Resolution 1992-07
.
.
, ,
RESOLUTION NO. 92-7
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GILROY MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND
PARTIALLY APPROVING GPA 90-08, AMENDING THE
GILROY GENERAL PLAN MAP TO CHANGE THE
DESIGNATIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK, OPEN SPACE,
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND PARK/PUBLIC
FACILITY TO LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL, AND OPEN SPACE ON APPROXIMATELY
172 ACRES OF AN APPROXIMATELY ~82-ACRE
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
WHEREAS, Filice Family Estates has submitted GPA 90-08,
to amend the Gilroy General Plan map to change the designations
from Industrial Park, Open Space, Low Density Residential and
Park/Public Facility to Low and Medium Density Residential, Open
Space, and General Services Commercial on an approximately 182-
acre property located in the Southwest Quadrant, southwest of Uvas
Creek and northeast of Santa Teresa Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the City caused to be prepared under its
direction and control and pursuant to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act Draft and Final Environmental
Impact Reports (EIRs) for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was reviewed and considered by the
Planning commission and the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
and advertised public hearing on the 2nd day of January, 1992, and
after the public hearing the Planning Commission did vote
unanimously to recommend that the City Council find the final EIR
to be complete and in compliance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did then unanimously
adopt Resolution No. 92-5, making certain findings and recommending
partial approval of GPA 90-08 except 10 acres proposed for
designation as General Services, for which the Commission
recommended a six- to nine-month continuance for further study; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the
Final EIR, and on the 21st day of January, 1992, conducted a duly
RESOLUTION NO. 92 - 7
-1-
-~
.
.
noticed and advertised public hearing, and after the hearing did
certify that the final EIR has been completed in compliance with
CEQA, and that the final EIR was presented to the City Council and
the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained
in the final ErR prior to taking action on GPA 90-08;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
A. The city Council hereby makes the findings regarding
project impacts and project alternatives, and adopts the statement
of overriding considerations, except those findings and overriding
considerations relating solely to General Services Commercial
development, all as set forth in a portion of the attached
Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by this reference; and
B. The mitigation monitoring program required by Public
Resources Code section 21081.6, attached to this Resolution as a
portion of Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference,
is hereby adopted; and
C. The City council further finds that:
1. The city has property taken all actions
required by the California Environmental Quality Act; and
2. The partial approval of GPA 90-08 as described
below is in the public interest; and
D. GPA 90-08 should be and is hereby approved, except
for that 10-acre portion of the property requested to be designated
General Services Commercial, so that the Gilroy General Plan map
is amended to change the designations from Industrial Park, Open
Space, Low Density Residential and park/Public Facility to Low and
Medium Density Residential, and Open Space on approximately 172
acres of an approximately l82-acre property located in the
Southwest Quadrant, southwest of Uvas Creek and northeast of Santa
Teresa Boulevard; and
E. The portion of GPA 90-08 requesting that the Gilroy
General Plan map be amended to change the designation from Low
Density Residential to General Services Commercial on approximately
RESOLUTION NO. 92 - 7
-2-
.
.
10 acres is hereby continued to the March 16, 1992 City council
meeting to allow further study and consideration.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of January, 1992 by the
fOllowing vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Gilroy, Hale, Kloecker, Nelson,
Rowlison, Valdez, Gage (mayor)
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
APfF~$,~
Ma or
city Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 92 - 7
-3-
. .
EXHIBIT. "A"
AN ADDENDUM TO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY
ADOPTING FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE GLEN-LOMA RANCH GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 90-08)
The City Council finds that one or more significant effects would likely
result from approval of this project and that the substantial evidence and
mitigation measures relied upon by this Council supporting the required find-
ings are set forth as follows:
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
GEOLOGY:
1. Significant Effect: It is likely that one of the nearby active
earthquake faults will cause at least one large-magnitude earthquake on the
project site during the lifetime of the proposed project. Potential damage
suffered by structures on the project site in the event of an earthquake is,
therefore, considered to be a significant impact. These impacts would be
reduced to levels of insignificance with implementation of the following
mitigation measures.
Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated
by the following mitigation measure(s): 1. Building construction on the
project site shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code struc-
tural earthquake regulations. The final construction plans for any structure
shall be subject to the review and approval of the Building Inspector prior to
the issuance of a building permit to ensure compliance with these
regulations. (Glen Loma FEIR, pg. lxii.) 2. Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit for site-specific developments pro posed on the project site, a
foundation/structural geotechnical investigation shall be prepared by the
project applicant. Recommendations of this investigation shall be incorporated
into the grading plans for the development and shall be subject to the review
and approval of the City Engineer and Public Works Director. (Glen Lorna FEIR,
pg. lxii.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
I.
A.
B. SOILS:
2. Significant Effect: Due to hazards listed in the environmental
impact report (Glen Lorna FEIR, pg. lxii.), future development on the project
area's soil types without appropriate engineering standards could result in
unstable structure foundations. With implementation of the mitigation measures
listed below, this impact would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated
by the following mitigation measure(s): 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading
permit for any future development proposal, a soils report shall be completed
by a qualified soils engineer as required by Section III, Policy 16 of the
Gilroy General Plan. The scope of this report shall be determined by the City
Engineer and Public Works Director and shall include analysis of liquefaction
potential at the location of each proposed structure. Recommendations from
this report shall be incorporated into the grading plans for the proposed
.
.
