Resolution 2005-02
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-02
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GILROY MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) IN
CONNECTION WITH THE HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN FOR
WHICH AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN
PREPARED, AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MEASURES AND
APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE
PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Gilroy ("City") intends to
approve the Hecker Pass Specific Plan project, referred to herein as the "HPSP" or
the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Project was the subject to a Final Environmental Impact Report
("FEIR" or "Final EIR") prepared by the City as the lead agency in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code 9 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, 915000 et seqJ ("CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the FEIR for the Project consists of the Draft EIR ("DEIR") dated May
2004 (State Clearinghouse Number 2003012119), and the FEIR dated August 30, 2004,
prepared for the City of Gilroy by EMC Planning Group Inc.; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was prepared and comments received from
responsible agencies pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4. The Notice of
Preparation response period began on January 30, 2003 and ended on March 1, 2003. A
public scoping meeting was noticed, and held at Gilroy City Hall on February 13,2003; and
WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was circulated for public review for 45 days beginning on
May 28, 2004 and ending on July 12, 2004. The Notice of Availability was posted by the
Santa Clara County Clerk on May 30, 2004, and published in the Gilroy Dispatch on June 1,
2004. Copies of the proposed FEIR were sent out on August 30, 2004, to public agencies
who commented on the Draft EIR, and made available for public review; and
WHEREAS, the proposed FEIR, and the Project were considered by the Planning
Commission at a duly noticed public hearing on September 2, 2004, followed by study
sessions on September 9,2004, and October 14,2004, and a duly noticed public meeting on
November 4, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the proposed FEIR and the Project were considered by the City Council
at a duly noticed public hearing at a special meeting on November 8, 2004, followed by study
sessions on November 22, 2004, and November 29, 2004, and additional duly noticed public
hearings on December 6, 2004, and December 20, 2004; and
WHEREAS, CEQA requires that, in connection with the approval of a project for
which an EIR has been prepared which identifies one or more significant environmental
effects, the decision-making agency make certain findings regarding those effects; and
IJH1646570.2
01-011105-04706089
-1-
Resolution No. 2005-02
WHEREAS, the City Council on December 20, 2004, certified that the FEIR had
been completed in compliance with CEQA; that the City Council had reviewed and analyzed
the FEIR and other information in the record and had considered the information contained
therein, including the written and oral comments received at the public meetings on the FEIR
and the Project, prior to acting upon or approving the Project; and that the FEIR represents
the independent judgment of the City.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY, AS FOLLOWS:
1. The findings and recommendations set forth herein are made by this City
Council as the City's findings pursuant to CEQA relating to the Project. The findings
provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City Council regarding the Project's
environmental impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives to the Project.
2. The Mitigation and Monitoring Program for the Project (the "Program") is
attached to this resolution as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated herein and adopted as part of
this resolution. The Program identifies impacts of the Project and corresponding mitigation
measures and designates responsibility for mitigation implementation and the agency
responsible for the monitoring action.
3. This City Council hereby finds and recognizes that the FEIR contains
additions, clarifications, modifications and other information in its responses to comments on
the DEIR for the Project, and also incorporates information obtained by the City since the
DEIR was issued. This City Council hereby finds and determines that such changes and
additional information are not significant new information as that term is defined under the
provisions of CEQA, because such changes and additional information do not indicate that
any new significant environmental impacts not already evaluated would result from the
Project and do not reflect any substantial increase in the severity of any environmental
impact. No feasible mitigation measures considerably different from those previously
analyzed in the DEIR have been proposed that would lessen significant environmental
impacts of the Project; and no feasible alternatives considerably different from those
analyzed in the DEIR have been proposed that would lessen significant environmental
impacts of the Project. Accordingly, this City Council hereby finds and determines that
recirculation of the FEIR for further public review and comment is not required under
CEQA.
4. This City Council does hereby designate the City Clerk's office of the City of
Gilroy, at 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020, as the custodian of documents and
record of proceedings on which the decision is based.
5. This City Council does hereby adopt the mitigation measures in the FEIR as
set forth or modified herein as conditions of the Project; and
6. This City Council does hereby make the following findings with respect to the
significant effects on the environment of the Project based on facts within the administrative
record as a whole, and as identified in the FEIR, with the stipulation that all information in
these findings is intended as a summary of the entire record supporting the FEIR. Any
mitigation measures and/or alternatives that were suggested by commenters on the DEIR and
IJH1646570.2
01-011105-04706089
-2-
Resolution No. 2005-02
not adopted as part of the FEIR are hereby expressly rejected for the reasons stated in the
responses to the comments set forth in the FEIR and in the record:
I. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINDINGS REGARDING
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
1. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Land Use Changes that Could Result in
Conversion of Farmland/Agricultural Land Use Conflicts. Operational noise, dust, and
agricultural chemicals associated with agricultural production could be a nuisance and health
hazard to sensitive receptors such as residential, school, and church uses. Conflicts between
agriculture and other land uses could result in pressure to convert farmland to non-
agricultural use. This would be considered a significant adverse environmental impact.
