Loading...
Minutes 1979/10/11 4283 October 11, 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. Roll Call Present: Council Members: Roberta H. Hughan, Mairon T. Link, John E. Pate, David V. Stout and Norman B. Goodrich. Absent: Council Members: William E. Childers and Brian D. Cunningham. Gen. Plan Cont'd The Mayor stated that this meeting is an Adjourned Public Hearing Pub.Hearing on the Modified Draft General Plan. He noted that some people were not present at the First Public Hearing, assuming there would be additional hearings on the proposed plan so Council continued same to accommodate these persons. The Mayor asked for those persons in the audience wishing to speak on the modified Draft General Plan to come forward. The following persons addressed the Council and spoke in regard to public input in the modified General Plan: 1) Dr. Robert Infelise, Superintendent of Schools. He noted that Council, at their last meeting, requested that he present same questions for reflection in regard to the proposed General Plan. He noted that he asked the School Board to react to the statement relative to schools that is in the General Plan revision. He noted that the statement begins, liThe timing and location of new residential development will be controlled in a manner which is compatible with the ability of the Gilroy Unified school District to accommodate the additional enrollment which it gener- ates, etc. etc. II City Administrator Wood noted that same was on Page 53. Dr. Infelise noted that the School Board did react to this. City Administrator Wood further noted that the Item was No. 16. Dr. Infelise noted that it further states, "In order to offset the cost of these new elementary and secondary school facilities which are needed, developers will be required to dedicate land and/or pay fees for school facilities. New elementary schools will be located on collectors through the streets rather t~an on thoroughfares and wherever possible, school paygrounds will be linked to the overall community system of parks and recreational trails." He stated that the School Board actually never took action on any of these statements, but, basically, what most of them said and individually commented was that this is basically where the school has been and where they currently are and where they seem to be headed. They, in effect, were saying that they endorse this statement. He noted that there was extended discussion that this statement not only repre- sents where they are but it also represents the fact that the Schools and the City have demonstrated their working together in dealing with the problem as it currently presents itself. He noted that there was also extensive discussion about where are we going from here and what long term planning is, with a lot of frustration expressed. ,,___ "'. _, ~_,,,.__,,_____,,,--, .,..~...... .__.,..---......~ H..... ~._-.._..~ ~~~ ~..... ,-".-... .-.. ....... ... --~ 4284 He further noted that he and individual School Board members have indicated to him (not at a School Board Meeting) with positive response that possible the City might want to .consider a Joint Com- mittee (liaison) between the Council and School District Board of Education for the purpose of maintaining and improving communication between the School District and the City and to maintain, clarify, improve and understand the impact on the schools as a result of develop- ment. He noted that the School Board did, at their last meeting, de- clare that the schools were impacted and that he would be forthcoming to Council with a resolution declaring same at a subsequent meeting, as per the ordinance adopted under Senate Bill No. 201. He further stated that the purpose of the proposed liaison committee would be to explore creative alternatives to the future impact on schools. He stated that there have been considerable effective ways in dealing with impact on schools as the community grows that goes beyond the current laws as a result of good positive creative negotiations with developers and not just developers but other investors in the community. He sited examples of same. He stated that the School Board feels that ideas presented solely by the Board would not be as effective if same were originally discussed by a Joint Liaison Committee. He suggested that two (2) Council Members, Staff and Legal Counsel and two (2) School Board Members, Staff and their Legal Counsel compose such a Committee. - - - .... Dr. Infelise further noted that the other matter Council re- quested the School Board to relate to was in regard to the proposed amendment to the General Plan revision. He noted that this proposed Committee Liaison is incorporated in one of the proposed amendments to the General Plan, First Statement: "The City of Gilroy will main- tain liaison with Gilroy Unified School District." Dr. Infelise noted that in his individual contacts with the school Board, they indicated that they would like to see same. He noted that in regard to the addi- tional amendments, the Board did not take any action. He noted that they indicated that there might be some legal question whether, in fact, it could happen and that they opposed to it as it is stated and what it infers. Dr. Infelise noted that there are some School Board Members present in the audience that might want to clarify or expand on statements that were made at the School Board Meeting. ~--,,~ City Administrator Wood asked if Dr. Infelise had any