesley Road 15 Arroyo Circle and Leavesley Road 16 Cameron Boulevard and Leavesley Road 17 Camino Arroyo and 6th Street/Gilman Road 18 Cameron Boulevard and Gilman Road 19 Cameron Boulevard and Pacheco Pass Highway 2 Camino Arroyo and Pacheco Pass Highway 21 US 11 NB Off-Ramp and Pacheco Pass Highway 22 US 11 SB Ramps and Tenth Street 23 US 11 SB Ramps and Monterey Road 24 Monterey Road and US 11 NB Ramps Bold indicates unacceptable LOS. Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 216. LOS Standard C C C C C C C C C C C C C C D D D D C C C C C C Adopted 22 General Plan Adopted 22 General Plan With Initiative Peak Avg. Avg. Hour Delay LOS Delay Change LOS AM 17.7 B B- PM 22.7 C C+ AM 32.6 C C PM 33.7 C C AM 18.7 B B PM 21. C C+ AM 17.2 B B PM 18.1 B B AM 21.9 C C+ PM 23.1 C C+ AM 21. C C+ PM 21.8 C C+ AM 34.6 C C PM 28.6 C C AM 2.6 C B PM 2.1 C B AM 49.6 D D PM 37.7 D D+ AM 29.8 C C- PM 2.1 C B- AM 14.4 B B PM 11. B B AM 41.5 D C PM 46. D C- AM 21.2 C B PM 29.5 C C AM 28.9 C C PM 31.9 C C AM 17.6 B B- PM 26. C C AM 15.6 B A PM 2.5 C B AM 26.6 C C PM 32. C C AM 18.6 B B PM 13.8 B B AM 18.1 B B PM 28. C C AM 18.7 B B- PM 35.9 D C AM 14.4 B B PM 7. A A AM 16.7 B B PM 21.5 C C+ AM 15.6 B B PM 28.3 C C AM 34. C C- PM 64.3 E E+ P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 54

61 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE 8. Freeway Segment Levels of Service. The results of the freeway segment analysis under 22 General Plan conditions without the Initiative are summarized in Table 14 on the following page. The results of the analysis show that the following directional freeway segments analyzed are projected to operate at an unacceptable LOS F during one of the peak hours under 22 General Plan conditions: Northbound US 11, from San Martin Avenue to Tennant Avenue (AM Peak Hour) Northbound US 11, from Tennant Avenue to East Dunne Avenue (AM Peak Hour) Southbound US 11, from Monterey Road to Bloomfield Avenue (PM Peak Hour) The remaining freeway segments analyzed are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service during both peak hours. With implementation of the Initiative, projected traffic volumes on the freeway would decrease slightly on some segments and increased slightly on others from 22 General Plan conditions. The largest change appears to be related to work-related traffic in which AM peak-hour northbound traffic volumes and PM peak-hour southbound traffic volumes are higher with the Initiative because more residents would be traveling out of Gilroy for work. Similarly, because there would be fewer jobs in Gilroy with the Initiative under 22 General Plan conditions, the reverse commute direction traffic volumes (AM peak-hour volumes traveling to Gilroy and PM peak-hour volumes leaving Gilroy) would be lower. Despite these traffic volumes changes, the same freeway segments projected to be deficient under 22 General Plan buildout conditions without the proposed Initiative would also be deficient under conditions with implementation of the Initiative. The results of the freeway segment analysis under 22 General Plan conditions with the Initiative are summarized in Table 15. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 55

62 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Table 14: Freeway Segment US 11 Level of Service Results Without Initiative Adopted 22 General Plan Mixed-Flow HOV Segment Direction Peak Hour Avg. Speed a (mph) # of Lanes a Volume b (vph) Density c (vpmpl) LOS Avg. Speed b # of Lanes b Volume b (vph) Density c (vpmpl) LOS Bloomfield Ave (SR 25) to Monterey Rd NB AM ,93 38 D A NB PM ,19 24 C A Monterey Rd to Pacheco Pass Hwy NB AM , C A NB PM , B A Pacheco Pass Hwy to Leavesley Rd NB AM , D A NB PM , B A Leavesley Rd to Buena Vista Ave NB AM , C A NB PM , D A Buena Vista Ave to Masten Ave NB AM , C A NB PM ,39 26 C A Masten Ave to San Martin Ave NB AM ,797 3 D B NB PM , C A San Martin Ave to Tennant Ave NB AM ,66 62 F B NB PM ,38 27 D A Tennant Ave to East Dunne Ave NB AM , F B NB PM ,915 3 D B East Dunne Ave to Tennant Ave SB AM , C A SB PM , D , C Tennant Ave to San Martin Ave SB AM , D A SB PM , D , C San Martin Ave to Masten Ave SB AM , C A SB PM , C , B Masten Ave to Buena Vista Ave SB AM , C A SB PM , C , B Buena Vista Ave to Leavesley Rd SB AM , C A SB PM , C B Leavesley Rd to Pacheco Pass Hwy SB AM , C A SB PM , C A Pacheco Pass Hwy to Monterey Rd SB AM , B A SB PM , C A Monterey Rd to Bloomfield Ave (SR 25) SB AM ,728 2 C A SB PM , F A mph = miles per hour; vph = vehicles per hour; vpmpl = vehicles per mile per lane. Bold indicates unacceptable level of service. a Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program Monitoring Study, 214. b Source: GPlroy Travel Demand Model - 22 Existing General Plan with UGB Model Network c Freeway density is calculated by dividing the peak hour volume (vph) by the product of the number of lanes times the average travel speed (mph). Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 216. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 56