Mitigation: The policies stipulated within the HPSP ensure land use conflicts will not occur
within the specific plan area. To reduce potential conflicts, the HPSP requires a 50-foot
buffer between crops and dwelling units to ensure residents are not affected by noise, dust, or
spray drift or other adverse conditions from chemical applications and other agricultural
activities (Policy 5-12). Site features and improvements within the buffer may include
agricultural maintenance roads, driveways, public roads, swales or landscaping and may act
as a fuel transition zone for structures. The HPSP also requires that an Integrated
Agricultural Management Plan be incorporated into the Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions (CC&R's) for all properties that include agricultural uses (Policy 5-10). The
Integrated Agricultural Management Plan should ensure that agricultural operations and
residential uses may coexist with minimal conflict by identifying appropriate times and uses
of farm machinery, and suitable weed abatement, pest control, fertilization, and erosion
control.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
B. AIR QUALITY PROJECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
1. Inconsistency with the Clean Air Plan for Operational Emissions - Significant
and Unavoidable Impact. The City of Gilroy General Plan is inconsistent with the
population projections and vehicle miles traveled projections used in preparing the Clean Air
Plan (CAP). The volume of operational emissions that would be generated under City of
Gilroy General Plan bui1dout conditions is greater than anticipated in the CAP. The
proposed general plan amendment and HPSP would result in development of 418 more
dwellings that were assumed in the City of Gilroy General Plan. Therefore, just as in the
General Plan, the HPSP is inconsistent with the CAP and its implementation would hinder
progress towards achieving the BAAQMD performance objectives for reducing operational
emissions to level needed for the air quality basin to be in attainment for all criteria
pollutants.
IJH1646570.2
01-011105-04706089
-3-
Resolution No. 2005-02
.
Mitigation: The HPSP includes provisions for pedestrian and bicycle trails and would
enable development of local commercial services that could be accessible by residents within
the specific plan area. These elements of the HPSP would serve to reduce the number and
length of vehicle trips taken by future residents, thereby marginally reducing vehicle related
air emissions. The feasibility of extending transit service to one or more areas within the
specific plan area has yet to be fully evaluated by the VT A. If service were feasible, this too
would marginally reduce the generation of vehicular emissions from implementation of the
HPSP. However, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Finally, providing
housing units in the Hecker Pass Specific Plan area will lessen the need for expansion of
infrastructure and construction of housing units in undeveloped areas of Gilroy and
surrounding communities. This more compact development pattern will contribute to a
reduction in vehicle-related air emissions.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will not avoid or substantially
lessen the impact. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. See
Statement of Overriding Considerations, Seotion III.
Cumulative Impact on Air Quality: Significant and Unavoidable. The implementation
of the HPSP would result in a significant cumulative impact on air quality. The provisions
and policies contained in the HPSP will not avoid or substantially lessen the impact.
Finding: This impact is considered to be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable. See
Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III.
2. Inconsistency with the Clean Air Plan for Short-Term Emissions - Potentially
Significant Impact. Approval of the HPSP would not directly result in short-term air
emissions, as it is not a specific construction Project. However, it does provide direction for
subsequent specific projects that would be the direct source of such emissions.
Mitigation: Comprehensive short-term air emission control measures shall apply to
individual projects. Projects shall prepare and implement the dust control measures during
grading and construction activities in accordance with the specifications set forth in
mitigation measure 4 of the FEIR.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
3. Violation of Air Quality Standards (Construction Emissions) - Potentially
Significant Impact: PMIO can cause respiratory ailments if breathed into the body.
Construction projects involving grading and other earth movement can generate significant
quantities of PMIO. Projects involving large amounts of earth movement near sensitive
receptors such as residences, senior housing facilities, and schools can have a potentially
significant health impact. The major sensitive use is the adjacent Village Green, where
facilities for senior housing and care are located. These sensitive receptors could be affected
by emissions from construction equipment, as well as the generation of significant quantities
of PMIO during site preparation activities. This is considered a potentially significant
environmental impact.
Mitigation: Comprehensive short-term air emISSIOn control measures shall apply to
individual projects. Projects shall prepare and implement the dust control measures during
IJH1646570.2
01-011105-04706089
-4-
Resolution No. 2005-02
grading and construction activities III accordance with the specifications set forth III
mitigation measure 4 of the FEIR.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
C. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
1. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact- Special Status Species (California Tiger
Salamander, Western Spadefoot Toad, Foothill Yellow-legged Frog, California Red-legged
Frog, Western Pond Turtle, Stee1head, Yellow-breasted Chat, and Yellow Warbler
potentially occurring in or along Uvas Creek). Breeding habitat for these species is
potentially present in and/or adjacent to Uvas Creek. The riparian corridor also provides a
potential migration corridor for these species if they are present. The remainder of the
Specific Plan area does not contain appropriate habitat. Development activities that degrade
habitat in or adjacent to Uvas Creek could cause significant impacts to special status species.
Mitigation: Specific Plan policies stipulating that Uvas Creek will be designated as
permanent open space and with buffers along the Uvas Creek riparian corridor, discouraging
human intrusion into natural riparian habitat by limiting access into the riparian corridor and
restricting trails to dirt paths and natural wildlife corridors, and requiring a qualified biologist
to inform construction workers of potential presence of the special status species prior to
construction will reduce impacts to a less than significant level (see Policies 5-13, 5-14, and
5-27 through 5-54).
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
2. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact - Special Status Specie: There is potential
aestivation habitat for the California Tiger Salamander in upland portions of the Specific
Plan area located north of Hecker Pass Highway. The majority of the area is designated for
open space uses. However, a portion of this area is designated for residential development.
The direct impacts on California Tiger Salamander or its habitat from this development
would be considered a significant impact.
Mitigation: Conducting California Tiger Salamander surveys in the grasslands north of
Hecker Pass Highway prior to the approval of development entitlements, in accordance with
the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 5 of the FEIR, is feasible, and fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. A survey would be
conducted to determine if the property is aestivation habitat for the California Tiger
Salamander. If it were found to be habitat, the City and the developer would consult with the
responsible agencies during the subsequent environmental review process for proposed
development on the property to determine the appropriate protection.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
3. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Special Status Species (Burrowing Owl) -
The specific plan area provides potential habitat for burrowing owls, although none was
IJH1646570.2
01-011105-04706089
-5-
Resolution No. 2005-02
observed during the field investigation. Potential burrowing owl habitat is limited to
approximately seven percent of the specific plan area, which occurs predominately in the
area designated for Open Space located north of Hecker Pass Highway. A small portion of
the potential habitat is also located in an area designated for Hillside Residential uses. The
HPSP does not propose development within either area, though widening of Hecker Pass
Highway through the Hillside Residential area and human disturbance within both areas
could result from implementation of the HPSP. Should active burrowing owl nests occur on
or immediately adjacent to the specific plan area, any construction or disturbance within or
immediately adjacent to nest habitat, if conducted during the nesting season, could result in
the direct loss of nests, including eggs and young, or the abandonment of an active nest by
the adults. The loss of active burrowing owl nests, if determined to be on site, would be a
significant impact.