- 2 -
project and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works
Director. (Glen Loma FEIR, pg. lxiii.) 4. The project proponent of any
future development proposal should undertake construction of the proposed
project during the dry season (April l-October 31). If the project proponent
undertakes construction of the proposed project during the wet season (Nov-
ember I-March 31) or any portion thereof, the project proponent shall prepare
an erosion control plan. The erosion control plan shall incorporate the use of
straw bales at discharge areas and in swales, as well as, use of seeding and
hydromulching where appropriate. The erosion control plan shall be subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer and Public Works Director prior to
issuance of a grading permit. (Glen Lorna FEIR, pg. lxiii.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
C . HYDROLOGY:
3. Significant Effect: Build-out of the project site (based on con-
sistency with the proposed general plan land use designations) could increase
the total amount of surface-water run-off on and off the project site by
approximately 43.6 cfs for a la-year storm and 60.8 cfs for a lOa-year storm.
This increase in runoff would increase peak flood flows in Uvas Creek
downstream from the project site. The United States Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) recently completed a levee improvement project along Uvas Creek which
was designed to provide for lOa-year flood protection for areas within the
City in the vicinity of Uvas Creek. These improvements were made based on
buildout of the City under the existing general plan designations.
The existing general plan designations for the project site include a total of
approximately 168 acres (of the 250 acre project site) which are planned for
eventual urban development. The balance of the project site is designated for
park and open space land uses (which, at buildout, are assumed not to change
the runoff rate from present conditions).
The proposed project would increase the amount of area designated for
urban development from 168 acres to 227 acres of the 250 acre project site.
This increase of 59 acres would result in an increase in downstream flows in
Uvas Creek over those planned for in the Corps levee improvements project.
This is a potentially significant impact.
Because no storm drain infrastructure currently exists in Santa Teresa
Boulevard or on the project site, implementation of the proposed project would
result in significant adverse impacts such as flooding (on and off the project
site) if adequate storm drain improvements are not implemented.
Surface-water run-off from any future commercial development and parking
area on the project site is expected to contain minor concentrations of a
variety of pollutants, including oil and grease, nutrients, minor concen-
trations of pesticides from landscaping, and heavy metals from road and park-
ing area pavements. The types and concentrations of contaminants are ulti-
mately dependent upon the specific activities that occur on the project site.
The proposed project could, therefore, create significant impacts associated
with downstream pollution.
With implementation of the following mitigation measure (prior to the
realization of any future specific development proposal), the potentially
significant impacts listed above would be reduced to levels of insignificance.
.
.
- 3
Miti~ation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated
by the following mitigation measure(s): 5. Prior to approval of a final map
for any phase of the proposed project, the applicant shall obtain a discharge
permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water Management District. In order to
obtain this permit, the applicant will have to identify the specific drainage
improvements designed into the project and demonstrate that the project will
not result in an unacceptable level of downstream flooding impacts or down-
stream water quality impacts. Such improvements could include on-site de-
tention, or downstream flood protection improvements. The Public Works De-
partment shall ensure that this permit has been obtained prior to the approval
of the final map. (Glen Lama FEIR, pg. lxv.)
Findin~: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
D. WILDLIFE:
4. Si~nificant Effect: No rare or endangered species were observed on
the project site and none are expected to be affected by build-out of the
project site based on consistency with the proposed general plan designations.
The wildlife habitat value of the project site will be significantly affected
by the introduction of structures, human activity and domesticated animals.
The following mitigation measure is recommended to reduce these impacts to
less than significant levels.
Miti~ation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated
by the following mitigation measure(s): 6. Prior to issuance of a grading
permit and subject to the review and approval of the planning director, the
final landscape plan for any future development of the project site shall
include native plant materials to the greatest extent possible in order to
best provide habitat cover, nesting project sites, and food sources that
native wildlife is most well adapted to. (Glen Lorna FEIR, pg. lxvi.)
Findin~: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
E. TRAFFIC:
5. Si~nificant Effect: Traffic generated by the proposed project would
not create an increase in the number of unacceptable study intersections
compared to the number that would exist without the project. The traffic
generated by development of the project site for residential and commercial
uses would, however, contribute to an increase in the volume-to-capacity ratio
on street segments and at intersections in the project vicinity. This is a
significant adverse impact of the project.
The intersections of Monterey Street/Leaves ley Boulevard, Santa Teresa
Boulevard/First Street, and Westwood Drive/First Street would operate at
unacceptable levels with or without the project. Mitigations are available for
each of these intersections to raise the LOS to C or better.
The results of the traffic analysis were based on the assumption that the
Tenth Street extension (including the Tenth Street bridge) will be in place
prior to the final build-out of the project and the Miller Avenue would be
modified to terminate at Christmas Hill Park and would not continue to Santa
Teresa as presently exists. An analysis was also conducted to determine at
what phase in the project's development that the Tenth Street extension would
.
.
- 4 -
become essential to maintain acceptable traffic conditions at intersections in
the project vicinity based on approved projects. The analysis determined that
the surrounding street network can support the entire residential component of
the project before the Tenth Street extension would be needed. The Tenth
Street extension will become necessary as build-out of the city occurs, par-
ticularly west of Santa Teresa Boulevard.
Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated
by the following mitigation measure(s): 7. At Monterey Street at Leavesley
Boulevard, the following improvements shall be implemented prior to build-out
of the residential portion of the project: a. Convert the westbound right-
turn lane into an exclusive right-turn lane. Increase the westbound through-
lane to two through-lanes. b. Convert the northbound through and shared
through and right-turn through-lanes into two through-lanes. Add another lane
for a free right-turn lane. Modify signal to allow right-turns on a green
arrow. c. Increase the eastbound shared through and right lane capacity to
one through-lane and one shared through and right-turn lane. (Glen Lorna FEIR.
pg. lxvii.). B. At Santa Teresa Boulevard at First Street the following
improvements shall be implemented prior to build-out of the residential por-
tion of the project: a. Provide another southbound through-lane. Increase the
left-turn lane capacity from one to two left-turn lanes. b. Provide another
eastbound and westbound through-lane. (Glen Lorna FEIR, pg. lxviii.) 9. At
Westwood Drive at First Street the following improvements shall be implemented
prior to build-out of the residential portion of the project: a. Increase the
northbound and westbound left-turn lanes from one to two. (Glen Loma FEIR,
pg. lxviii.)
