Loading...
Ordinance 1994-09NO. 94 -09 • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY REZONING FROM M1 (LIMITED INDUS- TRIAL) TO M1 -PUD (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) TO BE COMBINED WITH ADJACENT C3 -PUD (SHOPPING CENTER COMMERCIAL, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) TO BECOME A CONSOLIDATED M1 /C3 -PUD (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL /SHOPPING CENTER COMMERCIAL, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) ON APPROXIMATELY 26.65 ACRES, APN 835 -04 -56 WHEREAS, Glen Loma Corporation has submitted Z 94 -04, requesting an amendment to the City of Gilroy's Zoning Map to rezone approximately 26.65 acres from M1 (Limited Industrial) to Ml -PUD (Limited Industrial, Planned Unit Development) to be combined with adjacent C3 -PUD (Shopping Center Commercial, Planned Unit Development) to become a consolidated M1 /C3 -PUD (Limited Industrial /Shopping Center Commercial, Planned Unit Development); and WHEREAS, the property affected by Z 94 -04 is bounded generally by the west side of San Ysidro Avenue with frontage along the South Valley Freeway, between Leavesley Road and Las Animas Avenue, on APN 835- 04 -56, such land being indicated on a map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council certified on January 21, 1992, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for GPA 90 -07; and WHEREAS, GPA 90 -07 included the property associated with Z 94 -04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Z 94 -04 on May 19, 1994, and after that hearing voted to deny approval of the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Z 94 -04 on May 23, 1994, at which public hearing the Council considered the project and the conditions proposed to be ORDINANCE NO. 94 -09 -1- 0 0 attached to its approval along with staff reports, public testimo- ny, and documentation or other evidence on the project and unani- mously voted to overturn the Planning Commission and to approve the project. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I The project is consistent with the Gilroy General Plan because it conforms to the land use designation for the property on the General Plan Map, and it is consistent with the intent of the text, goals, and policies of the General Plan documents. SECTION II The City Council hereby finds, consistent with the requirements of Public Resources Code section 21083.3, that: 1. This project is consistent with the Gilroy General Plan as amended by GPA 90 -07; 2. The City previously certified an EIR for GPA 90 -07; 3. There are no offsite or onsite environmental effects peculiar to this project which were not addressed as significant effects in the EIR prepared for GPA 90 -07; 4. The City specifically reviewed the prior EIR's treatment of environmental impacts due to traffic and determined that no additional environmental impacts with regards to traffic are raised by this project that are not addressed in the prior EIR; 5. There is no new information showing environmental effects to be more significant than described in the EIR for GPA 90 -07; and 6. The City will undertake any feasible mitigation measures specified in the EIR prepared for GPA 90 -07, relevant to a significant effect which the project, Z 94 -04, will have on the environment. SECTION III A. Z 94 -04 should be and hereby is approved, subject ORDINANCE NO. 94 -09 -2- to the mitigation measures, specific findings, and statement of overriding considerations set forth in Exhibit "B." B. The Zoning Map of the City of Gilroy is hereby amended to rezone approximately 26.65 acres from M1 (Limited Industrial) to M1 -PUD (Shopping Center Commercial, Planned Unit Development) to be combined with adjacent C3 -PUD (Shopping Center Commercial, Planned Unit Development) to become a consolidated M1 /C3 -PUD (Limited Industrial /Shopping Center Commercial, Planned Unit Development) , such located on the west side of San Ysidro Avenue with frontage along the South Valley Freeway, between Leavesley Road and Las Animas Avenue, on APN 835 -04 -056, as is indicated on a map attached hereto as Exhibit "A." SECTION IV This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force thirty days from and after its adoption and approval. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of June, 1994 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GILROY, MORALES, ROGERS, ROWLISON, VALDEZ, GAGE NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: KLOECKER APPROVED: iLVftq45e---- - Do ald F. Gage,U4ffyor ATTE T: (XiHLf4i Susanne E. Steinmetz, City C rk NO. 94 -09 -3- � N • L i O �p5 O� J m a MAX PR S ALLO Ronan CLUB SITE Nlly �M/ YA PROP . PHASE WE a •Y - � D n. _ ST O eye s �a/ '• 2 y AR r MAP 1=®r-Z Z 94- -0,4 o� orb rT ,%A,; EXHIBIT 'B �s (GPA 90 -07) AN ADDENDUM TO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CZTY OF GZLROY ADOPTING FINDINGS, MZTZGATZON MEASURES, AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSZDERATZONS PERTAINING TO THE FINAL ENVZROMMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR T8E J. FZLZCE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 90 -07) The city council finds that one or more significant effects would likely result from approval of this project and that the substantial evidence and mitigation measures relied upon by this Council supporting the required find- ings are set forth as follows: I. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ' A. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: 1. Significant Effect: It is likely that one of the nearby active earthquake faults will cause at least one large - magnitude earthquake on the project site during the lifetime of the proposed project. Potential damage suffered by structures on the project site in the event of an earthquake is, therefore, considered to be a significant impact. Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mit- igated by the following mitigation measure(s): 1. Building construction on the project site shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building code structural earthquake regulations. The final construction plans for any struc- ture shall be subject to the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to the issuance of a building permit to ensure compliance with these regulations. Finding: changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 2. Significant Effect: The project site contains the soil types of Pleasanton Loam and Zamora clay Loam. The permeability of these soils is moderately slow. Run -off of both soil types is very slow, and the hazard of erosion is none to slight. No significant impact is anticipated to.result from erosion on the project site as long as standard erosion control measures are followed. Mitigation-or Avoidance: _ -.._ . This. impact: will be ..reduced ..and mit- igated by the following mitigation measure(s): 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the proposed project, a soils - foundation analysis shall be completed by a qualified soils engineer as required by Section III, Policy 16 of the Gilroy General Plan. The scope of this report shall be determined by the City Engineer and Public works Director and shall include analysis of liquefaction potential at the location of each proposed structure. Recom- mendations from this report.shall be incorporated into the grading plans for the proposed project and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director. 3. Construction of the proposed project should be undertaken during the dry season (April 15- October 15). If construction of the proposed project is undertaken during the wet season (October 15 -April 15) or -Appendix A - J. Filice EIR 2 11/3/92 any portion thereof, the project proponent shall prepare an erosion control plan. The erosion control plan shall incorporate the use of straw bales at discharge areas and in swales as well as use of seeding and hydromulching where appropriate. The erosion control plan measures shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Public works Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. Finding: changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. B. HYDROLOGY 3. significant Effect (direct and cumulative): The proposed project will increase the amount of surface -water run -off on and off the project site. The Ronan Channel has sufficient capacity to accommodate the surface -water run -off from the project site based on buildout of the site under its existing general plan designation of Industrial Park. since the roughness coefficient used to determine the area of impervious surface is the same for both in- dustrial and commercial uses (.80), construction of commercial uses on the project site is not anticipated to result in a net increase in surface -water run -off on the project site over that projected for industrial uses. There- fore, the proposed project will not exceed the capacity of the Ronan Channel. The proposed project has the potential to exceed the existing storm drain infrastructure both on the project site and in the vicinity of the project site connecting to the Ronan Channel. significant adverse impacts such as flooding on and off the project site could result if adequate storm drain improvements are not implemented. This is a potentially significant impact. surface -water run -off from the project site, like that from any typical commercial development, is expected to contain minor concentrations of a variety of pollutants, including oil and grease, nutrients, minor concen- trations of pesticides from landscaping, and heavy metals from road and par- king area pavements. The types and concentrations of contaminants are ul- timately dependent upon the specific activities that occur on the project site. The proposed project could, there fore, create significant impacts ,associated with downstream pollution. Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated by the following mitigation measure(s): 4. The construction drawings for the proposed project shall include an infrastructure plan which details the type, size, and location of all on -site drainage facility construction and all off - site drainage facility improve ments. These improvements shall include but not be limited to a direct connection from the project site under Highway 101 to the Ronan Channel as shown on the City of Gilroy Drainage Plan for the north- east drainage area "C^ as well as other culverts, channels, and detention ponds where necessary to accommodate storm flows from the project site. In addition, the - infrastructure -plan shall- •include...grease traps -:to collect run- off pollutants from the project site. The precise type, size, and location of all infrastructure improvements shall be determined by the Public works Direc- tor prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the proposed project. 5. Approval for the proposed project shall state that the project will not exceed the capacity of the Ronan Channel. This approval shall be obtained from the. Santa Clara valley water District before a grading permit is issued for the proposed project. 6. Approval from CalTrans and off -site drainage easements Appendix A - J. Filice EIR 3 11/3/92 shall be obtained from CalTrans and other parties effected by the connection to Ronan Channel. Finding: changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. C. TRAFFIC 4. significant Effect (direct and cumulative)s The proposed project, when combined with the development of background projects, will result in a reduction below LOS C for two street segments during both weekday operations and weekend operations. This is considered to be a significant adverse impact. The proposed project, when combined with development of background projects, will result in a reduction below LOS C for two intersections in the project study area during weekday operations, and a reduction below Los C for four intersections during weekend operations. This is considered to be a sig- nificant adverse impact. Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated by the following mitigation measure(s): The following mitigation measures (7- 9) address the specific impacts from construction of the proposed J. Filice project. The following improvements shall be implemented before an occupancy permit is issued for any commercial tenant on the project site: 7. A second southbound San Ysidro Avenue right -turn lane shall be added at San Ysidro and Leavesley Road. 8. A second eastbound Leavesley Road left -turn lane shall be added at San Ysidro Avenue and Leavesley Road. 9. San Ysidro Avenue shall be widened to four through lanes between Leavesley Road and Los Animas Ave. The following mitigation measures (10 -16) address the specific impacts from construction of both the proposed J. Filice project and the proposed Southpoint Business Park project. The following improvements shall be implemented before an occupancy permit is issued for any commercial tenant on the project site: 10. Widen Leavesley Road to a six lane divided arterial. between Murray Avenue and San Ysidro Road. 11. Add a second westbound left turn lane on Leavesley Road at the south bound Highway 101 ramps. 12. Modify signal on southbound Highway 101 off -ramp at Leavesley Road. 13. Modify signal on San Ysidro /northbound Highway 101 off -ramp at Leavesley Road. 14. Add southbound merge lane on southbound Highway 101 on -ramp. 15. Add third southbound left -turn lane on southbound Highway 101 off -ramp: 16. Add 10 foot sidewalks along both sides of Leavesley Road between Murray Avenue and San Ysidro where none exist. The following mitigation measures (17 -25) have been identified to offset significant adverse traffic impacts within the project study area from the construction of the background development projects which will be completed within two years: 17. Provide a second southbound right -turn lane on the Highway 101 south bound off -ramp at Leavesley Road. 18. Add a northbound right -turn lane on- Monterey Road _at•-Leavesle y Road. -_.19_ Add second eastbound and westbound Welburn Avenue /Leavesley Road through lanes at Monterey Road: 20. Add an exclusive westbound right -turn lane on Leavesley Road at Monterey Road. 21. Modify the Monterey Road / Welburn Avenue - Leavesley Road traffic signal and railroad grade crossing to accommodate additional channelization. 22. consideration should be given to installing a second westbound left -turn lane on Leavesley Road at Monterey. This will be required for future devel- opment scenarios. 23. Add additional northbound left -turn lane on northbound off -ramp from Highway 101. 24. Add second westbound left -turn lane on Appendiz.A - J. FiliCe EIR 4 11/3/92 Leavesley Road at Murray Avenue. 25. Restripe Leavesley Road to six lanes between Monterey Road and Murray Avenue. The City of Gilroy has adopted a revised circulation element of its General Plan and a traffic impact fee program analysis based on current improvements within the circulation element. Funding for implementation of these mitigation measures and these certain traffic improvements within the circulation element will be provided'by the city's traffic impact fee program. This fee will be assessed to the developer to cover any traffic improvements required because of direct or cumulative impacts caused by the proposed project or identified within the city's general plan circulation element. Impact fees are subject to reimbursement credit based on the actual public transportation improvements provided by the developer, subject to the review and approval by the city's public works director. The developer will be required to pay the traffic impact fees for city -wide traffic improvements prior to issuance of a building permit, subject to the approval of the building official. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. D. TRANSIT SERVICE 5. Significant Effect: New employees from the proposed project will need to use the transit system to get to work. In addition, customers and visitors to the development will have the option of using public transit to get to the retail stores. This increase in transit use by employees and pa- trons will have a significant impact on the existing transit services. Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated by the following mitigation measure(s): The consultant recommends that the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency (SCCTA) identify the most feasible manner to improve the public transit facility and access associated with the bus stop. In order to minimize the project impact on transit services, the following mitigation measure is recommended. 26. The project proponent shall provide an adequate transit facility to serve the project as determined by the SCCTA and should meet their transit facility design policies. Improvements identified as necessary to meet SCCTA transit policies shall be included in the final improvement plans before the final map is recorded. These improve- ments shall be included as conditions of the project approval on the tentative map and are subject to the review and approval of the City Planning Director and the SCCTA. The following improvements will be included in the transit facility: Installation of new bus stops along San Ysidro Avenue; Provide.a minimum 22 feet curb lane or a County Standard bus duckout; Install 12' x 50' concrete pavement section for the bus stop; Provision of sidewalks and handicap — ramps; Install -concrete _sheltez...:pads,.new- shelters, trash receptacle for the proposed stops. (The regular maintenance and repair of the new shelters/ - receptacle shall be the developer's responsibility); Provide convenient sidewalks, pathways, cross -walks between the project and new transit related facilities. All the above facilities to be provided at no cost to the county. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Appendix A - J. Filice EIR 5 11/3/92 E. AIR QUALITY 6. significant Effect (direct and cumulative): Construction of the proposed project would result . in the emission of 102.2 pounds per day of TOG, 963.4 pounds per day of CO, and 204.9 pounds per day of NOx. The emission levels for both CO and Nox exceed the BAAQMD standards for new commercial projects of 550 pounds per day of Co and 150 pounds per day of Nox. These emission levels are considered to be a significant adverse impact. Due to the relative lack of urban development in the immediate vicinity of. the project site, short-term uncontrolled PM10 emissions would not create a significant impact on sensitive receptors. However, construction workers on the project site could be subject to undue PM10 exposure if dust - suppression measures are not implemented. The proposed project is anticipated to reduce particulate emissions from the project site in the long term. Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated by the following mitigation measure(s): The project applicant shall prepare an emission reduction program in order to minimize the vehicle- related pol- lutant emissions generated by the proposed project. This program shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a gra- ding permit for the proposed project. The contractor specifications for the proposed project shall be submitted to the Building Director for approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the proposed project. The contractor specifications shall include the following particulate emission reduction measures: 27. Exposed earth surfaces shall be watered during clearing, excavation, grading, and con- struction activities. watering of exposed earth surfaces could reduce par- ticulate emissions as much as 50 percent. All construction contracts should require watering in late morning and at the end of the day. The frequency of watering should increase if wind speeds exceed,15 miles per hour. 28. Throughout excavation activity, haul trucks should use tarpaulins or other effective covers at all times. 29. Upon completion of construction, measures shall be taken to reduce wind erosion. Revegetation and iepaving should be completed as soon as possible. The mitigation measures, if implemented, will effectively reduce adverse air quality impacts from the proposed project and are consistent with BAAQMD standard recommended mitigation measures for a proposed project of this size. significant adverse air quality impacts will be reduced to an acceptable level with implementation of these recommended mit- igation measures. