11/19/2015 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Adopted 01/07/2016Planning Commission
Special Meeting
NOVEMBER 19, 2015
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Richard Gullen opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance.
II. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL
Georgina Sanchez stated the agenda was posted on November 16, 2015 at 12:30 p.m.
Roll Call:
Present: Commissioner Steve Ashford; Commissioner Tom Fischer; Commissioner Paul
Kloecker; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Susan Rodriguez; Commissioner
Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Richard Gullen
Staff Present:
Community Development Director, Kristi Abrams; City Attorney, Andy Faber; Senior
Planner, Stan Ketchum; Planning Manager, Sue Martin; Traffic Engineer, Henry Servin;
Interim City Administrator, Ed Tewes; Police Chief, Denise Turner; Fire Division Chief,
Colin Martin.
II. ORDERS OF THE DAY
A. Item VI.A. Draft Gilroy 2040 - General Plan Policy Text will be taken out of order and
heard prior to public hearings.
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) Draft Gilroy 2040 General Plan Policy
Text recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council, continued from the
November 12, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting.
Planner Ketchum presented the staff report giving brief overview recapping last week’s
topics as well as explaining additional documents that he handed out at the meeting.
One late staff memo from Ed Tewes needed to be accepted by a motion.
Item A - GPAC
Motion: to accept the late staff memo from Interim City Administrator Ed Tewes, as it
has been found to be necessary to assist with discussions of the topic.
Moved by Commissioner Tom Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
Yes: Commissioner Tom Fischer; Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Commissioner Paul
Kloecker; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Steve Ashford; Vice Chair Sue
Rodriguez; Chair Richard Gullen.
Planner Ketchum continued with a brief overview of Ed Tewes’ staff memo on “Public
Safety Response Times and the General Plan.” He stated the response times are the
purview of the City Council and should not be in the General plan. Language was
changed on this item in the General Plan that would address GPAC’s concern as well
as those of the Police and Fire Chiefs.
Interim City Administrator Tewes spoke briefly reiterating Planner Ketchum’s comments
and also stating that the details of police response should be left to the operating plans
of the police and fire departments and to the biennial budget. He introduced Police
Chief Denise Turner and Fire Division Chief Colin Martin to answer questions that were
raised at previous meeting.
Commissioner Gullen asked could a proposed project cause the response time to be
exceeded; at what point in the project development process would it be accounted for.
Would it be captured in the EIR report and include an analysis in the project against the
standard set in budget for response times.
Administrator Tewes answered that there is an interdepartmental review of all
development proposals, and if there were changes to a project service level that there
would be a recommendation letter not to proceed with it.
City Attorney Faber stated an EIR does review impacts to public services, and would
identify what is needed to minimize a potential impact.
Commissioner Fischer wanted clarification on the Committee for Green Foothills
suggestions to prerequisite modifications.
Commissioner Sanford asked what sources the Police Chief uses when making
response time decisions if it is not the General Plan.
Chief Turner responded that the Gilroy Police Department Strategic Plan and City
Council sponsored staffing study in 2014, which showed budget documentation,
performance and benchmark information, were used and continue to be looked at.
They use a myriad of methods, such as National Best Practices, to determine staffing
needs.
Commissioner Paul Kloecker wanted clarification on target response times and national
best practices and the relation to the City of Gilroy, that having City Council’s budget be
a driving factor with response times was not ideal.
Chief Turner responded that the goal is to respond to Priority E and Priority 1 calls
within 5 minutes 95% of the time. However, comparing actual response times for Gilroy
and other cities are different when describing Priority 1 calls. Gilroy has Priority E type
calls that could be a Priority 1 when measured with other cities.
Commissioner Fischer asked and received clarification from Chief Turner that her
department does not refer to the General Plan for the five minute response times and
that the measure was adopted in their benchmark process with the City Council budget.
Commissioner Lai asked what is a reasonable response time.
