Resolution 2011-28
RESOLUTION NO. 2011-28
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY APPROVING TM 10-05, A TENTATIVE MAP
TO CREATE FIFTEEN (15) RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE
(1) REMAINDER LOT FOR A PROPERTY ZONED
HECKER PASS SPECIAL USE DISTRICT ON
APPROXIMATELY 26.77 ACRES LOCATED WESTERLY
OF SANTA TERESA BLVD. AND THIRD STREET, APNS
810-21-004 AND -005
WHEREAS, The James Group ("Applicant") submitted application TM 10-05 requesting
a tentative map to create fifteen (15) residential lots and one (1) remainder lot on the property
zoned Hecker Pass Special Use District on approximately 26.77 acres located westerly of the
intersection of Santa Teresa Blvd. and Third Street, APNs 808-21-004 and -005 (the "Project");
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 31,
2011, at which time the Planning Commission considered the public testimony, the staff report
dated March 31, 2011 ("Staff Report"), and all other documentation related to application TM
10-05, and recommended approval of said application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 2, 2011 and
considered the public testimony, the Staff Report, a supplemental staff report dated May 2, 2011
and all other documentation related to application TM 10-05, and directed City staff to prepare a
resolution of approval for the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City
Council on January 18, 2005 certified the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") prepared
for the Hecker Pass Specific Plan. To accommodate a change to this residential use of the
property pursuant to application GPA 07-05, the City prepared an addendum to the FEIR, and the
ILAC\847780.1
050311-04706089
- 1-
Resolution No. 2011-28
City Council on August 3, 2009 adopted CEQA findings Resolution 2009-32 all in accordance
with CEQA, and adopted the mitigation measures and the mitigation monitoring program; and
WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which
constitute the record of proceedings upon which this Project approval is based is the office of the
City Clerk.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
SECTION I
The City Council hereby finds as follows:
1. The proposed Project is consistent with the its General Plan designation of Hecker
Pass Specific Plan - East Residential Cluster as it was amended by GP A 07-05.
2. The proposed Project is consistent with the property's zoning designation, Hecker
Pass Special Use District, and with the City's Subdivision and Land Development Code, and the
State Subdivision Map Act.
3. There is no substantial evidence in the entire record that the Project as mitigated
will have any significant effects on the environment other than those disclosed in the FEIR and
which includes unavoidable impacts described therein and for which a Statement of Overriding
Considerations was adopted by the City Council.
5. There are no facts to support the findings requmng denial of the proposed
tentative map under California Government Code section 66474.
SECTION II
Tentative Map TM 10-05 hereby is approved, subject to the conditions of approval set
forth in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, entitled "TM
1 0-05 Final Conditions of Approval," and subject to the mitigation monitoring program and the
mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the FEIR for GPA 07-05, as summarized in
\LAC\847780.1
050311-04706089
- 2-
Resolution No. 2011-28
CEQA Resolution No. 2009-32, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein
by this reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of May 2011 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ARELLANO, BRACCO, DILLON, LEROE-
MuNoz, TUCKER, WOODWARD and
PINHEIRO
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
APPROVED:
~
Albert Pinheiro, Mayor
\LAC\847780.1
050311-04706089
- 3-
Resolution No. 2011-28
EXHIBIT A
TM 10-05 Final Conditions of Approval
Plannino
1. The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Hecker Pass
Specific Plan, Backbone Infrastructure Plan, and Development Agreement (DAh
including, but not limited to Section 7.7 Public Benefit Fee and Appendix F.
Miscellaneous Improvements, 1. City Wireless System.
2. The project shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures as contained in City
Council Resolution 2009-32 (Exhibit B).
3. Street Names - Submit two or three proposed street names for each interior street.
There should be three different sets of names, one for each of the east-west street
segments and one for the north-south segment (see Fire Department Condition No.
5). The names should follow the established theme for properties on the south side
of Hecker Pass Highway, with fruit tree or other agricultural names.
