Resolution 1997-09
.#
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-9
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY APPROVING A/S 96-11, AN APPLICATION
FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL OF A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) INVOLVING
APPROXIMATELY 9.05 ACRES, APN 790-05-039,
ZONED R1-PUD.
WHEREAS, South County Housing ("Applicant") submitted
A/S 96-11, an application for architectural and site approval of a
planned unit development ("PUD") for a sixty-five lot subdivision
on approximately 9.05 acres located on the east side of Santa
Teresa Boulevard, adjacent to the future Longmeadow Drive extension
as shown on the location map included with the staff report dated
November 25, 1996, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated
herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS,
pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") an initial study was prepared for this project
that identified potentially significant effects on the environment.
However, the Applicant has agreed to specific revisions in the
proj ect 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 and a Negative Declaration has been
adopted for this project by the City Council in conjunction with
associated application TM 96-01; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed application
A/S 96-11 at its duly noticed meeting on December 5, 1996 and
recommended that the City Council approve the project, subject to
20 conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed Application A/S 96-11
and all documents relating thereto and took oral and written
testimony at its duly noticed meeting on December 16, 1996.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The City Council hereby finds that A/S 96-11 complies with the
findings required to grant PUD architectural and site approval
\RPJ\32804801
72-010804706002
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 97-9
.
.
pursuant to subsections (a) through (i) of the Gilroy Zoning
Ordinance, and that the facts as set forth more fully in the record
incorporated herein, including the staff report dated November 25,
1996, support said findings.
SECTION II
The City Council hereby finds that:
1. This project is consistent with the Gilroy General Plan.
2. The City has adopted a Negative Declaration and the
associated mitigation/monitoring program in conjunction
with TM 96-01 which included this project.
3. There are no off-site or on-site environmental effects of
this project which are not addressed in the Negative
Declaration.
4. There is no new information or substantial evidence that
the proj ect may have a significant effect on the
environment.
SECTION III
A/S 96-11 should be and hereby is approved, subject to the
twenty (20) conditions set forth in the staff report attached
hereto as Exhibit "A".
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6TH day of January, 1997 by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: MORALES, ROGERS, ROWLISON, SPRINGER,
VAL DE Z , GAGE
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GILROY
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
APPu
Donald F. Gage, ~:o~
ATTEST:
\RPJ\328048.01
72-010804706002
-2-
~.
. .
CommunIty Development Department
Planning Division
Staff Report
EXHIBIT "A"
November 25, 1996
File Number: NS 96-11 (planned Unit Development)
Applicant: South County Housing
Location: East side of Santa Teresa Boulevard, adjacent to the future Longmeadow Drive
extension
Staff Planner: Melissa Durkin
REOUESTED ACTION:
Planned Unit Development review of a 65 lot single family subdivision.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:
Parcel Number:
Parcel Size:
Flood Zone:
790-05-039
9.05:1:: acres [Note: 7.5 Net Acres]
"B" , Panel # 060 337 0640 D
Panel Date: 10/06/81, Revised to reflect LOMR 8/31/95
STATUS OF PROPERTY:
Existing Land Use
Undeveloped Land
General Plan Designation
Low Density Residential
Zoning
R1-PUD
STATUS OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY:
Existing Land Use
N: Undeveloped
S: Undeveloped/Drainage Channel
E: AgriculturelDrainage Channel
W: Santa Teresa Blvd./S.F. Homes
General Plan Designation
PPF/ Secondary SchooVPark
PPF /Low Density Residential
PPF /Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Zoning
County Ag.
R1
County Ag.
R1-PUD
AI~ 96-11 Q.UD) ·
.
Page 2
11/25/96
~.
CONFORMANCE OF REOUEST WITH GENERAL PLAN:
The proposed project confonns 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.
