HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2019 Planning Commission - Special Meeting Agenda Packet
Special Planning Commission Agenda
October 17, 2019 6:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy CA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
Chair: Tom Fischer: tom.fischer@cityofgilroy.org Sam Kim: sam.kim@cityofgilroy.org
Vice Chair: Casey Estorga:
casey.estorga@cityofgilroy.org
Sue Rodriguez: sue.rodriguez@cityofgilroy.org
Rebeca Armendariz: rebeca.armendariz@cityofgilroy.org Peter Fleming: peter.fleming@cityofgilroy.org
Amanda Rudeen: Amanda.rudeen@cityofgilroy.org
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956, at a Special Meeting, comments by the public will be
taken only on those items on the agenda. Persons speaking on any matter are asked to state their name
and address for the record. Public testimony is subject to reasonable regulations, including but not limited to
time restrictions on particular issues and for each individual speaker. A minimum of 12 copies of materials
should be provided to the Clerk for distribution to the Commission and Staff. Public comments are limited to no
more than 3-minutes, at the Chair’s discretion.
In compliance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA), the City will make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the
City Clerk 72 hours prior to the meeting at (408) 846-0491. A sound enhancement system is available in the
City Council Chambers.
If you challenge any planning or land use decision made at this meeting in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing held at this meeting, or in written
correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please take notice
that the time within which to seek judicial review of any final administrative determination reached at this
meeting is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
Persons who wish to speak on matters set for Public Hearing will be heard when the presiding officer calls for
comments from those persons who are in support of or in opposition thereto. After persons have spoken, the
hearing is closed and brought to the Planning Commission level for discussion and action. There is no further
comment permitted from the audience unless requested by the Planning Commission.
A Closed Session may be called during this meeting pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) if a
point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the City on the advice of its legal
counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Commission after distribution of the
agenda packet are available for public inspection with the agenda packet in the lobby of Administration at City
Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street during normal business hours. These materials are also available with the agenda
packet on the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS: (Three-minute time limit). This portion of the meeting is reserved for
persons desiring to address the Planning Commission on matters not on the agenda. The
law does not permit the Planning Commission action or extended discussion of any item
not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Planning Commission action is
requested, the Planning Commission may place the matter on a future agenda. All
statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing.
PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR RELATED PROJECT APPLICATIONS WILL BE HEARD CONCURRENTLY AND
ACTION WILL BE TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY. COMPANION PROJECTS UNDER NEW BUSINESS WILL BE
TAKEN UP FOR ACTION PRIOR TO, OR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE RELATED PUBLIC HEARING.
THIS REQUIRES DEVIATION IN THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AS NOTED WITHIN THE AGENDA.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
1. October 3, 2019 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058): an urban service area
amendment to include Assessor Parcel Numbers 790-09-006, 008, 009, 010, 011;
790-17-001, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 010; 790 -06-017 and 790-06-018 into the
urban service area of the City of Gilroy. The 50.3 -acre Wren Investors project
site is generally located west of Wren Avenue, south of Vickery Avenue, and
north and south of Tatum Avenue. The 5.36-acre Hewell site is located just
outside the northern city limits northeast of the intersection of Vickery Lane and
Kern Avenue. This request is commonly known as the Wren Investors and Hewell
Urban Service Area Amendment. The property is mostly undeveloped, although
some single-family homes and the Gilroy Unified School District Farm Site are
included within the subject site. This request proposes a change to the urban
service area boundary to include approximately 56 acres, comprising the subject
parcels, and does not include any development at this time. Applications filed by
Wren Investors, LLC c/o Dick Oliver, 385 Woodview Avenue, #100, Morgan Hill,
CA 95037; and Mark Hewell and David Sheedy, P.O. Box 1901, Gilroy, CA 95021.
1. Staff Report: Julie Wyrick, Planning Manager
2. Open Public Hearing
3. Close Public Hearing
4. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications
5. Possible Action:
Staff has analyzed the proposed project and recommends that the Planning
Commission (Roll Call Vote):
a) Consider and recommend that the City Council adopt the mitigated negative
declaration prepared for the project, based on findings required by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
b) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Wren Investors
and Mark Hewell and David Sheedy Urban Service Area Amendments (USA 12-01
and USA 14-02).
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. 2020 Schedule of Regular and Special Planning Commission Meetings
1. Staff Report: Christina Ruiz, Management Assistant
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Approval of the 2020 Schedule of Regular and Special Planning Commission
Meetings.
VII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
VIII. PRESENTATION BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
IX. REPORTS BY COMMISSION MEMBERS
X. PLANNING MANAGER REPORT
XI. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
XII. ADJOURNMENT to the Next Meeting of November 7, 2019 at 6:30 P.M.
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
of
OCTOBER 3, 2019
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Rebeca Armendariz Planning Commissioner Present 6:24 PM
Peter Fleming Planning Commissioner Present 6:10 PM
Amanda Rudeen Planning Commissioner Present 6:10 PM
Casey Estorga Vice Chair Present 6:25 PM
Sam Kim Planning Commissioner Present 6:11 PM
Susan Rodriguez Planning Commissioner Absent
Tom Fischer Chair Present 6:16 PM
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
1. September 5, 2019 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Motion to adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve the GPAC
proposed-Preferred Land Use Alternative for the Gilroy 2040 General Plan. (Roll Call
Vote)
1. Staff Report: Stan Ketchum, Senior Planner
2. Public Comment
3. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications
4. Possible Action:
Stan Ketchum, Senior Planner presented the report.
Chair Fischer opened public comment.
None.
Chair Fischer closed public comment.
Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communication:
None.
Comments were received by the Commission followed by a discussion on each focus
area.
Focus Area 1: Motion was made by Vice Chair Estorga, second by Commissioner
Rudeen to support the GPAC recommendation to have concept three (3) Employment
4.1
Packet Pg. 4 Communication: October 3, 2019 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA)
Center and Neighborhood District High for Focus Area 1 as the preferred land use
alternative. Motion carried 6-0-0-1.
Focus Area 2: Motion was made by Vice Chair Estorga, second by Commissioner
Rudeen to support the GPAC recommendation to have concept two (2) Neighborhood
District High for Focus Area 2 as the preferred land use alternative. Motion carried 6 -0-
0-1.
Focus Area 3: Motion was made by Vice Chair Estorga, second by Commissioner
Fleming to recommend City Council to support concept two (2) Mixed Use High for
Focus Area 3 as the preferred land use alternative. Motion carried 4 -2-0-1.
Focus Area 4: Motion was made by Commissioner Rudeen, second by Commissioner
Armendariz to support the GPAC recommendation to have concept one (1) Current
Downtown Specific Plan for Focus Area 4. Motion carried 5-1-0-1.
Focus Area 5: Motion was made by Commissioner Armendariz, second by
Commissioner Kim to have concept (two) 2 Neighborhood District High for Focus Area
5. Motion carried 4-2-0-1.
Motion was made by Commissioner Rudeen, second by Commissioner Fleming to
recommend to the City Council the proposed GPAC Preferred Land Use Alternative
concepts for focus areas one (1), two (2) and four (4) Mixed Use High in Focus Area 3
and concept two (2) Neighborhood District High in Focus Area 5.
Vote: Motion carried 5-1-0-1
Yes: Estorga, Armendariz, Kim, Fleming, Rudeen
No: Fischer
Absent: Rodriguez
B. Motion to deny the appeal of M 19-16 (#19080037) subject to certain findings. (Roll
Call Vote)
1. Staff Report: Miguel Contreras, Planner I
2. Public Comment
3. Planning Commission Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communications
4. Possible Action:
Miguel Contreras, Planner I presented the report.
Chair Fischer opened public comment.
Appellant Tan Truong spoke.
Chair Fischer closed public comment.
Disclosure Ex-Parte Communication:
None.
4.1
Packet Pg. 5 Communication: October 3, 2019 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA)
Motion was made by Commissioner Kim, second by Commissioner Armendariz to grant
the appeal based on the testimony and discussion during the hearing.
RESULT: APPROVE [5 TO 1]
MOVER: Sam Kim, Planning Commissioner
SECONDER: Rebeca Armendariz, Planning Commissioner
AYES: Armendariz, Fleming, Rudeen, Estorga, Kim
NAYS: Fischer
ABSENT: Rodriguez
VI. NEW BUSINESS
VII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
A. Current Planning Projects
B. Planning Staff Approvals
VIII. PRESENTATION BY MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
IX. REPORTS BY COMMISSION MEMBERS
Chair Tom Fischer - Provided a brief report on both the General Plan Advisory Committee
and Historic Heritage Committee.
Vice Chair Casey Estorga - Street Naming; no meeting, no report.
Commissioner Armendariz - Housing Advisory Committee was cancelled due to no
quorum; City Council Meetings for September 9, 2019 and September 16, 2019 will provide
a report at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Sue Rodriguez - South County Joint Planning Advisory Committee;
excused absence.
Commissioner Peter Fleming - Provided a brief report on the Gilroy Downtown Business
Association.
Commissioner Amanda Rudeen - Provided a brief report on the Bicycle Pedestrian
Commission and High Speed Rail Authority; no meeting, no report.
Commissioner Sam Kim - General Plan Advisory Committee; not present during the last
meeting.
X. PLANNING MANAGER REPORT
No report.
XI. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
No report.
XII. ADJOURNMENT to the Next Meeting of October 17, 2019 at 6:30 P.M.
4.1
Packet Pg. 6 Communication: October 3, 2019 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA)
Christina Ruiz, Management Assistant
4.1
Packet Pg. 7 Communication: October 3, 2019 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (CONSENT AGENDA)
Greg Larson
INTERIM DIRECTOR
Community Development
Department
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-61197
Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax (408) 846-0429
http://www.cityofgilroy.org
DATE: October 17, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Julie Wyrick, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058): an urban
service area amendment to include Assessor Parcel Numbers 790 -
09-006, 008, 009, 010, 011; 790-17-001, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008,
009, 010; 790-06-017 and 790-06-018 into the urban service area
of the City of Gilroy. The 50.3-acre Wren Investors project site is
generally located west of Wren Avenue, south of Vickery Avenue,
and north and south of Tatum Avenue. The 5.36 -acre Hewell site is
located just outside the northern city limits northeast of the
intersection of Vickery Lane and Kern Avenue. This request is
commonly known as the Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service
Area Amendment. The property is mostly undeveloped, although
some single-family homes and the Gilroy Unified School District
Farm Site are included within the subject site. This request
proposes a change to the urban service area boundary to include
approximately 56 acres, comprising the subject parcels, and does
not include any development at this time. Applications filed by
Wren Investors, LLC c/o Dick Oliver, 385 Woodview Avenue, #100,
Morgan Hill, CA 95037; and Mark Hewell and David Sheedy, P.O.
Box 1901, Gilroy, CA 95021.
Request:
Staff has analyzed the proposed project and reco mmends that the Planning
Commission (Roll Call Vote):
a) Consider and recommend that the City Council adopt the mitigated negative
declaration prepared for the project, based on findings required by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
b) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Wren
Investors and Mark Hewell and David Sheedy Urban Service Area Amendments
(USA 12-01 and USA 14-02).
5.A
Packet Pg. 8
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Wren Investors and Mark Hewell request inclusion of 55.66+/- acres into Gilroy’s Urban
Service Area (USA). City staff has prepared a vacant land survey (attached) that
determined there is currently at least an eight-year supply of vacant residential land
within the city’s USA; there would be at least a nine-year supply of vacant residential
land if the USA amendment request were approved. The local agency formation
commission (LAFCO) has ultimate approval authority over USA amendment requests,
and generally will not approve a USA amendment if a city has more than a five -year
supply of vacant land.
Although the city currently has more than a five-year supply of vacant residential land,
the Wren Investors/Hewell property will have a lengthy entitlement process, one that
could span several years. Staff anticipates that most of Gilroy’s vacant residential land
would develop before the Wren Investors/Hewell property has completed its entitlement
process. Approval of the proposed USA amendment request would allow the city to
replenish the diminishing supply of residential land to meet foreseeable residential
development needs.
Incorporating the Wren Investors/Hewell property into Gilroy’s USA boundary would
allow the property to potentially be annexed and developed. According to the fiscal
impact analysis prepared for this project (attached), annexing and developing the
property would cause the city to incur a loss of general fund revenue. After ten years,
the general fund revenue loss would be $166,681 per year. The loss of revenue could
be offset by requiring the property developers to establish a community facilities district
(CFD) and/or other funding mechanisms to provide services to this property. The CFD
would require future property owners to bear the cost of providing City services to their
properties.
If this Urban Service Area amendment is approved, staff recommends that appropriate
funding mechanisms be vetted, and that the developer be required to contractually
agree to implement appropriate funding mechanisms prior to annexation, via a pre -
annexation agreement. In accordance with the City’s Neighborhood District Policy, a
Specific plan will be required for this property and other properties within this
Neighborhood District area.
BACKGROUND:
Urban Service Area Amendment Requests
Gilroy’s USA is a five-year planning boundary that the city uses to identify property
suitable for annexation and development within a five -year horizon. City staff processes
USA amendment requests and sends them to the Planning Commission for review and
City Council for approval. However, the City Council’s approval of a USA request
allows an application only to be filed with the Santa Clara County Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO) for consideration of the request. LAFCO has the
ultimate authority to approve or deny all USA amendment requests, such that
amendment requests that are approved by the Gilroy City Council are not effective
unless and until also approved by LAFCO.
5.A
Packet Pg. 9
3
In considering USA requests, the city considers whether there is currently an adequate
supply of land to meet development needs within the next five years; whether services
can be proved to the site within the next five years; and the fiscal impacts of allowing
the property to annex and develop. In addition, the city considers the application’s
consistency with LAFCO’s USA amendment policies. These issues are discussed
below in the analysis section of this staff report.
Wren Investors began processing an USA request for this site in 2000 [Ref: USA 00-
02]; that request included all of the property included in the current request plus one
additional parcel. USA 00-02 proceeded to the Gilroy Planning Commission and City
Council as part of the 2008 USA request. USA 00-02 was ultimately not approved by
the City Council and, therefore, not forwarded to LAFCO for consideration. The Council
expressed the following concerns about USA 00-02:
That there would be:
Negative fiscal impacts on the Gilroy Unified School District;
Negative fiscal impacts on the city;
Inadequate police and fire response times to th e site;
Undesired environmental impacts resulting from the project; and
That no project design details were submitted as part of the CEQA analysis.
The Hewell site has not been the subject of a prior independent USA request.
Wren Investors submitted the USA 12-01 amendment request in 2012, and Mark Hewell
and David Sheedy submitted USA 14-02 in 2014. Both applicants agreed to place
application processing on hold while the City Council considered the proposed 721-acre
Rancho 101 Urban Service Area (USA 14-01; Project # 14070057). The Wren
Investors and Hewell USA requests were contained within the Rancho 101 USA
request. The Gilroy City Council ultimately denied the Rancho 101 USA request, so it
was not submitted to LAFCO for consideration. At this time, Wren Investors, Mark
Hewell and David Sheedy request to continue processing their USA requests.
Measure H
On November 8, 2016, Gilroy voters approved Measure H, a ballot measure that added
an urban growth boundary to Gilroy’s general plan area. The urban growth boundary
prevents development of land outside its limits, unless voters specifically approve the
development. The Wren Investors and Hewell properties are located inside the urban
growth boundary, and therefore could be annexed and develop ed, if the USA
amendment request is approved.
Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses: The subject site is mostly
undeveloped, although some parcels contain rural single-family homes and associated
accessory structures, as well as small-scale agricultural operations.
Surrounding Properties and Land Uses:
5.A
Packet Pg. 10
4
LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING
Project Site
Undeveloped; Single-
Family Homes;
Drainage Channel;
Small-scale Agricultural
uses; GUSD Farm Site
Neighborhood District;
Park/Recreation Facility N/A
North Single-Family Home;
agricultural land Neighborhood District ND/PUD; N/A
South Single-Family Homes Low Density Residential R1
East
Undeveloped park land;
Antonio del Buono
School; Apartments;
Single-Family Homes
Park/Recreation Facility;
Educational Facility; High
Density Res.; Low Density
Res.; Neighborhood
District
PF; R3; R1;
ND/PUD
West
Rural Residential;
Agricultural uses; and
single-family homes
Neighborhood District; Low
Density Residential;
Medium Density
Residential
N/A; R1/PUD;
and R3/PUD
Environmental Assessment: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), an initial study was prepared to evaluate any potentially significant adverse
effects of the proposed project on the environment. The initial study identified
potentially significant impacts in four separate areas, summarized below. The entire
MND/initial study document is available at the following link:
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/298/Development-Activity-Projects
Air Quality
The adjacent residences could be exposed to dust and equipment exhaust during
construction of any future development of the Wren and Hewell sites, which would
be a significant impact. However, compliance with the City’s standard conditions of
approval for the control of dust during construction would reduce exposures to
construction dust to a less-than-significant level.
Biological Resources
Construction activities, including tree/shrub removal and ground disturbance, have
the potential to impact nesting birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, should nesting birds be present
during construction. If protected bird species are nesting in or adjacent to the
project site during the bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31), then
noise-generating construction activities and/or vegetation removal could result in
the loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to the abandonment of nests.
5.A
Packet Pg. 11
5
Trees may exist on the Wren Investors site that may qualify as P rotected Trees
based on Section 30.38.270 of the City Code. The Hewell project site contains one
12-inch diameter native northern California black walnut tree located behind the
rural residence. Removal of any protected tree(s) is subject to the approval o f the
Planning Division Manager, consistent with the Protected Trees section of the City
Code, Section 30.38.270. The City relies on the site -specific recommendations of a
certified arborist to mitigate impacts to individual significant trees.
Cultural Resources
Future development of the project site has the potential to affect surviving historic-
era structures on the project site, either through modification or demolition in
preparation of new residential development.
Noise
The increase in noise associated with future development of the project site could
result in significant noise impacts to vicinity sensitive receptors; however, until a
development project is designed and an application submitted to the City for
processing, actual noise impacts cannot be adequately evaluated.
The initial study identifies eight mitigation measures that would reduce the
potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation
measures are proposed for adoption through the mitigated negative de claration
(MND), attached to this staff report.
On August 29, 2019 (Wren Investors) and September 2, 2019 (Hewell), the
applicants agreed to the recommended mitigation measures to address the
identified adverse effects. The initial study/MND was circulated and made available
for public review at the Gilroy Public Library, the Planning Division public counter,
and on the Planning Division webpage (www.cityofgilroy.org/planning) for the
requisite comment period, from September 6, 2019 through October 7, 2019.
As of this report’s date, staff received comments from the Gilroy Bicycle Pedestrian
Commission (BPC), Santa Clara County LAFCO and Valley Water. The BPC
comments related to future development of the site that is not contemplated as part
of this application; LAFCO’s comments related to consistency with LAFCO policy
issues and other clarifying information; Valley Water comments related to the need
for access to the channel that is within the boundaries of the site and mitigating
runoff. None of the comments would change the conclusions of the MND. As
such, no significant adverse effects are expected to result from the proposed
project, and the Planning Commission can make findings to recommend adoption
of the MND.
ANALYSIS:
General Plan Consistency: The City's General Plan designates the subject site for
Neighborhood District uses, but the proposed USA amendment request does not
include any development at this time. Thus, the following analysis reviews the project’s
conformance with General Plan policies related to Urban Service Area expansions,
rather than the potential future development of this property. Key goals and policies,
5.A
Packet Pg. 12
6
which pertain to the proposed project, are discussed below:
POLICY # TITLE AND SUMMARY ANALYSIS
1.01 Pattern of Development.
Ensure orderly, contiguous
pattern of development that
prioritizes infill development,
phases new development,
encourages compactness
and efficiency, preserves
surrounding open space and
agricultural resources, and
avoids land use
incompatibilities.
The proposed Urban Service Area
amendment would provide a contiguous
pattern of development because it logically
extends Gilroy’s Urban Service Area
boundary along Tatum Avenue, Vickery
Avenue, and Wren Avenue. Future
development on this site would need to
comply with the “Neighborhood District
Policy,” which encourages compact and
efficient development. As part of a larger
future Specific Plan that would be
developed for this area, this site would be
developed to preserve open spaces and
avoid land use incompatibilities.
Like all Urban Service Area requests, this
property is on the fringe of Gilroy, such that
future development on this site would result
in greenfield development (i.e. development
of previously undeveloped land), rather than
infill development. However, the Specific
Plan and entitlement process required prior
to development of this site is expected to
take several years. Gilroy currently has an
approximate eight-year supply of
undeveloped residential land, so Gilroy’s
existing vacant land inventory would be
largely depleted by the time the Wren
Investors/Hewell property is poised for
development. Furthermore, this property is
located within Gilroy’s Urban Growth
Boundary, so development of this site would
not negatively impact open space lands.
Staff Determination of Consistency:
Consistent
2.01
Location of Growth.
Maximize existing
infrastructure and service
investments by directing new
growth to vacant and under-
utilized lands within the
The city currently has an approximate eight-
year supply of undeveloped residential land
(11 years, if properties Downtown are
included). The commercial component of
the USA request is minor and has little
impact on the city’s supply of vacant
5.A
Packet Pg. 13
7
POLICY # TITLE AND SUMMARY ANALYSIS
Urban Service Area. As a
second-tier priority, direct
new development to areas
that border on existing urban
development or are
immediately adjacent to the
Urban Service Area.
commercial land.
Much of the vacant land within the city is
entitled as part of the Glen Loma Ranch
Specific Plan development, and would
develop before the Wren Investors/Hewell
property has completed its entitlement
process. The proposed USA amendment
area does border on existing urban
development and the existing USA
boundary, such that approval of this USA
amendment would not create “leap frog”
development.
Greenfield development is significantly
easier and cost effective for developers than
infill sites. With a limited investment pool
and limited market absorption rates for new
housing in Gilroy, facilitation of greenfield
development (such as that proposed with
the subject USA amendment) dis-
incentivizes infill development in the
downtown, on 1st Street, 10th Street,
Leavesley Road, and other infill areas. Infill
development offers more positive fiscal,
environmental, and quality of life outcomes
than greenfield development for the
community.
Gilroy’s Urban Growth boundary
significantly limits Gilroy’s expansion
potential. Coupled with the requirement to
build housing in compliance with the state’s
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA), staff expects that much of Gilroy’s
developable infill property will have
developed before the Wren
Investors/Hewell property has completed its
entitlement process. Therefore, staff
believes that bringing the Wren
Investors/Hewell property into Gilroy’s urban
service area now will allow Gilroy to have
adequate residential land to meet future
5.A
Packet Pg. 14
8
POLICY # TITLE AND SUMMARY ANALYSIS
residential growth requirements.
Staff Determination of Consistency:
Consistent
2.02 Rate and Timing of
Growth.
Ensure that the rate of
growth is controlled such
that resource and system
capacity constraints are not
exceeded and necessary
urban services are funded,
implemented and completed
prior to occupation of new
buildings.
While infrastructure would be in place prior
to occupancy of buildings within this
development, according to this project’s
fiscal impact analysis, development of this
site would result in an initial net negative
fiscal impact of $107,122. This deficit would
grow each year, as property tax revenue
does not increase commensurately with the
costs of providing services. After ten years,
the annual revenue loss would be $166,681.
Similarly, Santa Clara County would incur
lost revenue with development of this
project.
The result of the proposed USA would be
increased service needs with reduced
funding for the provision of services. For
example, the Police Department has
expressed concerns about the need for
additional officers as the city boundaries
expand; however, the $107,122 annual
deficit could mean the city would need to
reduce service levels in the larger
organization. If this USA amendment
request is approved, staff recommends that
the developer be required to place these
properties in a community facilities District
(CFD) which would pay for the city’s cost to
serve this site.
Staff Determination of Consistency:
Consistent, with the requirement to enter
into a CFD
2.04 Growth Management Tools
and Process.
Utilize the RDO, Urban
Service Area, 20-Year
The subject property is within the 20-Year
Planning Boundary; adequate sewer
treatment and disposal capacities exist to
serve this site; and development of the site
would be subject to obtaining USA
5.A
Packet Pg. 15
9
POLICY # TITLE AND SUMMARY ANALYSIS
Planning Boundary, sewer
treatment and disposal
capacities, and natural
resource management
policies as tools for
managing the rate, location
and extent of growth.
amendment approval and RDO allocations
(If applicable). A Specific Plan for the larger
area would need to evaluate how the
proposed development will achieve the
city’s natural resource management
objectives; however, the proposal would
result in the reduction of agricultural and
open space lands surrounding the city.
Staff Determination of Consistency:
Consistent
2.07 Urban Service Area.
Establish and maintain an
Urban Service Area that
indicates the area of land
that could potentially be
developed in the next 5
years and to which the City
is committed to providing
basic infrastructure and
services.
The city currently has an approximate eight-
year supply of undeveloped residential land
at this time (11 years, if properties
Downtown are included). Expanding the
USA boundary to include this property
would result in the city having an
approximate nine-year supply of
undeveloped residential land (12 years, if
properties Downtown are included),
assuming the property would create 307
residential units.
Although the city currently has more than a
five-year supply of residential land, staff
anticipates that most of that land would
develop before the Wren Investors/Hewell
property has completed its entitlement
process. Approval of the proposed USA
amendment request would allow the city to
replenish the diminishing supply of
residential land to meet foreseeable
residential development needs.
Staff Determination of Consistency:
Consistent
4.03
Urban Containment.
Contain urbanization within
an area large enough to
meet foreseeable need but
The proposed USA amendment request
would expand the city’s Urban Service Area
to meet foreseeable residential
development needs.
5.A
Packet Pg. 16
10
POLICY # TITLE AND SUMMARY ANALYSIS
which will not intrude
unnecessarily on, cause
premature conversion of, or
impair the productivity of
agricultural lands.
Staff Determination of Consistency:
Consistent
17.02 New Residential
Development.
Control the timing and
location of new residential
development in a way that
allows the Gilroy Unified
School District to plan and
finance facilities in an orderly
fashion.
New residential development within this
area will be required to pay impacts fees to
the GUSD to build new schools for the
students generated by such development.