4. The PUD Architecture and Site approval for the project shall be approved prior to
recordation of the Final Map.
5. The subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its City Council,
Planning Commission, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City or its City Council, Planning Commission, agents,
officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the City,
City Council, Planning Commission, or other board, advisory agency, or legislative
body concerning this subdivision. City will promptly notify the subdivider of any
claim, action, or proceeding against it, and will cooperate fully in the defense. This
condition is imposed pursuantto California Government Code Section 66474.9.
6. No building permit shall be issued in connection with this project if the owner or
developer of such development (i) is not in compliance with the City's Residential
Development Ordinance (City Zoning Ordinance Sections 50.60 et seq.) referred to
as the RDO, any conditions of approval issued in connection with such development,
or other City requirements applicable to such development; or (ii) is in default under
any agreement entered into with the City in connection with such development
pursuant to the RDO. The project must also comply with any condition of exemption
granted from the RDO, including but not limited to time limits in obtaining City
approvals and completion of construction of the dwelling units.
7. Revise Page 2 of the Tentative map to delete the references to the dedication to the
City of Gilroy of right-of-way along SR 152 (Hecker Pass Highway).
Enoineerino
1. All work is to be done in compliance with the City of Gilroy Specifications
Standards and Design Criteria, Hecker Pass Specific Plan, Hecker Pass
Development Agreement and Hecker Pass Specific Use District and is subject to
all laws of this community by reference. Street improvements and the design of all
storm drainage, sewer and water lines, and all street sections shall be in
accordance with City Standards and Hecker Pass Specific Plan, Hecker Pass
Development Agreement and Hecker Pass Specific Use District and shall follow
the most current Master plan for streets and each utility. The developer shall
provide full street, curb, gutter, sidewalk and electrolier improvements. [Municipal
Code, Section 21, Article 2]
2. Post development run-off must be the same as pre-development run-off. Analysis
identifying post/pre-development run-off rates shall be provided. [SWCB]
3. All storm drain run-off must be pre-treated prior to entrance into public storm drain
system. Pre-treatment measures must be reviewed and approved by the
Engineering Division prior to Final Map and/or Improvement Plan approval.
[SWCB]
4. Add following note to improvement (civil) plan title sheet above City Engineer's
signature block:
GENERAL APPROVAL NOTE
Approval of these plans does not release the developer from correction of
mistakes, errors, or omissions contained therein. If, during the course of
construction, the public interest requires a modification or a departure from the
City specification or the approved plans, the City shall have the authority to
require such modifications or departure and specify the manner in which the
same is to be made. [City Standards Appendix A, Section 1]
S. Damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveway approaches to remain along project
frontagellimits shall be replaced to meet current City Standards, as applicable, and
conform to adjacent properties. [City Standards Section 20, Article IX]
6. Any work in the public right-of-way shall require a signing and striping plan
prepared by a licensed, professional engineer with experience in preparing such
plans. Signage and striping plans shall be overlaid on an existing, current aerial.
Where proposed improvements are an extension of an existing street and/or
"conform" to existing, adjacent improvements, signing and striping plans shall
encompass the minimum areas indicated in the City's current policy. [City
Standards Appendix A]
7. Site preparation and fill construction shall be conducted under the observation of,
and tested by, a licensed soils or geotechnical engineer. A report shall be filed
with the City of Gilroy stating that all site preparation and fill construction meets the
requirements of the geotechnical investigation. This shall be subject to review and
approval by the Engineering Division. [CBC]
8. All grading operations and soil compaction activities shall be per the approved soils
report and shall meet with the approval of the City Engineer. Grading plans shall
show the grades of all adjacent properties. [CBC]
9. New and existing utility lines, appurtenances, and associated equipment, including
but not limited to electrical transmission, street lighting, and cable television shall
be required to be placed underground. [Municipal Code Section 21, Article V]
10. As part of the first submittal for Final Map, the developer shall submit vector based
electronic files readable by AutoCAD and in PDF format. Additionally, after the
Final Map and Improvement Plans have been found to be technically correct and in
substantial conformance with the Tentative Map, the developer shall again submit
vector based electronic files readable by AutoCAD and in PDF format. [City
Standards]
11. A SWPPP and an Erosion Control Plan is required for all development over 1 acre
and shall be filed with the City. WDID# shall be provided prior to Improvement
Plan / Final Map approval. City Standards Appendix A, Section1
12. Certification of grades and compaction necessary to serve each phase of
development is required prior to building permit final. This statement must be
added as a general note to the Grading and Drainage Plan.
