Resolution 1998-59
~
. .
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-59
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT IN CONNECTION WITH A PROJECT REQUIRING A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE AND ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE
APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHOPPING CENTER FOR
WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED, AND
ADOPTING MITIGATION MEASURES AND APPROVING A MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE PROJECT (CUP 98-03, V 98-08, NS 98-24-
PUD: Home Depot).
WHEREAS, the Council intends to approve a project to allow 161,812 square feet
of commercial space, including a 129,802 square foot building materials sales
establishment and outdoor garden center, two restaurants and a retail area, on
approximately 14.22 acres, herein referred to as the "project"; and
WHEREAS, such project was the subject of a Final Environmental Impact Report
(Final EIR) entitled "Home Depot Draft Environmental Impact Report" and "Home Depot
Final Addendum EIR" prepared by the City of Gilroy as the Lead Agency in compliance
with the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended,
(CEQA) and said Final EIR was recommended for certification by the City of Gilroy
Planning Commission on September 17, 1998; and
WHEREAS, CEQA requires that, in the approval of a project for which a Final
EIR has been prepared, the decision-making body shall review said Final EIR and make
certain findings regarding the significant effects on the environment identified in said Final
EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Gilroy is the decision-making body for
Planned Unit Development Architectural and Site Approvals; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which
constitute the record of proceedings upon the City Council's decision is based is the Office
of the City Clerk.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY certify that as the
decision-making body, it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the
Final EIR, and other information in the record, prior to acting upon or approving the
project, and finds that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and
reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Gilroy as Lead Agency for
the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES FURTHER HEREBY make
the following findings with respect to the significant effects on the environment of such
project as identified in the Final EIR:
IKHM1424225.01
83-092904706002
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 98-59
,
. '-
.
.
I. FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
A. Soils and Geology.
1. Exposure to Seismic Hazard
a) Impact: Future development would be exposed to seismic
hazards associated with seismic ground shaking typical of
the Santa Clara Valley, (Potentially Significant Impact)
b) Mitigation: The proposed project shall be designed III
accordance with earthquake design regulations of the
Uniform Building Code. In addition, the proposed project
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. This will ensure that impacts are reduced to
an insignificant level.
c) Finding: Implementation of the mItIgation measures
identified in the Final EIR will reduce this potential land use
impact to a less-than-significant level.
2. Conversion of Land
a) Impact: Development of this site will result in the
conversion of 15 acres of prime agricultural land to non-
agricultural uses.
b) Mitigation: There are no mitigation measures available to
reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
c) Finding: This impact is a significant unavoidable impact.
See Statement of Overriding Considerations.
B. Surface Water.
1. Surface Water Runoff
a) Impact: The concentration of pollutants in the surface
water run-off generated by development of this project
could pollute water downstream from this site.
b) Mitigation: The project proponent will be required to
prepare and submit a detailed storm drainage improvement
plan for the overall project site, and construct improvements
specified in the plan. In addition, the project proponent will
\KHM\424225.01
83-092904706002
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. 98-59
. ,
.
.
implement applicable storm water source and treatment-
based best management practices as recommended in the
California Storm Water Best Management Practice
Handbooks, and will provide a periodic sweeping program
for proposed roadways, driveways and parking areas on the
project site. These mitigation measures will ensure that
future development will not result in a significant impact.
c) Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR will reduce this potential land use
impact to a less-than-significant level.
C. Traffic and Circulation.
\KHM\424225.01
83-092904706002
1. Leavesley Road & San Ysidro Avenue
a) Impact: Several street segments will fall below City level of
service standards with implementation of the proposed
project (existing plus approved plus project conditions).
During the Saturday peak hour, Leavesley Road east and
west of San Ysidro Avenue drops from LOS C to LOS D.
San Ysidro Avenue, north of Leavesley Road, drops from
LOS A to LOS D. In addition, the San Ysidro Avenue/
Leavesley Road intersection drops from LOS C to LOS E
under existing plus approved plus project conditions. With
re-striping of the northbound approach, the level of service
can be brought back to LOS D, However, this falls below
City level of service standards, Mitigation measures to
reduce the impact to a less than significant level (i. e., to
bring the level of service to LOS C or better) are not
feasible at this location. The addition of another lane on the
westbound approach would require the acquisition and
demolition of an existing gas station. (Potentially
Significant Impact)
b) Mitigation: There are no feasible mItIgation measures
available to reduce the impact of the level of service drops
on Leavesley Road east and west of San Y sidro and
San Y sidro Avenue, north of Leavesley Road to a less than
significant level. The San Ysidro Avenue/Leavesley Road
intersection will be re-striped on the northbound approach.
