Loading...
Resolution 1988-67A j, . . . . ~ RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY ADOPTING FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES, M~D STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO THE FINAL ENVIRONME.'NTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE O'CONNELL RANCH WHEREAS, on July 20, 1987, an application (tIGPA 87-1) was filed by Shapell Industries of Northern California requesting amendment of the Gilroy General Plan for a 1,881 acre site located west of Santa Teresa Boulevard between Hecker Pass and Mesa Road (O'Connell Ranch) in order to change the designation of the property from Rural Residential and Hillside Residential to Low Density Residential and Hillside Residential and to include the property in the 20-year planning area for the purpose of the future conceptual development of the property, which development is generally proposed as above average income residential housing, including a golf course, country club, and recreational and open space amenities; and WHEREAS, City of Gilroy Planning Department staff prepared a Notice of Preparation providing notice of the preparatlon of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") addressing the submitted proposal, which notlce was circulated for agency review as required by California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Notice of Preparation and comments received following distribution of the Notice of Preparation, and pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, a Draft Environmental Impact Report C'DEIR") was prepared for the subject property; public notice was provided of the availability of the DEIR, and the DElR was circulated for comment as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Plannlng Commission evaluated comments on the DEIR and prepared written responses thereto; and WHEREAS, on September 1, 1988, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission to solicit further comments on the adequacy and accuracy of the DEIR document; at which meeting the Planning Commission considered the proposal, the modifications, changes, mitigations, and alternatives to said project recommended by the DEIR and by various agencies and individuals, and considered comments on the DEIR and written responses thereto; and RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 1 - j., J. ' . . WHEREAS, on September 1, 1988, at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council ot the City of Gilroy that the Council adope and cereify the EIR document and approve the proposed amendment to the Gilroy General Plan; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 1988, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council to solicit further comments and responses to the EIR document and to consider the adequacy and accuracy of the EIR document; WHEREAS, at the public meeting of September 6, 1988, written responses to written comments on the EIR document were considered by the City Council, and oral testimony and comment were considered by the Council; and the City Council voted to continue the public hearing on the adequacy and accuracy of the EIR document to October 3, 1988 in order to further elicit, consider, and evaluate comments and responses; and WHEREAS, on October 3, 1988, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council to solicit further comments and responses to the EIR document and to further consider the adequacy and accuracy of the EIR document; and WHEREAS, at the public meeting of October 3, 1988, written responses to written comments on the EIR document were considered by ehe Clty Council, and oral testimony and comment were considered by the Council; and the City Council voted to continue the public hearing on the adequacy and accuracy of the EIR document to November 7, 1988 in order to further elicit, consider, and evaluate comments and responses; and WHEREAS, the City Council prepared a Preliminary Final EIR ("Preliminary FEIR") which incorporated the DEIR and all written responses and comments thereto ("Volume II"); public notice was provided of the availability of the Preliminary FEIR, and the Preliminary FEIR was circulated for comment; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 1988, a duly noticed hearing was held by the City Council to further consider the adequacy and accuracy of the EIR document; and WHEREAS, having reviewed and considered all testimony and materlals made available to the City Council as set forth above lncluding, but not limited to, the Preliminary FEIR and the comments, responses, studies and RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 2 - . . reports referred to or contained therein, and the comments and responses thereto, the Staff reports and the various mitigatlon measures, alternatives, changes and modifications to the proposal, and all testimony and evidence in the record of the proceedings with respect to the proposal and these applications, all of which considered together shall be known as the Final EIR, on November 7, 1988, the City Council took the action hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that 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 findings are set forth as follows: 1. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS A. LAND USE: 1. ~~g_ni!!..ca~_Ef~~J:: The proposed project will reduce the open space character on approximately 270 acres of the site where homes and streets are proposed for construction. (DEIR, p. 23) Mi..E~ga~~E~ Av~idance: This lmpact will be reduced and mitigated by clustering development on only the lower flatter areas of the site that are less visible, and by restricting development on the steeper, higher hillsides. Development in areas designated Hillside Residential shall be done in strict adherence to the Residential Hillside Ordlnance and Hillside Development Guidelines. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87- 1] p.3, item 3.) In addition, the developer will construct a golf course with substantial open space. The developer will also mitigate open space impacts by dedicating 964 acres of the site to the City as permanent public open space. This 964 acre parcel shall be dedicated as Open Space to a governmental agency or Open Space Conservation District. \ Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1J p.3, item 1) If Williamson Act contracts are dissolved, the applicant must pay all penalties due. \Plannlng Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1J p.3, item 2) This dedicated open space would serve as a permanent greenbelt open space. The project also calls for the golf course to run along sections of Santa Teresa Boulevard, thus mitigating the impact on open space view along that scenic traffic route. No structures shall be built within 100 feet of Santa Teresa Boulevard; all RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 3 - . . building and storage areas must be screened from the highway. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1J p.4, item 11). Fi~~~~~~ The City Council finds that the mitigation measures adopted above will partially mitigate this impact. To the extent that the impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible other mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the DEIR. (See ~~~em~~~~! Ov~~ridin~_ Cons:ij..t:ra~ions, below.) S~~~~~~E2~__o!