Chief Turner responded that 5 minutes or less for Priority E and 1 in progress calls (life
safety) is reasonable.
Planner Ketchum briefed commissioners on the Committee For Green Foothills memo
which included staff initial response to various recommendations in the memo.
Chair Gullen opened the public hearing.
Carolyn Tognetti, member of GPAC, stated that GPAC wants to keep the language for
response times in the General Plan, the consensus is that it’s a quality of life issue and
of upmost importance. The General Plan is where the public and elected officials can
easily look to and find what the established response standards are. Any budget
consideration by the city should not be used to establish these standards.
Connie Rogers, former planning commission and city council member, stated the
General Plan policy text and timeframe for urban service area language should remain
and be consistent per LAFCO and state guidelines, any change would be conflicting.
Return to 5 year timeframe.
Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications:
Commissioner’s Fischer, Sanford, Ashford and Kloecker met and spoke with many
residents on response times. Chair Gullen added that he had received
correspondence.
Commission Fischer stated he supports the resident’s policy guidance document
staying in the General Plan which lists the response times.
Chair Gullen stated he is concerned with the word “average” and lack of distinction
between the types of calls. The General Plan is a high level policy document and
wording on response times is not necessary and could lead to unintended
consequences. This whole issue will be captured in the EIR or staff level when project
is being analyzed.
Commissioner Kloecker is satisfied with the wording by the city manager, police and fire
chief. States the response time has been around for 20 years and has been the desired
times and does not see it changing. He would be okay with it being in the General Plan
but does not feel it is necessary due to other publicized ways of getting the information
out.
Commissioner Fischer stated if you take the language out of the General Plan, new
developments coming in being evaluated will not be looking at these response times
and they should.
Commissioner Kai agreed with Commissioner Fischer’s comments on response times
and also felt budgets should not be used to determine those times.
Commissioner Rodriguez asked if there was any way to include priority type information
on response calls in the General Plan per GPAC’s request as well as the Fire and
Police Chief.
Commissioner Gullen and Fisher both stated to vote separately on each amendment
that would be included in the final document, a motion was presented.
Motion: Leave the language including the response times in the Policy Text as
recommended by the GPAC.
Moved by Commissioner Tom Fischer, seconded by Commissioner Steve Ashford.
Vote: Motion failed 3-4.
Yes: Commissioner Tom Fischer; Commissioner Steve Ashford; Vice Chair Sue
Rodriguez.
No: Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Elizabeth
Sanford; Chair Richard Gullen
Motion: to recommend the language as proposed by staff with the inclusion of "and
aligned with National Best Practices" and have the City Council consider the language
proposed by the GPAC.
Moved by Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford.
Vote: Motion carried 5-2.
Yes: Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner
Kai Lai; Vice Chair Sue Rodriguez; Chair Richard Gullen.
No: Commissioner Tom Fischer; Commissioner Steve Ashford.
Motion: to adopt the land use diagram refinements items 1, 2, 3 and 4. In section 4A of
staff report.
Moved by Chair Richard Gullen, seconded by Commissioner Paul Kloecker.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
Yes: Chair Richard Gullen; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Tom
Fischer; Commissioner Kai Lai; Vice Chair Sue Rodriguez; Commissioner Elizabeth
Sanford; Commissioner Steve Ashford.
Commission Fisher states he would like to modify the prerequisite language on the
Green Foothills memo which states the applicant would provide funds to the city for an
analysis per Items A and B.
Motion: Modify the language in LU 1.13 items 2, 3, & 4 to show the applicant will provide
funds to the city for the preparation of the noted reports
Moved by Commissioner Tom Fischer
Vote: Motion carried 7-0
Yes: Commissioner Tom Fischer; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Kai
Lai; Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Commissioner Steve Ashford; Vice Chair Sue
Rodriguez; Chair Richard Gullen.
Motion: to accept the language set by staff for noise policy.