Mitigation: The Specific Plan policy requiring burrowing owl pre-construction surveys is
feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. A
survey would be conducted to determine if the property is nesting habitat for burrowing owls.
If active nests are found, a burrowing owl habitat mitigation plan will be submitted to the
California Department of Fish and Game for review and approval. The plan would be
implemented after approval.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
4. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Special Status Species (Loggerhead
Shrike and Nesting Raptors). Trees located along the Uvas Creek riparian corridor or in the
oak woodland area have the potential to provide nesting habitat for loggerhead shrike and
several protected nesting raptor species. No evidence of nesting activity was observed in the
trees during site investigations. However, if active nest(s) of loggerhead shrike and/or
raptors species should occur in the trees, any construction and/or site preparation activities, if
conducted during the nesting season, could result in the direct loss of nests, including eggs
and young, or the abandonment of an active nest by the adults. The loss of individuals of
these species or actions that cause abandonment of nests would be considered significant
impacts.
Mitigation: The Specific Plan policies requiring loggerhead shrike and nesting raptors pre-
construction surveys are feasible, fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or
other measures.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
5. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Loss of Riparian Woodland and Oak
Woodland Habitat-The HPSP designates Uvas Creek and the riparian woodland area for
open space uses. Impacts to the riparian woodland would be limited to extension of the Uvas
Creek Trail along the riparian corridor and to potential human disturbance within the
corridor. The Hillside Residential area is located within oak woodland habitat. Disturbance
to the oak woodland or riparian habitat is considered a potentially significant impact.
\JHI646570.2
01-011105-04706089
-6-
Resolution No. 2005-02
Mitigation: The following mItIgations when implemented will effectively mItIgate
significant adverse effects from conflicts with biological protection policies by protecting
riparian woodland and oak woodland habitat. The Specific Plan seeks to preserve rare and
endangered species to the greatest extent possible. To achieve this goal, development
locations are mostly limited to lands subject to agricultural and horticultural uses with little
or no habitat value. The habitat that may be affected by additional development will be
protected by the additional environmental review required by the HPSP.
Specific Plan policies that designate Uvas Creek as permanent open space and provide
buffers along the Uvas Creek riparian corridor, minimize encroachments into Uvas Creek
buffers by establishing development setbacks, and protect riparian woodland and oak
woodland habitat are feasible, fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or
other measures and are set forth in Policies 6-1 and 6-2.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
6. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Disturbance of Sensitive Riparian
Habitat/Hydrologic Disturbance -Any work within or along Uvas Creek could disturb the
sensitive riparian habitat and natural hydrologic processes. This is considered a potentially
significant impact. Additionally, any work in or along the Uvas Creek may require
consultation with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game,
or National Marine Fisheries Service depending on the activity.
Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are feasible, and when, implemented, will
effectively mitigate significant adverse effects from conflicts with biological protection
policies by protecting riparian woodland. It is the goal of the HPSP to promote sensitive
habitat areas as permanent open space to preserve the natural resources of the area. This
coupled with the coordination with respective responsible and trustee agencies will ensure
that sensitive riparian habitat and hydrologic processes are impacted in a less than significant
manner, protecting the riparian habitat ofUvas Creek.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
7. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Interference with Wildlife Movement-If
any special status species occur in or along the Uvas Creek or oak woodland, nighttime
lighting, and/or people and unleashed pets wandering into these areas could restrict the
movement or activity of or disturb or kill one or more of these special status species. Injury
or death of a special status species would be considered a significant environmental impact.
Mitigation: The Specific Plan policies protecting wildlife movement are feasible, fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
8. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Conflict with Local Policies Protecting
Open Space and Habitat Areas (Significant Trees)- The Gilroy Consolidated Landscape
Plan defines native trees that are six inches or more in diameter to be significant trees.
IJH1646570.2
01-011105-04706089
-7-
Resolution No. 2005-02
Several trees are located along Uvas Creek, as well as the oak woodland habitat located along
the northern portion of the Specific Plan area. In addition, severa11arge trees are distributed
throughout the Specific Plan area. Any native trees that are greater than six inches in
diameter may be considered significant. Removal of these trees could represent a significant
impact.
Mitigation: The Specific Plan policies protecting significant trees are feasible, fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
D. CUL TURAL RESOURCES
1. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Loss of Historical Resources -The Specific
Plan area contains several potentially historic resources, including structures and
landscaping, which could require demolition or relocation to accommodate development.
Demolition of the historic resources associated with the Ousley house would be considered a
significant impact.
Mitigation: The Specific Plan policies protecting the potentially historic Ousley House
structures and landscaping are feasible, fully enforceable through permit conditions,
agreements, or other measures.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
2. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Change in Significance of Archaeological
Resources - The Specific Plan area is located in an archaeo10gically sensitive area. In
addition, a potentially significant archeological resource has been identified in an area north
of Hecker Pass Highway that is proposed for development. The likelihood of discovering
subsurface significant archaeological resources during site preparation for infrastructure
development or building construction in all locations within the specific plan area is high.
Disturbance of prehistoric or historic cultural resources during development is considered a
potentially significant impact. Damage or destruction to the potentially significant
archeological resource site would be a significant adverse impact. Implementation of the
mitigation measure 6 in the FEIR would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less
than significant level.
