Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
CDA Resolution 89-28 CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 28
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 8
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF GILROY CERTIFYING REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING FINDINGS
REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND
STATING OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN THE APPROVAL AND
ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF GILROY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN.
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Gilroy
(the "City Council") and the Community Development Agency of
the City of Gilroy (the "Agency"), that:
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") on
the City of Gilroy Community Redevelopment Plan (the
"Redevelopment Plan") for the Gilroy Community Redevelopment
Project (the "Project") was prepared by the City of Gilroy
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq., hereafter "CEQA"),
the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (14 California Code of Regulations,
Sections 15000 e__t. seq., hereafter the "State
Guidelines") and the City's Guidelines for Implementing CEQA
("Local Guidelines"}; and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 1989, the City forwarded the Draft
EIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those
agencies which have Jurisdiction by law with respect to the
Project, to all affected~axing agencies and to the Chair of
the Fiscal Review Commit%~% pursuant to Healt~ & Safety Code
Section 33333.3, and to Jther interested persons and &gencies,
and sought the comments of much persons and agencies; and
RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 28 (COUNCIL)
RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 8 (AGENCY)
-1-
WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies of
the completion of the Draft EIR was published in the
Gilroy-Morgan Hill Dispatch on February 28, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Gilroy Planning CommiSsiOh -C0nddcted
noticed public hearing on the Draft EIR on March 16, 1989; and
WHEREAS, 13 comments were received on the Draft EIR. The
comments received and the City's responses to such comments,
as well as a comprehensive summary of the EIR, are contained
in the Final EIR, which document is incorporated herein by
this reference; and
WHEREAS, by resolution adopted on May 4, 1989, the
Gilroy Planning Commission recommended to the City Council
and the Agency the certification of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Joint public hearing was held by the City
Council and the Agency on May 22, 1989 on the Redevelopment
Plan and Final EIR, following notice duly and regularly given
as required by law, and all interested persons expressing a
desire to comment thereon or object thereto were heard, and
the Final EIR was considered; and
WHEREAS, the Final EXR consists of the Draft EIR (dated
February, 1989) the Final EIR incorporating comments and
written responses thereto (dated Nay, 1989), and any
additional comments received at the Joint public hearing
together with the City Council and the Agency responses to
those comments Bet forth in the record of the public hearing;
and
WHEREAS, by this concurrent resolution, the City Council,
as the lead agency under CEQA for preparing the Final EIR and
the entity responsible for adopting the Redevelopment Plan and
RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 28 (COUNCILDZ-
RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 8 (AGENCY)
WHEREAS, by this concurrent resolution, the City Council,
as the lead agency under ~EQA for preparing the Final EIR and
the entity responsible for adopting the Redevelopment Plan and
approving the Project; and the Agency, as the agency
responsible for preparing and carrying out the Redevelopment
Plan under the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health
and Safety Code Section 33000 et. seq.), jointly desire
to comply with the requirements of CEQA, the State EIR
Guidelines, and the Local Guidelines for consideration,
certification, and use of the Final EIR by lead and
responsible agencies in connection with the approval and
subsequent implementation of the Redevelopment Plan.
BE IT NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT:
1. That the City Council and the Agency hereby find and
certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance
with CEQA and the State EIR Guidelines; that the Final EIR
adequately addresses the environmental issues of the Project
and the Redevelopment Plan; and. that the City Council and the
Agency have reviewed and considered the information contained
in the Final EIR prior to approving the Project and the Plan.
2. That the City Council and Agency hereby identify the
significant effects, adopt the mitigation measures, adopt the
monitoring program to be implemented for each mitigation
measure, make the findings, and declare the statement of
overriding considerations set forth in detail in the attached
Exhibit A which is incorporated in this Resolution by this
reference. The statements, findings and determinations set
forth in Exhibit A a~e based on the above certified Final EIR
and other information available to the City Council and the
Agency, and are made in compliance with Sections 15091, 15092,
and 15093 of the Sta~e EIR Guidelines and Section 21081.6 of
CEQA.
-3-
APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL:
Passed and adopted this l~h day of June, 1989 by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNClLMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
HALE, KLOECKER.~ MUSSALLEM, PALMERLEE
and VALDE Z.
None
GAGE and HUGHAN
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
APPROVAL OF AGENCY:
Passed and adopted thisl3th day of June, 1989 by the
following vote:
AYES: AGENCYMEMBERS:
NOES: AGENCYMEMBERS:
ABSENT: AGENCYMEMBERS:
HALE, KLOECKER, MUSSALLEM, PALMERLEE,
and VALDEZ.
None
GAGE and HUGHAN.