This will bring the level of service back to LOS D.
However, this falls below City level of service standards.
Mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less than
significant level (i.e., to bring the level of service to LOS C
or better) are not feasible at this location. The addition of
-3-
RESOLUTION NO. 98-59
, ~
IKHM1424225.01
83-092904706002
.
.~
another lane on the westbound approach would require the
acquisition and demolition of an existing gas station.
c) Finding: This is an avoidable significant impact. See Statement
of Overriding Considerations.
2. Driveways
a) Impact: Internal circulation and access to the project
will cause additional traffic impacts on San Ysidro Avenue.
b) Mitigation: The project proponent will revise the driveways
on the site plan, and will shift the proposed restaurants to
the north. The project proponent will also prepare an
on-site improvement plan, which shall include the following
measures:
. Place a signal at the south entrance to the project site.
. Design the lane configuration for the signal to have two
outgoing lanes at each driveway. The proposed project
shall design the driveway to have one exclusive left and
a shared left-through-right lane.
. Construct an exclusive left-turn lane, one through lane
and a shared through/right-turn lane on San Y sidro
Avenue for both the north and southbound approaches
to the driveways.
. Construct one outgoing and one incoming lane, which
are a minimum of 35 feet wide; not exceeding 45 feet
wide at the non-signalized driveways.
. Widen San Ysidro Avenue to a 64-foot face of curb to
face of curb roadway with frontage improvements
(sidewalks, landscaping, etc.) within an 84-foot right-of-
way in front of the project site. The curb lanes should
be 14 feet wide, while the other three lands should be
12 feet wide. These frontage improvements should also
be made on the Koda/Ninomaya property to the south
to provide a pedestrian link between the proposed
project and the outlets to the south.
. Include a bus stop and protection bay on the site
frontage of the project site, preferably near the signal.
-4-
RESOLUTION NO. 98-59
. ,
. .
c) Finding: Implementation of the mItIgation measures
identified in the Final EIR will reduce these potential traffic
impacts to a less-than-significant level.
D. Air Ouality.
1. Regional Air Quality
a) Impact: Vehicle emissions resulting from operations of the
proposed project will exceed the BAAQMD thresholds for
ROG, CO and NOx.
b) Mitigation: The project proponent shall prepare an
emissions reduction plan for review and approval by the
City Planning Division prior to issuance of a building
permit. The emission reduction plan shall consider, but not
be limited to, the following measures (measures
recommended in the 1996 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines):
. Carpool/vanpool program, e.g., carpool ride matching
for employees, assistance with vanpool formation,
provision of van pool vehicles, etc.
· Transit facilities such as bus turnouts/bus bulbs,
benches, shelters, etc.
. Preferential parking (e.g., near building entrance,
sheltered area, etc.) for carpool and vanpool vehicles.
· Secure, weather-protected bicycle parking for
employees.
· Safe, direct access for bicyclists to adjacent bicycle
routes.
· Showers and lockers for employees bicycling or walking
to work.
. Secure short-term bicycle parking for retail customers
and other non-commute trips.
· Direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project to
transit stops and adjacent development.
c) Finding: Even with the implementation of this plan,
the project's air quality impacts will not be reduced to a
less-than-significant level. There is no mitigation available
\KHM\424225.01
83-092904706002
-5-
RESOLUTION NO. 98-59
. .
\KHM\424225.01
83-092904706002
.
.
that will completely avoid or reduce the significant regional
air .quality impact. Therefore, this impact is an unavoidable
significant impact. See Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
2. Short- Term Construction
a) Impact: Temporary air quality impacts would occur during
construction, as a result of clearing, grading, and surface
preparation and hauling at the site.
b) Mitigation: The following control measures shall be
incorporated into any permits for all phases of the project:
. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
· Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two
feet of freeboard.
· Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic)
soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking
areas and staging areas at construction sites.
. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction
sites.
. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil
material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to
inactive construction areas (previously graded areas
inactive for ten days or more).
· Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic)
soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to
prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as
possible.
-6-
RESOLUTION NO. 98-59
.!
. .
. Install wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off
the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving
the site.
. Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind
breaks at windward ~ide( s) of construction areas,
. Suspend excavation and grading activity when wind
(instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.
. Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other
construction activity at anyone time.
c) Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR will avoid or reduce this potential
land use impact to a less-than-significant level.
E. Public Services: Water.
1. Supply
a) Impact: The proposed project will necessitate providing
adequate water service to this site.
b) Mitigation: The project proponent shall provide a fire flow
test to verify that sufficient fire flow is available for the
commercial and industrial land use on this site.
c) Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR will reduce this potential land use
impact to a less-than-significant level.
F. Hazardous Materials.
\KHM\424225.01
83-092904706002
1. Fuel Tanks and Debris Pile
a) Impact: There may be hazardous materials contamination
on this site from two leaking fuel tanks and debris piles.
b) Mitigation: The project proponent shall retain the services
of a qualified environmental testing company to collect and
test random soil samples for analysis of petroleum
hydrocarbons, including diesel fuel, in the following areas of
the project site:
. vicinity of the waste oil tank (Mussallem property);
-7-
RESOLUTION NO. 98-59
.t.
.
.
. vicinity of abandoned trucks and debris piles (Mussallem
property);
. vicinity of septic system (Mussallem property); and
. the Tang property.
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.
c) Finding: Implementation of the mItIgation measures
identified in the Final EIR will reduce this potential land use
impact to a less-than-significant level.
G. Cultural Resources.
1. Unknown Cultural Resources
a) Impact: Unidentified buried cultural resources may be
found during future construction on the project site.
(Potentially Significant Impact)
b) Mitigation: 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:
"If archeological resources or human remains are
discovered during construction, work shall be halted
at a minimum of 200 feet from the find and the area
shall be staked off The project developer shall
notify the coroner for human remains, the Director
of the Archeological Regional Research Center for
other resources. If the find is determined to be
significant, appropriate mitigation measures shall be
formulated and implemented."
c) Finding: Implementation of the mItIgation measures
identified in the Final EIR will reduce this potential land use
impact to a less-than-significant level.
\KHM\42422501
83-092904706002
-8-
RESOLUTION NO. 98-59
.!
.
.
H. Cumulative Impacts.
1. Traffic
a) Impact: The future development of the project site, in
conjunction with the development of "reasonably
foreseeable projects" would result in a level of service in the
operations of several roadway segments and intersections to
below a LOS C.
b) Mitigation: Conformance with General Plan Transportation
Policies will help to reduce this impact, but the project
would still result in a significant unavoidable impact.
c) Finding: This impact is a significant unavoidable impact.
See Statement of Overriding Considerations.
2. Access to Columbia/South Valley Hospital
a) Impact: The future development of the project site, III
conjunction with the development of "reasonably
foreseeable projects", would result in delays in access times
to the Columbia/South Valley Hospital.
b) Mitigation: The Cohansey Avenue overpass will need to be
constructed prior to build-out of the San Ysidro Avenue
Corridor. Construction of this overpass would ensure
unhampered access to the Columbia/South Valley Hospital,
and will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
c) Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR will reduce this potential land use
impact to a less-than-significant level.
3. Loss of Prime Agricultural Land
a) Impact: The future development of the project site, III
conjunction with the development of "reasonably
foreseeable projects", would result in the loss of prime
agricultural land.
b) Mitigation: Conformance with General Plan Transportation
Policies will help to reduce this impact, but the project
would still result in a significant unavoidable impact
c) Finding: This impact is a significant unavoidable impact.
See Statement of Overriding Considerations.
\KHM\424225.01
83-092904706002
-9-
RESOLUTION NO. 98-59
..
.
.
4. Water Quality
a) Impact: The future development of the project site, III
conjunction with the development of "reasonably
foreseeable projects", could result in significant cumulative
water quality impacts
b) Mitigation: Conformance with General Plan Policies, as
well as implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures contained within the EIR, will reduce this impact
to a less-than-significant level.
c) Finding: Implementation of the mItIgation measures
identified in the Final EIR will reduce this potential land use
impact to a less-than-significant level.
2. Air Quality
a) Impact: The future development of the project site, in
conjunction with the development of "reasonably
foreseeable proj ects", could result in a significant
cumulative impact on air quality.
b) Mitigation: Conformance with General Plan Transportation
Policies and implementation of mobile-source air emissions
reduction measures will help to reduce this impact, but the
project would still result in a significant unavoidable impact.
c) Finding: This impact is a significant unavoidable impact. See
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
n. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT.
