Resolution 1992-79
.
.
.
I. ' ,
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 79
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY APPROVING GPA 90-04, AMENDING THE
GENERAL PLAN MAP TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION
FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL ON APPROXIMATELY 129 ACRES LOCATED
WEST OF SANTA TERESA BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF UVAS
CREEK, MAKING FINDINGS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
WHEREAS,
Shappell
Industries
and
Filice
Family
Estates/Filice Estate Vineyards have submitted GPA 90-04, to amend
the General Plan Map to change the designation from Rural Residen-
tial to Low Density Residential on an approximately 129-acre
property located west of Santa Teresa Boulevard, south of Uvas
Creek; and
WHEREAS, the City caused to be prepared under its
direction and control and pursuant to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") a Final Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning commission held a duly noticed
public hearing on the proposed EIR and GPA 90-04 on the 3rd day of
September, 1992, at the close of which hearing the commission voted
to recommend that the City council certify the subsequent EIR as
completed in compliance with CEQA and that it find that the EIR
reflects the independent judgment of the city, and adopted Resolu-
tion No. 92-30 recommending approval of GPA 90-04 with the modifi-
cation that a 35-foot trail easement along Uvas Creek be designated
as open space; and,
WHEREAS, the City council conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on the proposed EIR and GPA 90-04 on the 5th day of
October, 1992, after which public hearing it certified that the
subsequent EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, that it
reflected the independent judgment of the city, and that it was
presented to the council and the council reviewed and considered
RESOLUTION NO. 92 - 79
-1-
. !
.
.
the information contained therein prior to taking action on
GPA 90-04;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
A. The city council hereby makes the findings required
by Public Resources Code Section 21081 regarding project impacts
and project alternatives, and adopts a statement of overriding
considerations pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15093, all as set forth
in Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference; and
B. The mitigation monitoring program required by Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6 is set forth in Exhibit B, incor-
porated herein by this reference, and is hereby adopted; and
C. The city Council further finds that:
1. The city has taken all actions required by
CEQA; and
2. Approval of GPA 90-04 would be in the public
interest; and
D. GPA 90-04 should be and hereby is approved with the
modification that a 35-foot trail easement along Uvas Creek is
designated as open space, so that, subject to this modification,
the Gilroy General Plan Map is amended to change the designation
RESOLUTION NO. 92 - 79
-2-
,.
.
.
. ,
, ,
from Rural Residential to Low Density Residential on the 129 acres
of property located west of Santa Teresa Boulevard, south of Uvas
Creek.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October, 1992 by the
following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS: GILROY, HALE, KLOECKER, NELSON,
ROWLISON, VALDEZ and GAGE.
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APPROVED:
p~~~
RESOLUTION NO. 92 - 79
-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 SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE O'CONNELL RANCH (GPA 90-04)
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, and the City Council hereby adopts all
mitigation measures in the Final ErR except as revised herein, including, but
not limited to:
I.
A.
SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
LAND USE:
1. Siqnificant Effect: (LU-l) The project will reduce the open space
character on approximately 500 acres of the site where homes and streets would
be constructed. Approximately 135 acres will be converted to golf course open
space. Over 480 acres of the site will be graded during construction of the
project. Open space views from Highway 152 and Santa Teresa Boulevard will be
affected by the project.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (LU-l) Nine hundred and sixty four acres
of open space would be dedicated for preservation in permanent open space
within the Hillside Reserve area of the site. Large custom estate lots would
be located on the lower hillsides with townhomes, 7,000 square foot, and
quarter acre lots located on the lower, flatter area of the site. Three
hundred and fifty acres of the site will be used for hillside open space and
creekways. One hundred and thirty five acres will be developed as golf course
open space.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (LU-2) The City of Gilroy will require
that a Homeowners Association or some other district be established that is
responsible for maintaining the private open space. In addition, the City
will require that a maintenance district, land trust, endowment, or some other
type of district be established to ensure maintenance of the hillside open
space areas on the project site, as a condition of project approval.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (LU-3) The project will be required to
provide a minimum of two access points to the future Uvas Creek Preserve along
the Filice property. The future visitors to the preserve, however, will be
excluded from the adjacent golf course.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (LU-4) The City will require a transfer
of development rights from the creekways and salamander mitigation areas to
ensure that those portions of the site remain undeveloped.
Findina: Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch ErR
2
10/28/92
.
.
environmental impact report.
below. )
(See Statement of Overridina Considerations,
2. Sionificant Effect: (LU-2) The project will eliminate 130 acres of
"Prime Farmland" and "Farmland of State Importance" as well as reduce the
grazing potential on other parts of the site proposed for development.
Adjacent agricultural land may be prematurely or unnecessarily converted to
non-agricultural uses, due to perceived monetary benefits associated with the
project.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: None. The impact is unavoidable.
Flndina: Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible any mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overridina Considerations,
below. )
B. GEOLOGY:
3. Sionificant Effect: (G-1) The project proposes grading on between
480 and 500 acres of the site which will involve a volume of 4.5 million cubic
yards of cut and an equal volume of fill. A maximum cut of over 50 feet is
proposed at one location and fill depths would exceed 10 feet over a
significant portion of the development area.
Mitioation or Avoidance: (G-l) Grading will be controlled by
limiting construction to lower flatter areas of the site and locating the
larger custom estate lots on the hillside above the lower flatter areas.
Grading for roadway construction will be reduced by constructing five bridges
across canyons or drainages on the site. Grading of slopes above 30 percent
will be limited and cuts of more than 10 to 12 feet will generally be
limited. The City's Engineering Department will review all cuts with the
intent to limit them where feasible. Under special circumstances and in very
limited areas, the City's Engineering Department may allow cuts to exceed the
maximum 10 to 12 foot depth. Maximum cuts will be limited by the City's
engineering criteria. The intent of the Gilroy engineering criteria is to
generally limit grading to the minimum necessary for drainage.
Findina: Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overridina Considerations,
below. )
4. Sianificant Effect: (G-2) The proposed project is subject to
potential seismic and slope stability hazards. Both active and inactive
landslides were mapped on the site. An apparent inactive fault on the site
has a remote potential for limited sympathetic movement during a major
earthquake on a nearby active fault.
Mitiaatlon or Avoidance: (G-2) Seismic hazards to homes will be
mitigated by constructing homes to meet seismic Risk Level 4, in accordance
with current practices in California. Possible hazard to structures from
sympathetic movement on the apparent inactive fault will be avoided by setting
buildings back from the fault, or using a foundation that would withstand the
minor movement. Hazards from active and inactive landslides will be avoided
either by avoiding development and construction activities in the slide area
or by engineered excavation and recompaction of landslides. Hazards from
~.
.
.
