Planning Commission - Special Meeting

All right. Good afternoon, everybody. I want to welcome you all to the January 16 special meeting of the Planning Commission. I'd like to start off with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand.

Ariana, can I get a report on posting the agenda and roll call, please?

The agenda was posted on Thursday, 01/09/2025 at 6PM. Roll call. Commissioner Elley? Present. Commissioner Lewis? Here. Commissioner Lee Commissioner Lingard? Here. Commissioner Valdez? Here. Vice chair Kushner? Here. And chair Bondle?

Here.

And as a reminder to please turn on your mic when speaking. Thank you.

All right. On to, Item four, public comment. Arianna, do we have any public comments or items not on the agenda?

There are no speakers.

All right. I'm going to close public comment. Consent agenda. 12/05/2024 Planning Commission meetings. Commissioners, any questions, comments, concerns?

I move that they be, approved as written.

I second.

There's a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Elli? Yes. Commissioner Liengaard?

Yes.

Commissioner Lewis? Here. Oh, yes.

I'm not here.

Yes. Commissioner Valdez? Yes. Vice Chair Kushner? Yes. Chair Bondle?

Yes. Thank you. That was unanimous. On to Public Hearing 6.1, staff's request of continuance of public hearing for two tentative map applications to subdivide approximately 6.7 acres onto 42 single family duet residential lots, application TM24-two and approximately 41.36 acres and two eighty four single residential lots, application TM24-three in the Glen Loma Ranch Pacific Plan. Hi, Cindy.

Presentation tonight and I do have a script. So bear with me.

Sorry. Cindy, this is the Glen Loma.

We need a motion to continue.

Got

it. Well, it says that she has

a staff report under Sharon Goeti.

Okay. Yeah. Any questions?

Commissioners, any questions, comments, concerns?

No. No.

I'll make the motion. Have we continue TM24-two and TM24. It's just a continuance.

Well, is there anyone here that wants to comment on the Glen Loma Ranch tentative map? It's being continued.

I do have one public comment. Kelly Dand? Okay.

Is this Did

you say Kelly? Yeah. I'm going Kelly, this is regarding the Glen Lomar Ranch specific plan. Mhmm. Okay. Great. You've got three minutes.

Okay. Can I have you come over to this podium, please?

Do we have a map?

No. You guys we don't have any staff report because staff has said it was gonna be continued. So it's going to be continued to a date uncertain, but it will be renoticed. So you'll be able to come back later and talk about it too.

My comments were just on the map and the the number of units and the updated version of it. So I don't know if my public comments should be today or at the next meeting. You can do both.

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. But we don't have the map, so just make your comments. We don't we don't have anything because it's being continued because staff's still working on it.

That's fine. The last time I was here was probably 2024, and it was just talks of, I think, 1,100 units. And at the time, there was only one entrance, one exit. So I think that was my only concern is that the increase of traffic and the environment and the fires, the fire station. So don't know if you guys have updated that since. So have you guys updated that?

At this time, we're just taking public comment. Nobody's gonna respond back to you, unfortunately Okay. Because it is getting continued.

I guess my only concern is just the increase of traffic. I've been a resident of Gilroy for, like, fifteen years, attended both Christopher and Gilroy High School. So I kind of feel strongly about this and the way the decision is going because I just, I don't know, I feel, like, passionate about this recently, and I don't know why, but I just kinda feel like, you know, we want Gilbert to be a community. We want more third spaces. We don't want all those units that have no park, nowhere to go. And so I think those are just my concern right now. So still kind of weighing out what the best option is and where I want to, like, you know, speak on this, but those are just my general concerns. So seems like you guys are still in process.

And there's still working out conditions. You'll get another chance. Another bite at the apple.

Thank you. Ariana, any others?

Are no further speakers.

Great. I'm going go ahead and close public hearing. All right. The floor is now open for a motion.

Yeah, if you look at

the staff report recommendation, that's the motion you can make.

All right. I'm going to make the motion that we take staff's recommendation and continue the public hearing to a date uncertain for the two tentative map applications to subdivide approximately 6.7 acres onto 42 single family duet residential lots, TM24-two, and approximately 41.36 acres into 84 single residential lots, application TM24-three in the Glen Loma Ranch specific plan area. I'll second. There's a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Elley? Yes. Commissioner Commissioner Landgard? Yes. Commissioner Lewis?

Yes.

Commissioner Valdez? Yes. Vice Chair Kushner?

Yes. Chair Bandel?

Yes. Thank you. That was unanimous. 6.2, zoning map amendment application to re zone an undeveloped property APN number eight ten-twenty three-five to residential hillside consistent with the 2040 general plan hillside residential land use designation Z22-three and a tentative map application to subdivide approximately 37.54 acres into 54 single family residential lots. Application TM22-two. And we have Cindy with staff report.

Thank you. As the Chair mentioned, the project before you proposes a zoning map amendment in conformance with the City Of Gilroy adopted 2040 General Plan and a tentative map for 54 single family residential lots and a separate lot for a clubhouse. The allowed density is four units per net acre. The proposed density is approximately 3.18 units per net acre after deducting public right of way, private streets and open space in the property. Approximately 47% or 17.72 acres of the property will be preserved as open space, natural vegetation, creek and riparian habitat area.

The project would be developed in two phases. Phase one would include 40 residents on the eastern half of the site with lots ranging from approximately 6,600 to 12,070 square feet. Phase two would include 11 residents on the Northwestern side and three residents on the Southwestern side with lots ranging from approximately 8,900 to 61,050 square feet. Primary vehicle access to the project site would be provided via four new streets off Miller Avenue as described in the staff report and illustrated on the tentative map. The project would construct new domestic water, storm drain and sanitary sewer connections for each residence.

