Loading...
Resolution 2009-32 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 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 GP A 07-05, AN AMENDMENT TO THE HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN FOR WHICH AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) HAS BEEN PREPARED, AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MEASURES AND APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE SOUTH VALLEY COMMUNITY CHURCH PROJECT WHEREAS, the South Valley Community Church submitted application GP A 07- 05, a General Plan Amendment (referred herein as the "Revised Church Project") to amend the Hecker Pass Specific Plan ("HPSP") to expand the East Residential Cluster area by six acres, reduce the size of Community Facilities District area by six acres, and make corresponding changes to the HPSP to provide for development of up to 15 residential units and a small park on the southerly 6 acres of the area currently designated Community Facilities District; and WHEREAS, the Revised Church Project applies to an approximately 27 acre parcel within the HPSP boundaries, that is located at 1690 and 1750 Hecker Pass Highway, west of Santa Teresa Boulevard, APNS 810-21-004, 005; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Gilroy ("City") intends to approve the Revised Church Project; and WHEREAS, the HPSP and included the original church project, which was the subject of a Final Environmental Impact Report ("HPSP FEIR") prepared by the City as the lead agency in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code ~ 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., title 14, ~15000 et seqJ ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, the HPSP FEIR 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, 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 fmdings regarding those effects; and WHEREAS, the City Council on January 18, 2005, adopted Resolution No. 2005-02 making certain findings required by CEQA, and certified that the HPSP FEIR had been completed in compliance with CEQA; that the City Council had reviewed and analyzed the HPSP 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 HPSP FEIR, prior to acting upon or approving the HPSP; and that the HPSP FEIR represented the independent judgment of the City; and RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 WHEREAS, the HPSP was amended in October 2006, GP A 06-02, and pursuant to CEQA an initial study was prepared and potentially significant effects on the environment were identified and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted to mitigate these effects to a point where no significant effects would occur; and WHEREAS, as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for GP A 06-02, HPSP Mitigation Measures Nos. 18 and 19 were revised and replaced with new mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, in conjunction with application GPA 07-05 for the Revised Church Project, on December 8, 2008, an Addendum to the HPSP FEIR ("Addendum") was prepared in compliance with CEQA by EMC Planning Group, Inc. and was approved by the City Planning Manager, having found that no substantive revisions to the HPSP FEIR were required because no new significant impacts or impacts of substantially greater severity would result from the Revised Church Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 7, 2009, at which time the Planning Commission considered the public testimony, the staff report dated April 28, 2009 ("Staff Report"), and all other documentation related to the Revised Church Project, and recommended that the City Council approve said Revised Church Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council held duly noticed public hearings on June 1, 2009 and July 13, 2009, at which time the City Council considered the public testimony, the Staff Report, a follow-up staff report dated May 18, 2009 and all other documentation related to the Revised Church Project. 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 fmdings pursuant to CEQA relating to the Revised Church Project. The findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City Council regarding the Revised Church Project's environmental impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives to the Revised Church Project. 2. This City Council finds that on January 18, 2005, it adopted Resolution No. 2005-02 making certain findings required by CEQA, certified that the HPSP FEIR had been completed in compliance with CEQA; that the City Council had reviewed and analyzed the HPSP 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 HPSP FEIR, prior to acting upon or approving the HPSP; and that the HPSP FEIR represented the independent judgment of the City. 3. This City Council fmds that on December 8, 2008, an Addendum to the HPSP FEIR ("Addendum") was prepared in compliance with CEQA by EMC Planning Group, Inc. for the proposed Revised Church Project and was approved by the City Planning Manager, having found that no substantive revisions to the HPSP FEIR were required because no new significant impacts or impacts of substantially greater severity would result from the Revised Church Project. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 4. The Mitigation and Monitoring Program for the Revised Church 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 Revised Church Project and corresponding mitigation measures and designates responsibility for mitigation implementation and the agency responsible for the monitoring action. 5. 