Resolution 1994-54
~,::",.,.,.,.,.,-,,-
,.
.
.
.~.
RESOLUTION NO. 94-54
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING APPLICATION
TM 93-05 FOR A VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
MAP FOR A 14-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ON
APPROXIMATELY 8.17 ACRES, AFFECTING
APNS 790-20-069, -070 AND -076, LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF KERN AVENUE EXTENDING TO WREN
AVENUE, NORTH OF WELBURN AVENUE
WHEREAS, Silicon Valley Development Inc. has made
application TM 93-05 for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
approval for a 14-lot residential subdivision on approximately 8.17
acres, APNs 790-20-069, -070 AND -076, located on the east side of
Kern Avenue extending to Wren Avenue, north of Welburn Avenue, such
property as is shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A
incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the application seeks to accomplish several
actions with regard to three separate and contiguous parcels, to
wit, subdivide APN 790-20-069 fronting Kern Avenue into 11 single
family parcels (consistent with the original RDO approval granted
under RD 92-28); subdivide a portion of APN 790-20-070 into three
single family parcels; eliminate the land-locked parcel between the
applicant's site and the developed church property fronting on Wren
Avenue by consolidating APN 790-20-076 with the remaining portion
of APN 790-20-070; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared and circulated an Initial
Study for this project in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"): and
WHEREAS, the city has prepared and released for public
review a Negative Declaration for this project in accordance with
CEQA with 17 mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, the Gilroy City Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on TM 93-05 on June 2, 1994 and after that
public hearing voted to recommend approval of TM 93-05, subject to
15 conditions, and also voted to recommend approval of the Negative
RESOLUTION NO. 94-54
-1-
.
.
"
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, this City Council held a duly noticed public
hearing on TM 93-03 on June 20, 1994, at which public hearing the
Council considered the project and the conditions proposed to be
attached to its approval along with staff reports, public testimony
and documentation or other evidence on the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
A. The Council finds as follows:
1. The project is consistent with the Gilroy
General Plan because it conforms to the land use designation for
the property on the General Plan Map, and it is consistent with
the intent of the text, goals, and policies of the General Plan
documents;
2. None of the reasons for denial of this
subdivision pursuant to Government Code section 66474 exist in this
case;
3. The Negative Declaration prepared for this
project in accordance with CEQA reflects the independent judgment
of the City that, with regard to significant effects on the
environment identified in the Initial Sutudy prepared for the
project, (a) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by,
or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative
declaration was released for public review will avoid the effects
or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant
effect on the environment would occur, and (b) there is no
substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the
Council that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect
on the environment; and
B. The Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration
with the mitigation monitoring program; and
C. TM 93-05 should be and hereby is approved, subject
to the mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring program set
forth in the Negative Declaration, and subject to the 15 conditions
RESOLUTION NO. 94-54
-2-
.
.
contained in the Planning staff report dated May 24, 1994, attached
hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of June, 1994 by the
following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
GILROY, KLOECKER, MORALES,
ROGERS, ROWLISON, VALDEZ, GAGE
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
AP7!JJ j,
Donald F. Gage, M~
ATTEST:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-54
-3-
'89/23
389/2..
":t;,.;
I 2 / .. 6
,.
;
--_____....1 ~____
..
. [~~11 [t~~~.
· --- -..~- '.L____
. .
C __
"
,
w
..
III
III
.....
..
..
.. I I I
.
l
\'''-----J''.
UJ I
>
(
z
~;
uf
~
INDUSTRIAL ~~
BLDG. :
1
~'
Oh.. "t ~
~
EXHIBIT "A"
SI'TE
1\1I ~ p
FC>R.
,- 1\;1
93-05
.Planni_ Departme.
STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT "B"
"XLE NUMBER:
'l'M 93-05
APPLXCANT:
silicon valley Development Xnc. (c/o David Deardorf)
May 24, 1994
LOCA'l'XON: East side of Kern Avenue extending to Wren Avenue, north of
Welburn Avenue.
STAFF PLANNER: william Faus
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
REOUESTED ACTIO.,
Approval of a vesting tentative map to allow the subdivision of an 8.17t
acre site into 14 single family lots, and to consolidate two remaining
parcels into one.