, ,
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
3
10/28/92
slope stability and landslides will be reduced by engineering all cut and fill
slopes using standard engineering practices for construction of cut and fill
slopes including: not over steepening slopes and using buttress fill in the
vicinity of highly fractured and shear materials. Hazards from upslope debris
flows and colluvial deposits identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation (Appendix A of this EIR), will be reduced or eliminated by
conducting specific studies and following the recommendations of these
studies~ Slope stability will be mitigated by Gilroy's requirement to
generally limit maximum cuts to 10 to 12 feet.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
5. Sianificant Effect: (G-3) During and after grading, the project
will be subject to erosion that could result in downstream sedimentation.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (G-3) Erosion and sedimentation will be
reduced by generally limiting the total area of grading and soil disturbances
on the site to the lower flatter areas of the site. Erosion will be avoided
along most of the drainages on the site by designating approximately 40 acres
of the site for "creekways", with very limited disturbance for roadway
construction or construction of biological mitigation measures such as ponds.
Erosion will be controlled by limiting grading to the dry season and
establishing erosion control measures before the rainy season. An erosion
control plan will be prepared that includes the use of straw bale fences,
check darns, dikes and settling basins to reduce runoff water velocities and
force. Ground cover will be placed on graded surfaces where final grading is
complete and pavement or structures will not be subsequently constructed. For
example, erosion controlling ground cover will be placed on road cuts and
fills above and below roadways.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
6. Sionificant
locations on the site
structures.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (G-4) Potentially adverse effects from
expansive soils will be avoided by placing expansive soils in deep fill and
covering with low or non expansive soils. The expansive soils will be
engineered in accordance with specified moisture content and compaction
requirements. Where expansive soils ar~ present and building or other
structures are proposed, a foundation design will be employed that compensates
for the expansive characteristics which could result in structural damage.
Findino: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
Effect: (G-4) Expansive
which have a potential to
soils are
adversely
present at some
affect pavement and
.
.
. ,
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
4
10/28/92
C. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE:
7. Sianificant Effect: (VW-l) The project will significantly reduce
the vegetation and wildlife habitat on the site by converting grassland and
woodland habitat to urban and suburban uses.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (VW-l) Vegetation and wildlife impacts
will be partially mitigated by limiting development to less than 510 acres of
the site. Nine hundred and sixty four acres will be left undisturbed and
dedicated to a public agency for open space purposes, thereby preserving the
wildlife habitat value on this area of the site. Three hundred and eight
acres of the site will be preserved as hillside open space, with construction
of improvements in this area limited to water tanks and access roads for
service and maintenance of water facilities. Forty two acres of the site
generally located along the drainages will be preserved in open space and
designated as creekways.
Vegetation and wildlife impacts will also be partially mitigated by the
use of native plants for landscaping materials whenever possible, since they
afford the greatest wildlife habitat.
Findina: Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report. (See statement of Overridina Considerations,
below.)
8. Siqnificant Effect: (VW-2) Approximately 500 to 700 healthy medium
and large sized Oak, Bay Laurel, and Sycamore trees will be removed during
grading and construction of the project.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (VW-2) The landscaping plans will include
a replacement ratio of a minimum of three trees for every tree removed with a
trunk diameter of greater than six inches (measured 4~5 feet above the
ground). Two thirds of the replacement trees will be native~ The replacement
trees will be a minimum of one gallon in size~
All trees that would be preserved on the site would be identified, mapped,
clearly marked, and fenced to the drip line, prior to any construction
activity~ No construction traffic would be allowed inside the drip line of
trees to be preserved.
Findina: Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overridina Considerations,
below.)
9. Siqnificant Effect: (VW-3) Native
and wildlife will be impacted by grading of a
southeastern area of the site.
Mitioation or Avoidance: (VW~3)
or extremely limited on a minimum of 20% of
to approximately 12 acres.
Findino: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
10. Sianificant Effect: (VW-4)
impact the intermittent drainages -and
serpentine vegetation
grassy knoll located in
the
Grading will be avoided entirely
the serpentine knoll, equivalent
Construction and suburban uses could
their seasonal riparian habitat.
~
.
.
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
5
10/28/92
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (VW-4) A minimum of 40 acres of open
space will be designated for "creekway" uses, and maintained along seven
drainages on the site. Construction activities will be limited in the
seasonal drainages, and five bridges will be constructed for roadway crossings
of these drainages. Highly visible fabric fencing or continuous flagging will
be placed around the seasonal riparian habitat to be preserved during grading
and construction to prevent impacts.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
11. Sionificant Effect: (VW-S) Removal of habitat in the project area
could affect three species of special concern that have been identified on the
project site. (A field investigation found no checkerspot butterflies on the
site.) The three species are the western pond turtle, red-legged frog, and
the California tiger salamander. Each of these species is dependent upon the
ponds on the site.
Mitioation or Avoidance: (VW-S) Two of the three ponds on site
will be preserved, one located in the southeast corner of the site near Farman
Canyon and Miller Avenue and one located in Reservoir Canyon. A total of
slightly over 100 acres surrounding the ponds will be left in open space to
assist in providing terrestrial habitat and a buffer between urban uses and
the ponds. In addition, two new ponds will be constructed and other
mitigation measures implemented to provide for self-sustaining population of
the three species, as described below.
RESERVOIR CANYON POND:
1) Additional open land around this pond has been preserved to avoid
impacts to the western pond turtle and red-legged frog. The proposed open
space area should provide an adequate buffer area and provide adequate
habitat for continued breeding success of these species.
2) In addition, a new tiger salamander breeding pond will be constructed
downstream in the immediate vicinity to enhance habitat conditions in this
portion of the site. A total of slightly over 100 acres of potential
California tiger salamander habitat is included in the project.
3) The perimeter of the mitigation area will be fenced to prevent access by
off-road vehicles.
FARMAN CANYON POND:
1) Additional open land around this pond has been preserved to avoid impacts
to the California tiger salamander. The proposed open space area should
provide an adequate buffer area and provide adequate habitat for continued
breeding success of this species.
2) An undisturbed corridor between the pond and suitable habitat to the
southwest will be provided by retaining Farman Canyon Creek in its natural
condition. Residential structures will be set back from the creek a
minimum of 200 feet.
3) A new tiger salamander breeding pond will be constructed in the southwest
corner of the project site either within or adjacent to the first
tributary to Farman Canyon Creek.
.
.
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
6
10/28/92
4) Tunnels beneath the entry road will be provided, as well as suitable
barriers which are intended to prevent tiger salamander from crossing the
road and intended to direct migrating salamanders to the tunnels so that
they cross beneath the road.
5) The perimeter of the mitigation area will be fenced to prevent access by
off-road vehicles.
A draft California tiger salamander Mitigation Plan has been prepared, and
is included in Appendix L. The mitigation concept of this management plan is
to retain Farman Canyon Pond, Reservoir Canyon Pond, and areas surrounding
these two bodies of water in open space for salamander habitat. The developed
areas and roads that are located in the vicinity of these ponds will be
surrounded by low walls or barriers to exclude salamanders. The entry road
that crosses the habitat, in the vicinity of Farman Canyon Pond will includes
tunnels to allow salamander movement from one area to another. Cut or fill
slopes located in open space areas will be planted with native grass to
establish upland habitat for this species.