This project confonns with the policies of Gilroy's General Plan. The following example demonstrates
this compliance:
Urban Development and Community Desisn (Section IT):
Policy 3: "Urban Development will only occur within the incorporated portion of the Planning
Area. Land will therefore be annexed to the City before final development approval is
given. "
The proposed project is in conformance with this policy, because this land was annexed to
the City in January of 1994.
Policy 4:
"The City will phase development in an orderly, contiguous manner in order to maintain
a compact development pattern to avoid premature investment for the extension of public
facilities and services. New urban development will occur in areas where municipal
services are available and capacity exiSts prior to the approval of development in areas
which would require major new facility expansion. "
The proposed project is in conformance with this policy, because this property is adjacent
to developed residential property on the west.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
An expanded initial study has been prepared for this project. The study identified potentially significant
effects on the environment, however, the applicant has agreed to individual mitigation measures which
will avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impacts will occur. A Negative
Declaration, with 11 mitigation measures, has been prepared for this project (see attachment).
RELA TED APPLICA nONS:
TM 96-01:
Tentative Map approval for the subdivision of a 9:I: acre site into 65 residential lots and 7 common area
lots.
AI~ 96-11'(PUD) ·
.
Page 3
11/25/96
a.
RDO BACKGROUND:
This project is proposed to be developed by South County Housing, which is a private, non-profit
developer of affordable homes, and is therefore eligible to be exempt from the provisions of the
Residential Development Ordinance (ROO) under section 50.62 (b) (3). The City Council approved
this exemption on September 23, 1996. As a condition of approval of this request, the applicant will
be required to sign an agreement with the Gilroy Unified School District which mitigates this project's
impacts on Gilroy schools.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
This property was designated as Park/Public facility on the General Plan map from 1985 to 1993, and
was proposed to be developed with a secondary school site and a City park. In September of 1993,
the General Plan designation of this site was changed to Low Density Residential, due to the fact that
the School District had no definite plans to purchase or develop the property. This property was
annexed to the City in 1994, and was designated as Single Family Residential - Planned Unit
Development (RI-PUD) in 1995.
ANALYSIS OF REOUEST:
The applicant is requesting Planned Unit Development (PUD) design review for the proposed
construction of 65 detached single family homes on land which totals approximately 9 acres. The lots
on which these homes would be constructed will result from Tentative Map application TM 96-01, if
it is approved.
This site has a zoning designation ofRI-PUD (Single Family Residential- Planned Unit Development).
The applicant is proposing to use the flexibility of the PUD overlay to allow the Architectural and Site
review application to deviate from standard Zoning Ordinance requirements in four ways: 1) to allow
a density bonus which would increase the density of the site from 7.25 dwelling units per net acre to
8.79 dwelling units per net acre; 2) to allow the lots to be less than the minimum allowed 6,000 square
feet; 3) to allow side yard setbacks to be reduced to three feet; and 4) to allow reduced garage sizes.
Density Bonus Issues
On October 30, 1995, the City Council approved a Zoning Ordinance text change which permits a
residential density bonus of at least 25% and an additional incentive, or incentive of equivalent
financial value, to developers who provide affordable housing in the following ratios:
a) 20 percent of the units for lower-income households; or
b) 10 percent of the units for very low-income households; or
c) 50 percent of the units for senior citizens.
A/S 96-11 (PUD)
.
.
Page 4
11/25/96
.,
South County Housing is proposing to subdivide this site into 65 residential lots, and sell 30 of the lots
to lower income household (as defined by California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5). The
project would therefore provide approximately 46% of the homes constructed to lower income buyers,
which is 26% above the minimum requirement. The remaining 35 lots will be constructed upon with
below-market rate units.
The "Density Bonus" Ordinance, which is mandated by State law, allows a minimum 25% density
bonus. South County Housing is requesting to construct at a density of 8.79 dwelling units per net
acre, which is 1.54 dwelling units per net acre above the normal Zoning Ordinance restriction of7.25
dwelling units per net acre in the Rl zoning district. Therefore, South County Housing is requesting
an increased density of 21.2% per net acre.