DESCRIPTIOR OF PROPERTY'
Parcel No.:
Parcel size:
Flood Zone:
790-20-069, 070, and 076
2.91t, 1.50t, and 3.76t acres respectively
"8", panel. 060340 0001C, dated 10/06/81
STATUS OF PROPERTY:
Existina Land Use
undeveloped Parcel
undeveloped Church Parcel
Church
General plan Desianation
Residential Low Density
Residential Low density
Residential Low Density
STATUS OF SURROURDIRG PROPERTY,
Existina Land Use
N: single Family Dwellings
S: SF Dwellings, orchard
E: Elementary school
W: single Family Dwellings
General plan Desianation
Residential Low Density
Residential Low Density
Public-Facility - school
Residential Low Density
CONFORMANCE OF REOUEST WITH GERERAL PI.JlR:
Zonina
R1
R1
R1
Zonina
R1
R1
PF
R1-PUD
The proposed zone change request conforms to the land use designation for
the property on the General plan map and is consistent with the intent of
the text of the General plan document.
v' (j ~ (.
Staff Report TN .05
2
.
. OS/2'4/94
BRVIRORMBRTAL IMPACTS:
An Initial study was prepared for the proposed project (attached and dated
March 1994). The study was independently reviewed by city staff and
reflects the independent judgement of the city of Gilroy. The Initial
study identified potentially significant effects on the environment,
however, the applicant has agreed to specific revisions in the project
and/or individual mitigation measures will be applied to the project which
avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant effects will
occur.
The Initial study was circulated for a period of 20 days, with the city
receiving two written responses (see wAttachment AW). The city's
independent environmental consultant addressed each comment with a
recommended action and/or modification to the Negative Declaration (see
attached letter from the EMC Planning Group dated May 6, 1994). The
attached Negative Declaration, revised and dated 05/06/94, reflects those
changes (new Mitigation Measure text is denoted by ~ type face and
deleted text is ere88-e~~ typeface). A proposed Mitigation Monitoring
program is also included in this report as wAttachment BW.
..
ROO BACKGROURD I
The applicant received Residential Development ordinance (ROO) approval for
the subject project during the 1992 ROO competition (Ref: RO 92-28). The
project was given full buildout approval that included 11 single family
lots for the year 1994. The three additional single family lots proposed
under the subject tentative map are located on an adjoining land-locked
parcel owned by the First Baptist church of Gilroy, and are therefore
exempt under the city'S Residential Development ordinance.
The original ROO application submitted under RO 92-28, involving the
subject site, delineated two possible development schemes; 1) an eleven lot
subdivision with no connection to the land-locked parcel immediately to
the east, and 2) an eleven lot subdivision that provided access to the
land-locked parcel. The second design proposal was recommended by staff,
and approved by the Planning Commission and City council, as the superior
design. The current tentative map submission is essentially identical to
the original RO approval.
RELA'rED APPLICATIORS I
A/S 94-01: Architectural & site Review approval for four specific house
models (all single family detached) to be constructed within the
proposed subdivision.
~taff Report THe05
3
.
. OS/2'4/94
ANALYSIS 0.. REOtJEST:
The applicant (silicon valley Development) is requesting vesting tentative
map approval to create a 14-lot single family subdivision. The proposed
tentative map request will actually accomplish three distinct actions
involving three separate and contiguous parcels (the applicant's 2.91t acre
site fronting on Kern Avenue, and two pther parcels owned by the First
Baptist church of Gilroy):
'1. Subdivide the applicant's 2.91t acre sit., fronting Kern Avenue, into
11 single family parcels (consistent with the original ROO approval
granted under RO 92-28);
'2. subdivide a portion of a 1.50t acre site (the land-locked parcel
located between the applicant's site and the developed church property
that fronts on Wren Avenue) into three single family parcels. These
three single family parcels will be located at the end of a cul-de-sac
created under action '1 above (lots numbered "6", "7", and "8" on the
submitted tentative map); and
'3. Eliminate the land-locked parcel by consolidating the existing 3.76t
acre church parcel, which fronts on Wren Avenue, with the remaining
portion of the land-locked parcel not developed with three single
family parcels. This action will rectify the access problem with the
land-locked parcel, by creating one church property.
