Loading...
04/30/2015 Planning Commission Special Meeting Adopted 06/04/2015Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes April 30, 2015 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Gullen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. II. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL Office Assistant Zinnia Navarro reported the agenda was posted on Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 4:45 p.m. Roll Call Present: Commissioner Steve Ashford; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Tom Fischer; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Susan Rodriguez; Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Richard Gullen; Staff Present: Kristi Abrams, Community Development Director; Lee Butler, Development Center Manager; Stan Ketchum, Senior Planner; Jim Harnish, Consultant; Dave Amos, Consultant; Jolie Houston, Assistant City Attorney; Sue Martin, Planning Manager. III. NEW BUSINESS A. The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) has selected a Preferred Land Use Alternative for the Gilroy 2040 General Plan for recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. At this meeting, city staff and consultants will present the Preferred Land Use Alternative to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will then be asked to approve, or approve as amended, the Preferred Land Use Alternative. This action does not represent final approval of the General Plan but is an interim step in the General Plan process. Subsequent to this action, city staff, consultants and the GPAC will proceed to develop the General Plan Policy document and the Environmental Impact Report for the new Gilroy General Plan. Recommendation of the Preferred Land Use Alternative is exempt from environmental review under Section 15262 of the California Environmental Quality Act Senior Planner Ketchum indicated the 2040 General Plan process has reached a milestone with the General Plan Advisory Committee's (GPAC) completion of the Preferred Land use Alternative. He then introduced the city's consultant for the remainder of the staff presentation. Page 1 of 5 Consultant, Harnish provided an overview of the General Plan process, alternative general plan options, and the GPAC Preferred Land Use Alternative, and indicated the commission's recommendation would be presented to the city council in May. General Plan consultant, Amos of Mintier Harnish described key phases of the general plan process conducted to -date. These include the vision and guiding principles, focus areas within the three alternative land use plans, and the various issues considered by the GPAC before they could finalize their preferred land use alternative. Consultant Amos referenced a supplemental memo prepared for the Planning Commission, dated April 27, 2015. He stated the memo addressed inquiries received from commissioners relating to the relationship of the new general plan to the Residential Development Ordinance (RDO) and a request for suggested quantitative prerequisite conditions for the Urban Reserves in Focus Areas 2 and 3. Consultant Amos concluded his presentation with a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution supporting the GPAC Preferred Land Use Alternative, consideration of the proposed Prerequisite Conditions, and indicated the City Council would consider this item on May 18th Commissioner Sanford stated that the figures showing the maximum buildout of jobs and housing units did not represent the GPAC's recommendation to include the Urban Reserves in Focus Areas 2, 3 and 8. She asked if there were figures available reflecting future growth without the Urban Reserves in Focus Areas 2, 3 and 8. Consultant Amos stated that those figures were not available at this time. Commissioner Fischer asked Senior Planner Ketchum for clarification on the prerequisite conditions in Focus Area 2, as they pertain to the current application for inclusion of the 700+ acres of that area. As written, the prerequisite conditions would not apply to that application. Commissioner Fischer stated that if compliance with the prerequisite conditions was required at the time of annexation, it would apply to the 700+ acre project. Commissioner Fischer requested clarification on calculation of remaining vacant land for the 10-year analysis, and asked if the Glen Loma property included in that accounting. Senior Planner Ketchum responded that all unbuilt units are included as part of analysis of remaining supply. Commissioner Sanford asked about changes to requirements for Focus Area 2, and how changes might affect the pending application. Senior Planner Ketchum stated it would depend on the timing of the required prerequisite conditions. The pending application is anticipated for council review prior to Page 2 of 5 the end of the General Plan process. Chair Gullen stated the population, housing and jobs numbers shown in staff's presentation greatly exceed the market projections. He asked how the GPAC arrived at their recommendation. Senior Planner Ketchum stated the GPAC-recommended urban reserve designations are intended to prevent premature urban development and encourage more development within the existing city to occur first. Development Center Manager Butler indicated that employers planning to expand or relocate are looking for different criteria in terms of location, parcel size, access to freeways, and proximity to other businesses and residential uses. With a larger selection of employment lands Gilroy will have a higher probability of attracting new business. Commissioner Sanford indicated she is a member of the GPAC and stated the employment projection numbers presented in tonight's meeting were not presented in the GPAC meeting. Commissioner Sanford stated that the employment figures showing the maximum buildout of jobs did not represent the GPAC's recommendation. She stated that the GPAC