1. No Project (No Development):
a) Description: The no project alternative consists of leaving the site
in its existing, generally undeveloped condition.
b) Comparison to Proposed Project: This alternative would result in a
significant decrease in project impacts with regard to geology, soils,
surface water, traffic and circulation, air quality, water, sewer, and
hazardous materials. It would result in a slight decrease in project
impacts with regard to visual, fire, police, and cultural resources;
and no change in project related impacts to biological resources.
The No Project alternative would not meet the primary objectives
of developing this site for commercial use.
\KHM\424225.01
83-092904706002
-10-
RESOLUTION NO. 98-59
"
.
.
c) Finding: This alternative is environmentally superior to the
Proposed Project, since it avoids the impacts of the project.
However, the No Project alternative is rejected as infeasible
because it does not meet any of the objectives of the project, nor
provide any benefits to the City, such as job generation and tax
revenues.
2. Alternative Location #1:
a) Description: A potential alternative location for the Home Depot
site is the vacant Kmart at the southeast corner of Tenth Street and
Chestnut Street.
b) Comparison to Proposed Project: This alternative would result in a
significant decrease in impacts to soils and visual quality. There
would be a slight increase in impacts from hazardous materials All
other impacts would not change with this alternative.
c) Finding: This alternative is marginally superior environmentally to
the Proposed Project. However, this alternative is rejected because
it fails to meet the project's objectives and the City's objectives in
expanding the tax base and providing jobs, while at the same time
increasing the services available to City residents.
3. Alternative Location #2:
a) Description: This alternative site, consisting of 15 acres, includes
the Mussallem property and the adjacent KodalNinomaya property,
immediately adjacent to the site.
b) Comparison to Proposed Project: This alternative would not
change or eliminate any of the significant impacts of the Proposed
Project.
c) Finding: This alternative is rejected because it IS not
environmentally superior to the Proposed Project.
4. Reduced Square Footage Alternative:
a) Description: This alternative would result in a reduction of the
square footage of the proposed project by twenty percent.
b) Comparison to Proposed Project: This alternative would create the
same unavoidable significant adverse impacts to prime agricultural
land, air quality, and traffic as the Proposed Project.
\KHM\424225.01
83-092904706002
-11-
RESOLUTION NO. 98-59
"
.
.
c) Finding: This alternative is rejected because it is not
environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. The impacts
created by this alternative would not reduce the above-named
impacts to a less than significant level.
ID. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
After review of the entire administrative record, including the Final EIR, the staff
report, and the oral and written testimony and evidence presented at public
meetings, the City Council finds that specific economic, legal, social,
technological and other considerations justify the approval of this project in spite
of the existence of unavoidable environmental effects that are deemed significant
and that cannot be completely mitigated to a level of insignificance.
The City Council adopts and makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations
regarding the significant unavoidable impacts of the project and the anticipated
benefits of the project. The City Council finds that each of the benefits set forth
below in this Statement constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding
that the benefits of the project outweigh the risks of its potential significant
adverse environmental impacts. A partial list of the benefits of the project which
constitute the specific considerations that justify the approval of the project are as
follows:
1. The development of this commercial and industrial land will occur in an
area where municipal services are immediately available, therefore requiring
a minimal amount offuture public service upkeep.
2. The development of this commercial and industrial land will contribute to
the City's job base and provide an additional source of goods and services
to the residents. The jobs provided will serve a variety of income levels,
including entry-level, part-time positions and management jobs.
3. The development of this commercial and industrial land will contribute to
the City's tax base.
4. This commercial and industrial land is contiguous to existing developed
commercial and industrial lands within the City, and represents a consistent
development pattern that avoids adjacent land use conflicts.
IV. ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION/MONITORING PROGRAM
The City Council hereby adopts the mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR
and the MitigationIMonitoring Program attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated
herein by this reference.
\KHM\424225.01
83-092904706002
-12-
RESOLUTION NO. 98-59
.
.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of October, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS: ARELLANO, GIFFORD, MORALES,
ROWLISON, SPRINGER, and GILROY
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS: SUDOL
APPROVED:
K.A. Mike Gilroy, Mayor
~.TE:
.. .~~:
Rhonda Pellin, City Clerk -
\KHM\424225.01
83-092904706002
-13-
RESOLUTION NO. 98-59
--
I
.