objection to making it "jointly maintain liaison"? Dr. Infelise indicated that he had no objection, noting that they want this to be a joint communication committee to particularly come up with creative alternatives to just impact fees; noting that as the community grows, it will take more than impact fees to provide the facilities that they foresee. Dr. Infelise noted that there is proposed legislation that does not look as though it will help Gilroy in the immediate future to any significant amount. He stated that the legislature is listening to those districts that are stabilized and declining in growth a lot more than they are listening to Gilroy. City Administrator Wood asked if Gilroy would qualify for funds under A.B. 8 ($13,000,000). Dr. Infelise stated that Gilroy's needs would not probably be addressed until June, noting that there are Districts more impacted than Gilroy, which is called Emergency Relief; immediate relief, im- pacted now beyond their capacity. He noted that Gilroy has just now reached its capacity and are declaring impaction. He noted that it's conceivable that the School District may be able to house what they have, but it's very "ify". He further noted that at the time the resolution requesting impaction is presented to Council, this will be discussed at that time. - .... Dr. Infelise noted that another question to relate to is explore the possibility of collecting impaction fees on an on-going basis. - .., !" .-:.- -... ,. '.'_."'V_~ ....'---.-.- ~ ~ ""'~~~-_..".'" .~_ _~ ~.._ .-_., "..F ~_ 4285 ~....... Councilwoman Hughan inquired to Dr. Infelise that the only amend- ment that the School Board desires to make to the proposed General Plan would be the establishment of a Joint Liaison Committee. - Dr. Infelise replied that he had not thought of it in that context but would be willing as an individual to propose that because the School Board did not take action on it, to make that a part of the General Plan. - 2) Mr. John Filice, attorney representing various property owners that have lands located westerly of the Uvas Creek, from Thomas Road on the south, bordered by Santa Teresa on the west to the intersection of Santa Teresa and the Uvas which is the northern section on the map and then across Santa Teresa which is approximately 160 acres which also borders the Uvas. ..... Mr. Filice specifically commented regarding the General Plan and how it effects this area and some general observations concerning the Plan as a whole. He noted that the area has had dramatic changes since the last time the General Plan was adopted ten (10) years ago. Santa Teresa Expressway was built, Gavilan College to the south, City services extending along Thomas Road to the subdivision bordering Gavilan College. He noted that they hired the Engineering Firm of George S. Nolte and Associates to do a General Plan on environmental assessment and urban suitability analysis on the property in question, and noted that same is a very specific analysis of this property. Mr. Filice noted that Mr. Morey Abraham, Senior Planner who worked on this plan is present to describe what the input was in developing their proposal. He noted that one of the unique opportunities within this proposal is the development, preservation and dedication of the Uvas Creek, noting that they are currently working with the County Parks and Recreation, numerous local citizens interested in the Uvas Parkway Project. He recognized the problems that occur with schools from resi- dential growth and impaction on the schools. He noted that he and a lot of developers have slowed down development in prior years to cooperate with the local schools. He noted that two (2) school sites within this proposed development have already been deeded to the schools. He distri- buted a summary of requested changes in the proposed General Plan. 1. Phase Lines. He noted that phasing is not required in the General Plan process but has been proposed. He questioned whether phase lines really assist in the general planning process or run contrary to the concept of the residential growth ordinance. He noted that the phase line would have a negative effect of arbitrarily excluding or taking points away from a project that just does not happen to be in that particular phase line. He noted that there are some properties, portions within the Glen Loma Project, that are immediately adjacent to existing development and have been pushed into 1985 onward Phase Lines, where other properties quite removed .from a contiguous core of the City that are in Phase I. He stated that he believes that the development ordinance is a tool to look at projects as they come to B1e City and should encourage developers that meet those criterian, if the property is contiguous to existing development, contiguous to the Urban Service Area that the Ctiy should encourage their participation in that program. ....... He recommended that there not be phase lines that it be consistent with the residential development ordinance or the Urban Service Area and include properties in Phase I that are contiguous to existing development and be consistent throughout the City. ..... Mr. Filice discussed potential industrial development, commented generally, not particularly related to the Glen Loma Plan, and introduced Mr. Morey Abraham to further discuss the two (2) recommendations of the Glen Loma Properties and the industrial concept. ~'.."''''' 