~~~r.Eid~_I2-g~~_~nsij_~Eat.i:~lDs: The project will produce certain unavoidable or partially unmitigated impacts on the open space character of the site despite the fact that the project provides 964 acres of permanent open space preserve. Mitigation measures or project alternatives necessary to further mitigate or avoid these significant environmental effects are infeasible because such measures and alternatives would impose size, density, and location restrictions on the development of the project which would make the project economically 1nfeasible (see analysis of Pr~te~~_Alte~~~~ive~, Section II below) and which would thus prohibit attaining the specific social, economic and other benefits of the project [specifically, the need to increase the housing supply in the C1ty, particularly above average 1ncome housing, in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups in order to accommodate the City's growing population and housing needs (see General Plan Housing Element, Technical Appendix, pp. 11-2, 11-5, 11-14, 11-15, 111- 1), the need to conserve and protect prime agricultural lands - Class I and II agricultural lands - (General Plan, p.III-1) (the project avoids alternative development which would have a greater impact on agricultural lands: see analysis of Proj~~_~ltern~tives~ Section II below), and the need for publicly-owned park and recreation facilities (General Plan, p.VI-2) (the project includes a golf course and a publicly-owned open space preserve with hiking facilities)J which the Council finds outweighs the unavoidable or unmitigated impacts and which justify approval 01 the application, notwithstanding the inability to completely mitigate such impacts. (Reference is hereby made to Section Ill, below.) RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 4 - . . 2. ~~~_n~!ic:.~~t.,E;f~~~~...: The project will possibly eliminate 155 acres of "Prime Farmland" and "Farmland of Statewide Importance" as well as reduce the grazing potential on other parts of the site. (DEIR, p. 24) ~~~~~~t..Lo..E:.-_~~J\.~~_~c!~~~...:. Prime agricultural lands are defined as Class I and II agricultural lands (General Plan, p.III-I). The farmland owned by the applicant is characterized as Class II or higher, predominantly Class III or higher. The 155 acres designated as "Prime Farmland" and "Farmland of Statewide Impor tance" is not owned by the applicant, Shapell Industries, but is adjacent to land proposed for development, and is proposed to be included in the 20-year planning area of the General Plan and the Urban Service Area as a part of this amendment for contiguity. These Class I and II soils thus could be subject to development pressure and loss of agricultural potential due to annexation and potential future development. Fi~~~~...: The City Council finds that the m1tigat10n measures adopted above will not mitigate this impact. To the extent that the impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible other mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the DEIR. (See State~~~~~!_~~~EidinlL Consid~rat10ns, below.) S~~~e.!l1~~~_?l_.2~~r-E2-~~~g_ Cons~~E~~ions: The project wHl produce certain unavoidable or unmitigated impacts on agricultural potential of lands on and adjacent to the site. Mitigation measures or project alternatives necessary to further mitigate or avoid these significant environmental effects are infeasible because such measures and alternatives would impose size, density, and location restrictions on the development of the project which would make the project economically infeasible (see analysis of Project Alternatives, Section II below) and which would thus prohibit attaining the specific social, economic and other benefits of the project [specifically, the need to increase the housing supply in the City, particularly above average income housing, in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups in order to RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 5 - . . accommodate the City's growing population and housing needs (see General Plan Housing Element, Technical Appendix, pp. 11-2, 11-5, 11-14, II-IS, 111- 1), the need to conserve and protect prime agricultural lands - Class I and II agricultural lands - (General Plan, p.llI-l) (the project avoids alternative development which would have a greater impact on agricultural lands: see analysis of Proi~~_~~~rn~tiv~~ Section II below), and the need for publicly-owned park and recreation facilities (General Plan, p.VI-2) (the project includes a golf course and a publicly-owned open space preserve with hiking facilities)] which the Council finds outweighs the unavoidable or unmitigated impacts and which justify approval of the application, notwithstanding the inability to completely mitigate such impacts. (Reference is hereby made to Section Ill, below.) B. GEOLOGY: 3.~i~tnjfi<:"~..E_Eff~~~: The project proposes grading of between 400 and 500 acres of the site which will involve a volume of 2.0 to 2.25 million cubic yards of cut and fill. A maximum cut of over 50 feet is proposed in at least one location and fill depths would exceed 20 feet over s1gnificant areas. The extent and volume of grading will result in a sign1ficant unavoidable impact on the topography of the site.(DEIR, p. 34). !:!i_tjg.~~~..?.E_9..~ AV~~~~.E5:: Grading operations shall be reduced to a minimum. All grading shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. (Planning Department Staff Report LGPA 87-1 J p.4, item 6). The project will reduce grading impacts by clustering development on the lower slopes and terraces, leaving higher hillsides basically undisturbed. The project will be required to further reduce grading impacts by 1mplementing Gilroy's engineering criteria which will restrict cuts to a 10 to 12 foot maximum depth and limit grading to meet minimum drainage requirements. The application will eliminate development on steeper slopes (over 30% slope), thus reducing the project size and having a mitigating effect on grading impacts. Roads that cross major riparian areas shall be designed to span such areas with bridges, rather than by fill operations. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1] p.4, item 13). RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 6 - . . Fin~i?g~ The City Council finds that the mitigation measures adopted above will partially mitigate this impact. To the extent that the impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible other mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the DEIR. (See ~~_~~~ent 2~OveEridinJL Cons~~~ation~, below.) ~t<:,:~_e.!ll~~E.._o!_gY-.~!:Ej!!:!:.~_.s:~~~ij.~rations: The project will produce certain unavoidable or partially unmitigated impacts caused by grading operations on the site. Mitigation measures or project alternatives necessary to further mitigate or avoid these significant environmental effects are infeasible because such measures and alternatives would impose size and density restrictions on the development of the project which would make the project economically infeasible (see analysis of Pr~ec~ Al~rnatives~ Section II below) and which would thus prohibit attaining the specific social, economic and other benefits of the project (specifically, the need to increase the housing supply in the City, particularly above average income housing, in a range of densities provlding for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups in order to accommodate the City's growing population and housing needs (see General Plan Houslng Element, Technical Appendix, pp. 11-2, 11-5, 11-14, II-IS, III-I), the need to preserve open space (despite having an impact on open space, the project will permanently preserve 964 acres of publicly-owned open space), and conserve and protect prime agricultural lands - Class I and II agricultural lands - (General Plan, p.llI-I) (the project avoids alternative development which would have a greater impact on agricultural lands: see analysls of Project~lte~Eative~ Section II below), and the need for publicly-owned park and recreation facilities (General Plan, pp. VI-2) (the project includes a golf course and a publicly-owned open space preserve with hiking facilities)] which the Council finds outweighs the unavoidable or unmitigated impacts and which justify approval of the application, notwithstanding the inability to completely mitigate such impacts. (Reference is made to Section Ill, below.) 4. Si~n_iJ.!~~~__~!.!...