APPROVED:
~hairperson
ATTEST:
Susanne Stetnmetz,
o5/10/s9
%002/B49702
RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 28
RESOLUTION NO. 89 = 8
(COUNCIL)
(AGENCY)
-4-
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF GILROY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN:
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, FINDINGS OF FACT,
MONITORING PLAN, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
I. General Information and Description of the Project
The project under consideration by the City Council of
the City of Gilroy ("City Council") and the Community
Development Agency of the City of Gilroy ("Agency") is the
City of Gilroy Community Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment
Plan") for the City of Gilroy Community Redevelopment Project
(the "Project"). The Redevelopment Plan has been prepared
pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health
and Safety Code Section 33000 et. seq.) to enable the City of
Gilroy ("City") and the Agency to eliminate the physical,
economic and social blighting conditions that currently exist
in the City of Gilroy Community Redevelopment Project Area
("Project Area") so that the Project Area may be developed in
conformance with the Gilroy General Plan to the benefit of
Project Area residents and businesses and the Gilroy community
as a whole.
An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the
Redevelopment Plan has been prepared by the Agency in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines and applicable local CEQA
Implementation Guidelines. The City has served as "Lead
Agency" and the Agency has served as a "Responsible Agency" in
the preparation and consideration of the EIR.
The process began in December, 1988 with the preparation
of an Initial Study and the mailing of a Notice of Preparation
to all interested and affected agencies, followed by the
preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (the
"DEIR").
The DEIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for
review on March 1, 1989 (SCH #88122001). The 45-day comment
period closed on April 14, 1989. On February 28, 1989, the
Notice of Completion of the DEIR was published in the
Gilroy-Morgan Hill Dispatch.
Pursuant to Health and Safety Section 33333.3, the DEIR
and the Redevelopment Plan were distributed by certified mail,
return receipt requested, to all affected taxing agencies and
the fiscal review committee. Copies of the Notice of
Completion of the DEIR were also mailed to the City's mailing
-1-
list of intere~d persons regarding envir/ental issues.
The Gilroy Pla~ng Commission conducted a~'oticed public
hearing on the DEIR on March 16, 1989.
13 comments were received on the DEIR. The comments
received on the DEIR, the City's responses to such comments,
and a comprehensive summary of the EIR are contained in the
Final Environmental Impact Report (the "FEIR"), which document
is incorporated herein by this reference.
At its meeting on May 4, 1989, the Gilroy Planning
Commission recommended that the City Council and Agency
certify the FEIR and that the City Council adopt the
Redevelopment Plan.
The Redevelopment Plan and the FEIR for the Redevelopment
Plan came before the City Council and the Agency on May 22,
1989. On June 5, 1989, the City Council and the Agency
certified the EIR for the Redevelopment Plan and adopted the
following Findings, Monitoring Plan, and Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
II. The Record
The record of the City Council and the Agency relating to
the Redevelopment Plan and its potential environmental effects
includes:
A. The Preliminary Redevelopment Plan;
B. The City of Gilroy Community Redevelopment Plan;
C. The Report on the Redevelopment Plan for the City of
Gilroy Community Redevelopment Project ("Report on
the Plan");
D. Documentary and oral evidence received by the Gilroy
Planning Commission, the Agency and the City Council
during public hearings on the Redevelopment Plan and
the EIR for the Redevelopment Plan and the Agency's
response to written evidence received before and at
the public hearings;
E. The Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR")
prepared for the Redevelopment Plan, consisting of
the DEIR, the comments on the DEIR, and the City's
responses to such comments;
F. The Written Findings and Responses Pursuant to Health
and Safety Code Section 33363, adopted by the City
Council on June 5, 1989; and
G. Matters of common knowledge to the City Council and
the Agency which they consider, such as the Gilroy
General Plan (the "General Plan").
III. Significant Environmental Effects
The FEIR for the Redevelopment Plan, certified by the
City Council and Agency, identified 18 potentially significant
-2-
environmental ~ects attributed in part t he Redevelopment
Plan. These p4~ntially significant envi 1 effects, as
well as proposed mitigation measures are discussed in detail
in Parts II and III of the FEIR, and the responses to comments
on the DEIR, and summarized on pages S-2 through S-6 of the
FEIR.
Each potentially significant environmental effect
identified in the FEIR, the proposed mitigation measures and
corresponding monitoring program for that effect, and the City
Council's and Agency's findings with regard to that effect are
discussed in Section IV below.
IV. Findings and Monitoring Program
Notwithstanding the identification of the significant
environmental effects of the Redevelopment Plan, the City
Council and the Agency have approved the Redevelopment
Plan, as authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and
14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15091, 15092, and
15093. As required by the aforementioned references, the
following findings are made for which there is substantial
evidence in the record. Further, as required pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, a monitoring program is
adopted for each mitigation measure adopted by the City and
Agency.
A. Land Use Impacts.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. Development
induced by the Project may cause conversion of prime
agricultural lands to urban uses.
(2) Mitigation. Implement and enforce the General
Plan policies and implementation measures relating to the
preservation of agricultural land (General Plan, Section III,
Policies 38-41 and Implementation Measures FF-HH).