3) Mr. Morey Abraham, Senior Planner of George Nolte Associates, in charge of land planning. He explained the Master PaIn of Glen Loma Ranch in which was applied environmental planning philosophy. He noted that said plan is in greater detail than the City's proposed General Plan, but does not differ with the proposed Plan prepared by Duncan & Jones. - ,e ...,,,..U_IUl..",~IlI!!!~.!!I!l._::i.)e ,~ 4286 He requested Council consider two (2) changes in addition to the one referred to by Mr. Filice. He noted that he would refer to request No. 2 as Mr. Filice covered the first request. (2) Areas pro- posed on the City's proposed General Plan for residential estate with the exception of the area immediately adjacent to Christmas Hill Park, be given a low density designation. He noted that the average slope of this land is less than 5% and in their opinion, does not justify an estate density. He noted that the area is very well served by existing as well as planned roadway networks; it has frontage along Santa Teresa Expressway, has several existing and possible access points. He noted that there are two additional legal rights of access to the Expressway and in the Agreement. In addition, there is the option of the Tenth Street Extension through the Glen Loma Properties. He noted that the estate density translates into higher public service costs than the suggested low classification because you have a higher ration of streets and utilities per dwelling unit; and it results in the consumption of greater amounts of land further away from the urban area to accommodate the population growth. (3) Requested that pro- vision be made for local commercial and professional service needs of the neighborhood by designating lands for these uses at the future Miller-Tenth street intersection. He noted that the Modified General Plan proposes no new commercial areas to serve the everyday needs of future residential areas. He stated that an accepted standard is to provide a neighborhood commercial center of approximately ten (10) acres in size to serve a population approximately 5,000 people within a six minute driving time. He further noted that the Glen Loma pro- posal in itself has a potential population of 7,000 persons; commer- cial is a justified proposal. Also provision of convenient neighbor- hood commercial and professional uses will minimize lengthy drives for daily resident needs and will encourage use of alternative trans- portation. He noted that the recommended location does protect the visual integrity of Santa Teresa Expressway Corridor since the pro- posed site is approximately 1,000 feet north and east of the Express- way and also it is at a considerably lower elevation that the Express- way is. Any center built there would not be visible from the Express- way. .... - .... - ..... He commented on Gilroy's plan for industry: 1) The electronics industry is looking south toward Gilroy and even beyond Gilroy to escape the high cost of housing and the shortage of labor in the north County. 2) These industries are looking for sites with esthetic quali- ties rather than the flat land, rail site, industrial sites that are typically found in the north County. ...... He noted that Mr. Filice gave a proposed policy statement pro- viding for this type of industry and urges Council to adopt such a policy which would allow and encourage this type of clean industrial use in areas of the community such as the Glen Loma Ranch. 4) Mr. Richard s. Harrison. He noted that the remarks of Mr. John Filice regarding the number of lines that appear on the Modified Draft General Plan Map and the beauty of the Uvas Park im- pressed upon him that on the Map both the Uvas Park Drive and Third Street are portrayed as tapping into Santa Teresa Expressway and noted that this would be bad planning of the highest order; the Uvas Creek represents a very great and scenic asset to this community. He strongly objected to Third Street or Uvas Parkway tapping into Santa Teresa Boulevard which is a major arterial road. He noted that this would defeat the concept of having a slow, low speed, relatively narrow, not heavily traveled parkway for the primary purpose of not connecting Santa Teresa and Tenth Street, but providing access to the Uvas Park- way. He noted that it would be equally bad planning tapping Third Street into Uvas Parkway. He further commented that the logical street to take the load off of Santa Teresa Expressway for east and west traffic, that First Street would be the logical street being a major street and engineered to carry large volumes of traffic.: -- ...... 5) Dr. William Patterson, resident. He agreed with Mr. Harri- son and noted that he was not aware of Third Street tapping into Santa Teresa Expressway as indicated on the proposed plan. He commented on the future growth rate in Gilroy with reference particularly to housing. He noted that this City has the opportunity to continue the unique characted of this community. .. - '-, '" 4287 ,~"':"""'l Dr. Patterson commented on the impaction of the school system. He endorsed Dr. Infelise's proposal to work with a Committee of City Council to explore some of the alternatives. He suggested the following: 1) Meet with a committee and planners to put pressure on the State to determine how the City could use some of the funds resulting primarily from income taxes and tell the State how impacted we are and how we desparately need schools for the students that are here. 2) Other areas now are beginning to explore with developers and with industries, ways of providing for schools. 