Loading...
Resolution 2001-17 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-17 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY MODIFYING AND APPROVING TM 01-01, A VESTING TENTATNE MAP TO CREATE FIFTY-FNE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 34.7 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF TROON WAY, WITHIN THE EAGLE RIDGE DEVELOPMENT, APN 810-41-006. WHEREAS, Eagle Ridge Development Corporation ("Applicant") submitted TM 01-01, requesting a Vesting Tentative Map to subdivide a 34.7-acre lot into fifty-seven (57) single- family residential lots; and WHEREAS, the property affected by TM 01-01 is located at south of Troon Way, within the Eagle Ridge development, APN 810-41-006; and WHEREAS, the Plarming Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 15, 2001, at which it considered this project and voted to recommend approval of TM 00-01 to the City Council; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum was prepared to the EIR considered and adopted in conjunction with General Plan Amendment GPA 90-04, which EIR included forty-one (41) mitigation measures, a mitigation monitoring plan, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, on March 19,2001, the City Council reviewed and considered the proposed EIR Addendum and determined that it was completed in compliance with CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the City, and \NVH\511377.1 014132604706002 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-17 WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 19, 2001, at which time the City Council considered the public testimony, the Planning Division Staff Report dated "Revised March 7, 2001," and all other documentation related to application TM 01- 01; and WHEREAS, the applicant eliminated two (2) lots to increase the land area of the park site, reducing the total number ofresidentiallots to fifty-five (55); 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: A. The City Council finds as follows: I. The project as modified is consistent with the site's land use designation on the General Plan map, and with the policies and intent of the General Plan text. 2. The project as modified is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, the City's Subdivision and Land Development Code, and the California Subdivision Map Act. 3. The proposed vesting tentative map is substantially consistent with the approvals granted to the Applicant by the City Council under the Residential Development Ordinance (RD-92-03, RD 94-01, and RD 99-08). 4. There are no facts to support findings requiring denial of the proposed tentative map pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474. \NVH\511377.1 014132604706002 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-17 5. There is no substantial evidence that this project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. B. Tentative Map TM 01-01 as modified to create fifty-five (55) single-family residential lots should be and hereby is modified and approved, subject to: I. The thirty-six (36) conditions identified in the Staff Report, said conditions attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. The addition of Condition No. 37 to read, "The Applicant shall enter into a RDO performance agreement to the satisfaction of the Plarming Director." C. The City Council hereby readopts the findings, forty-one (41) mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring plan set forth in the EIR considered and adopted in conjunction with GP A 90-04, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd of April, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: MORALES, SUDOL, VELASCO AND MAYOR SPRINGER G. ARELLANO, P. ARELLANO, PINHEIRO NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: NONE APPROVED: ~Jnu.dvJ Q _~ -' / . .,~ Thomas W. Spnnger, Mayor \NVH\511377.1 01-032604706002 3 EXHIBIT A AN ADDENDUM TO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY ADOPTING FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO THE FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE O'CONNELL RANCH (GPA 90-04) The City COuncil finds that one or more significant effects would likely result from approval of this project and that the substantial evidence and mitigation measures relied upon by this Council supporting the required findings are set forth as follows, and the City Council hereby adopts all mitigation measures in the Final EIR except as revised herein, including, but not limited to: I. A. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS LAND USE: 1. Sianificant Effect: (LU-l) The project will reduce the open space character on approximately 500 acres of the site where homes and streets would be constructed. Approximately 135 acres will be converted to golf course open space. OVer 480 acres of the site will be graded during construction of the project. Open space views from Highway 152 and Santa Teresa Boulevard will be affected by the project. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (LU-l) Nine hundred and sixty four acres of open space would be dedicated for preservation in permanent open space within the Hillside Reserve area of the site. Large custom estate lots would be located on the lower hillsides with townhomes, 7,000 square foot, and quarter acre lots located on the lower, flatter area of the site. Three hundred and fifty acres of the site will be used for hillside open space and creekways. One hundred and thirty five acres will be developed as golf course open space. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (LU-2) The City of Gilroy will require that a Homeowners Association or some other district be established that is responsible for maintaining the private open space. In addition, the City will require that a maintenance district, land trust, .endowment, or some other type of district be established to ensure maintenance of the hillside open space areas on the project site, as a condition of project approval. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (LU-3) The project will be required to provide a minimum of two access points to the future Uvas Creek Preserve along the Filice property. The future visitors to the preserve, however, will be excluded from the adjacent golf course. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (LU-4) The City will require a transfer of development rights from the creekways and salamander mitigation areas to ensure that those portions of th~ site remain undeveloped. Findina: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the ,,- ~ Appendix A - O'connell Ranch EIR 2 10/28/92 environmental impact report. (See Statement of OVerridina Considerations, below.) 2. Sianificant Effect: (LU-2) The project will eliminate 130 acres of "Prime Farmland" and "Farmland of State Importance" as well as reduce the grazing potential on other parts of the site proposed for development. Adjacent agricultural land may be prematurely or unnecessarily converted to non-agricultural uses, due to perceived monetary benefits associated with the project. Mitiaation or Avoidance: None. The impact is unavoidable. Findina: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible any mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overridina considerations, below.) B. GEOLOGY: 3. Sianificant Effect: (G-1) The project proposes grading on between 480 and 500 acres of the site which will involve a volume of 4.5 million cubic yards of cut and an equal volume of fill. A maximum cut of over 50 feet is proposed at one location and fill depths would exceed lO feet over a significant portion of the development area. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (G-1) Grading will be controlled by limiting construction to lower flatter areas of the site and locating the larger custom estate lots on the hillside above the lower flatter areas. Grading for roadway construction will be reduced by constructing five bridges across canyons or drainages on the site. Grading of slopes above 30 percent will be limited and cuts of more than lO to 12 feet will generally be limited. The City's Engineering Department will review all cuts with the intent to limit them where feasible. Under special circumstances and in very limited areas, the City's Engineering Department may allow cuts to exceed the maximum 10 to 12 foot depth. Maximum cuts will be limited by the City's engineering criteria. The intent of the Gilroy eng~neerinq criteria is to generally limit grading to the minimum necessary for drainage. Findina: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overridina Considerations, below.) 4. Sianificant Effect: (G-2) The proposed p~oject is subject to potential seismic and slope stability hazards. Bath active and inactive landslides were mapped on the site. An apparent inactive fault on the site has a remote potential for limited sympathetic movement during a major earthquake on a nearby active fault. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (G-2) Seismic hazards to homes will be mitigated by constructing homes to meet seismic Risk Level 4, in accordance with current practices in California. Possible hazard to structures from sympathetic movement on the apparent inactive fault will be avoided by setting buildings back from the fault, or using a foundation that would withstand the minor movement. Hazards from active and inactive landslides will be avoided either by avoiding development and construction activities in the slide area or by engineered excavation and recompaction of landslides. Hazards from Appendix A - O'connell Ranch EIR 3 10/28/92 slope stability and landslides will be reduced by engineering all cut and fill slopes using standard engineering practices for construction of cut.and fill slopes including: not over steepening slopes and using buttress fill in the vicinity of highly fractured and shear materials. Hazards from upslope debris flows and colluvial deposits identified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix A of this EIR), will be reduced or eliminated by conducting specific studies and following the recommendations of these studies. Slope stability will be mitigated by Gilroy's requirement:to generally limit maximum cuts to 10 to 12 feet. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such pr~jects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 5. Sianificant Effect: (G-3) During and after grading, the project will be subject to erosion that could result in downstream sedimentation. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (G-3) Erosion and sedimentation will be reduced by generally limiting the total area of grading and soil disturbances on the site to the lower flatter areas of the site. Erosion will be avoided along most of the drainages on the site by designating approximately 40 acres of the site for 'creekways', with very limited disturbance for roadway construction or construction of biological mitigation measures such as ponds. Erosion will be controlled by limiting grading to the dry season and establishing erosion control measures before the rainy season. An erosion control plan will be prepared that includes the use of straw bale fences, check dams, dikes and settling basins to reduce runoff water velocities and force. Ground cover will be placed on graded surfaces where final grading is complete and pavement or structures will not be subsequently constructed. For example, erosion controlling ground cover will be placed on road cuts and fills above and below roadways. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 6. Sianificant locations on the site structures. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (G-4) Potentially adverse effects from expansive soils will be avoided by placing expansive soils in deep fill and covering with low or non expansive soils. The expansive .soils will be engineered in accordance with specified moisture content and compaction requirements. Where expansive soils are present and building or other structures are proposed, a foundation design will be employed that compensates for the expansive characteristics which could result in structural damage a Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. Effect: (G-4) Expansive soils are present at some which have a potential to adversely affect pavement and ~ j Appendix A - O'connell Ranch EIR 4 10/28/92 C. