Loading...
Resolution 1995-30 ~ . . RESOLUTION NO. 95-30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY APPROVING GPA 93-04, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK TO GENERAL SERVICES COMMERCIAL ON APPROXIMATELY 5 ACRES, PARCEL 835-04-019 AND MAKING FIND- INGS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALI- TY ACT, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM WHEREAS, Greg Musallem and Ivan Zubow have submitted GPA 93-04 to amend the General Plan Map from Industrial Park to General services commercial on parcel 835-04-019, approximately 5 acres located between Leavesley Road and Las Animas Avenue as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "c" and incorporated herein by this reference; 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") an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed project on August 4, 1994, after which hearing the commission reviewed the EIR as completed in compliance with CEQA and reflecting the independent judgment of the City, and adopted Resolution No. 94-28 recommending denial of GPA 93-04; and WHEREAS, the city council certified that the EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, that it reflected the indepen- dent judgment of the city, and that it was presented to the council and the council reviewed and considered the information contained therein prior to taking action on GPA 93-04 on September 6, 1994 and conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed project on March 20, 1995; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: -1- . . A. The City Council hereby makes the findings required by Public Resources Code section 21081 regarding project impacts and project alternatives, and hereby adopts a statement of over- riding considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, all as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and B. The mitigation monitoring program required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6 is hereby adopted in the form set forth in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and C. The city Council further finds that: (al The City has taken all actions required by CEQA; and (bl Approval of GPA 93-04 is in the public inter- est; and D. GPA 93-04 should be and hereby is approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of April 1995 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: KLOECKER, VALDEZ MORALES, ROGERS, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GILROY, ROWLISON, GAGE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None. APPROVED: D01~~~~~ Susanne E. Ste nmetz, City \077\187283.1 51-041204706002 -2- . . EXHIBIT A AN ADDENDUM TO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY ADOPTING FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT FOR THE SAN YSIDRO AVENUE PROJECTS URBAN SERVICE AREA AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS (USA 93-01, USA 93-02, GPA 93-03 AND GPA 93-04) The City Council finds that one or more significant effects would likely result from approval of this project and that the substantial evidence ana mitigation measures relied upon by this Council supporting the required findings are set forth as follows: I. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS A GEOLOGY: 1. Significant Effect: It is likely that one of the nearby active earthquake faults will cause at least one large-magnitude earthquake on the project site during the lifetime of the proposed project. Therefore, potential damage suffered by structures on the project site in the event of an earthquake is considered to be a significant adverse impact. The hazards to future development relating to geologic conditions on the project site would be the same under both the existing and proposed general plan designations. Mitigation or Avoidance: 1. Future development on the project site shall be designed in accordance with earthquake design regulations of the Uniform Building Code. Final development plans for the proposed project shall be subject to review and approval of the City Building Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Future development of the project site shall conform to the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, the National Electric Code, and the handicap and energy regulations in Title 24 of the California Building Code, subject to the review and approval of the City Public Works and Building Departments prior to the issuance of a building permit. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the ElR. B. AGRICULTIJRAL CONSIDERATIONS' 2. Significant Effect: Development of the project area would result in the conversion of about 40 acres of prime agricultural land to urban uses. By including the project area within Gilroy's sphere of influence, the City of Gilroy and the Santa Clara County LAFCO previously made a long-range planning determination that the project site would at some time be appropriate for conversion to non-agricultural uses. However, due to the character of prime agricultural land as a valuable resource, its loss is considered to be both an individual and cumulatively significant adverse impact of the proposed project. . . San Ysidro Avenue Projects Page 2 Exhibit A Mitig~tion or Avoidance: No mitigation measures are available which would reduce the project impact on the loss of agricultuTal resources to a level of insignificance. This impact is, therefore, considered significant and unavoidable. Finding: (Conversion ofPrirne Agricultural Land) Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. C. HYDROLOGY: 3. Significant Effect: Implementation of the proposed project will create impervious surfaces on the project site resulting in an increase in the amount of surface water run-off generated by a storm event on and off the project site. Without adequate sizing of the existing or proposed storm drain system or en1argement of the existing system, flooding at or above the 10-year storm event can be expected on the project site. Surface-water run-off from the project site