The Mitigation Plan provides for the creation and maintenance of
salamander breeding habitat in Farman Canyon Pond, Reservoir Canyon Pond, and
two new ponds (see Figures 15 and 16). All existing and proposed breeding
ponds would be located adjacent to or are within suitable upland California
tiger salamander habitat. Specific measures for the creation of each of these
breeding ponds are described on pages 10 through 19 of the Mitigation Plan in
Appendix L. Proper introduction techniques will be utilized to establish
salamander within the breeding ponds (see page 23 of the Mitigation Plan).
The Mitigation Plan also provides for the protection of the tiger
salamander in the development areas and project roads. Off-road vehicle
structures, fencing, salamander barriers, salamander tunnels, and special curb
and storm drain designs would protect salamander habitat from human
disturbance, as described on pages 20 through 22 of the Mitigation Plan
(Appendix L).
The tiger salamander mitigation areas and other special status species
mitigation areas will be established and maintained by an assessment district,
homeowners association, land trust, endowment, or other similar entity that is
developed as a condition of approval of the project.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
D. VISUAL AND AESTHETICS:
12. Sianificant Effect: (VA-I) 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. From these vantage
points, portions of the proposed development would be visible on the lower
elevations of the site. Highway 152 and Santa Teresa Boulevard are designated
as scenic corridors and, therefore, the project would have a significant
visual impact by affecting views from these roadways.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (VA-I) The project will reduce visual
impacts by preserving the upper hillside of the project in permanent open
space and generally limiting development to the lower flatter areas of the
.
.
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
7
10/28/92
site. Visual impacts from grading will be limited by constructing a 16 foot
wide roadway (pavement surface) to serve the custom estate lots located across
the toe of the hillside. The project includes a golf course within the
clustered residential uses to afford open space. Santa Clara County's
requirement of a IOO-foot wide development setback along Santa Teresa
Boulevard will reduce visual impacts from this roadway. In conformance with
this County requirement, the project will restrict any structures within a 100
foot wide strip adjacent to Santa Teresa Boulevard.
Findino: Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overridina Considerations,
below.)
13. Sionificant Effect: (VA-2) The project would have a potential
future visual impact on the views from Uvas Creek, when the park planned for
this area is developed.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (VA-2) Potential visual impacts from Uvas
Creek will be reduced by the planting of landscaping that screens development
from the future park site, and by the presence of a trail system on the south
side of Uvas Creek, which is part of the Uvas Park Preserve trail system.
Findina: Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report. (See statement of Overridina Considerations,
below.)
14. Sianificant Effect: (VA-3) Water tanks and access roads to serve
the tanks may have visual impacts since they will be located on the hillside
above the all residential development in areas that could be visually
prominent. These features could have significant visual impacts on nearby
roadways.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (VA-3) The visual impacts of the proposed
access roads and water tanks will be reduced by selecting locations that are
as visually obscure as possible from most vantage points.
Findina: Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overridina Considerations,
below.)
E. DRAINAGE AND FLOODING:
15. Sianificant Effect: (DF-I) The proposed project will increase the
amount of impervious area on the project site and, therefore, increase runoff
from the site. The project will result in increased storm flows during a 100-
year storm and even greater percentage increases during smaller storms, such
as a la-year event.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (DF-l) The project will mitigate
potential downstream flooding hazards through the preparation and development
of a master storm drainage system that includes all of the site's watershed
canyons that drain into Uvas Creek. The proposed storm drainage system will
include on-site storm water detention ponds and/or downstream channel
improvements as necessary to prevent increased downstream flooding hazard.
.
.
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
8
10/28/92
Findino: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
16. Siqnificant Effect: (DF-2) The project may have significant flood
hazards impacts on the local drainages between the project site and Uvas
Creek. Some downstream drainage channels and pipes between the site and Uvas
Creek have inadequate capacity to accommodate a 10 year flood and would be
unable to carry additional runoff that would result from project development.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (DF-2) The project will mitigate
potential flood hazards to local drainages through a combination of on-site
storm water detention ponds (water features on the golf course) and downstream
channel improvements. An on-site storm water detention system will prevent
increased runoff from the project by holding storm water on the site and
allowing it to be released slowly, so that there is no increase over the
existing storm flows from the site. Improvements to storm drains, ditches,
and culverts will provide sufficient drainage capacity for the post-project
10-year storm flow from the project site to Uvas Creek.
Any off-site storm drainage mitigation measures shall include acquisitions
of easements and/or rights-af-way by the developer. Any needed acquisition
not under control of the developer at the time the tentative map is submitted
shall be so nated in the submittal. A master storm drainage plan would be
required in order to establish measures to reduce the potential downstream
impacts of storm water flows from O'Connell Ranch to Glen Lorna and other
adjoining properties. This master plan will be consistent with the City's
master storm drainage plan.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
17. Sianificant Effect: (DF-3) Construction of the project could
disturb underlying soils on the site, contributing to sediment erosion and
increasing sediment loading in Uvas Creek. In addition, surface runoff from
the proposed residences and golf course would contain minor concentrations of
oil and grease, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, and heavy metals.
Fertilizer and any pesticides applied to the golf course turf could accumulate
on the turf, depending upon net application rates, and assuming that surface
runoff does not leave the golf course.
Mitioation or Avoidance: (DF-3) The project would be required to
conform to the regulations of the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source
Program. On-site detention ponds would provide locations for pollutant
removal through settling, prior to discharge of the storm water runoff into
the storm drainage system. In addition, scheduling earthwork activities
during the dry season would prevent runoff erosion. During construction near
the creek corridors, the developer would ensure that debris and soil is not
deposited into the Uvas Creek corridor. All existing debris would be removed
from the corridors during construction. Any earthwork activity occurring
during the rainy season would be separated from street gutters and storm
drains by ditches, berms or filtration barriers, such as hay bales.
All exposed soils would be watered during the dry season to limit wind
~
.
.
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
9
10/28/92
erosion. In addition, streets surrounding the construction area would be
swept regularly to collect sediment deposited on the streets before it is
washed into the storm drains or channels.
A golf course operation plan would be developed prior to the issuance of a
Planned Development Permit for the development of the golf course. The plan
would include the following elements: 1) strict adherence to manufacturers
recommendations and procedures involving chemical applications; 2) Use of
chemicals approved by the County or Department of Agriculture; 3) Use of only
short-lived pesticides; 4) Application of chemicals only by State-licensed
personnel; 5) Limited use of chemicals; 6) Proper storage, handling and
disposal of chemicals.