Staff Determination of Consistency:
Consistent
17.03 Development Approvals
and School Capacity.
Verify the remaining capacity
in local schools as part of the
review process for
residential subdivisions, with
adequate school capacity
being a condition for
development approval.
When capacity is limited,
coordinate development
approvals with the
scheduling of capital funds
for school expansion and/or
improvements.
Students within this subdivision will be
assigned to schools once the residential
units are constructed. Given the recent
decline in school populations, it is likely that
adequate school capacity will exist to serve
future students.
Staff Determination of Consistency:
Consistent
The City of Gilroy is in the process of creating the Gilroy 2040 General Plan. The
General Plan expresses the community’s long-term vision of city growth and
development. The plan establishes public policy for the distribution of future land
uses, both public and private, and addresses a wide range of policies, including
economic development, transportation, safety, infrastructure, housing, parks,
recreation and open space, historic preservation and the environment.
The City Council is expected to select a preferred land use alternative for analysis
in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report before the end of this year. Staff
expects to present the General Plan Environmental Impact Report and 2040
General Plan to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption by late
2020.
5.A
Packet Pg. 17
11
Analysis of Urban Service Area Request: Wren Investors, LLC and Mark Hewell
request inclusion of 55.66+/- acres into Gilroy’s Urban Service Area. The developers
have included thirteen parcels not under their ownership. This is necessary to create a
logical city boundary and to prevent the creation of unincorporated (county) islands
within city limits. All thirteen of the other property owners are in agreement with the
proposed USA application. The following analysis examines the issues pertinent to this
USA amendment request.
Conceptual Site Plan: The developers have submitted conceptual site plans for
this property that show a possible development scenario (see initial study/MND
figures 5 and 6). The environmental analysis relies on these conceptual plans to
determine the maximum development potential for this site. However, this property
is a component of the “North Central, South of Buena Vista Avenue Extension”
neighborhood district area. This neighborhood district area consists of 366 acres
and 136 parcels, all of which will be included in a future comprehensive specific
plan. In accordance with the “Neighborhood District Policy,” the specific plan would
be developed with input from an advisory committee selected by the City Council.
The specific plan will be required to meet all tenets of the “Ne ighborhood District
Policy,” including the provision of residential units at a mix of densities; reservation
of land at prominent intersections for commercial uses; provision of open space for
passive and active recreational uses; and provision of affordab le housing. The
actual land development plan site will be determined through that process.
The conceptual site plans show the following development within the USA
amendment boundary:
Land Use Acreage Residential Lots
Low Density Residential 26.86 185
Medium Density Residential Duets 2.2 20
High Density Residential
(Townhomes/Apartments)
9.9 102
Subtotal Residential 33.6 307
Streets 12.9
Drainage 3.4
Neighborhood Commercial 0.4
Totals 55.66 307
The site plan also shows a possible development scenario for property surrounding
the project site for the purpose of comprehensive planning. At this time, no
development is proposed for this site and no development applications have been
submitted. The conceptual site plan has not been vetted o r endorsed by staff; it is
simply a plan that shows a potential development scenario for purposes of
5.A
Packet Pg. 18
12
environmental analysis. The conceptual design does not vest the developer or
neighboring properties with any design approvals.
Fiscal Impact Analysis: A fiscal impact analysis has been prepared for the
proposed USA request by Applied Development Economics in accordance with
state law and LAFCO policies [see attachment]. The purpose of this analysis is to
determine the economic impact that development of the 55.66+/- acres included in
the Wren Investors application will have on both the city of Gilroy and the county of
Santa Clara. This analysis is required at the USA amendment level to provide
decision makers with the information needed to determine wheth er the city and
county can provide urban services to the site without detracting from current
service levels, and to identify the fiscal impacts inherent in expanding the USA
boundary to include the subject site.
The fiscal impact analysis estimates the project will create an initial deficit of
$107,122 per year. This cost/revenue gap will continue to widen over time. Pages
13 and 14 of the fiscal impact analysis, summarized here, show the ten-year
cost/revenue projections for this project, which grows to $166,681 by Year 10:
Year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Annual
Deficit
($107,222) ($113,683) ($120,508) ($127,606) ($134,985)
Year Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Annual
Deficit
($139,984) ($146,972) ($153,303) ($159,870) ($166,681)
The fiscal impact analysis proposes some potential alternative funding methods
that could defray some of the costs of providing services to this site. These
alternatives include a community facilities district (CFD), which would fund
construction costs for infrastructure and facilities, maintenance of facilities, and
operation costs for public services such as police and fire protection; a landscaping
and lighting district (LLD), which could fund acquisition, construction, and
maintenance of public landscaping and lighting, typically along streets; a
maintenance assessment district (MAD), which can fund maintenance of storm
drain facilities, water and sewer facilities and other public facilities and
infrastructure not covered by LLDs; a homeowners’ associatio n (HOA), which can
fund maintenance of internal amenities and property within subdivisions or planned
unit developments; and developer exactions, which may be able to be used to fund
police and fire service. Staff would need to evaluate each of these poss ible funding
methods to determine their legal and financial feasibility.
The city currently uses CFDs to fund maintenance and operation costs related to
landscaping and soundwalls. Using CFDs, or any of the other potential funding
5.A
Packet Pg. 19
13
mechanisms, to fund other operations and/or staffing would need to be fully vetted
to determine whether these are viable sources of long-term revenue that could be
used to offset project costs.
As the fiscal impact analysis notes, general tax revenues are insufficient to fund the
full costs of services to this site. If the city approves development on this site and is
unable to use an alternative method of funding the ongoing provision of services,
the city would need to either reduce services to the residents of Gilroy or use
General Fund revenues earmarked for other purposes to serve this site, which
could have the net effect of reducing services elsewhere. The fiscal impact analysis
also projects that Santa Clara County will incur a revenue deficit if this property is
incorporated into the city’s USA and is developed.
If this Urban Service Area amendment is approved, staff recommends that
appropriate funding mechanisms be vetted, and that the developer be required to
contractually agree to implement appropriate funding mechanisms prior to
annexation, via a pre-annexation agreement.
Vacant Land Inventory: Residential and commercial vacant land inventories have
been prepared for the proposed USA request by EMC Planning Group in
accordance with LAFCO policies [see attachment]. These surveys inventoried all
of the undeveloped residential and commercial land within city limits, including land
approved for development, such as the Glen Loma Ranch and Hecker Pass
specific plan areas. The surveys next determined the number of units that could be
built on each lot, based on either actual project plans or maximum potential
buildout determined by dividing land area by permitted densities. The commercial
component of this project is only 0.4 acres, and is incidental to the development.
The addition of this property to Gilroy’s commercial inventory has an insignificant
impact on the amount of commercial land available, but has been included in the
analysis to meet LAFCO requirements. This analysis, therefore, focuses on the
residential portion of the vacant land inventory.
The residential vacant land inventory determined the total number of potential units
outside of the Downtown is 2,394 units; the total number of remaining units that
could be built Downtown, based upon the of approved “Downtown Gilroy Specific
plan,” is 909 units.
The survey next determined how long it would take to develop available land based
on the city’s buildout projections. Over the next 10 years, the city of Gilroy projects
to issue 3,045 residential building permits for projects outside of the Downtown.
This is an average of 305 permits per year. Based on the average development of
305 units per year, excluding development in the Downtown, and an approximate
current availability of vacant land adequate to build 2,394 units, the city has
adequate land to serve future residential growth for approximately eight years
(2,394/305 = 7.85).
If the 909 Downtown units are added to this total, Gilroy has the land capacity to
build up to 3,303 units (2,394 + 909). Applying the same average build out for units
5.A
Packet Pg. 20
14
located in and out of Downtown, this allows for about 11 years of residential
development (3,303/305 = 10.83). Expanding the USA boundary to include the
Wren Investors and Hewell properties would add 307 units to the vacant land
inventory, resulting in land that could produce 3,610 residential units. Using a
development rate of 305 units per year, the proposed USA expansion would
increase the city’s supply of undeveloped residential land to about 12 years
(3,610/305=11.8), if Downtown development is included.
Although the city currently has more than a five-year supply of residential land, the
Wren Investors/Hewell property will have a lengthy entitlement process, one that
could span several years. Staff anticipates that most of the vacant residential land
would develop before the Wren Investors/Hewell property has completed its
entitlement process.
The city also has more than a five-year supply of commercial land, but the
commercial component of the Wren Investors/Hewell property, proposed as 0.4
acres, is incidental to the residential component, and would be developed to
support residents living in the area. Further, the commercial component of the
Wren Investors/Hewell property has a negligible impact on the availability of
commercial land in the city, and therefore should not be a determining factor in this
USA amendment request.
Approval of the proposed USA amendment request would allow the city to
replenish the diminishing supply of residential land to meet foreseeable residential
development needs.
Plan for Services: A plan for services has been prepared for the proposed USA
request by EMC Planning Group in accordance with LAFCO policies [see
attachment]. The plan addresses how the city would provide services to the project
site upon annexation, and how other agencies would provide services upon
development of the site.
School District Impacts: Future development of the amendment areas
consistent with the existing general plan would result in additional students
and increase the demand for school services. The cumulative student
generation estimates include a total of 103 new students (54 Kindergarten-
grade five; 20 grade six-eight; and 29 high school students). New students
would attend schools within the Gilroy Unified School District, which assesses
its own development impact fee to address facility and infrastructure needs.
General Plan Educational Policy 17.02 directs the timing and location of new
residential development to occur in a way that allows the Gilroy Unified
School District (GUSD) to plan and finance facilities in an orderly fashion.
Policy 17.03 states that development approvals and school capacity should
be coordinated with the GUSD, with adequate capacity being a condition of
approval.
5.A
Packet Pg. 21
15
City Facilities and Services: The City’s ability to provide public services and
facilities required by new growth is a fundamental policy consideration for all
USA amendments. Future development of this site consistent with the
existing Neighborhood District General Plan land use designation would be
expected to generate cumulative incremental increases in demand for City
services and facilities. General Plan Policy 2.02, “Rate and Timing of Growth”
states that the city should “ensure that the rate of growth is controlled such
that resource and system capacity constraints are not exceeded (e.g., water
supply, police, and schools), are funded, implemented and completed prior to
occupation of new buildings.” Overall, the future development within the
amendment area is consistent with existing General Plan land use
designations. Facility and infrastructure master plans have been prepared by
the City to support the adopted General Plan. The development anticipated
would not require major infrastructure beyond that identified in the General
Plan and subsequent implementing master plans. The developer will fund all
infrastructure needed to serve this site and pay required development impact
fees.
However, funding for emergency response and public safety resources is
provided by the general fund, and is not supported by development impact
fees. As discussed above, the fiscal impact analysis projects that the future
residential development will result in an overall negative fiscal impact after
buildout, with the deficit increasing over time. The fiscal impact analysis only
projects the deficit out for a ten-year period. However, this deficit will
continue to increase every year because the increases in tax revenue are not
expected to increase as fast as the cost to serve this site. Funding for
necessary staff to support future growth in the amendment area will be a
continuing challenge for the City. This funding issue could be offset by the
use of a CFD to pay for services provided to this area.
Timing of Urban Service area Requests: The Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) will consider Urban Service Area requests one time each
year from each city in Santa Clara County. A city may not submit addition al
Urban Service Area amendment applications until LAFCO has heard and acted
upon any pending applications from that city. LAFCO may make an exception to
the once-a-year limitation when an amendment is needed to carry out a special
institutional development or activity that is in the public interest. Such exceptions
do not normally apply to proposed residential, commercial, or industrial
development.
Gilroy currently has no other USA requests in process.
Conclusions: Due to the need to prepare a Specific plan for this property, it is
likely that it will be several years before the applicants have entitlements to
develop this site. By the time the developer has land entitlements, it is likely that
the city will have only a few years of vacant residential land. Further, the subject
property is located within Gilroy’s urban growth boundary, and is therefore eligible
for development.
5.A
Packet Pg. 22
16
Furthermore, staff recommends that the city explore avenues to ensure that
projects will be at least revenue neutral prior to expanding the USA boundary, such
that the city, county, and school district can ensure that it can adequately provide
services to future residents.
Due to the diminishing availability of land to satisfy RHNA requirements, inclusion
with Gilroy’s urban growth boundary, the ability to require a CFD on this site, and
consistency with current General Plan policies and goals, staff recommends
approval of this USA request.
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Project plans were routed to Engineering,
Building, Police, Finance and Fire representatives for internal review and comment.
The TAC considered the project on February 8, 2018. Recommendations of the TAC
members have been incorporated into the project plans and/or are included as
recommended conditions in attached resolution(s).
Bicycle Pedestrian Committee (BPC): This USA amendment request was not
presented to the Bicycle Pedestrian Committee (BPC) as no development is
currently proposed. Plans will be forwarded to the BPC for review when city staff
receives a development proposal. However, the BPC provided staff with comments
via the initial study/MND review process. These comments will be incorporated into
future development plans.
Gilroy Unified School District (GUSD): The GUSD farm site is one of the
properties included in this Urban Service Area request, and the GUSD supports the
USA amendment. However, the farm site hosts the GUSD’s Future Farmers of
America (FFA) program, and is very important to the district. The GUSD opposes
development of the school farm site unless the farm operation is relocated to
another site acceptable to the GUSD.
As no development is currently proposed, there are no plans to develop the farm
site. The GUSD would be signatory to any future development of its property. In
addition, if the GUSD elects not to develop its farm site, staff would recommend that
future residential developments surrounding the site disclose to buyers that the
GUSD has the right to continue the farming operation.
Noticing: Property owner information (i.e. list, labels, and map) within 500 feet of
the subject site were generated by First American Title Company using current
ownership data. Prior to October 6, notices of this Planning Commission meeting
were mailed to the property owners along within other interest ed parties. In addition,
the property has been posted with on-site signage notifying passersby of pending
development, and the Planning Commission public hearing packets are available
through the City's webpage.
Appeal Procedure: The Planning Commission's action is not final, but rather a
recommendation. As such, the matter will be considered by the City Council at a
later date.
5.A
Packet Pg. 23
17
Next Steps:
Should the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council, t he next
step in this process would be to present the proposed Urban Service Area amendment
request to the City Council. If the City Council approves the request, the City will submit
a USA amendment application to LAFCO for consideration. It is expected that the
application would be submitted to LAFCO by spring of 2020.
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Initial Study MND Link
3. Fiscal Impact Analysis
4. Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019
5. USA 1201_1402_PC_ Reso
6. Wren Hewell_Plan for Services
5.A
Packet Pg. 24
Tatum Ave.Kern Ave.
Vickery Ave.Wren Ave.
Mantelli Dr.
Aerial Photograph
0 650 feet
Figure 2
Source: ESRI 2016Project Site
Existing Urban Service
Area Boundary
Proposed Urban Service
Area Boundary
Wren Investors and Hewell USA Amendment Initial Study
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Vicinity Map (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Link to the Wren Investors/Hewell
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Wren Investors/Hewell initial study/mitigated negative declaration, and supporting
documents, may be found at the following link:
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/298/Development-Activity-Projects
5.A.b
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Initial Study MND Link (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE
WREN INVESTORS AND HEWELL URBAN
SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT
TO THE CITY OF GILROY AND
THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Prepared for the
City of Gilroy
Prepared by
APPLIED DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS, INC.
3527 Mt. Diablo Blvd. #248 Lafayette, CA 94549
925.934.8712 www.adeusa.com
September 30, 2019
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................ 1
City and County Existing Fiscal Conditions ................................................. 3
Fiscal Impact Analysis: Hewell Annexation ................................................. 6
Appendix: Household Retail Spending……………………………………………………………..…20
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Gilroy has an application from Wren Investors and the Hewell project sponsors to amend the
City’s Urban Service Area (USA). No development is proposed at this time; however, conceptual
development plans have been submitted for purposes of showing how the property could be developed,
consistent with the City General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood District. This report analyzes and
describes the fiscal impacts to both the City of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara of future development
of the properties.
LAFCO REQUIREMENTS
California law governs the process for land annexation and government reorganizations for local
governments in the state. Each California County maintains their own Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) and, as such, the Santa Clara County LAFCO will oversee the Wren Investors and Hewell
Annexation USA amendment process. Under state law and Santa Clara County LAFCO regulations is a
requirement that during the application process a detailed fiscal impact analysis be completed in order to
determine the fiscal and service impacts to the City and the County as a result of a proposed annexation.
Specifically, LAFCO requires that the proposed amendments be evaluated to determine;
the ability of the City to provide urban services to the growth areas without detracting from
current service levels,
the impacts of the proposed City expansion upon the County as a provider of services, and
the fiscal impacts of the proposed projects to the City and County.
The Santa Clara County LAFCO also takes into consideration impacts to school district and special district
service provision, regional housing needs, environmental impacts, and water availability. The Santa Clara
County LAFCO also further defines the precise estimates to be included in the fiscal impacts to County
government services, which are: projecting resident and employee generation, projecting revenue and
expenditure estimates for the base year after development completion, then at five and ten years
thereafter, and projecting the net County General Fund impact for the new service population.
This analysis adheres to LAFCO requirements for the completion of the fiscal impacts of the proposed USA
amendment. In particular, this analysis provides a description of the existing fiscal conditions of the City and
County, an estimate of the fiscal impacts of the proposed USA amendment area at buildout and in a
subsequent 10 year time frame from development completion. The Public Services Plan prepared by EMC
Planning Group, Inc. has estimated the public service impacts resulting from the proposed project, and is
used in this analysis to determine whether service cost deficiencies exist for the proposed project. In
addition to impacts to the City of Gilroy, the Public Service Plan addresses impacts to the school district and
the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center. Taken together, these two reports address the analyses required
under LAFCO USA amendment guidelines.
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 2
At anticipated build-out, future development of the two project areas would create an additional 307
residential units, with an estimated 1,036 new City of Gilroy residents.
The projects would have a negative fiscal impact for both the City of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara
(Table 1). Much of this result is dependent on the home values eventually attained for the project, as the
property tax for both the City and the County represents the largest single revenue source from the project.
Based on current market data, ADE estimates the units to sell within a range of $521,800 for multi-family
units to $882,300 for the low density single family units. The analysis is conservative in that it uses an
average cost methodology which assumes the projects would require the same level of service and cost
expenditure as existing development in the City and the County.
The City impact can be mitigated through imposition of a Community Facilities District or other similar
financing mechanism.
TABLE: 1
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACTS OF WREN
INVESTORS AND HEWELL USA AMENDMENT
Fiscal Effects Total at Buildout
CITY OF GILROY
Wren Investors
Revenues 500,163
Expenditures 598,929
Net Fiscal Impact ($98,766)
Hewell
Revenues $102,248
Expenditures $110,604
Net Fiscal Impact ($8,356)
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Revenues $824,052
Expenditures $858,120
Net Fiscal Impact ($34,068)
Source: ADE, Inc.
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 3
CITY AND COUNTY EXISTING FISCAL
CONDITIONS
The operating budgets of the City of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara reflect the current fiscal condition
of the respective agencies, including existing fiscal constraints, the prioritization of service objectives by
management and elected officials, and the allocation of public resources. The historical nature of physical
development within a City and County’s boundaries is one significant factor contributing to a local
government’s fiscal condition. The imposition of statewide tax and service delivery policies also constrains
local communities’ abilities to generate revenue necessary to pay for basic services. In addition, as was
recently the case, external economic factors like the regional and national economy greatly impact revenue
generation, which in turn affects funding of existing public services. This section provides a description of
the operating budgets for the City of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara.
CITY OF GILROY BUDGET1
California local governments are financed through a complex variety of revenue sources such as property
and sales taxes, state and federal intergovernmental transfers, and fees. The total City budget consists of
the general fund, enterprise funds (water and sewer), debt service funds, capital projects funds, internal
service funds, special revenue funds, and select trust and agency funds. The general fund is the focus of
analysis in this report, since it must provide services that are dependent on general tax revenues, while
most other funds have dedicated revenue sources for specific services.
The City, like nearly every other local government in the nation, experienced significant negative impacts
during the recent economic downturn. The impacts included unprecedented numbers of foreclosures,
plummeting real estate values and, as a result, reduced property tax revenues. The downturn in the U.S.
economy also impacted the City through the decrease in sales tax revenue as consumers spent less on
taxable discretionary retail goods. The City reduced staffing levels and service levels during this time.
However, for the past eight years, the City has had a balanced budget and has met or exceeded its General
Fund Reserve policies. The City has also increased staffing levels over the past few years.
For this analysis, certain adjustments have been made to both revenues and expenditures in order to focus
the analysis on the net cost of providing services with local revenues. On the revenue side, the adjustments
are in part state and federal grant funds that are not based on development or population in the City.
Additional adjustments are made for one-time building permit or entitlement fees that are only paid at the
time a building project is approved and do not fund ongoing operation of City services.
On the expenditure side, these revenue adjustments are subtracted from the respective departmental
service costs to calculate the net cost of providing ongoing services supported by annual local revenue
sources. Expenditure adjustments also include capital expenditures, since the focus of this part of the
analysis is on annual operating costs for City services.
1 City of Gilroy budget figures and analysis are derived from the City’s FY 2019-2020 Budget.
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 4
TABLE: 2
CITY OF GILROY GENERAL FUND BUDGET
2016-2017 Budget
REVENUES
Property Tax $14,977,689
Doc Transfer tax $496,287
Sales Tax $20,558,683
Transient Occupancy Tax $1,402,699
Utility Users Tax $4,643,909
Franchise Tax $1,724,598
Motor Vehicle Tax $32,462
Business Licenses $710,435
Building Permits $2,889,783
Other Licenses & Permits $54,000
Fines & Forfeitures $262,730
Intergovernmental $141,500
Charges for Services $5,669,485
Use of Money & Property $475,334
Other Revenues $1,463,849
Other Financing Sources $142,000
Use of Fund Balance $2,178,141
Total General Fund Revenues $ 57,823,584
EXPENDITURES
General Administration $7,495,023
Police $23,935,803
Fire $11,859,279
Public Works $5,524,790
Recreation $3,835,082
Community Development $4,881,988
Total General Fund Expenditures $57,531,965
NET SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)
GENERALFUNDS
$291,619
Source: City of Gilroy FY 2020 and FY 2022 Biennial Budget
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA FY 2019-20 BUDGET
Counties face many challenges in providing services to local residents. As an administrative arm of the
state, the county is mandated to provide certain services and receives both state and federal funding for this
purpose. However, these funding sources often times are unpredictable and subject to fluctuations during
difficult economic periods. Some county services such as criminal justice, public health, and the assessor
benefit the entire unincorporated and incorporated community. Other services such as plan check and
sheriff’s patrol are provided only to the unincorporated population. The County must use its locally-
generated discretionary revenues to meet local service priorities.
The total County of Santa Clara Proposed FY 19-20 Budget is $8.1 billion2, of which the General Fund budget
is approximately $3.7 billion (Table 3). The General Fund budget excludes those funding categories that are
2 All fund categories including the County general fund.
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 5
used for enterprise funds, special revenue, capital programs, and internal service funds. The County’s
estimated $353 million General Fund deficit will be funded from prior year revenues.
TABLE: 3
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
GENERAL FUND BUDGET FY 19-20
REVENUES
Taxes-Current Property $1,108,200,000
Sales Tax $114,585,335
Licenses, Permits, & Franchises $9,946,613
Fines, Forfeitures, & Penalties $10,077,500
Use of Money & Property $43,001,871
Aid from Govt. Agencies-State $753,726,944
Aid from Govt. Agencies-Federal $560,545,908
Revenue from Other Govt. Agencies $3,783,498
Charges for Services $116,412,667
Other Financing Sources $680,903,309
Revenue Total $ 3,401,183,645
EXPENDITURES
Finance and Government $1,049,078,736
Public Safety and Justice $887,811,965
Children, Seniors, and Families $1,006,343,634
Santa Clara Valley Health/Hospital $773,999,964
Housing, Land Use, Environ., and Transportation $36,725,215
Expenditures Total $ 3,753,959,514
NET SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($352,775,869)
Source: County of Santa Clara, FY 2019-20 Recommended Budget
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 6
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project sites are located northeast of the intersection of Vickery Lane and Kern Avenue. The total
project sites include 16 parcels totaling approximately 55.66 acres, with a land use designation of
Neighborhood District.
The sites will be developed in a combination of low, medium and high density residential housing, with a
small retail building in the Wren Investors project. The State Department of Finance indicates that Gilroy
has an average household size of 3.5 persons and a 3.6 percent vacancy rate. Using these factors, the
projects will house an estimated additional 1,036 residents when fully developed (Table 4). The projects will
have a total estimated assessed value of $228.7 million when fully developed ($2019). The basis for the
estimated real estate values is discussed in the section below.
TABLE: 4
WREN INVESTORS AND HEWELL SOI AMENDMENT: PROJECT
CHARACTERISTICS
LAND USE Units Population
Assessed Value
Per Unit Total
Wren Investors
Low Density (8 Du/AC) 137 462 $882,300 $120,875,100
Medium Density 20 67 $663,500 $13,270,000
High Density 102 344 $521,800 $53,226,200
Retail 3,485 Sq. Ft. 6 jobs $260.00 $906,100
Hewell
Low Density (11 Du/AC) 48 162 $842,700 $40,449,600
Total 307 1,036 $228,727,000
Source: ADE, Inc.
REAL ESTATE VALUES
The two projects would include single family houses at 8 DU/AC and 11 DU/AC as well as medium density
and high density units. The two single family densities translate to approximately 4,000 and 5,400 sq. ft.
lots. Using assessor data records accessed from CoreLogic, ADE has compiled residential sales transactions
over the past two years in these lot size and unit type categories, as shown in Table 5. The single family
prices have fluctuated over this time frame but not appreciably increased. We have used the two-year
average for each density level to project property taxes in the fiscal analysis. For the high density units, we
have averaged the per sq. ft. of building space figures for the condos and the apartments, and assumed an
average size of 1,300 sq. ft. per unit. This results in an average value of $521,800 per high density unit.