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; and 6. This City Council does hereby adopt the mitigation measures in the HPSP FEIR as set forth or modified herein as conditions of the Revised Church Project; and 7. This City Council does hereby make the foregoing findings with respect to the significant effects on the environment of the Revised Church Project based on facts within the administrative record as a whole, and as identified in the HPSP FEIR, with the stipulation that all information in these findings is intended as a summary of the entire record supporting the HPSP FEIR. Any mitigation measures and/or alternatives that were suggested by commenters on the DEIR and not adopted as part of the HPSP FEIR are hereby expressly rejected for the reasons stated in the responses to the comments set forth in the HPSP FEIR and in the record; I. HECKER PASS SPECIFIC PLAN AND SOUTH VALLEY COMMUNITY REVISED CHURCH PROJECT FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A. AESTHETIC IMPACTS 1. Revised Church Project: Significant Impact -Substantially Damage Scenic Resources- The Revised Church Project site plan represents one option for development that is consistent with the basic land use requirements specified for the Private Community Facilities land use designation in the HPSP. The Revised Church Project would maintain 70 percent non-structural open space as required. However, the scale of development and the significant area of the site dedicated to parking are inconsistent with the open space character and sensitivity to visual character which the HPSP promotes in the remainder of the specific plan area. The visual change between the Revised Church Project, which locates a large parking area along its western boundary, and the rural visual character of agricultural uses proposed for the adjacent property (Hecker Pass Agriculture designation), is abrupt and would not promote or be consistent with rural visual character and pattern of development. The potential visual effect of the extensive parking facility adds significantly to the visual urban intensity of the Revised Church Project in an area where existing rural, agricultural, and open space qualities are to be maintained. In addition, the location of the parking area would detract from the scenic quality of the Hecker Pass Highway corridor. This impact is considered significant. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 Mitigation: Prepare a detailed landscaping plan. In addition to landscaping for screening buildings to minimize their visual massiveness, the plan shall provide for: . extensive landscaping along the western property line to facilitate a smooth visual transition from rural, agricultural uses to the west and the parking areas proposed along the western boundary of the site; and . dense landscaping within the Hecker Pass Highway setback area to screen views of the parking areas as seen from Hecker Pass Highway. Landscape plantings in this area must avoid blocking views across the site to Uvas Creek and the foothills. . Prepare a detailed parking area treatment plan. The plan shall illustrate how, through a combination of grade differences/terracing, landscaping, landscaped berms, and use of alternatives to asphalt such as pervious paving materials (i.e. decomposed granite or gravel) or earth tone pigmented concrete, the visual impact of all parking areas as seen from Hecker Pass Highway will be minimized. Use of alternative paving materials shall be prioritized as specified in the HPSP. The parking area treatment plan shall be subject to review and approval by the city prior to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen this potential significant environmental impact. B. AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS 1. HPSP and Revised Church Project: 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. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen this potential significant environmental impact. C. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 1. Revised Church Project: Violation of Air Quality Standards (Construction Emissions) - Potentially Significant Impact: PMlO can cause respiratory ailments if breathed into the body. Construction projects involving grading and other earth movement can generate significant quantities of PMlO. 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 PMlO 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 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. D. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS 1. HPSP and Revised Church Project: Potentially Significant Impact- Special Status Species (California Tiger Salamander, Western Spadefoot Toad, Foothill Yellow- legged Frog, California Red-legged Frog, Western Pond Turtle, Steelhead, 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 HPSP 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: The HPSP 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 and Revised Church Project: Potentially Significant Impact - Special Status Species: There is potential aestivation habitat for the California Tiger Salamander in 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 upland portions of the HPSP 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 and Revised Church Project: Potentially Significant Impact-Special Status Species (Burrowing Owl) -The HPSP area provides potential habitat for burrowing owls, although none was 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 HPSP 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 and Revised Church Project: 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) ofloggerhead 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 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 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 HPSP 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 and Revised Church Project: 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. 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 HPSP 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. The HPSP 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 and Revised Church Project: Potentially Significant Impact-Disturbance of Sensitive Riparian HabitatlHydrologic 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 ofFish 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 of Uvas Creek. 7 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen this potential significant environmental impact. 7. HPSP and Revised Church Project: 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 HPSP 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 and Revised Church Project: 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. 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, several large trees are distributed throughout the HPSP 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 HPSP 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. E. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Revised Church Project: Loss of Historical Resources - Significant Unavoidable Impact: The Revised Church Project site contains historic resources that would require demolition or relocation to accommodate the development. Demolition of the historic resources would be considered a significant impact. The HPSP includes a policy containing four options for mitigation of impacts on cultural resources on the Church site. However, the first three mitigation options have been determined to be infeasible and the last option would not mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. Nevertheless, the policy should be modified and retained in the HPSP as described in the following mitigation measure as a basis for partial mitigation of this impact. Mitigation: Retain a theme of Conrotto viniculture within the new Revised Church Project. Options for designs include developing a display along Hecker Pass Highway, creating a Conrotto viniculture historic walk, and/or other approaches to be developed by the applicant. The design should utilize structures, winery artifacts, landscaping, and other elements. The design shall be subject to review and approval of the city prior to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 8 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 Finding: The implementation of these mitigation measures will not avoid or substantially lessen the impact. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. See Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III. 2. Revised Church Project: Potentially Significant Impact-Disturbance to Human Remains. The HPSP area is not known to contain human remains. However, the Revised Church Project site is located within an archaeologically sensitive area and the possibility of accidentally uncovering human remains is a possibility. This would be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Mitigation: Require an 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. F. GEOLOGY 1. HPSP and Revised Church Project: 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 HPSP 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 and Revised Church Project: Potentially Significant Impact-Soil Erosion-Soils within the HPSP area are not considered to be highly erodable. Build out of the HPSP 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 HPSP 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 HPSP 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. 9 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. HPSP and Revised Church Project: 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 HPSP 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. 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. H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. HPSP and Revised Church Project: Potentially Significant Impact-Erosion of Uvas Creek Banks From Storm Water RunofflIncreased 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 HPSP policy requlfing 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 and Revised Church Project: Potentially Significant Impact-Short Term Storm Water Runoff Water Quality Effects-Build out of the HPSP 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: The HPSP 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. 10 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 3. HPSP and Revised Church Project: 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: The HPSP policies requmng 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). Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen this potential significant environmental impact. 4. HPSP and Revised Church Project: 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. I. MINERAL RESOURCES 1. HPSP and Revised Church Project: Loss of Availability of a Locally Important Mineral Resource - Significant and Unavoidable Impact: Implementation of the Revised Church 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 Church land uses. Finding: There are no mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen this effect and therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable. See Statement of Overriding Considerations, Section III. J. NOISE 1. HPSP and Revised Church Project: Potentially Significant Impact-Exposure to Construction Noise that Exceeds Standards Implementation of the Revised Church Project 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. 11 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 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. 2. Revised Church Project: Potentially Significant Impact-Church Function Noise Generation and Effects on Village Green Residents -A large (300 person) wedding ceremony and reception (reception hall doors open) with a live rock band or DJ, could generate noise levels of up to 54 dB DNL, which is within the 60 dB DNL limit of the city standards. However, a nuisance to sensitive residents at Village Green from live music events could occur. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation: Doors to the reception hall shall be closed as much as possible whenever significant noise generating activities such as live or recorded music is being played. The interior of the reception hall shall be acoustically designed to minimize sound build up within the space and to control reflected sound from being emitted. Outdoor music for weddings and any other functions should be limited to soft music styles and instrumentation, typical of wedding ceremony music. These requirements shall be made conditions of approval of a Building Permit. Finding: The implementation of these mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen this potential significant environmental impact. 3. Revised Church Project: Potentially Significant Impact-School Play Area Function and Noise Impacts on Village Green -The proposed school use could generate noise levels along the eastern Revised Church Project boundary and at the closest Village Greens structure of up to 66 dBA DNL at full school capacity of 600 students. Noise exposure up to 6 dB in excess of the city standard would occur. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation: Construct a six-foot high acoustically effective barrier along the property line contiguous with the residences to the east (Village Green). The barrier shall extend from the Reception Gardens to the south property line. The barrier height is in reference to the nearest play area ground elevation. Plans for the barrier shall be subject to review of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division prior to approval of a Building Permit. Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen this potential significant environmental impact. 