Findino: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
18. Siqnificant Effect: (DF-4) The City of Gilroy Public Works
Department has determined that the proposed hillside development associated
with the O'Connell Ranch project would generate a significant increase in the
routine maintenance over and above that required for a similar project in the
flat land areas of the city.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (DF-4) In accordance with the City's
requirements, the proposed project would be required to establish a
maintenance district, to provide for services in the hillside areas, where
maintenance costs are over and above those encountered in the flatland
subdivisions.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
F. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
19. Sionificant Effect: (CR-l) Two of the three
archaeological sites on the property may potentially be
and construction activities proposed by the project.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (CR-l) Impacts to the prehistoric
archaeological resources will be mitigated by modifying the project to avoid
these resources. Disturbance of the subsurface cultural materials will be
limited or avoided by placing fill over the cultural resource sites, or avoid
disturbance by placing open spaces uses where cultural resources sites are
located. Earthmoving activities in the area of archaeological sites will be
conducted in the presence of a qualified archaeologist and in consultation
with a recognized Native American Observer. If disturbance of cultural
materials results from striping organic material from the surface or
scarification of the surface soil, a limited sample of the deposits will be
excavated and recordation made by the archaeologist to provide a record of the
resource. After sampling, clean fill will be placed on top of these resources
to protect them from future disturbance.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
prehistoric
impacted by
grading
.
.
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
10
10/28/92
20. Siqnificant Effect: (CR-2) The project may potentially impact
archaeological resources off of the site during construction of underground
utilities, sanitary sewer lines, and storm lines.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (CR-2) Potential impacts to off site
cultural resources could be reduced by the following measures: 1) surface
reconnaissance and archival research along proposed alignments, 2) in
locations where cultural resources are identified, monitoring will be required
by a qualified archaeologist during excavation and earthmoving activities, and
3) if cultural resources are identified, construction will be halted while a
sample of the materials is recovered for recordation in accordance with
current standards for archaeological resources.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
G. TRANSPORTATION:
21. Sianificant Effect: (T-1) Upon complete development and occupancy,
the project will result in significant traffic impacts at the following five
intersections: 1) Intersection 415 - U.S. 101 NB Off-ramp/Leaves ley Road, 2)
Intersection 422 - Monterey Street at Leavesley Road, 3) Intersection 467 -
Santa Teresa Boulevard at First Street, 4) Intersection 477 - Westwood Drive
at First Street, and 5) Intersection 497 - Santa Teresa Boulevard and the
North Project Entry.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (T-1) Roadway improvements are
recommended to reduce the project impacts to a non-significant level, as
described on pages 113-120 of the EIR. As a condition of project approval,
the City of Gilroy will require the project to contribute its share of the
costs of the improvements through the payment of,traffic impact fees.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
22. Siqnificant Effect:
Boulevard could be impacted by
the project site.
Mitioation or Avoidance: (T-2) Impacts to circulation on Santa
Teresa Boulevard will be mitigated by locating the intersections at the
entrance streets to meet the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency minimum
spacing distance of one quarter mile, and by signalizing the intersections.
The signal and intersection improvements at this intersection would be
required to be completed to the ultimate intersection configuration, if the
cost of the improvements is to be credited towards the payment of project
traffic impact fees. The roadway improvements would include long transition
turn pockets on Santa Teresa. All right-at-way dedications shall be made as
necessary for these signals, including adequate right-ot-way for acceleration
and deceleration lanes along Santa Teresa. The City of Gilroy Public Works
Department has indicated that all interim construction costs, as well as all
costs for demolition and complete removal of all interim measures (when the
(T-2) Traffic circulation
project traffic at the two
on Santa Teresa
entrance streets to
~
.
.
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
11
10/28/92
signals are constructed to the ultimate design), shall be borne by the
developer.
Since the project will add traffic to Miller Avenue, the City will require
that the project include the widening of Miller Road to a half street cross
section plus 12 additional feet of pavement on the other half of the street,
and any necessary right-of-way acquisitions between the southern property line
and Santa Teresa Boulevard.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
23. Siqnificant Effect: (T-3) Traffic generated by the project will
use a fraction of reserve capacity. Existing traffic together with project
traffic, approved project traffic and reasonably foreseeable traffic will a
have a cumulative effect upon traffic circulation and congestion. Thirteen
intersections would be impacted by cumulative traffic4 These intersections
are: 1) U.S. 101 NB Off-Ramp/Leaves ley Blvd., 2) u.s. 101 SB Off-
Ramp/Leavesley Blvd., 3) Monterey St/Leavesley Blvd., 4) Santa Teresa
Blvd./First Street, 5) Westwood Dr./ First street, 6) Santa Teresa Blvd./North
Project Entry, 7) Monterey Street/First street, 8) u.s. 101 NB Off-
Ramp/Pacheco Pass, 9) U.s. 101 SB Off-Ramp/Tenth Street, 10) Thomas
Road/Thomas Road Extension, 11) Santa Teresa/Thomas Road extension, 12) Santa
Teresa/Tenth Street extension, and 13) Santa Teresa/Thomas Road4
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (T-3) The project would contribute a
traffic impact fee to fund for a roadway improvements proportional to the
roadway capacity used by the project traffic.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (T-3) If the O'Connell Ranch project
proceeds in advance of the Glen Lorna development, then a new traffic analysis
will be conducted in order to address the impact on the roadway network
without the implementation of the roadway improvements that are required as
part of the Glen Lorna project. The developer shall provide any all mitigation
measures resulting from the additional traffic analysis, as needed.
Findino: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
24. Sionificant Effect: (T-4) The City of Gilroy Public Works
Department has determined that the proposed hillside development associated
with the O'Connell Ranch project may generate a significant increase in the
routine maintenance of the roadway system over and above that required for a
similar project in the flat land areas of the city.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (T-4) In accordance with the City's
requirements, the proposed project may be required to establish a maintenance
district, to provide for services in the hillside areas, where maintenance
costs are over and above those encountered in the flat land subdivisions.
Findino: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
.
.
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
12
10(28(92
H. NOISE:
25. Siqnificant Effect: (N-l) Approximately 17 proposed lots along the
Santa Teresa Boulevard frontage, north of Miller Road, will be exposed to
future noise levels that exceed the city's 58-decibel residential noise
standard as a result of traffic from future'buildout of the Gilroy General
Plan.
Mitiqation or Avoidance: (N-l) The project proposes a 100 foot
setback for all structures on lots along the Santa Teresa Boulevard frontage.
Exterior sound levels beyond the 100 foot set back will meet City standards
for residential uses.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
26. Siqnificant Effect: (N-2) Construction of the project will result
in temporary noise impacts in the project area. Construction-related noise
would be short-term, occurring primarily during grading and construction on
the site.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (N-2)
mitigated by allowing construction
between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
will be
Friday,
Construction related noise impacts
activities only Monday through
1. AIR OUALITY:
27. Siqnificant Effect: (AQ-l) The project will contribute to Gilroy's
total vehicular emissions on a regional level and would exceed the 150 pound
per day threshold for two criteria pollutants. Regional cumulative emissions
projected from buildout of the Gilroy area are expected to result in a
threefold increase of emissions.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (AQ-l) Mitigation of air quality impacts
from the project vehicles, as well as for cumulative impacts, is provided by
implementation of Transportation Demand Management and Transportation Control
Measures encouraged by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District '91 Clean
Air Plan. Effective implementation of these measures would achieve up to a
five percent reduction in project emissions.
