Loading...
Resolution 1999-72 . . RESOLUTION NO. 99-72 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY APPROVING AlS 99-18 (PUD), AN APPLICATION FOR, ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) INVOLVING APPROXIMATELY 1.4S ACRES, APN 790-14-001 RESOLUTION NO. 99-72 WHEREAS, Custom One, Inc. ("Applicant") submitted NS 99-18, an application for architectural and site approval of a planned unit development ("PUD") for an I.4S acre parcel located at 9095 Monterey Road, south of Las Animas Avenue; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), a Negative Declaration, along with a MitigationIMonitoring program, was adopted by the City Council on February 13, 1996, which included this project in connection with a general plan amendment application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed application NS 99-18 at its duly noticed public meeting on July 29, 1999, and recommended that the City Council approve NS 99-18; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting on August 2, 1999, at which time the City Council considered the public testimony, the Staff Report dated July 22, 1999, and all other documentation related to application NS 99-18; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this project approval is based is the office of the City Clerk. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: IKHM\453069,01 98-081004706002 -1- . . A. The City Council hereby adopts the following findings as required by Zoning Ordinance section SO.SS based upon substantial evidence in the record: 1. The project conforms to the site's land use designation on the General Plan map, and the General Plan standards of development. 2. The project offers single family residential housing to south Santa Clara County and northern San Benito County, thereby fulfilling a specific need of the surrounding area. 3. Public utilities and infrastructure improvements needed in order to serve the proposed project are in close proximity. 4. The project provides a harmonious, integrated plan which justifies exceptions to the normal requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The setback and height limitation exceptions being made are justified by the Applicant's agreement to include quality architectural design which exceeds minimum requirements, guest parking bays which exceed the number of stalls required for this project, a decorative entryway, and a landscaped park area. S. The project continues the pattern of development in this area. Single family residences abut three sides of the property, and a public highway and railroad abut the property on the fourth side. 6. The project includes landscaping provisions which will meet or exceed those required, including street trees, and landscaping which must be continuously maintained in an orderly, live, healthy, and relatively weed-free condition. IKHM\453069,01 98.081004706002 -2 - RESOLUTION NO. 99-72 . . 7. The project is harmonious with other developments along Monterey Road. 8. Any impacts from traffic congestion, noise, and other adverse effects will be mitigated to the extent feasible. 9. The project provides adequate access, parking, landscaping, trash and storage, as necessary. B. The City Council hereby finds: 1. The project will not be detrimental to public welfare or InJunous to persons or property in the vicinity. 2. There is no substantial evidence in the record that this project will have a significant impact on the environment. C. NS 99-18 should be and hereby is approved subject to: 1. The eighteen (18) conditions set forth in the Staff Report dated July 22, 1999, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. The mitigation measures set forth in the Negative Declaration and the MitigationIMonitoring Program, attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. This approval becomes effective if and only if, and on the same date that, zoning ordinance Z99-02 becomes effective. Otherwise, this approval is null and void without any action by the City. IKHM\453069,01 98-081004706002 -3- RESOLUTION NO. 99-72 . . PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7TH day of September, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ARELLANO, GIFFORD, MORALES, ROWLISON COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE COUNCILMEMBERS: SUDOL, GILROY APPROVED: NOES: ABSENT: K.A. Mike Gilroy, Mayor ~. ~" Rhonda Pellin, City Clerk IKHM\453069,01 98'()61 004706002 -4- RESOLUTION NO. 99-72 . . Community Development Department Planning Division Staff Report July 22, 1999 FILE NUMBER: PUD AlS 99-18 "Las Animas" subdivision APPLICANT: Custom One, Inc. (% Gary Walton) LOCATION: 9095 Monterey Road, south of Las Animas Avenue STAFF PLANNER: Melissa Durkin REOUESTED ACTION: Planned Unit Development review of an 11 lot single family subdivision. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Parcel No.: Parcel Size: Flood Zone: 790-14-001 1.45 acres (63,313x square feet) "X," Panel # 060 340 OOOID, Panel Date: 8/17/98 STATUS OF PROPERTY: Existing Land Use Former CET Training Center STATUS OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY: Existing Land Use North: Single Family Residential East: Monterey Highway Southern Pacific Railroad South: Single Family Residential West: Single Family Residential General Plan Designation Low Density Residential Zoning RI General Plan Designation Low Density Residential NIA NIA Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Zoning RI-PUD NIA NIA RI-PUD RI-PUD EXHIBIT A . . 