Findin~: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
F. AIR QUALITY:
6. Si~nificant Effect: Construction of the proposed project would
result in the emission of 141.9 pounds per day of TOG, 1,148.5 pounds per day
of CO, and 312.3 pounds per day of NOx' The emission levels for both CO and
NOx exceed the BAAQMD standards for new commercial projects of 550 pounds per
day of CO and 150 pounds per day of NOx' These exceedences are considered to
be a significant adverse impact.
Due to the relative lack of urhan development in the immediate vicinity
of the project site, short-term uncontrolled PMIO emissions would not create a
significant impact on sensitive receptors. However, construction workers on
the project site could be subjected to undue PMIO exposure if dust-suppression
measures are not imple mented. The proposed project is anticipated to reduce
particulate emissions from the project site in the long term.
Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated
by the following mitigation measure(s): Ul. The project applicant shall
prepare an emission reduction program in order to minimize the vehicle-related
pollutant emissions generated by the commercial portion of the proposed proj-
ect. This program shall be subject to approval of the planning department
prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the proposed project. The pro-
gram shall, at a minimum, consist of the following measure: a. Provision of
adequate and secure storage for both employee and customer bicycle users of
the project site, as well as, provision of employee shower and locker facil-
ities, in order to encourage the use of bicycles for transportation to work.
" '
.
.
- 5 -
(Glen Lorna FEIR, pg. lxii.) 11 . The contractor specifications for the pro-
posed project shall be submitted to the building department for approval prior
to the issuance of a grading permit for the proposed project. The contractor
specifications shall include the following particulate emission measures: a.
Exposed earth surfaces shall be watered during clearing, exca vation, grading,
and con struction activities. Watering of exposed earth surfaces could reduce
particulate emissions as much as 50 percent. All construction contracts should
require watering in late morning and at the end of the day. The frequency of
watering should increase if wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. b. Through-
out excavation activity, haul trucks should use tarpaulins or other effective
covers at all times. c. Upon completion of construction, measures shall be
taken to reduce wind erosion. Revegetation and repaving should be completed as
soon as possible. (Glen Loma FEIR, pg. lxix.)
12. The following measures are recommended for incorporation into any future
specific design plans for the project site. The lead agency shall coordinate
the design and set funding parameters for the park-and-ride, bikeway, and
transit measures. a. A park-and-ride facility should be installed at a lo-
cation visible from Santa Teresa Boulevard on, or in the vicinity of, the
project site. A ridesharing sign should be put up to attract residents to
carpooling opportunities. A series of notice boards should be provided for
prospective ridesharers to advertise themselves. The facility should be well-
lighted at night and designed as a strip between Santa Teresa Boulevard and
the residential development. Residents should be allowed to use the parking
facilities during evening and weekend hours for personal parking needs. The
design and funding of the facility should be coordinated with the adjacent
O'Connell Ranch residential subdivision. In addition, the city should consider
provision of local and regional transit services to the facility, as addressed
in the following measure. The project applicant should communicate with the
lead agency and the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency to coordinate
incorporation of these measures into the future specific project design.
The following features should be incorporated into the design of future proj-
ect specific development proposals on the project site: Installation of new
bus stops at the new access points along Santa Teresa Boulevard; Provision of
a minimum 22 foot-wide curb lane or a County Standard hus duck out; Instal-
lation of a 12 foot by 50 foot concrete pavement section for the bus stop;
Provision of sidewalks and handicap ramps along Santa Teresa Boulevard;
Installation of concrete shelter pads, new shelters, and trash receptacles for
the bus stops. The regular maintenance and repair of the new bus shelters/-
receptacles should be the developer's responsibility; Provision of convenient
sidewalks, pathways, and cross-walks between the project and the new transit
related facilities. b. The applicant should coordinate with the City of
Gilroy to provide pedestrian walkways and bikeways both on and off-project
site. Off-project site bikeways should connect the project with any schools,
commercial centers, parks, transit stations or stops, and other bikeways that
lie within a fifteen minute cycle of the project site including the Uvas Park
Preserve (two to three miles). On-project site walkways and bikeways should
be constructed according to the latest standards recommended by the California
Department of Transportation. These standards currently state that the minimum
paved width for a two-way bike lane shall be eight feet and the minimum width
for a one-way bike lane shall be five feet. On-project site bikeway facilities
should include safe road crossing facilities on all streets and bridges, and
.
.
- 6 -
lock-up facilities in non-secluded areas. The walkway and bikeway facilities
plan should be designed and planned during the early stages of the project
site plan design. c. To facilitate pedestrian travel, sidewalks should be
developed both within the project site, and along its boundaries with Santa
Teresa Boulevard and the Thomas Road and Tenth Street extensions. The side-
walks should he designed and landscaped to encourage use for recreational
purposes. Sidewalks should be of an adequate width and preferably spaced with
a buffer between the road to encourage children to use them instead of being
driven by parents. d. The project internal circulation system should include
direct roadway approaches to the proposed neighborhood shopping center, pedes-
trian walkways, and bikeways. Pedestrian walkways and bikeways should be well-
lighted and of adequate width for safe use.