Lot Size Exception
In order to accommodate the increased density within this development, the applicant is requesting an
exception to the minimum 6,000 square foot lot size requirement. The lots in this development range
in size from 3,066 square feet to 5,193 square feet, with an average size of approximately 3,400 square
feet and a median size of approximately 3,200 square feet. Staffhas two primary concerns with this
reduced lot size. The first concern is the ability of the lots to accommodate houses within the
appropriate setbacks. The applicant has addressed this concern by designing homes specifically to fit
on these lots, and by requesting reduced side yard setbacks, as discussed below
The second concern which staff has with the reduced lot sizes is that the aqlount of lot frontage will
also be reduced, which limits the opportunities for on-street parking. This issue has been addressed
by the provision of 52 parking stalls in the common areas of this development. In addition, the
developer will.be constructing two-car garages on all of the lots in this tract, and parking is available
on Hirasaki Avenue and Longmeadow Drive.
Setback Exceptions
The reduced lot size has resulted in the applicant requesting to construct the homes in this subdivision
with three foot side yard setbacks to the garage side of the house, and five foot side yard setbacks to
the other side of the house, rather than the normally required six foot side yard setback. The applicant
is requesting this deviation for the following reasons:
1. The two story models developed within this subdivision will have a five foot side yard setback to
the second story, thereby somewhat mitigating the smaller setback to the garage.
2. The applicant wishes to maximize the size of the homes on these small lots.
3. The applicant's only alternative to reducing the setback to the garage is to construct attached homes,
which can cause maintenance problems, and are not typically favored by home buyers.
4. The proposed design, which uses larger setbacks on the second story than on the first story, will add
architectural interest to the streets.
Stafffeels that, although these setbacks are not in strict compliance with the zoning ordinance, they
meet the intent of the PUD concept.
A/~ 96-11 '(PUD) .
.
Page 5
11/25/96
Garaie Dimensions
The applicant is requesting to reduce the size of the garage in these homes from the normally required
20 feet wide by 20 feet long to 19 feet 4 inches wide by 20 feet long. Staff does not anticipate any
negative impacts to result :from this deviation.
The Zoning Ordinance requires that extra amenities be provided in exchange for the flexibility that the
Planned Unit Development allows. The applicant is fulfilling this requirement by providing affordable
housing in this tract and by landscaping the front yards of these lots.
Originally, the lots abutting Hirasaki Avenue were shown with their back yards adjacent to this street.
Development of these lots would have resulted in a continuous fence line along Hirasaki Avenue. This
configuration would have isolated the neighborhood, rather than integrating it into the conununity as
a whole. To remedy this situation, the applicant has oriented lots 16 through 18 and lots 20 through
24 so that they face Hirasaki Avenue. The remaining homes are accessed off of interior, private streets.
South County Housing is proposing to construct three different models of homes on this site, with
three different elevations for each model. All of the homes will have two-car garages and reverse floor
plans. Following is an analysis of the models:
Plan 1
This model is proposed to be approximately 1,262 square feet in area with two story construction, and
an attached two car garage. Architectural elements of this three bedroom home include a front porch,
a second story dormer, enhanced second story windows, a multi-level hip and gable root: and a shed
roof over the garage.
Plan 2
This model is proposed to be approximately 1,418 square feet in area with two story construction, and
an attached two car garage. Architectural elements of this four bedroom home include a front porch
area with a shed root: a second story dormer with either a gable or hip root: framed second story
windows, a multi-level hip and gable root: and a shed roof over the garage.
Plan 3
This model is proposed to be a 1,501 square foot single story, four bedroom home, with a two car
garage located in front. Architectural elements of this home include enhanced front window features,
a multi-level hip and gable root: an open portico surrounding the front entry, and a second story
dormer over the garage.
. Primary access to this development will be provided by Longmeadow Drive (a collector), and Hirasaki
Avenue (a collector). The proposed tract map configuration also shows two new private streets which
contribute to the traffic circulation of this project. The proposed street alignments are consistent with
minimum City development standards.
