Minutes 1979/10/02
r
!
'~ ,-.~.. ,--
Roll Call
~ ,
4279
october 2, 1979
Gilroy, California
The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Gilroy City Council was
called to order by His Honor Norman B. Goodrich at 8:03 p.m.
Present: Council Members: William E. Childers, Brian D. Cunningham,
Roberta H. Hughan, Marion T. Link, John E. Pate, David V. stout and Norman
B. Goodrich.
""~'.:"-~".-.
4280
General Plan The Mayor stated that the purpose ,of this meeting was to
conduct the first public Hearing on the Modified Draft General Plan.
-
Planning Director Dorn presented and explained the Staff
Report regarding same and recommendations of the Planning Commission ...
and Parks & Recreation Commission.
Mr. Douglas Duncan, representing the consultant firm, Duncan
& Jones, addressed the Council, noting that he is prepared to answer
any questions regarding the modified draft General Plan for Gilroy.
The Mayor noted that the purpose of this meeting is to listen
to public input in said plan and asked if there was anyone in the
audience wishing to speak on the matter.
-
....
Mr. David Sorenson, representing Pacific Gas & Electric Company,
addressed the Council and requested the following various changes and
supported various items proposed.
1) Page 12, Item 19 - Overhead utility lines should be removed
if underground utility lines are proposed and if significant costs are
to be paid for by the City.
2} Page 21, Line 23 - Does not understand why same is included
in the proposed plan.
3) Page 22, Line 27 - Supports Items 4 and 5.
4) Page 24, Item 11
accomplished by P. G. & E.
Utility lines. Noted same is already
51 Page 29, Line 22 - Public & Seismic Safety. Noted that
same is charging the City with undertaking a hazard reduction pro-
gram for inspecting critical facilities, such as P. G. & E. electric
power and gas transmission lines. He noted that same infers that the
City will work hand-in-hand with P. G. & E. and inquired if the City
is staffed to do same. He also noted that P. G. & E. is one of the
few private institutions listed throughout the General Plan with
no prior discussion with any P. G. & E. representatives on same.
-
6) Page 30, Line Item 5 - Critical facilities will not be
permitted to locate, etc., regarding high seismic zones. He asked
how does P. G. & E. service their customers located within said
zones? He noted that a p. G. & E. program is undertaken to keep
their facilities safe in these particular areas.
7) Page 37, Lines 10, 11 and 13 - He noted that P. G. & E.
supports same including anything that relates to energy conservation.
8) Page 38, Line 23 - Supportive services. He strongly
supports that section of the proposed General Plan.
9) Page 53, Line 13 - P. G. & E. supports this concept and
appreciates the opportunity to work with the City in developing those
trails and paths.
10) Page 57, Implementation B, Line 17 - Supports same.
11) Page 72, AppendixE, Risks Class I - Nuclear Power Plants,
etc. inquired why P. G. & E. is singled out as they have no intentions
to place a nuclear reactor within the City Limits of Gilroy and doubts
whether there will ever be an intention to do same as Gilroy is near
a metropolitan center and adequate water supply required for this type
of plant is not available in Gilroy.
-
....
He further noted that P. G. & E. has been identified specifically
throughout the proposed plan but were not consulted in regard to same.
Mr. Dale Springer, 8117 Calabrese Court, addressed the Council
representing the General Plan Citizens' Advisory Committee and noted
the following four (4) requested amendments of the Committee recom-
mended at their June 13, 1979, meeting which were not part of the
General Plan presented to Council:
-
-
4281
1) Re: Map - Light Industrial uses should be extended from the
present area Ronan Channel, north to Buena Vista Avenue, Monterey Road
to the west and Murray Avenue to the east.
-...
2) Page 55. Add Item 32 - The Citizens' Committee is aware of
the value of rail service for industry and the potential for passenger
service; therefore, all efforts shall be made by the City to preserve
the benefit of this resource.
.......
3) Page 55, No. 16 - The City of Gilroy will maintain liaison
with the Unified School District and in the event it can be reasonably
anticipated that the schools could be impacted to the extent of requiring
double sessions, or a demunitation of in-classroom time, new development
shall then be suspended until normal adequate classroom and campus
facilities can be maintained or created.
.......
4. Page 55, No. 17 - In order to accommodate new students generated
by all new residents, developers will be equitably required to pay fees
appropriate with the cost of permanent classroom and campus facilities
for students generated by each household.
Mr. Springer further noted that the Committee recommends favorable
approval of the proposed General Plan plus the four (4) recommended
amendments.
The Mayor thanked and commended the Committee for their efforts.
Mr. Al Youngwerth, resident of Santa Clara County, addressed the
Council noting that he has children in the School District and that
education is top priority. He noted that impaction of schools should be
paid for by those using same and recommended and supported the two (2)
school modifications and that same be adopted as recommended by the Gilroy
Planned Citizens' Advisory Committee as policy statements in the Gilroy
General Plan.
Mr. Sandoe Hanna, Monterey Highway, addressed the Council and
opposed the proposed General Plan as proposed for north Monterey Highway.