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into the project which lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR, however, only project alternatives would be able to eliminate them. specific economic, social or other considerations make in- feasible the project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. F. AESTHETICS - VISUAL RESOURCES 7. Significant Effect: The proposed project serves as a gateway to the City of Gilroy, providing a visual transition from the rural area to the east to the urban area to the west. Construction of the proposed project could result in a significant adverse impact if appropriate landscaping and visual screening methods are not implemented. Appendix A - J. FiliCe EIR 6 11/3/92 Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated by the following mitigation measure(s): 30. Conceptual and final project siting, architectural, and landscaping plans for each structure on the project site shall be subject to review and approval by the city Architectural and site Review committee and Planning Director prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the proposed project. 31. The landscape plan for the proposed project shall conform to the Consolidated Landscaping Policy of the city of Gilroy and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. specific requirements contained in this policy which are pertinent to the proposed project include the following: a. Landscaping shall be provided within development areas most visible from adjacent streets. b. A minimum 10- foot -wide planter area, in addition to the public right -of -way, shall be provided along each street frontage. c. At least eight percent of the gross land area, in addition to public right -of- way, shall -)be landscaped. d. All portions of the site with over 40 square feet in area and not specifically used for parking, driveways, walkways or similar access, shall be landscaped. Finding: changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. G. AESTHETICS - NOISE S. significant Effect: Due to the proximity of the project site to the Leavesley Road northbound High way 101 on -ramp and Highway 101, noise levels could exceed city noise standards and result in a significant adverse impact. This impact will depend on placement of structures, type of construction materials, and provision of buffers on the project site. Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated by the following mitigation measure(s): 32. The applicant shall prepare and submit a building design noise analysis for all proposed structures on the project site. This analysis should indicate structural noise attenuation measures which will reduce interior and exterior noise to acceptable levels. This study shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project. Finding: changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. H. PUBLIC SERVICES - WATER SERVICES 9. Significant Effect: The use of ground water resulting from im- plementation of the proposed project could contribute to the lowering of the water table in the Llagas Groundwater Basin. ,However, according to the SCVWD, the use of 20.2 acre -feet of water per year on the project site will not result in a .significant. adverse Ampact-xith -regard ..to_.groupd -water use, since the entire Llagas Groundwater Basin supplies approximately 45,000 acre -feet of water per year for the area. The Gilroy city water system has a peak daily capacity of 11.5 million gallons. Based on the 1990 peak city water demand of 9.5 million gallons per day, adequate capacity exists to accommodate the projected daily demand of 18,292 gallons per day of water to be used by the proposed project. Appendix A - J: Filice EIR 7 11/3/92 Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated by the following mitigation measure(s): Mitigation Measures 33. A deed restriction should be placed on the entire project site which would require that water - conserving fixtures be used for all structures built on the project site. The deed restriction should be recorded with the city clerk and proof of recording should be provided to the Planning Director and Building Director prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed project. The deed restriction should require that the following fixtures be installed in all structures. a. Ultra - low -flush toilets. Ultra -low -flush toilets are defined as toilets that use a maximum of 1.6 gallons of water per flush. 34. The species of plants, shrubs and trees planted on -site should be native drought- tolerant species and should consist only of those included on the Gilroy water - conserving plants and landscapes list. A list of all species of vegetation to be planted on the project site should be submitted to the Arch- itectural and Site Review Committee and Planning Director along with the project landscape plan. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. I. PUBLIC SERVICES - POLICE SERVICE 10. Significant Effect: The proposed project is not anticipated to cause an adverse impact with regard to existing personnel and equipment util- ized by the Gilroy Police Department. Adverse impacts may result from the use of parking facilities on the project site by truck drivers or other unwelcome users. Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated by the following mitigation measure(s): 35. In addition to complying with the parking requirements for commercial and retail uses included in Section 31 of the City of Gilroy Zoning ordinance, the applicant shall configure on -site parking facilities in a manner which discourages parking'of large trucks or other vehicles larger than those that can fit in standard -sized parking spaces. The configuration shall be illustrated in the project site plan, which will undergo review of the Architecture and Site Review Committee, and shall implement the following specific measures: a. Utilize landscaped medians to remove any extra lot area preventing large vehicles from parallel parking in paved areas not designated for parking use. b. supply each parking space with a wheel stop to prevent large vehicles from using two parking spaces. c. The applicant shall supply adequate all day and employee parking facilities. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. J. PUBLIC - SERVICES - . FIRE - SERVICE -- 11. significant Effect (direct and cumulative): The proposed project will place an additional demand on personnel and equipment on both the Fire Prevention Bureau and the operations Division of the Gilroy Fire Department. The public safety impact fees to be paid by the project applicant will be sufficient to offset the additional demands on equipment needed by the pro- posed project. However, demands on personnel are not supported by public safety impact fees. In the absence of additional funding, i.e., from general Appendia A - J. Filice EIR 8 11/3/92 assistance district fund, the proposed project would have a significant ad- verse impact on fire services. Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated by the following mitigation measure(s): 36. The Gilroy Fire Chief shall be contacted after a detailed site plan for the proposed project is submitted in order to ensure that there are adequate resources to fund additional fire services to the project. The Building Director shall not issue a grading permit for the proposed project if adequate fire service to the project site is not available. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. R. PUBLIC SERVICES - SCHOOLS 12. Significant Effect .(direct and cumulative): The proposed project may result-in an increase in the number of residents in Gilroy due to the hiring of employees on the project site. since this would result in an in- crease in school -age children within the Gilroy unified school District, significant adverse impacts could result if adequate capacity is unavailable for additional students. Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated by the following mitigation measure(s): 37. Prior to the issuance of a buil- ding permit for any structure on the project site, the applicant shall submit evidence to the Planning Director that the fee requirements of the Gilroy unified School District have been met and that adequate school capacity is available for new students. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor- porated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. L. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' 13. significant Effect: Based upon background research and surface reconnaissance, it is concluded that the project area does not contain surface evidence of potentially significant cultural resources. However, because unidentified buried cultural resources may be found during project con- struction, standard mitigation is recommended in the event of significant cultural resource discovery. Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated by the following mitigation measure(s): 38. If archaeological resources or human remains are accidentally discovered during construction, work shall be halted within 150 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be formulated and implemented prior to continuation of construction. Such- mitigation.shall.be. subject to approval by the Planning Director. Finding: changes or alterations have been required in, or in- corporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the sig- nificant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Appendix A - J. Filice EIR 9 11/3/92 II. -PROJECT ALTERNATIVES: A. No Project Alternative (environmentally Preferable alternative.) Alternative: The No Project Alternative consists of leaving the site in its present condition. (EIR p. 771 Statement Of Fact: The no project alternative is inconsistent with the existing General Plan designations, which allow development of the site. Finding: The City Council finds that there is a need to increase the supply of commercial enterprises in the City (in a range providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups) in order to accommodate the City's growing population.. The No Project Alternative would not meet the City's immediate need for increased commercial development. The City Council thus finds that the No Project Alternative is not desirable. This alternative is not "feasible" as defined in section 15364 of CEQA Guidelines because it is not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner taking into account economic, social, and legal factors. specific economic, social,- .or.other