7/22/99 (PUD) AlS 99-18 2 CONFORMANCE OF REOUEST WITH GENERAL PLAN: The proposed project conforms to the land use designation for the property on the General Plan map, and is generally consistent with the intent of the text of the General Plan document. This project also conforms to the policies of Gilroy's General Plan. The following examples demonstrate this compliance: Urban DeveloDment and Communitv Desil!l1 (Section II): 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 has been within City limits for many years. 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 surrounded by developed property to the west, north and south, and municipal services are available near this site. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: NEGATIVE DECLARATION An Initial Study was prepared for this site in November 1995. The study identified potentially significant effects on the environment, however the applicant has agreed to individual mitigation measures that will avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impacts will occur. A Negative Declaration with 14 mitigation measures was adopted on February 13, 1996. Staff has subsequently reviewed this Initial Study in conjunction with the proposed project (AtS 99-18) and fmds that the proposed project is substantially consistent with this prior approved environmental document. RELATED APPLICATIONS: Z 99-02 q This Application Accompanies this Request A Zone Change request to change the zoning designation of this property from Rl (Single Family Residential) to RI-pUD (Single Family Residential-Planned Unit Development). TM 99-06 q This application accompanies this request A Tentative Map request to subdivide I.4S acres into 11 single family lots, with one (1) common lot. . . (PUD) AlS 99-18 3 7/22/99 RDO BACKGROUND: This project consists of the development of 11 homes that will be constructed in two phases over a three-year period. Zoning Ordinance section SO.62 (b) (1) allows projects that produce 12 residential units or fewer within a three-year period to be exempt from the requirements of the Residential Development Ordinance. ANALYSIS OF REOUEST: The applicant (Custom One, Inc.) is requesting Planned Unit Development Architectural & Site Review approval to construct 11 dwellings on a lAS-acre project site zoned Rl-PUD (Single Family Residential- Planned Unit Development). The lots on which these homes will be constructed will result from Tentative Map application TM 99-06, if it is approved. If approved, this site will have a zoning designation of Rl-PUD (Single Family Residential-Planned Unit Development). The applicant is proposing to use the flexibility of the pUD overlay to allow this project to have exceptions from Zoning Ordinance regulations. Specifically, the homes in this development are designed with reduced front, rear, and side yard setbacks, and the proposed detached garages exceed maximum height restrictions. Setback ExceDtions The following setback exceptions are requested for this project: ~ The applicant is requesting the homes' front yard setbacks to be as little as 15 feet, rather than complying with the standard front yard setback of 20 feet. Staff has two concerns with reduced front yard setbacks. The first concern is if a garage is a dominant feature in the front elevation of the home, a reduced front yard setback will negatively impact the streetscape. The applicant has addressed this concern by designing this project with detached garages located in the rear of each lot. The second concern is reduced setbacks on both sides of a street may result in a neighborhood that is more urban in character than is typical for Gilroy. The c1oseproximity of the homes to the street and the reduced amount of landscaping create this urban quality. The applicant has addressed this issue by providing a park area in the middle of this development. This park area provides recreational space, allows for a separation of the homes, and creates a sense of openness on the site. ~ Lot five in this development is a five-sided lot. The rear of this lot is demarcated by its northerly and westerly boundaries. A portion of the home on this lot has an 8- foot setback to the northerly property boundary, rather than the required IS feet. Staff has two concerns with the proposed rear yard setback. The first concern is that the privacy of the homeowners north of this site will be compromised. Staffhas determined that this should not be an issue, because only a comer of the home will be set back 8 feet, and there are no windows in this portion of the home. . . (PUD) NS 99-18 4 7/22/99 The second concern is reduced rear yard setbacks decrease the size of the rear yards. In this situation, the rear yard is small in some areas, but is larger in other areas. Overall, the size of the' rear yard on this lot is comparable to the rear yards in the remainder of this development. ~ Lots one and eleven will have side yard setbacks of 6 feet adjacent to Monterey Road, rather than the 10-foot setback required for side yards adjacent to a street. Staff has two concerns with the proposed rear yard setback. Tbe first concern is that the proximity of the house will cause increased noise exposure to its residents. This will not be an issue, because the Initial Study for this project includes design requirements that attenuate the noise exposure experienced by residents to City-required levels. Tbe second concern is there will be a greater visual impact to Monterey Road because of the close proximity