13. A minimum of one exterior monument shall be set. Additional monuments can be
required by the City Engineer or City Surveyor as deemed necessary. Location of
monuments shall be tied out prior to work. Any City monument damaged,
displaced or destroyed shall be replaced at the developer's sole expense. [SMA]
14. The developer shall submit an estimate of the probable cost of developer-installed
off-site improvements with the Final map submittal. The developer shall also
submit fees and bonds and enter into an improvement agreement prior to Final
Map recordation. [Municipal Code Section 21, Article II]
15. In the event it is necessary to acquire offsite easements or street right-of-way, the
owner shall enter into an agreement with the City prior to Final Map approval
agreeing to pay all condemnation costs, for dedication of all required easements or
street right-of-way. This agreement shall be recorded and require the owner to
deposit all condemnation costs with the City within 21 days of Final Map approval.
The owner shall agree to provide an initial cash deposit as determined by the City.
16. Improvement plans are required for all on-site and off-site improvements. Prior to
Final Map approval and approval of the Improvement Plans, the following items will
need to be completed: [City Standards]
a. The developer shall provide joint trench composite plans for the underground
electrical, gas, telephone, cable television, and communication conduits and
cables including the size, location and details of all trenches, locations of
building utility service stubs and meters and placements or arrangements of
junction structures as a part of the Improvement Plan submittals for the project.
A licensed Civil or Electrical Engineer shall sign the composite drawings and/or
utility improvement plans. (All dry utilities shall be placed underground.)
b. The developer shall negotiate right-of-way with Pacific Gas and Electric and
other utilities subject to the review and approval by the Engineering Division
and the utility companies.
c. A note shall be placed on the plans which states that the composite plan
agrees with City Codes and Standards and that no underground utility conflict
exists.
d. "Will Serve Letters" from each utility company for the subdivision shall be
supplied to the City.
e. The City will collect the plan check and inspection fee for the utility underground
work.
17. Prior to any construction of the dry utilities in the field, the following will need to be
supplied to the City:
a. A professional engineer-signed and PG&E-approved original electric plan.
b. A letter from the design Electrical or Civil Engineer that states the electrical plan
conforms to City Codes and Standards, and to the approved subdivision
improvement plans.
18. Submit a Hazardous Material clearance for any underground tank removal from the
appropriate agency. [State of California]
19. Once the tentative map is approved, the developer shall submit an 8-1/2 X 11-inch
site plan to the Engineering Division to assign addressing which shows the
following: tract name and number, lot number, street names, property lines, right-
of-way lines, north arrow and curb cuts for driveway. [City Standards]
20. Reimbursement is required for any frontage infrastructure including but not limited
to curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm, sewer, and water, constructed by others that
benefits this development.
21. If project is within 150 feet of a water channel, applicant will need a SCVWD
permit. [SCVWD]
22. Prior to recordation of the final map, the Third Street shall be designed to
accommodate a 3Smph design speed. Third Street is called out as a collector in
the HPSP and per City Standards is to have a design speed of 3Smph. Such
design elements may include super elevation of roadway and/or signage. Design
is to be reviewed and approved by the City of Gilroy's Public Works Department.
[DA and HPSPj.