The existing overhead electric lines on the site would be undergrounded. The project also includes new sidewalks constructed along Miller Avenue and streetlights at each of the new intersections with Miller Avenue. The application before you is for mapping purposes only. The applicant will be required to submit architectural plans for review and approval. A conditional use permit or planned development permit will be needed for the private clubhouse.

The tentative map is shown here, was included in your packet and the applicant will be providing more information on this. The applicant will also go over a conceptual landscape plan with you. This property has been planned for residential uses and explicitly discussed in public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council in 2015 and 02/2016. In 2020, the city adopted a new general plan and a hillside residential land use designation for the property. This site is located in the city's urban surface area and urban growth boundary.

The general plan explicitly states that at the a one agricultural district properties will be developed with urban uses in the future. This property is not designated as prime or statewide important farmland. The project is subject to the Housing Accountability Act. And if you have questions about that, the city attorney can provide more information. Staff is recommending approval of the project because the project will comply with city code.

The property is not subject to severe flood hazard or severe inundation and the negative findings in support of the project can be made. As described in the general plan consistency analysis, the proposed tentative map is consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the general plan. Physical suitability for the type of development proposed was analyzed in the initial study for the project. The adopted general plan and EIR anticipated a hillside residential development on the property with a density up to four units per acre and the proposed development has a density of approximately 3.18 units per acre. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or cause serious public health problems.

The proposed tentative map includes appropriate conditions of approval and mitigation measures in conformance with the initial study and the mitigated negative declaration for the project. Pursuant to the conditions of approval for the project, all new relocated alternate or abandoned easements shall be reviewed and approved by the Gilroy Engineering Division or the appropriate governmental agency. The site is subject to the Santa Clara Valley habitat plan. Site surveys were performed and an existing conditions and biological constraints report was prepared. The initial study includes the survey findings and an extensive analysis of the project's compliance with the habitat plan.

The tentative map includes riparian easements to prohibit encroachment into the riparian setback areas within the individual lots. If an exception to any required unmitigated encroachment is not granted under the habitat plan, the project shall modify the project design to comply with the habitat plan. The biologist will prepare all documentation and fee worksheets associated with habitat plan compliance. The habitat plan meets federal and state requirements for protecting endangered species. The habitat plan streamlines the permit process by pre identifying mitigation measures and creating a process to meet mitigation obligations.

The habitat plan has regional benefits by facilitating a coordinated, comprehensive approach to land conservation, ensuring that habitats are connected, monitored and maintained for maximum benefit to at risk species. The city prepared an initial study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The findings from the initial study were used to develop the mitigated negative declaration and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project. The MND is appropriate because the proposed land use, density and on-site development is consistent with the general plan and project specific environmental impacts can be avoided or reduced as mitigated. The MMRP lists required mitigation measures and the means to ensure compliance.

The biological resource mitigations are spelled out in the MMRP and include burrowing owl surveys, buffer zones and monitoring. Direct permanent impacts within the 35 foot riparian setback shall be mitigated on-site at a minimum two:one ratio with three years of monitoring and additional enhancement if needed to maintain the two:one ratio. The cultural resources mitigations include a workforce, environmental awareness program and monitoring by an archaeologist. A summary report is also required. The greenhouse gas emissions mitigation requires preparation of a greenhouse gas reduction plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below the required VMT threshold.

The reduction of Project GHG emissions through the retirement of carbon off-site credit satisfies the mitigation until the city adopts its own climate action plan and VMT reduction plan. The hazards and hazardous materials mitigation requires preparation of a risk management plan and a health and safety plan. The transportation mitigation requires preparation of a transportation demand management strategies to reduce the project's vehicle miles traveled per capita to the extent feasible. A report and documentation of implementation is required. There are also several project specific conditions of approval included in the MMRP, and these are listed here and included in your packet.

The staff report includes a list of all of the public notices that were sent for the project, and they're outlined here. The city received and responded to public comments from three governmental agencies and two advocacy groups. These responses were included in the packet, posted on the city website, and I also emailed the response to the commenters. They're also included in your packet. The city also received and responded to public comments for residents and the Presbyterian Church.

Those responses were included in the packet and posted on the city website. I also emailed the response to the commenters. The comments can generally be summarized into the following broad categories: general plan compliance and guiding principles, the rezoning from agricultural to hillside residential, hillside preservation measures, views, the seven foot tall sound wall, traffic, noise, strain on existing infrastructure, natural habitats and wildlife movement, light pollution, fire department use of the pond, and public notice. Tonight, we are asking for our planning commission recommendation of approval, which will be forwarded to the city council, and that is tentatively scheduled 02/24/2025, with the second reading of the ordinance in March. The final map requires city council approval and will be processed through the engineering division.

Staff recommendation is to consider and recommend that the city council adopt the MND prepared for the project in accordance with CEQUA. Recommend that the city council adopt an ordinance approving the zoning map amendment and adopt a resolution recommending the council adopt resolution approving the tentative application. This concludes my report. I'm happy to answer questions. I also have Melissa Durkin, city staff, the consultant team and the project applicant.

When questions are done, we'll, open up the public hearing. The applicant has a presentation. We'll take public comment. Before you close the hearing, if you have follow-up questions for the applicant, I would suggest you ask those then and then please close the public hearing.

Thank you, Cindy. Commissioners, the floor is open for questions.

Cindy, I had a question about the said the final map of it was a couple of slides back. Do you mind going? Sure. Maybe too far. Okay. So the map you're referencing here is the map in our packet.