The three actions proposed under this tentative map request are consistent
with the city's General plan land use map which designates the site as
Residential Low Density. A maximum build-out density not to exceed 7.25
units per net acre is allowed under this designation. As submitted, the
project exhibits an overall density of 3.62% units per net acre, with lots
ranging in size from 7,030 to 13,666 sq.ft. (averaging 9,457% sq.ft.). The
proposed development scheme of 14 single family lots with the cul-de-sac
design, is substantially consistent with prior city council ROO approval.
properties that surround the project site are developed predominately with
single family residential homes with lots in the 7,000 square foot range,
though large rural residential lots are common along Kern Avenue north of
the site. Land immediately south is improved with an orchard and a
resident single family dwelling. Land along the west side of Kern Avenue,
opposite the site, is developed with single family homes.
The subject request .has..been_aubmitted.to.. the_city.. as a "_vesting" tentative
map. unlike.a standard tentative.map, the vesting tentative map gives the
developer a vested right to proceed with development of the project as
originally approved. This would include the right to obtain all necessary
building permits and discretionary approvals, in accordance with city
codes, ordinances, policies, and standards in effect when the tentative map
was first approved. Tentative maps submitted to the city as "vesting"
require a higher initial level of specific design and engineering detail
than standard tentative maps (note: these details are typically required
after approval for standard tentative maps).
staff Report '1'11 .5
4
.
, OS/24/94
staff has reviewed the applicant's proposed vesting tentative map and finds
the submittal consistent with the city's General plan text, Land use Map,
zoning ordinance, city codes, and all applicable development standards.
The actual design of individual homes will be addressed through the city'S
Architectural" site Review procedures (Ref: A/S 94-01).
STAPF RBCOMMBIIDATIOIlS:
staff recommends aDDroval.of this request for the following reasons:
A. The proposed ves~ing tentative map is consistent with the approval
granted to the developer by the City council under the Residential
Development ordinance;
B. The proposed vesting tentative map is consistent with the intent of the
goals and policies of the city's General plan document~
c. Public utilities and infrastructure improvements needed in order to
serve the proposed project are immediately adjacent to the site along
Kern Avenue~ and
D. There will be no significant environmental impacts as a result of this
project due to the required mitigation measures to be applied.
In addition. staff recommend. tbe followinq conditions be placed on tbe
qrantinq of tbi. reaue.t:
1. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall receive
Architectural " site review approval from the Planning Department.
2. An all-weather access road, not less than twenty (20) feet in width, for
fire engines shall be provided before commencing any combustible
construction. Fire hydrants shall also be installed and maintained
before combustible construction begins, to meet the approval of the city
Fire Department.
3. Hydrant locations, and water main s1z1ng shall be approved by the
Gilroy Fire Department prior to the issuance of any building permits.
4. All lots shall drain to the street, and not across property lines or
into.and .through.-joint drainage systems. _ A1L-atructural retaining walls
shall .be ..constructed.of masonry materials , subject to the review and
approval by the public works and Building Departments.
5. The existing pavement on Kern Avenue shall be ground 1~" to centerline,
then overlaid. The slope shall match the existing street, so that the
range of cross slopes is 2% to 3%, subject to the review and approval by
the public works Department.
'staff Report A-05
5
.
OS/24/94
6. The developer shall use the "S'l'R-9 Detail" to determine property lines
at the curve returns. The sidewalk has to be in the property, not the
easement, with the final design subject to the review and approval by
the Public Works Department.
7. The street design shall delineate the required S. tree planting
easement (T.P.E.) on the cul-de-s,c detail, subject to the review and
approval by the Public works Department.
8. The drainage for Lot t15 (the remainder piece) shall be routed and
handled, subject to the review and approval by the Public works
Department.
9. The cul-de-sac shall be moved to the west in order that there is room
between the property lines and the right-of-way lines, subject to the
review and approval by the Public works Department.
10. street improvements shall include the design of all storm drainage,
sewer and water lines, and all street sections and width, subject to
the review and approval by the Public works Department.
11. All utilities to, through, and on the site shall be installed
underground in accordance with section 21.120, subject to the review
and approval by the Public works Department.
12. One sewer allocation shall be required for lots numbered "6", "7" and
"8", prior to building permit issuance.