~~ The proposed project is subject to seismic and slope stability hazards. Both active and inactive landslides were RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 7 _ . . mapped on the site. An inactive fault on the site has a remote potential for minor sympathetic movement during a major earthquake on a nearby actlve fault. (DEIR, p. 32, 34) ~i_t_i}I~~i~?__~~_~..J:?~~anc~~ In general, the project proposes to reduce seismic hazards and slope failures by avoiding the steep slopes subject to sliding and clustering residential development on the least hazardous areas of the site. Seismic hazards to homes will be mitigated by construction of homes to meet seismic Risk Level 4 in accordance with current California practices. The developer will avoid hazard to structures from sympathetic movement on the inactive fault by setting buildings back from the fault or by using a foundation that would withstand the minor movement. The hazards of slope stability and landslides will be reduced by standard engineering practices for construction of cut and fill slopes including not over-steepening slopes and using butress fill in the vicinity of highly fractured and shear materials. Slope stability will be mitigated by Gilroy's requirement to limit maximum cuts to 10 to 12 teet. All buildings shall be set back from any active or inactlve geologic faults subject to the approval of the City Engineer. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1] p.4, item 7). Development shall not be allowed in areas of soil creep, or in areas downslope from unstable areas. Placement of building pads in sloped areas shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1J p.3, item 4). The developer shall provide a complete geotechnic reconnaissance of the site, with a slope stability and soils investigation or areas of over 10% slope. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1J p.4, item 5). Finding: Mitigation measures reduce this impact to a non- significant level. 5. S~~nif~~~~_Effe~~ During and after grading, the project will be subject to erosion that could result in downstream sedimentatlon. (DEIR, p. 36) ~~~~~~t~~_~~_Avoid~nce~ Erosion is proposed to be controlled by limiting grading to the dry season and establishing erosion control before the rainy season. Erosion control measures will include revegetation, RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 8 - . . reducing the velocities of surface runoff and establishing settling basins. Erosion and sedimentation will also be reduced by Gilroy~s requirement to limit cuts to a maximum depth of 10 to 12 feet. Find~~~" Mitigation measures reduce this impact to a non- significant level. 6. ~i_g2'l~~i(:..!~:?_t ~!..f~~E.: Expansive soils are present at some locations on the site which have a potential to adversely affect paving and structures. (DEIR, p. 36) !!i~i~~t:..~E"_~~~~~~<!.~n~~: Potentially adverse effects from expansive soils will be avoided by placing expansive soils in deep fill and covering with low- or non-expansive soils. Residential lots found to have moderate to highly expansive soils near the surface will have deeper foundations to prevent uplift under the grade beams. Finding~ Mitigation measures reduce this impact to a non- significant level. c. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE: 7. ~~~~~~~~~_~~fec~: The proposed project will significantly reduce the vegetation and wildlife habitat on the slte by convertlng approximately 450 acres of grassland and woodland habitat to urban and suburban uses. Vegetation and wildllfe impacts include increased human activity and the removal of between 500 and 700 trees. No rare or endangered species were observed on the project site, and none are expected to be impacted. (DEIR, p. 46.) The California Tiger Salamander has been reportedly sighted on the project site. (Preliminary FEIR, Volume II, pp.10,30.) This species is an uncommon grassland salamander of Central California and is found in a few places in the San Francisco Bay Area. (Preliminary FEIR, Volume II, p. 10.) The species is not presently listed on the threatened or endangered species list(s). (Preliminary FEIR, volume II, Appendix G California Tlger Salamander Investigation, LSA letter report, p.2.). This species is a Federal Candidate 2 species, meaning further information will be necessary to determine if the species should be listed as an endangered or threatened species. The species inhabits grassland and the grassy understory of oak woodlands and therefore, it would, or could, be severely impacted or RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 9 - . . eliminated from the site by the project as proposed. (Preliminary FEIR, Volume II, pp. 10, 30; Preliminary FEIR, Volume II, Appendix G - California Tiger Salamander Investigation, LSA letter report, pp.2.) The California Mountain Kingsnake, the Arboreal Salamander, and the Pale Wind Scorpion could be present on the project site. (Preliminary FEIR, Volume II, p.l0.) The Response to those concerns indicates no significant impact on these species. (Preliminary FEIR, Volume II, p. lU.) Mit~~~~~~_~~~oi~nce: Vegetation and wildlife impacts are proposed to be mitigated by the project by limiting development to the lower, flatter areas of the site. Native trees and shrubs shall be preserved wherever possible. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1J p.4, item 8). Tree removal shall be kept to a minimum; trees which are removed must be replaced with native trees. (Planning Department Staft Report [GPA 87-1J p.4, item 9). Landscaping done by the developer shall utilize native plant materials; the developer shall provide homeowners with educational material describing landscaping materials native to the area for use on private property (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1J p.4, item 10). Regarding the California Tiger Salamander, the record indicates that the salamander s utilize a cer tain stock-pond in Reservoir Canyon on the property for breeding purposes and utilize the grasslands and oak woodlands surrounding that pond as habitat. lPreliminary FEIR, Volume II, p.33, Appendix G California Tiger Salamander Investigation, LSA letter report, p.3.] The Preliminary FEIR proposes mitigation measures designed to minimize the impact of the project on the species and designed to preserve the existence of the species on the site by avoiding development of that existing stock-pond and by avoiding development of fifty (50) acres of the surrounding grassland and oak woodland on the property. (Preliminary FEIR, Volume 11, p.33, Appendix G [LSA letter report, pp.3-4.]) In order to maintain the species on the project site, The Addendum to Comments and !.e-.?J>~:::!?~~_Q:::_:Q1~_~r.:...eJ.j.mi~ar y _~ inal Env ir on~en t~~Imp~~_~Eor ~ For The_ Q.'~~~:::~}l._.!~~c_~RE_~~~~ (November 4, 1988) proposes further miUgation measures consisting of the following: RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 10 - . . 1) A conservation easement shall be placed on the stock pond in Reservoir Canyon and the adjacent 50 acres of suitable upland salamander habitat. This easement should be held by the City of Gilroy and incorporate the following conditions: a) No algicides or other chemical treatments deleterious to the salamander shall be allowed to be used in the stock pond. Mechanical removal of vegetation will be the only treatment permitted and will be limited to the months of August through the end of October. b) No stocking of fish will be permitted in the stock pond. No pesticide treatments will be allowed in the stock pond. 2) Construction near and adjacent to the golf course will be limited to the period of April 15 through the end of November. 