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 7
TABLE 5:
SELECTED HOME SALES PRICES IN GILROY, 2018-2019
Units
Single Family High Density
5,400 4,000 2,200 Condos Apts
Per Unit $882,300 $842,700 $663,500 $477,700
Per Sq. Ft. Bldg. $330.62 $332.84 $384.12 $372.51 $430.29
Per Sq. Ft. Lot $172.50 $228.71 $305.20 $373.90 $162.41
Source: ADE, Inc., based on data obtained from CoreLogic.
PROJECT IMPACTS: CITY OF GILROY
Annexation and development of the Wren Investors and Hewell sites will generate a number of revenues for
the City of Gilroy, including property taxes, indirect sales taxes, and a variety of other taxes and fees. With
the exception of the property tax, most of the revenues included in the analysis have been projected using a
per capita basis, which reflects the average revenue generation by households in Gilroy. The development of
the sites will also increase demand for City services as discussed further below.
PROPERTY TAX SHIFT AND PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
The base property tax paid by property owners, equal to one percent of assessed value under Proposition
13, is allocated to a wide range of local taxing agencies, including City and County government, special
service districts, school districts, and other agencies. The parcels in the proposed USA amendment had an
assessed value of $4,961,579 in 2017 and generated $49,616 in base property tax. Property tax from the
existing parcels is distributed based on the percentages shown for the Tax Rate Area (TRA) 67-007 shown in
Table 6.
The initial fiscal effect after annexation of the land in the plan would be a shift in property tax distribution
from the County General Fund and the South County Fire Protection District (SSCCFPD) to the City. It is not
known currently what the new distribution would be, but staff in the Property Tax Division of the County of
Santa Clara Controller-Treasurer’s Department indicated that it would be similar to TRA 02-001 due to the
mix of taxing agencies that would serve the site after annexation. The SSCCFPD currently gets $4,900 in
annual property tax from the site, which would shift to the City along with fi re protection jurisdiction.
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 8
At full buildout, the City would receive about $215,400 per year in base property taxes. In addition, local
jurisdictions receive property tax in lieu of motor vehicle license fees as part of the Proposition 1A legislation
from the Schwarzenegger administration. These revenues are allocated based on the increase in assessed
value annually for the jurisdiction and are estimated at about $117,800 per year at buildout of the proposed
projects.
SALES TAX
Residents in the project would purchase retail items at Gilroy stores and thereby generate sales taxes.
Based on the income levels anticipated for the proposed project, the residents are projected to spend about
$9.1 million per year on taxable sales. Detailed estimates of household expenditures for each unit type may
be found in the Appendix. It is estimated that 20 percent of this spending does not occur in Gilroy, either
from out-commuters making purchases at their place of employment, through comparison shopping for
major items at competing retail centers, or spending on business and leisure trips. This leaves $7.3 million
for spending at Gilroy stores, a small amount of which would be spent at the new retail store in the Wren
Investors project. The City receives one percent of these sales in the form of sales taxes.
OTHER REVENUES
The City collects a number of other revenues listed in Tables 7 and 8 either in the form of local taxes or as
fees or charges for service. The utility users taxes and franchise taxes are collected on utility bills. The
motor vehicle tax is the current City share of vehicle registration fees. As discussed above under property
taxes, cities used to receive a higher share but that has been replaced by additional property taxes as p art
of a previous state budget agreement.
TABLE: 6
CURRENT AND ESTIMATED FUTURE PROPERTY TAX DISTRIBUTION
Taxing Agency
Current
Distribution
(TRA 67-007)
Estimated Future
Distribution
(TRA 02-001)
City of Gilroy 0.00% 9.63%
County General Fund 14.20% 13.60%
County Library 2.59% 2.48%
Gilroy Unified 49.26% 47.80%
Gavilan Community College 5.63% 5.46%
County School Service 3.34% 3.24%
South S.C. County Fire Dist. 9.88% 0.00%
S.C. Valley Water Dist-South Zone 1 1.59% 1.53%
S.C. Valley Water Dist-General 0.74% 0.71%
South S.C. Valley Memorial Dist. 0.14% 0.13%
Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. 0.19% 0.18%
Loma Prieta Resource Conserv. 0.05% 0.05%
S.C. Co. Importation Water-Misc. Dist. 0.50% 0.47%
ERAF 11.91% 14.72%
Total 100.00% 100.00%
Source: ADE, based on data provided by the Santa Clara County Office of the Controller-Treasurer.
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 9
A small amount of business license revenue is shown for residences to account for home based businesses
that often occur in residential neighborhoods. The other licenses and permits mainly cover things like animal
and bicycle licenses. Building permits and plan check fees are not included, since those are only paid once
when the development is constructed. The planning and engineering services supported by those fees have
also been deducted from the cost analysis below.
Fines and forfeitures are mainly the City share of traffic fines and parking fines that are levied in Gilroy.
Charges for service include recreation program fees as well as miscellaneous charges for direct customer
services provided at City Hall.
Overall, the two projects combined are projected to generate about $602,400 per year in operating revenue
for Gilroy.
CITY COSTS
City service costs have generally been allocated on a per capita basis. The cost factors take into account
both the resident population in Gilroy and also service demands generated by the business base, as
represented by the number of workers with jobs in Gilroy.
As mentioned above, service costs for the fire department, the public works departments and the
community development departments have been adjusted to remove the revenue received from plan check
and building permit fees, since the analysis is focused on the annual impact of the project after it is built.
The cost factors for all departments have been adjusted to remove department head expenses, in order to
better reflect the direct impact of the project on City service needs. Similarly City Council costs are not
included in the calculations. The General Administration costs are calculated as an overhead percentage of
the other direct service costs. With the adjustments mentioned above, the General Administration
departments, which include the City Administrator, the Finance and Human Resource Departments,
Information Technology and the City Clerk, represent 2.2 percent of General Fund expenditures.
Aside from these adjustments, the cost factors represent the full average cost of the project to the City. In
the case of fire protection, the City is already incurring expenses for the fire station that would serve this
project, so the incremental cost of the project would possibly be less than shown in Tables 7 and 8. In total,
the projects are projected to generate about $709,500 in annual costs for the City at buildout.
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 13
TABLE: 7
WREN INVESTORS USA AMENDMENT CITY IMPACTS-10 YEAR ANNUAL PROJECTION
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Property Tax $177,374 $180,921 $184,540 $188,231 $191,995 $196,987 $202,109 $207,364 $212,755 $218,287
VLF Property Tax $98,191 $100,155 $102,158 $104,201 $106,285 $109,049 $111,884 $114,793 $117,777 $120,840
Sales Tax $60,304 $62,114 $63,977 $65,896 $67,873 $69,909 $72,007 $74,167 $76,392 $78,684
Utility Users Tax $58,453 $60,207 $62,013 $63,874 $65,790 $67,763 $69,796 $71,890 $74,047 $76,268
Franchise Tax $22,327 $22,996 $23,686 $24,397 $25,129 $25,883 $26,659 $27,459 $28,283 $29,131
Motor Vehicle Tax $420 $433 $446 $459 $473 $487 $502 $517 $532 $548
Business Licenses $1,281 $1,320 $1,359 $1,400 $1,442 $1,486 $1,530 $1,576 $1,623 $1,672
Other Lic. & Permits $699 $720 $742 $764 $787 $810 $835 $860 $886 $912
Fines and Forfeitures $3,401 $3,503 $3,608 $3,717 $3,828 $3,943 $4,061 $4,183 $4,309 $4,438
Charges for Services $73,397 $75,599 $77,867 $80,203 $82,609 $85,087 $87,640 $90,269 $92,977 $95,766
Use of Money & Prop. $4,314 $4,444 $4,577 $4,714 $4,856 $5,002 $5,152 $5,306 $5,465 $5,629
Total Revenue $500,163 $512,412 $524,974 $537,856 $551,067 $566,406 $582,174 $598,383 $615,046 $632,176
General Administration $55,162 $56,816 $58,521 $60,276 $62,085 $63,947 $65,866 $67,842 $69,877 $71,973
Police $294,581 $303,419 $312,521 $321,897 $331,554 $341,501 $351,746 $362,298 $373,167 $384,362
Fire $147,454 $151,877 $156,434 $161,127 $165,961 $170,939 $176,068 $181,350 $186,790 $192,394
Public Works $51,353 $52,894 $54,481 $56,115 $57,799 $59,533 $61,319 $63,158 $65,053 $67,005
Recreation $45,847 $47,222 $48,639 $50,098 $51,601 $53,149 $54,743 $56,386 $58,077 $59,820
Community Dev. $4,532 $4,667 $4,808 $4,952 $5,100 $5,253 $5,411 $5,573 $5,740 $5,913
Total Expenditures $598,929 $616,896 $635,403 $654,465 $674,099 $694,322 $715,152 $736,607 $758,705 $781,466
NET SURPLUS/ (DEF) ($98,766) ($104,484) ($110,430) ($116,610) ($123,032) ($127,916) ($132,978) ($138,223) ($143,658) ($149,290)
Source: ADE, Inc.
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 14
TABLE: 8
HEWELL USA AMENDMENT CITY IMPACTS-10 YEAR ANNUAL PROJECTION
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
Property Tax $38,079 $38,840 $39,617 $40,410 $41,218 $42,042 $42,883 $43,741 $44,615 $45,508
VLF Property Tax $21,076 $21,498 $21,928 $22,366 $22,813 $23,270 $23,735 $24,210 $24,694 $25,188
Sales Tax $12,700 $13,081 $13,474 $13,878 $14,294 $14,723 $15,165 $15,620 $16,089 $16,571
Utility Users Tax $10,794 $11,118 $11,451 $11,795 $12,149 $12,513 $12,889 $13,275 $13,673 $14,084
Franchise Tax $4,123 $4,246 $4,374 $4,505 $4,640 $4,779 $4,923 $5,071 $5,223 $5,379
Motor Vehicle Tax $78 $80 $82 $85 $87 $90 $93 $95 $98 $101
Business Licenses $206 $212 $218 $225 $232 $238 $246 $253 $261 $268
Other Lic. & Permits $129 $133 $137 $141 $145 $150 $154 $159 $164 $168
Fines and Forfeitures $628 $647 $666 $686 $707 $728 $750 $772 $796 $820
Charges for Services $13,553 $13,960 $14,379 $14,810 $15,254 $15,712 $16,183 $16,669 $17,169 $17,684
Use of Money & Prop. $882 $908 $936 $964 $993 $1,022 $1,053 $1,085 $1,117 $1,151
Total Revenue $102,248 $104,724 $107,262 $109,865 $112,533 $115,269 $118,074 $120,950 $123,899 $126,922
General Administration $10,187 $10,492 $10,807 $11,131 $11,465 $11,809 $12,163 $12,528 $12,904 $13,291
Police $54,397 $56,029 $57,710 $59,441 $61,224 $63,061 $64,953 $66,901 $68,909 $70,976
Fire $27,229 $28,046 $28,887 $29,753 $30,646 $31,565 $32,512 $33,488 $34,492 $35,527
Public Works $9,489 $9,774 $10,067 $10,369 $10,680 $11,001 $11,331 $11,671 $12,021 $12,381
Recreation $8,466 $8,720 $8,982 $9,251 $9,529 $9,814 $10,109 $10,412 $10,724 $11,046
Community
Development
$837 $862 $888 $914 $942 $970 $999 $1,029 $1,060 $1,092
Total Expenditures $110,604 $113,923 $117,340 $120,860 $124,486 $128,221 $132,067 $136,029 $140,110 $144,314
NET SURPLUS/ (DEF) ($8,356) ($9,199) ($10,078) ($10,996) ($11,953) ($12,952) ($13,994) ($15,080) ($16,212) ($17,391)
Source: ADE, Inc.
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 15
NET FISCAL IMPACT
The net impact of the project is estimated to be an annual deficit of $98,766 for the Wren Investors
project and $8,356 for the Hewell project. This is not necessarily unexpected, given the fiscal structure
under which cities operate in California. As shown in Tables 7 and 8, the cost/revenue gap widens over
time, assuming costs and revenues escalate at about the same rate, estimated here to be three percent
per year, except for property taxes which escalate at two percent per year. This is somewhat
conservative, because re-sales of the houses will tend to increase property taxes at a faster rate, but not
enough to address the overall project deficit.
There are a number of potential mitigation measures that could reduce or eliminate this fiscal impact, as
discussed below.
POTENTIAL MITIGATION OF PROJECTS IMPACTS
Various potential options would be available to mitigate these impacts on the City of Gilroy, including
establishment of Community Facilities Districts or other assessment districts to supplement the cost of
providing certain services to the projects; increased service levels provided by Homeowners Associations
or similar organizational mechanisms; or reductions in service levels. Each of these options is described
briefly below.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CFD). Authorized by the Mello Roos Act of 1982, these districts permit
the imposition of “special taxes” to fund construction costs for infrastructure and facilities, maintenance of
facilities and operation costs for public services such as police and fire protection. Gilroy has adopted a
CFD ordinance and has existing CFDs in place in the City. Establishment of the CFD may be done by the
owners of a majority of the property within the proposed district, while the approval of special taxes
requires a two-thirds vote. Because of the two-thirds vote requirement for funding, these districts are
typically formed by developers in coordination with the city or county prior to development of the
subdivisions. Once established, they are made irrevocable through a lien on the property. They have most
often been used to fund infrastructure construction, but a number of cities and counties have also required
special taxes to help pay for services as well. This could help defray costs for police, fire, and recreation
services.
The fiscal deficit would be $381 per unit for the Wren Investors project. If the entire deficit were recouped
through CFD special taxes, it would increase the tax burden on the units by about 0.055 percent of
assessed value. The existing total tax rate for the 02-001 TRA is 1.26706 percent.3 At most, the Wren
special tax would raise the total tax rate to 1.32206 percent. Effective tax rates below 2 percent are
generally considered feasible and acceptable for most homeowners.
LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT (LLD). The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 permits the
establishment of assessment districts to fund acquisition, construction, and maintenance of public
landscaping and lighting, typically along streets. It also permitted similar activities related to parks and
open space and recreation facilities and equipment, but Proposition 218 in 1996 imposed a condition on all
assessment districts that the assessment must relate to a special benefit provided to each parcel in the
district. The rule is that, “General enhancement of property value does not constitute a special benefit”.
3 County of Santa Clara Compilation of Tax Rates and Information, Fiscal Year 2017-2018. Santa Clara County Controller-Treasurer.
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 16
This makes LLDs harder to apply to parks and recreation facilities but they are still used for maintenance
of streets, lighting, and landscaping within subdivisions. In accordance with provisions of Proposition 218,
the duration of the assessment is specified at the time the District is initially established, along with an
annual escalation clause, to reduce the possibility of rescissions by property owner votes at the required
annual hearing. There are no examples in California of a successful majority property owner protest of an
LLD once it has been established. This funding mechanism, along with the MAD & HOA discussed below,
could help pay for some of the Public Works costs shown in Tables 7 and 8.
MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (MAD). This is a broader form of assessment district (authorized
under a variety of Acts) that allows for maintenance of storm drain facilities, water and sewer facilities and
other public facilities and infrastructure not covered by LLDs. All such assessment districts must follow
Proposition 218 information and election procedures. An engineer’s report is required to establish the
special benefit to all parcels in the district and the establishment of the district can be defeated by
majority protest of the property owners. Once the district is established and operating, an annual
engineer's report is prepared to verify that the assessments continue to meet the special benefit provision
of Proposition 218. As mentioned above for the LLDs, the duration of the assessment should be specified
at the outset, as well as the index to be used for annual inflationary escalations, to reduce the likelihood of
property owner protests at the annual public hearing.
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS (HOA). These associations are often formed to pay for maintenance of
internal amenities within subdivisions or planned unit developments. Cities sometimes require HOAs to
fund maintenance of streets and related public infrastructure as well. One difficulty with HOAs is that they
are self governing and cities have had some difficulty enforcing proper maintenance of public facilities if
the HOA fails to vote sufficient funds to do an adequate job. For this reason, this approach is not widely
used currently.
DEVELOPER EXACTIONS. Cities may require developers to pay for mitigation of fiscal impacts. One approach
has been to calculate the dollar cost impact to certain services, such as police or fire protection, and
create a capitalized fee amount that reflects the present value of projected deficits the project would
create for those services, for example over a five year period. This is different than a development impact
fee, which can only be used to fund capital improvements. This approach can help to augment regular City
revenues for help pay for services when it is clear that development projects will create unfunded services
impacts. However, compared to the CFDs or other assessment districts described above, this type of
developer exaction usually only covers the fiscal costs of a project for a limited time and it must be
calculated and imposed on each development project individually, although the City may adopt an
ordinance describing the general basis and formula for the fee.
Further discussion with City staff is necessary to determine what mitigation measures are most
appropriate for this annexation.
PROJECT IMPACTS: COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Since this project involves an annexation process, LAFCO requires an analysis of the impact of the
development on the County of Santa Clara. The recommended methodology for the analysis involves an
average cost approach similar to that used for the City analysis in the previous section, including similar
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 17
assumptions about the relative impact of residential vs. non-residential development. The revenues and
service costs relate to countywide services provided to all residents of Santa Clara County.
PROPERTY TAX
The property tax shift was discussed earlier in terms of the change in jurisdiction. The County would lose
less than one percent in property tax share. However, with development of the propert ies, the County
would experience a substantial gain in property tax revenues from the sites, estimated at about $426,000
per year. About 40 percent of this is due to the vehicle license in lieu property tax.
SALES TAX REVENUE
This analysis focuses on the County’s General Fund budget, of which sales tax is a revenue component.
This project is estimated to generate about $45,200 per year in sales tax revenues for the County General
Fund. The County receives a 0.50 percent portion of the 8.75 percent sales tax rate in Santa Clara County.
This represents an “incremental return” of a portion of the State’s Local Public Safety Fund (Public Safety
Sales Tax-PSST) to the County. The 0.50 percent PSST is not distributed based on the location where the
sales transaction was completed (i.e., not situs-based). Rather, it is taken at the state level, then after an
analysis of sales tax revenue generation by county is completed by the State of California Controller’s
Office, a distribution to the County is made as an “incremental return” of sales tax revenue.
In addition, voters of the County approved Measure A in 2012, from which the County gets 0.125 percent
of taxable sales.
OTHER REVENUES
In addition to the major property and sales tax revenues, County residents pay a variety of user fees and
charges for service to the County. In this analysis, estimates of these fees and user charges are limited to
services provided to all County residents and not those provided in the unincorporated area only. City
residents also help to form the population base by which the County receives a variety of revenues from
Federal, State and other local government agencies. However, due to the uncertain nature of these grant
formulas, these funds are not estimated directly, but rather are deducted from the service costs to which
they apply.
COUNTY COSTS
The County provides certain services to all County residents, regardless of the jurisdiction of their
residence. These include the County jail system, health care, social services, and a variety of general
government functions such as the Assessor, County Auditor and others. The analysis also factors in the
Fund Balance Allocation, which reduces current effective cost levels nearly 19 percent. With this
adjustment, the costs for County services are estimated on a per capita basis in Table 9 and total about
$824,000 for the Wren Investors and Hewell USA Amendment.
PROJECTED NET FISCAL IMPACT
The property tax and other revenues generated by the project would not be sufficient to fund service costs
expected to be incurred by Santa Clara County, unless project residents’ demand for County social and
health services is substantially below average. The project would generate a net loss of about $34,100 in
the first year, about 4.0 percent over costs. However, County costs are likely to escalate more rapidly
than revenues due to limitations on the increases in property tax revenues and the project’s net deficit is
projected to increase to 8.1 percent of costs in ten years (Table 9).
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 18
TABLE: 9
COMBINED WREN INVESTORS AND HEWELL USA AMENDMENTS COUNTY IMPACTS-10 YEAR ANNUAL PROJECTION
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
REVENUES
Taxes-Current
Property $425,957 $434,476 $443,166 $452,029 $461,070 $470,291 $479,697 $489,291 $499,077 $509,058
Sales Tax $45,213 $46,570 $47,967 $49,406 $50,888 $52,414 $53,987 $55,606 $57,275 $58,993
Fines, Forfeitures, &
Penalties $4,192 $4,317 $4,447 $4,580 $4,718 $4,859 $5,005 $5,155 $5,310 $5,469
Use of Money &
Property $17,053 $17,564 $18,091 $18,634 $19,193 $19,769 $20,362 $20,972 $21,602 $22,250
Charges for Services $48,421 $49,874 $51,370 $52,911 $54,498 $56,133 $57,817 $59,552 $61,338 $63,178
Other Financing
Sources $283,216 $291,713 $300,464 $309,478 $318,763 $328,325 $338,175 $348,320 $358,770 $369,533
Total Revenue $824,052 $844,514 $865,504 $887,038 $909,129 $931,792 $955,043 $978,897 $1,003,371 $1,028,481
EXPENDITURES
Finance and
Government $325,277 $335,036 $345,087 $355,439 $366,102 $377,085 $388,398 $400,050 $412,051 $424,413
Public Safety and
Justice $287,548 $296,175 $305,060 $314,212 $323,638 $333,347 $343,347 $353,648 $364,257 $375,185
Children, Seniors,
and Families $202,586 $208,663 $214,923 $221,371 $228,012 $234,853 $241,898 $249,155 $256,630 $264,329
Santa Clara Valley
Health/Hospital $178,968 $184,337 $189,867 $195,563 $201,430 $207,473 $213,697 $220,108 $226,712 $233,513
Housing, Land Use,
Environ. & Transp. $10,475 $10,789 $11,113 $11,446 $11,790 $12,143 $12,508 $12,883 $13,269 $13,667
Fund Balance
Allocation
($146,734) ($151,136) ($155,670) ($160,341) ($165,151) ($170,105) ($175,209) ($180,465) ($185,879) ($191,455)
Total Expenditures $858,120 $883,864 $910,379 $937,691 $965,822 $994,796 $1,024,640 $1,055,379 $1,087,041 $1,119,652
NET SURPLUS/
(DEFICIT)
GENERAL FUND
($34,068) ($39,350) ($44,875) ($50,653) ($56,693) ($63,004) ($69,597) ($76,482) ($83,670) ($91,170)
Source: ADE, Inc.
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 19
APPENDIX
TAXABLE SALES ESTIMATES
The following tables show the estimates of retail/services spending and taxable sales for each of the four income
levels modeled for the project. The figures reflect the aggregate total spending from the number of households
in each density category, not per household values.
Table A-1: Taxable Household Spending, Lower Density Single Family Units
137 HOUSEHOLDS WITH AVERAGE
INCOME OF $183,000 TOTAL
HOUSEHOLD
SPENDING
TAXABLE
SALES
TAXABLE
PERCENT
TOTAL SALES
AS PERCENT
OF INCOME
TAXABLE
SALES AS
PERCENT OF
INCOME STORE CATEGORY
RETAIL
Apparel Store Group $328,132 $328,132 100.0% 1.3% 1.3%
General Merchandise Group $982,347 $661,086 67.3% 3.9% 2.6%
Department Stores/Other General
Merch. $230,280 $208,749 90.7% 0.9% 0.8%
Other General Merchandise $615,897 $397,869 64.6% 2.5% 1.6%
Drug & Proprietary Stores $136,170 $54,468 40.0% 0.5% 0.2%
Specialty Retail Group $274,499 $274,499 100.0% 1.1% 1.1%
Food, Eating and Drinking Group $1,894,983 $1,255,961 66.3% 7.6% 5.0%
Grocery Stores $822,612 $205,653 25.0% 3.3% 0.8%
Specialty Food Stores $27,039 $6,760 25.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Liquor Stores $42,450 $40,668 95.8% 0.2% 0.2%
Eating Places $1,002,880 $1,002,880 100.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Building Materials And $0 $0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Homefurnishings Group $387,304 $387,304 100.0% 1.5% 1.5%
Automotive Group $1,684,333 $1,633,356 93.3% 6.7% 6.5%
Sub-Total Retail $5,551,597 $4,540,338 81.8% 22.1% 18.1%
SERVICES
Rental Services $46,107 $0 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Professional Services $15,502 $0 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Medical Services
Eyecare $143,763 $71,882 50.0% 0.6% 0.3%
Other Medical $428,652 $0 0.0% 1.7% 0.0%
Repair Services
Auto Repair $105,294 $42,118 40.0% 0.4% 0.2%
Other Repair $49,830 $0 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Personal Services
Personal Care Services $99,400 $9,940 10.0% 0.4% 0.0%
Other Personal $62,828 $0 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%
Entertainment/Recreation
Movie, Theater, Opera, Ballet $96,211 $9,621 10.0% 0.4% 0.0%
Sporting Events $29,447 $2,945 10.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Other Entertainment $204,168 $0 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%
Sub-Total Services $1,281,202 $136,505 10.7% 5.1% 0.5%
GRAND TOTAL $6,832,799 $4,676,843 68.4% 27.3% 18.7%
Source: ADE, Inc.; retail demand model derived from U.S. Economic Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Sur vey and
PUMS database.