Findin2: 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 Project Alternatives,
Section II, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.)
G. VISUAL RESOURCES:
7. Si2nificant Effect: Development resulting from build-out of the
project site based on consistency with the proposed general plan land use
designations will be visible to two public viewer groups: (1) persons travel-
ling on Santa Teresa Boulevard and, (2) persons travelling on Miller Road
adjacent to the project site.
Due to the length of the project site (approximately 1.4 miles), persons
with the most direct view of future development on the project site will be
those who travel in a north-south direction on Santa Teresa Boulevard. This is
considered a significant impact.
The project site encompasses both sides of Miller Road for approximately
1,200 feet. The proposed land-use designations in this area are commercial and
medium-density residential. Development of this portion of the project site
based on consistency with these designations could significantly alter the
existing rural viewshed of the vicinity. This is considered a significant
impact.
Miti~ation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated
by the following mitigation measure(s): la. Conceptual and final project
siting, architectural, and landscaping plans for all future development on the
project site shall be subject to review and approval by the Gilroy Archi-
tectural and Project Site Review Committee and Planning Director prior to the
issuance of a grading permit for the proposed project. The Architectural and
Project Site Review Committee should give special consideration to the fol-
lowing issues: a. The obstruction of views and blockage of view corridors
from Santa Teresa Boulevard and Miller Road should be minimized by limiting
the height of development to a level consistent with surrounding land-uses. It
is recommended that 35 feet be set as the maximum building height on the
project site. b. Views of the future development should be "softened" through
the use of sensitive building siting, berming, vegetated buffer strips, buil-
ding set backs and appropriate landscaping. (Glen Loma FEIR, pg. lxxii.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
.
.
- 7 -
H. NOISE:
8. Significant Effect: The proposed project contains areas proposed
for low- and medium-density residential development which are located within
200 feet of the centerline of Santa Teresa Boulevard. Residences constructed
within this area would be exposed to outdoor noise levels in excess of the
city permissible outdoor noise maximum of 58 dB. This constitutes a sig-
nificant adverse impact of the proposed project.
During construction of any development on the project site, temporary
noise increases will result from the use of heavy construction equipment such
as, bulldozers, graders, and dump trucks. This equipment can produce peak
noise levels in the range of 80 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Peak noise
levels decrease approximately six decibels for every doubling of distance.
Therefore, at 100 feet, the construction noise would be in the range of 74 to
84 dB. As the project site is anticipated to be developed over a period of
years, this noise will be generated intermittently throughout this period.
There are currently no residences which would be affected to a significant
degree by construction noise. However, residences constructed on the project
site could be affected to a significant degree by later construction.
Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated
by the following mitigation measure(s): To mitigate noise levels at new
developments, the noise element of the city general plan calls for distance
setbacks and/or noise attenuation walls (or berms), to be constructed wherever
the city's noise/land-use standards require them. The following mitigation is
recommended to ensure that all future development on the project site complies
with these standards: 14. Proposals for any specific construction project
within the project site shall include measures to ensure that indoor and
outdoor noise levels at each lot are below the maximum noise level as
specified by the city general plan based on the general plan build-out traffic
and noise projections. These measures may include distance setbacks, noise
attenuation walls, and/or berming, in order to reduce noise to acceptable
levels. The planning department and Architectural and Project Site Review
Committee shall review all specific development proposals to ensure that this
measure is complied with. The applicant shall be responsible for providing all
necessary information to substantiate compliance with this measure. (Glen
Lorna FEIR, pg. lxxiii.) 15. Noise-generating construction activities shall be
restricted to normal daytime hours (8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.). Construc tion
equipment shall be properly muffled and maintained. The contractor work
specifications for all construction activities shall reflect these mea sures,
subject to the review and approval of the planning department and/or public
works department, prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any phase of
the project. (Glen Lorna FEIR. pg. lxxiii.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
I. WATER SERVICE:
9. Less-Than-Significant Effect: The use of ground water resulting
from implementation of the proposed project could contribute to the lowering
of the water table in the Llagas Groundwater Basin. However, according to the
SCVWD, the use of 322.88 AFY on the project site will not result in a sig-
nificant adverse impact with regard to groundwater use.
.
.
- 8 -
Ibe Gilroy City Water System has a peak daily capacity of 11.5 million
gallons. Based on the 1990 yearly peak city water demand of 9.5 millions
gallons per day, adequate capacity exists to accommodate the projected daily
demand of 288,239 gallons per day of water used by the proposed project.
Mitigation or Avoidance: Ibis impact will be reduced and mitigated
b following mitigation measure(s): 10. A deed restriction shall
placed on entire project site which requires that water-co ng fix-
tures be used 0 structures built on the project si e deed re-
striction shall be reco with the City Clerk a roof of recordation shall
be provided to the planning dep ent and ding department prior to is-
suance of a huilding permit for the d project. The deed restriction
shall require that the follo' ixtures be lIed in all structures.
a. Ultra-low-flush, uivalent-type, toilets. ts that use a maximum
of 1.6 gallons ater per flush. b. Low-flow shower hea ow-flow shower
heads a ined as shower heads that use a maximum of 2.5 gallons ater
lnute. (Clen Loma FEIR, pg. lxxiv.) 17. Ibe landscape plan for the
proposed project shall be approved by the Architectural and Project Site
Review Committee prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the proposed
project, and the plan shall be consistent with the Consolidated Landscape
Policy of the City of Gilroy. (Glen Lorna FEIR, pg. lxxiv.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the less-than-
significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
J. SEWER:
10. Significant Effect: Ibe proposed project will generate approx-
imately 257,647 gallons per day of sewage (about 206,117 gallons per day with
implementation of the low flow fixtures recommended above). At present, ade-
quate capacity does not exist within the Gilroy-Morgan Hill Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant to accommodate the proposed project. However, it is anticipated
that adequate capacity will be available by the end of 1994. Significant
adverse impacts on the sanitary sewer system will be avoided because approval
of the project will be conditioned upon availability of adequate treatment
plant capacity.