typical of commercial and industria1 development is expected to contain minor concentrations of a variety of pollutants, including oil and grease, nutrients, pesticides from landscaping, and heavy metals from road and parking area pavements. The types and concentrations of contaminants are ultimately dependent upon the specific activities that occur on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project could create significant adverse impacts associated with downstream pollution. Mitigation or Avoidance: 3. The construction drawings for the proposed project shall include an infrastructure plan which details the type, size, and location of all on-site drainage facility construction and all off-site drainage facility improvements. The plan sha1l include construction ofa storm drain pipe along San Ysidro Avenue from the Las AnimH$/San Ysidro intersection to the existing 42-inch storm drain connecting to the Ronan Channel, and design and analysis of the drainage facilities in accordance with the City of Gilroy's Standards and Standard Specifications. 4. Future development shall implement applicable storm water source and treatment-based best management practices as recommended in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks. This may include construction of oil and grease separators in the storm drainage improvements. In addition, annual maintenance of oil and grease separators shall be required. Plans for this action shall require approval of the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of a grading permit. 5. Future development shall provide a periodic sweeping program for proposed roadways, driveways and parking areas on the project site. Plans for this action shall require approval of the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of a grading permit. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmenta1 effect as identified in the ElR. D. TRAFFIC: 4. Significant Effect: Development of each of these project sites alone would result in acceptable traffic Levels of Service on street segments and at intersections surrounding the project site, even when existing development in the area and projects which have been approved for development in the area are included in the traffic counts. However, when taking into account the existing development in the . . San Ysidro Avenue Projects Page 3 Exhibit A area, projects in the area which have been approved for development, and the total build-out of the three project sites in this EIR, the traffic Levels of Service do not meet the City's minimum standard of "C". Specifically: Street S~ent Impacts: Based on a worst-case development scenario, each of the project areas would result in acceptable levels of service for street segments within the project study street system. However, based on a worst-case development scenario, development of the entire project site will result in LOS F on San Y sidro Avenue just north of Leavesley Road. This is considered an unavoidable significant adverse environmental impact in the short-term. Intersection Impacts: Based on a worst-case development scenario, each of the project areas would result in acceptable levels of service for intersectiolns within the project study street system. However, based on a worst-case development scenario, development of the entire project site will result in LOS D at the Leavesley RoadlHighway 101 southbound ramps and LOS E at the Leavesley RoadlHighway 101 northbound ramps/San Ysidro Avenue. This is considered an unavoidable significant adverse impact in the short-term. Even though these impacts are described as being "short-term", it is expected that at a minimum, a bridge overpass would be required to be constructed on Cohansey Avenue, and the Buena Vista Road freeway interchange would have to be built in order to accommodate the proposed project. This project would be required to pay a traffic impact fee which would contribute to the construction of these projects, however staff does not expect these street improvements to be built for at least twenty years. Therefore, while it is possible to mitigate the impacts of this project, the mitigations are not feasible at this time. This is considered an unavoidable significant adverse environmental impact in the short-term. Mitigation or Avoidance: 6. The project proponent(s) sha1l pay the City-wide traffic impact fee for mitigation measures shown on Exhibit" A" of the City Traffic Impact Fee Resolution. Mitigation measures not shown on Exhibit" A" are not covered by the fee, and must be borne solely by the project proponent(s). Mitigation measures shown on Exhibit "A. are required to be completed to the ultimate design, if the cost of the improvements is to be credited towards the traffic impact fees. The City of Gilroy Public Works Department has indicated that all interim construction costs, as well as interim measures shall be borne by the project proponent(s). Future developer(s) of the project site shall pay these traffic impact fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program, consistent with the requirements of the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency, shall be prepared for each project area and incorporated into the future site plans. The program should describe the method for encouraging ridesharing, vanpooling, and transit not only by employees, but by potential future commercial patrons as well. The plan should also describe methods for encouraging alternative modes of transportation, such as pedestrian and bicycle access. The program should consider participation in the implementation of a shuttle bus to connect proposed commercial land uses on the project site with other commercial centers east of Highway 101 and downtown Gilroy. This is subject to review and approval by the Public Works Director and the Planning Director, prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. The project proponent(s) shall provide frontage improvements along San Ysidro Avenue to accommodate . . San Ysidro Avenue Projects Page 4 Exhibit A ultimate four-lane arterial with left-turn channelization. This should be implemented as a frontage improvement for each project area. Plans for these frontage improvements are subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Director and the Planning Director, prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. Future development shall be required to provide on-site and frontage bus turn-outs and bus stops and shall coordinate with the Santa Clara County Transit District to provide bus service to the project site. The bus stop improvements should include, but not be limited to, duckout(s), pavement pad(s), shelter(s), sidewalks, wheelchair ramps and convenient interna1 pedestrian walkways. This is subject to review and approval by the Public Works Director and the Planning Director, and the Santa Clara County Transit District, prior to issuance of a building pennit. 