Moved by Commissioner Tom Fisher, seconded by Commission Kloecker.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
Yes: Commissioner Tom Fischer; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner Kai
Lai; Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Commissioner Steve Ashford; Vice Chair Sue
Rodriguez; Chair Richard Gullen.
Motion: to adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve the General Plan
Policy Text and revisions to the Preferred Land Use Alternative for inclusion in the Draft
Gilroy 2040 General Plan subject to amendments which have been previously made.
Moved by Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford, seconded by Commissioner Paul Kloecker.
Vote: Motion carried 6-1.
Yes: Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford; Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Commissioner
Kai Lai; Commissioner Steve Ashford; Chair Sue Rodriguez; Chair Richard Gullen.
No: Commissioner Tom Fischer
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. USA 14-01 (Urban Service Area amendment) request to add approximately 721
acres into the city’s existing USA boundaries. The subject area would encompass land
north of the city limit to Fitzgerald Avenue, east of Santa Teresa Boulevard and west of
Monterey Road. The request under consideration is limited to amendment of the USA
boundary, which defines the area in which the city could extend public services within
the next five years. While not part of the approval request, an illustrative site
development plan consistent with the 2020 General Plan Neighborhood District land use
designation has been prepared for evaluation purposes only. The applicant submitted
conceptual development plans for the site, consisting of 3,996 residential units, of which
1,500 are proposed as an active adult community. Residential units are proposed at the
following densities: 1,358 units under 7.25 units per acre; 930 units at 7.25 to 9 units per
acre; 1,176 units at 9 to 16 units per acre; and 532 units at 16 to 30 units per acre. The
conceptual development plan proposes 338,000 square feet of commercial uses on
about 39 acres; about 143 acres of parkland, including a community park, open space,
linear parkway, and neighborhood parks; an elementary school, and a middle school
site. Buena Vista Avenue would be extended through the site to connect to Day Road at
Santa Teresa Boulevard. Bicycle paths would be built along West Branch Llagas Creek
and Lions Creek. Off-site improvements would be required for transportation (Masten
Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue), water wells (east of U.S. Highway 101), and a
recycled water pipeline.
Richard James of EMC Planning Group presented the staff report.
Commissioner Sanford asked how the vacant land is calculated for our housing supply.
Mr. James stated every parcel within the urban service area is looked at and for those
that don’t have any development on them or are under developed the total number of
acres is added up. Then using the number of past residential permits issued, the
consumption rate of land is calculated and divided into the remaining acreage of vacant
land to determine the number of years supply of residential land in the City.
Commissioner Fischer asked for clarification on two areas that are not included in the
proposal [referring to the southeast corner of Fitzgerald /Santa Teresa and the
properties along Whiskey Hill Lane].
Mr. James stated that originally when the project was proposed just the northern areas
[north of Day Road/Buena Vista Avenue] were included. The northern area alone would
not pass LAFCO so the southern areas were included. Why these two parcels were not
included could be better explained by the applicant’s representative.
Commissioner Fischer asked for clarification on the maintenance district to pay for
police and fire and would this be a property tax assessment on each piece of land sold.
Mr. James clarified that the district has to be a vote of the land owners and that is
typically formed for this type of proposal before the subdivision takes place; this would
be an on-going property tax assessment.
Commissioner Fischer asked about the water conservation measures.
Mr. James stated that there are differences between the temporary measure for the
drought and permanent measure that would be incorporated into this development.
Commissioner Kloecker asked for clarification on the water supply requirement of 20%
reduction for the whole city with 2014 as the baseline.
Mr. James stated that there is not a requirement of reduction for the whole city. He
clarified that the 2014 is not based on actual water use in any given year; it is based on
average water use factors that are used to estimate water use.
Commissioner Kloecker asked about the two separate pieces of property (USA 12-01
and USA 14-02) identified within USA 14-01. He asked if those two pieces of property
are included in all the analysis of USA 14-01.