63 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Table 15: Freeway Segment US 11 Level of Service Results With Initiative Adopted 22 General Plan Mixed-Flow HOV Segment Direction Peak Hour Avg. Speed a (mph) # of Lanes a Volume b (vph) Density c (vpmpl) LOS Avg. Speed b # of Lanes b Volume b (vph) Density c (vpmpl) LOS Bloomfield Ave (SR 25) to Monterey Rd NB AM , D A NB PM , C A Monterey Rd to Pacheco Pass Hwy NB AM ,9 2 C A NB PM ,22 15 B A Pacheco Pass Hwy to Leavesley Rd NB AM , D A NB PM , B A Leavesley Rd to Buena Vista Ave NB AM , C A NB PM , C A Buena Vista Ave to Masten Ave NB AM , C A NB PM ,68 23 C A Masten Ave to San Martin Ave NB AM ,853 3 D ,86 17 B NB PM ,44 22 C A San Martin Ave to Tennant Ave NB AM , F ,13 16 B NB PM , C A Tennant Ave to East Dunne Ave NB AM , F ,14 16 B NB PM , D A East Dunne Ave to Tennant Ave SB AM , C A SB PM ,539 4 D , C Tennant Ave to San Martin Ave SB AM ,69 23 C A SB PM , D , C San Martin Ave to Masten Ave SB AM , C A SB PM , C , C Masten Ave to Buena Vista Ave SB AM , C A SB PM , C , C Buena Vista Ave to Leavesley Rd SB AM , C A SB PM ,12 26 C ,25 16 B Leavesley Rd to Pacheco Pass Hwy SB AM ,66 18 B A SB PM , C B Pacheco Pass Hwy to Monterey Rd SB AM , B A SB PM ,19 2 C A Monterey Rd to Bloomfield Ave (SR 25) SB AM ,656 2 C A SB PM , F A mph = miles per hour; vph = vehicles per hour; vpmpl = vehicles per mile per lane. Bold indicates unacceptable level of service. a Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program Monitoring Study, 214. b Source: GPlroy Travel Demand Model - 22 Existing General Plan with UGB Model Network c Freeway density is calculated by dividing the peak hour volume (vph) by the product of the number of lanes times the average travel speed (mph). Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 216. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 57

64 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE 9. Potential Transportation Improvements Following is a summary of potential intersection and freeway segment improvements that could occur under 22 General Plan buildout conditions, with and without implementation of the Initiative. a. Possible Intersection Improvements. Identified below are possible intersection improvements to maintain the applicable level of service standard and acceptable intersection operations under 22 General Plan buildout conditions with the Initiative. The identified improvements have not been reviewed in detail and their feasibility has yet to be determined. Subsequent detailed analyses in conjunction with area plans or an update to the City traffic impact fee program is needed to determine the feasibility of each of the following improvements: Santa Teresa Boulevard and Day Road (W)/Buena Vista Avenue - A dedicated eastbound right-turn lane would be needed on the west leg. Monterey Road and US 11 northbound ramps A second northbound left-turn lane from Monterey Road onto the northbound freeway on ramp would be needed on the west leg. b. Possible Freeway Segment Improvements. In order to improve the level of service conditions to acceptable levels at the study freeway segments that are projected to be deficient under 22 General Plan conditions, the following measures can be implemented: Increase capacity on the deficient freeway segment This could be accomplished with the addition of lanes on deficient freeway mainline segments. Reduce traffic volumes on the freeway In order to reduce traffic volumes on the freeway, alternative non-auto modes of travel must be available. Examples of such measures include, increasing the existing Caltrain service to and from Gilroy, adding additional regional/express bus lines between Gilroy and other communities, achieving a balance between the number of jobs and the number of housing units within Gilroy, and implementing strong TDM programs that would result in less traffic being added to the freeways. 1. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis A comparison of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for 22 General Plan conditions with and without the proposed Initiative was made to determine how the establishment of the UGB would affect travel patterns within the City. The Gilroy Model was used to calculate VMT. Table 16 presents the VMT per service population data for Gilroy under 22 General Plan conditions with and without the proposed UGB. The VMT analysis shows that with the proposed Initiative, VMT for the City of Gilroy would increase slightly. This is likely due to the fact that jobs in the City would be reduced to a larger degree than population would be. Therefore, with the Initiative, a larger portion of the City s residents would have to commute out of Gilroy for work. This type of a travel pattern change would increase VMTs. 11. Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities Implementation of the proposed UGB Initiative would not affect existing or proposed transit facilities. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities should be unaffected by the proposed Initiative except that P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 58

65 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE in areas where the proposed Initiative would eliminate growth, those facilities would need to be fully funded by the City, if they are still considered necessary outside the UGB. Table 16: Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Comparison Adopted 22 General Plan Buildout Adopted 22 General Plan Buildout w/initiative Change Daily VMT 2,881,567 2,428,339 Households 28,528 26,131 Total Population 93,932 85,629 Total Jobs 69,37 48,93 VMT per Service Population Service Population = Population + Jobs in Gilroy Zones Daily VMT = 1% of VMT made by trips with origin and destination in Gilroy +5% of trips with origin or destination in Gilroy. Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Traffic Impact Fee Program The City of Gilroy uses a Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program to partially fund future roadway improvements. The program is based on the City of Gilroy Utilities & Traffic Facilities Fee Study Final Report, October 24 (24 Nexus Study) 2, which calculated the cost per trip for various development categories and assigned fee rates accordingly. Some planned roadway improvements are fully funded by the TIF, some are funded by a combination TIF and developer funds, and others are fully funded by developer funds. With implementation of the proposed Initiative, there would be less future development to contribute to the TIF and less overall developer contributions to transportation improvements. However, there also would be a reduced need for transportation infrastructure due to the decreased vehicle trips associated with the lower amount of overall development in the City. A complete nexus study would be needed to identify the changes that would be necessary to the TIF program and resulting traffic impact fees with implementation of the proposed Initiative. For the purpose of this analysis, a preliminary assessment of anticipated infrastructure improvement costs with and without the Initiative was made. These costs were then allocated to future development levels with and without the proposed Initiative to determine generally how the TIF might be affected by the establishment of the UGB. The methodology used for this reassessment of the TIF is the same as that used in 24 Nexus Study mentioned above. a. Growth Projections. The assessment of planned growth, as evaluated in the 24 Nexus Study was reproduced for this analysis using updated development growth projections and improvement cost data. The growth projections used for this assessment are based on those presented in Chapter II of this report. The growth projections listed in Table 17 represent buildout of all currently vacant and underutilized land according to the Adopted 22 General Plan with and without the proposed Initiative. 2 Muni Financial, 24. Utilities & Traffic Facilities Fee Study, Final Report. October. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 59