of these houses. Staff recommends addressing this issue by requiring the homes that are visible from Monterey Road to include architectural enhancements (e.g. decorative shutters and framed windows). Garal!e Heil!ht Exception The applicant is proposing to construct detached garages in this development that reach a height of 22 feet at their peak, rather than the maximum allowed height of 14 feet. The applicant is requesting this exception to create an appealing architectural design. Staff has two concerns with the proposed garage height. The first concern is that the height may compromise the privacy of neighboring sites. Staff has determined that this will not be a concern, because the garage will be single story, with attic space only in the roof area. There will be no second story windows looking into neighboring yards. Staff recommends that a condition be placed on this project that requires the developer to place a deed restriction on each of these parcels that will prohibit the use of the garage attic area for anything other than storage. The applicant provides several amenities in exchange for the flexibility requested in this application. These amenities include an architectural design that far exceeds minimum standards, guest parking bays that exceed the number of stalls required for this project, a decorative and landscaped entryway, and a centrally located park area. Staff feels that although the proposed project is not in strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, it meets the intent of the PUD concept, particularly when reviewed with project amenities. HOME & GARAGE DESIGN: The applicant is proposing to construct four different models of homes on this site, with 9 different front elevations. All of the homes will have detached two-car garages with a decorative porch, shop area, and storage loft. All of the structures will have a heavy composition roof, and feature a stucco finish exterior with stucco stone at the front elevation, and include wood trim, barge rafters, and shutters. (PUD) AfS 99-18 s 7/22/99 . . The house and garage plans are described below: House Plan 1: Plan 1 is a two-story, three-bedroom home with 1400 square feet of living area. This home features a steeply pitched gabled roof over half the house, with smaller hip elements along the front elevation. The front entry of this model is slightly recessed. Tbe plan reversal of this home features steeply pitched hip roofs instead of the combination hip and gable design. House Plan 2: Plan 2 is a two-story, three-bedroom home with 1600 square feet of living area. This home features a steeply pitched gable roof over half the house, with smaller hip elements along the front elevation. The front elevation includes a recessed entry, and a decorative second-story non-functional balcony feature. Tbe plan reversal of this home features steeply pitched hip roofs instead of the combination hip and gable design. House Plan 3: Plan 3 is a two-story, four-bedroom home with 1813 square feet of living area. This home Jeatures a steeply pitched gable roof over half the house, with extensive trim details, and a larger hip roof along the front elevation, The front elevation includes a recessed entry with a small porch. The plan reversal of this home features a steeply pitched hip roof over the front porch. House Plan 4: Plan 4 is a two-story, four-bedroom home with 1934 square feet of living area. This home features a steeply pitched gable roof over a quarter of the house, with extensive trim details, and multiple hip roofs along the front elevation. The front elevation includes a recessed entry with a small porch. There is no proposed plan reversal of this home. Garage Plan: A 22-foot-high, 615 ct square foot detached two-car garage with a shop area, porch, and storage 10ft. This garage features a hip roof reaching 22 feet high, with two small dormers. The shop area features double entry doors and counter space. The plan reversal of this garage features a gable roof reaching 21.5 feet high with one dormer. The porch on the garage plan reversal features decorative wood posts. Monterey Road will provide access to this development. A new one-way, looped private street will provide access to the homes within the development. The proposed street alignment is consistent with minimum City Development standards. 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; . . (PUD) NS 99-18 6 7/22/99 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 ofland 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 of APPROVAL of this Planned Unit Development Architectural and Site Review request to the City Council for the following reasons: A. The proposed project is generally consistent with the exemption from the Residential Development Ordinance, as specified by Zoning Ordinance section SO.62 (b) (1); B. The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the City's General Plan document; C. The proposed project is generally consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance. Exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance can be justified by the provision of architectural design that exceeds minimum requirements, guest parking bays that exceed the number of stalls required for this project, a decorative entryway, and a landscaped park area. The project is consistent with 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 mitigation measures to be applied; F. The proposed project is consistent with surrounding development; G. The proposed project is consistent with Tentative Map application TM 99-06; and . . 