I
[J
I
.
"Co.;,o'" --
.
EXHIBIT A
Mililatitm ManitDring Clec1dJlt
Prior to issuance of a BWlding P.nzdt. the following mitigatian measures shall be =pleznmtec1=
I
1.
-
I
I
.,.
....
II
--
3,
II
I
I
I]
I
I
I
..
,~'
I
..
-
....
The proposed project shall be designed in
acco['danc:e with carthqua~ design regulations oE
the Unifonn Building Code. Fim11 de"'~opment
plaN for the future proposed project slWl be
subject to review and approval of the. City
BWlcUng Divisitm prior to issuance of a buil=g
pen:nit.
The propaHCi proje<:t shall conform to the
Uniform 8uilding. Plumbing. IUld Mecha:nial
Codes. theNaticmaI Elec:z:ric:a1 Code. and ltal!
handicap and l!I:'Iergy regWaUCX\5 in ntle 24 of
the Califomia Building Cod.e. subjec:r to review
md approv;J of the Engineering Division prior
to issuance of a building pen:nit.
The projllC:t proponent shall be required to
submit a detailed stann d.rainaF improvement
plan fer the proposed project md construct
improvements specified in the plan. The plan
sMll include design and speQiicatioN for the
o.n-site storm drainage system mld all off-mte
storm c:imiNlse improvements. The type. size.
anc11ocatiol'l of a11 infrnstruc:ture improvmnllnlS
shall be determined by the &.gineer:ing Division
prior to issuance of. building pcmil The plan
shall.i.nclude. but not ~ limited to. the
following:
. Ccmstrudicm of an extension to the existing
stonn drain south c! the site.
. Design and analysis of me drainage facilities
shall be in accordance with the City of
GUroy's Sbmc:iards ill'\d Standard.
Specifications.
:;~~~
o.velcper .
GilrOy
Plan.nJng
DiVision
Deve.lope:r
Gilroy .
EnJ:ineering
Divi.s.icn
Develaper
Gilroy
Engineering
Division
EMC Pltm.7rmg Group Inc.
f1cmu: Dcpat MitigatUm Mcm:itDri:ng Program .
.4-3
.... V~\.o
.
.
4. The project proponent shall implement ~ ~y
app.lkab1e ltoan water source and trtsIta\c:nt- !npwering
baHd best mmasem-m prad:ices as Divisian
Z'el:omznau:led i:n the CAliJrmri. St",.", WlZter Bat
M1nuzprnat Practiu H1DUlbooh. Thi:i may
mdude CCIiIsi:rud:ion oJ oil anc:i paM separaktd
in 1M stonn drainage imprave:mcus.. In
;addition, annual maintcru:lrlc:e oj oil and grnse
separator.l shall be zequirecL Plans far this
action shall require approval of the :Engineering
Divi$ion prior to wuance of a grading permit
-
5. The project proponent shall provicie a periodic: Developer Gihoy
sweeping propm for propoHCl roadways. Engineering
driveways, and puJcing areas an thIr project site. Division
Plans for this actiDn shall ntqWre approval of the
Engineering Division prior to issuance of a
grading pe:mit. -
6. The project proponmt shall re-stripe the Developer Gilroy
northbound approach of the San Ysidro Engineering
Avenue/Uavesley Road inmrseaion. Design OivWan
and. implementat:icm of this improvement shall be
ver.i.fied by the aty Engineering DiVisian. prior to
.issuance of a builcling permit.
7. The pmject pmponent shall revise th. Ate plan to Developer G.i.lroy
address the following: Enginftr,ing
Division
. Al.i.sn the driveways of the proposed project
and the Office Max across S;m Ysdiro
Avenue, shlftmg the two 5OUt.hem.most
driveways to the north. This would. allow the
c:reatian of a mai:n signalized I!I:'Itnmce ilt the
southcmmost driveway.
... Shift the n:staurants to the north and relocate
some oithe parking to tht! southwest c:Omer
of the project site. nus D necessary in orc:ler
to realign the driveways at the project site.
The site pla.n shall be nvi5ed prtor to issuaftre of
a building pa:tnit and is subject to re~ by the
City Engineering OiVison.
EMC PI4H,.illg GrouT' Inc.
Homt Dqmt Mitigrztitm MtmitDTillg l'mp'"
A~
I
,
r
I
\
I
"t,,;,i...... .
"
.
.