(3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning
approval of each specific development project, the City
Director of Planning will require conformance of the specific
project with the General Plan, including through the
imposition of appropriate conditions of approval, if necessary.
(4) Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted; however, based upon the
information and analysis in Part II(A) of the FEIR and the
responses to written comment #3, contained in the FEIR, the
finding is made that the significant environmental effect
described in A(1) above cannot be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, this significant effect will be
discussed in Sections VI (Alternatives) and VII (Statement of
Overriding Considerations) below.
-3-
B. Housi
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. Pursuant to
the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency may be involved in the
acquisition of dilapidated housing for rehabilitation within
the Project Area, which may involve the dislocation of
occupants.
(2) Mitigation. Require that redevelopment
activities which may cause displacement occur in conformance
with the relocation standards set forth in the Redevelopment
Plan and all applicable State relocation law requirements.
(3) Monitoring Program. At the time of Agency
acquisition of property, the Deputy Executive Director of the
Agency will ensure adherence to the Agency Relocation Plan and
State relocation law and guidelines.
(4) Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Part II(C) of the FEIR the finding
is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect described in B(1) above.
C. Traffic and Circulation Impacts.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. The projects
proposed by the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan will
facilitate an increase in future growth in the Project Area
which will indirectly increase traffic. Agency-funded
circulation and parking improvements will lessen the impact of
increases in traffic but will not mitigate these impacts to a
less-than-significant level.
(2) Mitigations.
a. Evaluate potential traffic impacts of
proposed specific development actions during the environmental
assessment process for each specific development action and
impose appropriate mitigation measures on approval of such
projects.
b. Implement and enforce the General Plan
policies and implementation measures relating to
transportation and circulation development (General Plan,
Section VI, Policies 35-49 and implementation measures O-R).
(3) Monitoring Program. At the time of
environmental assessment and planning approval of each
specific development project, the City Director of Planning
will assess the traffic impact of each project and impose
conditions of approval as necessary to mitigate such impacts
-4-
and shall requ/ conformance with the Gen~
imposition of a~'~Sropriate conditions of ap~
Plan, including
val, if necessary.
(4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are hereby adopted; however, based on the
information and analysis in Part II(C) of the FEIR, the
finding is made that the significant environmental effect
described in C(1) above cannot be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, this significant effect will be
discussed in Sections VI (Alternatives) and VII (Statement of
Overriding Consideration) below.
D. Noise Impacts.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. Some of the
projects proposed by the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment
Plan will result in increased noise levels, including
short-term increases in noise levels due to construction
activities and long-term increases in community ambient noise
levels resulting from increases in population density and
economic activity.
(2) Mitigations.
a. Limit construction to daylight hours; require
machinery to be turned off when not in use; require proper
muffling and location of machinery as far as possible from
neighboring buildings and pedestrian areas.
b. When individual projects are proposed,
require the developer to design projects to provide the
necessary sound attenuation, so that the interior noise levels
of the buildings will conform to the State Building Standards
(Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 2), as a condition of
issuance of any building permits.
c. Implement and enforce the General Plan
policies and implementation measures relating to noise control
measures (General Plan, Section III, Policies 31-37 and
implementation measures BB-EE).
(3) Monitoring Program. At the time of approval
and issuance of building permits for individual development
projects, the City Chief Building Official will impose the
mitigation measures set forth in 2(a) and 2(b) above as
conditions of issuance of the building permits. At the time
of planning approval of individual development projects, the
City Director of Planning will require conformance with the
General Plan, including through the imposition of conditions
of approval, if necessary.
(4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are hereby adopted and, based upon the
information and analysis in Part II(D) of the FEIR, the
-5-
read'hat
fihding
is
the
adoption of the ~e m~tigation
measures and monitoring prograr0 will avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects described in D(1)
above.
E. Soils Impacts.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. The
Redevelopment Plan may finance projects and facilitate
proposals which would promote development of existing vacant
sites. Development of such sites would overcover soils and
change the amount and quality of surface water run-off.
Agency-funded drainage improvements will lessen the impact of
such water run-off impacts but will not mitigate these impacts
to a less-than-significant level.
(2) Mitigation. Implement and enforce the General
Plan policies related to soil conservation and surface water
run-off (General Plan, Section III, Policies 19-30).
(3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning
approval of specific development projects, the City Director
of Planning will require conformance with the General Plan,
including through the imposition of conditions of approval, if
necessary.
(4) Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted; however, based on the
information and analysis in Part II(E) of the FEIR, the
finding is made that the significant environmental effect
described in E(1) above cannot be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, this significant effect will be
discussed in Sections VI (Alternatives) and VII (Statement of
Overriding Consideration) below.
F. Fish and Wildlife Impacts.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. The
Redevelopment Plan may finance or facilitate the
development of projects on vacant sites, which could cause
deterioration of existing wildlife habitats. For example,
such projects as the Gilroy Truck Stop, sewage plant
improvements, and economic development assistance in
industrial areas may result in the overcovering of some
presently agricultural and undeveloped lands, resulting in a
significant effect on fish and wildlife habitat.