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE: 7. Sianificant Effect: (VW-l) The project will s~gnificantly reduce the vegetation and wildlife habitat on the sita by. converting grassland and woodland habitat to urban and suburban uses. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (VW-l) Vegetation and wildlife impacts will be partially mitigated by limiting development to less than 510. acres of the site. Nine hundred and sixty four acres will be left undisturbed and dedicated to a public agency for open space: purposes, thereby preserving the wildlife habitat value on this area of the site. Three hundred and eight acres of the site will be preserved as hillside open space, with construction of improvements in this area limited to water tanks and access: roads. for service and maintenance of water facilities. Forty two acres of the: site generally located .along the drainages will be preserved in open space and designated as creekways. Vegetation and wildlife impacts will also be partially mitigated by the use of native plants for landscaping materials whenever possible, since they afford the greatest wildlife habitat. Findina: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overridina Considerations, below.) 8. Sianificant Effect: (VW-2) Approximately 500 to 700 healthy medium and large sized Oak, Bay Laurel, and Sycamore trees will be removed during grading and construction of the project. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (VW-2) The landscaping plans will include a replacement ratio of a minimum of three trees for every tree removed with a trunk diameter of greater than six inches (measured 4.5 feet above the ground). Two thirds of the replacement trees will be native. The replacement trees will be a minimum of one gallon in size. All trees that would be preserved on the site would be identified, mapped, clearly marked, and fenced to the drip line, prior to any construction activity. No construction traffic would be allowed inside the drip line of trees to be preserved. Findina: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overridina Considerations, below.) 9. Sionificant Effect: (VW-3) Native serpentine vegetation and wildlife. will be.impacted by..grading of a grassy knoll located in the southeastern area of the site. Hitiaation or Avoidance: (VW-3) Grading will be avoided entirely or extremely limited on a minimum of 20% of the. serpentine knoll. equivalent to approximately l2 acres. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. lO. Sianificant Effect: (VW-4) impact the intermittent drainages and Construction and suburban uses could their seasonal riparian habitat. c Appendix A - O'COnnell Ranch EIR 5 10/28/92 Mitiaation or ~voidance: (VW-4) A.minimum of 40 acres of open space will be designated for .creekway~ uses, :and maintained along seven drainages on the site. ~nstruction activities will be limited in the seasonal drainages, and Ifive bridges will be constructed for roadway crossings of these drainages. Highly visible fabric fencing or continuous flagging will be placed around the seasonal riparian: habitat to be preserved during:grading "and construction to pre.ent impacts. "Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such~rojects which: mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. ll. Sianificant Effect: (VW-5) Removal of habitat in the project area could affect three speci~s of special concern.that have been identified on the project site. (A field :investigation found no checkerspot butterflies on the site.) The three species are the western pond turtle, red-legged frog, and the California tiger salamander. Each of these species is dependent upon the ponds on the site. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (VW-5) Two of the three ponds on site will be preserved, one located in the southeast corner of the site near Farman Canyon and Miller Avenue and one located in Reservoir Canyon. A total of slightly over 100 acres surrounding the ponds will be left in open space to assist in providing terrestrial habitat and a buffer between urban uses and the ponds. In addition, two new ponds will be constructed and other mitigation measures implemented to provide for self-sustaining population of the three species, as described below. RESERVOIR CANYON POND: 1) Additional open land around this pond has been preserved to avoid impacts to the western pond turtle and red-legged frog. The proposed open space area should provide an adequate buffer area and provide adequate habitat for continued breeding success of these species. 2) In addition, a new tiger salamander breeding pond will be constructed downstream in the immediate vicinity to enhance habitat conditions in this portion of the site. A total of slightly over lOO acres of potential California tiger salamander habitat is included in the project. 3) The perimeter of the mitigation area will be fenced to prevent access by off-road vehicles. FARMAN CANYON POND: 1) Additional open land around this pond has__neen . preserved to avoid impacts to the California tiger salamander. The proposed open space area should provide an adequate buffer area and provide adequate habitat for continued breeding success of this species. 2) An undisturbed corridor between the pond and suitable habitat to the southwest will be provided by retaining Farman Canyon Creek in its natural condition. Residential structures will. be set back from the creek a minimum of 200 feet. 3) A new tiger salamander breeding pond will be constructed in the southwest corner of the project site either within or adjacent to the first tributary to Farman Canyon Creek. 4. Appendix A - O'COnnell Ranch EIR 6 10/28/92 4} Tunnels beneath the entry road will be provided, as well as suitable barriers which are intended to prevent tiger salamander from crossing the road 'and intended to direct migrating salamanders to the tunnels so that they:cross beneath the road. 5) The perimeter:of the mitdgation area will be fenced to prevent access by off-~oad vehicles. A draft California tige~ salamander Mitigation Plan has been prepared, and is included in Appendix L. ~he mitigation concept of this management plan is to retain Farman Canyon Pond, Reservoir Canyon Pond, and areas surrounding these two bodies of water in open space for salam^nder habitat. The developed areas and roads that are located in the vicinity of these ponds will be surrounded by lowiwalls or barriers to exclude salamanders. The entry road that crosses the habitat, in the vicinity of Farman Canyon Pond will includes tunnels to allow salamander movement from one area to another. cut or fill slopes located in open space areas will be planted with native grass to establish upland habitat for this species. The Mitigation Plan provides for the creation and maintenance of salamander breeding habitat in Farman Canyon Pond, Reservoir Canyon Pond, and two new ponds (see Figures 15 and 16). All existing and proposed breeding ponds would be located adjacent to or are within suitable upland California tiger salamander habitat. Specific measures for the creation of each of these breeding ponds are described on pages lO through 19 of the Mitigation Plan in Appendix L. Proper introduction techniques will be utilized to establish salamander within the breeding ponds (see page 23 of the Mitigation Plan). The Mitigation Plan also provides for the protection of the tiger salamander in the development areas and project roads. Off-road vehicle structures, fencing, salamander barriers, salamander tunnels, and special curb and storm drain designs would protect salamander habitat from human disturbance, as described on pages 20 through 22 of the Mitigation Plan (Appendix L). The tiger salamander mitigation areas and other special status species mitigation areas will be established and maintained by an assessment district, homeowners association, land trust, endowment, or other similar entity that is developed as a condition of approval of the project. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. D. VISUAL AND AESTHETICS: l2. Sianificant Effect: (VA-I) The proposed project will result in visual impacts from many vantage points in western, southern and central Gilroy including Santa Teresa Boulevard and Highway 152. From these vantage points, portions of the proposed development would be visible on the lower elevations of the site. Highway l52 and Santa Teresa Boulevard are designated as scenic corridors and, therefore, the project would have a significant visual impact by affecting views from these roadways. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (VA-l) The project will reduce visual impacts by preserving the upper hillside of the project in permanent open space and generally limiting development to the lower flatter areas of the Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR 7 10/28/92 site. Visual impacts from grading will be limited by constructing a 16 foot wide roadway (pavement surface) to serve the custom estate lots located across the toe of the hillside. The project includes a golf course within the clustered residential uses to afford open space. Santa Clara County#s Dequirement of a 100-~oot wide development setback along Santa Teresa Boulevard will reduce visual impacts from this roadway. In conformance with uhis County requirement, the project will restrict any structures within a 100 foot wide strip adjacent to Santa Teresa. Boulevard. Findina: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (See Stat~ment of OVerridina Considerations, below. ) 13. Sianificant Effect: (VA-2) The project would have a potential future visual impact on the views from Uvas Creek, when the park planned for this area is developed. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (VA-2) Potential visual impacts from Uvas Creek will be reduced by the planting of landscaping that screens development from the future park site, and by the presence of a trail system on the south side of Uvas Creek, which is part of the Uvas Park Preserve trail system. Findina: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overridina Considerations, below. ) l4. Sianificant Effect: (VA-3) Water tanks and access roads to serve the tanks may have visual impacts since they will be located on the hillside above the all residential development in areas that could be visually prominent. These features co~ld have significant visual impacts on nearby roadways. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (VA-3) The visual impacts of the proposed access roads and water tanks will be reduced by selecting locations that are as visually obscure as possible from most vantage points. Findina: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overridina Considerations, below. ) E. DRAINAGE AND FLOODING: l5. Sianificant Effect: (DF-l) The proposed project will increase the amount of impervious area on the project site and, therefore~ increase runoff from the site. The project will result in increased storm flows during a 100- year storm and even greater percentage increases during smaller storms, such as a la-year event. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (DF-l) The project will mitigate potential downstream flooding hazards through the preparation and development of a master storm drainage system that includes all of the site's watershed canyons that drain into Uvas Creek. The proposed storm drainage system will include on-site storm water detention ponds and/or downstream channel improvements as necessary to prevent increased downstream flooding hazard." -. Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR 8 10/28/92 Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. l6. Sianificant Effect: (DF-2) The project may have significant flood hazards impacts on .the local drainages between the project site and Uvas Creek. Some downstream drainage channels and pipes between the site and Uvas Creek have inadequate capacity to accommodate a 10 year flood and would be unable to carry additional runoff that would result from project development. Mitioation or Avoidance: (DF-2) The project will mitigate potential flood hazards to local drainages through a combination of on-site storm water detention ponds .