3) Recommended consideration of high cost housing for Gilroy which could, in turn, provide additional monies for schools. ..... - ...... 6) Mr. Albert J. Ruffo, representing San Benito Ranch Company and Fenton O'Connell. Re: 1,723 acres of land located adjacent to the Santa Teresa Expressway and explained the specific location on the map. He noted that approximately 600 acres of the subject property is quite level, resting on a plateau and approximately 100 acres is a strip between the level land and the hillside. He noted that the 1,000 acres could be used for park trails, recreational purposes, and in conjunction with the level land privately or put into the public domain and developed for residential purposes. He takes issue to the following: 1) Subject pro- perty has been characterized as hillside property which would have a slope in excess of 5% and noted that this is not true. 1,000 acres does have a slope in excess of 5%, remaining lands have slopes considerably less than 5%. 2) Property is proposed to be placed in Phase II, which would be developable sometime after the year 2000. Not requesting that it be brought into the immediate development possibilities. Requested that same be placed in Phase I. Noted that the General Plan proposes encouragement to maintain open space for agriculture purposes. Opposed same for the subject property as the hillside is in oak and madrone trees with trails that wind up through the area. Agriculture and grazing lands would destroy this very valuable asset to Gilroy. He suggested that said property could be ideal for high cost homes and provide tas revenue. He urged Council to consider the placing of this property in Phase I, and categorize it accurately in so far as its slope density. He presented a letter previously presented to the Planning Commission. Council noted that they had copies of same. p*f-'/"'1!IIt - 7) Mr. Douglas Duncan, representing Duncan & Jones, addressed the Council in reply to Mr. Ruffo's statements. He noted that their intention in indicating this property as either open space or hillside development within a special plan area was to insure that the land would be treated as a unit and would not be subjected to piece meal development. He does not agree with Mr. Ruffo that 600 acres of said property is level or less than 5%. He noted that same is between 10 and 20% with some areas of less than 10% . Mr. Duncan defined Special Plan Areas, Appendix C, Page 68, of General Plan Document Special Plan Area I B - This area is very important to the City of Gilroy in terms of its visual characteristics and was not intended in terms of maintaining it in open space/agriculture use; that the grazing would supercede the woodland areas and thereby destroy the visual characteristics that the designation was intended to protect. The purpose of defining it as a Special Plan Area is to insure that the entire area of large sections of it in succession are dealt with as development units so as to permit transfers of density from one section of the site to the other and to achieve a clustering of development in the most developable portions and thereby permit the less developable and scenicly important areas to be retained. lIIIII"'Ol Councilman Pate noted that the General Plan is designed for develop- ment into the year 2000; the portion of property in question designated as a special plan area is included within that total General Plan Area, but not within even the Phase II line. He asked how that fits in with the phasing. He asked if Mr. Ruffo was correct in assuming that the property he represented is planned beyond the year 2000 or as such time as a special plan characteristics Can be taken care of, in terms of the total acreage in the plan and based on the growth. ... fOP!!!!"";,-!!; Mr. Duncan replied that at the present time according to the way that the Phase lines have been indicated, noting that there are three (3) different approaches to the phasing. According to the phasing system that they would recommend which is neither the existing Urban Service Area boundary nor the one which this City Council approved and submitted to LAFCO. This particular property would be outside both Phase I and II and would not be subject to development until after the year 2000. He - _~,'~_, ..Lv> 4288 noted that it is obviously the prerogative of this Council to do whatever they want to do either with respect to the land use desig- nations on the plan or the lo~ation of phasing liries or whether there should be any phasing lines at all. ..... .... Mr. Duncan noted that he believes that the presence of phasing lines is very important on this plan cqnsidering the extens- ive character of urban development.that is proposed on the map. He noted that generally following the discussions of view point which his company got from the Council and Planning Commission, that agri- culture should not be reflected as a permanent use arid that the ultimate use should be reflected. Given the assumptions on popula- tion growth that appeared to have received pretty general support from the Citizens' Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, City Council, ,etc. and which seemed to fit the service providing capabili- ties in the area, the urban pattern shown on the proposed Map within what is now the Transition Zone would accommodate approximately twice as much population as has been assumed for