8. The project proponent shall prepare an on-trite Devflloplr cmoy
imp1'CWemc:nts plan which 5hall include the i:ngir--ll,S
iollowing zraeuura: Division
. Place a signal at the south mtr8nCe ro the:
project site.
. DeSign the lane configuration for the sigN! tc
M"e two outgoing lam!s at each driveway.
The proposed project shall design the , .
driveway to have one exclusive left and a .
sharec:l1eft-through-right lane.
. C~truc:t an exdusive left turn lane, 01'le
through lane anc1 a shazed through/right
tum lane on San Ysidro A venue for both the
north and southbound approad\es ro the -
. driveways.
. Corvrt:ruc:t one outgomg and one incoming
Janel which ;are a minimw:n oE 3S feet Wi.d.I.
not exO!8ding 4S feet wid. at the non-
si~ cb:iveways.
. Wic:!er\ SuI. Ysicirc AVl:r\ue to ll64mce of curb
to face ol c:u:rb ft)Gdwaywith frontage
improvements (sidewllb, landscaping etc.)
within . 84 foot dght-oi-way in front of the .
project: site. The c:urb lanes should be 14 teet .
wide, while the other three Janes shoWd be 12
feet wide, n.ae frontage improvements
shoulci also be made on the Koda/NinOJIlJlya
property to the south to provide a pedestrian
link between the proposed prc;ect and the
outlets fa the south.
. lrtduc:le a bus stop and. proteaion bay on the
site ft1;mtageof the project site, preferably
near thl! signaL
EMC PUnmi:rrg Group Inc.
Hmrre Dt:pot Mitigaticm MoftltDMg ~'''1lI
A-S
.
9.
Thl: project p:cpcmmt shall prepare an emissions
reducticm plm far review and apptoval by thl!
City PlamUnr Division prior to issumu:e ot a
building pemlit. !he emission Mduction plan
sha1I consider. but not be limited to. t.he following
meu~ CU'll:a5Url!5 recommended in the 1996
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines);
· Cupoollvanpool progr.un, ..g., c:arpool ride
matc.hJ:l.g for employee&, aS61&tance with
vanpool formation, provision of vanpool
VehiclllS, etc.
· Transit facilities such as bus tumouts/hus
bulbs, bt!nc:hes, she!ten. etc.
· Preferential parking (e.g., near building
entrance, sheltered area, etc.) for c:mpoo1 and
vlII'lpool vehicles. -
· Secw:-e, w~llt:her-protec:ted bicycle parbt;- fer
employetS.
· Safe. direct access iorbic:yc:lists to acijacenr
bicycle routes,
· ShoweD md lodce:s fer employees bkyding
or walJdng to work.
· Secure .short-term bityc:1e parking tor retail
eustDinl!l5 and other non-c:ommute tzips.
· Direct. ,ate. attTaC'tivl! pedestrian access lrDm
projec:t ro transit stops and adjacent
development.
EMC Plimnmg Croup Inc.
Hamc DrpDt MiH.ptirm MmUtI1ri7rg ProgNm
.
~veICJptIr
GUroy
Pluming
Division
"'C..oI..........
A-6
"'Co:oI ~......
---~-
. ~..
.
.
10. !he following ccmtrol measuns shall be Developer Gilroy
i:ncorporaNd into II1\Y pemtits far aU phases of Plannmg
the project: Division
. Wab!r all active consauctian antaS at leut
twice ctaily.
- Cover all ~cb iululi%\g soil,. sand, and othm'
loose materiAls or require all truclG to
1%\8intain at least two feet of freeboard..
.
. Pave, apply water three times diWy. Ol' apply
(ncm.toxic) soil stabilizers 01\ all unpaved
ac::c:e:ss roads, parking areas and ampS
areas at construc:ticn site.
. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved
alXess roads, parking an.. and staBing
lU'I9I5 at construction siteS.
. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepms) if
visible loil material is carried ontD acljacent
pub1ic streets.
- Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil
stabil.iuzs to inac:t:i.ve construction areas
(previDusly graded uas inac:t:i.ve for ten
days or more).
. Enc:1ose, c:over. watt::' twice daily or apply
(non-toxic::) soil bindc:s to exposed
stockpiles (dm. sand. etc.)
. Limit traffic: speecis on lmpaved roads to 15
mph.
. wtall sandbags or other erosion cantrol
meu\U'eS to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
. Replant vegetation in disturbed ara5 as
quicldy as possible.