(2) Mitigation. At the time specific developments
are proposed, any development of previously undeveloped land
which may have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat must be
mitigated to the satisfaction of the State Department of Fish
and Game.
-6-
(3) M~. At the of planning
approval of s~fic development projects City Director
of Planning will require identification of potential impacts
on fish or wildlife habitat and refer projects where potential
impact is identified to the State Department of Fish and Game
for imposition of mitigation measures.
(4) Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted and, based upon the
information and analysis in Part II(F) of the FEIR, the
finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation
measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect described in F(1)
above.
G. Air Quality Impacts.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect.
a. Cumulative regional air pollutant emissions
may result from the development encouraged by the
Redevelopment Plan.
b. Local air pollutant emissions may increase
due to increased vehicular traffic. This impact will be
reduced by Agency-funded traffic improvements, but will not be
reduced to a level of insignificance.
c. Intermittent pollutant emissions may result
from construction activities.
(2) Mitigations.
a. Implement and enforce the General Plan
policies related to the reduction of air pollution through
promotion of alternative means of transportation such as
bicycling, walking, and public transportation (General Plan,
Section VI, Policies 37-42).
b. Incorporate particulate control requirements
into Agency agreements with individual developers and
contractors to reduce potential construction phase pollutant
emissions. Similar requirements will be imposed by the City
as a condition of building permit issuance.
(3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning
approval of each specific development project, the City
Director of Planning will require conformance with the General
Plan, including through the imposition of conditions of
approval, if necessary. At the time of approval and issuance
of building permits for individual development projects, the
City Chief Building Official will impose the mitigation
measures set forth in 2(b) above as conditions of issuance of
the building permit.
-7-
ยท (4) F~. The above mitigatio easures and
monitoring pr~r~-~re hereby adopted; bas ~pon the
information and analysis in Part II(G) of the FEIR, the
finding is made that the adoption of the above mftigation
measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect described in
G(1)(c) above. However, based on the information and analysis
in Part II(G) of the FEIR, the finding is made that the
significant environmental effects described in G(1)(a) and (b)
above cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore,
these significant effects will be discussed in Sections VI
(Alternatives) and VII (statement of Overriding Consideration)
below.
H. School Impacts.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. Although
the present projects proposed by the Agency will not in
themselves produce a significant impact on the number of
school age children in the school district, secondary impacts
of redevelopment related to overall community and regional
growth could increase the number of school age children
seeking enrollment in the Gilroy Unified School District.
(2) Mitigations.
a. Implement and enforce the General Plan
policies related to school development (General Plan, Section
VI, Policies 18-25).
b. Implement the Agency'
school parks and grounds.
s proposals to improve
c. Provide for a pass-through of a portion of
Agency tax increment revenue to the Gilroy Unified School
District, to be utilized for capital improvements to School
District facilities.
(3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning
approval of each specific development project, the City
Director of Planning will require conformance with the General
Plan, including through the imposition of conditions approval,
if necessary. At the time of Redevelopment Plan adoption, the
Agency approved a fiscal agreement providing for passthrough
of a portion of the Agency's tax increment revenues to the
School District. Pursuant to the fiscal agreement, the funds
will be utilized to make capital improvements to school
district facilities including school parks and grounds and
will therefore provide for implementation of the Agency's
proposals to improve these facilities as well as other School
District goals.
-8-
(4) ~~_~. The above mitigat~ measures and
monitoring prog/"~m are hereby adopted; base~'on the
information and analysis in Part II(I)(1) of the FEIR and Part
12 of the Report on the Redevelopment Plan, the finding is
made that the adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect described in H(1) above.
I. Fire and Police Protection Impacts.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. The
secondary effects of population growth, due to Project Area
buildout and regional growth, would result in an increased
demand on police and fire protection. An additional 20
firefighters and 35 police officers may be required to
maintain current levels of these services.
(2) Mitigation. Implement planned Agency capital
improvement projects which will enable the fire and police
departments to better serve the Project Area and the community
(for example, undergrounding of utilities, redesign of
Monterey Street traffic patterns, replacing of old water
mains, unreinforced masonry structure safety rehabilitation
program, public facility improvements).
(3) Monitoring Program. Each year during the term
of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency Deputy Executive
Director will identify capital improvement projects to be
undertaken that year, establish a budget, and seek Agency
Board approval of the improvement projects and funding
mechanisms. Every two years, the Agency as required by state
law, will hold a public hearing for the purpose of evaluating
its progress in implementing the Redevelopment Plan.
(4) Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted; however, based on the
information and analysis in Part II(I)(2) of the FEIR, the
finding is made that the significant environmental effect
described in I(1) above cannot be avoided or substantially
lessened. Therefore, this significant effect will be
discussed in Sections VI (Alternatives) and VII (Statement of
Overriding Consideration) below.