Director Abrams stated that applications had been received on USA 12-01 and USA 14-
02 and were in the process. The applicants since have withdrawn their applications and
have joined in with USA 14-01. Director Abrams later clarified that these applications
were suspended rather than withdrawn, pending outcome of USA 14-01. With the
applicants joining in with USA 14-01 this makes a complete application for LAFCO.
Director Abrams confirmed the analysis covers the entire project including the two
pieces.
Commissioner Lai asked how many homes are there in the city. He also asked about
the 1500 adult homes, what is the age and will they be gated.
Mr. James stated that the active adult homes are for people 55 years and older.
Director Abrams stated at this time we don’t have that information regarding if the active
adult homes will be gated or not. She also stated that there are about 15,000 homes in
the city.
Commissioner Lai asked about Santa Teresa Blvd. between Day Road and Fitzgerald
being two lanes and are there plans to make it four lanes.
Traffic Engineer Servin stated in the future there will be a build out to four lanes on
Santa Teresa Blvd.
Chair Gullen asked why staff did not make a recommendation.
Director Abrams stated this is a policy decision for the Planning Commission to make a
recommendation to the Council, and the Council will make the final decision; it’s not
appropriate for staff to make a recommendation.
Chair Gullen stated that the application is inconsistent with policies relating to direction
of growth, economical and efficient provision of services, and the preservation of
agricultural land and open space. He asked can those items be mitigated through the
development process in the future.
Director Abrams responded that the Council controls the annexation process and
controls the rate of growth and the preservation of agricultural lands. The city does
have mitigation policy in place and we do have agricultural land preservation areas east
of the city. The developer would have to either buy development rights or buy the land
out right and put a restriction on the land as an agricultural preservation area. She
stated with respect to the services of police and fire there would be a community
facilities district put on the land and the home owners would be paying for those
services.
Commissioner Kloecker asked when are impact fees paid by the applicant.
Director Abrams stated impact fees are paid when the building permit is pulled or if the
applicant requests a deferral to building final. She stated impact fees are for
infrastructure only.
City Attorney Faber commented that if this project goes forward at some point there will
be a specific plan, a development agreement, and other agreements so the phasing of
the improvements for the capital facilities would be tied into the growth.
Chair Gullen opened the public hearing.
Skip Spiering, the applicant, spoke about the LAFCO, the vacant land inventory, and the
time frame of the project. He stated this is not an overnight project; it will take many
years to complete.
Victor Akylas spoke in favor of the project. He stated that he owns a very small piece of
this project and the project will not take place overnight but will be built out in 10 to 20
years. He hopes the Commission approves the USA for this will be better for the city.
Ken Kerley spoke on behalf of the South Gilroy Neighborhood District, and indicated
they submitted a letter asking for denial of the project. He stated in 2014 staff asked
him to withdraw the South Gilroy Neighborhood District USA amendment application
due to inconsistencies with the 2040 General Plan. He stated that it is unfair to proceed
with the North Neighborhood District USA before the 2040 General Plan is adopted.
William Johanson stated he opposes the project. He stated that he does not oppose
growth but 4,000 homes in one area is not a good idea. He feels growth should be at a
slow moderate pace.
Alvaro Meza spoke on behalf of Gilroy Unified School District and growth of the city. He
thanked staff for keeping the district apprised of projects coming forward and the need
to house students. He stated that projects like the one before the Commission gives the
district not only impact fees but the ability to properly plan for future school needs,
including land to build an elementary school and get the proper mitigation for middle
and high school.
Connie Rogers stated she urges the Commission to deny the project. She does not feel
that the Commission has enough information.
Dick Oliver spoke in favor of the project. He stated that it might take 20 years to build
out the project but the planning needs to start today.
Curt Cotner stated he opposes the project. He does not feel growing north is the best
choice for growth in the city.
Carolyn Tognetti spoke against the project. She stated on the Wren USA application
staff recommended denial of the project and she feels this project should have come
with that same recommendation. She feel this project should wait until the new General
Plan is complete.