66 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Table 17: City of Gilroy Development Growth Projections Adopted 22 General Plan Buildout Growth Adopted 22 General Plan Buildout Growth With Initiative Residential Dwelling Units Single Family 7,171 5,71 Multifamily 4,272 3,443 Total 11,443 8,514 Non-residential Building Square Feet (s) Commercial a 4,719 4,215 Industrial 19,489 11,679 Total 24,28 15,895 a Commercial square footages include estimates of commercial space in the Glen Loma Ranch, Hecker Pass, and Downtown Specific Plan Areas. Source: Mintier-Harnish, 216. City of Gilroy, 216. b. Demand for Traffic Facilities. Per the 24 Nexus Study, traffic demand from new development, which generates the need for transportation infrastructure, is based on evening peak-hour trip generation rates. The same trip rates and methodology used in the 24 Nexus Study were also used for this analysis. Based on this methodology, the total trips used to calculate the TIF are 33,51 under 22 General Plan buildout conditions. With implementation of the proposed Initiative, the total trips would be reduced to 24,585 trips. A comparison of the demand for traffic facilities under the 22 General Plan and 22 General Plan with the Initiative is provided in Table 18. Table 18: Demand for Traffic Facilities 22 General Plan Buildout With and Without Initiative Trip Rate Adopted 22 General Plan Buildout Adopted 22 General Plan With Initiative Total New Total New Trips Growth b Trips Land Use Category Allocation a Growth b Residential Single Family 1.32 n/a 7,171 9,466 5,71 6,694 Multifamily 1.7 n/a 4,272 4,571 3,443 3,684 Subtotal Residential 11,443 14,37 8,514 1,378 Non-residential Commercial - Low % 3,539 5,168 3,162 4,616 Commercial - High % 1,18 3,48 1,54 3,19 Subtotal Commercial 4,719 8,648 4,215 7,725 Industrial - General.57 9% 17,54 9,998 1,511 5,991 Industrial - Warehouse.42 1% 1, , Subtotal Industrial 19,489 1,816 11,679 6,482 Subtotal Commercial & Industrial 24,28 19,464 15,895 14,27 Total Trips 33,51 24,585 a The allocation of low versus high commercial and general industrial versus warehouse is the same as that used in the 24 Nexus study. b Projected growth expressed in number of dwelling units for residential uses and 1,'s of square feet of building space for non-residential uses. Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 216. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 6

67 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE c. Transportation Facilities to Accommodate Growth. In the 24 Nexus Study, the total cost to provide the necessary infrastructure to accommodate future growth is allocated to future trip generation estimates to yield a cost per trip. The cost per trip is then applied to trip generation rates for various land uses to yield the TIF for those land uses. (1) Adopted 22 General Plan Buildout Transportation Infrastructure Costs. The City of Gilroy 22 General Plan and the City of Gilroy Traffic Circulation Master Plan (April 24) prescribe intersection, roadway, and bridge improvements needed to maintain acceptable traffic conditions throughout the City under 22 General Plan buildout conditions. The same methodology used in the 24 Nexus Study was applied to the latest version of the City s Traffic Facility Capital Improvement Budget (CIB) and the updated demand for traffic facilities estimates (presented in the previous section) to yield a new cost per trip for 22 General Plan buildout conditions. This value represents a new base line for the purposes of comparing to 22 General Plan buildout conditions with the conditions under the proposed Initiative. Based on this new analysis, the updated cost per trip under 22 General Plan buildout conditions is $4,612. The cost per trip analysis associated with 22 General Plan buildout is summarized on Table 19. Table 19: Transportation System Planned Improvement Costs to Accommodate Growth Adopted 22 Adopted 22 General Plan General Plan a With Initiative Traffic Improvement CIB Costs Class 41: Personnel Expense $8,846,568 $8,846,568 Class 42: Materials and Services $1,47,883 $1,47,883 Class 43: Capital Outlay $161,35,745 $161,35,745 Capital Outlay Adjustment from UGB $ $3,917,37 Total Costs $171,65,196 $175,522,53 Traffic Improvement CIB Revenues Fund balance $6,187,166 $6,187,166 Interest $7,22,482 $7,22,482 Transfer from General Fund $1,519,952 $1,519,952 Other Revenue $2,178,491 $2,178,491 Total Revenues $17,88,91 $17,88,91 Net Cost $154,517,15 $158,434,412 Total Trips 33,51 24,585 Cost Per Trip $4,612 $6,444 a Source: City of Gilroy Capital Improvement Budget, Fund 433, provided by City staff March 3, 216. Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 216. (2) 22 General Plan Buildout with Initiative Transportation Infrastructure Costs. As discussed above, the changes to the City s transportation network as a result of the proposed Initiative would affect the TIF program. In some cases the TIF would be reduced because the extent of the improvements would be reduced. In some cases the TIF would be increased because the improvement is in an area where the adjacent development would be eliminated, so there would be no cost sharing with adjacent development. The changes to the TIF were estimated using current construction unit prices used in the City of Gilroy CIB. The changes to the TIF as a result of the transportation network changes resulting from implementation of the proposed Initiative are summarized in Table 22. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 61