10. If the proposed project plans to construct a street system that differs from the City's circulation element or traffic unpact fee resolution, the project proponent( s) shall pay the City's consultant the required fees to re-run the modeled system. All interim construction costs, as well as interim measures, shall be borne by the project proponents. Future development on the project site shall pay these fees prior to issuance of a building permit. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce most project-related impacts on traffic and circulation to a level of insignificance. However, in the short-term, unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts on traffic levels of service are likely to result. No mitigation measures are available in the short-term which would reduce the project impact on the traffic Level of Service to a level of insignificance. This impact is, therefore, considered significant and unavoidable. Findinlr Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen most of the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. However, in the short-term, unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts on traffic levels of service are likely to result, and specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. E. AIR OUALITY: 5. Significant Effect: Project Area 1: The emission levels for CO exceed the threshold standards for new commercial projects of 550 pounds per day, and the emission levels for NO, exceed the thresholds for new commercial project of ISO pounds per day. This is considered an unavoidable significant environmental impact. Project Area 2: The emission levels for CO exceed the BAAQMD standards for new commercial projects of 550 pounds per day. This is considered an avoidable significant adverse impact. Project Area 3: The emission levels for.CO exceed the BAAQMD standards for new industrial projects of 550 pounds per day. This cOnsidered an avoidable significant adverse environmental impact. Due to the relative lack of urban development in the immediate vicinity of the project site, short-term uncontrolled PMIO emissions would not create a significant impact on sensitive receptors. However, construction workers on all three project areas within the project site could be subject to undue PMIO exposure if dust- suppression measures are not implemented. Because of the changes in use from agricultural to commercial, the proposed project is anticipated to reduce particulate emissions from the project . . San Y sidro Avenue Projects Page 5 Exhibit A site in the long term. Mitigation or Avoidance: 11. The contractor specifications for future development on the project site shall be submitted to the Building Director for approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The contractor specifications shaI1 include the following particulate emission reduction measures: a. Exposed earth surfaces shall be watered during clearing, excavation, grading, and construction activities. Watering of exposed earth surfaces could reduce particulate emissions by as much as 50 percent. All construction contracts shall require watering in late morning and at the end of the day. The frequency of watering shall increase ifwind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. b. Throughout excavation activity, haul trucks shall use tarpaulins or other effective covers at all times. c. Upon completion of construction, measures shall be taken to reduce wiiw erosion. Provisions for revegetation and repaving shall be rontained in the contractor specifications and shall be completed as soon as possible. These mitigation measures, if implemented, will substantially reduce the significant adverse environmental air quality impacts from construction emissions. If a Transportation Demand Management program is prepared for each of the project areas, traffic related emissions will be reduced. However, even with the implementation of a transportation demand management program that has a 25 percent effectiveness in reducing traffic volumes generated by the proposed projects on the project site, it has been established that the project areas 1, 2 and 3 will still exceed the BAAQMD threshold levels for CO, and PAl will still exceed threshold levels for NO.. The consultant concludes that it would not be feasible to require additional mitigation measures which would ensure that build-out of the project site would not result in violation of the BAAQMD significance threshold. Therefore, the project will result in a significant unavoidable air quality impact. Finding: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. F. AESTHETICS - VISUAL RESOURCES: 6. Significant Effect: The project site occurs within the transitional area of the City. Development in this area alternates with agricultural or open space land along the east Highway 10 1 corridor. Therefore, implementation and build-out of the proposed project while a significant visual change to the project site itself, is consistent with the visual context of the east Highway 101 corridor. However, build-out of the project site could result in an increase in light and glare if appropriate landscaping and visual screening methods are not implemented. This is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Build-out of the project site could also alter the existing rural character of the area. This is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Mitifiation or Avoidance: 12. Conceptual and final project siting, architectural, and landscaping plans for each structure on the project site shall be subject to review through the city architectural and site review process and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a. building permit for the proposed project. 