13. A soils report shall be completed and submitted to the city, subject to
the review and approval by the Public works Department. All grading
operations and soil compaction activities shall meet the approval of
the city Engineer. In addition, grading plans shall show grades of all
adjacent properties.
14. The developer shall delineate the location of existing wells. All
existing water wells shall be sealed to'meet the approval of the City
Engineer and the santa Clara valley Water District (SCVWD).
lS. MITIGATION MEASURES t1 throUQh .17, contained within the revised
Negative Declaration dated OS/06/94 for .the subject project, shall be
applied to the approval of the project in order to reduce and/or
eliminate all potential significant impacts to a level of
insignificance, as required under the California Environmental QUality
Act (CEQA).
Respectfully,
'~O~
Michael Dorn
Director of Planning
Attachments
.
..
6-2-94 At their meeting of June 2, 1994, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended adoption of the Negative Declaration as completed in
compliance with CEQA and reflecting the independent judgment of the
City. In addition, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended
approval of TM 9~05, subject to 15 conditions as listed in the
staff report. (Resolution 94-21)
AYES:
NAYES:
ABSENT :
ARELLANO, BUCHANAN, COOPER, GAGE, PUENTE, SUYEYASU, LAI
NONE
NONE
*-vc.
I L____-L_...J ~____
[---'11-1- . .
. ___L_J lJr:~~~
· --- -,.,..- '..!Il..____
> .
c ~
,
.
,
......
,
,
,
IN
4
389/23
389/24
'"
'"
"-
...
...
. ,
'''----J'
.
.,
l
4 / I I
UJ
>
(
I 2 / 4 6
INDUSTRIAL ~~
BLDG. ;
l
SI.E
tv1~p
FC>R.
,- 1\1I
93-05
.
.
Attachment A
Letters Received During the Public Review Period
.
. ""
Santa Clara ValI~ Wa~e1 District l.-
5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY
SAN JOSE, CA 95118.3686
TELEPHONE (A08) 26S.2600
FACSIMILE (408) 266-0211
AN AFrttMJlYl ACTION tMrlOYEI
April 18, 1994
Mr. WilJiam Faus
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020-6141
Dear Mr. Faus:
Subject:
Initial Study and Preliminary Negative Declaration for the Solis Heights
Subdivision, File Number TM 93-05.
The District bas reviewed the subject document and offers the following comments.
&ctiQD.'..6...7 Storm Water Drainale
1
The Initial Study states that the proposed storm drainage improvements wilJ be desi&11ed
to a(.~commodate both a lo-year and lOO-year event. U the storm drainage facilities arc
designed to convey runoff occurring from a lOO-year storm event, downstream flood
control facilities may not have adequate capacity to convey the runoff. Tbe District's
hydrology for the design of flood control facilities is based on the City's design standard
for local drainage facilities which is for a la-year event. The design of the proposed
storm drainage improvements should be based on a 10-year return perioo.
- 2 ,
The Initial Study provides a mitigation mca~urc r~ujrini the payment of storm drain
development fees to the City. The payment of fees is not a mitigation measure.
The proposed project does not appear to require the use of best mana~cmcnt practices for
controllini storm water quality for the following reasons:
a.
The project will disturb less than five acres of land area. Currently, the State
Water Resources Control Board'-s NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges-Associated WithCon~truction Activity regulates projects which disturb
more than five acres of land area. However, the threshold was recently the subject
of a citizen lawsuit and may be revised downward (to 1 acre) b)' the
Environmental Protection Agency.
3
b. The City of Gilroy is not now regulated under a Municipal NPDES permit for
storm water discharges.
.ft..
.
Mr. William Faus
.
2
Weapprcciate the opportunity to review and comment on this document.
Sincerely,
~ /? It' ~,w,
Marc J. K',;ncic, P.E.