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 20
Table A-2: Taxable Household Spending, Higher Density Single Family Units
48 HOUSEHOLDS WITH AVERAGE
INCOME OF $175,300 TOTAL
HOUSEHOLD
SPENDING
TAXABLE
SALES
TAXABLE
PERCENT
TOTAL SALES
AS PERCENT
OF INCOME
TAXABLE
SALES AS
PERCENT OF
INCOME STORE CATEGORY
RETAIL
Apparel Store Group $111,625 $111,625 100.0% 1.3% 1.3%
General Merchandise Group $334,275 $224,998 67.3% 4.0% 2.7%
Department Stores/Other General
Merch. $78,339 $71,014 90.7% 0.9% 0.8%
Other General Merchandise $209,793 $135,526 64.6% 2.5% 1.6%
Drug & Proprietary Stores $46,144 $18,458 40.0% 0.5% 0.2%
Specialty Retail Group $93,453 $93,453 100.0% 1.1% 1.1%
Food, Eating and Drinking Group $645,141 $427,318 66.2% 7.7% 5.1%
Grocery Stores $280,400 $70,100 25.0% 3.3% 0.8%
Specialty Food Stores $9,222 $2,306 25.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Liquor Stores $14,440 $13,833 95.8% 0.2% 0.2%
Eating Places $341,079 $341,079 100.0% 4.1% 4.1%
Building Materials And $0 $0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Homefurnishings Group $131,956 $131,956 100.0% 1.6% 1.6%
Automotive Group $569,734 $552,392 93.3% 6.8% 6.6%
Sub-Total Retail $1,886,184 $1,541,741 81.7% 22.4% 18.3%
SERVICES
Rental Services $15,475 $0 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Professional Services $5,203 $0 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Medical Services
Eyecare $48,250 $24,125 50.0% 0.6% 0.3%
Other Medical $143,865 $0 0.0% 1.7% 0.0%
Repair Services
Auto Repair $35,339 $14,136 40.0% 0.4% 0.2%
Other Repair $16,724 $0 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Personal Services
Personal Care Services $33,361 $3,336 10.0% 0.4% 0.0%
Other Personal $21,086 $0 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%
Entertainment/Recreation
Movie, Theater, Opera, Ballet $32,291 $3,229 10.0% 0.4% 0.0%
Sporting Events $9,883 $988 10.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Other Entertainment $68,523 $0 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%
Sub-Total Services $430,001 $45,814 10.7% 5.1% 0.5%
GRAND TOTAL $2,316,184 $1,587,555 68.5% 27.5% 18.9%
Source: ADE, Inc.; retail demand model derived from U.S. Economic Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Sur vey and
PUMS database.
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 21
Table A-3: Taxable Household Spending, Medium Density Units
20 HOUSEHOLDS WITH AVERAGE
INCOME OF $140,800 TOTAL
HOUSEHOLD
SPENDING
TAXABLE
SALES
TAXABLE
PERCENT
TOTAL SALES
AS PERCENT
OF INCOME
TAXABLE
SALES AS
PERCENT OF
INCOME STORE CATEGORY
RETAIL
Apparel Store Group $31,606 $31,606 100.0% 1.1% 1.1%
General Merchandise Group $112,516 $74,634 66.3% 4.0% 2.7%
Department Stores/Other General
Merch. $24,279 $22,008 90.7% 0.9% 0.8%
Other General Merchandise $70,449 $45,510 64.6% 2.5% 1.6%
Drug & Proprietary Stores $17,789 $7,115 40.0% 0.6% 0.3%
Specialty Retail Group $32,155 $32,155 100.0% 1.1% 1.1%
Food, Eating and Drinking Group $223,224 $148,028 66.3% 7.9% 5.3%
Grocery Stores $96,818 $24,205 25.0% 3.4% 0.9%
Specialty Food Stores $3,164 $791 25.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Liquor Stores $4,964 $4,755 95.8% 0.2% 0.2%
Eating Places $118,277 $118,277 100.0% 4.2% 4.2%
Building Materials And $0 $0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Homefurnishings Group $44,181 $44,181 100.0% 1.6% 1.6%
Automotive Group $217,812 $211,828 93.3% 7.7% 7.5%
Sub-Total Retail $661,493 $542,432 82.0% 23.5% 19.3%
SERVICES
Rental Services $5,181 $0 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Professional Services $1,741 $0 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Medical Services
Eyecare $16,148 $8,074 50.0% 0.6% 0.3%
Other Medical $48,147 $0 0.0% 1.7% 0.0%
Repair Services
Auto Repair $11,827 $4,731 40.0% 0.4% 0.2%
Other Repair $5,597 $0 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Personal Services
Personal Care Services $11,165 $1,116 10.0% 0.4% 0.0%
Other Personal $7,057 $0 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%
Entertainment/Recreation
Movie, Theater, Opera, Ballet $10,806 $1,081 10.0% 0.4% 0.0%
Sporting Events $3,308 $331 10.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Other Entertainment $22,932 $0 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%
Sub-Total Services $143,908 $15,332 10.7% 5.1% 0.5%
GRAND TOTAL $805,402 $557,765 69.3% 28.6% 19.8%
Source: ADE, Inc.; retail demand model derived from U.S. Economic Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Sur vey and
PUMS database.
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 22
Table A-4: Taxable Household Spending, High Density Units
102 HOUSEHOLDS WITH
AVERAGE INCOME OF $113,500 TOTAL
HOUSEHOLD
SPENDING
TAXABLE
SALES
TAXABLE
PERCENT
TOTAL SALES
AS PERCENT
OF INCOME
TAXABLE
SALES AS
PERCENT OF
INCOME STORE CATEGORY
RETAIL
Apparel Store Group $130,316 $130,316 100.0% 1.1% 1.1%
General Merchandise Group $464,850 $308,318 66.3% 4.0% 2.7%
Department Stores/Other
General Merch. $100,208 $90,839 90.7% 0.9% 0.8%
Other General Merchandise $291,150 $188,083 64.6% 2.5% 1.6%
Drug & Proprietary Stores $73,493 $29,397 40.0% 0.6% 0.3%
Specialty Retail Group $132,896 $132,896 100.0% 1.1% 1.1%
Food, Eating and Drinking Group $922,633 $611,710 66.3% 8.0% 5.3%
Grocery Stores $400,331 $100,083 25.0% 3.5% 0.9%
Specialty Food Stores $13,085 $3,271 25.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Liquor Stores $20,509 $19,648 95.8% 0.2% 0.2%
Eating Places $488,709 $488,709 100.0% 4.2% 4.2%
Building Materials And $0 $0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Homefurnishings Group $182,602 $182,602 100.0% 1.6% 1.6%
Automotive Group $899,299 $874,575 93.3% 7.8% 7.6%
Sub-Total Retail $2,732,596 $2,240,417 82.0% 23.6% 19.4%
SERVICES
Rental Services $21,280 $0 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Professional Services $7,158 $0 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Medical Services
Eyecare $66,385 $33,193 50.0% 0.6% 0.3%
Other Medical $197,938 $0 0.0% 1.7% 0.0%
Repair Services
Auto Repair $48,622 $19,449 40.0% 0.4% 0.2%
Other Repair $23,010 $0 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Personal Services
Personal Care Services $45,900 $4,590 10.0% 0.4% 0.0%
Other Personal $29,012 $0 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%
Entertainment/Recreation
Movie, Theater, Opera, Ballet $44,427 $4,443 10.0% 0.4% 0.0%
Sporting Events $13,598 $1,360 10.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Other Entertainment $94,278 $0 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%
Sub-Total Services $591,608 $63,034 10.7% 5.1% 0.5%
GRAND TOTAL $3,324,204 $2,303,450 69.3% 28.7% 19.9%
Source: ADE, Inc.; retail demand model derived from U.S. Economic Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Sur vey and
PUMS database.
5.A.c
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Fiscal Impact Analysis (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Residential and Commercial Vacant Land Inventory
Wren Investors & Hewell Urban
Service Area Amendment
USA 12-01 & USA 14-02
October 3, 2019
Prepared by
EMC Planning Group
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
This document was produced on recycled paper.
R ESIDENTIAL AND C OMMERCIAL V ACANT L AND I NVENTORY
W REN I NVESTORS & H EWELL
URBAN S ERVICE AREA AMENDMENT
USA 12-01 & USA 14-02
PREPARED FOR
City of Gilroy Community Development Department
Melissa Durkin, Planner II
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
Tel 408.846.0253
PREPARED BY
EMC Planning Group Inc.
301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C
Monterey, CA 93940
Tel 831.649.1799
Fax 831.649.8399
Stuart Poulter, AICP, MCRP, Associate Planner
poulter@emcplanning.com
www.emcplanning.com
October 3, 2019
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 B ACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 1 2.0 R ESIDENTIAL V ACANT L AND S UPPLY ................................................. 1 3.0 R ESIDENTIAL G ROWTH P ROJECTIONS .............................................. 10 4.0 C OMMERCIAL V ACANT L AND S UPPLY ............................................... 10 5.0 R EFERENCES ..................................................................................... 18
Figures Figure 1 Northern Area Vacant Residential Land............................................ 3 Figure 2 Southern Area Vacant Residential Land ............................................ 5 Figure 3 Northern Area Vacant Commercial Land ........................................ 15 Figure 4 Southern Area Vacant Commercial Land......................................... 16
Tables Table 1 Building Density Targets for Quantifying Residential Capacity .................. 2 Table 2 Vacant Residential Land Inventory ........................................................................... 7 Table 3 Recently-Built or Under Construction Downtown Residential Projects .................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 4 Commercial Approvals 2009-2019......................................................................... 11 Table 5 Vacant Commercial Land Inventory ....................................................................... 12
Attachments Attachment A City of Gilroy Impact Fee and Mapping Revenue Projections
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
C ITY OF G ILROY R ESIDENTIAL AND C OMMERCIAL V ACANT L AND I NVENTORY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 1
1.0 B ACKGROUND In Santa Clara County, jurisdictional boundary changes, including urban service area (USA) amendments, are reviewed and acted upon by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). A city’s urban service area (USA) is defined by LAFCO as that area to which the city provides urban services such as water and sewer, or expects to provide these services within five years of inclusion within the Urban Service Area boundary. Therefore, the USA is expected to accommodate approximately five years of urban development. The City of Gilroy is considering an amendment to its existing USA for the addition of the 50.3-acre Wren Investors project site, located north and west of the Gilroy city limit and USA and the 5.36-acre Hewell site, located just outside the northern city limits northeast of the intersection of Vickery Lane and Kern Avenue. In acting upon a USA amendment request, LAFCO requires the preparation of an appropriate environmental review document, a fiscal analysis, and an analysis of the remaining vacant land within the existing USA. LAFCO utilizes the vacant land analysis in assessing the need for expansion of the USA, based on a goal of maintaining an approximate five-year supply of developable land within the USA. This vacant land analysis has been prepared to provide this information to the City and LAFCO for use in their decisions on this proposed USA amendment. This vacant land analysis focuses on the current supply of vacant land with a residential General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential, Hillside Residential, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, and Neighborhood District. The vacant land analysis also focuses on lands with specific plan designations, including the Hecker Pass Special Use District, and the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan, and takes into account residential development opportunities in the downtown.
2.0 R ESIDENTIAL V ACANT L AND S UPPLY
Defining Vacant Land For purposes of this report, residential land is considered vacant if it is substantially underutilized and has a residential General Plan land use designation. The survey identifies land as vacant (or not vacant) as of September 2019. Physically vacant land may have approved
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
C ITY OF G ILROY R ESIDENTIAL AND C OMMERCIAL V ACANT L AND I NVENTORY
2 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
entitlements that make the land more readily developable. In many cases, the City approves concurrent residential subdivision maps and architectural and site approvals. However, where subdivided residential land is expected to be sold as individual lots for later development, land is considered vacant until a building permit is granted for development of the lot.
Currently Vacant Residential Land Quantifying the existing supply of residentially-designated vacant land within the Gilroy USA involved mapping land thought to be potentially vacant, and then eliminating those parcels for which building permits had been obtained. For areas with an approved final subdivision map, potential for development is based on the number of subdivided lots, equating to one dwelling unit per lot. In areas without an approved final subdivision map, including land in the Medium and High Density and Neighborhood District General Plan designations, the build-out is assumed to follow the density provided as a development target in the General Plan, as indicated in Table 1, Building Density Targets for Quantifying Residential Capacity, below:
Table 1 Building Density Targets for Quantifying Residential Capacity General Plan designation Density Target Rural Residential 0.4 units/acre Hillside Residential 2.0 units/acre Low Density Residential 5.0 units/acre Medium Density Residential 16.0 units/acre High Density Residential – 20.0 units/acre Source: City of Gilroy 2019 Figure 1, Northern Area Vacant Land, and Figure 2, Southern Area Vacant Land, show the location of residential parcels determined to be vacant. Table 2, Vacant Residential Land Inventory, provides a list of estimated developable lots within each land use designation. As the table shows, approximately 2,394 residential units could be developed on vacant land.
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
0 1,600 feet Source: City o f Gilroy 2014, ESRI 2019
Figure 1Northern Area Vacant Residential Land
Wren Investors and Hewell USA Amendment
Urban Sevices Area (USA)Rural Reside ntial (RR)
Neighborhood District/Specific Plan (N D)
Hillside (H)
Low Density Residentia l (L)
Medium Density Residential (M)
High D ensity Resid ential (HD )
Downtown (D)
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
CITY OF GILROY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL VACANT LAND INVENTORY 4 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. This side intentionally left blank. 5.A.dPacket Pg. 57Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
0 1,600 feet Source: City o f Gilroy 2014, ESRI 2019
Figure 2Southern Area Vacant Residential Land
Wren Investors and Hewell USA Amendment
Downtown (D)Urban Services Area (USA)Rural Reside ntial (RR)
Hillside (H)
Low Density Residentia l (L)
Medium Density Residential (M)
High D ensity Resid ential (HD )
Neighborhood District/Specific Plan (N D)
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
CITY OF GILROY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL VACANT LAND INVENTORY 6 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. This side intentionally left blank. 5.A.dPacket Pg. 59Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
C ITY OF G ILROY R ESIDENTIAL AND C OMMERCIAL V ACANT L AND I NVENTORY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 7
Table 2 Vacant Residential Land Inventory Location Lots/Units Rural Residential - (1.0 dwelling unit/2.5 ac.) (RR) RR-1 Miller Pond 14 Rural Residential Subtotal 14 Hillside Residential - 0.5 – 4.0 dwelling units/acre (H) H-1 Eagle Ridge Subdivision – Berwick Lane 12 H-3 Eagle Ridge Subdivision - Portmarnock Way 14 H-4 Eagle Ridge Subdivision – Eagle Ridge Court 24 H-5 Portrush Lane, Southerland Court, Walton Heath Court West of Miller Avenue 19
H-6 6385, 6389, 6395 Miller 3 H-7 Eagle Ridge Kroeger 6 H-8 Country Estates Subdivision (Phase II) [9120 and 9121 Gunnera; 2333, 2363, 2373 and 2393 Banyan; 2391 Mantelli; 2311, 2331 and 2361 Hoya] 10
H-9 Country Estates Subdivision (Phase III) [8951, 8962, 8970, 8971, 8981, 9010, 9025, 9030, 9035, 9045, 9050, 9145, 9175 Tea Tree; 8950, 8955, 8983, 9005 Mimosa; 2161, 2201, 2202, 2241, 2242, 2262 Columbine; 2203, 2204, 2224, 2244, 2243, 2273, 2281, 2283, 2291 Banyan; 9210, 9211, 9250 Mahogany; 1810, 1820, 1830, 1870, 1881 Carob]
40
H-8 Country Estates Subdivision (Phase IV) 95 H-9 Schaal Subdivision 1 H-10 Cambridge at Carriage Hills Subdivision [1955, 1975 Saffron; 1920, 1950, 1980, 1981, 1986 Lavender; 8735, 8745, 8755, 8760, 8775 Wild Iris; 8762, 8772 Foxglove] 14
H-11 Hollyhock Hills Subdivision [8530 Shooting Star; 2140, 2150, 2160, 2170, 2185 Hollyhock) 6
H-12 Miscellaneous lots South of Mantelli Drive (2225 Country Drive; 2320 Wildrose; 2
H-13 Rancho Hills/Deer Park Phase II [1681 Longmeadow] 1
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
C ITY OF G ILROY R ESIDENTIAL AND C OMMERCIAL V ACANT L AND I NVENTORY
8 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Location Lots/Units H-14 The Forest [8340, 8341, 8350, 8351, 8361 Wintergreen Court; 8325 Pepper Grass] 6
Hillside Residential Subtotal 253 Low Density Residential - 3.0 – 7.5 dwelling units/acre (L) L-1 Santa Teresa Boulevard South of Sunrise Drive 19 L-2 Miller Avenue at Thomas Road (Chappel/Sargenti Subdivision) 14 L-3 Miller Avenue at Thomas Road (Christopher Subdivision) 12 L-4 West of Thomas Road 31 L-5 Greenfield Drive Subdivision 14 Low Density Residential Subtotal 90 Medium Density Residential – 8.0 – 16.0 dwelling units/ac. (M) M-1 East of Kern Avenue/South of Tatum Avenue 56 M-3 Gurries Drive 8 M-4 Royal Way 65 M-5 North of Village Green 40 Medium Density Residential Subtotal 169 High Density Residential – 16.0 – 30.0 dwelling units/ac. (HD) HD-1 East of Santa Teresa Boulevard 140 HD-2 Southeast Corner of Santa Teresa Boulevard/Hecker Pass 202 HD-3 Northeast Corner of Hecker Pass/Kern Avenue 120 HD-4 West Church Street/Howson Street 87 HD-5 Northwest of Monterey Road/Ronan Avenue 119 High Density Residential Subtotal 668 Neighborhood District/Specific Plan Areas (ND) ND-1 Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan (Santa Teresa Boulevard) 1,095 ND-2 Hecker Pass Specific Plan 105 Neighborhood District/Specific Plan Subtotal 1,200 TOTAL 2,394
Source: Google Earth 2018, Property information provided by the City of Gilroy 2019
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
C ITY OF G ILROY R ESIDENTIAL AND C OMMERCIAL V ACANT L AND I NVENTORY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 9
Residential Units in Downtown One thousand five hundred seventy-six (1,576) units were projected to develop in Gilroy’s Downtown as part of the revitalization identified in the Downtown Gilroy Specific Plan. As shown in Table 3, Recently Built or Under Construction Downtown Residential Projects, of the 1,576 units available, 667 have been constructed or have been issued permits, leaving a balance of 909 units remaining for entitlement.
Table 3 Recently-Built or Under Construction Downtown Residential Projects Location Lots/Units Downtown (D) Prior Projects that have been Constructed 225 D-1 Alexander Station 263 D-2 Alexis Gevorgian/ Gateway Apartments (Monterey Street) 75 D-3 The Cannery at Lewis Street Apartments 104 Total Granted 667 Remaining Downtown Specific Plan RDO Exemption Units 909 Source: Google Earth 2018; Property information provided by the City of Gilroy 2019 It is anticipated that some of the residential units would be built as part of mixed-use (commercial/retail/residential) projects, and/or on land that is currently, or has previously, been developed (i.e. land that is not vacant). The Gilroy General Plan contains direction regarding residential redevelopment of the downtown. A key strategy for managing growth and minimizing costs is to focus new development in areas that are already serviced by roads, sewers, and other infrastructure. The General Plan supports development on these lands before extending the City outward. It also supports intensification of development in the Downtown area to discourage sprawl and strengthen the Downtown core. However, redevelopment in the Downtown on parcels that require demolition of existing structures presents additional cost constraints as it can be expensive to demolish old buildings. Coupled with the demise of redevelopment agencies in California, financing redevelopment projects is more complicated. Furthermore, residential development in the Downtown differs from the housing types developed in the rest of the city, as Downtown units are likely to be constructed as part of mixed-use buildings. Residential units in mixed-use buildings have a less-predictable market than traditional housing types, such that the timing of development Downtown is correspondingly unpredictable and expected to occur over the course of decades. Because of
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
C ITY OF G ILROY R ESIDENTIAL AND C OMMERCIAL V ACANT L AND I NVENTORY
10 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
this, the city cannot apply an annual rate of development Downtown. Therefore, the Vacant Land Inventory considers residential development Downtown separately from residential development elsewhere in the city.
3 .0 R ESIDENTIAL G ROWTH P ROJECTIONS Over the next 10 years (20/21 to 29/30), the City of Gilroy expects to issue 3,045 residential building permits for projects outside of the Downtown. This is an average of 305 permits per year. This is based upon the City of Gilroy Impact Fee and Mapping Revenue Projections, included as Attachment A. Note that these projections exclude development in the Downtown, except for projects that are already in the entitlement process. The reason is that the 909 remaining Downtown units are expected to build out over the course of decades, such that the amount of development in any given year is not easily predictable. Based on the average development of 305 units per year, excluding development in the Downtown, and an approximate current availability of vacant land outside of the Downtown to build 2,394 units (see Table 2), Gilroy has adequate land for approximately 7.8 years of residential development (2,394/ 305= 7.85). If the 909 units of residential development opportunity in the downtown (see Table 3) are added to this total, Gilroy has the land capacity to build up to 3,303 units (2,394 + 909). Applying the same average build out for units located in and out of Downtown, this allows for about 10.8 years of residential development (3,303/ 305 = 10.83).
4.0 C OMMERCIAL V ACANT L AND S UPPLY
Defining Commercial Land For purposes of this report, land is considered vacant if it is substantially underutilized and has a commercial zoning designation. The survey identifies land as vacant (or not vacant) as of September 30, 2019. Physically vacant land may have approved entitlements that make the land more readily developable. The commercial districts and commercial zoning designations analyzed for purposes of this report include: Downtown Historic District (DHD); Downtown Expansion District (DED); Highway Commercial District (HC); Shopping Center Commercial District (C3); Planned Unit Development Combining District (PUD); Cannery District (CD); Commercial Industrial District (CM); Gateway District (GD); and General Industrial District (M2).
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
C ITY OF G ILROY R ESIDENTIAL AND C OMMERCIAL V ACANT L AND I NVENTORY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 11
Inclusion of commercial land in the Wren/Hewell Urban Service Amendment project is intended to satisfy the 2020 General Plan and zoning ordinance requirements for Neighborhood Districts to include a mix of service uses within close proximity to residential areas. As noted in the City’s zoning ordinance, the Neighborhood Commercial designation encourages “areas in the city suitable for commercial uses of a low intensity and of a neighborhood character, which cater directly to residents of the immediate neighborhood only, rather than to the entire city. The uses in this district are intended to be of low intensity in order to be compatible with residential living” (City of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance Article X, 30.13.10).
Commercial Absorption Rate An average annual absorption rate was determined based on approvals granted for the commercial zoning designations during the prior 10 years (2009-2019). During this period, a total of 8.73 acres of commercial uses was approved, or an average of 0.87 acres per year. Table 4, Commercial Approvals 2009-2019, summarizes commercial approvals during the 10-year period.
Table 4 Commercial Approvals 2009-2019 Project Name/Location Year Zoning Acres 770 First Street 2019 C-3 0.87 6807 Automall Parkway 2019 CM 3.04 8050 Santa Teresa Boulevard 2019 C-3 1.42
6901 Cameron Boulevard Gas Station 2017 HC-M2/PUD (a portion of McCarthy Business Park) 0.65
800 1st Street CVS Pharmacy 2015 C-3 1.58
De La Torre Mixed-Use – Monterey Street and Tenth Street 2011 Expansion District (Downtown Gilroy Specific Plan) 1.17
Total 8.73 Average per Year 0.87 Source: City of Gilroy 2019; Google Earth 2018
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
C ITY OF G ILROY R ESIDENTIAL AND C OMMERCIAL V ACANT L AND I NVENTORY
12 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Currently Vacant Commercial Land Table 5, Vacant Commercial Land Inventory, provides a list of vacant commercial lots within each zoning designation. As the table shows, approximately 136.02 acres of commercial land is vacant. Figure 3, Northern Area Vacant Commercial Land, and Figure 4, Southern Area Vacant Commercial Land, show the location of commercial parcels that are vacant.
Table 5 Vacant Commercial Land Inventory Location APN Zoning Acres
C-1 North of First Street
east of Kelton Dr.
790-39-019 C-3 0.97
C-2 Forest Street at
Leavesley Road
835-01-050
835-01-064
C-3 5.64
C-3 San Ysidro Road north
of Outlets
835-04-064 C-3 11.05
C-4 Renz Lane east of
WalMart Supercenter
841-18-080
841-18-081
C3-M2/PUD 12.63
C-5 Holloway Road west of
Camino Arroyo
841-70-037 Regency/Newman
Center PUD
2.16
C-6 Monterey Street at West
Tenth Street
799-34-036 C-3 0.87
C-7 East side of Monterey
Street south of West Tenth
Street
841-14-011 Gateway District
(Downtown Gilroy
Specific Plan)
1.89
C-8 Automall Parkway
south of East Tenth Street
841-16-117 CM 9.11
C-9 Travel Park Circle 841-75-011 CM 1.73
C-10 Railroad Street &
6th Street
841-08-044 Cannery District 0.25
C-11 Alexander Street &
7th Street
841-13-022 Cannery District 3.62
C-12 Eigleberry Street,
North of 4th Street
799-04-016 DED 0.18
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
C ITY OF G ILROY R ESIDENTIAL AND C OMMERCIAL V ACANT L AND I NVENTORY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 13
Location APN Zoning Acres
C-13 Swanston Lane
& Wheeler Street
841-02-055 CM 0.75
C-14 Monterey Street,
South of Howson Street
790-37-003 Gateway District 1.95
C-15 Chestnut Street
& 9th Street
841-12-047
841-12-057
CM 1.96
C-16 Monterey Street &
9th Street
841-14-001 DED 0.55
C-17 McCarthy Commercial 841-84-005
841-84-007
841-84-008
841-84-009
841-17-100
HC-M2/PUD
(a portion of
McCarthy Business
Park)
4.35
C-18 Machado Commercial 841-18-082
(portion)
C3-M2/PUD 28.2
C-19 Land Capital Group 841-70-049 C3-H2-M2/PUD
(Gilroy Crossing
Shopping Center)
10.18
C-20 7840 Monterey Street 841-02-058 DED 0.41
C-21 7634 Monterey Street 841-04-008 DHD 0.16
C-22 Monterey Street 799-09-056 DHD 0.16
C-23 2740 Hecker Pass
Highway
810-20-006 Hecker Pass Special
District (Hecker Pass
Specific Plan)
6.00
C-24 Northeast of Bolsa
Road
841-31-003
841-31-019
841-31-022
CM 103
Total 207.77 Source: City of Gilroy 2019; Google Earth 2018 Note: C-23: APN: 810-20-006 (Hecker Pass Specific Plan) was approved for an agricultural commercial development in 2018 but the Arch & Site approval has since expired C-24: APNs 841-31-003, 019, and 022 (totaling approximately 103 acres) were recently rezoned to Commercial Industrial (CM)
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
C ITY OF G ILROY R ESIDENTIAL AND C OMMERCIAL V ACANT L AND I NVENTORY
14 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
Available Commercial Land Supply There are currently 207.77 acres of vacant commercial land within the city. Based on an annual absorption rate of about 0.87 acres per year, the city has adequate commercial land to serve future growth for about 239 years. The City estimates that the territory currently proposed for inclusion in the USA will not be available for development for at least four to five years, at which time the supply of vacant commercial land would be about 234 years. The 0.4 acres of commercial uses within the USA proposal are intended to serve the residential uses within the residential uses also included in the USA proposal. Most of the City’s vacant commercial land does not serve this purpose. The USA amendment area is estimated to build out over a 15 to 20 year period, which would result in an average commercial development rate within the USA amendment area of about to 1.9 to 2.5 acres per year.