13. The landscape plan for the proposed project shall conform to the Consolidated Landscaping Policy of the City of Gilroy and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Specific requirements contained in this policy which are pertinent to the proposed project include the following: a. Landscaping shall be provided within development areas most visible from adjacent streets. b. A minimum lO-foot-wide planter area, in addition to the public right-of-way, shall be . . San Ysidro Avenue Projects Page 6 Exhibit A provided along each street frontage. c. At least eight percent of the gross land area, in addition to the public right-of-way, shall be landscaped. This may include the minimum 10 foot-wide planter required in b) above. d. All portions of the site more than 40 square feet in area and not specifically used for parking, driveways, walkways, or similar access shall be landscaped. 14. The future developer( s) shall submit a detailed plan for all exterior lights as part of the building permit review process. The lighting plan shall incorporate design elements that will minimize the potential for light and glare impacts on adjacent residential properties. The lighting plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Planning Department. 15. The future developer(s) shall construct all utilities to, through and on the site underground, subject to the review and approval of the City Department of Public Works, prior to issuance of a grading permit. FinJing: Changes or alteratiol1s have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. G. NOISE: 7. Significant Effect: Due to the proximity of the project site to Highway 101, noise levels could exceed City noise standards and result in a significant adverse environmental impact. This impact will depend on placement of structures, type of construction materials and provisions of buffers on the project site. Mitigation or Avoidance: 16. Future development shall include a building design noise analysis for all proposed structures on the project site. The analysis should indicate structural noise attenuation measures which will reduce interior and exterior noise levels to acceptable levels. This study shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director, prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed project. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. H. LAND-USE COMPATmlLITY 8. Significant Effect: Use of adjacent lands north and east of the project site for agricultural production may be incompatible with future development on the project site, depending on the type of crop grown and equipment used. The potential exists for agricultural operations to adversely affect adjacent operations on the project site through use of chemical pesticides and herbicides, noise, odor and dust. However, the land to the north of the project site is planned for urban uses. Agricultural pollutants originating from the north would not affect the project site after development. Without appropriate buffers, proximity of adjacent agricultural land uses to the east of the project site will result in a significant adverse environmental impact to the proposed project. Industrial Park land uses proposed within project area 3 and General Commercial uses proposed within project areas 1 and 2 may be incompatible depending on actual development plans. Mitigation or Avoidance: 17. Development of the project site, including design layouts and specific site considerations shall be addressed through the City's Planned Unit Development approval process, via Architectural and Site Review procedures. The site plan prepared for any future development on the project site shall include, but not be limited to provision of a greenway . . San Ysidro Avenue Projects Page 7 Exhibit A buffer, with a.minimum width of 55 feet, adjacent to all active agricultural land. This buffer shall conform to the City of Gilroy Consolidated Landscaping Policy. Plans for this action shall be completed prior to issuance of a building permit. Fmding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 1. PUBLIC SERVICES - WATER SERVICE' 9. Significant Effect: The use of ground water resulting from implementation of the proposed project could contribute to the lowering of the water table in the Llagas Groundwater Basin. However, according to the SCVWD, the use of 53.3 acre-feet of water per year on the project site will not result in a significant adverse impact with regard to ground-water use, beca.!'I'" the entire Llagas Groundwater Basin supplies approximately 45,000 acre-feet of water per year for the area, and development of the project site has already been incorporated into SCVWD supply projections. Future development on the project site would create a lower water demand than the existing water demand created by the existing residential and agricultural uses in Project Area 1 and Project Area 3, respectively. The existing 12-inch water line was determined to be adequate for proposed future development on the project site. Therefore development on the project site will not create a significant adverse environmental impact to water services. Mitigation or Avoidance: 18. Future developer(s) shall pay the appropriate water service development fees, subject to review by the City Department of Public Works, prior to issuance of a building permit. A portion of the fee applicable to any development on the project site shall be used by the City to reimburse South Valley Intercommunity Hospital for improvements made by the Hospital per the development agreement by and between the City and the Hospital dated May 11, 1987. 