Findina: Specific economic, social or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overridina Considerations,
below. )
28. Siqnificant Effect: (AQ-2) The project will generate dust and
particulates during the construction phase of the project.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (AQ-2) Construction generated dust from
grading will be controlled by periodic watering. Dust will also be reduced by
establishing ground cover on graded surfaces where final grades are complete
and pavements and structures will" not be subsequently constructed. For
"
.
.
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
13
10/28/92
example, erosion controlling ground cover will be placed on road cuts and
fills above and below roadways upon completion of final grading.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
J. WASTEWATER TREATMENT:
29. Sianificant Effect: (WT-l) Potential impacts to groundwater
quality could result, if improperly treated wastewater used for irrigation
leaches high concentrations of nitrates into the groundwater table, thus
contaminating groundwater wells.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (WT-l) The project will design and
operate the wastewater treatment facility in a manner that guarantees
production of high quality effluent that conforms to Title 22 of the
California Administrative Code. Conformance with Title 22 will, thereby,
ensure compliance with Order No. 85-82 which prohibits nitrate impacts on
groundwater.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
30. Sianificant Effect: (WT-2) Potential impacts to surface and
groundwater quality could result from overwatering of the turf and other
landscaping, which could result in surface flow of wastewater.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (WT-2) Irrigation of golf course turf and
landscaped areas will be on an as needed basis only, applying no more than the
volumes necessary to maintain healthy vegetation. All irrigation will cease
during rainy periods and retained water will be stored in a lined reservoir on
the site.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
31. Si~nificant Effect: (WT-3)
groundwater could result, if there is
reservoir during a rainstorm.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (WT-3) For rainy periods and periods of
low consumptive demand, such as during winter months, the wastewater storage
reservoirs will be sized with adequate capacity to contain the daily effluent
contributions (including direct rainfall and runoff from banks and berms)
during the extended rainy season corresponding to a 100 year rainfall (120 day
capacity).
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
Potential impacts to surface and
an escape of wastewater from the storage
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
14
10/28/92
.
.
32. Sianificant Effect: (WT-4) The proposed reclaimed wastewater
storage reservoir, if it is unlined, may leach excessive nitrates into the
groundwater and contaminate groundwater wells.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (WT-4) The project will construct the
reclaimed water storage reservoir with a watertight liner to prevent
percolation of wastewater into the underlying aquiferes). Monitoring of
groundwater quality immediately adjacent to the reservoir will confirm the
adequacy of the reservoir lining to prevent seepage.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
33. Sianificant Effect: (WT-S) In the event of cataclysmic disaster,
the Reclamation facility and storage reservoir may experience total failure
and treated as well as untreated wastewater could potentially flow into
UvasjCarnadero Creek. However, if such a cataclysmic event were to occur, it
is unlikely that the conveyance system from the G/MHWTP to the satellite
treatment plant would remain intact. Therefore, it is unlikely that any
sewage other than the amount already on the site, would escape into the
UvasjCarnadero Creek.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (WT-S) The SWRF has been designed to
withstand natural disasters. The project would not be impacted by seismic
events, since no faults, active or otherwise, are known to traverse the SWRF
site.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
34. Sianificant Effect: (WT-6) The proposed satellite treatment plant
is located within the floodplain of Uvas Creek. Potential flooding impacts
could occur without adequate flood protection.
Mitioation or Avoidance: (WT-6) The project will mitigate
potential flooding impacts by constructing a levee to the northeast of the
reclamation plant to an elevation of 219 feet. This levee will adequately
protect the SWRF from the 100 year flood.
Findino: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
K. SERVICES AND UTILITIES:
35. Sionificant Effect: (SU-l) The project will require water service
at higher elevations than the existing water system can supply. The project
will also require water storage capacity and supply beyond the capabilities of
Gilroy's existing water system.
Mitioation or Avoidance: (SU-l) The project will include the
expansion of the Gilroy water system to serve project demands. The project
will include construction of one or more water reservoirs on the site to
~
.
.
. . .
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
15
10/28/92
provide the necessary storage capacity. These reservoirs will be located at
an elevation sufficient to provide adequate water pressure.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
36. Sianificant Effect: (SU-3) Emergency fire response times to the
site exceed city standards because of the distance to the nearest fire
station.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (SU-3) Construction of a new fire station
in the Gavilan Community College area will reduce fire response times.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
37. Sianificant Effect: (SU-4) The project will impact police
protection services requiring additional personnel and equipment in this
department.
Mitioation or Avoidance: (5U-4) The impact to police
be offset by Public Safety Impact Fees charged to the project.
revenues will offset a part of the increased police protection
costs.
service will
Property tax
operational
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
38. Sianificant Effect: (8U-5) The project will generate sChoOl-age
children that will impact schools, if schools do not have available space at
the time of project development. Currently, all schools in the project area
are impacted.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (SU-5) The project will pay the maximum
school impact fee authorized by state law at the time the building permits are
issued. The developer shall, as soon as possible, negotiate with the Gilroy
Unified School District to determine the level of additional impacts on the
District. In the case of an impasse, the City of Gilroy shall mediate the
negotiation. Following completion of the negotiations, the developer shall
provide mitigation of the impacts to the School District which may include 1)
impact fees, 2) dedication of land, 3) facilities and/or 4) equipment. The
developer shall submit a completed mitigation plan to the City prior to the
application for a tentative map.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
39. Sianificant Effect: (SU-6) The project would impact library
services and would potentially impact park services.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (SU-6) Library impacts will be partially
offset by tax revenues generated by the project. The project is proposing to
.
.
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
16
10/28/92
pay approximately four million dollars in park fees, thereby offsetting the
demand for approximately 15 additional acres of park land. The project will
further dedicate 964 acres of hillside and creekway areas to the City of
Gilroy to be maintained as open space. In addition, the proposed golf course
will provide recreational opportunities. Park operation and maintenance costs
resulting from the demand of future residents of the project will be partially
offset by tax revenues.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
40. Sianificant Effect: (SU-7) The project will impact fire protection
services requiring additional personnel and equipment in this department.
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (8U-7) The impact to fire services will
be offset by Public Safety Impact Fees charged to the project. Property tax
revenues will offset a part of the increased police protection operational
costs. A new fire station is currently being considered to the south of the
site in the Gavilan Community College area. The Fire Department of the City
of Gilroy and the Public Works Department recommend that a professional
location analysis be conducted to analyze the long term city configuration and
to recommend locations of the additional fire station(s). The city has
further suggested that the major developers in the area pay for this study.
This study will assure that new fire station is at the best location to serve
the all planned future development before funds are invested in capital
improvements for a new fire station.
The project would be required to provide adequate fire flows and water
pressure to the site in order to ensure a water supply sufficient for fire
fighting capabilities. Project roadways would be designed to provide emergency
access. Project roadways would generally be no less than 20 feet in width,
with no less than 13.5 feet in vertical clearance. The proposed residential,
golf course clubhouse, and other project structures would be constructed in
conformance with the Uniform Fire Code.