23. Prior to recordation of the final map, the detention facilities including but not limited
to drainage swales, channels, sediment basins and storm drain systems shall be
designed in a manner as to allow for future expansion of facilities as outlined
and/or indicated by the Hecker Pass Illustrative Infrastructure Masterplan,
Detention Basin Plan, Preliminary Backbone Infrastructure Masterplan and/or the
Development Agreement. The storm drain detention basin is to be designed and
construction is to be natural in appearance. Design is to be reviewed and
approved by the City of Gilroy's Public Works Department.
24. Existing sanitary sewer access road shall be upgraded to a Class 1 trail. [DA and
HPSP].
25. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developers shall provide a round-a-bout
design for the improvements indicated at the intersection of Third Street and
Cobblestone Court. Said design is to be prepared by a Traffic Engineer or a Civil
Engineer qualified in round-a-bout-design. Developer shall be required to receive
approval, of the desired design consultant for the said design, by City of Gilroy
Public Works Department prior to commencement and submittal of any design
drawings for review. If, after the design and approval of the round-a-bout, it is
found that additional right-of-way is necessary for the full round-a-bout
improvements, developer shall obtain all such right-of-way prior to final map
recordation and/or as conditioned herein. [DA and HPSPj.
26. Cobblestone Court improvements are to be designed as depicted on the tentative
map. Improvements are to include (but not be limited to) a necessary drainage
(swales, inlets, etc.) to be located on the western side of Cobblestone Ct. All
easements and/or right-of-way dedications (for public streets and services) are to
be recorded and provided prior to Final Map recordation. [DA and HPSP].
27. Area delineated as "Park" on the tentative map shall be dedicated and/or granted
as right-of-way necessary for all future encumbrances (including but not limited to
park and storm drain facilities). [DA and HPSPj.
28. Homeowners Association documentation, Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions
and/or property owner's Maintenance Agreements shall be approved by the
Planning Division prior to the Final Map being released for recordation.
Fire Department
1. TM Conditions shall be included on off-site improvement plans as "Fire Department
Notes" Prior to street completion the Fire Marshal shall be contacted and a fire
clearance for off-site improvements be scheduled.
2. No building permits will be issued without a Fire -Off-Site Improvement Inspection
and Fire Flow Test administered by the Fire Marshal.
3. Off site improvement plan shall provide Fire Hydrants per the City Standard. Fire
Hydrant locations shall be approved by the Fire Marshal prior to final map/site
improvements.
4. Off site improvement plan shall provide all homes shall be provided with 1.5 inch
water laterals and 1" meters sized to allow for a residential NFPA 13d fire sprinkler
system.
S. Off site improvement plan shall provide that Storm Drains shall be stenciled using
the Street Department approved stencil.
6. For private streets the Final Map to include a paragraph that reads: "Red curbing
and signage shall be maintained by the Home Owners Association. Parking
enforcement shall be implemented by the Homeowners Association."
7. Street naming shall be done prior to off site improvement plan and building plan
submittal. Street A shall be named as two streets as the City Street naming policy
does not provide for a street name to continue in a perpendicular route. Addresses
shall be assigned by the City Engineering Section prior to improvement plan and
building permit submittal.
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GILROY MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACf (CEQA) IN
CONNECl10N WITH GPA 07-05, AN AMENDMENT TO THE
BECKER PASS SPECD'lC PLAN FOR WHICH AN ADDENDUM TO
A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACf REPORT
(EIR) BAS BEEN PREPARED, AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATION
MEASURES AND APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM FOR THE SOUTH VALLEY COMMUNITY CHURCH
PROJECI'
WHEREAS, the South Valley Community Church submitted application OP A 07-
05, a General Plan Amendment (referred herein as the "Revised Church Project") to amend
the Hecker Pass Specific Plan ("HPSPj 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 UDits
and a small park on the southerly 6 8CJeS of the area currently designated CommUDity
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 TeteSaBoulevard, 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 Environmentallnipact Report ("HPSP FEIRj prepared by the City as the
lead agency in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources
Code f 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal Code Regs., title 14, f15000 et seqJ
("CEQA j; 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 COIIDeCtion with the approval of a project for
which an EIR has been prepared which identifies one or more significant enviroimental
effects, the decision-malcing agency make certain fipdin8'lregarding those effects; and
WHEREAS, the City COlUlcil on January 18, 2005, adopted Resolution No. 2005-02
making certain findittp 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 considcMd 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, OP 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 Pl8JVling 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 findiT and recommendations set forth herein are made by this City
Council as the City's findings pursuant to CEQA relating to the Revised Chureh Project. The
finding.4; 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 COWlCil finds that on January 18, 2005, it adopted Resolution No.