Miti~ation or Avoidance: Ibis impact will be reduced and mitigated
by the following mitigation measure(s): IS. The project shall obtain a signed
sewer agreement for each phase of the project prior to issuance of a building
permit for that phase. Evidence of this agreement shall be submitted to the
Planning Department.
Findin~: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
K. FIRE SERVICE:
11. Significant Effect: Ibe proposed project will place an additional
demand on personnel and equipment of both the Fire Prevention Bureau and the
Operations Division of the Gilroy Fire Department, and will require the hiring
of one permanent employee to the Fire Prevention Bureau. The payment of the
public safety impact fees by the project applicant will be sufficient to
offset the additional demands on equipment. However, demands on personnel are
not supported by public safety impact fees. This is a significant adverse
impact of buildout of the project site.
.
.
- 9 -
Access time to the project site will be between six and eight minutes.
This is below the Department's goal of providing emergency service in five
minutes or less. The City Fire Chief has indicated that build-out of the
proposed project will result in the need for a new fire station in order for
the Department to continue to provide acceptable service levels to its service
area.
Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated
by the following mitigation measure(s): [1. The Gilroy Police Chief and Fire
Chief shall be contacted subsequent to submittal of a detailed site plan for
future development of the project site, in order to determine if there are
adequate design features to facilitate effective and efficient police and fire
service. In addition, the department head should determine whether there will
be adequate financial resources to fund additional police and fire services to
the project. The fire department will require the project applicant to either
form or join an assessment district to fund fire department staffing prior to
implementation of any project-specific development on the project site. (Glen
Lorna FEIR, pg. lxxvi.) 2Q. Prior to approval of a final map for any phase of
the proposed project, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the City Fire Department that adequate water pressure and supply can be pro-
vided to the proposed project. In addition, the final map shall provide for
construction of all infrastructure necessary to provide fire service to those
units under consideration, including fire hydrants, and roadways, prior to
implementation of construction of the dwelling units as well as any other
structures or development. (Glen Lorna FEIR, pg. lxxvi.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in. or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
L. PARKS AND RECREATION:
12. Significant Effect: Approximately nine percent (23 acres) of the
project site is proposed to be retained as open space. However, due to slope
and vegetation constraints, this area is inappropriate for active recreational
uses such as play fields, tennis and basketball courts, or neighborhood recre-
ational structures. Although recreation facilities are located in proximity
to the project site, build-out of the proposed project will create a sub-
stantial demand on parks and recreation facilities in the City of Gilroy and
will therefore, result in a significant adverse impact on parks and recreation
services.
Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated
by the following mitigation measure(s): 21 In compliance with city general
plan policies VI. 10 through 17, future development plans for the project site
will be required to include adequate usable recreation area and open space.
All publically maintained areas shall be clearly identified and annual main-
tenance and operation costs shall be provided for by a maintenance district.
Prior to final map approval for any future development of the project site,
the planning director shall determine if the amount of proposed parks and open
spaces is adequate to meet the needs of future residents and employees. (Glen
Lorna FEIR, pg. lxxvii.)
Findin~: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
.
.
- 10
M. SCHOOLS:
13. Significant Effect: Based on the city-wide standard of .40 K-6
students per household, .15 6-8 students per household and .20 9-12 students
per household, build-out of the project site could result in the following
student population: grades K-6. 560; grades 6-8, 210, and grades 9-12, 280.
Therefore, a total additional student load of 1,050 students could result from
build-out of the project site.
The required school impact fee is adequate to provide for approximately
36 percent of the facilities needed to provide for adequate school facilities
for the students which would be generated from buildout of the project site.
Therefore, without further mitigation, the project's impact on school facil-
ities would be left unmitigated.
Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated
by the following mitigation measure(s): 2~. Prior to the issuance of a buil-
ding permit for any structure on the project site, the applicant shall submit
evidence to the planning department that the fee requirements of the Gilroy
Unified School District have been met. Further, the project applicant shall
work out an agreement with the Gilroy Unified School District which provides
for a complete offset for the impacts on school facilities generated by build-
out of the project site on a not to ecxeed level. This offset may be in the
form of direct payment, provision of land, or provision of other facilities or
infrastructure. This agreement may be in the form of an assessment district
(such as a Mello-Roos District). Evidence that the school district is satis-
fied that the project impact on school facilities is adequately mitigated
shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to issuance of a grading
permit for any construction on the project site.
Unless the lead agency makes findings to the contrary, this mitigation
measure must be imposed on the proposed general plan amendment as a condition
of approval. Such imposition would ensure that adequate school facilities are
provided for as part of any future specific development proposal on the proj-
ect site, thereby mitigating the impacts of the proposed project on school
facilities to a level of insignificance.
The elementary school site may be relocated to another part of the proj-
ect site away from Santa Teresa Boulevard in order to minimize adverse impacts
of that roadway (such as noise and safety impacts) pursuant to the agreement
between the school district and the project applicant. (Glen Lorna FEIR, pg.
lxxviii.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
N. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
14. Significant Effect: The proposed project provides for maintenance
of the area included in project site CA-SCL-243 as open space under the Open
Space land use designation. Comparison of the proposed land use designation
map (Figure 3) with the location of this project site indicated in the 1983
archaeological report, indicates that the proposed project would avoid con-
struction within the area of identified archaeological resources. However, the
possibility exists that future construction in the vicinity of this project
site could uncover additional archaeological resources.