4. Revised Church Project: Potentially Significant Impact-School Play Area Function and Noise Impacts on Proposed Residential Land Uses to the W est -The proposed school could generate noise levels along the western Revised Church Project boundary of up to 61 dBA DNL at full school capacity of 600 students. This noise level only marginally exceeds the city standard, but nevertheless, triggers the need for mitigation under current city standards. 12 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 Mitigation: Development applications shall be consistent the City of Gilroy noise exposure standards. Utilize development setbacks, construction techniques to reduce interior noise exposure, a sound wall and/or landscape berm. Or other options to minimize noise impacts on residential uses. Finding: The implementation of these mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen this potential significant environmental impact. 5. Revised Church Project: Potentially Significant Impact-Gymnasium Noise Impact on Village Green-Noise exposure created by activities within the planned gymnasium could not be quantified, as detailed architectural information is not available. Typically, noise from within a gymnasium is not significant at the exterior of the building if windows and doors are kept closed during loud activities such as basketball games and dances. The locker rooms and food court will provide an adequate noise buffer for noise transmitting to the east and north. However, if windows or doors are open during certain events, or if events occur past 10:00 p.m., there is potential for noise excesses to the west and south. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation: All windows and doors on the west and south sides of the gymnasium shall remain closed during noise generating activities inside the gymnasium. Noise generating activities include, but are not limited to, athletic games and practice, social events with music, and P .E. classes. These requirements shall be made conditions of approval of a Building Permit. Finding: The implementation of these mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen this potential significant environmental impact. 6. Revised Church Project: Potentially Significant Impact-Mechanical Systems Noise Impact on Village Green-Precise designs of the mechanical systems for the church and school have not been developed, thus, a detailed analysis of the mechanical systems could not be performed. There is potential for air-conditioners, air-handlers, condensing units and other HV AC equipment to generate significant levels of noise that could be a nuisance to the adjacent Village Green residential use. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation: Perform a detailed analysis of the church and school mechanical equipment systems to ensure compliance with the city standards under cumulative (traffic plus playground plus mechanical equipment, etc.) conditions. The analysis shall be performed by a qualified acoustician and approved by the City of Gilroy Engineering Division prior to approval of a Building Permit. Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen this potential significant environmental impact. K. TRANSPORTATION 1. HPSP and Revised Church Project: Significant Impact-Cumulative Citywide Traffic Impacts. Buildout of the HPSP 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. 13 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 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. 2. Revised Church Project: Potentially Significant Impact-Site Access and On-site Circulation. The Revised Church Project site plan proposes three driveways along Cobblestone Court, each with throat widths of 25 feet. The City has indicated that the minimum throat width for this type of development is 35 feet for a two-way driveway. Mitigation: All Revised Church Project site driveways should be widened to meet the City's 35-foot requirement. Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen this potential significant environmental impact. 3. Revised Church Project: Potentially Significant Impact-Site Access and On-site Circulation - Student Loading Area. The maximum on-site student loading/unloading space needed would be 1,300 feet, and the Revised Church Project site plan shows there will be 343 feet of loading/unloading provided. Therefore, the site needs to accommodate an additional 1,057 linear feet of loading space. Mitigation: During project review, prepare a site plan that provides the required 1,000 feet of on-site student loading/unloading space. Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen this potential significant environmental impact. 4. Revised Church Project: Potentially Significant Impact-Parking Deficiencies. The revised Revised Church Project site plan does not meet the City's parking supply standards. However, the parking areas that would serve the Revised Church Project site are divided into two areas. One parking area would serve the church component of the project, and the other parking area would serve the school component of the project. Therefore, it is possible that all or some portion of the overflow demand from one use could be accommodated by parking spaces provided for the other use and vice-versa. Mitigation: During project review, prepare a site plan that provides the required number of City parking spaces or prepare a parking management plan that addresses the parking deficiency. Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen this potential significant environmental impact. L. UTILITY IMPACTS 1. HPSP and Revised Church Project: Effects of Construction or Expansion of Storm Drainage Facilities - Potentially Significant Impact: Construction of a new stormi 14 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 drainage outfall on the bank ofUvas 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 OF REVISED CHURCH PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 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, nor is the Revised Church Project permitted to proceed. Comparison to the Church Project. This alternative would result in a significant decrease in all Revised Church Project 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 Revised Church Project, since it avoids the adverse impacts. However, the no project alternative would not meet the objectives of the church applicant and would not provide residential development potential needed by the City to meet its regional fair share housing requirements or 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. B. ALTERNATIVE 2 - GENERAL PLAN TARGET DWELLING UNIT/CLUSTERING Alternative 2 was thoroughly