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)