So we have the tentative map step. And once that's approved, then they'll need to prepare the final map and that will need to go back to the council.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. Final maps go just to the council. And if they

I just didn't know if it was a different map.

Oh, no. Yeah. It will be. It has to be substantially the same as the 10.

Right. I just flew by. And I would like, actually some clarification for the public on the Housing Accountability Act.

The Housing Accountability Act, applies to housing development projects for one or more units and this housing project this would count as a Housing Accountability Act project. And if it's in compliance with the general plan, the zoning and other applicable laws in effect at the time of the project being deemed complete, the planning commission cannot recommend a denial of the project unless they make the findings, that it would have a specific adverse impact on the public health or safety, unless the project is disapproved or approved at on upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. And for this paragraph, specific adverse impact means a significant quantifiable direct and unavoidable impact based on objective identified with the public health or safety standards, policies, conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. And then there's no feasible method to satisfactory mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. So and that was sort of summarized in the staff report as well.

So if this map is going to be denied, you would have to make specific findings for that under the Housing Accountability Act. Are there any other questions?

I had a question, but maybe it's more for discussion or discussion section.

Commissioners, any other questions? Cindy, I had a question. It's my understanding and I want the public to also get clarification on it. Specifically for B, the rezoning, my understanding is since we are going through a rezoning an ordinance update, this project and this location will eventually be rezoned into what the applicant is asking for. So even if it's denied today, in the future, a year or two years from now, when the zoning ordinance is updated, the project will be falling within the guidelines.

That is correct. This property will be rezoned with or without this project.

And that's in accordance with the 2040 General Plan?

Yes, sir.

Great.

So I had a follow-up question. So my understanding on how that works is that the 2040 Plan was created and then staff doesn't skitter off to their desks and then create, okay, all these are all the areas that need to be rezoned and therefore now we're going to run all of this through the process that instead for efficiency that the 2,040 plan is legally is legally our zoning ordinance? And then as projects come up, we zone based on that 2,040 plan. Is that how that

works? That's how it used to work because as a charter city, zoning did not necessarily have to be consistent with the general plan. But they changed that law I would say about five years ago or so where it need they do need to be brought in conformance and I believe we do, I know, a lot of charter cities they're doing big overall zoning updates to coordinate the zoning to match their general plans and I believe that's what the city is doing now,

Yes.

Yeah. So we no longer do it as they come up. It's since that new law, it's, it will be citywide updates.

And how long do we have to be in compliance with that?

I think it's, a reasonable time. But I know if we don't do it and it's part of the housing element, then we could the housing element could be challenged and we could be sued because we're not implementing the housing element zoning to to match with, you know, HCD watches. And and years ago when people didn't, they said, oh, well, we're going to rezone to meet our housing element. Now they have more teeth in it and you can actually get sued for not bringing your zoning into compliance to match your housing element. So it is important to update the zoning.

That brings another question that you may not have an answer to because I just thought of it right now. I know for I know from my memory that this property is not part of our, housing element identifiable spaces. Has it ever been before? Do we know?

I don't believe so. I don't think

so Because it was agricultural before.

It's not on our list. However, it will contribute to our arena because we still have to provide market rate housing and this will fit that.

Okay. Thank you.

So I have a quick question. So this is obviously before our time when the decisions were made to include that general plan. But so when the decision is made that is going to be rezoned, none of the due diligence had happened at that point, right, as far as the environmental impacts and all the other negative findings that you had on that slide, right? There were quite significant items on that list.

So when the general plan was adopted with the new land use diagram and the new land use designation for this property, the city did an environmental impact report. It's a lengthy document, it's online and it looked at all of the impacts of the proposed land uses. It's a program level, EIR, so that's why we're doing additional analysis for this project.

So basically one law overrides all the other laws that deal with the protection of the species and the Federal Migratory Bird Act, etcetera, etcetera?

No. So that's why we look at this project as it relates to the habitat plan and the habitat plan makes sure that all of the protected species are indeed protected and mitigations are put in place. That was part of the initial study for this project.

Maybe can you go back in your slides, fairly at the beginning, think might have been slide number four.

And, I will say we also have the consultant here, who can provide additional input on the habitat plan. Is this the slide or do

you want to One more.

Back one more. That's it. Because right here it says, know, not consistent with the general plan. It's not physically suitable for the type of development. It's likely to cause substantial damage.

No, no, This what this these are so it's a little convoluted the way the law is written. Basically, the law is written in the negative and so you have to make the opposite of the findings, and we've done that. It's just the way the law is written and Julie can

Before you there were it was under six six four seven seven or seven four or something in the map act. I don't have my map act book. Well, it might be in here. You had to make findings that it wasn't consistent with the general plan or it wasn't physically suitable. And then several years ago, and I just had to look this up for another city, another client, it was the city of Victorville case that came out and they said that not you have to make the negative findings.

So you have to say this finding can't be met. So it's it's makes very strange findings because you have to do them essentially in the negative. But under the map back, these are the ones to deny a map. But then when we want to approve it, we have to say the finding that it's not consistent with the general plan cannot be met. So it's the reverse. And

So in that but still in that case, there is no severe flood or inundation, but there is flood and inundation, just not severe.

I don't

Do you wanna Yeah.

I don't I think the the mitigated would have found that.

Yes. Looked into that. I looked into the FEMA mapping and there's information in the initial study regarding the flood, but it there isn't a significant issue with regard to flooding. And there are conditions of approval and mitigation measures intended to, make sure that the water is kept on-site.