Risk of "wildland" fire can be reduced in hillside areas by having a
minimum 30 foot setback between residences, garages, and structures. These 30
foot setbacks can be landscaped with irrigated plant materials, such as lawns.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
41. Siqnificant Effect: (SU-8) The City of Gilroy Public Works
Department has determined that the proposed hillside development associated
with the O'Connell Ranch project may generate a significant increase in the
routine maintenance of water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage over and
above that required for a similar project in the flat land areas of the city.
In addition, the dedication of the 964 acres of open space, in its natural
state, would require additional maintenance and increased hillside
protection.
Mitiaation or Avoidance:
requirements, the proposed project
(SU-8) In accordance with
may be required to establish
the City's
a maintenance
"
.
.
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
17
10/28/92
district, to provide for services in the hillside areas (above the 280 foot
contour), where maintenance costs are over and above those encountered in the
flat land subdivisions. The City of Gilroy will require that a Homeowners
Association, or some other district, be established that is responsible for
maintaining the private open space. In addition, the City will require that a
maintenance district, land trust, endowment, or some other type of district be
established to ensure maintenance of the hillside open space areas on the
project site, as a condition of project approval.
Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant
environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental
impact report.
L. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS:
42. Sianificant Effect: (CUM) The significant cumulative impacts of the
project result from the following:
1) The incremental conversion of undeveloped land to urban-related uses
or amendment of the General Plan to allow for more urban-related
uses.
2) The incremental loss of agricultural land
3) Impacts of vegetation and wildlife
4) A substantial increase in traffic at the 13 intersections identified
in the Subsequent EIR
5) A possible delay in attainment of air quality standards
6) An increase in the amount of groundwater withdrawn
7) An increase in the generation of wastewater
8) An increase in quantity of stormwater runoff to Llagas Creek and Uvas
Creek
9) An increase in the demand for fire service by the Gilroy Fire Dept.
10) An increase in demand for police protection
11) An increase in demand for school services
Mitiaation or Avoidance: (CUM) The mitigation measures for the
project are as discussed above.
Findino: With regard to the following cumulative impacts, changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant cumulative environmental effects thereof as
identified in the completed environmental impact report:
1) A substantial increase in traffic at the 13 intersections identified
in the Subsequent EIR
2 ) An increase in the amount of groundwater withdrawn
3) An increase in the generation of wastewater
4) An increase in quantity of storrnwater runof f to Llagas Creek
5) An increase in demand for police protection
6) An increase in demand for school services
With regard to the remaining cumulative impacts identified above, specific
economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the subsequent environmental
impact report. (See Statement of OverridinQ Considerations, below.)
.
.
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
18
10/28/92
II. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
A. No proiect Alternative (environmentallv oreferable alternative.)
Alternative: The No Project Alternative consists of leaving the site in
its present undeveloped condition. (EIR p. l74)
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) predicts a
major short-fall of housing in the near future in both the City and County if
more housing units are not developed. (ErR p. 17; General Plan Housing
Element, Technical Appendix, pp. II-2, II-5, II-14, II-15, III-l.)
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.
Findina: 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 Cityls growing population and housing
needs (General Plan Housing Element, Technical Appendix I pp~ 11-21 11-5, 11-
14, 11-15, II1-1)~ 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. Specific economic, social, or other
considerations make infeasible this project alte~native indentified in the
ErR. (See Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.)
B. Fewer Dwellina Units - 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. (EIR p. 174)
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 is 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. (EIR p. 17; General Plan Housing
Element, Technical Appendix, pp. 11-2, 11-5, 11-14, 11-15, III-l.)
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 11000 homes which will
contribute toward balancing jobs and housing both in Gilroy and the County as
a whole.
.
.
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
19
10/28/92
Development of the project site using this alternative could 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.
Findina: 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, 11-5, 11-
14, II-15, III-l) 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 City 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 ErR. (See Statement of Overriding
Considerations, Section III, be~ow.)
C. More Dwellina Units Cluster Alternative.
Alternative: This alternative consists of developing 20 percent to 50
percent more dwelling units than proposed for the project. (EIR pp. 175)
Statement Of Fact: This alternative would reduce the amount of open
space and increase the environmental impacts over those of the proposed
project.
Findina: For the above reasons, the City Council finds this alternative
to be environmentally undesirable. Specific economic, social, or other
considerations make infeasible this project alternative indentified in the
EIR. (See Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.)
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 density
formula (EIR p. 175).
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 (EIR p. 175).
Findina: For the above reasons, the City Council finds this alternative
to be environmentally undesirable. Specific economic, social, or other
considerations make infeasible this project alternative indentified in the
EIR. (See Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.)
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 (EIR, p. 19). The project location alternatives referenced in the
EIR suffer from the following deficiencies: These alternative locations of
comparable size (making it economically feasible to support a development
.
.
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
20
10/28/92
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) would present the major difficulty of not being
owned by a single entity and thus would require the acquisition of several
diverse parcels from several owners.
1. Northeast, East. Southeast. and South Alternative.
Alternative: Possible alternative locations for the project are the
large areas of agricultural lands that lie to the northeast, east, southeast,
and south of the City (EIR, p. 176).
Statement Of Fact: These alternative locations 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 project.
Findina: 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 EIR. (See
Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.)
2. Southwest Alternative.
Alternative: The area to the southwest of Gilroy is a possible
alternative location for the project (EIR p. 178).
Statement Of Fact: This location does not readily provide 964 acres
of hillside open space preserve as is 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 (EIR, p. 178).
Findina: 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 EIR. (See
Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.)
3. West. Northwest, and North Alternative.
Alternative: The areas to the west, northwest, and north of Gilroy
are possible alternative locations for the project (EIR pp. 178-179).
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 from the existing urban services
and infrastructure of Gilroy. These alternative locations would also have a
greater impact on Prime Farmland (EIR, p. 179).
Findina: 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 inctentified in the
EIR. (See Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.)
F. Superior Alternative:
Alternative: The environmentally superior alternative would be the ~o
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.)
Findina: 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
.
.
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
21
10/28/92
need for housing) make infeasible this project alternative indentified in the
EIR. 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 yet 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.)
III. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines
promulgated pursuant thereto provide as follows:
(a) CEQA requires the decisionmaker to balance the benefits of a proposed
project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining
whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the proposed
project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the
adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
(b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not
at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing
the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR
and/or other information in the record. This statement may be
necessary if the agency also makes the finding under Section
lS09l(a) (2) or (a) (3).
(C) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the
statement should be included in the record of the project approval
and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination (Section 15093
of the Guidelines).
The City Council finds, as summarized in Section IV of the EIR (p. 182),
that the project will result in four significant unavoidable impacts; those
being the loss of agricultural production potential, loss of open space, loss
of vegetation and wildlife habitat, and visual and aesthetic impacts. The
project will also contribute to significant unavoidable cumulative impacts as
described in Section I, number 42. above. These impacts, referenced in the
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, 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 impacts. Accordingly, the impact is considered acceptable
because:
1. The loss of agricultural production potential could only be
partially mitigated by scaling down the proposed development.