J. Parks and Recreation Impacts.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. The
secondary effects of population growth, due to buildout of the
Project Area and regional growth, will increase the need for
additional parks and recreational facilities.
(2) Mitigations.
-9-
a :Implement and enforce t? ,neral Plan
policies and i ementation measures relat parks and
recreation (General Plan Section VI, policies 5-17 and
Implementation Measures A & B).
b. Implement the Agency's proposals to improve
city parks and recreation facilities as set forth in the
Redevelopment Plan.
c. Provide for a passthrough of a portion of
Agency tax increment revenue to the Gilroy Unified School
District, to be used, in part, for capital improvements to
school recreational facilities which are available for use by
the general public.
(3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning
approval of each specific development project, the City
Director of Planning will require conformance with the General
Plan, including through the imposition of conditions of
approval, if necessary. Each year during the term of the
Redevelopment Plan, the Agency Deputy Executive Director will
identify capital development projects to be undertaken that
year, establish a budget to fund those projects, and seek
Agency Board approval of the improvement projects and funding
mechanisms. Every two years, the Agency, as required by the
state law, will hold a public hearing for the purpose of
evaluating its progress in implementing the Redevelopment
Plan. At the time of Redevelopment Plan adoption, the Agency
approved a fiscal agreement providing for passthrough of a
portion of tax increment revenues to the Gilroy Unified School
District to be utilized for capital improvements to School
District facilities, including playgrounds, swimming pools and
other recreational facilities which are available for use by
the general public.
(4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are hereby adopted; and, based on the
information and analysis in Part II(I)(3) of the FEIR the
finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation
measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect described in J(1)
above.
K. Electricity and Natural Gas Impacts.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. Projects
proposed by the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan will
facilitate future growth within the Project Area which will
produce an additional need for electricity and natural gas
service.
-10-
(2) ations.
a. PG&E has indicated that it has the capacity
and ability to accommodate the need for additional electricity
and natural gas service as a result of Project buildout.
b. Implement the Agency's proposals pursuant to
the Redevelopment Plan to improve electricity and natural gas
services in the Project Area.
(3) Monitoring Program. Each year during the term
of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency Deputy Executive
Director will identify capital development projects to be
undertaken that year, establish a budget to fund those
projects, and seek Agency Board approval of the improvement
projects and funding mechanisms. Every two years, the Agency,
as required by the state law, will hold a public hearing for
the purpose of evaluating its progress in implementing the
Redevelopment Plan.
(4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are hereby adopted; and based on the
information and analysis in Part II(J)(1) of the FEIR, the
finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation
measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect described in K(1)
above.
L. Water Impacts.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. Projects
proposed by the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan will
facilitate future growth within the Project Area which may
increase the demand for water service in the Project Area.
(2) Mitigations.
a. Implement and enforce the General Plan
Policies related to the development of future water supplies
(General Plan Section VI, Policies 30-34).
b. Implement Agency proposal to replace old
water mains in specific areas.
(3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning
approval of each specific development project, the City
Director of Planning will require conformance with the General
Plan, including through the imposition of conditions approval,
if necessary. Each year during the term of the Redevelopment
Plan, the Agency Deputy Executive Director will identify
capital development projects to be undertaken that ye&r,
establish a budget to fund those projects, and seek Agency
-11-
Bo'ard approval the improvement project~ ~d funding
mechanisms, y two years, the Agency, required by the
state law, will hold a public hearing for the purpose of
evaluating its progress in implementing the Redevelopment
Plan.
(4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are hereby adopted; and, based on the
information and analysis in Part II(J)(2) of the FEIR, the
finding is made that adoption of the above mitigation measures
and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect described in L(1) above.
M. Sewage Treatment.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. Projects
proposed by the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan will
facilitate future growth within the Project Area which will
increase the demand for sewage treatment capacity.
(2) Mitigations.
a. Implement and enforce the General Plan
policies related to management of sewage facility needs
(General Plan, Section VI, Policies, 26-29).
b. Implement Agency plans to facilitate
improvements to the sewage treatment system that increase
capacity, including sewer plant improvements and replacement
of old sewer lines.
(3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning
approval of each specific development project, the City
Director of Planning will require conformance with the General
Plan, including through the imposition of conditions approval,
if necessary. Each year during the term of the Redevelopment
Plan, the Agency Deputy Executive Director will identify
capital development projects to be undertaken that year,
establish a budget to fund those projects, and seek Agency
Board approval of the improvement projects and funding
mechanisms. Every two years, the Agency, as required by the
state law, will hold a public hearing for the purpose of
evaluating its progress in implementing the Redevelopment
Plan.
(4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are hereby adopted; and based on the
information and analysis in Part II(J)(3) of the FEIR, the
finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation
measures and monitoring program will avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect described in M(1)
above.