68 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE The results of this evaluation indicate that the City s TIF program would be responsible for an additional $3,917,3 of improvements through 22 General Plan buildout with implementation of the proposed Initiative. This increase is primarily due to the fact that some roadways necessary to accommodate General Plan growth would be situated in areas where the Initiative would eliminate planned development growth. In turn, there would be no cost sharing between developers and the City TIF program, so the TIF would need to fully fund these improvements. Factoring this into the analysis, the cost per trip for traffic facility improvements, with implementation of the proposed Initiative, would be $6,444, versus $4,612 under the Adopted 22 General Plan with the Initiative, as shown in Table 19. Table 2: Traffic Impact Fee Program Administration Cost Adopted 22 General Plan Buildout Adopted 22 General Plan Buildout With Initiative Program Administration Cost a 2,736,129 2,736,129 Total Trips 33,51 24,585 Program Administration Cost Per Trip $82 $111 a Source: City of Gilroy Capital Improvement Budget, Fund 433, provided by City staff March 3, 216. Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 216. d. Program Administration Costs. The City s CIB also includes program administration costs to operate the program through 251. The program administration fee was obtained from the current CIB. In the 24 Nexus study, this cost is determined on a per trip basis and added to the traffic impact fee for each development type in the TIF schedule. The same procedure used in the 24 Nexus study to allocate the program administration costs was used for this analysis. The program administration cost and the cost per trip are summarized in Table 2 above. The program administration charge for each of the land use types in the TIF schedule is summarized in Table 21. The cost per trip and charge for each land use type are higher with the proposed Initiative because there would be less development to absorb the cost of administering the program. Table 21: Traffic Impact Fee Program Administration Charge Adopted 22 General Plan Adopted 22 General Plan With Initiative Trip Rate Admin. Cost per Trip Program Admin. Charge Admin. Cost per Trip Program Admin. Charge Residential Residential - Low (Single Family) 1.32 $82 $11 $111 $15 Residential - High (Multifamily) 1.7 $82 $9 $111 $12 Non-residential Commercial - Low 1.46 $82 $12 $111 $16 Commercial - High 2.95 $82 $24 $111 $33 Industrial - General.57 $82 $5 $111 $6 Industrial - Warehouse.42 $82 $3 $111 $5 Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 216. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 62

69 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Table 22: Evaluation of Traffic Impact Fee Changes Due to Proposed Initiative Current Total TIF Improvement Cost a Approximate Cost with Initiative Adjustment to Original TIF Estimate Facility Location Change Due to UGB Initiative Funded By Segment Rucker Av., Santa Teresa Bl. to Monterey Rd. Deleted $ Developer c $ +$ Segment Rucker Av., Monterey Rd. to Murray Av. Improvement no longer needed $ Developer c $ +$ Segment Murray Av., Masten Av. to Rucker Av. Improvement no longer needed $ Developer c $ +$ Segment Murray Av., Rucker Av. to Buena Vista Av. Deleted $ Developer c $ +$ Segment Denio Av., Santa Teresa Bl. To Monterey Rd. Deleted $ Developer c $ +$ Segment Denio Av., Monterey Rd. to Murray Av. Upgrade no longer needed $ Developer c $ +$ Segment Leavesley Rd., Arroyo Circle to Marcella Av. Downgrade to 2-lane roadway $ Developer/TIF $3,38,18 +$3,38,18 d Segment Marcella Av., Extension to Cameron Bl. Deleted $ Developer c $ +$ Segment Cameron Bl., Leavesley Rd. to Gilman Rd. Downgrade to 2-lane collector $ Developer c $2,424,9 +$2,424,9 d Segment Cameron Bl., Gilman Rd. to Renz Ln. b Downgrade to 2-lane roadway. $ Developer/TIF $397,42 +$397,42 e Segment Gilman Rd., Camino Arroyo to Cameron Bl. Downgrade to 2-lane roadway $ Developer/TIF $3,9,2 +$3,9,2 d Intersection Santa Teresa Bl. and Fitzgerald Av. Remove 1 NB thru lane $ Developer/TIF -$133,23 ($133,23) Intersection Wren Av. and Buena Vista Av. Eliminate north leg and turn lanes to $ Developer/TIF -$17,6 ($17,6) north leg Intersection Monterey Rd. and Buena Vista Av. (w/bridge) Eliminate jug-handle interchange, replace with signalized intersection $ Developer/TIF $ +$ h Intersection Murray Av. and Buena Vista Av. Eliminate north leg and turn lanes to north leg $ Developer/TIF $1,33,25 +$1,33,25 i Intersection Cameron Bl. and Leavesley Rd. Remove 1 EB and 1 WB lane $ Developer/TIF $1,986,45 +$1,986,45 d Intersection Marcella Av. and Leavesley Rd. Remove intersection improvements $ Developer/TIF $1,677,6 +$1,677,6 d Intersection Marcella Av. Ext. and Cameron Bl. Deleted $ Developer/TIF $ +$ Intersection Camino Arroyo and Gilman Rd. Remove 1 WB LT lane and dedicated NB $ Developer/TIF $ +$ f LT lane Intersection Cameron Bl. and Gilman Rd. Remove 1 SB thru lane, 1 NB thru lane, and the dedicated EB RT $ Developer/TIF $1,969,4 +$1,969,4 d Intersection Camino Arroyo and Pacheco Pass Hwy. Remove 1 SB RT lane and 1 SB LT lane $ Developer/TIF $ +$ g Intersection Cameron Bl. and Pacheco Pass Hwy. Remove 1 SB RT lane and 1 SB LT lane $ Developer/TIF -$196,31 ($196,31) Bridge Cameron Bl. at Ronan Channel Downgrade to 2-lane roadway $ Developer/TIF -$1,663,54 ($1,663,54) Bridge Wren Av. at Llagas Creek (north of Day Rd E.) Deleted $ Developer/TIF $ +$ Totals $ $13,722,37 +$13,722,37 Table notes included on next page. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 63