2. The project-related and cumulative 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 project-related and cumulative 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.
.
.
Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR
22
10/28/92
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.
5. The cumulative incremental conversion of undeveloped land could only
be partially mitigated by scaling down the proposed development.
6. The cumulative increase in demand for Fire Service could only be
partially mitigated by scaling down the proposed development.
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 impacts as outlined in the preceding Section I of this resolution.
Mitigation measures or project alternatives necessary to further mitigate or
avoid significant environmental effects referenced in Section I and II, and as
identified in the EIR, 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 Pro;ect Alternatives~ Section II above) and which would thus prohibit
attaining the specific social, economic and other benefits of the project,
specifically:
1) The project will 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, II-1S, III-l).
2) The project will assist in confronting a cshortage of housing in Santa
Clara County for individuals employed in the County leading to an
importation of workers into the County (EIR p. 17; General Plan
Housing Element, Technical Appendix, pp. 11-2, 11-5, II-IS, III-I.)
3) The project will permanently preserve 964 acres of publicly-owned open
space.
4) The project will serve to conserve and protect prime Class I and II
agricultural lands (General Plan, p.III-l) by avoiding alternative
development which would have a greater impact on agricultural lands
(see analysis of Pro;ect Alternatives. Section II above).
5) The project contributes to meeting the need for recreation facilities
open to the public (General Plan, p.VI-2) in that it includes a golf
course and an open space preserve owned by the public or an assessment
district, homeowners association, land trust, endowment, or other
similar entity.
The project provides
The project provides
treatment system.
Denying the project, adopting the no-project alternative, or requiring
further mitigation would prevent or inhibit the City from realizing these
benefits. Therefore, the unavoidable adverse environmental effects are found
to be acceptable. The City Council finds that the benefits of the project
outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the project.
6)
7)
protection for the
a backup system to
California tiger salamander.
the City's current wastewater
.
.
EXHIBIT B
MONITORING PROGRAM
O'CONNELL RANCH FINAL SUBSEQUENT EIR
A mitigation monitoring program has been designed for mitigation measures that
would reduce the significant impacts resulting from the proposed project to a
less than significant effect. Monitoring procedures and the individuals or
agencies responsible for their implementation are identified on the following
pages for each impact and mitigation measure. Monitoring procedures are not
applicable to significant unavoidable impacts, or to those impacts that are
less than significant.
(NOTE: FOR FULL WORDING OF CODED MITIGATION MEASURES, REFER TO EXHIBIT A.)
Land Use
MONITORING PROGRAM: (LU-l through LU-4) The Gilroy Planning Director shall
ensure the open space mitigation described above is implemented by reviewing
the development plans prior to issuance of a grading permit. After completion
of grading, the Gilroy Planning Director shall prepare a report documenting
compliance with the above described mitigation.
Geology
MONITORING PROGRAM: (G-l) The Gilroy Public Works Director shall ensure that
grading impacts are limited and reduced through the implementation of the
mitigation described. The Gilroy Planning Director will review the devel-
opment plans and determine that they incorporate the described mitigations,
prior to issuance of a grading permit. After completion of grading, the
Gilroy Public Works Director shall preparing a report documenting compliance
with the above described mitigation.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (G-2) The Gilroy Public Works Director will review and
approve the geotechnical and soils investigations that provide the engineering
specification for grading, roadway design, foundation design, and placement of
structures. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the Gilroy
Director of Public Works will review grading plans and plans for structural
foundations and footings, to insure that they conform with the recommendations
of geotechnical and soils investigations. The City Public Works Director
shall inspect the site prior, during, and after construction to ensure that
the construction is completed in accordance with the approved
MONITORING PROGRAM: (G-3) The Gilroy Public Works Director will review the
erosion control plan to ensure adequate erosion control, prior to issuance of
a grading permit. The Public Works Director will periodically inspect the
grading and construction operation to ensure conformance with the grading plan
and the erosion control plan. At a minimum, the grading operation will be
inspected in September during the construction phase of the project, to ensure
that erosion control measures are in place prior to the rainy season.
.
.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (G-4) The Gilroy Public Works Director will review and
approve the geotechnical, soils, and foundation investigations that provide
the engineering specification for grading, foundation design, and placement of
structures. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the Gilroy
Director of Public Works will review grading plans and plans for structural
foundation and footing to insure that they conform with the recommendations of
geotechnical and soils investigations. The City Public Works Director shall
inspect the site prior, during, and after construction to ensure that the
construction is completed in accordance with the approved plans.
Vegetation and Wildlife
MONITORING PROGRAM: (VW-l) The Gilroy Planning Director will review devel-
opment plans and determine that the mitigation measures described above are
incorporated into the project before approval of the plan.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (VW-2) The Gilroy Planning Director will review the
landscaping plans to verify inclusion of the above mitigations. The Planning
Director will inspect the site after installation of landscaping and confirm
that the mitigation has been implemented. The site will be reinspected on an
annual basis for three years to assure that there is a 75% survival rate of
the landscape trees and that dead trees are replaced as necessary to achieve
the 75% survival rate.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (VW-3) The Gilroy Planning Director will review devel-
opment plans and determine that the mitigation measures described above are
incorporated before approval of the plan.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (VW-4) The Gilroy Planning Director will review devel-
opment plans and determine that the mitigation measures described above are
incorporated before approval of the plan. The Gilroy Public Works Director
will conduct periodic inspections of the grading operation to ensure that the
seasonal riparian habitat designated for preservation is not disturbed by
construction activities.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (VW-S) The Monitoring Program is included in the Miti-
gation Plan to ensure that the site conditions remain suitable for California
tiger salamander habitat. Site conditions that will be monitored include:
breeding ponds, upland habitat, salamander barriers and tunnels, and off-road
vehicle fencing. This Monitoring Program will entail examination of the
salamander habitat, as well as monitoring the numbers of larval salamanders.
In addition, the roads adjacent to and within the project site will be mon-
itored for dead salamanders. Specific monitoring activities are described on
pages 24 through 33 of Appendix L. An annual report will be prepared and
submitted to the Department of Fish and Game for each year of monitoring.
The Gilroy Planning Director will review development plans and determine that
the mitigation measures described above are incorporated before approval of
the plan.
?
.
.
Visual and Aesthetics
MONITORING PROGRAM: (VA-l) The Gilroy Planning Director will review (under
Design Review) site design, architectural plans, and landscaping plans to
assure that visual impacts are adequately mitigated, prior to issuance of any
grading or building permit.
MONITORING PROGRAM:
project landscaping
(VA-2) The
plans prior
Gilroy Planning Director will review all
to issuance of any development permits.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (VA-3) The Gilroy Planning Director will review the
location of the proposed access roads and water tanks prior to the issuance of
any development approvals.
