Loading...
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~