I had a question that there was a percentage amount that would be reserved for a preservation. How I'm sorry, was it 17%? It's 17 let me hold on.

It's 17.72 acres, which is approximately 47 or just under half of the site, And 47

then a follow on question to that, and I know that another map for development would be forthcoming. So two follow on questions. One is, is that in perpetuity?

Yes. The the land won't be preserved and they have riparian easements on the tenant map that will be recorded.

Okay. And then, that would be public access?

No. This is private property.

Okay. So the the animals cannot have access to that preserved area as well?

So the animal the, let me The applicant's gonna talk about this, but basically, you know, the animals can still access the pond. This is all open.

And where are they gonna keep the extra water in case of, like, a heavy rain kind of flooding situation? Because you have you have to keep it with

Oh, I was gonna ask our city engineer, but you wanna

Go ahead.

Water storm water will be preserved in the retention basins. It it will be retained on-site in the basins.

Have you seen the Uvass Creek when it floods? Can you contain that water?

Well, I mean, there are overflow conditions that Euva's Creek is designed to handle. That's why that's why Miller Avenue actually has that dip in it. It's designed for overflow.

It's like a better like that's why you have locations there which get flooded, like house get flooded and because it doesn't handle. So how can you put water underneath when still, you know, it's so much water. Do we have that?

So this I can't speak to the specifics of property that was designed in the past, but what we can say with this map is that the applicant has gone through and prepared storm water calculations and it is designed with retention basins that will retain the storm water on-site. When was that done? It is part of the Senate map process.

Yeah. When was that done? The last one? Was the one you guys posted?

So the engineer can answer that question. I don't know when they did those calculations.

Any

further questions for Cindy? Commissioner, would you like the environmental specialist to come up so you can ask your questions?

Oh, yes, sure.

If we can have the environmental consultants come up for some questions, please.

My name is Nick Tostapiet. I'm a project manager, David j Powers and Associates, and we are the SQL consultants that worked with the city on this document. So

do you guys have, like, like, a map how the water will be contained? Like a like a hydro structure map or, you know, some something that, you know, we can show us how you guys are gonna contain that water?

Are are you speaking about the bioretention basins that would handle the storm water for the the project development? Yeah. It may be shown on the the tentative map. Not sure if that was know that the areas are outlined. I don't know how specifically detailed those drawings are, but they are shown on the map.

Cindy, by chance, do you have a can you pull that up for us?

So the applicant can actually talk about this in her presentation, hold on.

Should we be holding our questions until after the applicant

If you have project specific questions, the applicant may be the best one to answer those.

So sort of the maps up, if you don't mind pointing to those spaces.

Yes, sure. So there's three different clusters of development. So on the top left corner on the south side of the lots, you see that's kind of oval shape. I believe that's one of the bio retention basins.

Actually, this

one. Do you want to?

Okay. Again, I think the applicant really can explain this best.

Any further questions for the CECO Yes. Consultant and we can wait for the

I'm just kind of in shock because I that's kind of what they do all day long. And if we talk about the project that I handle, I I will be able to answer. I'll, like, you know, mostly everything regarding the project, and the consultant can really, like, explain and you know answer the questions. So I thought like you guys knew we have an idea like you'll be prepared.

Yes.

To begin explain to us because I, you know, maybe, you know, you know, just there is I don't see any kind of, like, like, you know, any kind of for those basins. And and again, maybe I have skipped the material because it's a very, you know, bulky kind, you know, package.

Commissioner, I will say, this this is a tentative map. When they submit for their architectural drawings, they'll have, engineering drawings. This is really for mapping purposes.

Exactly. And that's where it it has to show, like, at least, like, the proportion of those kind of yeah. But, like, I cannot see the proportion. Like, those look like tiny little things. I don't know how, you know, how much that is the measure. Like, you know, how can we say, okay. It's not gonna flood if approved this because it's not going to flood and then come up with the plans later and then there's a whole different story, you know.

There's a whole storm water management plan that's required for this project. Again, the project engineer can describe that for you.

Any further questions for this gentleman here? Thank you. At this time, if the applicant would like to come up, you have a few questions for them, Commissioner.

I think they have a presentation too, right? So we should hear the presentation and see how that goes.

Good evening.

Great questions so far, but, is it okay if I do my presentation and then follow-up? Yes, please. Good evening. My name is Amanda Lucie Burdell with Hanna Brunetti. I'm the civil engineer on the project. Together with Michael Davis from Design Land Management, we're representing Mr. Renfrew. The Renfrew Villas, which will become his family home, is on a 54 lot subdivision on 37.5 acres. It will be developed in two phases as Cindy mentioned. Phase one will be generally to the right of the pond with his 40 lot track and Phase two will be a 14 lot custom home family.

We, conducted a neighborhood outreach, two days ago via Zoom. We sent an email to any, resident of Gilroy that emailed the city providing comments. Three neighbors attended the meeting. Outlined in blue is the project site, and it's no wonder Mr. Wren wants his family to live there.

It has Babb's Creek running through the middle with a pond with all sorts of wildlife and a riparian area. The surrounding development, we have Eagle Ridge to page bottom and page left, Glen Loma to the top of the page, the Presbyterian Church to the right, I believe it's called the Mesa Ridge development, it's been a while, also further down to the right. And as you could see in this overall aerial where Eagle Ridge and Glen Loma kind of sandwich the project, that's where we're providing our tracked homes. And then on the left hand side where the development is not as dense, that's where we're providing our custom homes. And I'm going to hand it over to Mike for a little bit to provide more project specifics.