-
Ms. Sharon Albert, 450 Broadway, addressed the Council and noted
that she served as a member of the General Plan Citizens' Committee and
supports various items proposed in the General Plan.
Mrs. Joan Harrison, representing the American Association of
University Women - Gilroy Branch, addressed the Council and commended
all for the care and sensitivity related to the Uvas Creek. She requested
consideration of the sensitivity of school children who are vitally con-
cerned with the future of Gilroy and believes there is an inter-relation-
ship between all of the public agencies that deal with this problem.
Mr. Ted Shaw, Morey Avenue, addressed the Council and objected to
the division of his property. He requested that all of his property be
included in the Phase I area as that one portion of property already is
included in same.
Mr. John Filice, attorney, addressed the Council and inquired if
there were to be additional public hearings on the General Plan. It was
noted by Staff that additional public hearings are anticipated.
......
Mr. Filice requested that he be heard at the next public hearing
since his engineers were unable to attend this public hearing.
.....
Mrs. Elaine Long addressed the Council noting that the School
District representatives are not present at this meeting since they are
conducting a school meeting.
!lII!'I'M;-,,-,,;
Mr. Russell Pratt, representing Malcom Riley Property at the
Freeway on Tenth Street, addressed the Council noting that he is interested
on comments of policy along Tenth Street at the intersection on Chestnut
Street to Alexander Street. He noted that his company has received
interest from other retailers of a regional type and wishes to address
the policy issue. He stated that the most logical place, if there is
interest by regional retailers desiring to come into the area, that they
should locate along side of the Tenth Street Center as their customers
will originate from the Freeway.
-
4282
Mr. Joe Trigueiro, representing Ruth & Going, addressed the
Council and requested that at Map Stage of the General Plan and
when establishing Pase areas that Alternative phase I areas now
before LAFCO be consistent with the Urban Service Area as established
by the City.
....
-
At 9:04 p.m., the Mayor noted that representatives from the
School District had arrived at the meeting.
Sandra Huie, 1223 Pappani Drive, addressed the Council and
noted that she was in favor of the two (2) amendments recommended
by the Citizens' Committee in regard to school impaction.
....
Dr. Bob Infelise, School Superintendent, addressed the Council
and noted that he prefers to speak regarding the General Plan at a
future hearing preferably set after the October 8, 1979, School Board
meeting. He inquired if there were any questions that the Council
wished the School Board to relate to before making said presentation.
-
Councilman Cunningham requested that the School Board relate
to the following: 1) School Board take a position to the two (2)
proposed amendments to the General plan that have been proposed by
various citizens' groups. He noted that the first proposal essentially
deals with that in the event that impactions can be reasonably anti-
cipated such as double sessions or classroom times are diminished
should new development be suspended until adequate classroom and
facility space can be found. He noted that these are No. 3 and 4 on
the June 13, 1979 minutes of the General Plan Advisory Committee.
2) He noted that the second one, wants to know whether the City
should impose fees such that the cost of permanent classroom and
campus facilities could be paid for out of these fees.
3) He further noted and inquired whether the School Board
has a position such that if impaction is going to occur next fall or
approximately from now, should the City not be collecting impact fees
at the present time so that there would be adequate funds a year from
now to provide at least relocatible space?
....
.,;,~
The Mayor asked if there was anyone further in the audience
wishing to speak on the matter.
Barbara Ordaz, 843 Burchell Road, addressed the Council and
noted that her child is on double sessions at the present time and
was told that this would be a temporary condition and, to date, there
has been no change.
Councilman Cunningham noted that the impact fees previously
collected were not spent and inquired if they are collected again,
what can be accomplished? He further noted that many of these ques-
tions have been addressed to the City Council and same should be
directed to another elected body (School District) .
Council agreed that the School Board of Directors should be
addressed to the question of impaction and that same does not relate
directly to the Public Hearing regarding the General Plan.
Dr. Infelise further addressed the Council in regard to the
impaction of schools and noted that impaction fees have been utilized
to alleviate the additional enrollment that is accruing from the
building activities occurring within the City Limits since the mora-
torium in the unincorporated areas. He noted that the problem is that
the School District could not make any definitive statements until
they opened the schools in September (1979) and until the enrollment
is stabilized. He noted that, as of today, it appears as though the
School District is selectively impacted. He noted that there are less
students in the total optimal capacity which is what the School District
predicated their impaction on initially, but if the elementary school
enrollment is looked upon, it appears that they are at capacity and by
some definition determined to be impacted. He further noted that he
wants the School Board to interact to that and October 8, is when same
will be discussed, to make some determination and reflect that fact
to the City along with the report on the status of the collection of
the fees and what has been spent. He further noted that same relates to
the General Plan in terms of what the School Board or community needs to
indicate what the City might want to consider in the General Plan and
that same is relevant.
....
~
-
-
r
,- - - ~ .,---
Adjournment
, - -,
4283
: The Mayor asked if there was. anyone further in the audience wishing
to speak on the matter. There was no comment from anyone in the audience.
At 10:23 p.m., motion was made by Councilman Pate seconded by Council-
man Link and carried that the Public Hearing be continued to a regular
adjourned meeting on Thursday, October 11, 1979, at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/dJM~Cif~l:f~