A/S 96-11 (PUD)
.
.
Page 6
11/25/96
f.
Sound Wall Issues
A sound wall will be required to be constructed at this site to reduce the amount of noise which future
residents will be subjected to from Santa Teresa Boulevard. The acoustical analysis which was
prepared for this project has determined that a 9.5 foot soundwall must be constructed along the
western boundary of this site, and must be extended along the northern property boundary as indicated
in the Initial Study. Staffhas two concerns with this sound wall design:
1. The visual impact of the sound wall is likely to be substantial. Staff is proposing to mitigate this
impact by requiring a landscaped berm in front of the wall along Santa Teresa Boulevard, and
by requiring the applicant to construct a wall which has an enhanced architectural element.
2. The homes which are adjacent to this sound wall will have an unusually high rear yard barrier.
This situation is not ideal because it creates a sense of confinement. This situation is somewhat
mitigated by the fact that these houses are oriented toward the east, and therefore will receive
adequate sunlight.
Water Channel Issues
The proposed project is bordered on its south and east sides by water channels. General Plan Section
VI-3, policy number 15 states, "The City should attempt to acquire the rights to use public and quasi-
public utility and drainage channel corridors as linear parks to provide the network for a system of
pedestrian and bicycle paths." Based on this policy, City staff is attempting to limit the number of
houses built with their rear yards adjacent to the channel, by reserving these areas for open space,
parking areas, streets or other buffers. The reason for this request is that residential rear yards abutting
trails and pathways can create undesirable situations for two primary reasons: 1) The public presence
on the trails and pathways may interfere with the privacy of adjacent residents and 2) When trails and
pathways abut residences, they cannot be seen from the public right-of-way, and therefore are difficult
to monitor by public safety personnel.
South County Housing has addressed the City's water channel policy by placing common areas adjacent
to the channel. The uses in this areas include landscaping, parking and an emergency access. The
applicant has successfully limited all but one home from abutting the channel. Staff feels that the
proposed design meets the intent of this policy.
FINDINGS:
In order to grant Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval, the Planning Commission and City
Council must find that the proposed Planned Unit Development will:
A Conform to the Gilroy General Plan in terms of general location and standards of development;
B. Provide the type of development which will fill a specific need of the surrounding area;
A/S 96-11 (PUD)
.
.
Page 7
11/25/96
~
C. Not require urban services beyond those which are currently available;
D. Provide a harmonious, integrated plan which justifies exceptions, if such are required, to the
normal requirements of this ordinance;
E. Reflect an economical and efficient pattern of land uses;
F. Include greater provisions for landscaping and open space than would generally be required.
G. Utilize aesthetic design principles to create attractive buildings and open space areas which
blend with the character of surrounding areas~
H. Not create traffic congestion, noise, odor or other adverse effects on surrounding areas; and
1. Provide adequate access, parking, landscaping, trash areas and storage, as necessary.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to
approve this request for the following reasons:
A. The project proposal is consistent with the exemption from the Residential Development
Ordinance granted to the developer by the City Council;
B. The proposed tentative map is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the City's
General Plan document;
C. The proposed development is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the City's Subdivision
and Land Development Code;
D. Public utilities and infrastructure improvements needed in order to serve the proposed project
are in close proximity;
E. There will be no significant environmental impacts as a result of this project due to the required
mitigation measures to be applied; and '
F. The proposed development is consistent with PUD findings A through I, as stated in Zoning
Ordinance Section 50.55.
A/S 96-11 (PUD)
.
Page 8
.
11/25/96
$,,:
If this project is approved, staff recommends that the following conditions be attached to the approval
of the project:
1. Mitigation Measures 1 through 11 contained within the Negative Declaration for this 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), subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division (see attachment).
2. Construction of these 65 units shall be subject to the applicant receiving City Council approval
of 1M 96-01.
3. Exterior Lighting: No unobstructed beam of exterior lighting shall be directed outward from the
site toward any residential use or public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the
Planning Division.