. lNtaU wheel wasnezs for all existing tnu:ks,
or wash off the t:in5 or traclros of all tntdcs
and equipment leaving the sire.
EMC P14mri1ag Group Inc.
H01'IU! DqIt't Mitigrttitm. Mt11IitariJIg PrtJgnDn
A,-7
.
.
10. . Install wind breaD, or plant Developer Gilroy
Continued tzesl vqetative wind brub at wmdward Plmming
sic::le(s) of construction iIIrUS. Division
. Suspend excavaaan md grading activity
when windI (iNtmtmeCUS pts) exceed
2S miles pet hour.
Limit the area subject: to excavatian. padiitg
and other constnu:tiDn actiVity It anv eme time- .
11. The projec:t proponent shall provide a fire flow' Developer Gilroy
.....t to verify that sufficimt lite flow is available Engilleering
for commercial/mdustrialland use subj<<t to Division
review md approval'by Oty Enginecing
Division 'Drior to ilNance of a buildinllt 'PemUt.
fMC Plamcing Cnncp inc.
Harne Depot MitlptWn Mrmitllt'ihg Pro~lDft .
A..8
~ "'.....,
.
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
!
I
I
...... "'--
.
.
12. The project p~t shall retain the set'Yice5 ~Joper Santa Clara
of a qualified enviromrwntal testing compa1\Y County Dept.
to collect and tMt random soU samples for of Health
analysis of petroleum hydrocubox1s. including
diesel fuel. in the following areas of the project:
site:
. vidrlity of the waste oil W\k (Mussallan
property);
. vicinity of abanc:lont=u trucks and debris -
piles (Mussallml. property); and. -
. vicinity of septic systcn (Mussallem
property);
. northem md sauthem boundzries of the
Tang property -
The environmentalconswtant shall comply
with all regulations goveming sampling
Inethodologies, shipping and handling
prc:cedura, and testing methodolopa, The
analysia JhaJ1 c:aznply with the planned
schedule and analytic:Dl procedures for:
providing the infoimaticm specified in the State
of Califomia linviroN:nental Protection Agency
Department of Toxh: SubstarlCes Control's
p~ :Etuiangennent AlNSm\cnt {PEA).
Valiclated. c:lata shall be submitbld to the Santa
Clara County Oepart:z:nent of Health, the Santa
Clara VaUey Water District, and the State of
CaUiomia &IviroNnt:ntal Protection Agency
Department of Tom Substances Control for:
review~ri~toas~~ofamilldmgp~t
lrt the event that cot\tam.ination is d.i5cuvered..
affecb!d soils !>hall be temovec:1 in cOlnpliance
with all federal and state regulations goveming
dean-up procedures and disposal of hazardoWl
mattnials. Clem-up shall be certified as
c:om.plete by the Santa Clara County
Department of Halth and the Santa Clara
V Ailey Wate!r District.
EMC PlImning Group 1~.
HD7fI~ DqJOt Mitigrztilm MonitoriJrg 17rJrrtJm
A-9
-T
.~
.
.
13. Due to the possibillty that significant buried Developer Gilroy
cWluml n!5OIUCeS miSbt be found during Plmning
c~ the fo11ow1z1.g lmpap shall be Oivisicr\
included in any pttmits issued far the project
sibl, i:Iduding. but not Jimillld m bui1cling
pcmits for ttMt future development. pursuant to
the review anc::I Bppraval of the Gilroy Plmu1ing
Division:
"If uchaaolDgical resources Dr human ~
are discOVft'ed duringconstruaicm, work shaD. be
halted. at a minimum of 200 feet frozn the find uu!
the iI:rea shall be staked oH. The project .
developer shall notify the c::aroner or a the .
Director al the Ar1:haeolagic:al Regicmal Raearch
Center. If the find is detrm:nirJed to be signi&:mlt.
appropriate mitigation znell5UftS shaD. be
formulated and impJemented."
-
EMC PUm7liftg Graup Inc.
Hr:nru: Depot Mitiptilm MDrritormg PTogIII.tn
A-IO
-
"'Ciol ........
.~ I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,-
.
.
I, RHONDA PELLIN, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached
Resolution No. 98-59 is an original resolution, duly adopted by the Council ofthe City of Gilroy
at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 5th day of October, 1998, 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 13th day of October, 1998.
~~,
City Clerk of the City of Gilroy
(Seal)