Mitigation: The required archaeological assessment to minimize disturbance to possible
archaeological resources prior to the approval of development entitlements, in accordance
with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 6a of the FEIR, is feasible, fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
3. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Disturbance to Human Remains. The
specific plan area is not known to contain human remains. However, the Project site is
IJH1646570.2
01-011105-04706089
-8-
Resolution No. 2005-02
located within an archaeo10gically sensItIve area and the possibility of accidentally
uncovering human remains is a possibility. This would be considered a significant adverse
environmental impact.
Mitigation: The required archaeological assessment to minimize disturbance to possible
human remains prior to the approval of development entitlements, in accordance with the
specifications set forth in mitigation measure 6b of the FEIR, is feasible, fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
E. GEOLOGY
1. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Exposure of People to Landslide
Hazard-Development proposed north of Hecker Pass Highway could, if improperly sited,
be subject to hazards from unstable landslide areas. Exposing people and property to
landslide hazards is considered a significant adverse environmental impact.
Mitigation: The Specific Plan policies sufficiently protect people and property from
potential landslide hazards, and are feasible, fully enforceable through permit conditions,
agreements, or other measures.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
2. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Soil Erosion-Soils within the Specific
Plan area are not considered to be highly erodab1e. Build out of the Specific Plan area would
result in significant exposure of soils to the erosive effects of rain and storm water runoff as a
result of grading and other site preparation activities. The proximity of the Specific Plan area
to a sensitive biological habitat and to Uvas Creek makes soil erosion and the subsequent
potential deposition of sediment within these sensitive areas a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation: The Specific Plan policies sufficiently protect soil from erosion, and are
feasible, fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Exposure of Future Residents, the Public,
and Users of Community Facilities to Hazardous Materials - The extent to which future
residents of the site, visitors to commercial uses, and school children would be exposed to
hazardous materials from historical use of the Specific Plan area for agricultural use cannot
be adequately assessed without further evaluation. Analysis is needed to identify if the
hazard exists and to ensure that hazards, if they do exist, are adequately mitigated prior to
development.
IJH1646570.2
01-011105-04706089
-9-
Resolution No. 2005-02
Mitigation: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is required to identify hazardous
materials in the soil and ensure that identified hazards are mitigated appropriately in
accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 9 of the FEIR, which is
feasible, fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Erosion of Uvas Creek Banks From
Storm Water Runoff/Increased Bank Instability for Third Street Extension -The
proposed extension of Third Street would result in two minor encroachments into the Uvas
Creek setback defined in the HPSP. The roadway improvement could, if not properly
designed, result in storm water runoff being conveyed over the creek bank and require
grading/excavation or other actions that could facilitate instability of the bank margins.
Mitigation: The Specific Plan policy requiring that any improvements, including the
encroachments of Third Street, that extend into the setback from Uvas Creek must be
reviewed by the project geotechnical engineer and mitigations implemented is feasible, fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures (see Policies 5-25 and
5-26).
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
2. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Short Term Storm Water Runoff Water
Quality Effects-Build out of the Specific Plan area would require a significant amount of
grading for site preparation and construction activities. This could result in significant
erosion during a storm event.
Mitigation: Specific Plan policies that require preparation and implementation of an erosion
control plan, in combination with the implementation of water quality BMPs, would reduce
potential impacts to a less than significant level (see Policy 5-24). The policies are feasible,
fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
3. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Long Term Water Storm Water Runoff
Quality Effects-The proposed development could introduce contaminants associated with
urban runoff into local groundwater and surface water. Construction activities have the
potential to result in erosion of soil from wind or water, including washing of mud from the
site into areas of sensitive habitat. This is a potentially significant environmental impact.
Mitigation: Specific Plan policies requiring storm water collection and treatment and
compliance with regulatory requirements of the NPDES, are feasible, fully enforceable
through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures (see Policies 5-24, 5-35, and 8-8
through 8-17).
IJH1646570.2
01-011105-04706089
-10-
Resolution No. 2005-02
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
4. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Exposure of People or Structures to Flood
Hazard -The Uvas Creek setback of 100 to 145 feet from toe of bank should be sufficient to
prevent construction of significant improvements within the flood hazard zone. However,
there is a need to prevent damage to or impacts from improvements that may be constructed
within a flood hazard zone. Exposing people or structures to flooding is considered a
significant adverse environmental impact.
Mitigation: Public recreational facilities with foundations or support on the ground that are
located within 50 feet of the Uvas Creek top of bank will conform to the requirements of the
Santa Clara Valley Water District in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation
measure 10 of the FEIR.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
H. LAND USE IMPACTS
1. HPSP: HPSP Inconsistency with the City of Gilroy General Plan Target Dwelling
Unit Number for the Hecker Pass Special Use District - Significant Impact: The HPSP
is inconsistent with target number of dwelling units described in the City of Gilroy General
Plan for the Hecker Pass Special Use District. The Specific Plan proposed up to 530
dwelling units to be constructed, although the Plan as revised proposes up to 506 units. The
City of Gilroy General Plan projects a total of approximately 112 dwelling units within the
Hecker Pass Special Use District. Approval of the proposed project would result in
significant intensification of residential use and intensification of the range of impacts
described in the FEIR relative to what was anticipated in the City of Gilroy General Plan.
Mitigation: The General Plan will be amended to avoid the inconsistency. With the
exception of impacts on air quality, for which findings of overriding consideration must be
made, the impacts of the proposed project created by its inconsistency with the City of Gilroy
General Plan prior to its amendment for this Project can be reduced to a less than significant
level through the implementation of policies contained in the HPSP and through mitigation
measures contained in the FEIR. The policies and mitigation measures are feasible, and fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
I. MINERAL RESOURCES
1. HPSP: Loss of Availability of a Locally Important Mineral Resource -
Significant and Unavoidable Impact: Implementation of the HPSP Project would result in
loss of availability of State designated mineral resources. Direct loss would occur from
development within areas where resources have been mapped. Indirect loss of resources
mapped outside proposed development areas would likely occur as mining activity in those
areas would be incompatible with the HPSP land uses.