4. Mechanical Appurtenances: Mechanical equipment to be located on the roof of a building shall
be screened by an architectural feature of the building, such that it cannot be seen from ground
level at the far side of the adjacent public right-of-way, whenever possible, subject to review and
approval by the Planning Division.
5. Building colors shall be earth tones, subject to-review and approval by the Planning Division..
6. All utilities constructed to, through and on the site shall be constructed underground, subject to
review and approval by the Engineering Division.
7. All sets of building plans shall contain the following wording:
"If archeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be
halted within 50 meters (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. "
This shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division.
8. The overall project shall comply with the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 5.50, "Site
Design Requirements", pertaining to proposed individual dwelling unit designs, subject to review
and approval by the Planning Division.
9. Street names are subject to approval of the Planning Division.
10. Street addresses shall be assigned by the Engineering Division.
11. All proposed fencing must meet the requirements of the Planning Division.
A/S 96-11 (PUD)
.
Page 9
.
11/25/96
..
12. Side yard setbacks may be reduced to three feet, but should remain at six feet wherever feasible.
All dwelling units shall maintain ten foot side yard setbacks when adjacent to a street on a corner
lot, subject to review and approval by the Planning Division..
13. Location of hydrants must be approved by the Building, Life and Environmental Safety Division
for this project.
14. Street trees will be required for the above project per the Consolidated Landscaping Policy. A
Street Tree Permit must be obtained, subject to review and approval by the Community Services
Department. .
15. The applicant shall landscape the front yard of all lots. Landscaping plans including
specifications for an irrigation system shall be subject to approval by the Planning Division in
accordance with the City's Consolidated Landscaping Policy, prior to the issuance of a building
permit. The landscaping shall be continuously maintained in an orderly, live, healthy and
relatively weed-free condition, in accordance with the adopted landscaping policy.
16. The developer shall install an architecturally enhanced soundwall at this site, subject to review
and approval by the Planning Division find the Engineering Division.
17. The sound wall and landscaping along Santa Teresa Boulevard shall be installed by the
developer according to City standards. The soundwall shall be landscaped with a berm. Plant
materials shall be subject to the approval of the Community Services Department. Provisions
shall be made by the developer for a funding mechanism for the maintenance of the sound wall
and landscaping in the public right-of-way, subject to review and approval by the Community
Services Department and the Engineering Division.
18. The developer shall designate which lots will be sold to lower income households, prior to
approval of the Final Map for this site, subject to review and approval by the Planning Division.
19. Prior to approval of the Final Map for this project, the developer shall enter into an agreement
with the City restricting the 30 lower income units to meet the criteria set forth in the Density
Bonus Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance section 46.40).
20. Wherever the same model home is located on adjacent lots, the floor plans shall be reversed, and
different garage doors shall be used
~~
William Faus
Planner ill
.
.
>l<
NS 96-11 (PUD)
Page 10
12/5/96
12-5-96
At their meeting of December 5, 1996, the Planning Commission, by a vote of
5-0-1 (Commissioner Pinheiro excused himself from this project because of possible
conflict of interest), voted to forward recommendations of A/S 96-11
with 20 conditions as set forth in the staff report.
AYES: ARELLANO, BLANKLEY, COLLIER, LA!, PUENTE
NA YES: NONE
ABSENT: PINHEIRO
.
tt.
~ 0 ,.., 1000 ~000 >>oao 4000
5CAU:
/
-.'-.'(3
./
I... ...,.
::
.... 0 O. I. 0..1 O.~ G.. 0.' 0.. 0." o.e 0.' 1.0....
W'- 0 .100 ..... eoo eoo ,... ....--
~
Iii =1
. ;
-=1 ~
.... I ~
f .
!
.
il J;' 1/
.
-
1=-1
......\
..
:;".:
- ~..
......'/
i"i'/
L
'.
R i lor-V
: I
I
...