recommended the amount of new growth that would occur if development did not occur in the Urban Reserves in Focus Areas 2, 3 and 8. Chair Gullen stated community members have concerns that excess development capacity will discourage needed infill development in areas such as Downtown. Senior Planner Ketchum stated that compact development is more efficient for a variety of reasons such as reduced infrastructure costs and encouraging walkable communities. He clarified the Urban Service Area guides the amount of developable land and the urban reserve concept establishes the timing of future expansion of the urban area. Commissioner Kloecker asked for confirmation that the perquisite conditions are still in draft form. Senior Planner Ketchum stated the prerequisite conditions are in draft form and will be included in the General Plan policy text to be reviewed by the GPAC, Planning Commission and City Council. The conditions can be revised through those reviews before being finalized and approved by the City Council. Commissioner Kloecker stated it will be important to seek community input on the language of the prerequisite conditions. Commissioner Kloecker asked for clarification on how the 10 year figure in the prerequisite condition was determined. Page 3 of 5 Senior Planner Ketchum stated it was based on the fact that it can take seven or eight years or longer to complete the specific plan and all others land use entitlements required before new development can occur in the specific plan areas outside the Urban Service Area. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requires justification from a city requesting Urban Service Area expansion if there is greater than a five year supply of vacant land available for future development. Senior Planner Ketchum explained that the city prepared a vacant land inventory in November 2014 that found there is remaining vacant land available for approximately 3,900 dwelling units outside of downtown, which equates to about an 11'/z-year supply. The downtown area has capacity for 1,500 new units, but is not included in the forecast of development, because such development does not follow the more predicable development patterns typical throughout the city. Chair Richard Gullen inquired if the Urban Reserve in Focus Area 2 required that future growth within that large area be phased to allow development in an orderly, logical fashion proceeding from the existing city boundary north and not allow development to skip over undeveloped land to start at the north end of the area. Senior Planner Ketchum stated that there is nothing in the urban reserve or prerequisite conditions to require that, but such requirements could be included. Such phasing would be included in the future specific plan required by the Neighborhood District General Plan designation. Development Center Manager Butler stated that the housing and job figures included in the buildout projections are conservatively high, because the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the maximum level of development be analyzed. The actual amount of new housing will likely be lower when all when all requirements such as streets, parks, schools and other facilities are incorporated into the required specific plan in the urban reserve areas. The future amount of new jobs will be based on the types of businesses, some of which will not have large numbers of employees on large amounts of land. Mr. Butler used the example of the UNFI project that has a 53-acre site and anticipates 450 employees Commissioner Kloecker asked if there is a requirement for a general plan to receive a midterm review during the time between major updates. Senior Planner Ketchum stated the State general plan guidelines encourage it, but there is no legal requirement. The current General Plan has policies that recommend such reviews. The practice of interim reviews of the progress in implementing general plans is becoming more common in other cities. Motion: Approve motion to adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve the GPAC Preferred Land Use Alternative without Focus Area 8, with the following modifications: Page 4 of 5 Focus Area 2 is recommended as shown in Alternative 3 Compact Development, with Neighborhood District (Revised) and Urban Reserve south of Day Rd and Open Space north of Day Road. The Urban Reserve prerequisite conditions are as shown on page 126 of the Alternatives Report, dated April, 2015, and as contained in the staff memo to the Planning Commission, dated April 27, 2015. These prerequisite conditions shall be met prior to annexation of the area. Focus Area 3 is recommended to maintain the employment designations identified in the GPAC preferred alternative, and the northerly area designated as Neighborhood District (Revised) in the GPAC preferred alternative is recommended to be Rural Residential. Moved by Commissioner Tom Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Steve Ashford, Vote: Motion carried 7-0. Yes: Commissioner Steve Ashford; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Tom Fischer; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Sue Rodriguez; Chair Richard Gullen, Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford No: None Abstain: None Absent: None Motion: Approve motion to adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve the preferred alternative for Focus Area 8 as shown in Alternative 3, to be designated Open Space. Moved by Commissioner Tom Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Steve Ashford. Vote: Motion carried 6-1. Yes: Commissioner Ashford; Commissioner Lai; Commissioner Tom Fischer; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Sue Rodriguez; Chair Richard Gullen No: Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford Abstain: None Absent: None IV. ADJOURNMENT to the Next Regular Meeting of May 7, 2015 at 6:30 p.m. Page 5 of 5