19. The developer shall provide a fire flow test to verifY that sufficient fire flow is available for cornrnercialfmdustrialland use subject to review and approval by the City Department of Public Works, prior to issuance of a building permit. 20. Drought tolerant species, consistent with those included on the City of Gilroy water-conserving plants and landscape list should be utilized on the project site. A landscape plan, along with the list of all plant species to be used on the project site, shall be reviewed thoroughly by the City Architectural and Site Review process and approved by the Planning Director, prior to issuance of a building permit. 21. All existing on-site wells shall be permanently capped in compliance with the standards set forth by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the City Department of Public Works, prior to issuance of a building permit. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the ElR. 1. PUBLIC SERVICES - SEWER SERVICE: 10. Significant Effect: The proposed project will generate approximately 24,000 gallons per day of sewage. It is anticipated that adequate capacity will be available in the future to accommodate sewage generated by the proposed project. Significant adverse impacts on the sanitary sewer system will be avoided because approval of the project will be based on upon availability of adequate treatment plant capacity. Development of the site will necessitate the abandonment of existing septic systems. Abandoned septic systems which are not removed would . . San Ysidro Avenue Projects Page 8 Exhibit A create a significant adverse environmental impact. Currently, adequate sewer infrastructure facilities exist' to serve the proposed project. An existing 15-inch line appears to have adequate capacity to provide services to the project site in the event of future development. Therefore the proposed future development on the project site will not create a significant adverse environmental impact on sanitary sewer service. Mitigation or Avoidance: To ensure adequate sanitary sewer service, the following mitigation measures are recommended for future development on the project site. 22.Prior to the development of any of the project areas within the project site and issuance of a building permit, all existing septic tanks shall be removed from the property, subject to review and approval by the Santa Clara County Health Department and the City Building Department. 23. Design of any future sewer line improvement serving the proposed project site shall be provided by the future developer(s), subject to review and approval by the City Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Future developer( s) shall assume responsibility for the full cost of the required sewer system improvements. 24. Prior to future development of the project site, the developer must obtain sufficient sewer allocation to serve the proposed project, and will be required to pay the City of Gilroy sanitary sewer connection fees, prior to issuance of a grading permit. 25. The developer shall pay the appropriate sewer service development fees, subject to review by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of a building permit. A portion of the fee applicable to any development on the project site shall be used by the City to reimburse South Valley Intercommunity Hospital for improvements made by the Hospital per the Development Agreement by and between the City and the Hospital dated May 11, 1987. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or ,substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. K. PUBLIC SERVICES - POLICE SERVICE: 11. Significant Effect: The proposed project will increase the demand for police protection. This is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Mitiliation or Avoidance: 26. Prior to development of the project site, the developer(s) shall pay the required City of Gilroy Public Safety impact fees. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. L. PUBLIC SERVICES - FIRE SERVICE: 12. Significant Effect: Future development on the project site will require annexation of Project Area 1 and 3 into the City of Gilroy and will, in turn, incrementally increase .demand on the Gilroy Fire Department for fir~ protection services. This is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. . Mitigation or Avoidance: 27. Prior to development fthe project site, the developer(s) shall pay the required City of Gilroy Public Safety impact fees. This shall occur prior to the issuance of a building permit. 28. Future development on the project site shall conform to the Uniform Fire Code, subject to the review and approval of the City Fire Department. This shall occur prior to the issuance of a City building permit. 29. Future development plans shall include the installation of on-site fire hydrants. Improvement plans shall be subject to the review and . . San Ysidro Avenue Projects Page 9 Exhibit A approval of the City Department of Public Works, Fire and Building. The improvement plans shall indicate and describe all fire safety improvements which will be included in the project, including fire hydrant locations, sprinkler and alarm systems, emergency vehicle access provisions, and evacuation plans (if necessary). This shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. M. UTILITIES: 13. Significant Effect: The proposed project(s) will create an increased demand for utilities. Provision of these services would be an incremental addition to the level of service currently provided. However, due to the proximity of the project site to existing service areas for both PG&E and Continental Telephone, provision of these services to the project site will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact. However, if these utilities are not provided underground, it would be in direct conflict with the City's general plan. This is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Mitig:ation or Avoidance: 30. Future development on the project site shall be required to construct all utilities to, through, and on the site underground, subject to the review and approval of the City Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the ElR. N. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONCERNS: 14. Significant Effect: The detrimental effects of hazardous wastes on human health and the environment have been well documented throughout recent history. In order to insure the safety of both the surrounding environment and future users of the project site, it is important to determine whether contamination exists on the proposed project site. Project Area 2: Two tanks, a waste oil tank and a diesel tank, were discovered to be leaking on the project site by the CCD in 1991. Although the spill surrounding the diesel tank was cleaned up, the spill around the waste oil tank was never attended. Although the diesel tank has been removed and the waste oil tank is scheduled for removal in the near future, the potential exists for soil contamination in addition to that already removed from this project area. This is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. The fact that several old trucks appear to have been abandoned at this project area and the presence of old 55-gallon drums indicates that additional contamination may be present in the debris piles located on the northern border of project area 2 and around the existing structures. This is a significant adverse environmental impact. The potential exists for the on-site septic system to have been used for. disposal of hazardous materials during past operations at the project site. This is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Project Area 3: Although agricultural operations at project area 3 do not indicate that hazardous materials exist in the project area, the potential exists for contamination from surrounding properties to affect the soils at this project area. This is considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Mitigation or Avoidance: 31. The project proponent(s) shall retain the services ofa qualified environmental testing company to collect and test random soil samples for analysis of . . San Y sidro Avenue Projects Page 10 Exhibit A petroleum hydrocarbons, including diesel fuel, in the following areas of the project site: a. Vicinity of the waste oil tank (project Area 2), b. Vicinity of abandoned trucks and debris piles (project Area 2), c. Vicinity of septic system (project Area 2), d. Northern and southern boundaries of Project Area 3. The environmental consultant shall comply with all regulations governing sampling methodologies, shipping and handling procedures, and testing methodologies. The analysis shall comply with the planned schedule and analytical procedures for providing the information specified in the State of California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA). Validated date shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Department of Health and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the State of California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control for review prior to issuance of a building permit. In the event that contamination is discovered, affected soils shall be removed in compliance with all federal and state regulations governing clean-up procedures and disposal of hazardous materials. Clean-up shall be certified as complete by the Santa Clara County Department of Health and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Findini:: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. O. CULTURAL RESOURCES CONCERNS: 15. Significant Effect: Based upon the background research and field reconnaissance, Archaeological Consulting concluded that the project area does not contain known potentially significant cultural resources. However, because unidentified buried cultural resources may be found during project construction, standard mitigation is recommended in the event of significant cultural resource discovery. Miti~ation or Avoidance: 28. 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 prior to continuation of construction. Such mitigation shall be included in the contractor specifications for any specific construction project and shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. II. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES: A. No Project Alternative (environmentally preferable alternative) Alternative: The No Project Alternative consists ofleaving the site in its present condition. (FElRp.135-136) Statement Of Fact: The no project alternative is inconsistent with the existing General Plan designations, which allows development of the site. . . San Ysidro Avenue Projects Page 11 Exhibit A Finding' The City Council finds that there is a need to increase the supply of commercial enterprises in'the City (in a range providing for a greater variety of merchandise than what is currently available) in order to accommodate the City's growing population. The No Project Alternative would not meet the City's immediate need for increased commercial development. The City Council thus finds that the No Project Alternative is not desirable. This alternative is not "feasible" as defined in Section 15364 ofCEQA Guidelines because it is not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner taking into account economic, social, and legal factors. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternative identified in the EIR. (See also Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.) B. Reduced Building Coverage Alternative (envirvnmentally superior alternative after A) Alternative: The Reduced Building Coverage Alternative would result in the total square footage of all three sites being limited to 489,245 square feet. (FEIR p. 156). Statement Of Fact: A reduced building coverage could still achieve the basic objectives of the project while resulting in an incremental reduction to the level of impacts created by the project (traffic, water hydrology and air quality) but would not reduce them to a level of insignificance. Finding' The City Council finds that the reduced-size alternative would not have a substantial practical effect on limiting future development other than to limit the amount of commercially- designated land within the city. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternative identified in the EIR. (See also Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.) C. Alternative Location Alternative: The Alternative Location Alternative consists of moving the project to another location with similar size and accessibility. (FElR p. 140). Statement Of Fact: Project Areas 1 and 2: This alternative would also have fiscal and economic impacts on the project by moving commercial land uses away from US 101. Project Area 3: This alternative would create significant adverse environmental impacts that would not differ from those generated at this project site. Findin\:' Project Areas 1 and 2: The City Council finds that the alternative sites would not fulfill the objectives of the proposed project of providing profitable retail services because the alternative site is not as near to Highway 101. Project Area 3: The City Council finds that the alternative site would not fulfill the objectives of the proposed project of providing profitable industrial services because the alternative site is not as near to Highway 101. This alternative is not "feasible" as defined in Section 15364 ofCEQA Guidelines because it is not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner taking into account economic, social, and legal factors. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternative identified in the ElR. (See also Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.) D. Existing General Plan Build-Out Alternative Alternative: The Existing General Plan Build-Out Alternative consists of allowing development of the site under the existing General Plan designation (FElR p. 150). . . San Ysidro Avenue Projects Page 12 Exhibit A Statement Of Fact: This alternative would still allow development of the site, resulting in the loss of 40 acres of prime agricultural land loss of air quality and an increase in traffic generation, which are the only significant and unavoidable impacts found by the EIR. This alternative would also have fiscal and economic impacts on the project by moving commercial land uses away from US 101. Findinlr The City Council finds that there is a need to increase the supply of commercial enterprises in the City (in a range providing for a greater variety of merchandise than what is currently available) in order to accommodate the City's growing population. Because of its fiscal and economic impacts on commercial land uses, the Existing General Plan Build-Out Alternative would not meet the City's immediate need for increased commercial development. The City Council thus finds that tile Exioting General Plan BuJd-Out Alternative is not desirable. This alternative is not "feasible" as defined in Section 15364 ofCEQA Guidelines because it is not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner taking into account economic, social, and legal factors. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternative identified in the EIR. (See also Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.) III. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS An unavoidable significant adverse environmental impact is a significant adverse impact which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The City Council finds that the project will result in three significant unavoidable impacts; that being the loss of 40 acres of agricultural land, the loss of air quality, and a decrease in the traffic Level of Service below C. These impacts, referenced in the Final 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 impact. Accordingly, the impact is considered acceptable because: 1. The loss of agricultural land and air quality, and the increase in traffic could only be partially mitigated by scaling down the proposed development. Of the identified alternatives, only the no-project alternative would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. The project alternatives are infeasible or will not avoid or substantially lessen the one remaining significant effect for the reasons stated in Section II. 2. The mitigation necessary to further reduce these significant environmental effects to a level of insignificance would impose constraints on the development of the proposed project, including its location and type of development, that would make the project economically infeasible. Further, allowing the current designation to remain on the property would also allow development of the site, which would in turn lead to the loss of agricultural land. Therefore, the unavoidable impact could result without yielding the social, economic and other benefits associated with the project. . . San Ysidro Avenue Projects Page 13 Exhibit A 3. The City will realize specific and significant social, economic and other benefits from the approval and development of the project, such as increasing the variety of commercial enterprises (in a range providing for a greater variety of merchandise than what is currently available) near US 101 to accommodate shoppers throughout the region as well as those in the City. Denying the project, adopting the no-project alternative, or requiring further mitigation would prevent or inhibit the City from realizing these benefits. I . . -. I . EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST I . . I . . . . . . I . ~ San Ysidro Avenue Projects Environmental Impact Report Prior issuance of a grading permit, the following mitigations shall be implemented: Party Mitigation Nature of Mitigation Responsible for Party Respon..ible for Number Imnlementation Monitorinfl Future development shall implement Director of Public Works. 