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
C-20
C-21
C-23
C-1
C-2C-2
C-3
C-13
C-14
C-12UV152
UV152
UV152
£¤101
£¤101 Leavesley Rd.1St St.Santa Teresa Blvd.Day Rd.Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
S
t.Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
H
wy.
N
e
w
A
v
e
.Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
R
d
.
0 1,600 feet Source: City o f Gilroy 2008, ESRI 2019
Figure 3
Wren Investors and Hewell USA AmendmentNorthern Area Vacant Commercial Land
Vacan t Comme rcial Land
C-1
C-2
C-3
CM
PU D
DHD
DED
GD
Urb an Se vices Area (U SA)
Hecke r Pa ss Spe cial D istrict
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
CITY OF GILROY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL VACANT LAND INVENTORY 16 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. This side intentionally left blank. 5.A.dPacket Pg. 69Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
C-23 C-15C-15
--C-24
C-7
C-9
C-8C-6
C-10
C-11
C-5
C-4C-4
C-17
C-18(Portion)
C-19 C-17 C-17C-17C-17UV152 UV152
£¤101
£¤101
El Camino Real .Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
Rd
.Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
Hwy
.
0 1,600 feet Source: City o f Gilroy 2008, ESRI 2019
Figure 4
Wren Investors and Hewell USA Amendment
Souther n Area Vacant Commercial LandDHD
DED
GD
Vacan t Comme rcial Land
C-1
C-2
C-3
CM
PU D
Urb an Se vices Area (U SA)
CD
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
CITY OF GILROY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL VACANT LAND INVENTORY 18 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. This side intentionally left blank. 5.A.dPacket Pg. 71Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
C ITY OF G ILROY R ESIDENTIAL AND C OMMERCIAL V ACANT L AND I NVENTORY
EMC PLANNING GROUP INC. 19
5 .0 R EFERENCES
City of Gilroy. 2002 - 2020 General Plan. June 2002 (a).
City of Gilroy. Hecker Pass Specific Plan. January 18, 2005. Revised August 18, 2009. Revised
May 18, 2015. Revised August 6, 2018 (b).
City of Gilroy. Downtown Gilroy Specific Plan. November 21, 2005 (c).
City of Gilroy. Email Correspondence with Melissa Durkin. July 6, 2018; September 12, 2019;
September 30, 2019; October 1, 2019 (d).
City of Gilroy. Email Correspondence with Jorge Duran. August 7, 2018 (e).
City of Gilroy. Gilroy City Code, Chapter 30 Zoning Ordinance. September 12, 2019 (f).
City of Gilroy. Impact Fee and Mapping Revenue Projections. October 26, 2014 (g).
Google Earth. Imagery Date, May 9, 2018.
Santa Clara Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) website. Accessed
October 23, 2017 at: http://santaclaralafco.org/about-lafco/faq
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
C ITY OF G ILROY R ESIDENTIAL AND C OMMERCIAL V ACANT L AND I NVENTORY
20 EMC PLANNING GROUP INC.
This side intentionally left blank.
5.A.d
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Wren Investors and Hewell Vacant Land Survey October 2019 (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
GILROY RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE WREN
INVESTORS/HEWELL USA AMENDMENT MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF URBAN SERVICE AREA
APPLICATION USA 12-01 AND 14-02, INCLUSION OF ASSESSOR
PARCEL NUMBERS 790-09-006, 008, 009, 010, 011; 790-17-001, 004, 005,
006, 007, 008, 009, 010; 790-06-017 and 790-06-018, GERALLY LOCATED
WEST OF W REN AVENUE, SOUTH OF VICKERY AVENUE, AND NORTH
AND SOUTH OF TATUM AVENUE; AND OUTSIDE THE NORTHERN CITY
LIMITS NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF VICKERY LANE AND
KERN AVENUE, INTO THE CITY OF GILROY URBAN SERVICE AREA.
WHEREAS, Dick Oliver, representing Wren Investors, LLC, submitted Urban Service Area
Amendment application USA12-01 requesting that the city of Gilroy incorporate
approximately 50.3 acres of land into its Urban Service Area; and Mark Hewell and David
Sheedy submitted USA 14-02 requesting that the city of Gilroy incorporate approximately
5.36 acres of land into its Urban Service; and
WHEREAS, the Wren Investors project site is generally located west of Wren Avenue,
south of Vickery Avenue, and north and south of Tatum Avenue and the Hewell site is
located just outside the northern city limits northeast of the intersection of Vickery Lane and
Kern Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the city of Gilroy has considered Urban Service
Area Amendment applications USA12-01 and UA 14-02 in accordance with the Gilroy
General Plan and other applicable standards and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the city of Gilroy has considered the Fiscal
Impact Analysis, Vacant Land Inventory, and Plan for Services prepared for USA 12 -01
and 14-02; and
WHEREAS, city staff referred Urban Service Area Amendment application USA12-01 and
14-02 to various public utility companies, City departments, including the Technical
Advisory Committee for recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the
Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area amendment P roposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds, after due study, deliberation and public
hearing, the following circumstances exist:
A. The Urban Service Area request is consistent with Gilroy General Plan policies and
goals;
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: USA 1201_1402_PC_ Reso (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Resolution No. 2019-XX
Page 2
B. The city currently has an approximate 8-year supply of vacant residential land. That
land supply would be drawn down closer to the General Plan policy 2.07 goal of a five-year
supply by the time land within this USA boundary obtains development entitlements;
C. The Urban Service Area request will create a negative fiscal impact on the city and
once the property develops; this impact would need to be mitigated by implementation of a
community facilities district or other financing mechanism, such t hat development of this
property has a neutral fiscal impact; and
E. The Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area amendment Proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed in compliance with CEQA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy
hereby recommends to the City Council adoption of the mitigated negative declaration
prepared for the project; and adoption of a resolution recommending that the City Council
approve the Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area Amendments (USA 12-01 and
USA 14-02).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of October 2019 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_____________________________ ______________________________
Julie Wyrick, Secretary Tom Fischer, Chairperson
5.A.e
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: USA 1201_1402_PC_ Reso (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
P LAN FOR S ERVICES
W REN I NVESTORS & H EWELL
URBAN S ERVICE AREA AMENDMENT
USA 12-01 and USA 14-02
PREPARED FOR
City of Gilroy
October 4, 2019
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
This document was produced on recycled paper.
P LAN FOR S ERVICES
W REN I NVESTORS & H EWELL
URBAN S ERVICE AREA AMENDMENT
USA 12-01 and USA 14-02
PREPARED FOR
City of Gilroy Community Development Department
Melissa Durkin, Planner II
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
Tel 408.846.0451
PREPARED BY
EMC Planning Group Inc.
301 Lighthouse Avenue, Suite C
Monterey, CA 93940
Tel 831.649.1799
Fax 831.649.8399
Stuart Poulter, AICP, MCRP, Associate Planner
poulter@emcplanning.com
www.emcplanning.com
October 4, 2019
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1-1
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1-1
Cortese Knox Act Requirements ......................................................................................... 1-1
Primary Information Sources .............................................................................................. 1-3
2.0 PROPOSED USA AMENDMENT ................................................................ 2-1
Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2-1
Background ............................................................................................................................ 2-1
Project Location and Setting ................................................................................................ 2-2
Project Description ................................................................................................................ 2-2
Anticipated Approvals ......................................................................................................... 2-4
Anticipated Time Frame for Service Delivery .................................................................. 2-4
3.0 WATER ...................................................................................................... 3-1
Information Sources ............................................................................................................. 3-1
Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 3-2
Project Demand and Infrastructure Expansion ................................................................ 3-4
Financing ................................................................................................................................ 3-6
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 3-7
4.0 WASTEWATER ........................................................................................... 4-1
Information Sources ............................................................................................................. 4-1
Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 4-1
Project Wastewater Generation and Infrastructure Expansion ...................................... 4-2
Financing ................................................................................................................................ 4-3
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 4-4
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc.
5.0 STORM DRAINAGE ................................................................................... 5-1
Information Sources .............................................................................................................. 5-1
Capacity and Infrastructure................................................................................................. 5-2
Financing ................................................................................................................................ 5-2
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 5-3
6.0 SOLID WASTE ........................................................................................... 6-1
Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 6-1
Waste Generation .................................................................................................................. 6-1
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 6-2
7.0 FIRE SERVICES .......................................................................................... 7-1
Information Sources .............................................................................................................. 7-1
Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 7-1
Financing ................................................................................................................................ 7-4
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 7-5
8.0 POLICE SERVICES ..................................................................................... 8-1
Information Sources .............................................................................................................. 8-1
Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................. 8-1
Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 8-3
Financing ................................................................................................................................ 8-3
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 8-4
9.0 LIGHTING ................................................................................................. 9-1
Information Sources .............................................................................................................. 9-1
Lighting .................................................................................................................................. 9-1
Financing ................................................................................................................................ 9-1
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc.
10.0 LIBRARIES ................................................................................................ 10-1
Information Sources ........................................................................................................... 10-1
Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 10-1
Demand and Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 10-2
Financing .............................................................................................................................. 10-2
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 10-3
11.0 ROADS ..................................................................................................... 11-1
Information Sources ........................................................................................................... 11-1
Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 11-1
Infrastructure Expansion ................................................................................................... 11-2
12.0 SCHOOL FACILITIES ................................................................................ 12-1
Information Source ............................................................................................................. 12-1
Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 12-1
Capacity................................................................................................................................ 12-2
Financing .............................................................................................................................. 12-2
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 12-3
13.0 HOSPITALS .............................................................................................. 13-1
Information Sources ........................................................................................................... 13-1
Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 13-1
Capacity................................................................................................................................ 13-1
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 13-2
14.0 PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES ...................................................... 14-1
Information Sources ........................................................................................................... 14-1
Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................ 14-1
Demand and Infrastructure ............................................................................................... 14-2
Financing .............................................................................................................................. 14-2
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc.
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 14-2
15.0 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT ........................................................ 15-1
Information Sources ............................................................................................................ 15-1
Overview of CFDs ............................................................................................................... 15-1
Formation and Financing of CFD ..................................................................................... 15-2
16.0 SOURCES ................................................................................................ 16-1
Persons Contacted ............................................................................................................... 16-1
Documents Referenced ...................................................................................................... 16-1
Report Preparers ................................................................................................................. 16-5
Figures
Figure 1 Existing and Proposed USA Boundaries ............................................ 2-5
Tables
Table 2-1 Public Facilities and Utilities Fees ....................................................... 2-3
Table 2-2 Wren Investors and Hewell USA Amendment Anticipated
Development .......................................................................................... 2-4
Table 3-1 Water Demand ....................................................................................... 3-5
Table 8-1 Police Response Times .......................................................................... 8-2
Table 12-1 Estimated Student Generation ........................................................... 12-2
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-1
1.0
Introduction
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Gilroy (hereinafter “City”) has prepared this plan for providing services
(hereinafter “plan”) as part of the City’s application to the Local Agency Formation
Commission of Santa Clara County (hereinafter “LAFCO”).
The plan is required by LAFCO for urban service area (USA) amendments as an
enumeration and description of how services will be provided and which entities would
provide the services to the affected territory (project site). This plan addresses how the City
and other agencies would provide services to the project site upon annexation and
development of the site including water, wastewater, storm drainage, solid waste, fire,
police, lighting, library services, roads, schools, and hospitals.
CORTESE KNOX ACT REQUIREMENTS
As a mandatory component of a USA Amendment application, LAFCO requires the
submittal of a plan for providing services prepared in compliance with Government Code
Section 56653 that describes how services will be provided and the level and range of those
services, including detailed information on the extent, size, location and capacity of existing
infrastructure.
The Cortese Knox Act requires the preparation of a plan for providing services when an
annexation or similar boundary change is requested. Government Code Section 56653 sets
forth the requirements as follows:
56653 (a) If a proposal for a change of organization or reorganization is
submitted pursuant to this part, the applicant shall submit a plan for
providing services within the affected territory.
(b) The plan for providing services shall include all of the following
information and any additional information required by the commission
or the executive officer:
(1) An enumeration and description of the services to be extended to the
affected territory.
(2) The level and range of those services.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
1.0 Introduction
1-2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
(3) An indication of when those services can feasibly be extended to the affected
territory.
(4) An indication of any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer
or water facilities, or other conditions the local agency would impose or
require within the affected territory if the change of organization or
reorganization is completed.
(5) Information with respect to how those services will be financed.
(d) This section shall not preclude a local agency formation commission
from considering any other options or exercising its powers under Section
56375.
(e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2025, and as of
that date is repealed (California State Assembly 2016).
Pursuant to the Cortese-Knox Act, LAFCO has issued guidance for the preparation of plans
for services that expand on the requirements listed above (LAFCO 2013).
The plan for services must address the following:
(a) The capacity of existing infrastructure including:
The total capacity / service units of the system
Number of service units already allocated
Number of service units within current boundaries anticipating future
service
Number of service units within the system available after providing
service to areas within current boundaries that anticipate future service
Number of service units required to serve the proposed project
Number of service units proposed to be added to meet the demand
(b) In the event there are not enough service units available to serve the
proposed project, the applicant shall provide a plan for obtaining the
capacity necessary to provide service which must include the following
information:
A description of any required facility or infrastructure expansions or other
necessary capital improvements.
The likely schedule for completion of the expanded capacity project, the
viability of the needed project, and the relation of the subject project to the
overall project and project time line.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area Amendment Plan for Services
EMC Planning Group Inc. 1-3
A list of required administrative and legislated processes, such as CEQA
review or State Water Resources Board allocation permits, including
assessment of likelihood of approval of any permits and existence of
pending or threatened legal or administrative challenges if known.
The planned total additional capacity.
The size and location of needed capital improvements.
The proposed project cost, financing plan and financing mechanisms
including a description of the persons or properties expected to bear
project costs.
Any proposed alternative projects if the preferred project cannot be
completed.
(c) The estimated time frame for service delivery.
(e) A statement indicating any capital improvements, or upgrading of
structures, roads, sewer or water facilities or other conditions the agency
would impose or require within the affected territory prior to providing
service if proposal is approved.
(f) A description of how the services will be financed.
(g) Agency’s general statement of intent to provide services to the affected
territory, indicating the agency’s capability of providing the necessary
services in a timely manner to the affected territory while being able to
serve all areas within its current boundaries and without lowering the
level of service provided to areas currently being served by the agency.
In accordance with the Cortese-Knox Act and LAFCO’s guidance on preparing plans for
services, this plan addresses water, wastewater, storm drainage, solid waste, fire, police,
lighting, library services, roads, schools, and hospitals. This plan identifies the City’s planned
capital improvements for the project area, notes the adequacy or deficiency of the City’s
planned capital improvements and policy goals based upon the project description, and
identifies the responsibilities and funding mechanisms for the provision of services to the
site, based upon the level of future development anticipated by the conceptual development
plan.
PRIMARY INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were the primary sources of information for this plan for services.
The Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Wren Investors-Hewell USA to the City of Gilroy and the
County of Santa Clara provides a description of the existing fiscal conditions of the
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
1.0 Introduction
1-4 EMC Planning Group Inc.
City and County, an estimate of the fiscal impacts of the proposed USA amendment
area at buildout and in a subsequent 10 year time frame from development
completion (Applied Development Economics 2015).
The Cities Service Review Final Report is a municipal service review which is a
comprehensive study of services within designated geographic areas that are
completed to obtain information about service delivery, evaluate the provision of
services, and recommend actions to promote the provisions of those services
(Management Partners 2015).
Gilroy 2040 General Plan Background Report- Public Review Draft Chapter 9: Public
Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure presents an overview of public and
community services provided by the City of Gilroy and other agencies including
water supply and delivery, wastewater collection and disposal, storm water
drainage and flood control, solid and hazardous waste, utilities, law enforcement,
fire protection, emergency medical services, and schools (Mintier Harnish 2014).
Gilroy 2040 General Plan Background Report- Public Review Draft Chapter 4: Economics
and Demographics, describes the economic and demographic characteristics of the
City of Gilroy to identify trends and changes in the make-up and composition and
demands of Gilroy’s future population (Mintier Harnish 2014).
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc. 2-1
2.0
Proposed USA Amendment
SUMMARY
The City received and is processing an application for an approximately 55-acre Urban
Service Area (USA) amendment in the northern portion of its 20-year Growth Boundary.
Most of the proposed USA amendment is designated Neighborhood District, with a small
portion designated Park/Recreation Facility in the general plan.
BACKGROUND
The USA Amendment request is consistent with general plan land uses and densities, and is
included within the planned services areas of the City’s master utility plans. The City has
indicated its intent to eventually provide services to the project site, and elsewhere within
the 20-year Growth Boundary, in a timely manner without lowering the level of services
provided within the existing USA. The City has adopted a number of programs and
infrastructure master plans to implement its general plan policies for the provision of public
services. Master plans have been adopted for police and fire protection, water, recycled
water, wastewater, storm drainage, parks and recreation services. Adopted programs and
policies include cooperative agreements with other agencies to provide services including
fire protection, recreation programs, library services, recycled water, and wastewater
treatment. The City must weigh the extension of services to new areas of development
against the cost of those extensions, and consider general plan policy guidance regarding
services extensions. The City assesses development impact fees for water, sewer, traffic, and
storm drainage, as well as for public facilities such as police, fire, library, and parks and
recreation. The Gilroy Unified School District also assesses Level I development impact fees
for school facilities. These fees assist in funding extensions to services to accommodate new
development and population increases. General plan action 18.B states that an impact fee
schedule shall be updated on a regular basis to ensure that public safety facilities and
services required by new development are paid for by those developments (page 7-20).
Gilroy City Code Section 21.162 states that approval of any development project by the City
shall be conditioned upon the payment of public facilities impact fees in amounts in effect at
the time of payment of the fees. All fees collected pursuant to this provision shall be placed
in a separate public facilities impact fee fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the
fees with other revenues and funds. The fees collected, and any earnings thereon, shall be
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
2.0 Proposed USA Amendment
2-2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
expended solely for the acquisition and development of public facilities and the repayment
of any indebtedness incurred by the City. Table 2-1, Public Facilities and Utilities Fees, lists
the development impact fees for various facilities.
PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
The project includes two adjacent sites the Wren Investors site and the Hewell site. The
50.3-acre Wren Investors site is located north and west of the Gilroy city limit and USA, but
within the City of Gilroy 2020 General Plan 20-year planning boundary. The existing USA
boundary borders nearly the entire site along Vickery Avenue to the north, Wren Avenue to
the east, and along the southern boundary of the site and along the west boundary of the site
to Tatum Avenue. The site is comprised of 14 parcels total. Six parcels are developed with
low‐density residential uses, one parcel that is occupied by the Gilroy High School Future
Farmers of America Club farm laboratory, vacant land (grassland) and two vacant Santa
Clara Valley Water District parcels through which run the Lions Creek channel and a paved
community bike path.
The 5.46-acre Hewell project site consists of two adjacent parcels: assessor’s parcel numbers
790-06-017 and 790-06-018 located just outside the northern city limits northeast of the
intersection of Vickery Lane and Kern Avenue. Assessor’s parcel number 790-06-017, which
makes up the southeast portion of the site, is developed with one home, associated
outbuildings, and landscaping; however, the remainder of the project site is a vacant field.
Land uses surrounding the project site are agricultural to the north, and rural residential
with some small-scale agricultural uses to the south, and west. A residential subdivision
(Harvest Park) is located to the east, within the City limits.
The City of Gilroy 2020 General Plan designates the two project sites, with the exception of the
SCVWD facility, for Neighborhood District uses which allows a variety of residential
densities. The County of Santa Clara (“County”) land use designation of the project sites and
the lands to the north, south, and west is Open Space Reserve. Figure 1, Existing and
Proposed USA Boundaries, presents the general plan land use designation, as well as the
City limits and existing and proposed USA boundaries.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a single urban service area amendment that includes both the
previously separate Wren Investors project site and the Hewell project site (hereinafter
referred to as “the proposed project”). Table 2-2, Wren Investors and Hewell USA
Amendment Anticipated Development, presents the anticipated buildout for these two sites
comprising 55.66 acres and presents proposed land uses, acreage, and number of residential
lots.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area Amendment EMC Planning Group Inc. 2‐3 Table 2‐1 Public Facilities and Utilities Fees 5.A.fPacket Pg. 90Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
2.0 Proposed USA Amendment
2-4 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Table 2-2 Wren Investors and Hewell USA Amendment Anticipated Development
Land Use Acreage Residential Lots
Low Density Residential 26.86 185
Medium Density Residential Duets 2.2 20
High Density Residential (Townhomes/Apartments) 9.9 102
Subtotal Residential 33.6 307
Streets 12.9
Drainage 3.4
Neighborhood Commercial 0.4
Totals 55.66 307
SOURCE: Wren Investors (USA 12-01) & Hewell (USA 14-02) USA Amendment Applications
ANTICIPATED APPROVALS
Approval of the USA amendment by LAFCO would lead to annexation into the City of
Gilroy and future development of the site. Future development of the site would require
preparation of a master plan or specific plan and, dependent upon project-specific
characteristics, may require supplemental environmental review once specific development
plans are proposed and submitted to the City. Future actions are expected to include, but
may not be limited to, the following: annexation, pre-zoning/zoning, residential
development ordinance (RDO) allocation, specific or master plan approval, tentative and
final subdivision map approval, architectural and site review approval, development
agreements, Community Facilities District initiation, habitat permits, right-of-way
abandonments and dedication acceptances, and encroachment permits for work within City
rights-of-way.
ANTICIPATED TIME FRAME FOR SERVICE DELIVERY
An accurate estimate of the time frame for delivery of services cannot be made until specific
development of the site is proposed; however, a general estimate can be made based upon
City of Gilroy staff experience with similar projects. Assuming the USA amendment is
approved, the entitlement process is expected to take about five years from the date a
specific plan application is submitted. The City anticipates that a community task force
would be assembled to assist with guiding future development plans. Assembling a task
force and preparation of a specific plan as well as project-specific CEQA review, would likely
take the City a minimum of two years to process. Subdivision maps and architectural and
site review would follow. A more accurate time frame for the delivery of services could be
developed once specific development of the site is proposed.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Ronan
A
ve.
Monticelli
Dr.
Bosque St.Wren Ave.
Eden
S
t
.
Vickery Ave.
Fa rrell
A
v
e.
Bazos St.KernAve.La Primavera Way.ArborSt.S o rre n to D r.Churc
hSt
.
Saint Cl ar Ave.
Tatum
A
v
e
.
Mantelli Dr.
Martiri
Dr
.
M o ro Dr.F e s ta AglioDr.P a d o v a D r .AvezanWay.Birdsong St.ElVeranoWay.WrenInvestors
ProposedUSA
Hewell USA
AmendmentPrezone
andAnnexation
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,
swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Source: Esri 2016
Figure 1
Existing and Proposed USA Boundaries
Wren Investors and Hewell USA Amendment Plan for Services
Project Boundary Existing City Limit and Urban
Service Area Boundary
Proposed City Limit and Urban
Service Area Boundary
0 500 feet
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
2.0 Proposed USA Amendment
2-6 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-1
3.0
Water
INFORMATION SOURCES
In addition to the primary sources listed in Section 1.0 Introduction, the following sources
were used for this section:
The City of Gilroy Water System Master Plan (hereinafter “Water Master Plan”)
analyzes the water system for build out conditions with the 20-year Growth
Boundary and provides recommendations for capital improvements (Carollo
Engineers 2004).
The City of Gilroy 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (hereinafter “Urban Water
Management Plan”) implements and maintains the reliability of urban water
supplies, ensures that future beneficial use can be complemented by sufficient water
supply, continues to promote policies and programs that benefit water
conservation, and provides a means for response during water supply shortages
and drought conditions. The Urban Water Management Plan is required in
accordance with the California Water Code requirements, and updates are typically
submitted to the Department of Water Resources every five years (AKEL
Engineering Group 2016).
The Santa Clara Valley Water District/South County Regional Wastewater Authority’s
South County Recycled Water Master Plan identifies opportunities to expand the use of
tertiary treated recycled water within areas served by the plan, including the City
(Carollo Engineering 2004d).
Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Stream Maintenance Program Update 2012-2022 Final
Subsequent Impact Report addresses potential environmental impacts to the proposed
Stream Maintenance Program Update and describes flood management goals to
maintain appropriate conveyance capacity and functional integrity of Santa Clara
Valley Water District facilities (Horizon Water and Environment 2011).
The Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan
discusses the District’s plan to ensure a sustainable water supply for Santa Clara
County’s future needs through 2035 (2012).
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
3.0 Water
3-2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Groundwater Management Plan characterizes
the District’s groundwater activities in terms of basin management objectives,
strategies, and outcome measures so that the District may respond to risks and
uncertainties that may impact the quality and quantity of groundwater supplies
such as increased demand, regulatory changes, constituents of emerging concern,
recharge limitations due to dam restrictions, reduced availability of imported water
or other supplies, climate change, and intensified land development (2016).
The Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Annual Groundwater Report for Calendar Year
2016 describes the groundwater use, storage, land subsidence, and groundwater
quality in the Llagas Subbasin for the 2016 year.
The Central Coast Hydrologic Region; Gilroy-Hollister Groundwater Basin, California’s
Groundwater Bulletin 118 Interim Update 2016 Data explains the hydrology and basin
boundaries of the Gilroy-Hollister Basin (California Department of Water
Resources 2016).
The CASEGM Groundwater Basin Prioritization Results Groundwater Reliance
Sorted by Basin Name illustrates the basin prioritization which is used to align
resources in the implementation of the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation
Monitoring (CASGEM) Program (California Department of Water Resource’s 2014).