Division Engineer
Design Coordination Division
,
April 18, 1994
El/i\
'K--,;5
~
-=-' .. CIQ
$tM"I "" ".IIM" ~ '- ""
!ilroy Unified S"'ool District
7810 Arrovo Circle · GilroV. California 95020 · T.lephone: (408l 8~7.2700 · FIX: (408l 842"'58
Kennetl'l A. Noonon. Superintend.nt
April 26, 1994
Bill raus
City ot Gilroy
Planning Department
7351 Rosanna street
Gilroy, California 95020
Subject: Co_enta on the Initial Study and Proposed .e9ative
Declaration TN '3-05, 'oli. aei9bta 8U):)41viaion (8ilicon
Valley Develop..nt)
Dear Bill:
4
Thank you tor the opportunity to comment on the Initial study tor
the So11a Heights SUbdivision Tentative Map (93-05). (93-10)
The factual baCKground in the Initial study related to the school
district 1s incomplete. The tact i. this c:1eveloper s1qnec:1 a
contractual agreement with the school district durin9 the 1992 ROO
process. This project is covered by this contractual agreement.
In liqht of this agreement, the impact of the development on the
GChool district will be insignificant.
It you should have any questions, plea.e do not hesitate to contact
me at 847-2230. Thank you.
Sincerely, I
~Q:::!:?:L~';Vr
Oirector ot Facilities , Planning
TMW/mh
CCI Silicon Valley Development
Board of Education
John H. Arvizu · Mac 8redllnc'lw . M.ry Ann Orvtgm.nn . E. aln. a.wln . Aicne,d Rodrlgu.z . a.ry V. Slnehl: . K.lhl..n M; Srr
389/23
389/24
I 2 1 4 6
I
J
II
II
1 II I
anon,
4
t;mIT
ffiJlli
~
"."'~~
. C'-J \.~
.....
",
w
,
l
<l I I I
OQ
<D
"
&
&
.
.'""-----/
. .
l1J .
>
(
Z
~i
UJ'
~
INDUSTRIA L ~ ~
BLDG. A
1 C7l
SI.E
lVI~p
FC>R.
,- IV!
93-05
~
.
A Land Use Planning and Design Firm
RECEI'fEr
M/1 '. ,- R 1994
May 6, 1994
Gilroy Plannmg Dept
Mr. William Faus
Planner
Gilroy Planning Department
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, California 95020-6141
Re: Solis Heights Subdivision Initial Study (TM 93-05)
Letter Addendum
Dear Bill:
The public review period for the Solis Heights Subdivision Initial Study ended on
April 29, 1994. On April 20, 1994, I received two letters from you regarding the
proposed project. These letter were from the Santa Clara Valley Water District and
the Gilroy Unified School District. These letters are listed below and are included
in Attachment A.
L-1 Marc J. Klemencic, Division Engineer, Design Coordination Division, Santa
Clara Valley Water District, San Jose, California, April 18, 1994.
L-2 Teresa M. Wenig, Director of Facilities and Planning, Gilroy Unified School
District, Gilroy, California, April 26, 1994.
These two letters have been reviewed by our firm. Upon review of these letters, it
was determined that a response was necessary. Rather than revise the text of the
initial study to reflect each comment contained in the letters, our firm, at the
direction of the City of Gilroy Planning Department~ decided to prepare a letter
addendum to the Solis Heights Subdivision Initial Study.
This letter addendum includes a summary of each comment provided by the Santa
Clara Valley Water District and the Gilroy Unified School District, as well as a
response from our firm." "We have "responded' to" orrly those . comments which raise
"significant environmental issues."
99 Pacific St. · Suite 155 F . Monterey, CA 93940 .. (408) 649.1799
.
.
Mr. William Faus
Gilroy Planning Department
May 6, 1994, Page 2
L-l Marc J. Klemencic, Division Engineer, Design Coordination
Division, Santa Clara Valley Water District, April 18, 1994.
Comment 1. The initial study states that the proposed storm drainage
improvements will be designed to accommodate both a 10-year and a 100-year
event. If the storm drainage facilities are designed to convey run-off occurring from
a 100-year storm event, downstream flood control facilities may not have adequate
capacity to convey the run-off. The district's hydrology for the design of flood control
facilities is based on the city's design standard for local drainage facilities which is
for a 10-year event. The design of the proposed storm drainage improvements
should be based on a 10-year return period.