reviewed and analyzed in the HPSP FEIR and was rejected. See Resolution No. 2005-02, pages 14-15. C. ALTERNATIVE 3 - REDUCED DWELLING UNIT/CLUSTERING Alternative 3 was thoroughly reviewed and analyzed in the HPSP FEIR and was rejected. See Resolution No. 2005-02, pages 14-15. D. ALTERNATIVE 4 - CHURCH REDESIGN Description. Alternative 4 includes only the church redesign components that were described in the HPSP FEIR Alternatives 2 and 3. The HPSP FEIR included a redesign of the church project to substantially reduce its impacts on aesthetic resources and inconsistency with the rural character of the HPSP area. The size of the church sanctuary was recommended to be 15 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 reduced by 25 to 50 percent, with an associated reduction in parking area. In addition, two or more of the other church site functions were to be eliminated. The Revised Church Project as currently proposed with the additional 15 residential dwelling units (37,500 square feet / 0.9 acres) substantially achieves the Church Redesign Alternative. The proposed Church Project reduces the church/school overall size from 752,700 square feet (17.3 acres) to 495,600 square feet (11.4 acres). The Church Redesign Alternative may substantially reduce the aesthetic impacts and inconsistency with the rural character of the HPSP area. Comparison to the Revised Church Project. The Revised Church Project substantially achieves the Church Design Alternative; therefore, it may also substantially reduce the aesthetic impacts and inconsistency with the rural character of the HPSP area. However, both the Revised Church Project and the Church Redesign Alternative will have significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural and mineral resources. Findings. It is uncertain that this alternative is environmentally superior to the Revised Church Project. However, it would not meet the objectives of the Revised Church Project applicant. The City deems that Revised Church Project as proposed meets a public need for an institutional use in the City for which another location that is within the control of the Church applicant is not available. On these bases, this alternative is rejected. 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 Revised Church 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 Revised Church Project's benefits. The City Council further fmds 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 less-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 Revised Church Project and the anticipated benefits of the Revised Church Project. The City Council fmds 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 Revised Church Project outweigh the risks of its potential significant adverse environmental impacts. The benefits of the Revised Church Project, which constitute the specific economic, legal, social, technological and other considerations that justify the approval of the Revised Church Project, are addressed in Sections B and H above and are set forth below: 16 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 A. The Revised Church Project will provide housing opportunities that help meet the City's regional fair share housing requirements. B. The Revised Church Project will meet the City of Gilroy General Plan's goal of extending the Uvas Creek Park Preserve. C. The Revised Church 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. 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. E. The Revised Church 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 MITIGATIONIMONITORING PROGRAM The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation and Monitoring Program attached hereto as Exhibit "A", which is incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of August 2009, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BRACCO, DILLON, TUCKER, WOODWARD and PINHEIRO ARELLANO, GARTMAN NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE APPROVED: AlbertP~ 17 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32 Miti2ation Monitorin2 Pro2ram For GP A 07-05 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 of project approval. In addition, monitoring ensures that mitigation measures are implemented and thereby provides a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. A definitive set of project conditions would include enough detailed information and enforcement procedures to ensure the measure's compliance. This monitoring program is designed to provide a mechanism to ensure that mitigation measures and subsequent conditions of project approval are implemented. 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 proponents of the Hecker Pass Specific Plan ("HPSP") and the proponent of the South V alley Community Church project ("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, which were adopted by City Council Resolutions No. 2005-02. Mitigations for the HPSP consist largely of requirements, which subsequent individual projects, including the South Valley Community Church, must be consistent. The second section includes mitigation measures for the South Valley Community Church proiect. Monitoring Program Procedures The City of Gilroy shall use the attached monitoring checklist for the Hecker Pass Specific Plan and for the South Valley Community Church projects and subsequent projects. The monitoring program should be implemented as follows: \JH\796642A 072709-04706089 EXHIBIT A Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 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 of project 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. If non- compliance still exists at the expiration of the specified period of time, construction may be halted and fines may be imposed at the discretion of the City of Gilroy. 2 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program Hecker Pass Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Checklist The following mitigations, adopted by City Council Res. 2005-02, atJtJly to discretionary approval of any entitlements for proiects within the specific plan area. 