Good

evening. I am Michael Davis from Design Land Management. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for hearing this project before you. Super excited about this project. Some of the comments that have come up so far, some of the questions, we'll be able to answer all of those as you ask us questions in terms of bioretention ponds and water and whatnot. Some of the exciting things about this project is you look at this wonderful landscape plan that we have here is all the existing trees that remain. There's over 200 trees on the site. We're retaining over 170 trees on there. Most of the trees we're moving, 36 or so are dead or rated two or one.

So very low on the scale, they're on their way to dying. But we mentioned in terms of wildlife and whatnot. So we've clustered the homes, as Amanda was noting. On the right side of the page here, we have our production type homes of 40 in there. And then on the top part of the project, we have 11 homes there.

And then the RenVue family has 11 and then he is on the lower part of it and that would be just three lots. As was mentioned earlier, all of our accesses are from Miller Avenue. There's nothing coming off Santa Teresa other than an emergency vehicle access and whatnot. We had the opportunity to walk the entire site this past week and somebody mentioned wildlife. And as we go through, had a gaggle of wild turkeys, how many, 20 or 30.

We're walking across Miller Avenue to that tree line that you see in the creek. So they do have all that open access all the way to the creek. The riparian setback that we talked about, there's 11.5 acres in that repair and setback that is shown there. That will all be repair and setback for perpetuity. And then we go one more, that's our additional open space that we've added to the project.

So giving us 17.5 acres that will remain open and we're only developing the 20 acres for residential. The pathway again for wildlife, they will have all access to the creek, to the pond and all the way across and all that open space that you see there. Another thing that we talked about the clustering of the homes, that's to leave that open space right through the middle of the project. This is showing the existing condition and then our development with the landscape from Santa Teresa or from Glen Loma as they look toward the south to our project, there's really only nine to 11 homes that will be visible because of the existing vegetation. And what we have along there is we've added additional vegetation, nothing in the riparian setback that we have.

That's kind of the open space that we see through there in the pond, of course, in the green space. So, Sound Wall came up as a question of concern for some of the neighbors. Our Sound Wall only goes past two lots. It only has two lots along Santa Teresa. Of course, those are the ones that are closest to Santa Teresa.

And just the two lots there have a sound wall of seven foot tall, and that's extremely buffered by landscaping that you see on the top of that slide. That's our landscaping, both existing and proposed landscaping. So that retaining wall or that sound wall will be hidden. It's got existing screening, of course, and nothing like maybe Glenaluma has on the other side where you see those sound walls. So again, that open space, what we have on this slide is a yellow line that goes around the length of Miller Avenue from one end of our project to the other.

That's over zero five mile of six foot wide walkway. So bicyclists, walkers, again, having the opportunity to walk the entire site. We saw bicyclists riding along Miller. By the way, traffic is fast on Miller. And we had walkers along there. So we'll have again a six foot wide over zero five mile pathway that could be for children from the Eagle Ridge project coming down and taking that walk to the roundabout and over to where the schools are and whatnot. That is not required, but the applicant is proposing that. For our zoning, that's not required for us to do that in the hillside. So that's a project before you. We're here with any questions you may have for us.

I know that the question about the bioretention ponds is one of them.

I

have a question on and maybe this is too premature, maybe this has to wait until the next round when we'll get into more details, but this is relating to the trees. So in the arborist report, it mentioned split it all out and which trees were suggested for removal because they're dead or damage or whatnot and then broke it into categories of importance of specimen trees etcetera. In the recommendations portion of the report, it said that ongoing monitoring by an arborist and potentially having that person be very intimately involved ongoing on a day to day basis to protect trees more or less and also to assist in mitigation. The reason why I'm I really appreciated the suggestion. So my question to you is how can we make sure that this actually happens because we have had other one particular project where heritage trees were involved in the all of the plans, showed them as we're going to take this tree, that tree and that tree, but we're going to leave all the rest in place.

Well, enough, they're all gone. And it's because of construction personnel, they don't really care about the trees, they're going to go buy whatever is most convenient and easy to get the job done and get their equipment in and out and whatnot. So I'm very worried about that these trees are going to meet a similar fate just because you know the folks that really do care about them and know how to protect them and you know talks about doing a kind of a protective fencing around the trees, but again they're subject to personnel that you know the stuff gets moved. If it's in the way, there's a good chance that people are going to just get rid of it and you know ask for forgiveness later. And then you know a lot of the because you know your plans are beautiful, right?

All the planned landscaping is very well done and what you just mentioned in your presentation, there's already natural sideline blockage because of the existing vegetation that's there, which is so sounds very attractive and a great plan. So my worry is that in the interest of convenience and it'll just go be thrown out the window. At what stage of the project can we get some kind of assurance that this I'm kind of tired of it just the word mitigation for them, but basically problem solving in advance before it gets there. Because once those things once those trees are gone, it's going be a life somebody's lifetime before they reach that those heights again. And so and I realized having an arborist sort of on-site or in a construction trailer, just really monitoring all of this is going to be costly, but

So to your

point I'm sorry, if I could add on to that is that what's especially important what the commissioner is speaking about is that once a project leaves planning commission, the removal of those heritage trees and the resolution of that, situation is outside the purview of the Planning Commission. So I think that's, some assurances on already what is in plan to make sure what is promise comes to fruition, with that we know that now. Is that

Fair comments. So my career is over forty years in Gilroy. I've worked in Country Oaks Estates, all of those and whatnot. There have been some trees removed to your point, Commissioner, that weren't supposed to be removed. And once they're gone, they're gone. There should be a bigger penalty, but that's a whole different story and whatnot. We, as designers, try and design around the existing trees because those are natural. They've been there for hundreds of years. That's our natural landscaping. So whenever we can save them.