N. Solid
Disposal Impacts.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. Project Area
growth facilitated by the Redevelopment Plan may increase the
production of solid waste.
(2) Mitigation. Evaluate potential solid waste
impacts of individual developments as they are proposed and
impose appropriate mitigation measures on approval of such
projects.
(3) Monitoring Program. At the time of
environmental assessment and planning approval of specific
development projects, the City Director of Planning will
identify potential impacts of solid waste disposal and impose
specific mitigation measures as conditions of approval, as
necessary to mitigate any impacts.
(4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are hereby adopted, and based on the
information and analysis in Part II(J)(4) of the FEIR, the
finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation
measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect described in N(1)
above.
O. Storm Water Drainage Impacts.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. Development
promoted by the Redevelopment Plan will increase impervious
surfaces which in turn will increase the amount of runoff into
the drainage system.
(2) Mitigations.
a. Implement Agency plans to replace old storm
drains and correct inflow and infiltration problems that
presently affect the drainage system.
b. Implement and enforce the General Plan
Policies related to storm drainage and flood prevention
(General Plan, Section III, Policies 23-30).
(3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning
approval of each specific development project, the City
Director of Planning will require conformance with the General
Plan, including through the imposition of conditions approval,
if necessary. Each year during the term of the Redevelopment
Plan, the Agency Deputy Executive Director will identify
capital development projects to be undertaken that year,
establish a budget to fund those projects, and seek Agency
Board approval of the improvement projects and funding
mechanisms. Every two years, the Agency, as required by the
-13-
state law, wil
evaluating its
Plan.
a public hearing for / purpose of
'ress in implementing th~edevelopment
(4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are hereby adopted and, based upon the
information and analysis in II(J)(5) of the FEIR, the finding
is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect described in O(1) above.
P. Cultural Resources.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect Development
facilitated by the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan
may upset archeological sites and sites and buildings of
historical significance to the founding and growth of the
community.
(2) Mitigation. Implement and enforce General Plan
policy and implementation measures regarding preservation of
historic buildings and archaeological sites (General Plan,
Section III, Policy 14 and Implementation Measures K and L).
(3) Monitoring Program. At the time of planning
approval of each specific development project, the City
Director of Planning will require conformance with the General
Plan, including through the imposition of conditions of
approval, if necessary.
(4) Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted and, based upon the
information and analysis in Part II(K) of the FEIR, the
finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation
measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect described in P(1)
above.
Q. Growth-Inducing Impacts.
(1) Significant Environment Effect. Projects
directly stimulated by Project implementation are detailed on
Table 7 (page 60) of the FEIR. Secondary growth inducing
effects, due to the Agency's use of its financial tools, may
release existing constraints to development, i.e. the
provision of adequate utilities or circulation facilities may
facilitate new development which may not otherwise have
occurred.
(2) Mitigation. None proposed, as growth and
revitalization of the Project Area is a goal of the
Redevelopment Plan.
(3) Monitoring Program. Not applicable.
-14-
(4) Based on the infor/ion and
analysis in III(E) of the FEIR, the f~ing is made that
the significant environmental effect described in Q(1) above
cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, this
significant effect will be discussed in Sections VI
(Alternatives) and VII (Statement of Overriding Consideration)
below.
R. Cumulative Impacts.
(1) Significant Environmental Effect. Development
facilitated by the Agency within the Project Area, combined
with anticipated residential development outside the Project
Area, may result in increased impacts related to loss of
agricultural land, traffic conditions, public services, soils,
and fish and wildlife habitats.
(2) Mitigations. Same mitigation measures as
proposed in subsections A, C, E, F, H, ! and J above.
(3) Monitoring Program. Same monitoring program
measures as proposed in subsections A, C, E, F, H, I and J
above.
(4) Finding. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring programs are hereby adopted; however, based on the
information and analysis in Part III(A) of the FEIR, as well
as in Parts II(A), II(C), II(E), II(F), II(I)(1), II(I)(2) and
II(I)(3) of the FEIR, the finding is made that some of the
significant environmental effects described in R(1) above (in
particular, impacts related to loss of agricultural land,
traffic conditions, soils and fire and police protection)
cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Therefore, these
significant effects will be discussed in Section VI
(Alternatives) and VII (Statement of Overriding
Considerations) below.
V. Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects
The following significant impacts of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan are considered unavoidable:
(1) The conversion of prime agricultural land to
urbanized uses (as described in Part IV, A(1)
above);
(2) Increased vehicular traffic in the Project Area and
vicinity (as described in Part IV, C (1) above);
(3) Loss of vacant lands and resulting overcovering of
soils will increase the amount and quality of surface
water run-off (as described in Part IV, E(1) above);
-15-
(4) Cumu~ve regional air pollutan~issions resulting
from~velopment encouraged by tt~Redevelopment Plan
(as described in Part IV(G)(1)(a) above);
(5) Increases in air pollutant emissions due to increased
vehicular traffic (as described in Part IV G(1)(b)
above);
(6) Increases in demand on police and fire protection
services due to population increases (as described in
Part IV, I(1) above);
(7) The growth-inducing influences of providing the
Agency with redevelopment powers and financing tools,
including population increases (as described in Part
IV, Q(1) above);
(8) Increases in population which will increase service
demands and induce growth (as described in Part IV,
I(1) and Q(1) above); and
(9) Cumulative impacts of redevelopment-induced Project
Area growth combined with anticipated residential
development outside the Project Area (as described in
Part IV, R(1) above).
These significant adverse impacts may occur despite the
adoption by the City Council and Agency of all mitigation
measures related to these impacts that were identified in the
FEIR. No mitigation measures identified in the FEIR have been
rejected by the Agency and the City Council as being
infeasible due to specific economic, social, or other
considerations.
VI.
Findings on the Feasibility of Alternatives to the
Proposed Redevelopment Plan
The FEIR discusses four alternatives to the Redevelopment
Plan, the adoption of which would, in some cases, avoid the
significant environmental effects listed in Section V above.
Each alternative is discussed in this section, and findings
are made regarding its feasibility.
No Project Alternative. The "No Project"
alternative would involve no action by the City or
the Agency on the Redevelopment Plan for the Project
Area. Potentially adverse impacts such as the
conversion of agricultural land to urbanized uses,
increased traffic, increases in service demands such
as police and fire, and increases in air pollutants
would not occur in the immediate future. This
alternative would avoid the growth-inducing aspects
of the Redevelopment Plan and would delay the
secondary environmental effects of the growth
descr/d in Part IV of this doc~ However,
given~e General Plan policies likely that
over time many of these impacts would occur as the
Project Area develops in accordance with the General
Plan.
The "No-Project" alternative would mean foregoing for
the near term the many Project Area improvements
which would follow from Redevelopment Plan adoption.
Thus, the City would remain in the position of
desiring but being unable to implement the
improvement projects which are essential to the
orderly and productive development of the Project
Area. Options for City participation in economic
development and the creation of employment would be
limited. Moreover, as development occurs in the
Project Area over time, many of the public
improvements proposed by the Redevelopment Plan would
not be built and, thus, many development impacts
would be severe and many of the significant benefits
of redevelopment would not be realized. Because of
the blighting conditions in the Project Area it is
likely that under the "No-Project" alternative the
area would continue to decline.
The "No-Project" alternative would not provide the
significant benefits of the Redevelopment Plan; i.e.,
mechanisms to finance many public improvements needed
to enhance the safety and welfare of Gilroy
residents; revitalization of commercial and
industrial areas of the community; facilitation of
new investment and expansion; improvement of housing
conditions and opportunities for low- and moderate-
income residents; improvement of park and
recreational facilities; and elimination of blighting
influences which have constrained proper development
of the area to date.
Consequently, the "No-Project" alternative would be
expected to maintain the status quo situation, and
preserve the site for future development options.
Because of the blighting conditions in the Project
Area, further decline could be expected to occur. At
some point, if ameliorative actions continue to be
delayed, the costs of blight elimination could become
exorbitantly high, in which case the Project Area
could become a permanent liability to the City of
Gilroy.
It is therefore concluded that adoption of the
"No-Project" alternative would not meet community
development goals for the City of Gilroy, and the
finding is made that this alternative is infeasible
-17-
pur to 14 California Code
15091(a)(3).
gulations Section
Alternative Land Use Patterns: The Redevelopment
Plan is designed to provide generalized guidance for
allowable land uses in accordance with the City's
General Plan, as the Redevelopment Plan incorporates
the land uses, standards, and controls set forth in
the City's General Plan. Changes in the
configuration of allowable land uses without changes
in the overall densities would not alter the
environmental effects of the Project to any
significant degree. Increases in the amounts or
densities of allowable development would be expected
to result in additional environmental effects.
Decreases in densities or the amounts of allowable
development would be expected to lessen the
environmental effects of the Project. Since land
uses inconsistent with the General Plan would not be
permitted without an amendment to the General Plan,
it is unlikely that such an alternative would be
physically, economically or politically feasible in
the future.
It is therefore concluded that adoption of the
"Alternative Land Use Patterns" alternative would
require amendment of the City General Plan and would
contradict established goals for development in the
Project Area, and the finding is therefore made that
this alternative is infeasible pursuant to 14
California Code of Regulations Section 15091(a)(3).
o
Alternative Project Area Confiqurations: The
Project Area defined in the Redevelopment Plan
represents the consensus of City staff and
decision-makers on the area within which "blighted"
conditions occur and which could benefit from
Redevelopment Plan activities. The Project Area
boundary also defines, generally, the extent of the
environmental effects of the Project as well as the
area within.which tax-increment funds would be
allocated to the Agency. Thus, shifts in the
boundaries of the Project Area which would reduce its
geographical area would tend to reduce the
environmental effects of the Project and might reduce
the economic effects of the Project on other agencies
but would also reduce the tax increment income
available to the Agency and thus its ability to
finance projects of benefit to the Project Area.