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: 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) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; · Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); · Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); · Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; · Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; · Replant vegetation in disturbed areas; · 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 · Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at anyone time. 3 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 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 of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding mitigation and permit requirements that must be incorporated as conditions of project 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, if needed, the Phase 2 assessment and cleanup shall be presented to and approved by the City of Gilroy Engineering Division prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 4 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 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 Valley 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: Applicant Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 14. Residential development proposed adjacent to the Church project site shall be consistent with the City of Gilroy noise exposure standards in effect at the time a project application is submitted. Potential sound attenuation options for reducing exposure to Church project generated noise under current standards might include development setbacks from the Church property line, utilization of construction techniques to reduce interior noise exposure to 45dBA or less, installation of a sound wall and/or a landscaped berm between residential development sites and the Church property line, or another measure or combination of measures deemed acceptable to the city. If buildout of the Church project and full utilization of the site occurs prior to an application being submitted for residential development, the applicant for the residential project may choose to conduct a noise study to determine noise levels at the Church property line based on actual conditions. Mitigation measures, if needed, would be proposed in the noise study consistent with city noise standards in effect at that time. The noise mitigation approach proposed by the applicant for residential development adjacent to the Church shall be subject to review and approval of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division prior to approval of a Building Permit. Party responsible for implementation: Applicant Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division 5 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 18. The original mitigation measure for the HPSP pursuant to Resolution No. 2005-02 was as follows: "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." This mitigation measure was modified pursuant to GP A 06-02, October 2006 Mitigated Negative Declaration, to be revised and replaced to read as follows: "Mitigation Measure T -1 (Specific Plan EIR mitigation measure 18) Applicants for projects within the specific plan area shall be responsible for improving Hecker Pass Highway immediately west of Santa Teresa Boulevard to include a second westbound travel lane. The second westbound travel lane on Hecker Pass Highway, and the appropriate lane-drop taper consistent with Caltrans' Standards, should extend as far as possible beyond (west of) Santa Teresa Boulevard as can be accommodated within the existing public right-of-way, with the design subject to approval by the City Engineer in hislher reasonable discretion. 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. Traffic signal modifications should be made to the intersection of Santa Teresa Boulevard and First StreetIHecker Pass Highway to add vehicle detection for the second eastbound through lane." Party responsible for implementation: Applicant Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 19. The original mitigation measure for the HPSP pursuant to Resolution No. 2005-02 was as follows: "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." 6 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program This mitigation measure was modified pursuant to GP A 06-02, October 2006 Mitigated Negative Declaration, to be revised and replaced to read as follows: ''Mitigation Measure T -2 (Specific Plan EIR mitigation measure 19) Applicants for projects within the specific plan area shall be responsible for shoulder improvements to Hecker Pass Highway, per Caltrans' standards, between Santa Teresa Boulevard and the easterly limits of the planned Caltrans Uvas Creek Bridge Improvement project. Applicants shall coordinate with the City of Gilroy Engineering Division to design and implement the shoulder improvements. 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 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, lO-year and 100-year peak discharge for the project area (refinement of existing HPSP policy 8-6) Party responsible for implementation: Applicant Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 23. Hecker Pass Specific Plan EIR Table Sl, 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 7 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 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 South Valley Community Church MitiJ!ation MonitorinJ! Checklist Step 1 Prior to approval of a conditional use permit, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. The applicant shall prepare a detailed landscaping plan. In addition to landscaping for screening buildings to minimize their visual massiveness, the plan shall provide for: · extensive landscaping along the western property line to facilitate a smooth visual transition from rural, agricultural uses to the west and the parking areas proposed along the western boundary of the site; and · dense landscaping within the Hecker Pass Highway setback area to screen views of the parking areas as seen from Hecker Pass Highway. Landscape plantings in this area must avoid blocking views across the site to Uvas Creek and the foothills. Party responsible for implementation: Applicant Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 2. The applicant shall prepare a detailed parking area treatment plan. The plan shall illustrate how, through a combination of grade differences/terracing, landscaping, landscaped berms, and use of alternatives to asphalt such as pervious paving materials (i.e. decomposed granite or gravel) or earth tone pigmented concrete, the visual impact of all parking areas as seen from Hecker Pass Highway will be minimized. Use of alternative paving materials shall be prioritized as specified in the HPSP. The parking area treatment plan shall be subject to review and approval