;J~..,
Source: California State Automobile Association
LOCAT.'ON
IV'! .A. P
FOR
TN:i
96-01
AND
A/S
96-11
$
. .
Community Development Department
Planning Division
NEGA TIVE
DE CLARA TION
City of Gilroy
7351 Rosanna St.
Gilroy, CA 95020
(408) 848-0440
City File Number: TM 96-01
Project Description:
Name of Project:
Nature of Project:
Summerhill Tentative Map
Request to subdivide one 9.05 acre parcel into 65 lots, and perform design
review of the homes resulting from this subdivision.
PrQject Location:
Location:
East of Santa Teresa Boulevard, adjacent to the future Longmeadow
Extension
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 790-05-039
Entity or Person(s) Undertakin& PrQject:
Name:
Address:
South County Housing
7455 Carmel Street, Gilroy, CA 95020
Initial Study:
An Initial study of this project was undertaken and prepared for the purpose of ascertaining
whether this 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, CA 95020.
Findin&5 & Reasons:
The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects on the environment. However, this
project has been mitigated (see Mitigation Measures below which avoid or mitigate the effects) to
.
.
fi.
Preliminary Negative Declaration
TM 96-01
2
10/08/96
a point where no significant effects will occur. There is no substantial evidence the project may
have a significant effect on the environment. The following reasons will support these findings:
1. The proposal is a logical component of the existing land use of this area.
2. Identified adverse impacts are proposed to be mitigated through preparation of special
studies, and Construction of off-site improvements.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan
of the City of Gilroy.
4. The Initial Study was independently reviewed by City staft: and this Negative Declaration
reflects the independent judgement of the City of Gilroy.
Mitiration Measu~:
1. The project shall be designed in accordance with earthquake design regulations of the
Uniform Building Code, subject to review and approval by the City Building, Life and
Environmental Safety Division, prior to issuance of a building permit.
2. A soils investigation shall be prepared for the project by a qualified soils engineer. The
recommendations of the soils investigation shall be incorporated into the final improvement
plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Building, Life and Environmental
Safety Division, prior to approval of the final map.
3. The design and COnstruction of all storm drainage improvements serving the project site
shall be prepared in accordance with the Santa Clara County Water District standards and
provided by the developer, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Division,
the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation
Service. These design plans shall include, but not be limited to:
a. Applicable storm water source and treatment-based best management practices, applied
and maintained, as recommended in the California Storm Water Best Management
Practice Handbook;
b. Provisions for periodic sweeping for roadways, driveways, and parking areas on the
project site;
c. A design to reflect the City's Storm Water Master Plan;
d. Paved areas shall be designed to minimize drainage that is channeled to one location.
Pathway paving shall be kept to a minimum and shall be porous in nature, wherever
feasible;
e. Drainage facilities shall be designed and installed to collect and transport the natural
flows away from the streets and buildings and into approved drainage structures; and
.
.
.."
Preliminary Negative Declaration
TM 96-01
3
10/08/96
f. Site grading shall not cause overbank drainage into the creek.
4. The developer shall apply for and obtain a General Permitfor Storm Water Discharges
Associated with Construction Activity by submitting a completed Notice of Intent form and
appropriate payment to the State Water Resources Control Board prior to the issuance of a
building permit. Further, the developer shall be required to comply with the terms of this
permit during and after construction of the project. These terms include, but are not limited
to, the following:
The use of water quality controls (i.e. Best Management Practices) both during and after
construction, for example:
· Design project to focus on miniminng directly connected impervious surfaces to
provide for slowing of storm water flows and increasing recharge potential;
· Stabilizing denuded areas prior to the wet season (October 1 through May 1);
· Limiting COnstruction access routes and stabilizing access points;
· Protecting adjacent properties with sediment baniers, dikes, or mulching;
· Using proper construction material and construction waste storage, handling, and
disposal practices;
· Protecting outdoor storage materials from drainage with berms and roof covers;
· Using appropriate landscape controls (irrigation and application offertiIizers,
herbicides, and pesticides); and -
· Installing structural sto~ water treatment controls such as wet ponds, swales,
vegetated filter strips, extended detention basins, and sand filters.