Mitigation or Avoidance: This impact will be reduced and mitigated
by the following mitigation measure(s): 23. Due to the possibility of sig-
nificant buried cultural resources being found during the construction, the
.
.
- 11 -
following language shall be included in any permits issued for the project
site, pursuant to the review and approval of the Planning Director: "If
archaeological resources or human remains are acciden tally discovered during
construction, work shall be halted within fifty (50) meters (ISO-feet) of the
find, until it can be eval uated by a qualified professional archaeologist. If
the find is determined to be significant, appropriate mitigation measures
shall be formulated and implemented." (Glen Loma FEIR, pg. lxxviii.)
Findin~: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incor-
porated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES:
No Proiect Alternative <environmental Iv preferable alternative.)
Alternative: The No Project Alternative consists of leaving the site in
its present undeveloped condition. (FEIR p. 82)
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 hoth in Gilroy and the County as a whole are 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. (General Plan Housing Element, Tech-
nical Appendix, pp. 11-2, 11-5, 11-14, II-IS, 111-1.)
The primary objective for proposing the project is to provide
high quality housing 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 could result in con-
struction of slightly over 1,400 homes which will contribute toward balancing
jobs and housing both in Gilroy and the County as a whole.
The no project alternative is partially inconsistent with the General
Plan designations, which would allow industrial and residential development on
certain areas of the affected property.
Finding: 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, II-IS, 111-1). 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. This alternative is not "feasible" as
defined in Section 15364 of CEQA Guidelines because it is not capable of being
accomplished in a successful manner taking into account economic, social, and
legal factors. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make in-
feasible this project alternative identified in the DEIR. (See also State-
ment of Overriding Considerations, Section II, below.)
B. Reduced Densitv Alternative
Alternative: The reduced density alternative (FEIR p. 83) would result
in more land being designated Open Space and Park/Public Facility, and would
reduce the number of homes to about 850.
II.
A.
.
.
- 12 -
Statement Of Fact: As explained above, there is a shortage of housing
in Santa Clara County. The alternative would not provide as much needed
housing as the proposed project. Though this alternative would incrementally
decrease the air quality impact, it would not avoid or substantially lessen
this significant impact. This alternative is also partially inconsistent with
the existing General Plan designations.
Finding: The City Council thus finds that the Reduced Density Alter-
native is not desirable. This alternative would not eliminate or sufficiently
reduce the unmitigated significant effect. Also, this alternative is not
"feasible" as defined in Section 15364 of CEQA Guidelines because it is not
capable of being accomplished in a successful manner taking into account
economic, social, and legal factors. Specific economic, social, or other
considerations make infeasible this project alternative identified in the
DEIR. (See also Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.)
C. Alternative Land Use Desi~nations
Alternative: The alternative land use designations alternative (FEIR p.
83) would switch the location of the commercially designated area.
Statement Of Fact: This alternative would provide as much needed
housing as the proposed project. This alternative would have no beneficial
effect on the significant air quality impact.
Findin~: The City Council thus finds that the Alternative Land Use
Designations Alternative is equally desirable as the proposed project. How-
ever, this alternative is not a "feasible" means of mitigating the significant
air quality impact as that term is defined in Section 15364 of CEQA Guidelines
because it is not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner taking
into account environmental, social, and technological factors. (See also
Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.)
III. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
An unavoidable significant adverse environmental impact is a significant
adverse impact which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The
City Council finds that the air quality impact referenced in the Final
Environmental Impact Report and summarized in Section I.F. of these findings,
while lessened through proposed mitigation measures, cannot be mitigated to a
level of insignificance. The City Council hereby finds that the benefits of
the proposed project nonetheless outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse
environmental impact. Accordingly, the impact is considered acceptable be-
cause:
1. The decrease in air quality could only be partially mitigated by
scaling down the proposed development. Of the identified alternatives. only
the no-project alternative would reduce the impact to a level of insig-
nificance. The project alternatives are infeasible or will not avoid or
substantially lessen the one remaining significant effect for the reasons
stated in Section II.
.
.
- 13 -
2. The mitigation necessary to further reduce this significant environ-
mental effect, beyond what is already proposed in Section I.F., to a level of
insignificance would impose constraints on the development of the proposed
project, including its size and density, that would make the project
economically infeasible.
3. The City will realize specific and significant social, economic and
other benefits from the approval and development of the project, such as the
preservation of open space and archaeological resources, and an increase in
the amount and variety of housing and commercial convenience centers in the
City to accommodate the City's growing population. Denying the project,
adopting the no-project alternative, or requiring further mitigation would
prevent or inhibit the City from realizing these benefits.
.
<I)
.J::
~
..
oS
~
<I)
.~
~
..
.....
Ol
~
!:l
<I)
~
0
..
.~
>
!:l
Eo< <I)
<:.>
00. u::
...
~ .0
CI)
e= 0-
0 III
~ ~ ~
<:.>
== ~ <I)
0 = '0'
~ ..
~ ~ 0-
CI)
..
= ..a
e,:, ~ cE
0 ~
!Xl. >>
!:l
~ ~ Ol
~ 0
- d
~
'i .~
!Xl "0
"" CI)
0 ~ ~
~ = Ol
..
~ 0
e,:, E<
0 Ol 0
:s s <:.>
!:l
~ .s ....
<I)
..0
... = -
.....