by the city prior to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 8 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program Party responsible for implementation: Applicant Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 3. The applicant shall prepare a detailed lighting plan, which demonstrates how nighttime lighting of playfields will be designed and the lighting technology that shall be used. Nighttime lighting of playfields should be prohibited by the city unless the plan clearly demonstrates that nighttime lighting will not create a significant source of glare that is inconsistent with maintaining the rural character of the plan area. The lighting plan shall be subject to review and approval of the city for consistency with this mitigation and with relevant HPSP lighting policies prior to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. This review should be coordinated with mitigation provided in Section 2.4, Biological Resources, regarding lighting impacts on the habitat value of the Uvas Creek corridor. Party responsible for implementation: Applicant Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 7. The Church project applicant shall retain a theme of Conrotto viniculture within the new Church project. Options for designs include developing a display along Hecker Pass Highway, creating a Conrotto viniculture historic walk, and/or other approaches to be developed by the applicant. The design should utilize structures, winery artifacts, landscaping, and other elements. The design shall be subject to review and approval of the city prior to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Party responsible for implementation: Applicant Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division Step 2 Prior to approval and issuance of a grading or building permit, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 2. The project proponent shall, to the extent feasible, use equipment powered by other than diesel fuel, or if diesel fueled equipment is used, employ soot filters or other devices to effectively reduce emissions. Party responsible for implementation: Applicant Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division 8. The Church project applicant shall implement the following actions: a. The applicant shall contract with a qualified archaeologist to provide an archaeological site assessment to determine the need for continuous monitoring during grading and excavation activities. If cultural resources or human remains 9 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program are discovered during construction, immediate and appropriate mitigation measures shall be implemented. 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 12. Doors to the reception hall shall be closed as much as possible whenever significant noise generating activities such as live or recorded music is being played. The interior of the reception hall shall be acoustically designed to minimize sound build up within the space and to control reflected sound from being emitted. Outdoor music for weddings and any other functions should be limited to soft music styles and instrumentation, typical of wedding ceremony music. These requirements shall be made conditions of approval of a Building Permit. Party responsible for implementation: Applicant Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division 13. The applicant shall construct a six-foot high acoustically effective barrier along the property line contiguous with the residences to the east (Village Green). The barrier shall extend from the Reception Gardens to the south property line. The barrier height is in reference to the nearest play area ground elevation. Plans for the barrier shall be subject to review of the City of Gilroy Engineering Division prior to approval of a Building Permit. Party responsible for implementation: Applicant Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 15. The applicant shall perform a detailed analysis of the church and school mechanical equipment systems to ensure compliance with the city standards under cumulative (traffic plus playground plus mechanical equipment, etc.) conditions. The analysis shall be performed by a qualified acoustician and approved by the City of Gilroy Engineering Division prior to approval of a Building Permit. Party responsible for implementation: Applicant Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 10 Hecker Pass Specific Plan/South Valley Community Church Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program 16. To minimize noise annoyance to the residences to the west of the gymnasium, all windows and doors on the west and south sides of the gymnasium shall remain closed during noise generating activities inside the gymnasium. Noise generating activities include, but are not limited to, athletic games and practice, social events with music, and P.E. classes. These requirements shall be made conditions of approval of a Building Permit. Party responsible for implementation: Applicant Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Planning Division 17. The Church project applicant shall ensure that the following actions are incorporated into the contractor specifications: · Construct the six-foot high noise control barrier along the east property line before any other site work is performed; · Demolition of buildings should occur in phases with the walls of the building closest to existing residences being removed last as the walls can act as noise barriers; · All diesel powered equipment should be located more than 115 feet from any residence if the equipment is to operate for more than several hours per day; and · Consider implementing the additional ancillary noise attenuation actions as listed in the Noise Assessment Study for the Planned South Valley Community Church and School. Party responsible for implementation: Applicant Party responsible for monitoring: Gilroy Engineering Division 21. The Church project applicant shall participate in the city's traffic impact fee program in order to mitigate its incremental impacts on the circulation system. Fees shall be paid prior to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 11 I, SHA WNA FREELS, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2009-32 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 3rd day of August, 2009, 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 August, 2009. S _ wna Freels, C City Clerk of the City of Gilroy (Seal)