the planning program through the year 2000; therefore, it seems appropriate to Duncan & Jones that if the Urban Designations are not to be cut back and restricted and replaced with some. non-urban designation that there needs to be some timing or scheduling device provided on the plan and will enable con- tiguity of development to be achieved. The exact location of lines is something that is open to argument and discussion. He noted that the other aspect that guided Duncan & Jones in preparation of their work and in the location of the phasing lines, was the expressions of view that they received from individual members of the City Council, specifically, that generally development should be provided for to the north rather than to the west initially. The numbers that they have been using from the'population assumptions did not appear that it was good planning to provide for the incorporation of the subject area even within the phase II period. .... - Mr. Duncan noted that the subject area is a beautiful site and it does offer great opportunities for the City. He noted that he thinks that there should be some flexibility in terms of how it should be addressed and that treatment of it under a specific plan, a study area designation may provide that kine of flexibility. ..... - Mr. Ruffo noted that he wanted to assure the Council that it would be the intention of the owners that this property would be developed giving full consideration to the entire parcel. He further believes that there is more level land than Mr. Duncan indicated. He further noted that the property owners would be willing to consider the possibility of placing the 1,000 acres within the public domain so that it could be for the benefit of the entire community. He further noted that if the owners were forced to keep the land in its present condition for some time in the next century, then they would be forced from an economic standpoint to make the highest and best use under the circumstances and within limitations that are imposed upon it. He noted that the owners want to preserve the 1,000 acres, but in order to do so, they would have to have some kind of plan that would come within a reasonable time. 8) Ms. Carol Magnoli, teacher for ten years in Gilroy. She commended the Planning Commission regarding the stand that they took on Air Quality, EIR, Page 5 refers to the modified Draft General Plan as a growth accommodation plan upon which the City neither discourages nor stimulates excessive growth, but rather manages and guides it according to the development principles articulated by the community, etc., etc. She noted that the modified General Plan does not fit these three (3) criteria to the letter. She noted that it does have too many elements which are consistent or nearly related to the stimu- lated growth patterns of the growth plan. 1) The extravagant alloca- tion of land. She noted that she feels by increasing the current urbanized area by three and one-half (3~) times as stated on Page 22 of the EIR that this really is an extravagant allocation of land; the Transition Zone of 8,319 acres, not counting the Urban Service Area, would ultimately be able to accommodate residential population of 82,000 people +. She urged the Council to recognize and act upon the Planning Commission's recommendation to reduce the Transition Zone back to the phase II boundary. 2) Sequency of requirements. She - .~ - - 4289 fflitIfl':.-w, noted that she did not find any specific requirements regarding the sequency of this development. She noted that if the Transition Zone remains as large as it possibly could in the planning area, some land- owners may be falsely led to believe that their land could be put to urban use in outlying areas when, in fact, it will not occur. 3) Program- ming of Municipal Services and Facilities. The EIR states that to accom- modate the projected population of 38,500 in the year 2000 an expansion of Gilroy's 1980 sanitary sewerage facility will be needed in order to provide enough capacity. It was also anticipated that Gilroy will need two (2) new secondary schools and five (5) new elementary schools. She also noted that since Proposition 13, acquiring the funds for the develop- ment of school sites has become increasingly more difficult if not impos- sible. As an educator, she strongly urged the Council to adopt the two modifications that were presented regarding the schools, because the City is, in fact, at the point of impaction. - - ..... 9) Mrs. Marianne Bruegmann, Chairman of the Board of Education of the Gilroy Unified School District. She noted that the School Board supports the proposed General Plan. She urged the Council to treat the information that they give regarding schools and school impaction with the same sensitivity that has been shown in the past when the City sets the figures required by the growth management policy on a yearly basis. She noted that children are a critical part of this community and to house them properly is very very important. She requested that this be taken into consideration when the City sets the growth management figure. She urged that a Joint Committee with the City Council and School Board be established in order to improve communication, in order to pass infor- mation back and forth, and in order to find some way to finance education with the least amount of burden on the taxpayers. She noted that at the present, Gilroy is about 45th in line under A.B. 8 which