70 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE a b c d e f g h i Current total TIF improvement costs obtained from City of Gilroy Capital Improvement Budget, Fund 433. (Source: City of Gilroy Traffic Circulation Master Plan, April 24) Original TIF segment is from Gilman Road to Luchessa Avenue. With proposed UGB TIF would need to cover 1% of costs north of Ronan Channel. TIF/Developers share cost south of the channel. Improvements that are completely funded by development projects are not included in the current TIF budget. (Source: Utilities & Traffic Facilities Fee Study, October 24 Final Report. From "With 66 Traffic Impact" Budget Summary Table) With no development adjacent to roadway/intersection improvements, there would be no development projects to pay for sidewalks, streetlights, shoulders, and outside traffic lanes. Therefore, TIF will need to fund 1% of roadway improvements. The adjustment to the TIF fee for the TIF to cover 1% of the improvement costs north of the channel is +$571,7. The adjustment to the TIF to reduce the travel lanes south of the channel is -$174,28. North, west, and south legs already built out per the TIF. East leg would be narrowed from what is in the TIF, but the TIF includes the cost for 3 lanes on the east leg which would be consistent with the requirement with the UGB Initiative implemented. All legs of intersection already built out per the TIF. Only changes with UGB Initiative would be minor striping changes. No significant impact to TIF costs. The current Capital Improvement Budget has this intersection downgraded from an interchange to a standard signalized intersection. Therefore, no change to TIF with proposed UGB. Assumed cost of intersection with changes due to proposed UGB would be similar to Cameron Boulevard/Leavesley Road and Cameron Boulevard/Luchessa Avenue. Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 216. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 64

71 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE e. Comparison of Traffic Impact Fee with and without Proposed UGB. In the 24 Nexus study the cost per trip for the program is converted to a fee per unit of development (dwelling unit or 1, square feet of non-residential space) based on the trip rates for the various development categories. The program administration charge per unit of development is added to this fee to develop the total traffic facilities improvement fee for each of the development categories in the City s TIF program. This process was carried out using the updated information from this study for conditions with and without the Initiative. The results of this comparison are summarized in Table 23. The results indicate that the TIF would need to increase by about 4 percent for each development type if the proposed Initiative is implemented. It should be noted that this analysis is intended to show generally how the TIF could be affected by implementation of the proposed Initiative, for comparative purposes. This information is not intended to represent a precise calculation of the ultimate TIF with implementation of the proposed Initiative. For that level of accuracy, the Traffic circulation Master Plan for the City would need to be updated and a new nexus study would need to be completed. 13. Potential Effect of Initiative on Draft 24 General Plan This section presents a qualitative assessment of the potential effects of the proposed Initiative on traffic conditions under Draft 24 General Plan buildout conditions. a. Intersection Operations. If implemented under Draft 24 General Plan conditions, the Initiative would have a similar effect on intersection operations as under the Adopted 22 General Plan. A number of planned new roadways in the City would no longer be needed with implementation of the Initiative. These include extensions of Wren Avenue and Church Street to Fitzgerald Avenue, the extension of Denio Avenue west of Monterey Road, the extension of Murray Avenue north of Buena Vista Avenue, a new north south arterial between Leavesley Road and Masten Avenue west of Marcella Avenue, the extension of I.O.O.F. Avenue to Cameron Boulevard, and the extension of Southside Drive westward over US 11 to Santa Teresa Boulevard. Some planned intersection improvements likely would not be necessary with implementation of the proposed UGB, especially in areas where development would be prohibited (generally north of Buena Vista Avenue/Day Road and east of the Outlets), south of Leavesley Road. b. Freeway Operations. Draft 24 General Plan buildout freeway operations could potentially be better with the proposed Initiative, as the population reduction would be more substantial compared to the reduction in jobs. The jobs-housing balance may be more favorable, which could lead to fewer Gilroy residents needing to commute out of town for work. However, it is unlikely that enough traffic would be removed from the freeway to eliminate planned future freeway improvements. The freeway segments projected to be deficient under Draft 24 General Plan buildout conditions would likely continue to be deficient even with implementation of the proposed Initiative. Freeway interchange improvements would likely still be necessary at the Masten Avenue interchange and the new Buena Vista Avenue interchange. However, the sizes of those interchanges could potentially be reduced with the proposed Initiative as compared to what would be needed to accommodate growth under buildout of the Draft 24 General Plan. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 65

72 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE Table 23: Traffic Facilities Fee Schedule Comparison With and Without Initiative Adopted 22 General Plan Adopted 22 General Plan With Initiative Program Program % Trip Rate Cost per Trip Fee Admin. Charge Total Fee Cost per Trip Fee Admin. Charge Total Fee Change in Fee Change in Fee Residential (Per Dwelling Unit) Residential - Low (Single Family) 1.32 $4,612 $6,9 $11 $6,2 $6,444 $8,51 $15 $8,66 +$246 +4% Residential - High (Multifamily) 1.7 $4,612 $4,94 $9 $5,3 $6,444 $6,9 $12 $7,2 +$199 +4% Non-residential (Per 1, Sq. Ft.) Commercial - Low 1.46 $4,612 $6,73 $12 $6,85 $6,444 $9,41 $16 $9,57 +$272 +4% Commercial - High 2.95 $4,612 $13,61 $24 $13,85 $6,444 $19,1 $33 $19,34 +$549 +4% Industrial - General.57 $4,612 $2,63 $5 $2,68 $6,444 $3,67 $6 $3,73 +$15 +39% Industrial - Warehouse.42 $4,612 $1,94 $3 $1,97 $6,444 $2,71 $5 $2,76 +$79 +4% Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 216. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 66