IJH1646570.2
01-011105-04706089
-11-
Resolution No. 2005-02
Finding: The City Council finds that there are no mitigation measures available that would
substantially lessen or avoid this effect and therefore, this impact is significant and
unavoidable. See Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III.
J. NOISE
1. HPSP: Potentially Significant Impact-Exposure to Construction Noise that
Exceeds Standards Implementation of the HPSP would require the operation of construction
equipment that could produce noise up to 70 to 90 dBA. This would be considered a
significant adverse environmental impact.
Mitigation: The hours of construction will be limited in accordance with the specifications
set forth in mitigation measure 11 of the FEIR through permit conditions. Requiring the
reception hall doors to be closed as much as possible whenever significant noise generating
activities occur, in accordance with the specifications set forth in mitigation measure 12 of
the FEIR, is also fully enforceable through permit conditions.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
K. TRANSPORTATION
1. HPSP: Significant Impact -Traffic Operations on Hecker Pass Highway from
the Proposed East and West Access Roads Under Background Plus Total Project
Conditions -Implementation of the HPSP circulation plan requires that two new
intersections be created on Hecker Pass Highway (two existing driveways onto the highway
would be eliminated). These intersections could impact operations on Hecker Pass Highway
unless they are properly designed to accommodate background plus Project and cumulative
and general plan build out traffic conditions.
Mitigation: The Specific Plan policies requiring these intersections to be properly designed
to accommodate future traffic conditions are feasible, fully enforceable through permit
conditions, agreements, or other measures.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
2. HPSP: Significant Impact-Substantial Increase in Traffic that Contributes to
Unacceptable Levels of Service on Hecker Pass Highway Under Background Plus Total
Project Conditions -The HPSP will cause a substantial increase in AM and PM peak hour
trips on Hecker Pass Highway when background conditions are compared with background
conditions plus HPSP build out. The HPSP triggers the need to widen Hecker Pass Highway
from a two-lane rural highway to a four-lane arterial between Santa Teresa Boulevard and the
East intersection. It also triggers the need to upgrade the highway to a two-lane arterial from
the West intersection to the Bonfante Gardens driveway. These improvements would result
in an LOS C or better on the Hecker Pass Highway road segments studied.
The HPSP applicant's general plan amendment includes a request to change the classification
of the highway from a four-lane expressway as it is designated in the City of Gilroy General
IJH1646570.2
01-011105-04706089
-12-
Resolution No. 2005-02
Plan to a two-lane arterial. Approval of the amendment will be needed to enable
implementation of the improvements that mitigate HPSP impacts.
Applicants for projects within the Specific Plan area shall be responsible for widening
Hecker Pass Highway to a four-lane urban arterial from Santa Teresa Boulevard to the East
intersection. This improvement is contingent on approval of the HPSP applicant's general
plan amendment that would reclassify Hecker Pass Highway to an arterial.
Mitigation: Requiring the developers of projects within the Specific Plan area to make
improvements to Hecker Pass Highway, in accordance with the specifications set forth in
mitigation measures 18 and 19 of the FEIR, is feasible, fully enforceable through permit
conditions, agreements, or other measures.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
3. HPSP: Significant Impact-Cumulative Citywide Traffic Impacts. Bui1dout of
the specific plan area would result in a cumulatively considerable amount of traffic to the
City's overall circulation system. This is considered a significant adverse environmental
impact.
Mitigation: Requiring applicants for individual projects within the Specific Plan area to pay
traffic impact fees in accordance with the City of Gilroy citywide traffic impact fee
ordinance, and also as required in mitigation measures 20 and 21 of the FEIR, is feasible,
fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
4. Potentially Significant Impact-Facilitation of Transit Service -The HPSP may not
facilitate use of public transit consistent with City policy. The HPSP does, however, call for
clustering of residential uses in specific locations. This should facilitate the potential for
transit service by concentrating residential development in specific locations. However, the
feasibility of providing transit services to the residential clusters is not clear. The Valley
Transportation Authority (VT A) will review the proposed Project to determine if and how
transit service may be provided. The HPSP includes a policy requiring new development to
request review of plans by the VT A to determine transit feasibility and improvements that
may be required to facilitate transit service.
Mitigation: The Specific Plan policy requiring new development to coordinate with VTA
for transit service is feasible, fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or
other measures.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact. However, the City Council also finds that it
does not have the legal authority to require transit service, as the provision of transit service
is the responsibility of another public agency, the VT A. Should the VT A determine that
transit service is feasible for this area of the City, the impact would be mitigated via
provision of VT A bus stops within subsequent projects in this development. Therefore, part
IJH1646570.2
01-011105-04706089
-13-
Resolution No. 2005-02
of this mitigation is not within the City's jurisdiction, and that proposed mitigation can or
should be adopted by the VT A.
L. UTILITY IMPACTS
1. HPSP: Effects of Construction or Expansion of Storm Drainage Facilities -
Potentially Significant Impact: Construction of a new storm drainage outfall on the bank of
Uvas Creek could adversely affect the quality of the habitat or affect water quality within the
creek.
Mitigation: The HPSP contains policies that require any disturbance within the Uvas Creek
setback to minimize adverse effects on the riparian habitat or water quality in Uvas Creek,
including a policy that pertains specifically to any storm drainage outfalls along the creek.
Implementation of these policies is feasible, and fully enforceable through permit conditions,
agreements, or other measures.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
II. FINDINGS CONCERNING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), the FEIR identifies and evaluates the
comparative merits of alternatives to the Project, which could eliminate any significant
adverse environmental impacts of the Project or reduce them to a level of insignificance.