5. The developer shall prepare a grading plan that shall include, but not be limited to,
specifications requiring that no materials or machinery will be allowed within the boundaries
of the Santa Clara Valley Water District facilities. This would include any grading and/or fill
material or grading and/or construction vehicles, etc. The plan shall be subject to review
and approval by the City Engineering Division and the Santa Clara Valley Water District,
prior to approval of the final map. Monitoring shall take place during grading and
construction activities and shall be performed by either the City Engineering Division or the
Santa Clara Valley Water District.
6. The developer shall construct the following improvements to Santa Teresa Boulevard along
the project frontage and to the Santa Teresa Boulevard/Longmeadow Drive intersection in
conjunction with the addition of the fourth (eastern) leg of the intersection:
a. A Type IT bike lane shall be provided along the project frontage with Santa Teresa
Boulevard;
b. Add a left turn lane on southbound Santa Teresa Boulevard to eastbound Longmeadow
Drive.
c. Construct the east leg of the intersection to provide one exclusive left turn lane and a
shared through/right-turn lane;
.
.
at.
Preliminary Negative Declaration
TM 96-01
4
10/08/96
d. ModifY the traffic signal to incorporate the new intersection movements associated with
adding the east leg to the intersection.
e. Add a right turn taper on the northbound Santa Teresa Boulevard approach to
Longmeadow Drive;
f. Design and construct an acceleration lane on Santa Teresa heading north;
g. Redesign and correct the Longmeadow Drive alignment through the intersection with
Santa Teresa Boulevard;
h. Design the horizontal alignment ofLongmeadow Drive using the correct design speeds.
These improvements shall be prepared by the developer prior to approval of the final map
and improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Division.
7. The developer shall provide secondary emergency access to Santa Teresa Boulevard,
subject to review and approval by the City Engineering Division.
8. To satisfy the 60 dB Ldn city standard, the property line noise barrier must be 9 1/2 feet in
height and be extended along the north property line as identified in Figure 3 of Appendix B
of the Initial Study.
In order for the noise barriers to provide the attenuation described herein, they must be of
substantial construction and without gaps or openings. The most effective materials for
barrier COnstruction are concrete blocks, tilt-up concrete panels, stucco on both sides of a
wooden frame or an earthen berm. A combination of berm and wall may also be used to
achieve the total required height of the noise barrier. If the project grade will be altered
from that identified in the provided tentative development plan, sound wall performance may
be effected an a new barrier analysis may be required to ensure compliance with the city
standards.
The design of the noise barrier shall be provided by the developer with the final
improvement plans for Phase m. The design will be subject to review and approval by the
Gilroy Planning Division, prior to approval of the final map for Phase m.
9. Final improvement plans shall include a vegetation plan. The vegetation plan shall be
prepared with the intent of shielding the barrier. Electrical service and a two-inch water
service shall be provided to the landscaped area. This vegetation plan shall be subject to
review and approval by the Gilroy Planning Division, prior to approval of the final map.
10. The developer shall either fund or provide a funding mechanism for the maintenance of the
sound barrier and landscaping. The proposal for the funding mechanism shall be subject to
review and approval by the Gilroy Planning Division, prior to approval of the final map.
.
.
.,
Prelimin~'Y Negative Declaration
TM 96-01
5
10/08/96
11. If archaeological resources or human remain~ are discovered during construction, work shall
be halted within 50 meters (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. This wording shall be incorporated into any
permits issued for construction of the proposed project.
Date Prepared: December 27, 1995
End of Review Period: January22, 1996
Date Approved By City Council:
William Faus, Planner ill
.
~
.
.
I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do
hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 97-9
is an original
resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular
meeting of said Council held on the
6th
day of January
, 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
19 97.
7th
day of January
(Seal)