2005-02 making certain futdillgCl 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 bad 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 finds that on December 8, 2008, an Addendum to the HPSP
FEIR (" Addendumj was prepami 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 ftom 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 incoJporated 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 ColDlCil does hereby designate the City Clerk's office of the City of
Gilroy, at 7351 Rosanna Street, Oilroy, 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 measmes in the HPSP
FEIR as set forth or modified herein as conditions of the Revised Church Project; and
7. This City Co1D1Cil 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 infonnation 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 CBURCB~R~ ~~GS
REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. AESTHETIC IMPACTS
1. Revised Chareh Project: SipiftaDt Iapad ~abs""tidy DaDIap Seenie
Resouras- 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 cbamcter
and sensitivity to visual character which the lIPSP 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 agricultmal uses proposed for
the adjacent property (Hecker Pass Agriculture designation), is abrupt md would not
promote or be consistent with rural visual character md 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 sball illustrate how,
through a combination of grade differences/terracing, Jandscapin& 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
minimi7-ed. Use of alternative paving materials shall be prioritized as
specified in the UPSP. 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
t. HPSP ad Revised Ch.reb Project: PoteDtiaUy Sipifiant Iapact-Lud U.
Chillies that Co'" RenIt ill Coavenion ofF........dlApiaIItDraI Lud Use ConfIieCs
- 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 DOn-agricultural use. This would be considered a significant adverse
environmental impact.
Mitigation: 1be policies stipuJated within the HPSP ensure land use conflicts win not occur
within the specific plan area. To reduce potential confli~ the UPSP requires a SO-foot
buffer between crops and dwelling units to ensure residents are DOt 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 1andscaping and may act
as a foel 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
Filldillg: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
c. AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
I. Revised Churda Projeet: Violatiou of Air QuaDty Standards (Construction
EmissioDl) - Potentially Sipifieaat "pad: PMJO can cause respiratory ailments if
breathed into the body. Construction projects involving grading and other earth movement
can generate significant quantities of PMJO. 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 PMJO 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 cons1ruction activities in accordance with the specifications set forth in
mitigation measure 4 of the FEIR.
Fiadiag: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
D. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
I. HPSP aad Revised Chuell Project: Potentially Sipifieaat "pad- SpeeiaI
Statui Species (California Tiger Salamander, Western Spadefoot Toad, Foothill Yellow-
legged Frog, California Red-legged Frog, Western Pond Tmtle, 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.
Mitigatioa: 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 natura1 riparian habitat by limiting access into the riparian corridor and
restricting trails to dirt paths and natma1 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).
Fiadillg: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
2. HPSP aad ReriIed Chuell Project: Potentially Sipificaat Impact - SpeeiaI
Status Species: There is potential aestivation habitat for the California Itgel' 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.
MitigatiOD: Conducting California Tiger Sala11l8J1der 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
Sal""al'lder. 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.
FiDdiDg: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
3. BPSP aDd Revised Churela Projeet: PoteDtiaIIy Sipifieaat Impaet-8peeial
Status Spedes (BurrowiDg Owl) -The HPSP area provides potential habitat for burrowing
owls, although none was observed dming 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 bumsm
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
detennined to be on site, would be a significant impact
Mitiptioa: 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 detennine 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.