These alternatives are evaluated in the FEIR even if they would impede to some degree the
attainment of Project objectives or would be more costly.
A. ALTERNATIVE 1- "NO PROJECT" ALTERNATIVE
Description. The no project alternative assumes that the specific plan area is not developed
as proposed in the City of Gilroy General Plan.
Comparison to the Proposed Specific Plan Project. This alternative would result in a
significant decrease in all Specific Plan impacts including aesthetics, agricultural resources,
air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards, hydrology
and water quality, land use, noise, public services, transportation, and utilities.
Finding: This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Specific Plan since it
avoids the adverse impacts. However, the no project alternative would not meet the
objectives of the Specific Plan and would not provide residential development potential
needed by the City to meet its regional fair share housing requirements, would not prevent
mining of mineral resources in the HPSP area, and would not provide tax revenues to the
City. This alternative would not implement the City of Gilroy General Plan and also make it
challenging for the City to extend the Uvas Creek Park Preserve through the Project site. For
these reasons, this alternative is rejected.
IJH1646570.2
01-011105-04706089
-14-
Resolution No. 2005-02
B. ALTERNATIVE 2-GENERAL PLAN TARGET DWELLING
UNIT /CL USTERING
Description. This alternative proposes that residential development be limited to
approximately 115 dwelling units consistent with the target dwelling unit number included in
the City of Gilroy General Plan. This is a 391 dwelling unit decrease relative to the proposed
Project. This alternative would result in a population increase of about 402 people versus the
1,367-person increase projected for the proposed Project. Residential units would be
clustered in two locations - one south of Hecker Pass Highway and one north of Hecker Pass
Highway. All other uses included in the Specific Plan are retained.
Comparison to the Proposed Specific Plan Project. This alternative would substantially
reduce all impacts associated with the proposed Specific Plan. By reducing the number of
dwelling units and size of the development area within the Specific Plan area, this alternative
results in a much lower intensity of development. The overall rural agricultural character of
the area is better retained and impacts on natural resources are reduced. Greater acreage
could be retained in agricultural use. Exposure to and creation of hazards is reduced.
Impacts on water quality, transportation and circulation are substantially reduced.
Finding: This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project. However,
this alternative does not meet the objectives of the Specific Plan applicant and would not
provide sufficient development capacity needed by the City to meet its regional fair share
housing requirements. Nor would it likely enable the City to extend the Uvas Park Preserve
through the entire specific plan Project area or prevent mining of mineral resources in the
HPSP area. It would also result in reduced tax revenue to the City. For these reasons, this
alternative is rejected.
C. ALTERNATIVE 3 - REDUCED DWELLING UNIT/CLUSTERING
Description. This alternative would permit up to 220 of the 506 dwelling units proposed
within the Specific Plan area, a reduction of 56.6 percent. Residential development would be
permitted in three clusters, two south of Hecker Pass Highway and one north of the highway,
similar to the cluster locations proposed in the Specific Plan. Other land uses proposed in the
Specific Plan would remain unchanged.
Comparison to the Proposed Specific Plan Project. Alternative 3 is also environmentally
superior to the proposed Specific Plan. It would partially reduce all impacts identified for the
Specific Plan. This alternative would also result in better retention of the existing rural
agricultural character, maintain greater acreage in active agriculture, reduce air quality
impacts by reducing vehicle trip generation, create less intrusion into the Uvas Creek riparian
area, expose fewer people and structure to geologic or other hazards, reduce demand for
public services, have fewer impacts on the local circulation system, and reduced demand for
public services and utilities.
Finding: This alternative is also environmentally superior to the proposed Project. While it
would enable the City to better meet its regional fair share housing needs than alternative 2, it
does not provide sufficient residential development capacity. This alternative also provides
less tax revenue to the City, and does not meet the applicant's objectives. For these reasons,
this alternative is rejected.
IJH1646570.2
01-011105-04706089
-15-
Resolution No. 2005-02
III. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
After review of the entire administrative record, including the FEIR, the staff report, and the
oral and written testimony and evidence presented at public hearings, the City Council finds,
pursuant to CEQA Section 21081 (b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, that specific
economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the Project outweigh the Project's
unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and the City Council finds that the significant
and unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable in light of the Project's benefits.
The City Council further finds that, in the event it is determined that the mitigation measures
identified in the FEIR above do not reduce the significant environmental impacts identified
and analyzed in the FEIR to a 1ess-than-significant level, the benefits described below
outweigh any and all potential adverse impacts of the Project.
The City Council adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding
the significant unavoidable impacts of the Proj ect and the anticipated benefits of the Proj ect.
The City Council finds that each of the benefits set forth below in this Statement of
Overriding Considerations constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the
benefits of the Project outweigh the risks of its potential significant adverse environmental
impacts. The benefits of the Project, which constitute the specific economic, legal, social,
technological and other considerations that justify the approval of the Project, are addressed
in Sections Band H above and are set forth below:
A. The proposed Project will provide housing opportunities that help meet the City's
regional fair share housing requirements.
B. The proposed Project will meet the City of Gilroy General Plan's goal of extending
the Uvas Creek Park Preserve.
C. The proposed Project is designed to preserve the agricultural character and aesthetic
character of the Hecker Pass area. Preservation of the character of the area is in the
public interest.
D. The proposed Project will contribute to the City's tax base.
E. Providing housing units in the Hecker Pass area will lessen the need for expansion of
infrastructure and construction of housing units in undeveloped areas of Gilroy and
surrounding communities, thereby contributing to a reduction in vehicle-related air
emISSIOns.
F. The proposed project will prevent mining in the HPSP area, thereby furthering the
goal of preserving the Uvas Creek and its surrounding habitat.