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Groundwater Source
The City utilizes local groundwater as its main source of supply and uses recycled water as a
supplemental supply. The City’s municipal water system extracts its water supply from
underground aquifers through nine active groundwater wells, which vary in depth and are
located throughout the City (City of Gilroy 2016a). The City pays a groundwater extraction
fee to the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which is the principal groundwater management
agency in the Santa Clara Valley. The groundwater basin underlying Gilroy is the Santa
Clara Valley groundwater basin, which is divided into three interconnected subbasins that
transmit, filter, and store water. These basins consist of the Santa Clara Valley and Coyote
Subbasins to the north of Gilroy, and the Llagas Subbasin, which is the southernmost
subbasin. Gilroy is located within the Llagas Subbasin.
Recharge to the Llagas Subbasin comes from a variety of sources including natural recharge
from streams; percolations of precipitation and surplus irrigation waters; seepage along
canals; subsurface inflow; and artificial recharge, including imported water from the Central
Valley Project. The amount of water recharged to the basin varies widely from year to year
dependent upon the amount of precipitation and imported water deliveries. Natural
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area Amendment Plan for Services
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-3
recharge to the basin occurs from a variety of sources including Uvas Creek and Llagas
Creek as well as percolation of precipitation. Further, a number of artificial recharge facilities
enhance natural recharge to the Llagas Subbasin and have successfully offset historic water-
level declines including the Madrone Channel, Main Avenue Percolation Ponds, and a
number of percolation ponds along Uvas Creek and Llagas Creek (AKEL Engineering Group
2011 and 2016). Demand for groundwater from the Llagas Subbasin is comprised of
pumping for the City of Gilroy, the City of Morgan Hill, and agricultural uses. In 2016,
groundwater pumping from the Llagas Subbasin was estimated at about 41,820 acre-feet
with 16,560 acre-feet used for residential and industrial uses, 2,010 acre-feet for domestic
uses, and 23,250 acre-feet for agricultural uses (Santa Clara Valley Water District 2017). The
Santa Clara Valley Water District has an annual average pumping value of approximately
8,300 acre-feet and a 2015 value of 6,968 acre-feet. The District monitors groundwater
conditions and adjusts its management to maintain adequate reserves. District-wide short-
term water use reductions of up to 50 percent would be required to maintain aquifer balance
during an extended drought.
Water Treatment and Delivery Infrastructure
In addition to the nine active groundwater wells, the City’s water system facilities include 10
potable water storage tanks, six active booster stations, and over 120 miles of pressurized
pipes ranging from four inches through 30 inches in diameter. The wells have a total
pumping capacity of approximately 18.8 million gallons per day (mgd). The City provides
service to three separate pressure zones, defined by the elevation ranges they serve. Zone 1
has a pressure zone hydraulic grade line elevation of 374 feet and a service elevation range of
140 to 280 feet, and serves most of Gilroy. Zones 2 and 3 serve higher elevation in the hills at
the western edge of the City (AKEL Engineering Group 2011; Carollo Engineers 2004d). The
City has been constructing water transmission main facilities and storage reservoirs in
accordance with the 2004 Water Supply Master Plan and 2015 South County Recycled Water
Master Plan Update. For enhanced City-wide reliability to the water supply, the City added
a storage reservoir with three million gallon (MG) capacity.
Recycled Water
In addition to using groundwater, the City also participates in an agreement with the City of
Morgan Hill and the Santa Clara Valley Water District to reclaim and purify wastewater at
the South County Recycled Water System operated by the South County Regional
Wastewater Authority. The use of recycled water offsets use of potable water for
agricultural, industrial, municipal and fire suppression uses. Specifically, recycled water is
currently being used for landscape irrigation at Christmas Hill Ranch Site, Christmas Hill
Park, Gilroy Golf Course, Gilroy Sports Park, Gilroy Shooting Range, McCarthy Business
Park, Eagle Ridge Development and Golf Course, and for agricultural irrigation on Obata
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
3.0 Water
3-4 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Farms and South County Regional Wastewater Authority-owned agricultural buffer lands.
The Calpine-Gilroy Energy Center Peaker Plant and Cogeneration Plant use recycled water
for cooling. Additionally, two customers will be online and receiving recycled water in the
near-term – C&E Farms and Obata Farms (new turnout). The wastewater treatment plant has
a recycled water production capacity of 6.5 million gallons per day (mgd) or 19.9 acre feet
per day and a demand of 5.2 mgd or 15.9 acre feet per day. According to the 2017 Urban
Water Management Plan, the Gilroy’s annual recycled water demand is approximately 2,000
acre-feet per year. Several alternatives to expand the recycled water system are being
considered to accelerate and optimize recycled water supplies. The existing recycled water
distribution system consists of approximately 14.6 miles of 8- to 36-inch diameter pipelines
extending from the South County Regional Water Authority wastewater treatment plant to
the western edge of Gilroy along Hecker Pass Highway. The system is comprised of two
primary distribution systems, the North System and South System, which operate
independently of each other.
The Urban Water Management Plan estimated future recycled water supply availability to
increase by 555 million gallons (MG) by 2030. With this increased use of recycled water, total
supply within the Llagas Subbasin is estimated at 18,800 MG/Y (per year) by 2040 (AKEL
Engineering Group 2016 a). Per the Santa Clara Valley Water District, groundwater pumping
within the Llagas Subbasin is approximately 44,000 acre-feet (based on average groundwater
pumping between 2003 and 2012). In addition to groundwater, approximately 2,000 acre-feet
of recycled water is used in areas overlying the Llagas Subbasin (based on 2018 use data).
Recycled water use within the Llagas Subbasin projected to increase to 3,700 acre-feet by year
2040 (Santa Clara Valley Water District 2019).which is approximately 6000 acre-feet less than
the estimate of 18,800 million gallons (57695 acre-feet) used by the City.
Existing Site Water Service
The City of Gilroy provides potable water service to customers within the City limits. The
existing water system near the project site includes a 24-inch line in Santa Teresa Boulevard
south of Sunrise Drive, a 16-inch line in Santa Teresa Boulevard north of Sunrise Drive to
Day Road, a 16-inch lines in Wren Avenue, Cohansey Avenue, and Monterey Road south of
Cohansey Avenue, a 12-inch lines in Hirasaki Avenue, Kern Avenue, Vickery Avenue Farrell
Avenue, and eight-inch lines in Church Street, Tatum Avenue, and Ronan Avenue. There are
existing City of Gilroy water mains adjacent to the site on Wren Avenue and Monterey Road.
PROJECT DEMAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE EXPANSION
Project Water Demand
Future development of the project site would increase the demand for potable water on the
project site, and would contribute to increased City-wide and subbasin-wide groundwater
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area Amendment Plan for Services
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-5
demand. Using the water demand coefficient identified in the City’s Water System Master
Plan for Neighborhood Districts of 2,100 gallons per day per acre (gpd/ac) or 2.35 acre feet
per year (afy), future water demand of the proposed project would be 116,886 gdp or 130.81
acre-feet. Table 3-1, Water Demand presents the projects projected water demand.
Table 3-1 Water Demand
Site and General Plan
Designation
Site Acreage Water Demand
Coefficient (2,100
(Gallons Per Day Per
Acre)
Water Demand
Coefficient (2.35 Acre
Feet Per Year)
Wren Investors
(Neighborhood District)
50.30 105,630 gpd/acre 118.21 afy
Hewell (Neighborhood
District)
5.36 11,256 gpd/acre 12.60 afy
Total: 55.66 116,886 gpd/acre 130.81 afy
SOURCE: City of Gilroy 2004
The projected water supply available through 2040 during normal years, including recycled
water sources, is 18,800 MG/Y. While the projected City-wide demand is only 5,822 MG/Y,
the City of Morgan Hill and other uses are projected to have a demand of 13,658 MG/Y for a
total demand of 18,478 MG/Y. This leaves 322 MG/Y projected excess water supply. In order
to meet water supply goals for normal, single dry and multiple dry years, the Urban Water
Management Plan recommends enhanced conservation to the maximum extent possible. In
the event of an emergency supply shortfall, the City will rely on the contingency plan to
reduce the rate of consumption and limit overdraft of the groundwater aquifer. A mitigation
measure was included in the initial study that will require new development to include
storm water capture for outdoor watering to help meet the 130 acre-feet additional supply
needed for the new development.
Water Infrastructure
The project site is within an area that can be served by Zone 1, since the highest proposed
service elevation is approximately 246 feet. Future development on the site would connect
directly to existing City of Gilroy water infrastructure adjacent to the project site. According
to Figure 4-2 of the Water System Master Plan, existing water system infrastructure adjacent
to the project site includes 12-inch water mains that run along portions of the western project
boundary along Kern Avenue, and to the south and the east of the project site along
Cohansey Avenue and Wren Avenue. Water mains are also present in the residential
neighborhood located directly south of the site between Mantelli Drive and the southern site
boundary. Figure 5-2 of the Water Supply Master Plan presents proposed improvements to
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
3.0 Water
3-6 EMC Planning Group Inc.
the City’s system including 12-inch mains to the west of the project site along Kern Avenue
and along the northern and eastern project site boundaries along Vickery Avenue and Wren
Avenue, respectively. Future water supply infrastructure within the project site would be
connected to existing City of Gilroy water mains adjacent to the site on Wren Avenue and
Cohansey Avenue.
On-site water infrastructure would be constructed by the applicant and dedicated to the City
upon inspection and confirmation of conformance to City standards. New development is
subject to compliance with the design requirements and standard conditions of approval of
the City’s Urban Water Management Plan and Water System Master Plan.
FINANCING
The Water Supply Master Plan includes a Capital Improvement Program to assist the City in
planning and constructing the proposed improvements to the water system through the
build out of the general plan. The Capital Improvement Plan includes cost estimates for the
proposed improvements and a Capital Improvement Budget that outlines funding and
financing options.
Future developers would be responsible for constructing all on-site water pipelines and off-
site connecting pipelines. The City will reimburse the developer for construction of oversized
mains (that will serve other future development) according to City reimbursement policy
and comprehensive fee schedule in effect at the time of reimbursement. Additional
improvements that are included in the Capital Improvement Plan would also be subject to
reimbursement. The construction and financing of on-site infrastructure serving the project
site would be the responsibility of the applicant.
Future developers of the site would participate in the water development impact fee
program, which provides a mechanism to offset the project’s share of existing and proposed
City-wide infrastructure improvements that enable delivery to the site, such as the new wells
required to serve the project. According to the fee program, future low density residential
development would pay City development fees at the low-density level. Medium-density
(duets) and high-density (townhome/ apartment) residential development would pay City
development fees at the high-density level. Refer back to Table 2-1, Public Facilities and
Utilities Fees.
On-site water infrastructure would be constructed by the applicant and dedicated to the
City. As owner of the water infrastructure, the City will be responsible for costs associated
with future maintenance of the water infrastructure unless a Community Facilities District is
established. This financing approach could help defray costs for associated with the new
water infrastructure (see Section 15.0 for further discussion).
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area Amendment Plan for Services
EMC Planning Group Inc. 3-7
CONCLUSION
Future development of the site consistent with the existing general plan land use designation
would result in an increased demand for water and required treatment. The existing and
planned City infrastructure is sufficient to accommodate this increased demand for water
service. Developers would be responsible for paying a proportionate share of impact fees for
the necessary off-site infrastructure improvements and would be responsible for financing
on-site improvements. Future development of the site would also expand the City’s tax base
and correspondingly, increase available opportunities to provide funding for additional
staffing if required. However, the increased tax base would not offset the costs of the
financial impacts (see Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by ADE) and the City will require
formation of a Community Facilities District for the proposed project. As outlined in the
Water System Master Plan and the Urban Water Management Plan, the City is able to deliver
water to all customers within the city limits, and the City’s water supply and water system
planning documents provide for expansion of water production and delivery infrastructure
to supply all areas within the USA and 20-year Growth Boundary. Water demand associated
with development of the project site is within the City’s water supplies and the planned
water system infrastructure beyond that already identified in the City of Gilroy Water
System Master Plan and Urban Water Management Plan.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
3.0 Water
3-8 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc. 4-1
4.0
Wastewater
INFORMATION SOURCES
In addition to the primary sources listed in Section 1.0 Introduction, the following sources
were used for this section:
The City of Gilroy Sewer System Master Plan (hereinafter “Sewer System Master
Plan”) analyzes the sewer system for build out conditions with the 20-year Growth
Boundary, and provides recommendations for capital improvements (Carollo
Engineers 2004b).
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is within the 20-year Growth Boundary and therefore was accounted for in
the Sewer System Master Plan. However, at the time the Sewer System Master Plan was
prepared, the project site was designated Low-Density Residential in the general plan. As
previously discussed, the general plan land use designation for the site was changed to
Neighborhood District in 2002 as part of a general plan amendment process. The amount of
wastewater generated by build out of the site with Neighborhood District uses remains
consistent with the Sewer System Master Plan.
The City operates and maintains its own sewer infrastructure and serves customers within
the City limits. The City’s existing sewer collection system consists of a network of pipes
ranging in size from six to 33 inches in diameter. The wastewater is directed to the South
County wastewater treatment plant operated by the South County Regional Wastewater
Authority, a joint agency consisting of the City of Gilroy and the City of Morgan Hill.
Wastewater is conveyed through main trunk lines generally 10 inches or greater in size
(Carollo 2004b, page 4-1). The wastewater treatment plant treats wastewater from the City of
Gilroy and the City of Morgan Hill, with plant capacity and finances split at 58 percent and
42 percent respectively. The wastewater treatment plant has an average dry weather
treatment capacity of approximately 8.5 million gallons per day (mgd), with approximately
4.9 mgd available for Gilroy and 3.6 mgd available for Morgan Hill. The wastewater
treatment plant processed an average dry weather flow of 6.5 mgd in 2010 (AKEL
Engineering Group 2015). The City’s share of the average 2010 wastewater flow was
measured at 3.58 mgd (Ruggeri Jensen Azar 2015b). A portion of the wastewater is dispersed
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
4.0 Wastewater
4-2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
to percolation ponds and a portion is recycled. The water recycling facilities were upgraded
to increase output capacity from 3 mgd to 9 mgd (Gilroy 2040 General Plan Background Report -
Public Review Draft Chapter 9: Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure 2014).
Existing Site Sewer Service
The Morgan Hill Trunk conveys wastewater from Morgan Hill to Gilroy. The line passes
through the project site as a combination of 27- to 30-inch pipes and continues southward on
Wren Avenue to a merger with the Mantelli Sub-trunk at Mantelli Drive. The Morgan Hill
Trunk also collects wastewater flows from within Gilroy. Wastewater flow is then conveyed
in a 33-inch main east and south to the wastewater treatment plant. Sewer system modeling
conducted for the Sewer Master Plan shows that during wet weather flow conditions, the
Morgan Hill Trunk becomes deficient through the City (Carollo Engineers 2004b).
PROJECT WASTEWATER GENERATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE EXPANSION
Estimated Wastewater Generation
The proposed project would result in increased wastewater flows and the development of
new wastewater collection lines within the project site. The City would apply the Sewer
Development Impact Fees to the construction of the sewer system upon annexation and
development of the site. According to the sewer generation estimates outlined for each land
use in the Sewer System Master Plan, future development of the site consistent with the
Neighborhood District land use designation may result in 72,000 gpd. At the time the Sewer
System Master Plan was prepared, the site was designated Low-Density Residential; which is
a lower intensity residential use and would generate less wastewater than Neighborhood
District uses. However, as discussed previously, the land use designation for the site was
changed to Neighborhood District in 2005 as part of a general plan amendment process that
modified the distribution of residential land uses city-wide, but did not substantial change
the overall amount of lands designated for low to high density residential uses. As such, the
wastewater that would be generated by build out of the site consistent with existing general
plan land use designations has been evaluated in the Sewer System Master Plan, which
concluded that there is adequate capacity to serve the 20-year planning area, including the
project site.
Collection Infrastructure
Future development on the site would connect directly to existing City of Gilroy sewer
infrastructure immediately adjacent to the project site. As depicted in the Sewer System
Master Plan, Figure 4.2, the closest sewer main to the site is the Joint Morgan Hill-Gilroy
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area Amendment Plan for Services
EMC Planning Group Inc. 4-3
Trunk, which runs along the eastern boundary of the project site. The Joint Morgan Hill-
Gilroy Trunk conveys flows from the City of Morgan Hill as well as flows from the
northwest and northeast portions of Gilroy.
Along Wren Avenue, east of the project site, the Joint Morgan Hill-Gilroy Trunk consists of a
30-inch main, which decreases in size to a 27-inch main along the south-eastern project
boundary between Tatum Avenue to Mantelli Drive, where it merges with the Mantelli
Subtrunk at the intersection of Wren Avenue and Mantelli Drive. Wastewater flow is then
conveyed in a 33-inch main east and south of Gilroy to the wastewater treatment plant. A 18-
inch main is also located on Santa Teresa Boulevard, west of the site.
According to the Sewer System Master Plan, modeling of the system shows that during wet
weather flow conditions, the Joint Morgan Hill-Gilroy Trunk becomes deficient when
Morgan Hill flows are introduced.
Treatment Plant Expansion
A relief line along Monterey Road is included in the City of Morgan Hill’s and the
wastewater authority’s capital improvement plan, and is partially constructed. The City of
Morgan Hill is the responsible entity for funding the new relief trunk from the intersection of
California Avenue and Monterey Road in Morgan Hill to the intersection of Pacheco Pass
Road and Renz Lane in the City of Gilroy. The City will maintain 50 percent capacity
allocation in the new relief trunk that continues from Pacheco Pass Road to the waste water
treatment plant outfall, and as a result, will be responsible for half of the funding for this
reach of new sewer pipe (Carollo Engineers 2004b). According to the City of Morgan Hill,
completion of the relief line is based on funding and it is unknown when adequate funds
will be available to complete the construction of the relief line (Gittleson 2018). On-site
wastewater infrastructure would be constructed by the applicant and dedicated to the City
upon inspection and confirmation of conformance to City standards.
FINANCING
General plan action 19.A requires developers to pay fees to offset the costs of expanding the
sewer system to accommodate their development. These fees will be paid in relation to the
capacity demanded, and will reflect the total fees for improvements. The Sewer System
Master Plan estimates average day sewer flows based on the land uses specified in the
general plan. According to the Sewer System Master Plan, sewer flows are estimated to be
770 and 1,500 gallons per day per acre (gpda) for Low Density Residential and Medium
Density Residential land uses respectively (page ES-9). Low -density residential
development would pay City development fees at the low-density level. Development in the
medium-density and high-density land uses would pay City development fees at the high-
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
4.0 Wastewater
4-4 EMC Planning Group Inc.
density level. The City would apply the sewer development impact fees to the construction
of the sewer system upon annexation and development of the site. Refer to Table 2-1, Public
Facilities and Utilities Fees to see the fees required by the City.
The Sewer System Management Plan includes a capital improvement plan to assist the City
in planning and constructing the proposed improvements to the sewer system through the
build out of the general plan. The capital improvement plan includes cost estimates for the
proposed improvements and a capital improvement budget that outlines funding and
financing options. Future developers would be responsible for constructing all sewer
pipelines. The City will reimburse the developer for construction of oversized mains
according to the City reimbursement policy and comprehensive fee schedule in effect at the
time of reimbursement. The construction and financing of onsite infrastructure for the project
site would be the responsibility of the applicant.
As discussed in Section 15.0, Community Facilities District, with the establishment of Mello
Roos Community Facilities Districts, Gilroy permits the imposition of “special taxes” to fund
maintenance of facilities which may help offset costs associated with wastewater
infrastructure.
CONCLUSION
Future development of the site consistent with existing general plan land use designations
would result in an increase in sewer generation and required treatment. The existing and
planned City and South County Regional Wastewater Authority infrastructure is sufficient
to accommodate this increase in sewer generation and required treatment. Sewer generation
associated with development of the project site would not exceed the capacity of the City’s or
South County Regional Wastewater Authority sewer system infrastructure beyond that already
identified in the City of Gilroy Sewer System Master Plan. Improvements that are included in
the Capital Improvement Plan would also be subject to reimbursement.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc. 5-1
5.0
Storm Drainage
INFORMATION SOURCES
In addition to the primary sources listed in Section 1.0 Introduction, the following sources
were used for this section:
The City of Gilroy Storm Drainage System Master Plan (hereinafter “Storm Drainage
Master Plan”) analyzes the storm drain system for build out conditions with the 20-
year Growth Boundary, and provides recommendations for capital improvements
(Carollo Engineers 2004a).
The Technical Support Document for Post Construction Stormwater Management
Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region provides
background, explanation, and justification for the Post-Construction requirements
that establish performance criteria and implementation measures that
municipalities utilize to implement post-construction storm management actions.
(Central Coast Water Quality Control Board 2013).
The Revised Regional Storm Water Management Plan includes the efforts of Gilroy,
Morgan Hill, and unincorporated Santa Clara County in meeting the Phase II Storm
Water Permit requirements for “small municipal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4s)” (City of Gilroy, City of Morgan Hill, and County of Santa Clara (2010).
Existing Conditions
The City storm drainage system consists of a combination of curb and gutter facilities, curb
inlets, and underground pipelines draining to the nearest creek (Llagas Creek or Uvas Creek)
or to a manmade channel. The City’s system discharges to existing channels and creeks
owned or overseen by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The City lies within two major
watersheds: the Uvas Creek Watershed and the Llagas Watershed. These watersheds are
divided into several hydrologically distinct drainage areas. Several major flood control
projects have been completed that have improved drainage in the City
The City requires new development to pay storm development impact fees. Low density
residential development would pay City development fees at the low-density level. Medium
and high-density residential development would pay City development fees at the high-
density level.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
5.0 Storm Drainage
5-2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
The project site is located in the Llagas Watershed (SDSMP, Figure 4.1) and the Ronan
Channel Drainage Basin (SDSMP, Figure 4.3). Lions Creek or flows through the Wren USA
area.
CAPACITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Expanded Infrastructure and Capacity
The Storm Drain Master Plan (Carollo Engineers 2004a), provides a blueprint for expansion
and maintenance of the City’s storm drainage infrastructure. The Storm Drain Master Plan
establishes storm drainage system design and planning criteria, presents the results of a
watershed model hydrologic analysis, evaluates the existing storm drainage system using
computer hydraulic modeling, proposes system improvements, and is the basis for capital
improvement programming (Carollo Engineers 2004a). Other than the Ronan Channel, the
SDSMP identifies only one storm drain facility in the vicinity of the project site: a 30-inch
storm pipe that drains to the Llagas Creek from Wren Avenue east of the site (SDSMP Figure
4.4). The SDSMP does not identify any deficiencies for the storm drain infrastructure that
abuts the project site, nor does the SDSMP Figure 5.1, Proposed Improvements, identify any
new storm drain infrastructure needed to serve future development within the 20-year
planning area in the vicinity of the project site. The storm drainage flows that would result
from build out of this site consistent with the Neighborhood District land use designation
have already been evaluated in the SDSMP and necessary improvements to the existing
system have been identified in the SDSMP.
On-site and adjacent off-site storm water infrastructure would be constructed by the
applicant and dedicated to the City or Santa Clara Valley Water District upon inspection and
confirmation of conformance to City or Santa Clara Valley Water District standards. It is
anticipated that at least the low-flow channel in West Branch Llagas Creek would be
dedicated to the Santa Clara Valley Water District which would also maintain floodway
portions of the channel.
FINANCING
The Storm Drain Master Plan includes a Capital Improvement Plan to assist the City in
planning and constructing the proposed improvements to the storm drain system through
the build out of the general plan. The Capital Improvement Plan includes cost estimates for
the proposed improvements and a Capital Improvement Budget that outlines funding and
financing options. Future developers would be responsible for constructing all storm water
pipelines). The City will reimburse the developer for construction of oversized mains
according to the City reimbursement policy and comprehensive fee schedule in effect at the
time of reimbursement. The construction and financing of onsite infrastructure for the project
site would be the responsibility of the applicant.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area Amendment Plan for Services
EMC Planning Group Inc. 5-3
Future developers of the site would participate in the storm drain system development
impact fee program. Project-level impact on the existing storm drain system in the vicinity of
the project site would be evaluated when specific development proposals are submitted.
According to the fee program, future low density residential development would pay City
development fees at the low-density level. Medium-density and high-density residential
development would pay City development fees at the high-density level. Refer to Table 2-1,
Public Facilities and Utilities Fees to see the fees required by the City.
CONCLUSION
Future development of the site consistent with existing general plan land use designation
would result in an increase in storm water runoff. The existing and planned City
infrastructure is sufficient to accommodate this increase in storm water; and the proposed
on-site drainage improvements will accommodate 100-year storm flows. Developers would
be responsible for paying impact fees for the necessary off-site infrastructure improvements
and would be responsible for financing on-site improvements. Increases in storm water
runoff associated with development of the project site would not exceed the capacity of the
City’s or storm drain system infrastructure beyond that already identified in the Storm Drain
Master Plan
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
5.0 Storm Drainage
5-4 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc. 6-1
6.0
Solid Waste
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Recology South Valley provides solid waste pick up service to the cities of Gilroy and
Morgan Hill (Recology South Valley 2017). Recology provides solid waste, recycling,
composting, and street sweeping programs for residential customers and solid waste and
recycling programs for commercial customers. They also provide special collection and
debris box services. Recology implements resource recovery practices by collecting organic
and recyclable materials and diverting them from disposal at area landfills.
According the CalRecycle website, beginning with reporting year 2007 jurisdiction annual
reports, diversion rates are no longer determined. With the passage of Senate Bill 1016, the
Per Capita Disposal Measurement System, only per capita disposal rates are measured. For
2007 and subsequent years, CalRecycle compares reported disposal tons to population to
calculate per capita disposal expressed in pounds/person/day (CalRecycle 2017).
In 2006, the last year that diversion rates were determined, the City diverted 52 percent of
solid waste generated within the City limit (CalRecycle 2017). The most recent estimate of
per capita or per unit waste generation (per capita disposal expressed in pounds/person/day)
approved by CalRecycle for the City is from 2015 in which solid waste disposal generation
factors for the City are listed as 5.8 pounds per resident per day and 14.8 pounds per
employee per day for commercial uses. The most recent approved annual disposal
information was from 2015, when the County disposed of 48,324 tons of solid waste
(CalRecycle 2017).