The beauty of this lot, and I keep going to the beauty of this lot and being involved in this, we are only less than 80% of the homes we can have on this site with even all the open space. We're doing less than 80% of the homes we can have here. So what that gives us, commissioners, is the ability to be away from all those trees. If you look at the maps, those 11 lots, there's no trees there to worry about. Along Miller, there are some because they're too close to Miller that he has the arborist has recommended for removal.

A couple of them are in our driveway access, and those are the ones due to construction. The 40 acres is wide open. There's a grouping of, I think, five trees that will be removed for those homes. That would be right on the left side of those 40 houses. And then the rest of the homes, they're not close to the trees. So we'll have plenty of the parking for construction traffic, construction parking. And to your point about what's in the arborist report, the protection of those trees. So he has to verify that all that's done and pass that on to the city as all those fencing, the continuous fencing throughout the project and they would be monitoring that not on a daily basis, but they would be monitoring that continually to make sure all of those fences and the signage on the fences remains.

Yes. And he also pointed out that he recommended that prior to the start of the project to have meetings where everybody is involved.

Yes, most

definitely. All the construction managers and a lot of the staff. That is not just you and maybe city engineer at the top level, you guys are all aware of what the

that has to be passed on with the signage and the tree protection fencing. But again, with the way this is clustered with three separate areas and the other two areas, Phase two is not going to be built along with Phase one. So they have all that construction parking, so to speak, that they can park there.

Why some of those lots, they didn't get moved closer to the parcel A, so kind of spread it out even more. So that will make like a less impact on the land.

Okay. Help me out. I didn't quite understand

So the there is some lots. They're kind of very close to the pond and tree needs to be removed. Why they were not why you guys didn't put them by the parcel A, that's empty area over there?

I understand. So this is was mentioned earlier, this is for the family to live. And that's why it's such a beautiful project before you because we don't have it all covered with houses, the whole thing. They are retaining that left side of this property for themselves. So we did want it more open. What you're saying about why are we not moving some of the lots over, they wanted bigger lots, but it's also the natural features of that property as well if you have the opportunity to walk it and see where the pond is and where those indentations are, the grading of it. Is the best layout for natural features of this lot as well.

They would rather have 33 removed plus other kind of impact, so they can have like a better setting of from the property? Is that it's like through convenience basically because there is land there to build?

Correct. There is land there to build, but I believe HG Harvey could speak on this as well is that portion of the site against between basically the clubhouse and Miller Avenue is serpentine soil, which could potentially be habitat to sensitive species, endangered species. And so that's why the development is not over on that area.

On the lot by the Parcel A?

From basically the clubhouse towards Miller Avenue.

But still there is like in between there is some

lots And also in between there, there is a ravine that we need to not develop. It's a natural waterway in between the bottoms of Lots 1 through eight and Parcel A kind of in there. There's a natural ravine in there. Ravine is a strong word, it's more I don't know, it's a different, I don't know. But but that's where the natural water conveyance is.

One more question. On the very large size lots, is there a possibility that somewhere sometime in the future that they might be subdivided into smaller lots. It

depends on what our governor decides.

It's a private property.

Yes. They can do

Yes. That's not what's proposed right now. If they wanted there to be more lots, there could be more lots. It's available in the general plan. It's available right now, and we're not taking it right now, and that should give you a little bit of comfort.

Thank you.

And it's the family itself, so they're not going bring others.

A quick question, a clarification again, I know I asked about it before, but we have this map in front of us. So is this green space that we're looking at, would this be the preserved area? Or would it also include the I think the yellow space you had as well, which was the I want to say flat lands, but that's not accurate. That's what I have in my head at the moment. Open space.

Area in green and yellow, we should chose different colors. Agree. But it's same thing. Yes. Okay. Okay.

So this would be the area that is preserved for in perpetuity?

Yes. As open open space.

Okay. Thank you.

But it's private. So I mean, right now, people go on to the property. They're really trespassing. But right now, it's private. It's going to continue to be But

the path is public, by

the way. Yes. But yes, the yellow

path of is public.

Commissioners, any further questions?

Did you want to talk about the storm water? You found it on page fourteen and fifteen?

Yeah. I don't I don't see that how that is how that can contain, you know, the amount of water. Like, I'm still struggling with the idea because I see where they are located, but the proportion is like, it's it's so off, you know, knowing knowing how the the, you know, have seen some floods here and

So there's two different issues. This site is not subject to the one hundred year flood. It doesn't the one hundred year flood doesn't happen on this property. It's not mapped on any FEMA flood maps. Any runoff coming down Babbs Creek is going to go into the pond and out and it's not going to go into our bio retention ponds. Any site that's run onto the site that's running off and not commingling with our development will discontinue on the way it has been for years. And what we're doing is we're taking the storm water that's draining from our new impervious surfaces, treating it and mitigating it back to pre development rate before it's released back into Bats Creek.

Commissioner, any further questions? Satisfied? Great. On this side, everyone good? Great. Thank you very much. If there are no further questions here, I'm going to open it for public hearing. Ariana, are there any public speakers?

I had received two speaker cards, but it was the applicant who spoke, so no further speakers.

Great. I will go ahead and close public hearing.

I just want to be clear that the members of the public out here, you don't want to speak?

Have had about that development where nothing has happened. So it's really frustrating as a resident to come down here

repeatedly. Yeah. Well.

So it's just a frustration.

If there's anybody else from the public that like to speak, please come up and fill a speaker card. Yes, you'd have to come fill out a speaker card please.