Response. The following changes should be made to the text in Section 5.3 and
Section 5.6.7 of the initial study. The page an paragraph reference is included at
the end of each change:
"Impacts associated with the increase in the amount of surface water
run-off generated by beta 10 year 8:Bd 100 year ateFm events the 10-
year storm event. as well as the variety of non-point source pollutants
carried in the surface water run-off are discussed in Section 5.6.7,
Storm water Drainage." [Page 34, Paragraph 5]
"Storm drainage lines to serve the proposed project will be contained
within a public utility easement (PUE) to be dedicated by the developer
and will be installed with in the street rights-of-way. Storm drain
improvements on the project site will be directed through an IS-inch
storm drain line that extends east from Kern Avenue. Further, the
project will provide a l5-inch lateral storm drain at the intersection of
the proposed cul-de-sac street and Kern Avenue. The proposed storm
drainage improvements will connect to the existing 36-inch storm
drain line located along Kern Avenue. The proposed storm drain
improvements will be designed to accommodate Beth a 10-year aftEl
100 year storm event." [Page 41, Paragraph 1]
Comment 2. The initial study provides a mitigation measure requiring the
payment of storm drain development fees to the city. The payment of fees is not a
mitigation measure.
Response. The City of Gilroy. has established that payment of any development fee
be included as a mitigation measure under the. appropriate environmental concern
for all environmental documents prepared in the city. The proposed project will
place an increased demand on the city's storm drain system and the initial study
identifies this as a significant impact. Therefore, payment of development fees is
appropriate to mitigate project-specific impacts to a level of insignificance, and
contribute towards the implementation of citywide storm drain improvements that
will benefit the proposed project as well as other development in the city.
.
.
Mr. William Faus
Gilroy Planning Department
May 6, 1994, Page 3
Comment 3. The proposed project does not appear to require the use of best
management practices for controlling storm water quality for the following reasons:
a. The project will disturb less than five acres of land area. Currently, the State
Water Resources Control Board's NPDES General Permit for Storm Water
Discharge Associated With Construction Activity regulates projects which
disturb more than five acres of land area. However, the threshold was
recently the subject of a citizen lawsuit and may be revised downward (to one
acre) by the Environmental Protection Agency.
b. The City of Gilroy is not now regulated under a Municipal NPDES permit for
storm water discharge.
Response. There is no need for the proposed project to obtain a State Water
Resources Control Board's NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharge
Associated With Construction Activity for the reason that the proposed project is
less than five acres and the City of Gilroy is not regulated by the State Water
Resources Control Board.
L-2 Teresa M. Wenig, Director of Facilities and Planning,
Gilroy Unified School District, April 26, 1994.
Comment 4. The factual background in the initial study related to the school
district is incomplete. The fact is this developer signed a contractual agreement
with the school district during the 1992 RDO process. This project is covered by this
contractual agreement. In light of this agreement, the impact of the development
on the school district will be insignificant.
Response. The consultant acknowledges this comment. Therefore, the text has
been modified to reflect this new information; to change the conclusion from
significant to insignificant and to delete the mitigation measure. In addition, the
elimination of this mitigation measure is reflected in a revised mitigation
monitoring program included in Attachment B.
The following modifications have been made to the text to reflect this new
information:
Impacts
Using the school district's estimate of 0.75 students per residential unit, build-out of
the project site can be expected to generate approximately 11 students
(14 residential units x 0.75 students). Because the school district is overcrowded,
this is considered a significant adverse environmental impact.
.
.
Mr. William Faus
Gilroy Planning Department
May 6, 1994, Page 4
However. durini'the 1992 Residential Development Ordinance (RDO) orocess. the
developer and the Gilroy Unified School District si~ed a contractual ai1"eement
that mitilrates project impacts to a level of insi~ficance (Teresa M. Wenii 1994),
Therefore. the proposed proiect will not result in a si~ificant adverse
environmental impact on the Gilrov Unified School J)istrict.
ImplemeBtatieB ef the rellewing mitigatieB.meaSUl'e will reauee impaeta te seaeels
to a level of insignifieanee.
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures are necessarY.
6. The de91eloper anall aaall provide statutery impaet fees to the Gilroy Unified
School Distriet prior to the iaautmee of a Building permit.
I hope that this letter adequately addresses the comments received during the
public review period. I have enclosed a disc in Wordperfect 5.1, which contains the
revised mitigation monitoring checklist and letter addendum.