3) Construction activities must not result in obstruct10ns to the free movement of salamanders to the stock pond from December through March and movement from the pond to the adjacent upland habitat from March through September. To ensure survival of the salamander population, a second breeding pond shall be constructed within the 50 acre upland salamander habitat site proposed. Any future project will be designed to further mitigate the impact on the species because the project will avoid, and thus have a marginal impact on, the oak woodland, especially in the eastern sector of the property which is designated as permanent open space preserve. Finding: It has been determined that the California Tiger Salamander is not listed on the federal or state endangered or threatened species list(s). (Preliminary FEIR, Volume II, p. 10; Preliminary FEIR Volume II, Appendix G California Tiger Salamander Investigation, LSA letter report, p.2.) Mitigation measures discussed above pertaining to the California Tiger Salamander are designed to reduce the impact of future development on the species to a level of insignificance and designed to preserve the continued existence of the species on the project site. It is the finding of the Council, based upon the best available evidence and expert opinion, that the mitigation measures will substantially lessen the impact on the species and will preserve the continued existence of the species on the project site. Nevertheless, because of unforeseen RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 11 - . . circumstances, some of which may not be a direct result of the project itself (e.g., the inadvertent introduction of bullfrogs or fish into the stock-pond, breeding pond in Reservoir Canyon), it is not possible to guarantee the continued existence of the salamander on the site. Moreover, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible other mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (See: ~~~t.e.!ll.e.:?~_o}_gv.~~~.<!~_T1_&_~~~~~~E~~~~~' below.) Since the pr imary habitat of the California Tiger Salamander is known to occur widely throughout the state in several discrete populations, some of which are located on protected lands lPreliminary FEIR, volume II, p. 30, Appendix G - California Tiger Salamander Investigation, LSA letter report, p. 2], and since it has been determined that the Preliminary FEIR as proposed will include mitigation measures designed to lessen the impact on the species to a level of insignificance on the site and to preserve the species' continued existence on the site lPreliminary FEIR, Volume II, p. 33, Appendix G - California Tiger Salamander Investigation, LSA letter report, p.4], it is found that the project will not have a significant cumulative impact on the population of the species within the State of California. Since the other reported populations of Tiger Salamander in the Gilroy area are located on ranch land where no development is proposed, it is further found that the cumulative impacts of the project on the species in the Gilroy area will not be significant. [Preliminary F EIR, Volume II, p. 32, Appendix G - California Tiger Salamander Investigation, LSA letter re por t, p.1.] St~~.e_m..e.:?~_~_.2~~ridi12...0~~siderations: The project will produce certain unavoidable or partially unmitigated impacts on the vegetation and wildlife on the site, including impacts to the California Tiger Salamander. Mitigation measures have been imposed upon the project which are designed to lessen the impact on the salamander and to preserve its existence on the site (see Mitigation paragraph above in this section). Mitigation measures or project alternatives necessary to further mitigate or avoid these significant environmental effects are infeasible because SUCh measures and alternatives would impose size, density, and location restrictions on the development of the project which would make the project economically RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 12 - . . infeasible (see analysis of ~~?i~C~_~~~~E~~~v~~~ Section II below) and which would thus prohibit attaining the specific social, economic and other benefits of the project [specifically, the need to increase the housing supply, particularly above average income housing, in the City in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups in order to accommodate the City's growing population and and hous~ng needs (see General Plan Housing Element, Technical Appendix, pp. 11-2, 11-5, 11-14, II-IS, Ill-I), the need to preserve open space (the project will permanently preserve 964 acres of publicly-owned open space), the need to conserve and protect prime agricultural lands - Class I and II agricultural lands (General Plan, p.lII-l) (the project avoids alternative development which would have a greater impact on agricultural lands: see analysis of Pr~ie~~~~~~natives, Section II below), and the need for publicly-owned park and recreation facilities (General Plan, p.VI-2) (the project includes a golf course and a publicly-owned open space preserve with h~king facilities)] which the Council finds outweighs the unavoidable or unmitigated impacts and which justify approval of the project, notwithstanding the inability to completely mitigate such impacts. (Reference is made to Section Ill, below.) D. VISUAL AND AESTHETICS: 8. S~g_~~ic~~_~~~~~: The proposed project will result in visual impacts from many vantage points in western, southern and central Gilroy including Santa Teresa Boulevard and Highway 152. Highway 152 and Santa Teresa Boulevard are designated as scenic corridors and therefore the project would have significant visual impacts by affecting views from these roadways (DEIR, pp. 48-49.) M~j~~tioE~~Avoida~~: The developer will reduce and mitigate these impacts by preserving the upper hillsides of the project in permanent open space and by limiting development to only the lower flatter areas of the site that are less visible. In addition, the developer will construct a golf course with substantial open space, thus enhancing the visual and aesthetic qualities of the project site. The developer will mitigate open space impacts by dedicating 964 acres of the site to the City as permanent, publicly-owned, open space. This dedicated open space would serve as a RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 13 - . . permanent greenbelt open space. The project also calls for the golf course to run along sections of Santa Teresa Boulevard, thus mitigating the impact on open space view along that scenic traffic route. No structures shall be built within 100 feet of Santa Teresa Boulevard; all building and storage areas must be screened from the highway. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1] p.4, item 11) Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures will substantially reduce visual impacts from the project but the overall impact will still be apparent. Find~g: The City Council finds that the mitigation measures adopted above will partially mitigate this impact. To the extent that the impact is not mitigated to a level of insignificance, specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible other mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the DEIR (see Statemen~l O~rri~~~_ Considerations, below.) State.E1~nt _~_.2~,=-rri~~:~~L~~~~~~ration~: The proj ect will produce certain unavoidable or partially unmitigated impacts to the visual and aesthetic character of the site. Mitigation measures or project alternatives necessary to further mitigate or avoid these significant environmental effects are infeasible because such measures and alternatives would impose size, density, and location restrictions on the development of the project which would make the project economically infeasible \see analysis of Project Alternatives, Section II below) and which would thus prohibit attaining the specific social, economic and other benefits of the project [specifically, the need to increase the housing supply, particularly above average income housing, in the City in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups in order to accommodate the City's growing population and housing needs (General Plan Housing Element, Technical Appendix, pp. 11-2, 11-5, 11-14, 11-15, Ill-I), the need to preserve open space (Lhe project will permanently preserve 964 acres of publicly-owned open space), and the need to conserve and protect prime agricultural lands - Class I and II agricultural lands - (General Plan, p.llI-l) (the project avoids alternative development which would have a greater impact on agricultural lands: see analysis of Pr~.iect Alternativ~~ Section II below), and the need for publicly-owned park ana RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 14 - . . recreation facilities (General Plan, p.VI-2) (the project includes a golf course and a publicly-owned open space preserve with hiking facilities)J which the Council finds outweighs the unavoidable or unmitigated impacts and which justify approval of the application, notwithstanding the inability to completely mitigate such impacts. (Reference is made to Section Ill, below. ) E. DRAINAGE AND FLOODING: 9. ~~g~~!