You could speak and then fill out your card if you

Does it interface any way with the infrastructure already built by the golf course project that is never finished? There's like 20 some lots already developed, and and it's through ways on Miller. So are you in in conjunction with them doing sewer or other utilities? Or what's happening there?

Just so you know, during public comment, the commissioners will not reply back to anything. It's just for information Well, be asking them is,

We can have the applicant after public comments respond to some of the public comments like that one because I don't that's not contained in this project, but maybe Okay. You

I own the property across the street from it. And which is I'm between those two properties. And I'm just trying to get a feel for like is the sewer lines and stuff going to be going on Miller or is it somewhere else?

Sure. I've noted that. So if we bring back up the applicant, we'll have him answer that question. Anything further, sir?

No. Okay.

If you don't mind filling

I had another question, but I forgot what

Sure. If you don't mind filling out a speaker card, though.

Hi, how are you? My name is Paul Hatmaker. I'm a resident of the Glen Loeben neighborhood across Santa Teresa Boulevard from where the proposed site is. I walk around this whole property a lot, been there for eight years. I have some questions that are specific to sort of where those 11 houses on the upper left hand part are going to be. That area is somewhat set down from Santa Teresa Boulevard. There's a slope down. Is that land going to be raised up? Okay. So the kind of those houses are going be set a bit below, their base is going be a bit below Santa Teresa Boulevard.

Is that okay. So they're not planning to like build it up to the level of Santa Teresa, okay. And this seven foot retaining wall, you mentioned that it's only by two lots?

We'll bring them up after to answer this question,

if Okay. You That would be great. I'd to understand kind of on the map sort of where these retaining walls are. It sounds like it's not like a big long retaining wall that's running the length of Santa Teresa, it's something smaller than that. The other was something that I brought up in the letter that I sent in about fire access to this pond.

So I've witnessed CAL FIRE filling helicopter buckets in this pond many times over the last eight years. And I'm concerned if you build a housing track nearby to this, that their access to it's going to be reduced. Now the response that I got when I read it, bit insulting in my opinion was, oh, they can pick up water from a swimming pool, you know, a residential swimming pool. And I was like, yes, and I suspect that's a one in a thousand operation. Right?

If you're a helicopter pilot, you'd much rather fly into an open area, pick up water someplace that's safe and go fight a fire. Given what we've all seen in Los Angeles area, I'm concerned. I'm concerned about fire department, particularly Cal Fire access to this pond. So it's just something I'd like to make sure is reviewed and thought about. That's about it for my comments. Just concerned, I actually think there are a lot of nice aspects to how this is laid out. I can envision a much denser sort of uglier view of how this is laid out. So I give them some credit for that. It's actually not the worst development I've seen.

Thank you. Great. Thank you so much. Arianna, was that the last public speaker?

We have one more, Glarion Kusler.

Hello. My name is Darian Kusler. I live in Eagle Bridge and have lived here for the last twelve years. One comment and one question. Comment, thank you to the applicants and to the project team for the sidewalk plan to allow ingress and egress to the school. Question, though, in the past, that road has been

a death

trap. There's been at least three fatalities in the time that I've lived here. Maybe this is beyond the purview of the Planning Commission, but what is the city prepared to do with traffic control on Miller Avenue? It's often used as a bypass for students going to the community college. There's a speeding problem that occurs there on a frequent basis. So that would be my question. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. And if that's the last speaker, I'm going to close public comment. And I'd like for the applicant to come up one more time so we can answer some of the questions for the public. And I have them generally written down if

you Yes. Want me to I'm remind going to start with utilities unless you have unless you want to prompt me,

I'm No, perfect. Fine You're good.

The utilities from the site or for the site, I believe I'm not quite sure the reference to Eagle Ridge, but we're not tying in to Eagle Ridge. We're tying into the sewer that's down by the Presbyterian Church and then bringing it along Miller Avenue and then it goes through the project site to the two clusters. So it will go through the tracked homes and then it will go to the two clusters through the project site. So it's only go on Miller Avenue kind of up to our project site and then in through our project site to service the projects. Waters in the street and then storm is Babb's Creek.

So and then we're undergrounding. There's one overhead utility line that comes across the way from that kind of in line with Babb's Creek that will be underground with the project. And those are all the utilities that I

Sorry, I the Swergy, I couldn't envision what you are trying to say.

So the Presbyterian which part? The sewage line. So the existing last sewer city sewer manhole is if you if you have a Google Earth image, if you could switch to the more go The one that zoomed out a little bit more, Mike. You do up, up, up. It might be better if I'm over there.

So right there. So there's the Eagle Ridge up on the top and then there's like their emergency access road that comes down right by go further down right below the Presbyterian Church, down on Miller Avenue. Okay, there. That's about where the last sewer manhole is and we're going to bring that up Miller Avenue to our project. And then from our project, so from that portion of the project, it will come on our property, the sewer will come on our property to service those three lots that are down on the lower part of Miller and they will bore underneath the Babs Creek.

So we'll bore underneath Babs Creek to get to the 11 lots up in that area. Because we're not doing any disturbing of land in the riparian zone, so it will be bore construction.

On the protection?

So yes, we're the biologist could tell you, we're not allowed to touch anything in that Yes. Riparian

They're all smiling. Yes.

Great. Thank you.

That was one. The sound wall is it's hard to see on these slides, but it's that purple line is the sound wall. So the only portion that's along Santa Teresa is just that it's like 150 feet that's right adjacent to the right of way of Santa Teresa and then it goes down the lot on the right hand side and then on the other side, it's in beach so it goes Santa Teresa, a retaining wall or bioretention pond and then a sand wall. So it's set back, I would say, least 50 feet from the edge of Travel Way.