(water features on the golf course) and downstream channel improvements. An on-site storm water detention system will prevent increased runoff from the project by holding storm water on the site and allowing it to be released slowly, so that there is no increase over the existing storm flows from the site. Improvements to storm drains, ditches, and culverts will provide sufficient drainage capacity for the post-project 10-year storm flow from the project site to Uvas Creek. Any off-site storm drainage mitigation measures shall include acquisitions of easements and/or rights-of-way by the developer. Any needed acquisition not under control of the developer at the time the tentative map is submitted shall be so noted in the submittal. A master storm drainage plan would be required in order to establish measures to reduce the potential downstream impacts of storm water flows from O'Connell Ranch to Glen Lorna and other adjoining properties. This master plan will be consistent with the City's master storm drainage plan. Findino: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 17. Sianificant Effect: (DF-3) Construction of the project could disturb underlying soils on the site, contributing to sediment erosion and increasing sediment loading in Uvas Creek. In addition, surface runoff from the proposed residences and golf course would contain minor concentrations of oil and grease, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, and heavy metals. Fertilizer and any pesticides applied to the golf course turf could accumulate on the turf, depending upon net application rates, and assuming that surface runoff does not leave the golf course. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (DF-3) The project would be required to conform to the regulations of the Santa Clara Valley Non-Point Source Program. On-site detention ponds would provide locations for pollutant removal through settling, prior to discharge of the storm water runoff into the storm drainage system. In addition, scheduling earthwork activities during the dry season would prevent 'runoff erosion. During construction near the creek corridors, the developer would ensure that debris and soil is not deposited into the Uvas Creek corridor. All existing debris would be removed from the corridors during construction. Any earthwork activity occurring during the rainy season would be separated from street gutters and storm drains by ditches, berms or filtration barriers, such as hay bales. All exposed soils would be watered during the dry season to limit wind Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR 9 10/28/92 erosion. In addition, streets surrounding the construction area would be swept regularly to collect sediment deposited on the streets before it is washed into the storm drains or channels. A golf course operation plan would be developed prior to the issuance of a Planned Development Permit for the development of the golf course. The plan would include the following elements: 1) Strict adherence to manufacturers recommendations and procedures involving chemical applications; 2) Use of chemicals approved by the COunty or Department of Agriculture; 3) Use of only short-lived pesticides; 4) Application of chemicals only by State-licensed personnel; 5) Limited use of chemicals; 6) Proper storage, handling and disposal of chemicals. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. l8. Sianificant Effect: (DF-4) The City of Gilroy Public Works Department has determined that the proposed hillside development associated with the O'Connell Ranch project would generate a significant increase in the routine maintenance over and above that required for a similar project in the flat land areas of the city. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (DF-4) In accordance with the City's requirements, the proposed project would be required to establish a maintenance district, to provide for services in the hillside areas, where maintenance costs are over and above those encountered in the flatland subdivisions. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. F. CULTURAL RESOURCES: 19. Sianificant Effect: (CR-1) Two of the three prehistoric archaeological sites on the property may potentially be impacted by grading and construction activities proposed by the project. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (CR-l) Impacts to the prehistoric archaeological resources will be mitigated by modifying the project to avoid these resources. ~isturbance of the subsurface cultural materials will be limited or avoided by placing fill over the cultural._resource sites, or avoid disturbance by placing open spaces uses where cultural resources sites are located. Earthmoving activities in the area of archaeological sites will be conducted in the presence of a qualified archaeologist and in consultation with a recognized Native American Observer. If disturbance of cultural materials results from striping organic material from the surface or scarification of the surface soil, a limited sample of the deposits will be excavated and recordation made by the archaeologist to provide a record of the resource. After sampling, clean fill will be placed on top of these resources to protect them from future disturbance. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. ~. Appendix A - O'connell Ranch EIR 10 10/28/92 20. Sianificant Effect: (CR-2) The project may potentially impact archaeological resources off of the site during construction ~f underground utilities, sanitary sewer lines, and storm lines. Mitioation or Avoidance: (CR-2) Potential .impactslto off site cultural resources could be reduced by the following measures: I) surface reconnaissance and archival research along proposed alignments, 2) in locations where cultural resources are identified, monitoringiwill be required by a qualified archaeologist during excavation and earthmovinv activities, and 3) if cultural resources are identified, construction will be. halted while a sample of the materials is recovered for recordation in accordance with current standards for archaeological resources. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. G. TRANSPORTATION: 21. Sianificant Effect: (T-l) Upon complete development and occupancy, the project will result in significant traffic impacts at the following five intersections: 1) Intersection 415 - U.S. 101 NB Off-ramp/Leaves ley Road, 2) Intersection 422 - Monterey Street at Leavesley Road, 3) Intersection 467 _ Santa Teresa Boulevard at First Street, 4) Intersection 477 - Westwood Drive at First Street, and 5) Intersection 497 - Santa Teresa Boulevard and the North Project Entry. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (T-l) Roadway improvements are recommended to reduce the project impacts to a non-significant level, as described on pages ll3-l20 of the EIR. As a condition of project approval, the City of Gilroy will require the project to contribute its share of the costs of the improvements through the payment of traffic impact fees. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 22. Sianificant Effect: (T-2) Traffic circulation on Santa Teresa Boulevard could be impacted by project traffic at the two entrance streets to the project site. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (T-2) Impacts to.circulation on Santa Teresa Boulevard will be mitigated by locating the intersections at the entrance streets to meet the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency minimum spacing distance of one quarter mile, and by signalizing the intersections. The signal and intersection improvements at this intersection would be required to'be completed to the ultimate intersection configuration, if the cost of the improvements is to be credited towards the payment of project traffic impact fees. The roadway improvements would include long transition turn pockets on Santa Teresa. All right-of-way dedications shall be made as necessary for these signals, including adequate right-Of-way for acceleration and deceleration lanes along Santa Teresa. The City of Gilroy Public Works Department has indicated that all interim construction costs, as well as all costs for demolition and complete removal of all interim measures (when the ~. Appendix A - O'connell Ranch EIR 11 10/28/92 signals are constructed to the ultimate design), shall be borne by the developer. Since the project will add traffic to. Miller Avenue ,I the City will require that the project include the widening of Miller Road to . half street cross section plus 12 additional feet of pavement on the othe~ half of the street, and any necessary right-of-way acquisitions between the ~outhern property line and Santa Teresa Boulevard. Findina: Changes or alterations have been r~ired in, or incorporated into, such projects which:mitigaue or avoi~ the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the compUeted environmental impact report. 23. Sianificant Effect: (T-3) Traffic:generated by the project will use a fraction of reserve capacity. Existing:traffic together with project traffic, approved project traffic and reasonably foreseeable traffic will a have a cumulative effect upon traffic circulation and congestion. Thirteen intersections would be impacted by cumulative traffic. These intersections are: 1) U.S. lOl NB Off-Ramp/Leaves ley Blvd., 2) U.S. 101 SB Off- Ramp/Leavesley Blvd., 3) Monterey St/Leavesley Blvd., 4) Santa Teresa Blvd./First Street,S) Westwood Dr./ First Street, 6) Santa Teresa Blvd./North Project Entry, 7) Monterey Street/First Street, 8) U.S. 101 NB Off- Ramp/Pacheco Pass, 9) U.S. lOl SB Off-Ramp/Tenth Street, lO) Thomas Road/Thomas Road Extension, ll) Santa Teresa/Thomas Road extension, 12) Santa Teresa/Tenth Street extension, and 13) Santa Teresa/Thomas Road. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (T-3) The project would contribute a traffic impact fee to fund for a roadway improvements proportional to the roadway capacity used by the project traffic. Mitioation or Avoidance: (T-3) If the O'Connell Ranch project proceeds in advance of the Glen Lorna development, then a new traffic analysis will be conducted in order to address the ~pact on the roadway network without the implementation of the roadway ~provements that are required as part of the Glen Loma project. The developer shall provide any all mitigation measures resulting from the additional traffic analysis, as needed. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 24. Sianificant Effect: (T-4) The City of Gilroy Public Works Department has determined that the proposed hillside development associated with the O.Connell Ranch project may generate a significant increase in the routine maintenance of the roadway system over and above that required for a similar project in the flat land areas of the city. Mitioation or Avoidance: (T-4) In accordance with the City's requirements, the proposed project may be required to establish a maintenance district, to provide for services in the hillside areas, where maintenance costs are over and above those encountered in the flat land subdivisions. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. ~ Appendix A - O'connell Ranch EIR 12 10/28/92 H. NOISE: 25. Sianificant Effectl (N-l) Approximately 17 proposed lots along the Santa Teresa Boulevard frontage, north of Miller Road, will be exposed to future noise levels: that exceed the City's 58-decibel residential noise standard as a result of traffic from future buildout of .the Gilroy General Plan. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (N-I) The project proposes a 100 foot setback for all structures on lots along the Santa Teresa Boulevard frontage. Exterior sound levels beyondlthe 100 foot set back will.meet City standards for residential uses. Findina: Changesior alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 26. Sianificant Effect: (N-2) Construction of the project will result in temporary noise impacts in the project area. Construction-related noise would be short-term, occurring primarily during grading and construction on the site. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (N-2) Construction related noise impacts will be mitigated by allowing construction activities only Monday through Friday, between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 1. AIR OUALITY: 27. Sianificant Effect: (AQ-l) The project will contribute to Gilroy's total vehicular emissions on a regional level and would exceed the 150 pound per day threshold for two criteria pollutants. Regional cumulative emissions projected from buildout of the Gilroy area are expected to result in a threefold increase of emissions. Mitioation or Avoidance: (AQ-l) Mitigation of air quality impacts from the project vehicles, as well as for cumulative impacts, is provided by implementation of Transportation Demand Management and Transportation Control Measures encouraged by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District '91 Clean Air Plan. Effective implementation of these measures would achieve up to a five percent reduction in project emissions. Findina: Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overridino Considerations, below. ) 28. Sianificant Effect: (AQ-2) The project will generate dust and particulates during the construction phase of the project. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (AQ-2) Construction generated dust from grading will be controlled by periodic watering. Dust will also be reduced by establishing ground cover on graded surfaces where final grades are complete and pavements and structures will not be subsequently constructed. For Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR 13 10/28/92 example, erosion controlling ground cover will be placed on road cuts and fills above and below roadways upon completion of final grading. ; l"indino: : Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects ~hich mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effec~s thereof as lidentified in the completed environmental impact report. J. WASTEWATER TREATMENT: 29. : Sianificant Effect: (WT-l) Potential impacts to groundwater quality could result, if imprope~ly treated wastewater used for irrigation leaches high concentrations of n~trates into the groundwater table, thus contaminating groundwater wells. : Mitiaation or Avoidance: (WT-l) The project will design and operate the wastewater treatment :facility in a manner that guarantees production of high quality effluent that conforms to Title 22 of the California Administrative Code. Conformance with Title 22 will, thereby, ensure compliance with Order No. 85-82 which prohibits nitrate impacts on groundwater. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 30. Sianificant Effect: (WT-2) Potential impacts to surface and groundwater quality could result from overwatering of the turf and other landscaping, which could result in surface flow of wastewater. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (WT-2) Irrigation of golf course turf and landscaped areas will be on an as needed basis only, applying no more than the volumes necessary to maintain healthy vegetation. All irrigation will cease during rainy periods and retained water will be stored in a lined reservoir on the site. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 3l. Sianificant Effect: (WT-3) Potential impacts to surface and groundwater could result, if there is an escape of wastewater from the storage reservoir during a rainstorm. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (WT-3) For rainy periods and periods of low consumptive demand, such as during winter months, the wastewater storage reservoirs will be sized with adequate capacity to contain the daily effluent contributions (including direct rainfall and runoff from banks and berms) during the extended rainy season corresponding to a 100 year rainfall (120 day capacity) . Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. ~. Appendix A - O'connell Ranch EIR 14 10/28/92 32. Sianificant Effect: (WT-4) The proposed reclaimed wastewater storage reservoir, if it is unlined, may leach excessive nitrates into the groundwater and contaminate groundwater wells. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (WT-4) The project will construct the reclaimed water storage reservoir with a watertight liner to prevent percolation of wastewater into the underlying aquifer(s). Monitoring of groundwater quality immediately adjacent to the reservoir will confirm the adequacy of the reservoir lining to prevent seepage. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitiga~e or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 33. Sianificant Effect: (WT-5) In the event of cataclysmic disaster, the Reclamation facility and storage reservoir may experience total failure and treated as well as untreated wastewater could potentially flow into Uvas/Carnadero Creek. However, if such a cataclysmic event were to occur, it is unlikely that the conveyance system from the G/MHWTP to the satellite treatment plant would remain intact. Therefore, it is unlikely that any sewage other than the amount already on the site, would escape into the Uvas/Carnadero Creek. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (WT-5) The SWRF has been designed to withstand natural disasters. The project would not be impacted by seismic events, since no faults, active or otherwise, are known to traverse the SWRF site. ' Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 34. Sianificant Effect: (WT-6) The proposed satellite treatment plant is located within the floodplain of Uvas Creek. Potential flooding impacts could occur without adequate flood protection. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (WT-6) The project will mitigate potential flooding impacts by constructing a levee to the northeast of the reclamation plant to an elevation of 219 feet. This levee will adequately protect the SWRF from the 100 year flood. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. K. SERvrCES AND UTILITIES: 35. Sionificant Effect: (SU-l) The project will require water service at higher elevations than the existing water system can supply. The project will also require water storage capacity and supply beyond the capabilities of Gilroy's existing water system. Mitioation or Avoidance: (SU-l) The project will include the expansion of the Gilroy water system to serve project demands. The project will include construction of one or more water reservoirs on the site to Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR 15 10/28/92 provide the necessary storage capacity. These reservoirs will be located at an elevation sufficient to provide adequate water pressure. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 36. Sianificant Effect: (SU-3) Emergency fire response times to the site exceed city standards because of the distance to the nearest fire station. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (SU-3) construction of a new fire station in the Ggvilan Community College area will reduce fire response times. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 37. Sianificant Effect: (SU-4) The project will impact police protection services requiring additional personnel and equipment in this department. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (SU-4) The impact to police be offset by Public Safety Impact Fees charged to the project. revenues will offset a part of the increased police protection costs. service will Property tax operational Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 38. Sianificant Effect: (SU-5) The project will generate school-age children that will impact schools, if schools do'not have available space at the time of project development. Currently, all schools in the project area are impacted. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (SU-S) The project will pay the maximum school Lmpact fee authorized by state law at the time the building permits are issued~ The developer shall, as soon as. possible, negotiate with the Gilroy Unified School District to determine the level of additional impacts on the District. In the case of an impasse, the City of Gilroy shall mediate the negotiation. Following completion of the negotiations, the developer shall provide mitigation of the impacts to the School District which may include 1) impact fees, 2) dedication of land, 3) facilities and/or 4) equipment. The developer .shal.l" .submit a .compl..ted mitigation .plan. to the City prior to the application for a tentative map. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report~ 39. Sianificant Effect: (SU-6) The project would impact library services and would potentially impact park services. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (SU-6) Library impacts will be partially offset by tax revenues generated by the project. The project is proposing to -. Appendix A - O'connell Ranch EIR 16 10/28/92 pay approximately four million dollars in park fees, thereby offsetting the demand for approximately 15 additional acres of park land. The project will further dedicate 964 acres of hillside and creekway areas to the City of Gilroy to be maintained as open space. In addition, the proposed golf course will provide recreational opportunities. Park operation and maintenance costs resulting from the demand of future residents of the project will be partially offset by tax revenues. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 40. Sianificant Effect: (SU-7) The project will impact fire protection services requiring additional personnel and equipment in this department. Mitiaation or Avoidance: (SU-7) The impact to fire services will be offset by Public Safety Impact Fees charged to the project. Property tax revenues will offset a part of the increased police protection operational costs. A new fire station is currently being considered to the south of the site in the Gavilan Community College area. The Fire Department of the City of Gilroy and the Public Works Department recommend that a professional location analysis be conducted to analyze the long term city configuration and to recommend locations of the additional fire station(s). The city has further suggested that the major developers in the area pay for this study. This study will assure that new fire station is at the best location to serve the all planned future development before funds are invested in capital improvements for a new fire station. The project would be required to provide adequate fire flows and water pressure to the site in order to ensure a water supply sufficient for fire fighting capabilities. Project roadways would be designed to provide emergency access. Project roadways would generally be no less than 20 feet in width, with no less than 13.5 feet in vertical clearance. The proposed residential, golf course clubhouse, and other project structures would be constructed in conformance with the Uniform Fire Code. Risk of "wildland" fire can be reduced in hillside areas by having a minimum 30 foot setback between residences, garages, and structures. These 30 foot setbacks can be landscaped with irrigated plant materials, such as lawns. Findina: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental . . ~pact report. 41. Sianificant Effect: (SU-8) The City of Gilroy Public Works Department has determined that the proposed hillside development associated with the O'Connell Ranch project may generate a significant increase in the routine maintenance of water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage over and above that required for a similar project in the flat land areas of the city. In addition, the dedication of the 964 acres of open space, in its natural state, would require additional maintenance and increased hillside protection. Mitiaation or Avoidance: requirements, the proposed project (SU-8) In accordance with may be required to establish the City's a maintenance Appendix A - O'COnnell Ranch EIR 17 10/28/92 district, to provide for services in the hillside areas (above the 280 foot contour), where maintenance costs are over and above those encountered in the flat land subdivisions. The City of Gilroy will require that a Homeowners Association, or some other district, be established that is responsible for maintaining the private open space. In additiop,the City will require that a maintenance district, land trust, endowment, orl some other type of district be established to ensure maintenance of the hillsi~e open space areas on the project site, as a condition of project approval. Findina: Changes or alterations ha~ been required in, or incorporated into, such projects which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed en~ironmental impact report. L. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: 42. Sianificant Effect: (CUM) The significant cumulative impacts of the project result from the following: 1) The incremental conversion of undeveloped land to urban-related uses or amendment of the General Plan to allow for more urban-related uses. 2) The incremental loss of agricultural land 3) Impacts of vegetation and wildlife 4) A substantial increase in traffic at the 13 intersections identified in the Subsequent EIR 5) A possible delay in attainment of air quality standards 6) An increase in the amount of groundwater withdrawn 7) An increase in the generation of wastewater 8) An increase in quantity of stormwater runoff to Llagas Creek and Uvas Creek 9) An increase in the demand for fire service by the Gilroy Fire Dept. 10) An increase in demand for police protection 11) An increase in demand for school services Mitiaation or Avoidance: (CUM) The mitigation measures for the project are as discussed above. Findina: With regard to the following cumulative impacts, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant cumulative environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact repQrt: 1) A substantial increase in traffic at the 13 intersections identified in the Subsequent EIR 2) An increase in the amount of groundwater withdrawn 3) An increase in the generation of wastewater 4) An increase in quantity of stormwater runoff to Llagas Creek 5) An increase in demand for police protection 6) An increase in demand for school services With regard to the remaining cumulative impacts identified above, specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the subsequent environmental impact report. (See Statement of Overridina Considerations, below.) ~ Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR 18 10/28/92 II. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES A. No Pro;ect Alternative (environmentallv ~referable alternative~l Alternative: The No Project Alternative consists of leaving the site in its present undeveloped condition. (EIRip. 174) Statement Of Fact: There is currently a shortage of housing in Santa Clara County because the County is unable to provide h~using for its current employees, thus requiring an importation! of workers in~o the County. The housing shortage both in Gilroy and the County as a wh~le are projected to increase by 1995. The Association of BsV Area Gover~nts (A9AG) predicts a major short-fall of housing in the near future in bothlthe City and County if more housing units are not developed. (EIR p. 17; General Plan Housing Element, Technical Appendix, pp. 11-2, I1-5, 11-14, II~l5, III-l.) The primary objective for proposing the project is to provide high quality housing in a planned suburban community to meet the future housing demands in the City of Gilroy as well as in Santa Clara County. In order to meet the future housing demand, a diverse mixture of homes is required. The project proposes construction of slightly over 1,000 homes which will contribute toward balancing jobs and housing both in Gilroy and the COunty as a whole. Findina: The City Council finds that there is a need to increase the housing supply, especially above average income housing, in the City (in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups) in order to accommodate the City's growing population and housing needs (General Plan Housing Element, Technical Appendix, pp. II-2, 11-5, 11- l4, 11-15, III-l). The No Project Alternative would not meet the City's immediate need for increased housing. The City Council thus finds that the No Project Alternative is not desirable. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternative indentified in the EIR. (See Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.) B. Fewer Dwellina Units - Cluster Alternative. Alternative: The "fewer dwelling units cluster alternative" consists of developing 20 percent to 50 percent fewer dwelling units than proposed by the project, but leaving more of the site as undeveloped open space. (EIR p. 174) Statement Of Fact: There is currently a shortage of housing in Santa Clara County because the County is unable to provide housing for its current employees, thus requiring an importation of workers into the County. The housing shortage both in Gilroy and the County as a whole is projected to increase by 1995. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) predicts a major short-fall of housing in the near future in both the City and County if more housing units are not developed. (EIR p. 17; General Plan Housing Element, Technical Appendix, pp. ll-2, 11-5, ll-14, ll-lS, III-I.) The primary objective for proposing the project is to provide high quality housing in a planned suburban community to meet the future housing demands in the City of Gilroy as well as in Santa Clara County. In order to meet the future housing demand, a diverse mixture of homes is required. The project proposes construction of slightly over 1,000 homes which will contribute toward balancing jobs and housing both in Gilroy and the County as a whole. Appendix.A - O'COnnell Ranch EIR 19 lO/28/92 Defelopment of the project site using this alternative could result in a project vith as few as 500 total dwelling units, a 50' reduction from the proposedJplan. One variation of this configuration would consist of eliminat~ng the 8,000 to l5,OOO square foot lots. ,This variation would thus eliminat, much of the higher quality residential element associated with the applican~'s proposed project and a significant deq~ee of diversification in housing types. Findina: The City Council finds that the need to increase the housing supply, ~articularly above average housing, in thelCity (in a range of densities providing for a~variety of family sizes"income levels and age groups) in order to accommodate the City's growing/population and housing needs (General Plan Housing Element, Technical Ap~ndix, pp. 11-2, 11-5, 11- 14, II-l~, 111-1) while at the same time providing; higher quality homes justifies the rejection of the Fewer Dwelling Units Cluster Alternative and justifies the adoption of the proposed project using development densities greater than densities as provided by the Fewer Dwelling Units Cluster Alternative. A greater variety of development densities would be used to create more diversity among the different neighborhood clusters, and to permit lower densities to be used in the upslope areas. The City Council finds that the Fewer Dwelling Units Cluster Alternative is not acceptable. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternative indentified in the EIR. (See Statement of OVerriding Considerations, Section III, below.) C. More Dwellina Units Cluster Alternative. Alternative: This alternative consists of developing 20 percent to 50 percent more dwelling units than proposed for the project. (EIR pp. 175) Statement Of Fact: This alternative would reduce the amount of open space and increase the environmental Lmpacts over those of the proposed project. Findina: For the above reasons, the City Council finds this alternative to be environmentally undesirable. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternative indentified in the EIR. (See Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.) D. Non-Cluster Alternative. Alternative: The Non-Cluster Alternative consists of developing homes over the entire site at a density that is allowed by Gilroy's slope density formula (EIR p. l75). Statement Of Fact: This alternative would generally have the greatest impacts to the site because it would result in the greatest disturbance of the site (EIR p. l75). Findina: For the above reasons8 the City Council finds this alternative to be environmentally undesirable. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternative indentified in the EIR. (See Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.) E. Location Alternatives. Statement Of Fact: The project represents a large single ownership that allows for the Orderly layout of streets, lots, and utilities and is therefore consistent with the provisions of the Gilroy General Plan that encourage this approach (EIR, p. 19). The project location alternatives referenced in the EIR suffer from the following deficiencies: These alternative locations of comparable size (making it economically feasible to support a development -. ~-- Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR 20 10/28/92 comparable to that proposed for the subject site - including a first quality golf ~ourse, 964 acres of prime open space dedicated to a permanent preserve, and h~gh quality housing) would present the major difficulty of not being ownedjby a single entity and thus would require the acquisition of several diver,e parcels from several owners. Jl. Northeast. East. Southeast. and South Alternative. I Alternative: Possible alternative locations for the project are the largejareas of agricultural lands that lie to the northeast, east, southeast, and s~uth of the City (EIR, p. 176). ! Statement Of Fact: These alternative locations would have a greater impac~ on agricultural land/farmland in general and on Prime Farmland in partitular than is proposed by the project, and would not have the benefit of presetving 964 acres of hillside open space as is proposed by the project. Findina: For the above reasons, the City COuncil finds that this is not a'suitable alternative. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternative indentified in the EIR. (See Statement of OVerriding Considerations, Section III, below.) 2. Southwest Alternative. Alternative: The area to the southwest of Gilroy is a possible alternative location for the project (EIR p. 178). Statement Of Fact: This location does not readily provide 964 acres of hillside open space preserve as is provided by the project. The impacts of the project at this alternative location would be slightly greater than at the proposed location since it is farther from the existing urban services and infrastructure of Gilroy (EIR, p. 178). Findina: For the above reasons, the City Council finds that this is not a suitable alternative. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternative indentified in the EIR. (See Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.) 3. West. Northwest. and North Alternative. Alternative: The areas to the west, northwest, and north of Gilroy are possible alternative locations for the project (EIR pp. 178-179). Statement Of Fact: These locations do not readily provide 964 acres of hillside open space preserve as is provided by the project. The impacts of the project at these alternative locations would be slightly greater than at the proposed location since they are farther from the existing urban services and infrastructure of Gilroy. These alternative locations would also have a greater impact on Prime Farmland (EIR, p. 179). Findina: For the above reasons, the City Council finds that this is not a suitable alternative. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible this project alternative indentified in the EIR. (See Statement af Overriding Considerations, Section III, below.) F. Suoerior Alternative: Alternative: The environmentally superior alternative would be the No Project Alternative. The alternate environmentally superior alternative would be the Fewer Dwelling Units Cluster Alternative. Statement Of Fact: Fewer Dwelling Units Cluster Alternative: (See discussion of this alternative above.) Findina: The Council finds that the Fewer Dwelling Units Cluster Alternative would not successfully meet the City's need for increased housing. Specific economic, social, or other considerations (specifically the Appendix A - O'connell Ranch EIR 21 10/28/92 need for housing) make infeasible this project alternative indentified in the EIR. In light of the above discussions of alternatives, the City council finds that the currently proposed project substantially conforms with the Fewer Dwelling Units Cluster Alternative, and yet possesses qualities superior to the latter, i.e., the proposed project more completely meets the City's needs for housing, and therefore the Council finds the proposed project to be the best alternative offered. (See discussion of the Fewer Dwelling Units Cluster Alternative above.) III. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines promulgated pursuant thereto provide as follows: (a) CEQA requires the decisionmaker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes the finding under Section l5091(a)(2) or (a)(J). (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination (Section l5093 of the Guidelines). The City Council finds, as summarized in Section IV of the EIR (p. l82), that the project will result in four significant unavoidable impacts; those being the lass of agricultural production potential, loss of open space, loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat, and visual and aesthetic impacts. The project will also contribute to significant unavoidable cumulative impacts as described in Section I, number 42. above. These impaGts, referenced in the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The City Council hereby finds that the benefits of the proposed project nonetheless outweigh the unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, the impact is considered acceptable because: 1. The loss of agricultural production potential could only be partially mitigated by scaling down the proposed development. 2. The project-related and cumulative loss of open space could only be partially mitigated by scaling down the proposed development and by providing recreational open space as part of the proposal. 3. The project-related and cumulative loss of wildlife habitat could only be partially mitigated by scaling down the proposed development, and by allowing wildlife to exist on the recreational open space which is a part of the proposal. ~ Appendix A - O'Connell Ranch EIR 22 10/28/92 4. The impact on the visual and aesthetic amenities could only be partially mitigated by scaling down the proposal, and by replacing native trees and landscaping in areas that have been graded. 5. The cumulative incremental conversion of undeveloped land could only be partially mitigated by scaling down the proposed development. 6. The cumulative increase in demand for Fire Service could only be partially mitigated by scaling down the proposed development. The City and project sponsor have made reasonable and good faith efforts to mitigate potential impacts which might result from the proposed project. The City Council has imposed numerous conditions of ap~roval and potential design modifications to substantially mitigate or eliminate potential impacts. However, even with these measures, some of which are compensation as well as mitigation, the project will produce certain unavoidable or partially unmitigated impacts as outlined in the preceding Section I of this resolution. Mitigation measures or project alternatives necessary to further mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects referenced in Section I and II, and as identified in the EIR, are infeasible because such measures and alternatives would impose size, density, and location restrictions on the development of the project which would make the project economically infeasible (see analysis of Proiect Alternatives. Section II above) and which would thus prohibit attaining the specific social, economic and other benefits of the project, specifically: 1) The project will increase the housing supply, particularly above average income housing, in the City in a range of densities providing for a variety of family sizes, income levels and age groups in order to accommodate the City's growing population and housing needs (General Plan Housing Element, Technical Appendix, pp. 1I-2, II-S, 11- 14, II-l5, III-I). 2) The project will assist in confronting a shortage of housing in Santa Clara County for individuals employed in the County leading to an importation of workers into the County (EIR p. 17; General Plan Housing Element, Technical Appendix, pp. 11-2, II-5, II-IS, III-l.) 3) The project will permanently preserve 964 acres of publicly-owned open space. 4) The project will serve to conserve and protect prime Class I and II agricultural lands (General Plan, p.IlI-l) by avoiding alternative development which would have a greater impact on agricultural lands (see analysis of Proiect Alternatives. Section II above). 5) The project contributes to meeting the need for recreation facilities open to the public (General Plan, p.VI~2) in..that it includes a golf course and an open space preserve owned by the public or an assessment district, homeowners association, land trust, endowment, or other similar entity. 6) The project provides protection for the California tiger salamander. 7) The project provides a backup system to the City's current wastewater treatment system. Denying the project, adopting the no-project alternative, or requiring further mitigation would prevent or inhibit the City from realizing these benefits. Therefore, the unavoidable adverse environmental effects are found to be acceptable. The City Council finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable.adverse environmental effects of the project. ~. MONITORING PROGRAM O'CONNELL RANCH FINAL SUBSEQUENT EIR A ~tigation monitoring program has been designed for mitigation measures that wouad reduce the significant impacts resulting from the proposed project to a les~ than significant effect. Monitoring procedures and the individuals or agencies responsible for their implementation are identified on the following pages for each impact and mitigation measure. Monitoring procedures are not applicable to significant unavoid~ble impacts,.or to those impacts that are les~ than significant. (NOTE: FOR FULL WORDING OF CODED MITIGATION MEASURES, REFER TO EXHIBIT A.) Land Use MONITORING PROGRAM: (LU-l through LU-4) The Gilroy Planning Director shall ensure the open space mitigation described above is implemented by reviewing the development plans prior to issuance of a grading permit. After completion of grading, the Gilroy Planning Director shall prepare a report documenting compliance with the above described mitigation. Geology MONITORING PROGRAM: (G-l) The Gilroy Public Works Director shall ensure that grading impacts are limited and reduced through the implementation of the mitigation described. The Gilroy Planning Director will review the devel- opment plans and determine that they incorporate the described mitigations, prior to issuance of a grading permit. After completion of grading, the Gilroy Public Works Director shall preparing a report documenting compliance with the above described mitigation. HONITORING PROGRAM: (G-2) The Gilroy Public Works Director will review and approve the geotechnical and soils investigations that provide the engineering specification for grading, roadway design, foundation design, and placement of structures. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the Gilroy Director of Public Works will review grading plans and plans for structural foundations and footings, to insure that they conform with the recommendations of geotechnical and soils investigations. The City. Public Works Director shall inspect the site prior, during, and after construction to ensure that the construction is completed in accordance with the approved MONITORING PROGRAM: (G-3) The Gilroy Public Works Director will review the erosion control plan to ensure adequate erosion control, prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Public Works Director will periodically inspect the grading and construction operation to ensure conformance with the grading plan and the erosion control plan. At a minimum, the grading operation will be inspected in September during the .construction phase of the project, to ensure that erosion control measures are in place prior to the rainy season. -. MONITORING PROGRAM: (G-4) The Gilroy Public Works Director will review and approve the geotechnical, soils, and foundation investigations that provide the engineering specification for grading, foundation design, and placement of structures. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the Gilroy Director of Public Works will review grading plans and plans for structural foundation and footing to insure that they conform with the recommendations of geotechnical and soils investigations. The City Public Works Director shall inspect the site prior* during, and after construction to ensure that the construction is completed in accordance with the approved plans. Vegetation and Wildlife MONITORING PROGRAM: (VW-l) The Gilroy Planning Director will review devel- opment plans and determine that the mitigation measures described above are incorporated into the project before approval of the plan. MONITORING PROGRAM: (VW-2) The Gilroy Planning Director will review the landscaping plans to verify inclusion of the above mitigations. The Planning Director will inspect the site after installation of landscaping and confirm that the mitigation has been implemented. The site will be reinspected on an annual basis for three years to assure that there is a 75\ survival rate of the landscape trees and that dead trees are replaced as necessary to achieve the 75\ survival rate. MONITORING PROGRAM: (VW-3) The Gilroy Planning Director will review devel- opment plans and determine that the mitigation measures described above are incorporated before approval of the plan. MONITORING PROGRAM: (VW-4) The Gilroy Planning Director will review devel- opment plans and determine that the mitigation measures described above are incorporated before approval of the plan. The Gilroy Public Works Director will conduct periodic inspections of the grading operation to ensure that the seasonal riparian habitat designated for preservation is not disturbed by construction activities. MONITORING PROGRAM: (VW-5) The Monitoring Program is included in the Miti- gation Plan to ensure that the site conditions remain suitable for California tiger salamander habitat. Site conditions that will be monitored include: breeding ponds, upland habitat, salamander barriers and tunnels, and off-road vehicle fencing. This Monitoring Program will entail.. examination of the salamander habitat, as well as monitoring the numbers of larval salamanders. In addition, the roads adjacent to and within the project site will be mon- itored for dead salamanders. Specific monitoring activities are described on pages 24 through 33 of Appendix L. An annual report will be prepared and submitted to the Department of Fish and Game for each year of monitoring. The Gilroy Planning Director will review development plans and determine that the mitigation measures described above are incorporated before approval of the plan. Visual and Aes~he~ics MONlTORING.PROGRAM: (VA-l) The Gilroy Planning Director will review (under Design Review) site design, architectural plans, and landscaping plans to assure that visual impacts are adequately mitigated, prior to issuance of any grading or building permit. MONITORING PROGRAM: (VA-2) The Gilroy Planning Director will review all project landscaping plans prior to issuance of any development permits. MONITORING PROGRAM: (VA-3) The Gilroy Planning Director will review the location of the proposed access roads and water tanks prior to the issuance of any development approvals. Drainage and Flooding MONITORING PROGRAM: (DF-l) approve the proposed project drainage requirements, which each lot to the street, or a discharges to Uvas Creek. The Gilroy Public Works Department will review and drainage plans for compliance