7/22/99 (PUD) NS 99-18 7 H. The proposed project is consistent with PUD fmdings A through 1, as stated in Zoning Ordinance Section 50.55. Staff further recommends that the approval of this application be subject to the following conditions: 1. Mitigation Measures 1 through 14 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 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 2. Approval of NS 99-18 is subject to the applicant receiving approval of Zone Change application Z 99-02 and Tentative Map application TM 99-06. 3. Landscaping: Landscaping plans including specifications for an irrigation system shall be approved by the Planning Division in accordance with the adopted Consolidated Landscaping Policy, prior to 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 Consolidated Landscaping Policy and the approved specific landscape plan. This shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 4. The developer shall submit a detailed landscaping plan for the entire project site, including all common landscaping areas and decorative entry, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 5. The developer shall be required to install street trees according to the Consolidated Landscaping Policy. The developer will be required to obtain a Street Tree Permit prior to installation of the trees. This shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Services Division 6. 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. 7. Exterior Lighting: No unobstructed beam of exterior lighting shall be directed outward from the site toward any residential use or public right-of-way. This is subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 8. Building colors shall be earth tones subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 9. Hydrant locations and water main sizing shall be subject to approval by the Building, Life, and Environmental Safety Division, prior to the issuance of any building permits. 10. Street improvements and the design of all storm drainage, sewer, and water lines, and all street sections and widths shall be subject to the review and approval of the Engineering Division. . . 7/22/99 (PUD) NS 99-18 8 II. The overall project shall comply with the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section S.SO, "Site Design Requirements", pertaining to proposed individual dwelling unit designs, subject to review and approval by the Planning Division. 12. The Engineering Division shall assign street addresses. 13. All utilities to, through, and on the site shall be constructed underground, in accordance with Municipal Code Section 21.120, subject to the review and approval of the Engineering Division. 14, All improvements are to be done per City of Gilroy Standards, subject to the review and approval of the Engineering Division. IS. All grading operations and soil compaction activities shall be per the approved soils report and shall meet with the approval of the City Engineer. Grading plans shall show grades of all adjacent properties, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Engineering Division. 16. All weather rue access roads and fire hydrants shall be in place prior to start of any combustible construction, subject to the review and approval of the Deputy Fire Marshall. 17. The portion of those homes that can be seen from Monterey Road will be required to include architectural enhancements (e.g. decorative shutters and framed windows). This shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. 18. The applicant shall place a deed restriction on each ofthese parcels that will prohibit the use of the garage attic area for anything other than storage, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. Respectfully, ~ llham Faus Planning Division Manager . Planning Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION . City of Gilroy 73S1 Rosanna St. Gilroy, CA 9S020 (408) 848-0440 City File Number: GPA 95-03 Project Description: Name of Project: Nature of Project: Center for Employment Training General Plan Amendment Request to change the General Plan designation of a 1.45 acre site from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, and perform design review of apartments to be constructed at this site. Project Location: Location: 909S Monterey Road, South of Las Animas Avenue Assessor's Parcel Nmnber: 790-14-00 I Entity or Person(s) Undertaking Project: Name: Address: Center for Employment Training 701 Vme Street, San Jose, CA 95110 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 9S020. Findings & 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 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. EXHIBIT B . . Preliminary Neg. Dec./GP A 9S-03 Page 2 12/19/9S 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 staff; and this Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City of Gilroy. Mitigation Measures: L The project shall be designed in accordance with earthquake design regulations of the Uniform Building Code, subject to the review and approval of the City Building Division. 2. A soils investigation shall be prepared for the project by a qualified soils engineer. The recommendations of the soil investigation shall be incorporated into the final improvement plans and shall be reviewed and incorporated into the final improvement plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineering Division prior to approval of the final map. The purposes of the soils investigation are to determine the exact soil characteristics and limitations on the site, and to recommend appropriate engineering specifications for development of the site. 3. The design and construction of all storm drainage improvements serving the project site shall be provided by the developer, subject to revieW and approval by the City Engineering Division. 