73 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE c. Vehicle Miles Traveled. Implementation of the Draft 24 General Plan with the Initiative would decrease population within the City more substantially than jobs. Population would be reduced by about 13,47 whereas jobs would be reduced by about 5,87. This scenario could lead to a reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) compared to Draft 24 General Plan buildout without the Initiative as a lower portion of Gilroy residents would need to leave town for work and there would generally be fewer overall trips associated with Gilroy residents. d. Transportation Infrastructure Improvements Costs. The roadway network changes that would result from the proposed Initiative would reduce the overall cost of the City s transportation network. Since there would be less new development in the City, the TIF potentially would need to be increased to cover the cost of the roadway network. However, a comprehensive assessment of the City s Traffic Circulation Master Plan under Draft 24 General Plan buildout conditions as well as an updated traffic impact fee nexus study would be needed to identify the cost of the system as well as how the cost would be shared by future development and the City of Gilroy. 14. Conclusions Implementation of the proposed Initiative, under the 22 General Plan, would improve traffic conditions at most intersections At the four deficient intersection locations, two intersections would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service during at least one peak hour with the proposed Initiative. However, at Monterey Road and Leavesley Road/Welburn Avenue and at Camino Arroyo and Pacheco Pass Highway, these intersections would improve to acceptable levels with implementation of the proposed Initiative. At the other locations the average delays would be slightly improved over conditions without the proposed Initiative. With implementation of the proposed Initiative, projected traffic volumes on the freeway would decrease slightly on some segments and increase slightly on others from 22 General Plan conditions. Despite these traffic volumes changes, the same freeway segments projected to be deficient under 22 General Plan buildout conditions without the proposed Initiative would also be deficient under conditions with implementation of the Initiative. The VMT analysis identified that with the proposed Initiative, VMT for the City of Gilroy would increase slightly due to the fact that jobs in the City would be reduced to a larger degree than population would be. Therefore, with the Initiative, a larger portion of the City s residents would have to commute out of Gilroy for work. This type of a travel pattern change would increase VMTs. The City s TIF program would also be affected by the proposed Initiative. Specifically, the City s TIF program would be responsible for an additional $3,917,3 of improvements through 22 General Plan buildout with implementation of the proposed Initiative. This increase is primarily due to the fact that some roadways necessary to accommodate General Plan growth would be situated in areas where the Initiative would eliminate planned development growth. The cost per trip for traffic facility improvements, with implementation of the proposed Initiative, would be $6,444, versus $4,612 under the Adopted 22 General Plan without the Initiative. TIFs would need to increase by about 4 percent for each development type if the proposed Initiative is implemented. The qualitative assessment of potential effects of the proposed Initiative under the Draft 24 General Plan determined that the proposed Initiative would have a similar effect on intersection operations as under the Adopted 22 General Plan. The freeway segments projected to be deficient under Draft 24 General Plan buildout conditions would likely continue to be deficient even with implementa- P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 67

74 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE tion of the proposed Initiative. Freeway interchange improvements would likely still be necessary at the Masten Avenue interchange and the new Buena Vista Avenue interchange. However, the sizes of those interchanges could potentially be reduced with the proposed Initiative as compared to what would be needed to accommodate growth under buildout of the Draft 24 General Plan. E. PUBLIC UTILITIES, SERVICES, AND AMENITIES Following is a discussion of the potential effects on utilities, public services, and public amenities, including open space and agriculture, which would occur with implementation of the proposed UGB Initiative, both under the Adopted 22 General Plan and under the Draft 24 General Plan. While it is generally assumed herein that no urban development would take place outside of the proposed UGB, the assumption for the purposes of the analysis of the effects of the Initiative on public infrastructure is that future development of public facilities, as needed to serve development under the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan, if adopted, would be permitted with implementation of the Initiative. 1. Wastewater Treatment/Sewer System As previously discussed, implementation of the proposed Initiative would result in the occurrence of less development within the City. As such, implementation of the proposed Initiative under either the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan would not exceed the current capacity of the wastewater treatment plant serving the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill. It is important to note that only part of the capacity necessary under either General Plan scenario has been completely designed, built, and permitted. The next phase of wastewater treatment plant capacity expansion is currently underway and expected to be completed between 22 and 223. A long-term future expansion phase is anticipated, based on the future growth needs of both cities. These improvement projects will be programmed and scheduled based on the adopted General Plans for the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill and projected growth rates for both cities. New development occurring within the City would be required to comply with the City of Gilroy Storm Drain System Master Plan. Moreover, project-specific review would continue to be required for new proposed development to determine if sufficient capacity exists and/or if improvements to the local collection system would be required as a condition of approval. 2. Water The City of Gilroy provides water service to its residential, commercial, industrial and institutional customers within the City limits. The City of Gilroy Water System Master Plan 3 identified that the City s water distribution and treatment system was well planned to meet the needs of both existing customers and future growth projected within the City. The Water System Master Plan also includes proposed improvements to enhance the City s storage and supply capacities to serve future growth. As previously noted, implementation of the proposed Initiative would result in less development citywide. As such implementation of the proposed Initiative, under both the 22 General Plan and 3 Gilroy, City of, 24, Water System Master Plan, op. cit. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 68