with the City's include the provision for surface drainage of storm line, or a dedicated drainage channel that MONITORING PROGRAM: (DF-2) The City of Gilroy Public Works Department will review and approve the project drainage plans before the issuance of improve- ment permits. Drainage plans will be required to comply with the City of Gilroy's drainage criteria. The type and extent of drainage improvements will be evaluated as part of the project design review process. MONITORING PROGRAM: (DF-3) The City of Gilroy Public Works Department will review and approve the project drainage plans and golf course irrigation plan before the issuance of improvement permits. Drainage plans will be required to comply with the City of Gilroy's drainage criteria. MONITORING PROGRAM: (DF-4) The applicant would be required to contribute fees to a maintenance district as a condition of project approval. The City of Gilroy Public Works would determine the additional expenditures associated with hillside maintenance, and would then divide the proper assessment by the number of dwelling units approved as part of the project. Cultural Resources MONITORING PROGRAM: (CR-l) The Gilroy Planning Director will review project plans and verify that the site design avoids excavation in the area of arch- aeological sites. In areas where grading could affect archaeological re- sources, the project grading permit will include a provision for a qualified archeologi~al monitor and Native American Observer to be present during the earthmoving activities on the archaeological site. The grading permit will include a provision specifying that, in the event that cultural resources are disturbed, a sample of the impacted resources will be recovered and recorded in accordance with current professional archaeological practices. MONITORING PROGRAM: (CR-2) The Gilroy Planning Director will insure that the above mitigation measures are made a condition of development approvals. ~ .~~- Transportation MONITORING PROGRAM: development approvals following ways: (T-l) The to insure Gilroy Planning Director will review the that they provide for mitigation in Dne of the 1) The mitigation is implemented by the project applicant by the completion of the last phase of development, or 2) The mitigation will be implemented by Caltrans or others by the ~ompletion of the last phase of development, or 3) Funding for the mitigation is included as part of a traffic impact fee and Gilroy will construct improvements by completion of construction of the last phase of the project. MONITORING PROGRAM: (T-2) development approvals and described above. The Gilroy Public Works Director will review the verify that they in~lude the mitigation measure MONITORING PROGRAM: (T-3) The Gilroy Director of Public Works will ensure that the traffic impact fee in effect at the time of development approval is a condition of project approval. MONITORING PROGRAM: (T-4) The applicant would be required to contribute fees to a maintenance district as a condition of project approval. The City of Gilroy Public Works would determine the additional expenditures associated with hillside maintenance, and would then divide the proper assessment by the number of dwelling units approved as part of the project. Noise MONITORING PROGRAM: (N-l) The Gilroy Planning Director will condition issuance of project building permits to the project's compliance with the City's indoor and outdoor noise level guidelines. MONITORING PROGRAM: (N-2) The Gilroy Planning Director will review grading and building permits to ensure that they include the mitigation measures described above. Air Quality MONITORING..PROGRAM: (AQ-l) The Bay Area Air Quality Management District, together with the State Department of Motor Vehicles, will condition the issuance of vehicular registration renewals to the inspection and emissions testing of vehicles. The City of Gilroy Department of Planning and the Department of Public Works will review the project site plans and ensure that bikeways, pedestrian paths, and facilities providing access to public transit are included in the project. -. ,......~ . . MONITORING PROGRAM: (AQ-2) The Gilroy Public Works Director will review and approve dust control measures as conditions of ~he grading permit. To ensure that construction mitigation is implemented, fi~al project approval would be conditioned upon the receipt of a satisfactory construction mitigation plan from the developer/contractor. This plan wouldlspecify the methods of control that will be utilized, demonstrate theiavailability of equipment and per- sonnel, and identify a responsible individual w~o, can authorize additional measures, if warranted. I Wastewater Treatmellt MONITORING PROGRAM: (WT-l) l The design "nd opootation of wastewi\ter treatment facilities and use of recla~ed wastewater for ~rrigation purposes is subject to the requirements of Title 22 of the:California Administrative Code, admin- istered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Regional Water Quality COntrol Board will review and approve the design and operation plans for the wastewater treatment facility, and receive scheduled effluent monitor- ing data to ensure compliance with reclaimed wastewater quality standards. MONITORING PROGRAM: (WT-2) The golf course greens keeper will be responsible for maintaining proper irrigation practices and ensuring that the golf course turf and landscaped areas are not overwatered. The greenskeeper-will prepare an annual report summarizing the success in preventing the runoff of excess irrigation water. The Director of Public Works will review this annual report and periodically inspect the irrigation operation. MONITORING PROGRAM: (WT-3) The design and size of the wastewater storage reservoirs will be reviewed and approved by the Gilroy Public Works Director prior to issuance of building permits. MONITORING PROGRAM: (WT-4) The design of the wastewater storage reservoir will be subject to the review of the Gilroy Public Works Director and the Regional Water Quality Control Board official. Monitoring of groundwater quality would be reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. MONITORING PROGRAM: (WT-5) The design and construction of the satellite wastewater treatment facility will be reviewed by the Gilroy Public Works Director and Regional Water Quality Control Board official. The wastewater treatment plant will be required to meet current earthquake safety criteria for a public facility. The final wastewater treatment mitigation will be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. A project sewer master plan will be required and must be in agreement with the City-wide Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. The project sewer master plan must address phasing of the project sewer and be in concert with the project water and storm drainage master plan phasing. MONITORING PROGRAM: (WT-G) The Gilroy Public Works Director will review and approve the plans for the wastewater treatment facility and associated levee prior to issuance of any building permits. -, , . Services and utili~ies MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-l) The proposed water system will be required to meet City of Gilroy standards. The Gilroy Public Works Director will review and approve the design of the water system prior to issuance of any improvement approvals. MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-3) The Gilroy City Fire Chief will review the project plans and confirm that adequate response times can be achieved prior to is- suing occupancy permits. MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-4) The Gilr~ Planning Director will condition ap- proval of the project to the provision of adequate police protection to serve the site. MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-5) The Gilroy Planning Director will condition proj- ect approvals to include payment of the appropriate school impact fees. If the Gilroy Unified School District determines that the project will impact schools beyond the level offset by school impact fees, the applicant shall, as soon as possible (and before issuance of any building permits), negotiate with the School District and the city and agree to furnish funds and facilities that will fully mitigate such impacts. MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-6) The Gilroy Planning Director will condition ap- proval of the project upon the dedication of approximately 964 acres to the City of Gilroy for open space use. The City of Gilroy will also condition approval of the project upon the payment of park fees. Future residents of the project will be required to pay County property taxes, a portion of which will be distributed to the local parks and library maintenance. MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-7) The Gilroy Planning Director will condition ap- proval of the project to the provision of adequate fire protection to serve the site. The applicant would be required to contribute fees to a maintenance district as a condition of project approval. MONITORING PROGRAM: (SU-8) The applicant may be required to contribute fees to a maintenance district as a condition of project approval. The City of Gilroy Public Works would determine the additional expenditures associated with hillside maintenance, and would then divide the proper assessment by the number of dwelling units approved as part of the project. EXHIBIT B I ;V~~tifigTe][l~6v~M&p: TMOl~Ol CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL February 28, 200 I I. The Subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, Planning Commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its City Council, Planning Commission, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City, City Council, Planning Commission, or other board, advisory agency, or legislative body concerning this subdivision. City will promptly notifY the subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding against it, and will cooperate fully in the defense. This condition is imposed pursuant to California Government Code section 66474.9. 2. The Developer shall comply with the mitigation measures of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project as adopted in Resolution 92-79 and as set forth in Exhibit "A" of such Resolution, adopting findings, mitigation measures, and statements of overriding consideration, and Exhibit "B" of such Resolution, setting forth a mitigation monitoring program. This includes the Tiger Salamander Mitigation Plan (by LSA, dated August 8, 1996). The developer shall also comply with the traffic mitigation measures in the Traffic Analysis Report (by Keith Higgins & Associates, dated July 1996). See also item 3E of these . Conditions. The Developer shall be responsible for design, right-of-way dedication, construction, monitoring, and other costs associated with the mitigation measures. 3. An Improvement Agreement for each phase shall be executed between the Developer and the City for constructing and funding the various public and private improvements associated with this project. 