~ .Sl Ol
e,:, .J::
e,:, III
... III
E:: CI)
t3
:s III
Ol
CI)
8
!:l
0
:0
Ol
bll
....
~
....
8
bll
!:l ..
.~~
0....
.....lll
.....~
<8<:.>
<I)
<1)'=
.J::O
E-<il.
--
'"
-t
=
=
~
~
~
~
...
>.=
I:;:::~
.90 r.n
... >.-
.fl~~
="CS~
~~=
=f:!
.!l ~
~lC I:
= =.~
.... C) =
0=
=
6:
.. ...
.s~ 0 ... ...
... ... ... ... ., ...
" " " " .... " " "
~ = " " " " " " "
>-:Q .C c c I'~ c ... ... ... c c
'6'0 '6'0 '6'0 O.s Ci 's. '6'0
~.~ C) :::"
"'''' c c c c "" tlll C C
I:;'~ rz1 rz1 I~ rz1 .~ ... c rz1 rz1
J:l.Q= ~ ~ ~ ~Q '2 ~ ~
~~ ... I:; - -
~ 0 0 0 0 J:l. = 0 0
~ is:
.. =
,s .g -e", -e.,
.,'" ... ... =... 1:;'"
... ... ... ... ell ~ = ~
>.- .fl = I:; c I:; = =
= ell .. .. .. = ....= ....=
t::9 I: = 0 = 0
.~ .~ 11 .~ .~ " ell ... .. ...
"'~ ~
ell I: = C. C. C. - ...1>. "I>.
I>. .~ ... .~ ...
J:l.C)~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c." c."
~- < 1>.-:5 ~-:5
"'~
~~ <0 <0
... ...... ...
bD 0 ~ = ~-e "
c ... .=.. "
:.s11) -e= = >.2c. ...;; 1;
= "
" 0 = = """ $> .500
C) ~,..!:d '" .,
.~ " ell = all e = " > g~ ae
... JIl " .$1 .....c~
~ o ., .~ 0'" .. ~g 00 if:
'" ... 50
E:e -.. ae:- ....... = "JIl
.~ e.~ = 0 "...
... ,,-e = " ......... ~~ -:5=
:s .s.. "... ... _=0
... ., .c:"-a 1>."" ...-e
'2 4) ... " ... ...-
... e~ ....c: 's " = '" = ., = ...
::J'i ....... ., " ., g!
C) o bn"O """,,"
.sa 1E .... ... "otlll ...> -= 11) .
f = = ... " =j =
,,'i ... 0.... ..,;I I>. "-I:; Q,)""3 !::
" Q,)"'tll>> ... ... = en ep.... " 0
... " c o.~ ~ ,.; " 0 gj, "0 >"'CI rn =...,.; e 0.:3
... = ,...~ :Oc ""C ... r;::\U::s...... 11)~~
= ell.c: ~ e 1: = ... ="O~ as ".. ...
z ........ = >... " > ="
...., .. -e... ... 0 .c: - Q) c.t: 0" ., 0",,,,
""~ = " .!! ct.t <1)._ " "; ,..._~ ... " ... ... " ...
.c:-e "'5 C::''=1lfll ., =34) as S"1;~ 1>...."
-eo" ri:~ 'S 000 i5 ~tS~s ="...
<0... 00 oat _00_ _e-....s
I: ..
C)~
::l,.Q
~= .... "" '" ... 10 to <- ex)
-"
~z
:s
EXHIBIT'oB
.. t; .. t; ..
.. 0 0 0
..., ..., ..., ..., ...,
'" " " " " "
'" '" ~ '" '" '"
c .. .. .. ..
'So ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
c .. .. .. .. ..
'" c c c c c
b '2 ,~ ,~ .~ 'S'
c c c
- c c c c c
Co) " " " " "
p:; p:; p:; p:; p:;
.",'"
c"" ..., ..., ..., ..., ...,
" ij c c c c c
~'6 d " " " "
c i5 " ,~ ,~ " ,~
" ,~ .~
.~ '"" "a -a -a -a -a
c.~~ ~ ~ "" ~
<~ <
..
o
...,
"
'"
..
~
..
c
,~
c
c
"
p:;
..
o
..
o
...,
"
~
~
..
c
.~
c
c
"
p:;
'"
....
.. ..
~~
" '"
.~ ..
:ES
~
"
p:;
..., ..., ..., ...,
a c c a
co "
.~ .~ .~ "
.~
-a - - -a
"" ""
~ ~ ~ ~
= "'t:l. "'C a}
"Co U1 U'.I ~ e cu e \U '"tS ~
0:;3 C -!Ei co' :;Iii"!:; .....,::! "''''
o u 0 fIl"'t:l Q) Cl,} CJ o~ = _.,.... ClJ CIS Sit ~
~ f 8 ~ ~ a! .! ~ ~ ~] ~ :~ 2 cu .a ~ .; .~
Q)~.rz $~ ~ >; e'"C 31 ~ rn = e.~~ ~.s ~ .1i~.B 5t'~ .=.s 8.~
~I-l'~ ~=~= ~a 'aQ)==~brn =.;;o=.s~-:aQ)~ :B~bD_~
~... S Q....3 f;l 5t Cd _.. c:: ..c ""; 00:::: 3 ~ ~ ,J:: 9 CI:S 'Gj ~ -; ~ 'S;: ~ ~"J: c:"o
':3 ~ Q) tt.:l CJ c:: Q) Q = .... cu >;; u '"" 0 co ........ ~ C:..d _~ .s ..joolI s:a.;a!::.