75 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE 24 General Plan, would result in less water demand, citywide, than under the Adopted 22 General Plan or Draft 24 General Plan. 3. Solid Waste Solid waste disposal service in the City of Gilroy is provided by Recology South Valley. Waste was historically disposed at the Pacheco Pass Landfill which is located east of the City. When the Pacheco Pass Landfill closed, Recology contracted with the Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority to dispose of municipal solid waste at Johnson Canyon Sanitary Landfill for several years. In 214, the City contracted with Waste Connections for landfill capacity at the John Smith Landfill in Hollister and directed Recology to dispose the City's waste there. John Smith is anticipated to reach its current capacity in 232 and will likely apply to be expanded prior to that date in order to ensure continued operations. As previously discussed, implementation of the proposed Initiative would result in less development citywide than under either the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan. As such, implementation of the proposed Initiative would result in less solid waste generation than under the existing General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan. In addition, new development occurring within the City would be subject to General Plan policies and actions that ensure adequate waste collection and disposal facilities. 4. Energy Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) currently provides gas and electricity services to the City of Gilroy. Implementation of the proposed Initiative, under both the 22 General Plan and 24 General Plan, would result in less demand for electricity and natural gas than under the existing General Plan and proposed 24 General Plan. The Initiative would reduce the amount of potential residential and nonresidential development in the City and would therefore decrease the need for gas and electricity services. Moreover, new development would continue to be subject to applicable General Plan policies regarding energy efficiency and would be constructed consistent with CalGreen and other energy efficient programs, wherever feasible. In addition, all future projects occurring within the City would require procurement of will serve letters from applicable utility companies and submittal to the City of Gilroy Engineering Department prior to final project approval. 5. Police Services Police protection services in the City of Gilroy are provided by the City of Gilroy Police Department (GPD). The GPD currently has 1 staff including 65 sworn officers and 35 professional staff. 4 Staff members are deployed in various areas within the Department including administration, anti-crime team, communications 911, crime analysis, detectives, traffic patrol, and a records unit. In addition, the GPD provides a Crime Scene Investigation Team, Major Accident Investigation Team, Mounted Unit, Bike Patrol Unit, Special Operations Team, and a Hostage Negotiations Team, and a School Resource Officer Program. The GPD is organized into four divisions: Administration, Field Operations, Professional Standards, and Special Operations. 4 Gilroy, City of, 216, Police Department Administration, op. cit. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 69

76 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE The Initiative is anticipated to generate less demand for police services than under either the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan because the UGB Initiative would restrict the amount of development permitted within the City. As indicated in Table 1 and Table 2, implementation of the proposed Initiative would result in a decrease in the land available for both residential and non-residential development under both the Adopted 22 General Plan and the Draft 24 General Plan, and therefore would likely result in a decrease in the demand for police protection services. In addition, new development in the City is subject to General Plan policies that ensure adequate police protection service. Fiscal impacts related to the demand for police services, with and without the imposition of the UGB, are discussed below. 6. Fire Services Fire protection services in the City are provided by the Gilroy Fire Department. The Department maintains three stations that are staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with headquarters located at 77 Chestnut Street. The proposed Initiative would result in less development, citywide, due to the UGB s restrictions on development outside of it. As such, there would be less demand for fire protection services under the proposed Initiative than under the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan. In addition, all new development would be subject to the City s Fire Code and to General Plan policies that ensure adequate fire protection in the City. 7. Library Services The City of Gilroy currently has one public library, located at 35 West 6th Street, which is part of the Santa Clara County Library District. Given that implementation of the proposed Initiative would result in reduced overall citywide development and population growth with implementation of the UGB, it would also result in reduced demand for library services as compared to either the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan, the existing library is expected to provide sufficient service under the proposed Initiative. 8. Schools Public educational services in the City are provided by the Gilroy Unified School District (GUSD). The GUSD provides K-12 education services for the City of Gilroy and surrounding unincorporated Santa Clara County and operates a total of 15 schools that serve City residents, including two high schools, three middle schools, eight elementary schools, one continuation school, and an early college academy. Impacts to schools and educational facilities typically occur when an action results in an increase in available housing in an area which creates additional demand for school facilities. As previously discussed, implementation of the proposed Initiative would not result in an increase in available housing. It would, instead, reduce the potential for future housing development within the City, and therefore reduce the potential demand for educational facilities. New development (residential and non-residential) is required to pay school impacts fees pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 5, and the payment of these fees provides mitigation for school facilities impacts. Future development occurring within the UGB that was previously analyzed as part of the 22 General Plan FEIR would remain subject to SB 5. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 7