IV. ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION/MONITORING PROGRAM
The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation and Monitoring Program attached hereto as
Exhibit "A", which is incorporated herein by this reference.
IJH1646570.2
01-011105-04706089
-16-
Resolution No. 2005-02
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of January, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CORREA, DILLON, GARTMAN, MORALES,
V ALIQUETTE, VELASCO and PINHEIRO
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NONE
APPROVED:
Q
AT;~: /
.. . ~ ( ~ (
~"'-. ... &4-
Rhonda Pellin~ City Clerk
IJH1646570.2
01-011105-04706089
-17-
Resolution No. 2005-02
'\
EXHIBIT "A"
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Introduction
CEQA Guidelines section 15097 requires public agencies to adopt reporting or monitoring
programs when they approve projects subject to an environmental impact report or a negative
declaration that includes mitigation measures to avoid significant adverse environmental
effects. The reporting or monitoring program is to be designed to ensure compliance with
conditions of project approval during project implementation in order to avoid significant
adverse environmental effects.
The law was passed in response to historic non-implementation of mitigation measures
presented in environmental documents and subsequently adopted as conditions ofproject
approval. In addition, monitoring ensures that mitigation measures are implemented and
thereby provides a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.
A definitive set of project conditions would include enough detailed information and
enforcement procedures to ensure the measure's compliance. This monitoring program is
designed to provide a mechanism to ensure that mitigation measures and subsequent
conditions of project approval are implemented.
Monitoring Program
The basis for this monitoring program is the mitigation measures included in the project
environmental impact report. These mitigation measures are designed to eliminate or reduce
significant adverse environmental effects to less than significant levels. These mitigation
measures become conditions of project approval, which the proponent of the Hecker Pass
Specific Plan (HPSP) and the proponent of the Church project are required to complete.
The attached checklist is proposed for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation
measures. This monitoring checklist contains all appropriate mitigation measures in the
environmental impact report. The monitoring checklist is divided into two sections. The
first section includes mitigation measures for the HPSP related actions. Mitigations for the
HPSP consist largely of requirements to include new policies in the HPSP with which
subsequent individual projects must be consistent.
Monitoring Program Procedures
The City of Gilroy shall use the attached monitoring checklist for the Hecker Pass Specific
Plan project. The monitoring program should be implemented as follows:
I.JH\64654? 3
Exhibit "A" Mitigation Monitoring Program
Hecker Pass Specific Plan Final EIR
1. The Gilroy Community Development Department is responsible for coordination of
the monitoring program, including the monitoring checklist. The Community
Development Department should be responsible for completing the monitoring
checklist and distributing the checklist to the responsible individuals or agencies for
their use in monitoring the mitigation measures;
2. Each responsible individual or agency will then be responsible for determining
whether the mitigation measures contained in the monitoring checklist have been
complied with. Once all mitigation measures have been complied with, the
responsible individual or agency should submit a copy of the monitoring checklist to
the Community Development Department to be placed in the project file. If the
mitigation measure has not been complied with, the monitoring checklist should not
be returned to the Community Development Department;
3. The Community Development Department will review the checklist to ensure that
appropriate mitigation measures and additional conditions ofproject approval
included in the monitoring checklist have been complied with at the appropriate time,
e.g. prior to issuance of a use permit, etc. Compliance with mitigation measures is
required for project approvals; and
4. If a responsible individual or agency determines that a non-compliance has occurred,
a written notice should be delivered by certified mail to the project proponent within
10 days, with a copy to the Community Development Department, describing the
non-compliance and requiring compliance within a specified period of time. Ifnon-
compliance still exists at the expiration of the specified period of time, construction
may be halted and fines may be imposed at the discretion of the City of Gilroy.
I.JH\646.'i4? ~
')
Exhibit "A" Hecker Pass Specific Plan Final EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Hecker Pass Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Checklist
The following mitigations shall be incorporated as policies in the HPSP prior to discretionary
approval of any entitlements for projects within the specific plan area. The applicant shall be
responsible for implementing the mitigations by incorporating them into the HPSP. The
Gilroy Planning Division shall be responsible for monitoring and reviewing the HPSP to
ensure that the mitigations have been incorporated into it.
4. Individual project applicants shall specify in project plans the implementation of the
following dust control measures during grading and construction activities for any
proposed development. The measures shall be implemented as necessary to
adequately control dust, subject to the review and approval by the City of Gilroy
Planning Division:
1.IH\64654? 3
The following measures shall be implemented at all construction sites:
.
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily;
.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all
trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
.
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites;
.
Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and
staging areas at construction sites;
.
Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) ifvisible soil material is carried onto
adjacent public streets;
.
Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas
(previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more);
.
Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed
stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.);
.
Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
.
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to
public roadways;
.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas;
.
Place a minimum of 100 linear feet of 6 to 8 inch average diameter cobble at all
exit points to dislodge and trap dirt from vehicle tires;
.
Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts)
exceed 25 miles per hour; and
'2
Exhibit "AU Mitigation Monitoring Program
Hecker Pass Specific Plan Final EIR
· Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at
anyone time.
Party responsible for implementation:
Applicant
Party responsible for monitoring:
Gilroy Planning Division
5. A qualified biologist shall survey the grassland area located to the north of the Hecker
Pass Highway planned for residential development for potential aestivation habitat. If
the area is determined to be aestivation habitat for the California tiger salamander, the
biologist shall consult with the California Department ofFish and Game and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service regarding mitigation and permit requirements that must be
incorporated as conditions ofproject approval.