Lana Sandoval spoke on the 2014 application for the South Gilroy Neighborhood
District. She spoke on the small town feel of Gilroy and does not agree with the project.
Dan Fiorio agrees that the city needs growth but not all in one area. He requested that
the Commission deny the project.
Chair Gullen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Fischer stated he has met with several members of the community and
he also met with Save Open Space Gilroy.
Commissioners Ashford and Rodriguez stated they received an email regarding the
project.
Commissioner Sanford stated she received the same email and also spoke with Connie
Rogers.
Commissioner Fischer stated that he would like to continue the discussion to a special
meeting of December 10, 2015 so he can go over the information that he received at
the meeting.
Commissioner Kloecker stated that there are reasons to oppose the project and he
does not feel he is fully informed to make a decision.
Commissioner Fischer made a motion to continue the discussion to a special meeting of
December 10, 2015.
Chair Gullen stated he is concerned with the lack of a recommendation from staff. He
stated there are a lot of positives with a large project like this but, is this the right time.
He feels in-fill development and revitalizing the downtown should come before this
project. He would support a motion to continue the discussion to a later date.
Commissioner Sanford stated she would like the maker of the motion to withdraw the
motion in order to let the discussion happen and give it due course and then see if there
is consensus, and if not then consider continuing the item to another meeting.
Commissioner Fischer withdrew his motion.
Chair Gullen stated the motion was withdrawn.
Commissioner Sanford commented on the size of the project and said that she is not
opposed to the project but does not think this is the correct project. She can’t support
this project.
Commissioner Fischer stated he cannot support this project. He does not feel this is the
right time for this project.
Commissioner Kloecker does not support this project. He does not feel this is the right
time for a project of this size. Maybe in four or five years. He asked City Attorney
Faber what are the ramifications of approving the EIR but not the USA amendment.
City Attorney Faber stated that the Commission does not have to take any position on
the EIR if the Commission is denying the USA amendment. If the Commission feels the
EIR is in compliance with CEQA a motion can be made to recommend certification of
the EIR.
Commissioner Kloecker asked what will happen in the future if the EIR is certified and
the project is denied.
City Attorney Faber stated that after a few years an EIR grows stale and the
Commission is only recommending if the Council approves it or not.
Commissioner Lai asked staff if the Commission denies the large USA then could the
two smaller projects move forward.
Planning Manager Martin stated that the two smaller projects would be decided by the
Council and the Commission could make a recommendation to have the two smaller
projects go forward.
Chair Gullen asked for clarification on the EIR; if the Council were to certify the EIR and
deny the project, would the benefit to the applicant be the applicant has a certified EIR
and could in the future re-apply.
City Attorney Faber clarified that if the applicant re-applied in two years there would be
a new General Plan and a certified EIR would not be very helpful for them at that point.
Chair Gullen stated that he feels the EIR is in compliance and would approve a certified
EIR.
Motion on Item V.A.
Motion: to recommend the City Council to certify EIR as being complete and in
compliance with CEQA.
Moved by Commissioner Paul Kloecker, seconded by Chair Richard Gullen
Vote: Motion failed 3-4-0-0
Yes: Commissioner Paul Kloecker; Chair Richard Gullen; Commissioner Susan
Rodriguez.
No: Commissioner Steve Ashford; Commissioner Tom Fischer; Commissioner Kai Lai;
Commissioner Elizabeth Sanford
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Second Motion on Item V.A.
Motion: to adopt a resolution recommending the City Council deny USA 14-01
Moved by Commissioner Tom Fischer , seconded by Commissioner Kai Lai
Vote: Motion carried 7-0-0-0
Yes: Commissioner Steve Ashford; Commissioner Tom Fischer; Commissioner Paul
Kloecker; Commissioner Kai Lai; Commissioner Susan Rodriguez; Commissioner
Elizabeth Sanford; Chair Richard Gullen
No: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Chair Gullen Adjourned the meeting at 10:45 PM
_____________________________
Georgina Sanchez, Office Assistant