WASTE GENERATION
Development of the site will result in 307 new residential units and is anticipated to generate
a new population of 1,081 persons. According to the waste generation rate of 5.8 pounds per
day, future residential development of the site would result in an increased solid waste
generation of 6,270 pounds of solid waste per day.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
6.0 Solid Waste
6-2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
CONCLUSION
Recology South Valley would continue to provide solid waste pick up upon development of
the project site. Future development of the site consistent with existing general plan land use
designations would result in an increase in solid waste, but not beyond that identified and
planned for in the general plan.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc. 7-1
7.0
Fire Services
INFORMATION SOURCES
In addition to the primary sources listed in Section 1.0 Introduction, the following sources
were used for this section:
E-mail correspondence with Interim Fire Chief, Jeff Clet, dated September 10, 2019.
The Update of the Fire Services Master Plan of August 2000 for the City of Gilroy Fire
Department Final Report assesses the Gilroy Fire Department’s needs for build out
conditions with the 20-year Growth Boundary and provides recommendations for
improvements (City of Gilroy 2004).
The 2016 South Santa Clara County Annual Report discusses the budget and finances,
operations, training programs, equipment and apparatus available, and a
description and location of all fire stations of the South Santa Clara County Fire
District (South Santa Clara County Fire District 2017).
The City of Gilroy’s online website consists of a Fire Department webpage that was
used for the descriptions of the staff on duty, apparatus available, statistics from
recent years, and the locations of the three existing fire stations within the City
limits (City of Gilroy 2017a and City of Gilroy 2017b).
The Fire Chiefs Online website is a free service for Fire Officials with information
and features that can help a city improve their Insurance Service Office rating (Fire
Chiefs Online 2017).
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City of Gilroy Fire Department serves the residents of Gilroy from three strategically
located fire stations within the current City limits and is anticipating the construction of a
fourth developer-funded fire station within the Glen Loma Ranch, Santa Teresa residential
development area. The Las Animas Station located on 8383 Wren Avenue is located less than
one mile from the project site. This station is equipped with a Type I fire engine and staffed
daily by a minimum three-person crew. It also houses an additional reserve Type I fire
engine and a reserve Type III fire engine. The Sunrise Station at 880 Sunrise Drive is located
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
7.0 Fire Services
7-2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
approximately two miles from the project site. The Sunrise Station is equipped with a Type I
fire engine staffed daily with a three-person crew, an additional reserve Type I fire engine,
and a Type VI reserve fire engine. The Sunrise Station is the newest of the City’s three fire
stations and was designed and constructed to essential facilities standards (Facilities
Standards for the Public Buildings Service (P-100)). The Chestnut Station at 7070 Chestnut
Street is located approximately two and a half miles from the project site. The offices of the
Fire Chief are located here. The command staff consists of the Fire Chief and three Division
Chiefs. Administrative support staff consists of one Administrative Captain, one
Management Analyst, and a Management Assistant. The Chestnut Station is equipped with a
Type I fire engine and staffed daily by a minimum three-person crew. It also houses a Truck
with a 75-foot aerial ladder, a Type IV engine and a County-approved transport ambulance.
The fire department has received approval to respond the ambulance and can performance
patient transports when their condition meets specific conditions stipulated with a contract
with Santa Clara County. The Gilroy Fire Department in its entirety has 35 personnel on
staff, with a daily minimum of 10 field personnel. (Interim Chief Jeff Clet, email message,
September 10, 2019).
According to the Gilroy Interim Fire Chief, Jeff Clet, the City is under contract with the Santa
Clara County Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Agency to respond to Code 3 (Lights and
Sirens) EMS calls within 7:59 minutes 90% of the time. They must respond to Code 2 (non-life
threatening emergency medical calls) within 11:59 minutes (Interim Chief Jeff Clet, e-mail
message, September 10, 2019).
In 2018, the Gilroy Fire Department responded to 5,137 calls for service (City of Gilroy 2017b)
The unincorporated areas of Gilroy pay for and receive fire protection and emergency
medical services from the South Santa Clara County Fire District (fire district). However, a
“Boundary Drop” agreement with the City results in the response of the closest fire resource.
The majority of fire district 9-1-1 requests in these areas were responded to by Gilroy Fire
Department.
The fire district has one fire station within the current City limits. However, the fire districts
Masten Fire Station 2 at 10810 No Name Uno Avenue is approximately three miles northeast
of the project site and is staffed by a minimum three‐person crew. Apparatus at the station
include a Type I fire engine, water tender, Type I reserve engine, and an air support trailer.
While owned by the City, the district’s Treehaven Station 3, located at 3050 Hecker Pass
Highway, is also approximately three miles from the project site. The Treehaven Station is
staffed by a minimum of a three‐person crew and apparatus at the station are similar to the
Masten Station in that it includes one Type 1 fire engine, one reserve engine, one utility
vehicle, and one technical rescue trailer. The fire district also utilizes other regional fire
resources, via the County mutual-aid agreements, to respond to calls, which includes two
other stations located in Morgan Hill.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area Amendment Plan for Services
EMC Planning Group Inc. 7-3
According to the 2016 South Santa Clara County Annual Report, the City of Gilroy provided
524 aid responses to the fire district and the fire district provided 359 aid responses to the
City of Gilroy (South Santa Clara County Fire District 2017).
Since the project site is not within the City limits, data can only be drawn from the
surrounding areas of the site. The more common incidents occurring in bordering areas to
the project area, according to the Update of the Fire Services Master Plan of August 2000 for the
City of Gilroy Fire Department Final Report (fire master plan), included rescue and emergency
medical services and fires.
The response time for the incidents surrounding the project site ranged from four to eight
minutes (City of Gilroy 2004). Every city is required to receive an Insurance Services Office
(ISO) Report that evaluates a list of features that rate a community’s fire protection levels.
The ISO Report rates a city by ten class categorizations, with Class One being the best. The
three components investigated in the ISO’s grading are: the city’s fire department, the city’s
water supply, and the city’s communications (City of Gilroy 2004). On September 29, 2014
the City of Gilroy received an ISO rating of 3 (Alan Anderson, email message, November 16,
2017).
According to Alan Anderson, the development agreement between the City of Gilroy and
the Glen Loma Corporation indicates that a new fire station on the South-west side of the
City shall be ready for occupancy prior to the issuance of the 1,100th building permit. This
agreement was signed in 2004 and appended on August 6, 2018.Project Impact Analysis
In light of existing boundary agreement between the district and the City, the Gilroy Fire
Department would continue to respond into the project site and potentially adjacent streets,
depending on their proximity to the Treehaven station and the availability of Gilroy Fire
Department resources, thereby increasing service demand for fire department resources. The
increased service demand created by the project site would also likely result in service
demand increases for district resource. When the Las Animas resource is committed to an
incident in the project area and a service request occurs within Gilroy and the Treehaven
resource is the closest fire resource, the boundary drop agreement would result in the
dispatch of a district resource into Gilroy.
Fire stations in urban settings are typically sited so that responding apparatus are within 2.0
to 2.5 road miles or have a four to five minute travel time (assuming an average travel speed
of 30 mph) to the structures within the station’s “first due” station district. (Fire Chiefs
Online 2017). However, since response time is dependent on travel speed it travel time can
be affected by the circulation system layout, traffic calming devices, traffic conditions,
temporary street routing during construction, calls in progress (including out‐of‐district
calls), and similar factors.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
7.0 Fire Services
7-4 EMC Planning Group Inc.
When call volume increases within the south Santa Clara County area, it will impact all
regional departments as a result of the boundary drop agreement. In order to maintain
service levels within a region, the existing staff and facilities must have the ability to
accommodate or absorb the increase in service demand.
The Gilroy fire master plan suggests that the project site would receive fire protection and
emergency medical services through an eight-minute travel street network by four different
fire stations (City of Gilroy 2004, p. V‐31). However, project access and street design elements
that restrict emergency vehicle access into the project site, such as those found in the
Heartlands Development, could significantly increase response times to addresses and
facilities within the project site.
With adequate surface street access into the project site and the inclusion of Emergency
Vehicle Accesses (EVAs) where necessary, the project site would continue to be sufficiently
served by the current staffing levels and facilities of the Gilroy Fire Department. In addition,
incident volume and resource availability analysis recently completed for a Regional
Standards of Coverage being performed by Citygate Associates and presented to the Gilroy
City Council indicated that the current facilities could accommodate the increase incident
volume created by the population increase of the proposed project (Gilroy Fire Department).
Based on additional mapping within the Fire Master Plan, the project site would be within a
three mile radius of the five Gilroy and fire district stations, mentioned previously, when
project buildout is completed. The fire master plan also indicates that the project site is
within a four minute travel time from the City’s Sunrise, Las Animas, and Chestnut Stations
(City of Gilroy 2004, p.IV‐5) and within an eight minute travel time from the fire district
Treehaven and Masten Stations (City of Gilroy 2004, p. V‐31). As reflected in the Cities Service
Review Final Report, the city would likely have the capability to maintain current levels of
service as well as meeting any infrastructure needs through 2020 as a result of population
increase (LAFCO 2015).
FINANCING
According to the City’s impact fee program, future anticipated low density residential
development would pay City development fees at the low-density level. Medium and high-
density residential development would pay City development fees at the high-density level.
Refer to Table 2-1, Public Facilities and Utilities Fees to see the fees required by the City.
Future development of the site would increase the City’s tax base and general fund revenues,
which the City may use at its discretion to fund programs and staffing. However, tax
revenues from the proposed project would not be sufficient to fund additional staffing needs
for services that the City would provide to the site. Funding for future staffing of the fire
department would be derived from the General Fund or some other funding source.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area Amendment Plan for Services
EMC Planning Group Inc. 7-5
CONCLUSION
Future development of the site, consistent with existing land use designations would result
in an increase in service demand but would also expand the tax base and correspondingly,
available funding opportunities for increased staffing levels. Future development would also
be responsible for the payment of a proportionate share of impact fees for infrastructure
improvements. The proposed project would not require a level of service beyond that
identified in the general plan and Gilroy Fire Services Master Plan Master Plan Update.
The developers would be required to notify new homeowners of Section 4291 of the
California Public Resources Code requiring that property owners and/or occupants maintain
a defensible space of 100 feet from each side of a structure to protect against a fire (California
Legislative Information 2010). Additionally, the developers of the site would be required to
pay all development impact fees applicable at the time of issuance of a building permit.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
7.0 Fire Services
7-6 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc. 8-1
8.0
Police Services
INFORMATION SOURCES
In addition to the primary sources listed in Section 1.0 Introduction, the following source
was used for this section:
The Gilroy Police Department Strategic Plan Update 2016-2019 provides documentation
of the department’s records, performance measures, budget and goals (City of
Gilroy 2016b).
The Santa Clara County Sheriff website offers a page dedicated to the enforcement
operations. All of the County’s headquarters, sub-stations, and patrol locations are
listed with contact information (County of Santa Clara 2017).
The CrimeReports website is a compilation of data from a national coalition of
police departments and sheriff’s offices which choose to share data with their
communities (CrimeReports 2019).
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City of Gilroy Police Department serves the residents within the City of Gilroy while the
Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office manages the incidents in the unincorporated areas
surrounding the city (County of Santa Clara 2017). The City of Gilroy Police Department is
located at 7301 Hanna Street, approximately two miles from the southeast corner of the Wren
Investors Proposed USA boundary line. The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office consists of a
South County enforcement division which is located in San Martin, approximately four miles
from the northeast corner of the Hewell USA Amendment Prezone and Annexation.
Police response is usually by officers on patrol in the field, so proximity to police office
buildings is not critical. The Department is currently staffed with 105 sworn/non-sworn
officers in total; the Department is authorized to have 69 sworn officers (Gilroy Human
Resources Department, e-mail message, September 13, 2019). The need for officers is
determined by the amount of available patrol time, which is based on the number of calls for
service, processing evidence, report writing, and other administrative duties. Captain Joseph
Deras of the Gilroy Police Department stated the patrol officers should have a minimum of
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
8.0 Police Services
8-2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
33 percent of their time available to do proactive police work, but the department is not
currently meeting this standard due to the needs of responding to community generated
calls for service (Joseph Deras, email message, May 10, 2018). The Department currently
collaborates with the Morgan Hill Police Department, as they have a regional Special
Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) and negotiations team (Joseph Deras, email message,
November 28, 2017).
The response times of the Police Department ranges depending on the type of priority the
call has. Table 8-1, Police Response Times, provides the breakdown of what the response
times were for the 2017 fiscal year.
Table 8-1 Police Response Times
2019 Fiscal Year Response Times (7/1/2018 – 6/30/2019)
Priority 1 2 3 4 5 6
Seconds 307 552 1527 2186 2516 2359
Minutes 5:08 9:13 25:28 36:26 41:56 39:20
SOURCE: David Boles, email message, October 8, 2019
According to the Gilroy Police Department Policy Manual, Section 802.3.3, Priority 1 calls
are defined as calls for service that are in-progress, life threatening or have threat to life;
Priority 2 calls are for service where something has occurred or is occurring and it needs an
immediate public safety response; Priority 3 calls are in-progress property calls where
service is needed in a location that has threat to a property; Priority 4 calls are calls for
service that involve people and/or property or both and that occurred within the last five to
ten minutes; Priority 5 calls are calls that involve people and/or property or both and that
occurred over 20 minutes ago; and Priority 6 calls are calls for service that are initiated by
Public Safety Personnel in the field or could be in-progress or prior that do not need a Public
Safety Response within a certain time or calls that are created for documentation purposes
only (City of Gilroy 2017).
During the fiscal year 2014/2015, the Gilroy Police Department received 37,720 calls for
service, 7,293 of these calls were Priority One calls, which require immediate assistance. The
Department responded to these Priority One calls in five minutes or less 27 percent of the
time (City of Gilroy 2016b). Due to the proposed project not currently within the City limits,
crime reports could only be found in the surrounding area. During the months of April to
October 2019, there were a total of 14 incidents that involved police response; 12 of these
responses were considered quality of life incidents, which include disturbances such as loud
noises (CrimeReports 2019).
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area Amendment Plan for Services
EMC Planning Group Inc. 8-3
According to the Police Dispatch Map, the officers patrol within four response areas. The
project site is located within the Police Response Area 3, which covers the City limits that fall
north of First Street and west of Monterey Road (Joseph Deras, email message, December 4,
2017).
PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Buildout of the project site consistent with the conceptual development plan would result in
307 new dwelling units, with a population of approximately 1,000 new residents. This
increase in the population would increase the number of calls received by the department.
As the number of residences and businesses increase, staff within the police department
would need to increase proportionately to maintain adequate service levels (Joseph Deras,
email message, May 10, 2018). The area of responsibility would expand to include the project
site and potentially adjacent streets, thereby reducing the demand on the Santa Clara County
Sheriff’s Office. While the project site would be served by the Gilroy Police Department, the
Sherriff’s Office would respond if mutual aid is necessary.
According to the Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County, Gilroy’s
General Fund routinely operates at a surplus; therefore, the City of Gilroy would have the
capability of meeting future service needs in the event of an economic downturn.
Additionally, it was determined that the City contains adequate financial assets to aid in the
expansion or replacement of infrastructure if recommended by capital improvement plans
(LAFCO 2015).
FINANCING
Equipment and facility upgrades and needs brought about by the proposed project would be
partially paid for by the collection of development impact fees, collected as a standard
condition of approval, when specific development of the project site is approved in the
future. Refer back to Table 2-1, Public Facilities and Utilities Fees, to see the fees required by
the City. A Community Facilities District would be required within the project site, and
could augment fire services funding (see Section 15.0 for further discussion).
Future development of the site would increase the City’s tax base and General Fund
revenues, which the City may use at its discretion to fund programs and staffing. However,
tax revenues from the proposed project would not be sufficient to fund additional staffing
needs for all services that the City would provide to the site and revenues attributable to the
project would result in a net decrease in the General fund. Funding for future staffing of the
police department would be derived from the General Fund.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
8.0 Police Services
8-4 EMC Planning Group Inc.
CONCLUSION
Upon annexation, the City would become the primary provider of police protection services
for the project site, while the current mutual aid agreements remain in place. Future
development of the project site, consistent with the conceptual development plans, would
result in an increase in service demand with the addition of approximately 1,000 people. Mr.
Deras states a concern that the increased demand for police services would not be fully offset
by revenue generated for residential development (Joseph Deras, email message, May 10,
2018).
The developers of the project site would be required to pay all development impact fees
applicable at the time of issuance of a building permit.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc. 9-1
9.0
Lighting
INFORMATION SOURCES
In addition to the primary sources listed in Section 1.0 Introduction, the following source
was used for this section:
The 2014 City of Gilroy General Guidelines present design criteria and minimum
standards for the City of Gilroy.
LIGHTING
Most of the proposed project would have lighting typical of residential and neighborhood-
serving commercial uses. The City requires that new development include light emitting
diode (LED) street lighting luminaires. Eectrolier ownership is dedicated to the City of
Gilroy (City of Gilroy General Guidelines 2014). The streets would have standard lighting
per the City’s street lighting standards and the commercial areas would have parking lot and
exterior building light. Lighting will be provided and maintained by the City.
FINANCING
The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 permits the establishment of assessment districts to
fund acquisition, construction, and maintenance of public landscaping and lighting, typically
along streets. Proposition 218 in 1996 imposed a condition on all assessment districts that the
assessment must relate to a special benefit provided to each parcel in the district. The rule is
that “general enhancement of property value does not constitute a special benefit”. In
accordance with provisions of Proposition 218, the duration of the assessment is specified at
the time the District is initially established, along with an annual escalation clause, to reduce
the possibility of rescissions by property owner votes at the required annual hearing. There
are no examples in California of a successful majority property owner protest of a lighting
and landscaping district once it has been established.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
9.0 Lighting
9-2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc. 10-1
10.0
Libraries
INFORMATION SOURCES
In addition to the primary sources listed in Section 1.0 Introduction, the following source
was used for this section:
The Santa Clara County Library District provides a webpage with the entire history
of the District from 1914 when it was first established to present day (Santa Clara
County Library District 2017a).
The Santa Clara County Library District offers a timeline specific to the history of
the Gilroy Branch, beginning in 1878 when book services were first established in
Gilroy and ending with a description in regards to the present day Gilroy Library
Branch (Santa Clara County Library District 2017b).
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City is an affiliate of a Joint Powers Authority with the Santa Clara County Library
District where the City manages a Gilroy Library Branch (Gilroy Library) that is overseen by
the Santa Clara County Public Library District. The Gilroy Library is a special district
meaning that it is not funded by Santa Clara County. One source of funding comes from the
residents within the Santa Clara County Library District service area who pay a special tax to
support and help maintain library hours and services. This special tax retains qualified staff,
supports the continuance of available programs, funds the purchases of essential books and
present-day research materials (Santa Clara County Library District 2013). Additional
funding, approximately 40 percent, comes from a parcel tax within the City (Lani Yoshimura,
telephone interview, November 17, 2017).
The Gilroy Library primarily serves the residents within the City limits, but is also available
to the unincorporated areas surrounding the City as well as the residents of San Martin, San
Benito, Salinas, and Santa Cruz (Lani Yoshimura, telephone interview, November 17, 2017).
The Gilroy Library was originally established in 1910 within City Hall and was opened into
the building recognized today at 350 W. Sixth Street in 2012 (Santa Clara County Library
District 2017a); this location is approximately a mile and a half from the project site. The
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
10.0 Libraries
10-2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Gilroy library has expanded to 150,000 volumes including 400 periodicals and the largest
Spanish Language collection in the Santa Clara Public Library District. A unique 200
phonographic record collection from the former KFAT radio station is also stored at the
Gilroy Library. Services include internet access, electronic databases, and word processors as
well as bookmobiles, free delivery services to residences, museum passes, reading programs,
braille and talking book devices, and countless other services (Santa Clara County Library
District 2017b).
The Gilroy Library has a total of approximately 30 staff, which includes full-time, part-time,
and grant employees. The grant employees are not employees of the Gilroy Library because
they are the employees of the English Speaking and Listening (ESL) and Literacy programs
that are funded by grants (Lani Yoshimura, telephone interview, November 17, 2017).
DEMAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE
The demand of the current library facility would increase with the development buildout of
the project site as a result of the population increase of approximately 1,000 people.
However, the Gilroy Community Librarian, Lani Yoshimura, indicated that the existing
facility has the potential to expand within its own building footprint to accommodate the
increase in demand of the facility. The librarian also stated that with the increase in use of
technology, the Gilroy Library is currently underused in comparison to past years because
one does not need to physically visit the facility to be able to use its resources. As
aforementioned, the Gilroy Library allows access to its resources through the bookmobile
program and the home delivery program; an additional feature such as the mobile app
allows its users to search and explore electronic resources, music, and magazines (Santa
Clara County Library District 2017c).
FINANCING
The development impact fee for new and upgraded library facilities is included in a public
facilities impact fee. According to the fee program, future anticipated low density residential
development would pay City development fees at the low-density level. Medium-density
(duets) and high-density (townhome/apartment) residential development would pay City
development fees at the high-density level. Refer back to Table 2-1, Public Facilities and
Utilities Fees to see the fees required by the City.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area Amendment Plan for Services
EMC Planning Group Inc. 10-3
CONCLUSION
Upon annexation of the project site to the City, consistent with the conceptual development
plans, the project site would result in an increase in service demand with the growth in
population. Future development of the site would also result in the increase in property tax
revenues, some of which are allocated to the Santa Clara County Public Library District.
The City will be required to provide support for the library services in the form of
development impact fees paid by the project developers and perhaps other funding
mechanisms to provide additional capital facilities, on-going operations, and maintenance.
All development impact fees applicable at the time of issuance of a building permit are also
required by the project developers.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
10.0 Libraries
10-4 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc. 11-1
11.0
Roads
INFORMATION SOURCES
This section includes information from the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Wren Investors and
Hewell Urban Service Area Amendment, Gilroy, California, prepared by Hexagon Transportation
Consultants dated December 14, 2017.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed project is generally located south of Vickery Lane between Kern Avenue and
Wren Avenue, and north of the existing residential units located north of Mantelli Drive.
US 101 is a six-lane freeway north of the Monterey Road interchange and transitions to a
four-lane freeway south of that point. US 101 extends northward through San Jose and
southward into Salinas. This freeway serves as the primary roadway connection between
Gilroy and Morgan Hill and other Santa Clara County communities to the north and
between Gilroy and Salinas to the south. Access to the project site to and from US 101 is
provided via full-access interchanges at Masten Avenue and Leavesley Road.
Monterey Road is a four-lane north-south roadway in the vicinity of the project site. It
begins at its interchange with US 101 in the southern part of Gilroy and extends northward
to San Jose. Monterey Road currently provides access to the project site via Farrell Avenue
and Cohansey Avenue.
Church Street is a two-lane north-south roadway that begins in the southern part of Gilroy
at Luchessa Avenue and extends northward just beyond Farrell Avenue where it currently
terminates at Sturia Way.
Wren Avenue is a two- to four-lane, north-south roadway that begins in the southern part of
Gilroy at Uvas Park Drive and extends northward to north of Cohansey Avenue, where it
currently terminates. Wren Avenue provides direct access to the project site.
Kern Avenue is a two-lane, north-south roadway. It begins at its intersection with First
Street/Hecker Pass Highway (SR 152) and extends northward to north of Vickery Avenue
where it currently terminates. Kern Avenue would provide direct access to the project site.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
11.0 Roads
11-2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Masten Avenue/Fitzgerald Avenue is a two-lane, east-west roadway that begins at Center
Avenue as Masten Avenue and extends westward to Monterey Street where it changes
designation to Fitzgerald Avenue and continues to Santa Teresa Boulevard. Masten Avenue
provides direct access to US 101 via a full interchange.
Cohansey Avenue is a two-lane, east-west undivided roadway that extends from Monterey
Road eastward terminating west of US 101. East of US 101, Cohansey Avenue continues
eastward from No Name Uno for approximately 2,000 feet, providing access to residences
and undeveloped parcels. Cohansey Avenue extends westward from Monterey Road to the
Hewell property. Additionally, with the development of the proposed project, Cohansey
Avenue would be extended through the Hewell Property site to Kern Avenue, providing
direct access to the project site. The Cohansey Avenue extension would provide an
alternative access route to the project site and surrounding land uses (both existing and
future) to/from the north.
Vickery Avenue is a two-lane, east-west roadway that extends from Kern Avenue to east of
Wren Avenue. Vickery Avenue would provide direct access to the project site.
Farrell Avenue is a two-lane east-west roadway that extends between Wren Avenue and
Monterey Road. Farrell Avenue currently provides the main access route to the project site
and surrounding land uses to/from the north. Farrell Avenue is proposed to be extended into
the Wren Investors site and provide direct access to the northern portion of the site.
Mantelli Drive is an east-west roadway that begins east of Church Street and extends
westward into the west foothills of Gilroy. Mantelli Drive is a four-lane facility between
Church Street and Santa Teresa Boulevard.
Welburn Avenue/Leavesley Road is a two-lane east-west roadway that begins at Monterey
Road as a transition from Leavesley Road and extends westward beyond Santa Teresa
Boulevard, where it terminates at Mantelli Drive. Leavesley Road provides direct access to
US 101 via a full interchange.