77 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE GUSD has projected the need for three new schools to meet projected demand under either the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan. Two of these schools would be located in the Neighborhood District North and the third would be located in the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Area. Under the Adopted 22 General Plan with the Initiative, all of these sites would still be required to meet the projected demand for school facilities. Whereas, under the Draft 24 General Plan with the Initiative, only two of the sites - one in the Neighborhood District North area south of Day Road, and one in the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area would be required. 9. Parks/Open Space/Agriculture Implementation of the Initiative is not anticipated to increase the number of dwelling units or residents within the City under the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan. Implementation of the proposed Initiative would not increase the demand for parks and open space as compared to the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan, because the Initiative would result in fewer residents Citywide. In addition, the proposed Initiative would not impact existing parks and open space within the City, as new development occurring within the City, and within the limits of the UGB, would continue to be subject to existing General Plan policies and the City s Municipal Code requirements for new park development. The City s 22 General Plan identifies approximately 354 acres of open space within the City. As described above, it was assumed for the purposes of this analysis that all lands located outside of the UGB would remain undeveloped and would revert to open space use. Based on this analysis, the proposed Initiative would result in an increase of approximately 2,24 acres of open space. Approximately 224 acres are currently designated as Park/Recreation Facility under the Adopted 22 General Plan. Implementation of the proposed Initiative would not result in any impacts to land designated as Park/Recreation Facility under the 22 General Plan with the UGB. The Draft 24 General Plan also identifies approximately 224 acres of available land designated as Park/Recreation Facility within the City. Implementation of the proposed Initiative under the Draft 24 General Plan would not affect the amount of available Park/Recreation Facility land available. Similar to the analysis for the Adopted 22 General Plan, lands outside of the UGB that would remain undeveloped would revert to Open Space use under the Draft 24 General Plan with the Initiative. As such, approximately 2,9 acres of Open Space land would be gained through implementation of the Initiative. Important farmlands within and surrounding the City of Gilroy are depicted in Figure 7, Important Farmland Map. As shown in Figure 7, there are some areas designated as Farmland of Local Importance, Prime Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance located within the City limits and within the UGB. With implementation of the Initiative under either the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan, all of these areas would be preserved for agricultural use. Further, with implementation of the Initiative under either the 22 General Plan or the 24 General Plan, agricultural lands, both within and outside of the UGB, would remain designated for agricultural use. Per Policy 2.13, which, as discussed above, would be added to the General Plan (either the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan, if adopted) with implementation of the Initiative, the UBG is a line beyond which urban development would not be allowed. Except for public parks, public educational facilities (such as public schools and public colleges), and public wastewater, P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 71

78 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE sewer, storm drain, and water recycling facilities, only uses consistent with: 1) the General Plan " Open Space" land use designation as this designation existed on February 26, 216; and (2) the uses of" open space land" as set forth in Government Code section 6556, 5 are allowed outside the UGB. Therefore, no effect to designated agricultural lands would occur with the Initiative, either under the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan. 1. Conclusions Implementation of the proposed Initiative would result in less demand for public utilities, services and amenities. More specifically, implementation of the proposed Initiative, under either General Plan, would result in a decrease in residential and non-residential development and therefore result in fewer users requiring various services. Implementation of the proposed Initiative would result in less demand for wastewater treatment, water, solid waste, and energy service within the City due to the reduction in residential and non-residential development. While wastewater treatment plant capacity would not be exceeded with implementation of the proposed Initiative, it was identified that future expansion is required and currently underway and expected to be completed between 22 and 223. Implementation of the proposed Initiative would also reduce demand for public services including police protection, fire protection and library services under either the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan because the UGB Initiative would restrict the amount of development permitted within the City. It is anticipated that three new schools would be needed to meet projected demand under either the Adopted 22 General Plan or the Draft 24 General Plan. Two of the schools would be located in the Neighborhood District North and the third would be located in the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan Area. Under the Adopted 22 General Plan with the Initiative, all of these sites would still be required to meet the projected demand for school facilities. Whereas, under the Draft 24 General Plan with the Initiative, only two of the sites - one in the Neighborhood District North area south of Day Road, and one in the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area would be required. The proposed Initiative would not affect the amount of land designated as Park/Recreation Facility under either General Plan; however, there would be an increase in Open Space land under both General Plans. Implementation of the proposed Initiative would not result in the conversion of agricultural lands including Farmland of Local Importance, Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance and no effects to designated agricultural lands would occur with the Initiative. Fiscal impacts related to the change in available lands designated for Park/Recreation Facility use under both the adopted 22 General Plan and the Draft 24 General Plan, with and without the Initiative, are discussed in Section F, Fiscal, below. 5 As set forth in City of Gilroy Government Code Section 6556, subsection (b)(2), "Open-space land" is any parcel or area of land or water that is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open-space use for the managed production of resources, including agricultural lands. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 72

79 Service Layer Credits: 21 NAVTEQ AND 216 Microsoft Corporation.5 1 MILES LEGEND City Limits Proposed Urban Growth Boundary Important Farmland Urban and Built-Up Land Grazing Land SOURCE: Bing Maps (214); City of Gilroy (216); CA Dept. of Conservation (212) I:\CGL161\GIS\Farmlands.mxd (6/22/216) Farmland of Local Importance Prime Farmland FIGURE 7 Farmland of Statewide Importance City of Gilroy Urban Growth Unique Farmland Boundary Initiative 9212 Report Other Land Important Farmland Map

80 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE This page intentionally left blank. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 74

81 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. J UNE 216 ELECTIONS CODE 9212 REPORT PROPOSED GILROY URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY INITIATIVE F. FISCAL This section presents the results of the Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) prepared for this report, which examines the potential changes in public revenues and annual operating costs associated with each of the four development scenarios. Supporting documentation for the FIA is included in Appendix D of this report. The analysis focuses on impacts to the City s General Fund, which primarily finances the ongoing provision of basic City services. To pay for these services, the City s General Fund is dependent on discretionary revenue sources such as property taxes, sales taxes, transient occupancy taxes, and various local taxes. Figure 8 presents the City s major General Fund revenue sources according to the Adopted Fiscal Year (FY) Budget. According to the Adopted FY Budget, the City generates approximately $47.7 million in General Fund revenues. As shown, sales tax receipts account for 36.4 percent of General Fund revenues, while property tax, including property tax in-lieu fee payments, make up approximately 22.7 percent of revenues. An additional 41 percent of revenues are accounted for by utility user taxes, transient occupancy taxes, and other sources such as business license taxes, user fees and fines. Figure 8: Summary of Existing Annually Recurring General Fund Revenues Note: Figures do not add to 1 percent due to rounding. Source: BAE, 216. P:\CGL161 Gilroy 9212 Report\PRODUCTS\9212 Report\Final\Gilroy 9212 Report Final.docx (6/28/16) 75