If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at your earliest
convenience. It has been a pleasure working with you on this project. Thank you.
Sincerely,
~~~
Eric T. Keller
Planner
PlanninlflDepartmen.
NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna St.
Gilroy, CA 95020
(408) 848-0440
{revised}
CITY PILE HUMBER: DC 93-05
PROJECT DESCRIPTIO.:
.... of proj.ct: Solis Heights Subdivision
.atur. of proj.ct: Proposed request to subdivide 3.86 aeres into 14 single
family parcels, on property zoned R1 (Single Family Residential).
PROJECT LOCATIO.:
Location: East side of Kern Avenue, north of Welburn Avenue.
A.....or'. Parc.l .umbers: 790-20-069, 070, and 076.
Entitv or P.rsontsl Und.rtakinq proi.ct:
R...: Silicon valley Development (c/o Ted Ringel)
Addr..s: 2620 Augustine Drive, suite 101, Santa Clara, CA 95054
INITIAL STUDY:
An Expanded Initial study for this project was undertaken and prepared for
the purpose of ascertaining whether the project might have a significant
effect on the environment. A copy of this study is on file at the City of
Gilroy Planning Department, 7351 Rosanna street, Gilroy, California.
FINDINGS 6 REASONS:
The Initial study identified potentially significant effects on the
environment. However, the applicant has agreed to specific revisions in
the project and/or the project has been revised. See the following list of
MITIGATION MEASURES, which avoid or mitigate potential effects to a point
where no significant effects will occur. There is no substantial evidence
that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the
environment. The following reasons will support these findings:
A. The proposed Tentative Map configuration is consistent with the City's
General plan land use map;
B. The proposed project is substantially consistent with the adopted goals
and policies of the city's General plan document;
c. The granting of this request will not adversely affect or impact
neighboring parcels of land or adjacent developed residential
properties; and
D. All potential significant effects can be mitigated to reduce them to an
insignificant level of impact.
'Neg.Dec. 'l'H 93-e
2
.
05/0'6/94
revised
MitiqatioD Measur.s:
1. The project shall be designed in accordance with earthquake design
regulations of the uniform Building code, subject to the review and
approval by the city Building Department.
2. 'l'he developer shall conduct a detaile~ design level soils investigation
for the project site to ensure that structure foundations and subsurface
improvements are appropriately designed to withstand the expansive nature
of the on-site soils and to ensure that grading and excavation plans are
properly engineered. Recommendations of the soils investigation shall be
incorporated into the final improvement plans for the project site subject
to the review and approval of the City Building Department prior to
approval of the final subdivision map.
3. The developer shall pay the appropriate traffic impact fee, subject to the
approval of the city Department of Public works prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
4. The design of all street improvements serving the project site shall be
provided by the developer, subject to the review by and approval of the
city Department of Public Works.
5. The contractor specifications for the proposed project shall be submitted
to the Building Department for approval prior to issuance of a building
permit. The contractor specifications shall include the following
particulate emission measures:
A. Exposed earth surfaces shall be watered during clearing, excavations,
grading, and construction 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. Throughout 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.
-eT ~he-eeve~e~er-eha~~-~rev~ee-e~a~8~erY-~M~ae~-~eee-~e-~he-6~~rey-aft~~~e8
sehee~-9~e~r~e~-~r~er-~e-~he-~ee8aftee-e~-a-88~~e~ft!-~ePM~~T
-~T prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall pay
6. required City of Gilroy Public safety impact fees.
-8T Future development shall-meet all .water -supply and water pressure
7. standards as contained in the Uniform Building code, subject to the review
and approval of the city of Gilroy Fire Department.
-~T The proposed project shall conform to the Uniform Fire code, subject to
8. the review and approval by the Gilroy Fire Department.
~eT Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall pay
9. required city of Gilroy Parks and Recreation impact fees.
~eg.Dec. TM 93-4It
3
.
05/0'6/94
revised
~~y The developer shall pay the appropriate water development fees, subject to
10. review by the city Department of Public works prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
~iy Developers shall pay the appropriate sewer development fees, subject to
11. review by the City Department of Public works prior.to the issuance of a
building permit.
