Loading...
Minutes 2001/11/26 ,... 7818 Posting Agenda Roll Call .'",~n,"'~'~.'_..,,,,,~"",,,"'.. .'~',_M~_'><-=-"_ _ -- ,..,-,~,_,~" ~""-~~'~'~--~'''_:'",,:~'~.:==~ ," '.~'."'~'~' '-''''''''.'__'''''''''''',^,''~'''''''-''''''''''''''~'''''''''''''''''".,-~.n''''~''''. .,."T"""',~=."_"="''"'"'''''.'.>'';';<''''''''_''.c"''.''-,;..,,,,,-,,,'.,,,,,,,~',' ,,_,-"< _c."," ';'_~"_'-","'-'"'_="""'-"'"~~"-...C="".~,,.. _".~'.x", MINUTES OF THE GILROY CITY COUNCIL * AND PLANNING COMMISSION Special Joint Meeting of November 26,2001 Gilroy, California The Mayor led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The City Clerk noted that the agenda had been posted on November 21,2001 at 10:30 a.m. Present: Councilmembers: Peter D. Arellano, Robert T. Dillon, Craig Gartman, Charles S. Morales, Al Pinheiro, Roland Velasco (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), and Thomas W. Springer; Planning Commissioners: Tom Boe, John Ceballos, Cat Tucker, and Belinda Allen; Absent: Paul Correa and Joan Lewis (excused) - 6:04 p.m. The Mayor noted that this is not a Public Hearing, but rather a briefing by staff and consultants. He stated that this is an overview of the 2nd draft EIR and the 2nd draft General Plan. The City Administrator reiterated that this is not part of the Public Hearing process. He stated that this is not the time for positions or interests to be stated by the City Councilor Planning Commission members on the documents. He explained that this is a briefing that staff is doing once, rather than having two separate briefings, on the documents and to allow time to ask questions on them. Planning Division Manager Faus reviewed the General Plan update process over the last five years, and noted the documents provided during that process. He outlined the changes that have been made from the original draft documents. He noted the Planning Commission will review the documents at a Public Hearing on December 13, 2001. 7819 (Councilman Arellano left the Council Chambers at 6:32 p.m. and returned at 6:34 p.m.) Alison Imamura, Denise DuftY and Associates, reviewed the chronology of the EIR process. She noted the responses to comments document will be distributed in December, 2001. She reviewed the contents of the 2nd Draft EIR. There was extensive discussion on impact fees to be required. It was explained that the numbers are the same as previously noted, and that the numbers will be reviewed after adoption of the General Plan. It was estimated that this will take a year to complete. When asked ifthe fee assessment for new development would apply to affordable housing, the City Administrator explained that this would have to be a policy decision of the City Council. It was noted that even if the 660 doesn't get approved, the fees will go up. Regarding a question on hydrology, it was noted that that information is an appendix of the Draft EIR. (At 7:01 p.m. Councilman Arellano left the Council Chambers, and returned at 7:05 p.m.) A question in relation to the economic projections from the General Plan document was posed, and it was explained that the current recession was not addressed, since the recession was just announced earlier that day. There were questions regarding the basis of the ABAG methodology assumptions based on the existing economy. Information was requested on existing conditions, to make assumptions in the General Plan. It was requested to see a breakdown on future residential growth, and was told that it would be a guess to try to do that. There was discussion regarding the 660 being a Specific Plan, and Mr. Faus noted that Council made this commitment at the April, 2001 meeting. It was noted that designating it a Specific Plan or Master Plan the City would have more control over the area. The City Administrator reviewed the Master Plan process, noting that they must first validate all the assumptions for the impact fees. Mr. Faus explained that there is a great deal of flexibility in the timing of the preparation of the Specific Plan. It was requested that staff provide information on the Public Outreach program, specifically the meetings that were held, including when and at what locations. In answer to a question on why the comparison of jobslhousing ratio on a regional basis, rather than just for Gilroy, it was explained that this is a CEQA requirement. It was noted that the estimate of the number of jobs came from the ABAG Projections 2000. There was discussion as to the validity of these numbers. It was requested that Ms. Imamura work with the Chamber of Commerce regarding the number of employees in Gilroy. (At 7: 10 Councilman Pinheiro left the Council Chambers, and returned at 7: 13 p.m.) There was a question posed regarding the costs of this project. It was noted that the information will be prepared and given to the Council and Planning Commission. In regard to Transportation and Circulation, it was questioned whether the proximity of the San Martin Train Station was taken into account regarding mass transit for the campus industrial areas and industrial areas. Pascal Violet, Keith Higgins & Associates, eXplained that there is a proposal for a transfer station in the area of Buena Vista Avenue. (At 7:29 p.m. Councilman Dillon left the Council Chambers, and returned at 7:31 p.m.) 7820 Adjournment Regarding mass transit to the east side, Traffic Engineer Abrams explained that there will be bus service and shuttle vans for larger employers. She noted that VT A plans for their long term plans with our input. Regarding a question evaluating land use based on Gilroy becoming more walkable and bicycle friendly, she stated that that is addressed in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. In answer to a question as to whether the City or VT A has completed any studies on ridership, she noted that VT A does the studies, and will get that information for the Council. (At 7:36 p.m. Councilman Gartman left the Council Chambers, and returned at 7:39 p.m.) There was discussion regarding the significant impact on loss of ag land and what mitigation measures are to be done. Ms. Imamura noted the General Plan policies for these. She stated that for the mitigation of acreage to replace acreage, this would be evaluated on a project by project basis. Acting City Attorney Faber noted the mitigation measures, explaining that these would still not mitigate all losses. He explained that the City would then have to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. He noted that legally, he has a concern with Mitigation Measure 4.4-B, and is not recommending that this Mitigation Measure be adopted. There was discussion regarding the Hecker Pass Specific Plan, and staff suggested not to change the General Plan to follow the Hecker Pass Specific Plan since it is still being formulated and prepared. It was also noted that it is not in the Neighborhood District. Regarding a discussion on growth inducement policies beyond the 20 year plan time, staff noted that the City adheres to the RDO. Mr. Faber noted that the City has a Sphere ofInfluence and that ultimately Gilroy could develop out to that line. (At 8:20 p.m. Councilman Arellano left the Council Chambers, and returned at 8:21 p.m.) Councilman Arellano stated that he was not comfortable with our EIR consultant using flawed data, and requested other documentation. The Mayor stated that he would get it to him. Connie Rogers, member of the GPUC, questioned whether the impact fees go into effect prior to a Specific Plan being adopted, what LAFCO's role is in this process, and when will they consider it? There was discussion on the above issues, noting that the impact fees go into effect when they are adopted by Council. It was noted that there are several actions LAFCO will take, but only until such time that applications are filed. At 8:46 p.m. the Mayor adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, , 7,' ttZ,'< \-// ,~, . / " /'" " ~A!;(i iU;&'- j!lJu'- ~s/ '- RHONDA PELLIN City Clerk