means about six years in the future and she is not willing to wait that long. - 10) Mr. Tom Balasic, Professional Planning Consultant with Wm. Spangle & Associates, representing a partnership known as Santa Teresa Vineyards who include Ed Mattos, Joseph McCormack, Joseph Barbera and William Reimal. He referred to property containing approximately 44 acres located on the north side of Santa Teresa between Thomas and Miller. He noted that this property is shown with residential use. He noted that the partnership of Santa Teresa Vineyards requested that the parcel be included in Phase I area for development between 1980-1985. He noted that abutting property to the east is now in the City and the City has indicated that this abutting property for inclusion in the City's cur- rent Urban Service Area. He noted that the Santa Teresa Vineyards property is contiguous to property along Thomas Road which have been identified by the City as appropriate for near future development. He noted that sewer and water facilities are available to said property. He noted that the 1968 General Plan designated a portion of this property for local commercial use. The owners requested that this designation be continued in the Modified Draft General Plan with the balance of the forty-four (44) acres assigned to residential use to permit a well designed condominium, a rental housing development. He noted that it would be appropriate to designate the forty-four (44) acres as a Special plan Area. He further noted and requested on behalf of the partnership, that the Council consider three (3) changes to the General Plan as pro- posed contained on Page 2 of the information presented this evening, as follows: - 1. The General Plan be changed to designate this parcel as Special Plan Area I C to permit a unified planned development of a local shopping center and adjoining residential area; ... 2. Discusses a proposed text to accommodate that unified planned development and for this to be included in the Appendix C of the Draft General Plan; ~ 3. That the forty-four (44) acres of Santa Teresa Vineyards property be included in the Phase I development area. He further noted regarding the Planning Department Staff Report of September 25, 1979, based on the Planning Commission's hearing, although there was not specific action taken on this request that there is a general recommenda- tion from Staff and this is included under Item 7 that more commercial areas should be located where sufficient land is available for shopping centers rather than to encourage further strip commercial. He noted that "'i~ 4290 Adjournment in Ite~ 8 of that reoommendation same speaks to the enlargement of high density residential and to particularly to provide for multi- family dwelling units. He noted that he believes that the request from the Santa Teresa Vineyards is basically consistent with the intent of that Planning Commission and Staff recommendation and further submits to help create identity for the neighborhoods of the Gilroy Community, some outlying shopping areas must be considered. 11) Ms. Jean Beno. She requested that Council consider extend- ing light industry north of the Ronan channel between Monterey and the new Freeway and Buena Vista. She noted that housing is not a good zoning for that area, lives there and knows how much noise is generated and not conducive to good living. 12) Mr. Dick Karman, Los Gatos, representing the property at the northern boundary of the General Plan just west of Monterey High- way with the northern boundary of Fitzgerald and the western boundary would be the future Santa Teresa Expressway, formerly Allemand Ranch, approximately 155 acres. He noted that the subject property is beyond Phase II in the proposed Modified Draft General Plan, after the year 2000. He suggested and recommended to keep Phase I and the balance of the properties outside of Phase I and each year review and possibly change the phase I line at subsequent years. City Administrator Wood presented and read a letter from King & Domingues regarding property at the northwest corner of Morey and First Street, a two and one-half (2~) acre parcel designated on the General Plan as medium density residential, defined on Page 35 of the Modified Draft General Plan primarily for small multi-family structures such as duplexes and triplexes. It was noted that optimum use of this corner parcel will not be permitted under this designation. It is suggested that this corner parcel become, because of proximity to commercial shopping areas and main traffic arterials, and should be designated high density residential. City Administrator Wood presented and read a letter from Malcolm Riley Company regarding property at the southwest corner of Chestnut and Tenth Streets, recommending that same be designated for commercial uses. The Mayor asked if there was anyone present in the audience wishing to speak on the proposed General Plan. There was no further comment from anyone in the audience. Motion was made by Councilman Link seconded by Councilwoman Hughan and carried that the Public Hearing be closed. Discussion was had by Council. Council requested that all input and questions be correlated in order for Council to study same along with the text of the General Plan. It was noted that Council intends to set a meeting for study of Same on October 22, 1979, at 8:00 p.m. At 9:38 p.m., the Mayor adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, ;JY4~c6 crty