4. The following designates the agreements which shall be executed to specifY the responsibility for construction, maintenance, and funding of various areas and systems within this project. The Vesting Tentative Map shall conform to these agreements. Details of each agreement, which shall include enforcement and cost recovery mechanisms for the benefit of the City, shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and City Attorney. a. Private Open Space, Private Streets, and Storm Water System. Agreement between the Homeowners Association and the City, whereby the Association assumes all responsibility for maintenance of such improvements. The agreement shall include the requirement for the Association to prepare a management plan and a weed abatement plan for approval by the City Engineer and implementation by the Association. b. Tiger Salamander Area. Agreement between the Homeowners Association and the City. The agreement shall include maintenance and monitoring of all designated areas and compliance with the Salamander Mitigation Plan. c. Maintenance District No.1. The Developer shall annex this project to Maintenance District No. I to provide a mechanism for payment of additional costs of maintenance for the water system, the sanitary sewer system and the storm drain system. d. Traffic Impact Mitigation. Incorporated into Improvement Agreements between the Developer and the City. Based initially upon evaluation of data presented in the Traffic Analysis Report (Keith B. Higgins & Associates, July 1996). The Improvement Agreement shall require development of a traffic monitoring program by the Developer with an identified monitoring schedule and criteria, and a process for phasing the mitigation requirements in response to the monitoring results. The City Engineer shall determine the mitigation measures required to be designed, constructed, and funded by the Developer with each respective phase of Eagle Ridge development. These resulting requirements including funding, credits and reimbursements, shall be itemized in the improvement agreement for the phases in which each improvement is required. The agreement shall also require payment of Traffic Impact Fund (TIF) fees, plus a one-time payment of $30,000 for Eagle Ridge's pro-rata share of SR lOl/Castro Valley improvements in the last phase. If the Santa Teresa Boulevard extension to SR 101 is scheduled prior to Castro Valley construction, the $30,000 may be used by the City for the Santa Teresa project. e. Recycled Water. Agreement between the Developer and the City. The South County Regional Wastewater Authority (SCRWA) recently commissioned a system master plan. The results of the study will be used to formulate an agreement with Eagle Ridge which shall address the mechanism for participating in the recycled water program, the payment of fees and pro-rata reimbursement for work performed on the system by the Developer, and issues related to interim use of recycled water by the Golf Course prior to construction of storage reservoirs. . f. CC&Rs. The Developer shall submit Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for review and approval by the City Attorney, which shall require compliance with those conditions of approval applicable to the declarant or Homeowner's Association and shall be recorded against the project. g. Public Path. Agreement between the Developer and the City. The Developer shall pay the costs of Master Planning and constructing the Class I trail segment according to the City's specifications from the western terminus of the Uvas Creek Trail to Santa Teresa Boulevard, in lieu of providing a 35-foot Uvas Creek Trail easement with two access points along the Eagle Ridge frontage. The amount and form of payment shall be determined by the City Engineer. The Developer has agreed to Master Plan to the City's specifications both the future south and north creekside Class I trail connections that will be needed at Santa Teresa Boulevard. The Developer has agreed to pay the costs of the future north side Class I trail connection including the Santa Teresa Boulevard connection which will be connected to the existing Class I trail that terminates at Laurel Drive and Uvas Park Drive. The north side trail connection will be constructed by the City of Gilroy as part of the City of Gilroy's Uvas Creek Park Preserve - Phase II project. The south side Class I trail connection will be a future City improvement. 5. The Developer shall pay the following development impact fees in accordance with relevant City ordinances and procedures. The amount of the fee for each lot is that fee in place at the time of approval of the ] . School . Police Park Fire Traffic Storm Sewer Water Public Facilities 6. The Developer shall prepare a "Safe Route to School" plan for the overall development as part of the Phase I Final Map process. This plan shall be reviewed and revised by the Developer at each subsequent phase. The plan and any revisions shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Retaining walls shall be constructed with permanent materials such as concrete, steel, rock, or masonry, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Modular system walls are preferred. 7. Grading operations shall conform to the requirements of the Eagle Ridge Geotechnical Exploration Report (by ENGEO, dated October 24, 1995). 8. This development shall conform to the Hillside Development Guidelines, except as modified and approved through the PUD process, and subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 9. The Developer understands that approval of the Vesting Tentative Map does not imply City approval of the various development master plans for infrastructure systems. Each phase of the development will require specific study and design by the Developer of infrastructure systems serving that phase, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. EASEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS 10. The Developer shall provide an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City for areas shown on the Vesting Tentative Map as Public Open Space. Such Public Open Space shall have street frontage and an area large enough to provide a staging area for future off-street parking and public access, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to City acceptance of the public open space, the applicant shall work with the City to help resolve the issues of operation and maintenance of the public open space, including the possible need for funding and related options which may include, but are not limited to: a maintenance district, land trust, endowment or some other type of district acceptable to the City. STREETS II. All streets shall be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association. 12. The Developer shall construct all-weather interim access roads not less than 20 feet in width for Fire access, as well as an approved water supply system capable of providing adequate fIre flow, prior to beginning combustible construction, subject to review and approval of the Fire Marshal and City Engineer. 13. Dead end access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall terminate at a paved turnaround with a radius of not less than 39 feet to accommodate fIre vehicles. All turnarounds are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 14. The Developer shall provide dual access for each phase of development. The interim secondary access shall be a paved road at least 20 feet wide. All interim access roads are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal. 15. The Developer shall design and construct southbound bus pull-outs at the time the Eagle Ridge main and south entrance roads are constructed and also at the Miller/Santa Teresa intersection when the first intersection improvements are made by the Developer. Developer shall design and construct the northbound bus pull-outs when interim traffic signals are constructed at the three locations. Design shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. SANITARY SEWER 16. The sanitary sewer shall be a gravity system, designed and constructed using the City's' standards and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. STORM WATER AND WATER QUALITY 17. To ensure water quality, the Developer shall conform to Federal and State Non-Point Discharge Elirnination Program (NPDES) requirements. This includes filing a Notice of Intent with the State Department of Water Resources and preparing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. WATER SYSTEM 18. The Developer shall install, test, and make operational an approved water supply system capable of providing adequate fire flow serving each phase of development, prior to start of combustible construction, subject to approval by the Fire Marshal. 19. The Developer shall install two-inch water service for all homes requiring sprinklers. 20. The Developer shall install pressure reducing devices when the pressure exceeds eighty pounds per square inch. 21. The Developer shall mark Zone I and Zone II water lines, valves, hydrants and meters. The marking system shall be approved by the City Engineer. 22. The Developer shall install City-standard fire hydrants not more than 300 feet apart on all streets within the development. The locations shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal. 23. The Developer shall perform a fire flow test and correct all deficiencies, in a manner subject to approval of the Fire Marshal. 24. Existing wells shall be capped by the Developer in accordance with applicable City and County standards. BUILDING LOTS 25. The Developer shall conduct grading operations in conformance with the Tree Protection Plan. Exceptions may be granted by the Planning Division Manager for special circumstances. FIRE PROTECTION 26. In order to address potential fire safety issues, outlined within the prior EIR, RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS, DESIGNED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH N.F.P.A. STANDARDS, SHALL BE REQUIRED ON ALL BUILDINGS WITHIN THIS VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshal 27. .Class "A" fue-retardant roofing shall be installed on all buildings. 28. All roof eaves shall be "boxed-in", with one-hour fire resistive construction. 29. Exterior ventilation openings shall be limited to 144 square inches and shall be covered with non- combustible 1/4 inch metal screen. 30. All exterior walls shall be one-hour fire-resistive construction. 31. Spark arresters shall be installed on all chimneys. 32. Cantilevered decks shall be protected on the underside by one-hour fire resistive construction. Fire retardant planting within private landscaping areas shall be required for all lots where sprinklered buildings are required and all "B" parcels (30-foot wide fIre easements RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 33. Unless this project is exempt from the application of the City's Residential Development Ordinance ("RDO", City Zoning Ordinance Sections 50.60 et seq.), no building permit shall be issued in connection with this project if the owner or developer of such development (i) is not in compliance with the RDO, any conditions of approval issued in connection with such development or other City requirements applicable to such development; or (ii) is in default under any agreement entered into with the City in connection with such development pursuant to the RDO. 34. For each approved build-out year (2000 through 2005), the developer will be allowed to receive building permits, for individual homes, in number corresponding directly to the amount granted to the project by the City Council under the 1992/1994/1999 RDO allocations (RD 92-03, RD 94-01, and RD 99-08). SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 35. To prevent pollutants from construction activity, including sediments, from reaching Uvas-Carnadero Creek, follow the Santa Clara Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program's recommended Best Management Practices (BMP) for construction activities, as contained in "Blueprint for a Clean Bay" and the "California Storm Water Construction BMP Handbook," subject to the review and approval by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Planning Division. NOISE 36. The homes constructed on the western edge of the property, (lots 54, 55, 56, and 57) adjacent to Bonfante Gardens, shall be constructed with noise rated windows and forced ventilation. Prior to construction, at the building permit stage, the STC noise rating shall be determined. It is expected that windows with a STC noise rating of 26-to-36 will be required and doors could have a STC rating of 24 to 28, to ensure that noise levels remain at 45dB Ldn or below in the interior of the homes. \\FS _ CITYHALL\VOLUME _l\USERS\BILLF\PLANNING\SCHAPELL\TM 01-0 I, conditions of approval.doc I, RHONDA PELLIN, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certifY that the attached Resolution No. 2001-17 is an original resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 2nd day of April, 2001, 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 18th day of April, 200 I. ~~~ ;;:2~~ City Clerk of the City of Gilroy (Seal)