considerations make infeasible this project alternative identified in the EIR. (See also Statement of overriding Considerations, section III, below.) B. Alternative Location 1 - Santa Teresa Boulevard site Alternative: The Santa Teresa Boulevard Site Alternative consists of using the site the southeast corner of Santa Teresa Boulevard and First Street. (EIR p. 77) Statement Of Fact: The alternative site does not have access to or visibility from Highway 101, and therefore would not attract a high percentage of customers from other parts of the region. In addition, the applicant does not own this alternative site. Further, using an alternative site would also lead to a loss of air quality. Finding: The alternative site would not fulfill the objectives of the proposed project of providing profitable retail services because the alter- native site is not near Highway 101. This alternative is not "feasible" as defined in Section 15364 of CEQA Guidelines because it id not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner taking into account economic, social, and legal factors. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make in- feasible this project alternative identified in the DEIR. (See also statement of overriding Considerations, Section III, below.) C. Existing General Plan Buildout Alternative Alternative: The Existing General Plan Buildout Alternative consists of keeping the Industrial Park designation on the site, and developing it under its present designation (EIR p. 78). Statement Of Fact: This alternative would still allow development of the site, but would not allow retail commercial services as proposed. Fur- ther, allowing the current designation to remain on the property would also lead to a loss of air quality. Finding: -The. City Council-..finds -that, there_ is. a need to . increase the supply of commercial enterprises in the City (in a range providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups) in order to accommodate the City's growing population. The Existing General Plan Buildout Alternative would not meet the City's immediate need for increased commercial development. The City Council thus finds that this alternative is not desirable. This alternative is not "feasible" as defined in Section 15364 of CEQA Guidelines because it is not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner taking Appendix A - J. Filice EIR 10 11/3/92 into account economic, social, and legal factors. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternative identified in the EIR. (See also statement of Overriding Considerations, sec. III, below.) III. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS An unavoidable significant adverse environmental impact is a significant adverse impact which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The City Council finds, as summarized in section 3.1 of the EIR, that the project will result in one significant unavoidable impact; that being the loss of air quality. This impact, referenced in the Final Environmental Impact Report, sec. 3.1, cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The city Council hereby finds that the benefits of the proposed project nonetheless outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental impact. Accordingly, the impact is considered acceptable because: 1. The loss of air quality could only be partially mitigated by scaling down the proposed development. of the identified alternatives, only the no- project alternative would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. The project alternatives are infeasible or will not avoid or substantially lessen the one remaining significant effect for the reasons stated in Section II. 2. The mitigation necessary to further reduce this significant environ- mental effect to a level of insignificance would impose constraints on the development of the proposed project, including its size and density, that would make the project economically infeasible. Further, allowing the current designation to remain on the property would also allow development of the site, which would in turn lead to the loss of air quality. Therefore, the unavoidable impact could result without yielding the social, economic and other benefits associated with the project. 3. The City will realize specific and significant social, economic and other benefits from the approval and development of the project, such as increasing the variety of commercial enterprises (in a range providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups) in the City to ac- commodate the City's growing population. Denying the project, adopting the no- project alternative, or requiring further mitigation would prevent or inhibit the City from realizing these benefits. r.. Attachment A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST J. Filice General Plan Amendment EIR The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into any future project specific environmental review for the project site: Party Party. Implementation Mitigation nature of Mitigation Responsible for Responsible for Confirmed By City; Number Implementation Monitoring Planning (Initials, Date) Remarks 