4 applicable storm water source and Future Developers treatment-based best management oractices. Future development shall provide Director of Public Works 5 periodic sweeping program. Future Developers Contractor specifications for future Director of Public Works 11 development include particulate Future Developers emission reduction measures. Conceptual and final site, architec- tural, and landscape plans subject to Public Works Department 12 review by the City Architectural and Future Developers Site Review process. Construct all utilities to, through, Public Works Department 15 and on the project site underground. Future Developers Obtain sufficient sewer allocation to Public Works Department 24 serve the proposed project and pay Future Developers connection fees. GPA.. 93-03 A..ND 93-04 . EXHIBIT . ~ B Prior issuance of a implemented: building permit, the following mitigations shall be Party Mitigation Nature of Mitigation Responsible for Party Responsible for Number Imulementation Monitoring Future development in accordance 1 with earthquake design regulations Future Developers City Building Department of the Uniform BuildinlZ Code. Future development in accordance Public Works Department 2 with Uniform Building, plumbing, Future Developers mechanical. and Electrical codes. Submit a detailed storm drainage 3 improvement plan, in accordance Future Developers Public Works Director with Citv Standards. 6 Payment of city-wide traffic impact Future Developers Public Works Department fee. 7 Preparation of a Transportation Future Developers City Public Works Director Demand Mana.e:ement procram. Citv PlanninlZ Director Frontage improvements along San Future Developers City Public Works 8 Ysidro Avenue for each project area. Director Citv PlanninlZ Director Provide frontage bus turn-outs and City Public Works 9 bus stops in coordination with Santa Future Developers Director Clara County Transportation .Al1:encv City PlanninlZ Director 10 Re-run of traffic model if proposed Future Developers City Public Works proiect differs. Department Landscape plan shall conform to the Future Developers City Planning Director 13 Consolidated LandscapinlZ Policv. 14 Preparation of a lighting plan. Future Developers City Planning Department Building design noise analysis Future Developers City Planning Director 16 including structural noise attenua- tion measures. Design layouts and site considera- Future Developers City Planning Director 17 tions addressed through the City's PUD process. 18 Payment of appropriate water Future Developers City Public Works service development fees. Department 19 Provision of a fire flow test. Future Developers Citv Public Works Department 20 A landscape plan with drought-toler- Future Developers City Planning Director ant plant species. 21 Existing on-site wells capped. Future Developers City Public Works Department 22 Removal of existing septic system Future Developers City Public Works Department 23 Design of future sewer line Future Developers City Public Works improvements subiect to review. Department 24 Payment of appropriate sewer ser- Future Developers City Public Works vice development fees. Department GPA. 93-04 93-03 A.ND II .. .. .. ., I . EXHIBIT . B .' ~ I I Party Mitigation Nature of Mitigation Responsible for Party Responsible for Number Imnlementation Monitorinsr 26 Payment of required public safety Future Developers City Planning Director fees for oolice service. 27 Payment of required public safety Future Developers City Pl~nn;ng Director fees for fire service. 28 Development shall conform to Uni- Future Developers City Planning Director form Fire Code. 29 Installation of on-site fire hydrants Future Developers City Public Works, Fire, and Building Denartment 30 Construct utilities underground. Future Developers City Public Works Deoartment Soils test for hazardous materials Future Developers Santa Clara County 31 Department of Health and Santa Clara Valley Water District. Archaeological (cultural) language in Future Developers City Planning Director 32 all permits. I I I I I I I I I I I I I . . . GPA.. 93-03 A..ND 93-04 9qo ~~o ~~oo . 04112/9517:54 'a'408 5388 LAW OFFICES . Im018i025 EXHIBIT "C" I ! I . i I I \ ~. \, ~~\, ::::/"\ \ \' ". - \ ,\ . ,\ \ " '\'~. ~\\.. '. \ \ \\\'.. , . \ 't.- ',' \ \~ \ . . ,"( .". \ \", ... ., '. '.. . \ ',4 , '. \ \ . '. '. \\ \ '.'-, . \, " \ . \. \\\\ . . \ \\ .' ,../- \~. ,\ -~.I" .-.I.~.,- .. "" ". ~. /' -~~".--':-' . '..,.. . \ ........--:.:...--::;'..-.. " \'. _.';~~.\".","..'" ::-,. /~;t~'-<(" ",,'. .\\\\ , ..P'" ~ ' . \.. ..' c" . . c'.' ..' ... '. \ '.. \' ., .. . e6'j.'.... ". . .' ,\ ' \'. ... '.' ..,~;<.- ..~.. . \ ~\ ~\ , "...../"./:" ~. . - . \ \ \ \/.~' -'\'\' '. ',.:." - ~\'o~~ -', . , .. \ _" '\\':~~s\;" !C\:;""\\\\\'" ....~ "~\" ...\ \'\ ~, " " . \..~'('~ -" ....\ \. 'I.~ .1,.~~,~\r'~-.,. '.' W.\' '. . ~. ~.... -------," /. .,\\ \ \ '~\.' /.- ~-_:. -" \". "\\' \\ ' ....',,/ . C', > .." ,0" ..' .", '. \, . ~""":::./ '. .:~..~.S...:'.~,\\\\\~\ '.. , . ~).~~.3~//''''' . ~ ..'~\4 \_ \ \\ \,\\~ ' ,'_ .......'"':,.,~/'... '. - - ....A---.... \ '. , ' - ....... ..r . :"~\q;l.~:', \\\"\\'~"~\ -'~'...,.~~.' ;.....-0/./., .......- . t '. \' ',,,,,,' .'. .. ....,. .' .... \\... \ \ \, '", h . ,""'\.._...-...~" ,,\. \ \\ \ "........: ~ .' . ~ ' . \ \ ~ . _/ ".,- ~ . ". '~~~" ", \\ \ \~'",---:;:;::..// " ,_ ~~. I, ~ \ \ <// ,../- . ',\ . . . '. . .' \'" ! I . ..' {' ..'/~ '," .~ -\\~ if.: .~~. . /> ~~'..'~ \\\\ (; ~-:?-,. '~<//~'."~. "'\:>><~~\ \~\~\\\ " /' ;./ .'. :;.~., . .. . '., \ \ ~ ' \....... '\;/ .' .,~.,r'J . ...'" .. - ~.""\:\\. \ \", \ \ . ",~ ~" ' ,He: SITE . , . \ \ . ."~ .0 " \ ..-' ..' ../ ~ ~ ~.' ~._-. .... ~. " LOCA.TlC>N ......AP FC>R OF-A.. 93-04 . . . ~ I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 95-30 is an original resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 17th day of at which meeting a quorum was present. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the April , 19~, Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this 18th day of April ,1995. (Seal)