FiDdiDg: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
4. BPSP and Rerised Churdl Project: Poteatially Sipificant Impad-8peda1
Status Spedes (Loaerlaead Shrike ud NestiDg Hapton). 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
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. BPSP and Revised Church Project: Potentially Sipifieant Impact-Loss of
Riparian Woodland aDd 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 ftom conflicts with biological protec1ion policies by protecting
riparian woodlaud 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, minimi7e 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. BPSP and Rerised Cllarcla Project: Potentially Significant Impact-Disturbance
of Seasitive Riparian BabitatJllydrologie Dlmlrbuee -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 ofUvas 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 Reviled Chureh Project: Poteatially Sipifieant Impact-Interference
with Wlldlife 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. Injmy 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 Sipifieut Impaet-ConOict with
Local PoUcies 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 Chureh Project: Loss of Ilistorleal Resourees - Sipifieant 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 lIPSP 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 ofConrotto vinicultme within the new Revised Church Project.
Options for designs include developing a display along Hecker Pass Highway, creating a
Conrotto vinicultme 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
FindiDg: The implementation of these mitigation measures will not avoid or substantially
lessen the impact Therefore, this impact rem8in~ significant and unavoidable. See
Statement of Oveniding Considerations, Section III.
2. Revised Chureh Project: Potentially SigDifieant Impaa-Disturbance to Human
Remains. The HPSP area is not known to contain hmnan 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 minimb'.e disturbance to possible
hmnan 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 pennit 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. IIPSP and ReriHd Church Projeet: Potentially Signif"JaDt Imput-Exposure of
People to LandsBde Hazanl-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 ha7ards, 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. IIPSP and Revised Church Project: Potentially Sipifiamt Impaa-80il
ErosioD-80ils 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 nmoff 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 ftom erosion, and are feasible, fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
FincUng: 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 Rerised Chureh Projeet: PoteDtiaIIy Sipifieant IDlpact-Exposure of
Future Residents, the Public, and Ulen of CODlDlUaity Fadlitles to HazardoUl
Materials - The extent to which futme 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.
B. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. HPSP aDd Revised Chureh Projeet: POteDtiaIIy Sipifiamt IDlpact-ErosioD of
Uvas Creek Banks Fro. StOI'Dl Water RUDotl'JIacreased Buk Iastability for Third
Street ExtensioD -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 stonn water runoff being conveyed over the creek
bank and require grading/excavation or other actions that could facilitate instability of the
bank margins.
Mitigatioa: The HPSP 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 aDd Revised Ch1lJ'da Projeet: POteDtiaIIy Sipifiamt IDlpaet-8l1ort TenD
StOnD Water Ruaofl' Water Quality EfI'eccs-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 stonn event.
Mitigatioa: 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.
FiDdiag: 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 Claurdl Project: Poteatially Sfgnifieant IIDpact-Long Term
Water Stona Water RUDoff Quality EffeeD- The proposed development could introduce
contaminants associated with urban runoff into local gr01m.dwater 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 Jequiring stonn 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).
FiDcliDg: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant enviromnental impact.
4. HPSP and Revised Claureh Projeet: Potentially Sipifieant Impaet-Exposure 01
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 foundatioDS 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. BPSP and Reviled Claurch Project: Loll of Availability 01. LoeaIIy Important
Minerai Resoaree - SipificaDt and Unavoidable Impaet: Implementation of the Revised
Church Project would result in loss of availability of State desipded 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.
FiDcIiDg: 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 m.
J. NOISE
1. HPSP and Revised Choreh Projeet: Potentially SigDifleaDt Impaet-Exposure to
CoutractiOD Nolle tJaat Eseeedl StaIldanll 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 ball 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 Ch1ll'Ch Project: Potentially Significant Impaet-Church Function Noise
Generation and Eft'eds on ViDage Green Residen. -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 lIIinimi7.e 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 Pennit.
Finding: The implementation of these mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
3. Revised Church Projeet: Potentially Sipifiamt Impaet-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 structme ofup 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 Pennit.