Party responsible for implementation:
Applicant
Party responsible for monitoring:
Gilroy Planning Division
6. All future development within the specific plan area shall implement the following
conditions to minimize disturbance to potentially significant cultural resources. Each
of the following shall be made a condition of approval for grading and Building
Permits:
a. Developers of each project within the specific plan area shall contract with a
qualified archaeologist to provide an archeological site assessment to determine
the need for monitoring during grading and excavation activities.
b. If cultural resources or human remains are discovered during construction, work
shall be halted at a minimum of 165 feet (50 meters) from the find and the area
shall be staked off. The monitoring professional archaeologist, if one is on site,
shall be notified. If a monitoring professional archaeologist is not on-site, the
city shall be notified immediately and a qualified professional archaeologist
shall be retained. If the find is determined to be significant, appropriate
mitigation measures shall be formulated by the professional archaeologist and
implemented by the responsible party.
Party responsible for implementation:
Applicant
Party responsible for monitoring:
Gilroy Planning Division
9. Prior to development of any property within the specific plan area, a Phase 1
Environmental Site Assessment shall be prepared in accordance with ASTM
Standard(s) to identify whether past or existing uses of the project property may have
adversely affected soil or groundwater, or would otherwise pose a health hazard
during site development or habitation. If the Phase I assessment finds that past uses
may have contaminated the site, a Phase 2 Site Assessment shall be prepared. If
contamination is present, clean up and disposal of such contamination shall be in
compliance with federal, state and local regulations governing the cleanup and
disposal of hazardous waste. Results of the Phase 1 and, ifneeded, the Phase 2
1,IH\64654? 3
II
Exhibit "A" Hecker Pass Specific Plan Final EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Program
assessment and cleanup shall be presented to and approved by the City of Gilroy
Engineering Division prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Party responsible for implementation:
Applicant
Party responsible for monitoring:
Gilroy Planning Division
10. Any development (i.e. public recreational facilities) with foundations or support on
the ground that is located within 50 feet (or the distance in effect at the time of
application) of the Uvas Creek top of bank shall conform to requirements of the Santa
Clara V alley Water District.
Party responsible for implementation:
Applicant
Party responsible for monitoring:
Gilroy Planning Division
11. All noise generating construction activities shall be limited to weekdays between 7:00
AM and 7:00 PM, and to Saturdays between 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM. No construction
is allowed on Sundays or city holidays. In addition, temporary berms or noise
attenuation barriers shall be utilized when necessary. This requirement shall be
attached as a contractor work specification for all projects.
Party responsible for implementation:
Party responsible for monitoring:
Applicant
Gilroy Planning Division
18. Applicants for projects within the specific plan area shall be responsible for widening
Hecker Pass Highway to a four-lane urban arterial from Santa Teresa Boulevard to
the East intersection. This improvement is contingent on approval of the HPSP
applicant's general plan amendment that would reclassify Hecker Pass Highway to an
arterial. Applicants shall coordinate with the City of Gilroy Engineering Division to
design and implement the widening project. Removal of deodar cedar trees along the
highway must be avoided wherever possible and improvements must be consistent
with State scenic highway guidelines.
Party responsible for implementation:
Applicant
Party responsible for monitoring:
Gilroy Planning Division
19. Applicants for projects within the specific plan area shall be responsible for
upgrading Hecker Pass Highway to a two-lane arterial from the East intersection to
the Bonfante Gardens intersection. This improvement is contingent on approval of
the HPSP applicant's general plan amendment that would reclassify Hecker Pass
Highway to a two-lane arterial. Applicants shall coordinate with the City of Gilroy
Engineering Division to design and implement the upgrade project. Removal of
deodar cedar trees along the highway must be avoided wherever possible and
improvements must be consistent with State scenic highway guidelines. The upgrade
project must be approved by the relevant State and local agencies.
Party responsible for implementation: Applicant
I.JH\64654? 3 (;
Exhibit "A" Mitigation Monitoring Program
Hecker Pass Specific Plan Final EIR
Party responsible for monitoring:
Gilroy Planning Division
20. Applicants for individual projects within the specific plan area shall contribute traffic
impact fees for future cumulative circulation improvements consistent with the
requirements of the City of Gilroy citywide traffic impact fee ordinance. Fees shall
be paid to the city prior to issuance of development permits.
Party responsible for implementation:
Applicant
Party responsible for monitoring:
Gilroy Planning Division
22. Storm water detention shall be designed to prevent an increase in the 2-year, 10-year
and 1 DO-year peak discharge for the project area (refinement of existing HPSP policy
8-6)
Party responsible for implementation:
Party responsible for monitoring:
Applicant
Gilroy Planning Division
23. Hecker Pass Specific Plan EIR Table S 1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation
Measures. The area of concern, Agriculture, will be modified to state:
"HPSP Public Safety (Agricultural Management) Policies 5-93 through 5-97; Policy
5-7: "To ensure the preservation of designated agricultural areas in perpetuity,
permanent agricultural easements, deed restrictions, or other such instruments shall be
created for each property in each agricultural area at the earlier of (a) prior to or
concurrent with the first discretionary approval for projects for which no map is
required; or (b) prior to or concurrent with final and/or parcel map approvals. In this
instance, the tentative map shall have this requirement as a condition of its approval,
and that map shall generally describe the area to be restricted. To ensure the
preservation of designated open space areas in perpetuity, permanent open space
easements, deed restrictions, or other such instruments shall be created for each
property in each open space area at the earlier of (a) prior to or concurrent with the
first discretionary approval for projects for which no map is required; or (b) prior to
or concurrent with final and/or parcel map approvals. In this instance, the tentative
map shall have this requirement as a condition of its approval, and, that map shall
generally describe the area to be restricted."
Party responsible for implementation: Applicant
Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division
1,IH\64654? 3 {:.
I, RHONDA PELLIN, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached
Resolution No. 2005-02 is an original resolution, or true and correct copy of a city resolution,
duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting of said Council held on the
18th day of January, 2005, 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 27th day of January, 2005.
~..~4~-
City Clerk of the-City of Gilroy
(Seal)