~b c: ~ s:.e.s::a ai": t:; ~ g,.Q~ E b.O.8..c: S' ~ ~-~~:: ~ .....E=;~:-8:;;
- U1 Cd 1:_ ~ =.... Q) "'t:l .... co "'C3::::::: Q,l C1l S Q) .... ~ '0' s:a. Co) Q) Q) 0 i: A ""' ...
rI.l.... ~ ~ Co) OIl u oJ''''' c: u",,::: .... CIS.~ c:: :...,::::::: S ~ ..... !::. Q) Q)..c: ~ 'C 92 CtI: Q)..c 'Z
1: ~ ~ ~ ~~.g:g ~ "'~ ~ g~ g ~ f1l:;3~'C al ~ ~'e';'CfJ ""~1: ~ "''S
S ~ 0 - C :s_~ I Q) '; -5 = "'t:l ~ dh ~ Iii ~ = ~'.;i ~ ~ s:a...Q ~ cu = Cd Q) ~ Q)
'" ..., ~ is 8 <l c"8 s .3 :.di ;..2 313 '" ;J"" ci ~ .;.~..., .", 1l1l.~:!:a .~ to" ~
e : ~:e e ~'i ' ~ ~ ~ ~ t 1.a ~ ~~ l g 1l ,~.~ ~ ~ j ~ [; ~ 's E 1 t ~.g
p,,> g...g 3"i'a~ ",= s::.s;;-g.g Go) Q.....~:a 1:';;~;3 &....~ Go) g.~"'t:l a as Q) 5t:t ~
s~"",~..c::~~..~=~c...,,,,~~o,,o <:"~a~..,,,,=~~~,,~=
~Q,:::I.,,",,_(IJIQ)_....,,",,tO_"""I El..cZ==.B o..._.QE-oIs:a.as.GS_oEotra....=
0'>
o
.....
""
.....
..;0
....
.....
.....
""
.....
10
.....
co
.....
....
.....
,
~
, . .
!5 ... "" !5 !5
0 0:
..., ..., III ..., ..., ...,
" " " "
~ '" bDlnCC '" ~
... c~:3 S ...
.~ is is is
~ .... r:a r:a
.. .. 0: e: ","" .. ..
0: ...
0: 0: r:a ""' t; ~ 0: 0:
.~ '8 _O~ .~ .~
0: ~~ \U 0: 2
0: 0: '" ~ 0:
III III ... '" '"
p: p: is p: p:
..., ..., ..., ..., ...,
0: 0: 0: 0: ;
'" '" III '"
.::l .::l .::l .::l .::l
-a -a -a - -a
'"
~ '" ~ ~ ~
-<
:::: '" 0:
..., '" "" '" ... ,.. '"g"'d '"
"S -tla3 01;; a '"
..c:: "C:SQ,) , .<>. ""
f1.l: c::1i:~ <S'S ;
:E .~ 5. +l 50 C1l ~ "S +l "'CS co ::s as '" '"
o eot\U1i$:.::: .....~ t: cub & ., 0' ., ~ ~~ 'J::
0: "'.... e .. '" ::.::: ::lbll
<1) .! 0 ~(i) "'d ] +l 0 5+lG:S;:af1.l:Q) '" ... ... .<>.0:
.::: +l "'C >,.. ;..= Q... bll"''''''''''' "a (1) r:a ..c C Q) ':";:: +l ca or::
.... '"C +l Q1 Q) 0 Q)'u +l CD s::--cl:: co :;.-Ct=IC2:l u
~~ ~:-;::'"O.5 r:a~ 5 .f::'- 8:'8 C Q) ...,.<>. '" ., 0: 'J:: :p.s
0:- '" _ c:] Q) +l
~~g.~~$~$S~ ~ e ::s >..... ,.. <1):-=-= (U..!+l.s.~ 0: '"
<D~ ltl a;S ~~ e ~ ::l ~ Q.a;~Q $'"
... IS) '"0 +l.... tI:l 0:5 0:,!i..8 gl 0: . """,0' o "
a~.!cd~rIJ.zQ)Q) Q,}...c: 0_ ",,'"
o ltl Q.) c:: 0"" '" +l..c+l~o ....." .
.-::s~ +l C+-o ....'"t:S SUcd==Q)OO Q)";j "'d 0:..., 0 000:
c......c rfJ 0 ~ g......3 = ai o"'d ~.~ ~+l:e > +l as as 5.s~~-5 ., 0
oO"c:l_c,.;;,'(5lQ) CI:l a:s Co) s:: 11)....
~~.8Q)c::~.s Q,l u C1l u ;.::: Q) Q) eC12 0......,
p f ~ :! ; a'~ ~ ~ Of it:.... a:s J,.::::.! 0 "".~"" ~ 8:~.sC1)"C ~_u
or;: u....7l4> "'" Q~ ~ o~::S~O:SCJ.s. \U e"S en " '" e
... " c.u \U ....a~ Q)~+l
"'''''~ e 0:5$';;; ~ '" QQ)C'"w+,c:: """0: 0: cp"t:S ~ 00.... +l ""...,'"
... Q) Q) as.... Q) ~ ",.; ~ 0_ 0:
E5;g~~~~~~tS .... Q)"'O ""',...c:: en'" e:;'~~ e:s s ... ::l 0
OO..Q = c:;l.,....,.... t.C .s+lO p..""
0> 0 .... C'I '"
.... C'I C'I C'I C'I
. .
,
.
.
4 !'
I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do
hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 92-7
is an original
resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular
meeting of said Council held on the 21st
day of ~nua~__, 19 ~,
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 28th day of____Jan~~~~__
19 92.
(Seal)