~~ant_~~!~ct: The proposed project will increase runoff from the site affecting downstream drainages that carry storm runoff from the site to Uvas Creek. The project will result in increased flows during a laO-year storm and during a la-year event. Some drainage channels and pipes between the site and Uvas Creek have inadequate capacity to accommodate a la-year flood and would be unable to carry additional runoff resulting from project develoment. (DEIR, pp. 58-59) M~~~~~i.-?E_5?.~~~~!.~~ce: The applicant will employ water features on the golf course that can serve as retention ponds to control peak storm flows and release the storm water slowly after the peak flow has passed. The project will be required to meet Gilroy's drainage criteria which requires a dedicated system of pipes and channels to carry water from the site to Uvas Creek. The design of all storm drainage facil1.ties shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1j p.4, item 12) Roads that cross major riparian areas shall be designed to span such areas with bridges, rather than by fill operations. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-lJ p.4, item 13). Fin~~~ Mitigation measures reduce this impact to a non- significant level. This impact is adequately mitigated. F. CULTURAL RESOURCES: 10. ~~E-Ji:!:.~~E-E__~ffect: Three prehistoric archaeological sites on the property will be impacted by grading and construction activities proposed by the project. (DEIR, p. 64) ~~tJ:.~~~~E_~~~~!dan.E~: The applicant will mitigate impacts to the prehistoric archaeological resources by modifying the project to avo~d these resources. This will be accomplished by designing the golf course or RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 15 - . . other open space uses to preserve the cultural sites. Impacts will also be avoided by placing fill over the archaeological sites thus avoiding disturbance. All cultural sites identified in the archaeological reconnaissance of the site shall be preserved prior to the issuance of any building permits; the disposition of artifacts shall be based on recommendation of an archaeologist and appropriate local Native American representatives. (Planning Department Staff Report lGPA 87-1) p.4, item 14) Fin~~~~ Mitigation measures reduce this impact to a non- significant level. This impact is adequately mitigated. G. TRANSPORTATION: 11. ~~g.E.!X:!:.~~~~!J~ct: The project will not result in significant traffic circulation impacts or congestion, but project traffic will reduce the reserve capacity of the roadway system. (DEIR, pp. 67, 71) Mitigation or Avoidance: The applicant will mitigate impacts to the traffic circulation by construction of fully signalized intersections at the two entries to the project on Santa Teresa Boulevard with separate left and right turn lanes. Ingress and egress from the development onto Santa Teresa Boulevard shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. (Planning Department Staff Report lGPA 87-1] p.4, item 18.) Street improvements shall be provided by the developer subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. (Planning Depar tment Staff Report [GPA 87-1] pp.4, item 15.) Facilities encouraging bicycle use shall be provided. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-lj pp.5, item 23.) The developer shall provide bus stops, turnouts and shelters to meet the approval of the Director of Public Works and Santa Clara County Transit District. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1J p.4, Hem 24.) ~~~~~~~ Mitigation measures reduce this impact to a non- significant level. This impact is adequately mitigated. 12. Sig-E.!!~~~~_Ef~~~: Traffic from the project together with traffic from all other development expected in the Gilroy area by year 2000 will have a significant cumulative impact upon seven intersections in the proj ect area. (DEIR, p. 67, 71) ~~~~~~~~E_~~~~~~~~~~: The developer must contribute to any necessary signalization subject to the approval of the City Engineer. RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 16 - . . (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1] p.4, item 16) The developer shall provide for the expansion of Thomas Road from two lanes to four, and add an additional two lanes of bridge. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1] p.4, item 17) The project will be required to fund a share of the roadway improvements in proportion to the capacity used by traffic from the project. Fi~~n~~ Mitigation measures reduce this impact to a non- significant level. This impact is adequately mitigated. H. NOISE: 13. ~~nii~~~~_~~f~~~: The principal source of noise in the project area is automobile traffic on Santa Teresa Boulevard. This noise impact is found in a band which extends roughly 100 feet onto the project site from the edge of the Santa Teresa Boulevard right of way. Project homes along Santa Teresa Boulevard will potentially be subject to high noise levels from cumulative vehicular traffic. (DEIR, p. 75, 77) ~~~~~~~j~E~~~~oida~~: Vehicular noise intrusion upon project homes will be mitigated by implementation of Gilroy General Plan noise policy. This policy requires adherence to City noise standards by setting homes back from the roadway. No structures shall be built within 100 feet of Santa Teresa Boulevard. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1J p.4, item 11). Soil berms shall be required to reduce noise impacts along Santa Teresa Boulevard, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1] p.4, item 19) Facilities encouraging bicycle use shall be provided. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1J p.S, item 23) The developer shall provide bus stops, turnouts and shelters to meet the approval of the Director of Public Works and Santa Clara County Transit District. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1] p.4, item 24) ~~~~~g~ Mitigation measures reduce this impact to a non- significant level. This impact is adequately mitigated. I. ~~~_g~~_ITY: 14. ~~g~~iic~~_Effect: The project will contribute between a t1ve and six percent increase to Gilroy's total vehicular emissions. This contribution does not constitute a significant impact by itself. Cumulative RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 17 - . . emissions projected from build-out of the Gilroy area are expected to result in a threefold increase of emissions. (DEIR, p. 84) ~i_t~~~.,=-i--9~_~~~~~idance: Mitigation of air quality impacts from the project as well as cumulative impacts is provided by implementation of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District plan which relies on reduced emissions from more effective emission control devices. Provisions of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District plan shall continue to be implemented in the area. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1j p.~, item 20) Facilities encouraging bicycle use shall be provided. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1] p.5, item 23) The developer shall provide bus stops, turnouts and shelters to meet the approval of the Director of Public Works and Santa Clara County Transit District. (Planning Department Staff Report lGPA 87-1] p.4, item 24) Finding: Mitigation measures reduce this impact to a non- significant level. This impact is adequately mitigated. J. SERVICES AND UTIL ITIES: 15. ~igE~i~~~~_Ef~~~: Sanitary sewer service is presently unavailable to serve the project. Sanitary sewer line capacity is not adequate to serve the project. (DEIR, p .89) ~i~~~at~E or Avoidance: The developer shall be required to provide a sewer truck line to serve the development, and to enter into a contractual agreement with the Gilroy City Council to obtain sewer allocation prior to the issuance of any building permits. (Planning Department Staff Report lGPA 87-1] p.5, item 21). The design of all sewer lines shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1j p.5, item 25.) Approval of the project will be conditioned on the availability of sewer treatment plant capacity to serve it. Treatment plant expansion is scheduled for the early and mid-1990s. The project will be required to construct a sanitary trunk line from the site to the treatment plant to provide sewer line capacity. Finding: Mitigation measures reduce this impact to a non- significant level. This impact will be adequately mitigated. 16. Significant Effect: The project will require water service at higher elevations than the existing water system can supply. The project RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 18 - . . will also require water storage capacity and supply beyond the capabilities of Gilroy's existing water system. (DEIR, p.89, 90) ~tig~~~~n_~~~~~id~~~: The project will avoid adverse effects to the Gilroy water system by extending and constructing a water system to serve the project that meets City Standards. The project proposes the expansion of the Gilroy water system with an additional welles) to serve project demands. The developer will construct a water reservoir on the site to provide the necessary storage capacity. This reservoir will be located at an elevation sufficient to provide adequate water pressure. The proposed project will be required to provide a water system as a condition of approval of the project. Fin~~ng: Mitigation measures reduce this impact to a non- significant level. This impact will be adequately mitigated. 17. Sig~~i~~~~~ffeci: There are not adequate facilities in the project site to provide electric power, natural gas, or telephone service to the site. (DEIR, p.90) ~~!~~~~~E_~~ Avoi~~~~: Natural gas, electric power, and telephone service will be extended to serve the site. F~~~~~: Providing electric power, natural gas, and telephone facilities to serve the proposed development is not a significant impact. No mitigation measures are proposed or necessary. (DEIR, p.92) 18. Significant Effect: Emergency fire response times to the site exceed city standards because of the distance to the nearest fire station. The project will impact fire and police protection services requlring expansion of both these departments. (DEIR, pp.90, 91, 92, 93) Mitigation or Avoidance: The developer shall be required to pay Public Safety Impact Fees to partially offset the cost of a new fire station which would serve the development and its surrounding area (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1] pp. 5, item 26) and to partially offset the impact to police services. ~i~din~~ Mitigation measures reduce this impact to a non- significant level. This impact will be adequately mitigated. 19. ~gn~f~~~r:E_Eff~~i: The project will generate school-aged children who will impact schools. (DEIR, p.91) RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 19 - . . Mit_i~."l~"~~?_~!:_}.y~~~CJ._n.~~_: If the Gilroy Unified School Dlstrict determines that the project will impact local schools beyond the level offset by required school impaction fees, the devoloper shall, as soon as possible, and before issuance of any building permits for the project, negotiate with the Gilroy Unified School District and the City of Gilroy to mitigate such impacts, in addition to paying the required impact fees. (Planning Department Staff Report [GPA 87-1] p.5, item 22). Fi~ding: Mitigation measures reduce this impact to a non- significant level. This impact will be adequately mitigated. 20. Significant Effect: The project will impact park and library services. (DEIR, p.91, 92) ~iti~~~~~_~~J\~~id~n.E~: Library impacts will be partially offset by tax revenues generated by the project. The project will not have a significant impact on parks because the project includes the dedication of 964 acres of open space. The project will dedicate 964 acres of open space to the City of Gilroy for park purposes, reducing impacts upon existing parks. (Planning Department Staff Report lGPA 87-1J p.4, item 1). In addition, the proposed golf course will provide recreational opportunitl.es. Park operation and maintenance costs resulting from the demand of future residents of the project will be partially offset by tax revenues. Finding: Mitigation measures reduce this impact to a non- significant level. This impact will be adequately mitigated. K. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS: 21. ~_~!~~~~_~~f~~~: The cumulative impacts of the project result from the incremental contributions to traffic generation, al.r pollutl.on emissions, and vehicular-generated noise. In addition, the project will result in an incremental reduction of open space and agricultural production potential that contributes to the cumulative loss of these resources. These cumulative impacts have been described in the EIR under the sectl.ons on traffic, air quality, noise, and land use. (DEIR, page 94) Mitigation or Avoidance: The cumulative impacts were addressed for the purposes of future traffic, noise and air quality under the above headings in the DElR. Fi~~~g: Mitigation measures reduce these impacts to a non- RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 20 - . . significant level. These impacts will be adequately mitigated. L. POLICY CONSISTENCY 22. ~~~~~~ca~~_~f~~~~: The proposed project is in general conformity with the policies of Santa Clara County and the City of Gilroy, and is substantially consistent with the Santa Clara County General Plan and the City of Gilroy General Plan. The EIR notes that the project would have to be modified to meet criteria of avoiding impacts to riparian habitat and stream corridors. The project is not consistent with the criterion of not developing more than 10% of the property nor is the project expected to be consistent with the criteria of avoiding a revenue burden on the City of Gilroy for providing services. (DEIR, pages 14, 15, 16) Mitigation or Avoidance: Most of these inconsistencies have been dealt with by the adoption of the mitigating measures noted in Section I above. Fi~~~g: Mitigation measures reduce these impacts to a non- significant level. These impacts will be adequately mitigated. II. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES: A. No Project Alternative (environmentally preferable alternative.) Alternative: The No Project Alternative consists of leaving the site in its present undeveloped condition. (DEIR p. 98) Statement Of Fact: There is currently a shortage of housing in Santa Clara County because the County is unable to provide housing for its current employees, thus requiring an importation of workers into the County. The housing shortage both in Gilroy and the County as a whole are projected to increase by 1995. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) predlcts a major short-fall of housing in the near future in both the City and County if more housing units are not developed. (DEIR pages 17, 18; General Plan Housing Element, Technical Appendix, pp. 11-2, 11-5, 11-14, II-IS, Ill-I.) The primary objective for proposing the project is to provide high quality housing in a planned suburban community to meet the future housing demands in the City of Gilroy as well as in Santa Clara County. In order to meet the future housing demand, a diverse mixture of homes is required. The project proposes construction of slightly over 1,000 homes which will contribute toward balancing jobs and housing both in Gilroy and the County RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 21 - . . as a whole. Fi~~_~~~ The City Council finds that there is a need to increase the housing supply, especially above average income housing, in the City (in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups) in order to accommodate the City's growing population and housing needs (General Plan Housing Element, Technical Appendix, pp. 11-2, 11-5, 11-14, 11-15, III-I). The No Project Alternative would not meet the City's immediate need for increased housing. The City Council thus finds that the No Project Alternative is not desirable. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternative indentified in the DEIR. (See Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.) B. Fe~er Dwelling Unit~ - Cluster Alternative. Alternative: The "fewer dwelling units cluster alternative" consists of developing 20 percent to 50 percent fewer dwelling units than proposed by the project, but leaving more of the site as undeveloped open space. (DEIR p. 98) Statement Of Fact: There is currently a shortage of housing in Santa Clara County because the County is unable to provide housing for its current employees, thus requiring an importation of workers into the County. The housing shortage both in Gilroy and the County as a whole ~s projected to increase by 1995. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) predicts a major short-fall of housing in the near future in both the City and County if more housing units are not developed. (DEIR pages 17, 18; General Plan Housing Element, Technical Appendix, pp. 11-2, 11-5, 11-14, 11-15, III-I.) The primary objective for proposing the project is to provide high quality housing in a planned suburban community to meet the future housing demands in the City of Gilroy as well as in Santa Clara County. In order to meet the future housing demand, a diverse mixture of homes is required. The project proposes construction of slightly over 1,000 homes which will contribute toward balancing jobs and housing both in Gilroy and the County as a whole. Development of the project site using this alternative could RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 22 - . . result in a project with as few as 500 total dwelling units, a 50% reduction from the proposed plan. One variation of this configuration would consist ,~ of eliminating the 8,000 to 15,000 square foot lots. This variation would thus eliminate much of the higher quality residential element associated with the applicant's proposed project and a significant degree of diversification in housing types. Fi~<!j._~..:. The City Council finds that the need to increase the housing supply, particularly above average housing, in the City (in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups) in order to accommodate the City's growing population and housing needs (General Plan Housing Element, Technical Appendix, pp. 11-2, II-5, 11- 14, II-IS, Ill-I) while at the same time providing higher quality homes justifies the rejection of the Fewer Dwelling Units Cluster Alternative and justifies the adoption of the proposed project using development densities greater than densities as provided by the Fewer Dwelling Units Cluster Alternative. A greater variety of development densities would be used to create more diversity among the different neighborhood clusters, and to permit lower densities to be used in the upslope areas. The Clty Council finds that the Fewer Dwelling Units Cluster Alternative is not acceptable. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternative indentified in the DEIR. (See Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section Ill, below.) C. Mo~~_~~l~~~g Units Cluster Alternative. Al ternative: This alternative consists of developing 20 percent to 50 percent more dwelling units than proposed for the project. (DEIR pp. 99) Statement Of Fact: This alternative would reduce the amount ot open space and increase the environmental impacts over those of the proposed proJect. Fi~~_~..:. For the above reasons, the City Council finds this not to be the best alternative at the present time. D. Non-Cluster Alternative. Alternative: The Non-Cluster Alternative consists of developing homes over the entire site at a density that is allowed by Gilroy's slope RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 23 - . . density formula. (DEIR p. 99) Statement Of Fact: This alternative would generally have the greatest impacts to the site because it would result in the greatest disturbance of the site (DEIR p. 99). ~12~E~: For the above reasons, the City Council finds that this is not a suitable alternative at the present time. E. Location Alternatives. Statement Of Fact: The project represents a large single ownership that allows for the orderly layout of streets, lots, and utilities and is therefore consistent with the provisions of the Gilroy General Plan that encourage this approach (DEIR, page 15). The project location alternatives referenced in the DEIR suffer from the following deficiencies: These alternative locations of comparable size (making it economically feasible to support a development comparable to that proposed for the subject site - including a first quality golf course, 964 acres of prime open space dedicated to a permanent preserve, and high quality housing) will present the major difficulty of not being owned by a single entity and thus will require the acquisition of several diverse parcels from several owners. 1. Northeast, East, Southeast, and South Alternative. Al ternative: Possible alternative locations for the proj ect are the large areas of agricultural lands that lie to the northeast, east, southeast, and south of the City. (DEIR p. 100) Statement Of Fact: These alternative locatlons would have a greater impact on agricultural land/farmland in general and on Prime Farmland in particular than is proposed by the project, and would not have the benefit of preserving 964 acres of hillside open space as is proposed by the proj ect. ~~nding: For the above reasons, the City Council finds that this is not a suitable alternative. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternative indentified in the DEIR. (See Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.) 2. Southwest Alternative. Alternative: The area to the southwest of Gilroy is a posslble alternative location for the project (DEIR p. 102). RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 24 - , . Statement Of Fact: This location does not readily provide 964 acres of hillside open space preserve as 1S provided by the project. The impacts of the project at this alternative location would be slightly greater than at the proposed location since it is farther from the existing urban services and infrastructure of Gilroy. (DEIR, page 102) Find~~..: For the above reasons, the City Council finds that this is not a suitable alternative. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternative indentified in the DEIR. (See Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.) 3. Vkst~Northwe~~nd ~orth_Alt~rnative. Alternative: The areas to the west, northwest, and north of Gilroy are possible alternative locations for the project ~DEIR pp. 102- 103). Statement Of Fact: These locations do not readily provide 964 acres of hillside open space preserve as is provided by the project. The impacts of the project at these alternative locations would be slightly greater than at the proposed location since they are farther trom the existing urban services and infrastructure of Gilroy. These alternative locations would also have a greater impact on Prime Farmland. (DEIR, page 103) ~i~di~~: For the above reasons, the City Council finds that this is not a suitable alternative. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternative indentified in the DEIR. (See Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section Ill, below.) F. ?~E~~~~E._~~~~E~~~ye: Alternative: The environmentally superior alternat1ve would be the No Project Alternative. The alternate environmentally superior alternative would be the Fewer Dwelling Units Cluster Alternative. Statement Of Fact: Fewer Dwelling Units Cluster Alternative: (See discussion of this alternative above.) F~~~~n~~ The Council finds that the Fewer Dwelling Units Cluster Alternative would not successfully meet the City's need for increased housing. Specific economic, social, or other considerations (specifically the need for housing) make infeasible this project alternative indentified RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 25 - . . in the DEIR. In light of the above discussions of alternatives, the City Council finds that the currently proposed project substantially conforms with the Fewer Dwelling Units Cluster Alternative, and ye t possesses qualities superior to the latter, i.e., the proposed project more completely meets the City's needs for housing, and therefore the Council finds the proposed project to be the best alternative offered. (See discussion of the Fewer Dwelling Units Cluster Alternative above.) Ill. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds and resolves that, in considering the project, certain impacts referenced in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), while lessened through proposed Conditions of Approval (Planning Department Staff Report, items 1-26) and proposed mitigation measures, cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. These impacts are hereby adopted in the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations contained hereinbelow as follows: The City and project sponsor have made reasonable and good faith efforts to mitigate potential impacts which might result from the proposed project. The City Council has imposed numerous conditions of approval and potential design modifications to substantially mitigate or eliminate potential impacts. However, even with these measures, some of whiCh are compensation as well as mitigation, the project will produce certain unavoidable or partially unmitigated 1mpacts as outlined in the preced1ng Section I of this resolution and hereinbelow. Mitigation measures or project alternatives necessary to further mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects referenced in Section I and II, and as ident1fied in the DEIR, are infeasible because such measures and alternatives would impose size, density, and location restrictions on the development of the project which would make the project economically infeasible (see analysis of Project Alternatives, Section II above) and which would thus prohibit attaining the specific social, economic and other benefits of the project [specifically, the need to increase the housing supply, particularly above average income housing, in the City in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups in order to accommodate the City's growing population and housing needs (General Plan RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 26 - . . Housing Element, Technical Appendix, pp. 11-2, 11-5, 11-14, 11-15, Ill-I), the need to preserve open space (the project will permanently preserve 964 acres of publicly-owned open space), and the need to conserve and protect prime agricultural lands - Class I and II agricultural lands - (General Plan, p.rII-i) (the project avoids alternative development which would have a greater impact on agricultural lands: see analysis of Project Al~":EE-~~~5~_~2. Section II above), and the need for publicly-owned park and recreation facilities (General Plan, p.VI-2) (the project includes a golf course and a publicly-owned open space preserve with hiking facilities)] which the Council finds outweigh the unavoidable or unmitigated impacts and which justify approval of the application, notwithstanding the inability to completely mitigate such impacts. Mitigation was contemplated for each of the unavoidable impacts, but complete mitigation of each has been found to be infeasible due to the following: 1. The loss of agricultural production potential could only be partially mitigated by scaling down the proposed development. 2. The loss of open space could only be partially mitigated by scaling down the proposed development and by providing recreational open space as part of the proposal. 3. The loss of wildlife habitat could only be partially mitigated by scaling down the proposed development, and by allowing wildlife to exist on the recreational open space which is a part of the proposal. 4. The impact on the visual and aesthetic amenities could only be partially mitigated by scaling down the proposal, and by replacing native trees and landscaping in areas that have been graded. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that it has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as shown in the findings described in the preceding Section I. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the aforesaid mitigation measures contained in Section I above. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council further determines and finds that any remaining significant effect(s) on the environment found RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 27 - . . to be unavoidable in Section I above are acceptable due to the overriding concerns described in Section III above. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds and resolves the following: 1. The City Council certifies, orders, resolves, and finds that: The City Council adopts the Findings contained in Sections 1 and II above, the Mitigation Measures contained in Section I above, and the Statements of Overriding Considerations contained in Sections I, 11, and III above. 2. The City Council certifies that: (a) The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and (b) The Council has considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the application. Passed and adopted this 1 th day of November, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS : GAGE, HALE, KLOECKER, MUSSALLEM, PALMERLEE, VALDEZ and HUGHAN NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS : None ABSENT: COUNCLLMEMBERS: None APPROVED: Is/ ROBERTA H. HUG Roberta H. Hughan, ATTEST: /s/ SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ _d'.._.. ._...__"_____..._,_. .._.. __ ."_.._ .__._.___.____.____ Susanne E. Steinmetz, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 28 - . . ~ to be unavoidable in Section I above are acceptable due to the overriding concerns described in Section III above. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds and resolves the following: 1. The City Council certifies, orders, resolves, and finds that: The City Council adopts the Findings contained in Sections I and II above, the Mitigation Measures contained in Section I above, and the Statements of Overriding Considerations contained in Sections I, II, and III above. 2. The City Council certifies that: (a) The Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and (b) The Council has considered the information in the Final ElR prior to approving the application. Passed and adopted this 7th day of November, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: COUN CIL MEMBERS : GAGE, HALE, KLOECKER, MUSSALLEM, PALMERLEE, VALDEZ and HUGHAN NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS : None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS : None APPROVED: Roberta H. Hughan, Mayor ATTEST: ~~ (JIIIu) 7.., ------~ Susanne E. Steinmetz, RESOLUTION NO. 88-67-A - 28 - . . I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 88-67-A is an original resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting of said Council held on the --2.~~ day of November , 19 88 , 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 13th day of December 19 88. ~~~ ~~ . City Clerk of the City -~ (Seal)