INFRASTRUCTURE EXPANSION
New streets, additional lanes on existing streets, and new signal lights would be necessary to
accommodate the new traffic that would be generated by development on the site. The
project proposes approximately 12.9 acres of new roads. Farrell Avenue would be extended
westward into the project site, providing direct access to the northern portion of the Wren
Investors site and forming a four-legged intersection with Wren Avenue. Two additional
access points would provide access to the northern portion of the Wren Investors site, one
along Wren Avenue, north of Farrell Avenue, and one along Vickery Avenue. St. Clair
Avenue would be extended eastward into the project site, forming a four-legged intersection
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area Amendment Plan for Services
EMC Planning Group Inc. 11-3
at Kern Avenue, and connecting to Ronan Avenue, just west of Wren Avenue. This new
roadway extension, in addition to Tatum Avenue, would provide direct access to the
southern portion of the project site and as well as an alternate connection between Wren and
Kern Avenues. The following intersections will need to be signalized: Monterey Road and
Day Road, Wren Avenue and Welburn Avenue, Monterey Road and Buena Vista Avenue,
and US 101 Southbound Ramps and Masten Avenue. Additionally, a second westbound turn
lane will be added at Monterey Road and Masten Avenue/Fitzgerald Avenue. These
improvements are planned for in the City’s Traffic Circulation Master Plan (TCMP) and are
included in the City’s Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program. Thus, the developer will be required
to pay the applicable TIF fee as a fair-share contribution toward improvements at these
intersections. Various bicycle facilities exist in the vicinity of the project site (existing bike
lanes are available along segments of Cohansey Avenue, Wren Avenue, Farrell Avenue,
Church Street, Welburn Avenue, and Mantelli Drive). In addition, the Bicycle Transportation
Plan contained in the City of Gilroy General Plan, the City of Gilroy Bicycle/Pedestrian
Transportation Plan, and the City of Gilroy Trails Master Plan indicate that a variety of
bicycle facilities are planned in the study area, some of which would benefit the project. .
Bicycle paths are planned for the Llagas Creek Corridor and the remainder of the Lions
Creek Corridor.
Bike lanes are planned for Monterey Road and for Cohansey Avenue and Wren Avenue,
north of Mantelli Drive. Bicycle routes also are planned for Wren Avenue between Mantelli
Drive and Lawrence Drive and on Welburn Avenue between Wren Avenue and Monterey
Road.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
11.0 Roads
11-4 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc. 12-1
12.0
School Facilities
INFORMATION SOURCE
In addition to the primary sources listed in Section 1.0 Introduction, the following source
was used for this section:
Gilroy Unified School District Developer Fee Justification Study, Gilroy Unified
School District 2014.
Gilroy Unified School District website: https://www.gilroyunified.org/
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is located within service boundaries of the Gilroy Unified School District
(school district). The school district provides service to over 11,000 students in the Gilroy
area. There are currently eight elementary schools, three middle schools, and four high
schools including a continuation school and one early college academy school in the District.
The school district also provides early childhood/pre-school services. The schools nearest the
project site are Antonio Del Buono Elementary School, located directly across Wren Avenue
from the project site, Christopher High School, located directly across Santa Teresa
Boulevard from the project site, Brownell Middle School, located at 7800 Carmel Street, south
of First Street, and Rucker Elementary School, to the east of Monterey Road. In September
2019, the school district announced the closure of Antonio Del Buono Elementary School due
to declining enrollment. The elementary school is set to close in the summer of 2020 (Gilroy
Unified School District 2019). The main school district office is located in the City at 7810
Arroyo Circle (Gilroy Unified School District 2017).
The general plan contains several policies regarding schools. General plan policy 17.03 states
that the verifications of the remaining capacities in local schools shall be part of the review
process for residential subdivisions, with adequate school capacity being a condition for
development approval. When capacity is limited, development approvals shall be
coordinated with the scheduling of capital funds for school expansion and/or improvements.
General plan policy 17.04 requires developers of new residential subdivisions to dedicate
land and/or pay a fee to offset the costs of providing new elementary and secondary schools
resulting from their developments. Policy 17.06 states that in areas of new residential
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
12.0 School Facilities
12-2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
development, as a condition of development approval, sites shall be identified and
dedicated. Action 17.B of the general plan states that school facility impacts shall be included
in the review of development proposals to ensure that adequate school facility capacity is a
condition for development approval. Action 17.C states the representatives of the GUSD be
included in discussions regarding the implementation of the new Neighborhood Districts to
ensure that new school facilities are successfully integrated as a visual and functional focal
point in new neighborhoods.
CAPACITY
Estimated Demand
Table 12-1, Estimated Student Generation, presents the anticipated number of students
generated by the proposed project.
Table 12-1 Estimated Student Generation
Housing Type
(Units)
K-5 students (SF
0.20/MF 0.14)
6-8 students (SF
0.07/MF 0.06)
9-12 students (SF
0.09/MF 0.10)
Total Students
Generated
Single-Family (185) 37 13 17 67
Multi-Family (122) 17 7 12 36
TOTAL 54 20 29 103
SOURCE: Alvaro Meza, Gilroy Unified School District, email message August 27, 2019
NOTE: Amounts may vary due to rounding.
Development of the site based on these student generation factors would be as follows: the
single-family residences would result in 67 K-12 students and multi-family residences would
result in 36 K-12 students.
FINANCING
Senate Bill 50 (1998) established standard fees for mitigation of schools impacts. The payment
of the development fees authorized by Education Code section 17620 is full and complete
mitigation of the impacts on the provision of adequate school facilities resulting from any
legislative or adjudicative act. California Education Code section 17620 et seq. authorizes the
collection of developer fees; California Government Code section 65995 et seq. establishes the
types of fees and rates; California Government Code section 66000 sets the process for
justifying fees and appealing or challenging fees.
The school district collects Level I fees in accordance with the legislatively set fees and the
school district’s fee justification study (Gilroy Unified School District 2018). The State
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area Amendment Plan for Services
EMC Planning Group Inc. 12-3
Allocation Board determines the amount of maximum statutory school fees. The justification
report justifies residential fees per square foot which are higher than the state in order to
fund the cost of providing school facilities to students from new residential development.
The fees are $3.36 per square foot for single-family residential units and multi-family
residential units. Fees are assessed when building permit are approved.
CONCLUSION
Future development of the site consistent with existing general plan land use designations
would increase the number of students within the District and as such, developers of the
project site would be responsible for the payment of facility impact fees to accommodate the
increased number of students.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
12.0 School Facilities
12-4 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc. 13-1
13.0
Hospitals
INFORMATION SOURCES
In addition to the primary sources listed in Section 1.0 Introduction, the following source
was used for this section:
“The Effects of the Proposed Changed in Governance and Control of Ownership &
Operation of the Daughters of Charity Healthcare System to Prime Healthcare
Services Inc.”, prepared for the Attorney General, analyzes financial, utilization, and
service information of the St. Louise Regional Hospital.
St. Louise Regional Hospital website.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Gilroy is served by the Saint Louise Regional Hospital which has been purchased by the
County of Santa Clara in March 2019. Located at 9400 No Name Uno, the hospital opened in
1989 in Morgan Hill and relocated to Gilroy in 1999. The hospital is currently a 93 bed acute
care hospital and 24-hour emergency care department offering a wide range of services to
residents in both Santa Clara and San Benito counties. The hospital has eight licensed
emergency treatment stations and five surgical operating rooms for inpatient and outpatient
surgical procedures. The hospital has 93 licensed beds and 247 attending physicians. The
current average occupancy rate of the hospital is approximately 33 percent. In 2018, the
hospital had 3,021 inpatient admissions with 10,948 inpatient days and performed 2,294
surgeries. (St. Louise Regional Hospital website 2019).
CAPACITY
Future development of the site would result in an increased demand on services at the
hospital. However, due to the low average occupancy rate of 33 percent, the hospital
currently has excess capacity to sufficiently accommodate the increased demand created by a
population increase of 10,000. The increased demand is not expected to exceed capacity rates
such that expansion of its facilities would be required.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
13.0 Hospitals
13-2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
CONCLUSION
Future development of the site, consistent with existing general plan land use designations
would increase the demand for acute care and emergency services; however, this increase
can be accommodated by the existing capacity of the hospital.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc. 14-1
14.0
Park and Recreation Facilities
INFORMATION SOURCES
In addition to the primary sources listed in Section 1.0 Introduction, the following source
was used for this section:
The City of Gilroy Parks and Recreation System Master Plan (park master plan) was
developed by the City concurrently with the general plan update in 2002 and the
two documents are consistent. In 2004, the park master plan was updated to be
consistent with new general plan build out projections, new park standards,
updated facilities inventories, updated implementation plans for infrastructure and
programs, and new recommendations. The park master plan timeframe extends
through general plan build out (Bellinger Foster Steinmetz Landscape Architecture
2004).
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City requires that for every thousand in population, there shall be five acres of
developed open parkland. This includes mini-parks, neighborhood/school parks, community
and community/school parks, sports parks, trails/linear parkways, and special use facilities.
Golf courses, non-accessible open spaces, and private recreational facilities are not included
in this standard. Policy 16.06 of the City’s general plan states that park facilities shall be
offered within walking distance of all residents. “Walking distance” is defined as the
distance of half of a mile (City of Gilroy 2002).
The project site is within the “walking distance” and geographical service area standard of
one half of a mile to a park, as reflected in the parks master plan (Bellinger Foster Steinmetz
Landscape Architecture 2004, p. 33). The nearest parks to the project site are Las Animas
Community Park located less than one quarter of a mile to the southeast. The primary
purpose of a community park is to provide a recreational area that meets the needs of the
community-at-large and usually includes special facilities such as lit sports fields,
amphitheaters, and gymnasiums that serve the entire community. Restrooms, off-street
parking, night lighting of facilities and other active recreation facilities are typical
community park elements (City of Gilroy 2002, page 7-24).
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
14.0 Park and Recreation Facilities
14-2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
DEMAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Future development of the site consistent with existing general plan land use designations
could result in approximately 1,000 new residents in the City, which according to City
standards, would require approximately five acres of parkland.
The park master plan proposes capital improvements to meet the City’s parks service area
and acreage standards. Planned infrastructure improvements include, but are not limited to,
renovations and improvements at existing parks, completion of the Gilroy Sports Park,
design and completion of underdeveloped park sites, and identification, design and
acquisition of new public parklands to meet the City’s demand for parks.
FINANCING
Future development of the site would increase the City’s tax base and General Fund
revenues, which the City may use at its discretion to provide financing for additional
programs and staffing. The parks master plan includes a capital improvement plan that
assists the City in planning and financing the proposed capital improvements. The capital
improvement plan includes a capital improvement budget that outlines existing and
alternative funding sources. New and/or upgraded equipment and facilities brought about
by an increase in demand from new development would be paid for by a public facilities
impact fee. Land dedication can be used as a partial alternative to, or in combination with,
impact fees for the acquisition and development of recreation facilities. Refer back to Table 2-
1, Public Facilities and Utilities Fees to see the fees required by the City.
CONCLUSION
Future development of the site consistent with existing general plan land use designations
would increase the service demand but also would expand the tax base and correspondingly,
available funding opportunities for increased programming and staffing levels. Future
development would also be responsible for the payment of a proportionate share of impact
fees for new facilities and equipment. The proposed project would not require a level of
service beyond that identified in the general plan and park master plan.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc. 15-1
15.0
Community Facilities District
INFORMATION SOURCES
In addition to the primary sources listed in Section 1.0 Introduction, the following sources
were used for this section:
NBS. Special Financing Districts: An Introduction to Special Assessments and Special
Taxes. July 2015.
NBS. Community Facilities Districts: A Robust Funding and Financing Tool for Local
Governments in California. 2018.
OVERVIEW OF CFDS
Community Facilities Districts (CFD), sometimes known as “Mello-Roos Districts” (State
Senators Henry Mello and Assemblyman Mike Roos were the original authors of the
legislation – see California Government Code, Section 53311 et seq., entitled “Mello-Roos
Community Facilities Act of 1982”), can fund certain large infrastructure capital projects as
well as public services on an annual basis.
Capital projects with a useful life of at least five years that may be funded with a CFD
include:
Park, recreation, and open space facilities;
School facilities;
Libraries;
Child care facilities; and
Infrastructure needs including streets, water systems, library facilities,
purchasing of open space, and economic development investments including
parking garages.
The services that may be funded include:
Police protection;
Fire protection and suppression, and ambulance and paramedic services;
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
15.0 Community Facilities District
15-2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
Recreation program services, library services, and maintenance services for
elementary and secondary school sites and structures, and the operation and
maintenance of museums and cultural facilities;
Maintenance and lighting of parks, parkways, streets, roads and open space;
Flood and storm protection services;
Services with respect to removal or remedial action for the cleanup of any
hazardous substance; and
Maintenance and operation of any real property or other tangible property with
an estimated useful life of five or more years that is owned by the local agency or
by another local agency.
Any public agency with the authority to provide the types of services and facilities may form
a CFD. Cities, counties, school districts, and special districts are common users of this tool. A
formation process is required, including appropriate financial analysis and planning. A
Special Tax Consultant will develop a Special Tax Formula and Report. There will be public
hearings and either a mailed ballot process to property owners or a regular election if there
are 12 or more voters in the proposed district.
The City of Gilroy has adopted a citywide Community Facilities District to fund landscape
maintenance, primarily for streetscapes and drainage basins. The Community Facilities
District has four zones, to account for differences in maintenance costs for different
neighborhoods in the City.
FORMATION AND FINANCING OF CFD
The proposed project will be required by the City to form a CFD as a means to finance all
applicable services (noted above). Future developers would be responsible for paying a
proportionate share of impact fees for the necessary off-site infrastructure improvements and
would be responsible for financing on-site improvements. Future development of the site
would also expand the City’s tax base and correspondingly, increase available opportunities
to provide funding for additional staffing if required. However, the expanded tax base
created by the proposed project is not anticipated to generate adequate funds to cover the
costs of necessary services.
Through CFDs, the City is permitted to impose “special taxes” to fund maintenance of
facilities. Establishment of the CFD may be done by the owners of a majority of the property
within the proposed CFD, while the approval of special taxes requires a two-thirds vote.
Because of the two-thirds vote requirement for funding, these districts are typically formed
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area Amendment Plan for Services
EMC Planning Group Inc. 15-3
by developers in coordination with the city or county prior to development of the
subdivisions. Once established, a CFD is made irrevocable through a lien on the property.
The general timeline for the successful implementation of a new CFD is six to 12 months, but
often the process can take more than a year. Bringing all the interested parties into accord
can take a very long time, and this part of the process must be taken into consideration. A
well-managed and orderly process involves various meetings, forms of analysis, and
consensus building.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
15.0 Community Facilities District
15-4 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
EMC Planning Group Inc. 16-1
16.0
Sources
PERSONS CONTACTED
Anderson, Alan, Fire Chief, City of Gilroy Fire Department. Email message to consultant,
14 and 16 November 2017.
Boles, David, Crime Analysis, Records, and Property & Evidence Manager, Gilroy Police
Department. Email message to consultant, 8 October 2019.
Deras, Joseph, Captain, Gilroy Police Department. Email message to consultant,
28 November 2017 and December 4, 2017.
Gittleson, David. City of Morgan Hill Associate Engineer. Telephone interview with
consultant, 4 January 2018.Meza, Alvaro, Assistant Superintendent, Gilroy Unified
School District. Email message to consultant, 27 August 2019.
Wu, Pamela, City of Gilroy Senior Planner. Email message to consultant, 10 May 2018.
Yoshimura, Lani, Gilroy Community Librarian, City of Gilroy. Telephone interview with
consultant, 17 November 2017; e-mail correspondence with consultant,
27 September 2019.
DOCUMENTS REFERENCED
Applied Development Economics, Inc. Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Wren Investors-Hewell
Urban Service Amendment to the City of Gilroy and the County of Santa Clara.
DATE.
AKEL Engineering Group, Inc. City of Gilroy 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.
June 2011. http://www.cityofgilroy.org/cityofgilroy_files/city_hall/community_
development/engineering/water_management_plan/2010UWMP_Gilroy_Final_HC_
061511.pdf. June 2011.
AKEL Engineering Group, Inc., North Central Gilroy Urban Service Area Amendment Water
Supply Assessment. November 2015.
AKEL Engineering Group, Inc. City of Gilroy 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
May 2016. http://www.ci.gilroy.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/5908, (2016 a)
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
16.0 Sources
16-2 EMC Planning Group Inc.
AKEL Engineering Group, Inc. 2015 South County Recycled Water Plan Master Plan Update.
May 2016. http://www.ci.gilroy.ca.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/6127 (2016 b)
American Fact Finder. 2016. “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to
July 1, 2016.”
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF.
Bellinger Foster Steinmetz Landscape Architecture. September 2004. City of Gilroy Parks and
Recreation System Master Plan. Monterey, CA.
Bellinger Foster Steinmetz. City of Gilroy Parks and Recreation System Master Plan
(PRSMP). June 13, 2002, updated September 2004.
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/cityofgilroy_files/city_hall/community_development/
engineering/master_plans/pr_master_plan.pdf
Bellinger Foster Steinmetz. City of Gilroy Trails Master Plan. 2005.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Jurisdiction
Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary Webpage.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DataTools/Reports/DivDispRtSum.htm.
Accessed November 30, 2017.
California Department of Water Resources. The CASEGM Groundwater Basin Prioritization
Results Groundwater Reliance Sorted by Basin Name. 2014.
California Department of Water Resources. Central Coast Hydrologic Region; Gilroy-
Hollister Groundwater Basin, California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 Interim
Update 2016 Data, December 2016.
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bbat/reports/BasinBoundaryDescription/BasinBoundary
Description__3_003_01.pdfCalifornia Legislative Information. 2010. Public Resources
Code, Section 4291; Accessed November 15, 2017.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&
sectionNum=4291.
California State Assembly. Guide to the Cortese-Knox-Hertberg Local Government
Reorganization Act of 2000. December 2016.
California State Water Resources Control Board. Urban Water Supplier Conservation Tiers.
2015.
Carollo Engineers. City of Gilroy Storm Drainage System Master Plan. May 2004 (a).
Carollo Engineers. City of Gilroy Sewer System Master Plan. May 2004 (b).
Carollo Engineers. City of Gilroy Water System Master Plan. May 2004 (c).
Carollo Engineers. South County Recycled Water Master Plan. October 2004 (d).
City of Gilroy (City).
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area Amendment Plan for Services
EMC Planning Group Inc. 16-3
―――.City of Gilroy Municipal Code. November 20, 2017.
http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/gilroy/
―――. September 2001. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Gilroy revised Draft
General Plan. Gilroy, CA.
―――. 2002. “2020 General Plan.” http://www.cityofgilroy.org/274/2020-General-Plan
―――. October 2004. Update of the Fire Services Master Plan of August 2000 for the City of Gilroy
Fire Department Final Report – Volume 1, The Master Plan Update Report October 2004.
Gilroy, CA.
―――. City of Gilroy Annual Water Quality Report 2016. 2016a.
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/574
―――. April 2016b. Gilroy Police Department Strategic Plan Update 2016-2019. Gilroy, CA.
―――. July 2017. Gilroy Police Department Policy Manual. Gilroy, CA.
―――. “Fire Stations.” Accessed on November 14, 2017a.
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/754/Fire-Stations.
―――. “Fire Department.” Accessed on November 16, 2017b.
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/165/Fire-Department.
___. 2014 City of Gilroy Guidelines. 2014 (e).
City of Gilroy Community Development Department Engineering Division Fees to
Build. As revised July 1, 2014.
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1310
___. Gilroy General Plan. June 13, 2002a.
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/cityofgilroy/city_hall/community_development/
planning/general_plan/
___. City of Gilroy General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. June 13, 2002b.
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/cityofgilroy_files/city_hall/community_development/
Gilroy Unified School District (GUSD).
___. GUSD website. http://www.gusd.k12.ca.us/. Accessed September 24, 2019.
___. Gilroy Unified School District Developer Fee Justification Study. Prepared by
Spectrum Management Solutions. 2014. http://gusd-ca.schoolloop.com/file/
1216320361781/1389424725424/7824640379605770695.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2018.
City of Morgan Hill. For our San Martin Neighbors. https://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov
/1608/San-Martin-Neighbors-Information. Accessed November 28, 2017.
City of Morgan Hill. Capital Improvement Program FY 2016-17 and 2017-18. (2016)
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
16.0 Sources
16-4 EMC Planning Group Inc.
County of Santa Clara. “Enforcement Operations.” Published on August 9, 2017.
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/sheriff/Pages/eo.aspx
CrimeReports. 2019. Gilroy, California, United States; Accessed October 3, 2019.
https://www.crimereports.com/home/#!/dashboard?incident_types=Assault%252CAs
sault%2520with%2520Deadly%2520Weapon%252CBreaking%2520%2526%2520Enteri
ng%252CDisorder%252CDrugs%252CHomicide%252CKidnapping%252CLiquor%25
2COther%2520Sexual%2520Offense%252CProperty%2520Crime%252CProperty%252
0Crime%2520Commercial%252CProperty%2520Crime%2520Residential%252CQualit
y%2520of%2520Life%252CRobbery%252CSexual%2520Assault%252CSexual%2520Of
fense%252CTheft%252CTheft%2520from%2520Vehicle%252CTheft%2520of%2520Veh
icle&start_date=2017-05-13&end_date=2017-11-13&days=sunday%252Cmonday%252
Ctuesday%252Cwednesday%252Cthursday%252Cfriday%252Csaturday&start_time=
0&end_time=23&include_sex_offenders=false&lat=37.02702469999416&lng=-121.
58930629491805&zoom=19¤t_tab=list&shapeIds=&shape_id=false&position_id
=6xdn-ybp4-row-gdrp__89ag-i3rc.
EMC Planning Group. North Gilroy Neighborhood District Urban Service Area Amendment
Draft Environmental Impact Report. 2015.
Fire Chiefs Online. “Response-Time Considerations.” Accessed November 14, 2017.
https://firechief.iso.com/FCWWeb/mitigation/ppc/3000/ppc3015.jsp
Horizon Water and Environment. Santa Clara County Stream Maintenance Program Update
2012-2022 Final Subsequent Impact Report. December 2011.
Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County (LAFCO). December 2015. Cities Service Review Final Report. San Jose, CA.
Management Partners. Cities Service Review Final Report. October 2015.
Mintier Harnish. City of Gilroy 2040 General Plan Background Report Public Review Draft.
April 2014.
NBS. Special Financing Districts: An Introduction to Special Assessments and Special Taxes.
July 2015.
NBS. Community Facilities Districts: A Robust Funding and Financing Tool for Local
Governments in California. 2018.
Recology South Valley. http://www.recologysouthvalley.com. Accessed November 21, 2017.
Ruggeri Jensen Azar. North Gilroy Neighborhood Districts Urban Service Area Modification
Narrative (2015A).
Ruggeri Jensen Azar. Preliminary Engineers Report for North Gilroy Neighborhood Districts
(2015b).
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Wren Investors and Hewell Urban Service Area Amendment Plan for Services
EMC Planning Group Inc. 16-5
Santa Clara County Library District. “Library Measure A Special Tax Passes.” Published on
August 28, 2013. https://www.sccl.org/About/Library-News/Press-Releases/Library-
Measure-A-Special-Tax-Passes
―――. “Santa Clara County Library District 1914-2014.” Accessed on November 15, 2017a.
https://www.sccl.org/Events/100-Year-Anniversary/Timeline#2004
―――. “Library History.” Accessed on November 15, 2017b.
https://www.sccl.org/Locations/Gilroy/About-Us/Library-History
―――. “Mobile App.” Accessed November 17, 2017c. https://www.sccl.org/Services/Mobile-
App.
Santa Clara Valley Water District. Annual Groundwater Report for Calendar Year 2016.
http://www.valleywater.org/services/WaterQualityReports.aspx.
Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2016 Groundwater Management Plan. November 2016.
Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan.
October 2012.
Santa Clara Valley Water District. Personal Communication with Yvonne Arroyo, Associate
Engineer. October 3, 2019.
South Santa Clara County Fire District. “2016 Annual Report.” Accessed on
November 14, 2017. http://www.ssccfd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/2016-
SSCCFD-Annual-Report-FINAL.pdf.
St. Louise Regional Hospital website. Accessed on October 3, 2019.
https://slrh.sccgov.org/About-Us/Pages/Quick-Facts.aspx
REPORT PREPARERS
EMC Planning Group
Teri Wissler Adam, Senior Principal
Principal-in-charge
Richard James, AICP, MUP, Principal
Editing
Stuart Poulter, AICP, MCRP, Associate Planner
Project Manager
Rachel Hawkins, JD, Associate Planner
Report Preparation
Shoshana Wangerin, Assistant Planner
Report Preparation
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
16.0 Sources
16-6 EMC Planning Group Inc.
This side intentionally left blank.
5.A.f
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Wren Hewell_Plan for Services (2437 : USA 12-01 (#12070023) and USA 14-02 (#14070058))
Greg Larson
INTERIM DIRECTOR
Community Development
Department
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-61197
Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax (408) 846-0429
http://www.cityofgilroy.org
DATE: October 17, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Christina Ruiz, Management Assistant
SUBJECT: 2020 Schedule of Regular and Special Planning Commission
Meetings
Request:
Approval of the 2020 Schedule of Regular and Special Planning Commission Meetings.
Recommendation:
Consider and recommend that the Planning Commission approve the 2020 Regular and
Special Commission Meeting Schedule.
Background:
City Charter Section 904 requires each board or commission shall hold regular
meetings at least once a month and such special meetings as such board or
commission may require.
The Planning Commission meets regularly on the first Thursday of each month, at 6:30
p.m. If a holiday shall fall on the regular meeting date (or the next day), the meeting will
be rescheduled to the following Thursday. Special meetings are scheduled on the third
Thursday of the month.
Included is a proposed calendar of 2020 regular and special Planning Commission
meetings following these guidelines.
Attachments:
1. 2020 PC Meeting Schedule
6.A
Packet Pg. 150
PLANNING COMMISSION
2020 MEETING SCHEDULE
6:30 p.m. – Every 1ST Thursday
Gilroy City Council Chambers
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy CA, 95020
January 2 & 16*
February 6 & 20*
March 12** & 19*
**Substitutes the 1st regular meeting of the month
April 2 & 16*
May 7 & 21*
June 4 & 18*
July 9** & 16*
**Substitutes the 1st regular meeting of the month
August 6 & 20*
September 3 & 17*
October 1 & 15*
November 5 & 19*
December 3 & 17*
* Second date reserved for special meetings
6.A.a
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: 2020 PC Meeting Schedule (2444 : 2020 Schedule of Regular and Special Planning Commission Meetings)