Drainage and Flooding
MONITORING PROGRAM: (DF-l) The Gilroy Public Works Department will review and
approve the proposed project drainage plans for compliance with the City'S
drainage requirements, which include the provision for surface drainage of
each lot to the street, or a storm line, or a dedicated drainage channel that
discharges to Uvas Creek.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (DF-2) The City of Gilroy Public Works Department will
review and approve the project drainage plans before the issuance of improve-
ment permits. Drainage plans will be required to comply with the City of
Gilroy's drainage criteria. The type and extent of drainage improvements will
be evaluated as part of the project design review process.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (DF-3) The City of Gilroy Public Works Department will
review and approve the project drainage plans and golf course irrigation plan
before the issuance of improvement permits. Drainage plans will be required
to comply with the City of Gilroy's drainage criteria.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (DF-4) The applicant would be required to contribute fees
to a maintenance district as a condition of project approval. The City of
Gilroy Public Works would determine the additional expenditures associated
with hillside maintenance, and would then divide the proper assessment by the
number of dwelling units approved as part of the project.
Cultural Resources
MONITORING PROGRAM: (CR-l) The Gilroy Planning Director will review project
plans and verify that the site design avoids excavation in the area of arch-
aeological sites. In areas where grading could affect archaeological re-
sources, the project grading permit will include a provision for a qualified
archeological monitor and Native American Observer to be present during the
earthmoving activities on the archaeological site. The grading permit will
include a provision specifying that, in the event that cultural resources are
disturbed, a sample of the impacted resources will be recovered and recorded
in accordance with current professional archaeological practices.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (CR-2) The Gilroy Planning Director will insure that the
above mitigation measures are made a condition of development approvals.
~
.
.
Transportation
MONITORING PROGRAM: (T-l) The Gilroy Planning Director will review the
development approvals to insure that they provide for mitigation in one of the
following ways:
1) The mitigation is implemented by the project applicant by the completion
of the last phase of development, or
2) The mitigation will be implemented by Caltrans or others by the completion
of the last phase of development, or
3) Funding for the mitigation is included as part of a traffic impact fee and
Gilroy will construct improvements by completion of construction of the
last phase of the project.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (T-2)
development approvals and
described above.
The Gilroy Public Works Director will review the
verify that they include the mitigation measure
MONITORING PROGRAM: (T-3) The Gilroy Director of Public Works will ensure
that the traffic impact fee in effect at the time of development approval is a
condition of project approval.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (T-4) The applicant would be required to contribute fees
to a maintenance district as a condition of project approval. The City of
Gilroy Public Works would determine the additional expenditures associated
with hillside maintenance, and would then divide the proper assessment by the
number of dwelling units approved as part of the project.
Noise
MONITORING PROGRAM: (N-l) The Gilroy Planning Director will condition issuance
of project building permits to the project's compliance with the City's indoor
and outdoor noise level guidelines.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (N-2) The Gilroy Planning Director will review grading
and building permits to ensure that they include the mitigation measures
described above.
Air Quality
MONITORING PROGRAM: (AQ-l) The Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
together with the State Department of Motor Vehicles, will condition the
issuance of vehicular registration renewals to the inspection and emissions
testing of vehicles.
The City of Gilroy Department of Planning and the Department of Public Works
will review the project site plans and ensure that bikeways, pedestrian paths,
and facilities providing access to public transit are included in the project.
~
.
.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (AQ-2) The Gilroy Public Works Director will review and
approve dust control measures as conditions of the grading permit. To ensure
that construction mitigation is implemented, final project approval would be
conditioned upon the receipt of a satisfactory construction mitigation plan
from the developer/contractor. This plan would specify the methods of control
that will be utilized, demonstrate the availability of equipment and per-
sonnel, and identify a responsible individual who, can authorize additional
measures, if warranted.
Wastewater Treatment
MONITORING PROGRAM: (WT-l) The design and operation of wastewater treatment
facilities and use of reclaimed wastewater for irrigation purposes is subject
to the requirements of Title 22 of, the California Administrative Code, admin-
istered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Regional Water
Quality Control Board will review and approve the design and operation plans
for the wastewater treatment facility, and receive scheduled effluent monitor-
ing data to ensure compliance with reclaimed wastewater quality standards.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (WT-2) The golf course greenskeeper will be responsible
for maintaining proper irrigation practices and ensuring that the golf course
turf and landscaped areas are not overwatered. The greens keeper will prepare
an annual report summarizing the success in preventing the runoff of excess
irrigation water. The Director of Public Works will review this annual report
and periodically inspect the irrigation operation.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (WT-3) The design and size of the wastewater storage
reservoirs will be reviewed and approved by the Gilroy Public Works Director
prior to issuance of building permits.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (WT-4) The design of the wastewater storage reservoir
will be subject to the review of the Gilroy Public Works Director and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board official. Monitoring of groundwater
quality would be reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (WT-5) The design and construction of the satellite
wastewater treatment facility will be reviewed by the Gilroy Public Works
Director and Regional Water Quality Control Board official. The wastewater
treatment plant will be required to meet current earthquake safety criteria
for a public facility.
The final wastewater treatment mitigation will be subject to the review and
approval of the Public Works Department. A project sewer master plan will be
required and must be in agreement with the City-wide Sanitary Sewer Master
Plan. The project sewer master plan must address phasing of the project sewer
and be in concert with the project water and storm drainage master plan
phasing.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (WT-6) The Gilroy Public Works Director will review and
approve the plans for the wastewater treatment facility and associated levee
prior to issuance of any building permits.
~
.
.
Services and utilities
MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-l) The proposed water system will be required to meet
City of Gilroy standards. The Gilroy Public Works Director will review and
approve the design of the water system prior to issuance of any improvement
approvals.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-3) The Gilroy City Fire Chief will review the project
plans and confirm that adequate response times can be achieved prior to is-
suing occupancy permits.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-4) The Gilroy Planning Director will condition ap-
proval of the project to the provision of adequate police protection to serve
the site.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-S) The Gilroy Planning Director will condition proj-
ect approvals to include payment of the appropriate school impact fees. If
the Gilroy Unified School District determines that the project will impact
schools beyond the level offset by school impact fees, the applicant shall, as
soon as possible (and before issuance of any building permits), negotiate with
the School District and the city and agree to furnish funds and facilities
that will fully mitigate such impacts.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-6) The Gilroy Planning Director will condition ap-
proval of the project upon the dedication of approximately 964 acres to the
City of Gilroy for open space use. The City of Gilroy will also condition
approval of the project upon the payment of park fees. Future residents of
the project will be required to pay County property taxes, a portion of which
will be distributed to the local parks and library maintenance.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-7) The Gilroy Planning Director will condition ap-
proval of the project to the provision of adequate fire protection to serve
the site. The applicant would be required to contribute fees to a maintenance
district as a condition of project approval.
MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-B) The applicant may be required to contribute fees
to a maintenance district as a condition of project approval. The City of
Gilroy Public Works would determine the additional expenditures associated
with hillside maintenance, and would then divide the proper assessment by the
number of dwelling units approved as part of the project~
~
J
.
.
,
I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do
hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 92-79 is an original
resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular
meeting of said Council held on the 19th day of October 19 92
, 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 20th day of October ,1992.
(Seal)