~~y prior to development of the site, the developer must obtain sufficient
12. sewer allocation to serve the proposed project and will be required to pay
city of Gilroy sanitary sewer connection fees.
~4y The design of all sewer l~ne improvements serving the project site shall
13. be provided by the developer, subject to the review and approval by the
city Department of Public Works.
~Sy Developers shall pay the appropriate storm drain development fees, subject
14. to review by the City Department of PUblic Works prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
~&y The developer shall provide and incorporate the design of all storm
15. drainage improvements serving the proposed project site into the final
improvement plans subject to review and approval by the city Department of
public Works prior to the approval of the final subdivision map.
~~y The developer shall construct all utilities to, through, and on the site
16. underground, subject to the review and approval by the city Department of
Public Works.
~8y Due to the possibility that significant buried cultural resources might be
17. found during construction, the following language shall be included in any
permits issued for the project site, including but not limited to building
permits for the future development, pursuant to the review by and approval
of the city Planning Director. The following language shall be printed on
all grading and construction plans prior to building permit issuance:
"If archaeological resources or human remains are discovered
during construction, work shall be halted within 150 feet of
the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified
professional archaeologist. If the find is determined to be
significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be
formulated and implemented."
Date prepared: March 25, 1994
End of Review period: April 20 ,1994
Revised May 6, 1994
Approved by. city council:
Michael Dorn, Director of Planning
.
.
I
I
. .
Attachment B
Revised Mitigation Monitoring Checklist
.
.
Attachment A
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
Solis Heights Subdivision Initial Study (TM 93.05)
Prior to approval of Final Subdivision Map and Improvement Plans, the
following mitigations shall be implemented:
Mitigation Party Party Responsible for
Nature of Mitigation Responsible for
Number Imnlementation Monitoring
Conduct a soils investigation.
2. Incorporate recommendations of the Developer City Building Department
soils investigation into future
improvement nlans.
Provide the design of all street City Public Works
4. improvements serving the project Developer Department
site. Gilrov Fire Denartment
Development shall meet all water Gilroy Fire Department
g, supply and water pressure Developer
L. standards as contained in the City Public Works
Uniform Buildin2' Code Department
Gilroy Fire Department
Q., Conform to the Uniform Fire Code. Developer City Public Works
a Department
Citv Buildin2' Department
14 Provide the design of all sewer line City Public Works
improvements serving the proposed Developer
la. proiect site. Department
.lQ., Provide designs of all storm City Public Works
drainage improvements serving the Developer
a proposed proiect site. Department
J+, The developer shall construct all City Public Works
utilities to, through, and on the site I Developer
~ underground Department
.
.
Attachment B
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
Solis Heights Subdivision Initial Study (TM-93-05)
.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the following mitigations shall be
implemented:
Mitigation party Party Responsible for
Nature of Mitigation Responsible for
Number Imulementation Monitoring
Development designed in .
1. accordance with earthquake design Developer City Building Department
relnllations.
3. Pay appropriate traffic impact fee, Developer CityPublic Works
Department
The contractor specifications for the
proposed project shall be submitted
5. and shall include the particulate Developer City Building Department
emission measures contained in
Section 5.5. Air Qualitv.
e.. Pay statlltwy impast fees tg the De'}elgper GHr~y Sshggl Di8irist
Qig..g.. U~'~ed Sshggl Distrist.
+. Pay public safety impact fees (Fire Developer City Planning Department
2.. and Police Protection).
10. Pay parks and recreation impacts Developer City Planning Department
~ fees.
.g.. Pay water development fees. Developer City Public Works
~ Depanment
~ Pay sewer development fees. Developer City Public Works
ll.. Department
~ Obtain sufficient sewer allocation to City Public Works
serve the proposed project. and Developer
~ pay sanitary sewer connection fees. Department
~ Pay storm drain development fees. Developer City Public Works
~ Department
Due to the possibility that
significant buried cultural
resources might be found during
~ construction, the archaeological Developer City Planning Department
.l1. language contained in Section 5,8 of
the intial study shall be included in
anypennits issued for the project
site.
.
.
I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do
hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 94-54
is an original
resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular
meeting of said Council held on the 27th
day of
June
, 19--2L,
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 29th day of
June
,1994.
~~.
City Clerk of the City of
(Seal)