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 in the hillside away from the streets and buildings and into approved drainage structures, 4. Developers shall pay the appropriate storm drain development fees, subject to review by the City Engineering Division, prior to building permit issuance. . . Preliminary Neg. Dec./GP A 9S-03 Page 3 121l9/9S S. Redesign the site plan to eliminate the northern driveway. Alternatively, the northern driveway shall be restricted for inbound right turns only. The redesigned site plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval by the City Engineering Division and the City Fire Department, prior to approval ofthe site plan. 6, For exterior noise control, the developer shall construct 10 foot high acoustically-effective patio fences at the sides of patios that have a direct or side view of Monterey Road and that are within 83 feet of the centerline of the roadway. Patios between 83 feet and 179 feet of the centerline of the road, with a direct or side view of the road, require 8 foot high fences. All other patios that have a direct or side view of the roadway require six foot high acoustically-effective fences. The fence heights are in reference to the nearest patio pad elevation. To achieve an acoustically-effective property line barrier or patio fence, it must be made air-tight, i.e., without cracks, gaps, or other openings and must provide for long-term durability. The barrier shall be identified on the final map and included in the final improvement plans. They shall be subject to review and approval by the City Planning Division prior to approval of the final map. 7. For interior noise contro~ all windows within 31S feet of the centerline of Monterey Road, and with a direct or side view of the roadway, shall remain closed at all times. Wmdows within 113 feet of the centerline of the road shall have windows rate minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) 33. Windows between 113 feet and 179 feet of the centerline of the road, require windows rated minimum STC 28. All other windows of the project, including bathroom windows, may have any type of glass. Alternatively, the STC 28 windows specified above to be maintained closed may be kept open 50 percent of the time for natural ventilation, however, they must be fitted with windows rated minimum STC 37, When windows are maintained closed for noise contro~ some type of mechanical ventilation to assure a habitable environment should be provided. The mechanical ventilation requirements are specified by the Uniform Building Code. The windows specified to be maintained closed are to be operable, as the requirement does not imply a "fixed" condition. All other windows and all bathroom windows may have any type of glazing and may be kept opened as desired unless the bathroom is an integral part of a living space without a closable door, such as is sometimes found in a master bedroom suite. 8. Prior to development of the site, the developer shall pay required City of Gilroy Public Safety impact fees. . . Preliminary Neg. Dec./GP A 9S-03 Page 4 12l19/9S 9, The developer shall provide statutory impact fees to the Gilroy Unified School District prior to issuance of a building permit. 10. Prior to development of the site, the developer shall pay required City of Gilroy Parks and Recreation impact fees. 11. All on-site wells shall be permanently capped in compliance with the standards set forth by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the City Engineering Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. The design of all sewer line improvements serving the project site shall be provided by the developer, subject to the rev;ew and approval of the City Engineeri.'lg Division, 13. The design of all storm drainage improvements serving the project site shall be provided by the developer, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineering Division. 14, If archeological resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work shall be halted within SO 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 19, 1995 End of Review Period: February 13, 1996 Date Approved By City Council: William Faus, Planner III j J .J j J J Appendix C Mitigation Monitoring Program /" 1 j ] t' ifi. ] ~r:.:' "- ~, ') I, ~: ;,1 '1 'liI1.- \i;: '~ I .ir. ,', i~::' 'j f) 1 J ., _4 Center for Employment Training Initial Study 1 I I Center for Employment Training Initial Study Mitigation Monitoring Program Introduction j ~ t 1 I j J I . 'W' 1!" "1 I "k,:~ ;~' 1",'1, Vii ,';i 1 ] J On January 1, 1989, the California State Legislature passed into law Assembly Bill 3180. This bill requires public agencies to adopt reporting or monitoring programs when they approve projects subject to an environmental impact report or a negative declaration that includes mitigation measures to avoid significant adverse environmental effects. The reporting or monitoring program is to be designed to ensure compliance with conditions of project approval during project implementation in order to avoid significant adverse environmental effects. The law was passed in response to historic non-implementation of mitigation measures presented in environmental documents and subsequently adopted as conditions of project approval. In addition, monitoring ensures that mitigation measures are implemented and thereby provides a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. A definitive set of project conditions would include enough detailed information and enforcement procedures to ensure the measure's compliance. This monitoring program is designed to provide a mechanism to ensure that mitigation measures and subsequent conditions of project approval are implemented. 