Finding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
4. Rerised Charda Projeet: Potentially Sipificant IlDpaet-Sdaool Play Area
Funetion and Noise Impads on Proposed Resid_tiaI Land Uses to tile West -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 minimi7,c noise impacts
on residential uses.
FilldiIIg: The implementation of these mitigation measures will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact
5. Revised Chureh Project: Potentially Sipifieant IIIlpaet-Gymn..ium 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 dming 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 Signifieant Impact-Meehanieal Systems
Noise Impact on Vmage 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.
FilldiIIg: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
K. TRANSPORTATION
1. HPSP ad Reviled Chureh Project: Significant Impact--Cumulative Citywide
Trame Impacts. Buildout of the HPSP area would result in a cwnulatively considerable
amount of traffic to the City's overall circulation system. This is considered a significant
adverse enviromnental 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 FE~ 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. Reviled Oarda Project: Potentially SigDifieant bapaet-Site Aeeess and OIl...ite
CireulatioD. The Revised Church Project site plan proposes tluee 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 S~i&tI.t Impad-Site Aeeess and OIl-site
Cireulation - Stadent Loadiag 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 ofloading 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 Chureh Project: Potentially SigDifiaDt bapad-Parking DefieieDdes.
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: Owing 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 Chureh Project: Effects of CoJUtrumon or ExpaDlion of
Stonn Drainage FadIities - Potentially Sipifieant Impact: Construction of a new storm
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.
MitiptiOD: The HPSP contains policies that require any disturbance within the Uvas Creek
setback to minimi7.e 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.
FiDding: The implementation of this mitigation measure will avoid or substantially lessen
this potential significant environmental impact.
n. FINDINGS OF REVISED CByRCB PROJECI' ALTERNATIVES
A. ALTERNATIVE l-"NO PROJECI'" 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 ofGi/roy 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
nual 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 I 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
substanti~ly reduce the aesthetic impacts and inconsistency with the nua1 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 roral character of the HPSP area. However,
both the Revised Chureh 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.
m. 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 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 less-tban-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 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 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 willlessen the need for expansion of
infras1rocture and cons1ruCtion 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 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3n:1 day of August 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
BRACCO, DILLON, TUCKER,
WOODWARD and PINHEIRO
ARELLANO, GARTMAN
NONE
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
Albert~
17
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-32
Mitieation Monitorioe Proeram
For OP 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 Valley 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 project.
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:
\lH\796642.4
1
Hecker Pass Specific PlanlSouth Valley Community Chumh 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 VaHey Community Churr::h Final EIR
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Hecker Pass Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring Checklist
The followine mitieations. adopted bv City Council Res. 2005-02. a01>lv to discretionary
aDproval of anv entitlements for projects 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 PlanlSouth 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 fmd 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 I
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 andidisposal of hazardous waste. Results of the Phase I 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 Vallev 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
II. 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 andlor a landscaped berm between residential development sites and the Church
property line, or another measure or combination of measures deemed acceptable to
the city.
H 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 PlanISouth Valley Community Churr::h 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 StreetlHecker 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, to-year
and lOO-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 PIan EIR Table SI, 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 PlanlSouth Va/ley 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 Mitieation Monitorine 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
Hsclcer Pass Specific PlanlSouth 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:
Party responsible for monitoring:
Applicant
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:
Party responsible for monitoring:
Applicant
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 PlanlSouth Valley Community ChulCh 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. H a monitoring professional archaeologist is not on-site, the
city shall be notified immediately and a qualified professional archaeologist
shall be retained. H 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:
Party responsible for monitoring:
Applicant
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:
Party responsible for monitoring:
Applicant
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, SIIA 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 3M 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 18111 day of August, 2009.
(Seal)
I, SHA WNA FREELS, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the
attached Resolution No. 2011-28 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 special meeting of said Council
held on the 16th day of May, 2011, 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 17th day
(Seal)