1 Adherence to Uniform Building Applicant Building Inspector Code structural earthquake renulations 2 Soils Report Applicant Public Works Director 3 Construction of the proposed Applicant Public Works project during the dry season or Director erosion control plan 4 Final infrastructure plan Applicant Public Works approval for drainage Director improvements 5 Project drainage will not exceed Applicant Public Works the capacity of Ronan Channel Director /Santa Clara Valley Water District 6 Obtain drainage easements Applicant Public Works Director /Santa Clara Valley Water District 7 Install Second southbound San Applicant City Engineer Ysidro right -turn lane at San Ysidro/Leavesle 8 Install second eastbound Applicant City Engineer Leavesley left -turn lane at San Ysidro;Uavesle 9 Widen to an Ysidro to four Applicant City Engineer lanes between Leavesley and Los Animas 10 Widen Leavesley to six lanes Applicant and City Engineer divided arterial between Murray Property Owner of and San Ysidro, the Southpoint _. Parcel 11 Add a second westbound left- Applicant and City Engineer turn lane on Leavesley at the Property Owner of southbound Hwy 101 ramps the Southpoint Parcel 12 Modify signal on southbound Applicant and City Engineer Hwy 101 off -ramp at Leavesley Property Owner of Road the Southpoint Parcel 13 Modify signal on southb;und southbound Applicant and City Engineer Hwy 101 off- -ramp at Leavesley Progerty Owner of the Southpoint Parcel 14 Add southbound merge lane on Applicant and City Engineer southbound Hwy 101 on -ramp Property Owner of the Southpoint Parcel lb Add third southbound left -turn Applicant and City Engineer i_. lane on southbound Hwy 101 off- Property Owner of ramp the Southpoint Parcel 16 Add 10 ft sidewalk on both sides Applicant and City Engineer of Leavesley between Murray Property Owner of and San Ysidro where none exist the Southpoint Parcel 17 Provide a second southbound . - City of Gilroy City Engineer right -turn lane on the Hwy 101 southbound off-ramp at Leavesley '4 18 Add northbound right -turn lane City of Gilroy City Engineer on Monterey at Leavesley 19 Add second eastbound and City of Gilroy City Engineer westbound Welburn/Leavesley through lanes at Monterey 20 Add exclusive westbound right- City of Gilroy City Engineer turn lane on Leavesley at Montere - 21 Modify the Monterey/Welburn- City of Gilroy City Engineer Leavesley traffic signal and railroad grade crossing to, accommodate additional channelization 22 Install second westbound left- City of Gilroy City Engineer turn lane on Leavesley at Montere 23 Add additional northbound left- City of Gilroy City Engineer turn lone on northbound off- ramo from Hwy 101 24 Add second westbound left -turn City of Gilroy City Engineer lane on Leavesley at Murray 26 Restripe Leavesley to six lanes City of Gilroy City Engineer between Montere and Murray 26 Establish bus service to the Applicant and City Planning Director project site of Gilroy 27 Water exposed earth surfaces Applicant Building Director during clearing, excavation, gradinx, and construction ' 28 Haul trucks shall use tarpaulins Applicant Building Director or covers 29 Revegetation and repaving shall Applicant Building Director be completed as soon as construction is completed 30 Conceptual and final project Applicant Planning Director siting, architectural, and landscaping plans 31 Landscape plan shall conform to Applicant Planning Director the City's Consolidated Landscaping Policy 32 Building design noise analysis Applicant Planning Director shall be prepared to indicate structural noise attenuation measures 33 A deed restriction shall be placed Applicant Planning Director on the entire project site which and Building requires that water - conserving Director fixtures be used for all structures built on the project site. 34 The landscape plan for the Applicant Planning Director proposed project shall be and Architectural approved by the Architectural & Site Review t and Project Site Review Committee Committee prior to the issuance of a Lff-radinz vermit 36 Site plan shall include parking Applicant City Engineer, configuration which discourages Planning Director parking of large trucks and other and Architectural large vehicles & Site Review Committee 36 The City of Gilroy Fire Chief Applicant Building Director should be contacted subsequent to submittal of a detailed project site plan for future development of the project site, in order to determine if there are adequate design features to facilitate effective and efficient fire service. A 37 The applicant shall submit Applicant Planning + evidence to the planning Director /Gilroy department that the fee Unified School requirements of the. Gilroy . District Unified School District have been met 38 Protection of potential buried Applicant Planning Director cultural resources during construction. I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Ordinance No. 94 -9 is an original ordinance, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 20th day of June 19 94, 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 21st day of June 19 94 �L�J WIIfA/ !Citjr Clerk of the City of Gilroy (Seal)