Also, changes in the boundaries would mean that while
some blighted areas may improve, other areas which
are currently blighted would continue to stagnate and
may in the long term detract from the redevelopment
-18-
effor~ sewhere. Given the nat~ of land use
patterns in the Gilroy area, shifts in the boundaries
of the Project Area which would increase its size
would include either: (a) undeveloped lands that are
not predominantly urbanized or blighted; or (b) lands
containing relatively new development that would not
meet state law blight definitions. As such, a larger
area would not conform to state law, or to the City's
policy of minimizing fiscal and other impacts of its
redevelopment proposals.
Minor shifts of the Project Area boundaries would be
possible; however, given that the Redevelopment Plan
is general in nature, significant differences in
impacts would not be anticipated with minor
differences in Project Area boundaries.
It is therefore concluded that the "Alternative
Project Area Configurations" alternative would not
meet the City's community development goals or the
requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law and,
therefore, the finding is made that this alternative
is infeasible pursuant to 14 California Code of
Regulations Section 15091(a)(3).
Addition/Deletion of Plan Activities and Goals:
The deletion of Redevelopment Plan activities and
goals could result in the avoidance of certain
environmental effects of Redevelopment Plan
implementation. However, deletion of activities and
goals would most likely mean that some blighting
influences in the Project Area would continue and the
full mitigating impacts of some activities would not
be realized. The addition of activities and goals
could be considered in order to address adverse
environmental or economic effects identified by the
FEIR or in the process of consulting with other
agencies on the adoption of the Plan. However, the
Agency has carefully tailored the activities and
goals set forth in the Redevelopment Plan to
projections of available financial resources to fund
such activities. Thus, an addition of activities and
goals may ultimately make implementation of the
Redevelopment Plan financially infeasible, and would
also likley increase the environmental effects of
Redevelopment Plan implementation.
It is therefore concluded that the "Addition/Deletion
of Plan Activities and Goals" alternative would
jeapordize the realization of the City's community
development goals, and would violate state law
financial feasibility requirements, and therefore the
finding is made that this alternative is infeasible
-19-
purs~ to 14 California Code
15091~)(3).
uf[ations Section
VII. Statement of Overridinq Considerations
Notwithstanding the disclosure of the unavoidable adverse
effects of the Redevelopment Plan which are summarized in
Section V above, the City and Agency have determined pursuant
to 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15093, that the
benefits of the proposed Redevelopment Plan outweigh these
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and the
Redevelopment Plan should be approved.
The City Council and Agency approve the Redevelopment
Plan for the following reasons based upon the record:
ao
The Redevelopment Plan will provide a mechanism to
provide essential infrastructure improvements to the
Project Area, including, but not limited to, street
and intersection improvements, transportation system
improvements, frontage improvements, drainage
improvements, sewer plant improvements,
undergrounding of utilities, lighting, off-street
public parking, landscaping, and off-site
improvements for industrial park development.
Bo
The Redevelopment Plan will provide a mechanism to
strengthen the existing Project Area residential
areas by assisting in rehabilitation of the housing
stock, promoting new infill housing construction,
assisting in school parks and grounds improvements,
providing neighborhood open space, improving drainage
facilities, and constructing street and frontage
improvements.
Co
Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will improve
and upgrade deteriorated housing stock in the Project
Area and will assist in the construction of new
affordable housing, thereby improving and expanding
the supply of housing affordable to low and moderate
income households.
The Redevelopment Plan will enable the Agency to
facilitate the redevelopment of parcels designated
for commercial and industrial development in the
General Plan, and to provide economic development
assistance, in order to revitalize the stagnant
economy of the Project Area, improve the jobs/housing
balance consistent with General Plan policies, and
provide job opportunities and enhanced incomes for
economically disadvantaged Project Area residents.
The Redevelopment Plan enables the City and the
Agency to eliminate the blighting influences present
-20-
in the Project Area so that the Area may be of
phys,, social and economic bel it to the
resins of the Project Area the community as
a whole.
Fo
The Redevelopment Plan will enhance the tax revenue
Generating capacity of the Project Area to the
ultimate benefit of the City and all affected taxing
agencies.
06/01/89
SB051/B49702
-21 -
I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do
hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 89-28 is an original
resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular
meeting of said Council held on the 13th day of June 1989 ,
at which meeting a quorum was present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this 16th day of June ,
19 89.
erk of the City of Gilroy trl
(Seal)
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct
copy of a resolution duly passed and adopted by the Community Development
Agency of the City of Gilroy, California, at a meeting thereof, held on the
13th day of June, 1989.
(Seal)