4: Monitoring Program }'1.", The basis for this monitoring program is the mitigation measures included in the initial study. These mitigation measures are designed to eliminate or reduce signifi- cant adverse environmental effects to levels of insignificance. These mitigation mea- sures become conditions of project approval which the applicant is required to complete before, during, and after Implementation of the proposed project. The attached checklist is proposed for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures. This monitoring checklist contains all appropriate mitigation measures in the initial study. Center for Employment Training Initial Study Monitoring Program Procedures It is recommended that the City of Gilroy utilize the attached monitoring checklist for the proposed project. The monitoring program should be implemented as follows: 1. The City of Gilroy Planning Division should be responsible for coordination of the monitoring program, including the monitoring checklist. The Planning Division should be responsible for completing the monitoring checklist and distributing the checklist to the responsible individuals or agencies for their use in monitoring the mitigation measures. 2. Each responsible individual or agency will then be responsible for determining whether the mitigation measures contained in the monitoring checklist have been complied with. Once all mitigation measures have been complied with, the responsible individual or agency should submit a copy of the monitoring checklist to the City of Gilroy Planning Division to be placed in the project file. If the mitigation measure has not been complied with, the monitoring checklist should not be returned to the Planning Division. 3. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, the Planning Division should review the monitoring checklist to ensure that all mitigation measures and additional conditions of project approval included in the monitoring checklist have been complied with. An occupancy permit should not be issued until all mitigation measures and additional conditions of project approval included in the monitoring checklist have been complied with. 4. If a responsible individual or agency determines that a non-compliance has occurred, a written notice should be delivered by certified mail to the project proponent within 10 days, with a copy to the Planning Division, describing the non-compliance and requiring compliance within a specified period of time. If a non-compliance still exists at the expiration of the specified period of time, construction may be halted and fines may be imposed at the discretion of the City of Gilroy. Mitigation Monitoring Program i i~ ~ ! ~ '~ I 1 4 , J 1 , j . . MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST Center for Employment Training (GPA9S-03 and Z9S-QS) Initial Study Prior to recordation of the Final Subdivision Map, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: Mitigation Party Responsible Party Responsible for Number Nature of Mitigation for Implementation Mon itorinq 2 Conduct soils investigation Developer City Engineering Division 3 Design storm drain improvements Developer City Engineering Division 5 Redesign site plan to eliminate Developer City Engineering Division & northern driveway City Fire Department 6 Design acoustically-effective Developer City Planning Division barrier as required by the noise study in accordance with existing 7 IiIi'eR8PrI6ise control specifications Developer City Planning Division 12 Design sewer line improvements Developer City Engineering Division 13 Design storm drainage Developer City Engineering Division improvements . . MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM CHECKLIST Center for Employment Training (GPA95-03 and Z95-08) Initial Study Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the following mitigations shall be implemented: Mitigation Party Responsible Party Responsible for Number Nature of Mitigation for Implementation Monitorina 1 Development designed in Developer City Building Division accordance with earthquake design reguiations 4 Pay storm drain development fees Developer City Engineering Division 8 Pav required public safety fees Developer City Planning Division 9 Pay statutory impact fees to Developer City Planning Division school district 10 Pay required parks and recreation Developer City Planning Division impact fees 11 Cap on-site well Developer City Engineering Division 14 Include archaeological resources Developer City Planning Division language on all construction plans I I . t . . I, RHONDA PELLIN, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certity that the attached Resolution No. 99-72 is an original resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 7th day of September, 1999, 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 22nd day of September, 1999, ~A~ City Clerk of the City of Gilroy (Seal)