So just these two lots or have

Yes, just

those two lots. And then on the rest of the lots don't have sand walls at all.

It

would be Lot Mike, do you have that? Lot 34 And 33 are the two lots. The building up of Lots 1 Through 11, those that roadway that's between Santa Teresa and our project site, right now it's named Royalty Way, that is more or less on grade. And so the houses and then from there, it kind of slips down. So we're not going to be building the houses up.

Those houses will be coming back in front of I don't know, would it be the Planning Commission because they're custom or how would it be? Staff level. So those will have staff level approval on the tracked homes that would come back with the Arkon site in front of the Planning Commission. Traffic is a citywide issue. I complain of traffic on my block. So I would have to defer to the city engineer on that one. Is there any other question

for There's one more I had written Is the fire access for fire, Cal Fire and access to the pond?

I can't comment on how well I saw what they did in the aerial attack when Uvus River was on fire. But I would have to say, I mean, there I think anyone in that development would welcome Cal Fire to use the pond. Can't say that there's we wouldn't restrict it. I just don't know if a helicopter pilot could come in and take it. I can't comment on that.

Great. Thank you. Commissioners open for discussion. So there are three items here, A, B and C. Each one needs a motion and a vote.

I'm sorry. I just wanted for transparency that I did reach out to staff and had some questions regarding some of the procedure and the timing. And I spoke with Cindy about that and she was able to clarify that as well as the Housing Accountability Act, which is what we are looking at, which is a statewide measure, which we have to use to make judgment this tentative map. Correct? Yes. Thank you.

If any of you have met with the applicant, and you received any information that might be different or addition to what's in the staff report, you could make your ex parte communications, but I don't think okay, just clarifying that.

Can I say just a couple words? I've been a Gilroy. I've born and raised here. So I just wanna comment on this project. It's really hard for me to vote for this project tonight.

Miller Avenue before Santa Teresa was built. Miller Avenue is where we drove to go to Galvin College. And this little piece of property, this 37 acres is just a little gem of Gilroy and it's really hard to look at building 54 houses on it. When

I

used to drive by it in the old days, there was horses out there and you would stop and it was just a peaceful place. So my vote tonight is going to be really difficult. I hate seeing all this building in this city. It's changed over all the years that I've lived here. And but this is like my dad, he was in his 90s. He said, Joni, this is progress. So just to let you know that this is going to be a tough

That's decision for why we're trying to figure out what's convenience could that be done in a better way that's a little less convenient for them, but it will fill up more of a purpose than anything else. Or it's very hard because it's a private property, so they can do whatever they can split those lots in four or five and resell them. It's a very hard thing to predict.

I'd like to I have not been here my whole life, but I have driven up in that area and I've ridden my bike and it is a paradise as most of our hillside and our flatlands are. But being a volunteer here on the Planning Commission, it's difficult. We are learning. We have a very, very small purview. And oftentimes, we are restricted by state law on what we can and can't do.

We don't always get to vote with our heart. And, luckily, we have staff, you know, helping us understand and our, counsel helping us understand the legal ramifications. And, you know, we, as volunteers, are advisers to the city council. You know, ultimately, they have the final decision on things, But I think it's important to for us to understand how our city is growing and the laws that are affecting the city of Gilroy. And it I'm honored to be here, but it is a difficult decision and I haven't lived here my whole life.

So I don't envy you, Joan.

Commissioners, any other further questions, comments, concerns? All right. Well, I'm going to start off by making a motion. For A, I'm going to motion we accept and consider and recommend to the City Council that we adopt the negative declaration for the project in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA. I second it.

Roll call. Commissioner Elley? Yes. Commissioner Lingard? No. Commissioner Lewis? Commissioner Valdez?

Yes.

Vice Chair Kushner?

Yes.

Chair Bondo?

Yes. Thank you. That was a five:one. Commissioners, any questions, comments on B? Any discussion on B?

Only just that we are bringing this this has already been decided by a future of future previous council and that we are just bringing this kind of just doing the official paperwork to bring it up to the that council's decision making that it was done in the past, what, 2020?

2016 Planning Commission approved, 2020 City Council adopted Thank you.

That's all.

And

in the 2040 General Plan.

We recommend to the city council to adopt the ordinance approving zoning map amendment Z22-three.

I will second.

Roll call. Commissioner Elley? Yes. Commissioner Lingard? No. Commissioner Lewis? Yes. Commissioner Valdez?

Yes.

Vice Chair Kushner?

Yes.

Chair Bondo?

Yes. Thank you. That was a five to one. Commissioner C, any discussions, comments, concerns?

I move that we adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the tentative map application TM22-two subject to the findings, conditions and mitigation measures provided in the draft resolution.

Second. Roll call. Commissioner Eli? Yes. Commissioner Lingard? No. Commissioner Lewis? Yes. Commissioner Valdez? Yes. Vice Chair Kushner? Yes. Chair Bondle?

Yes. Thank you to staff and the applicant. I just want to let the public know that we appreciate all the public comment. Every single one of those is read by the commission, including myself. So everything is not taken lightly. We do appreciate all of those and continue sending those in. We appreciate your feedback.

Environmental consensus. Yes. I just want to let the public know as well, since this was a mitigated neg deck and there were comments received pursuant to sequel, you don't have to respond to those comments, but the city and the staff, the applicant, and the environmental team, they responded to those comments. So it was extra. You you don't have to do that, but I was very impressed with all the comments to those the responses to the comments. So it was like an EIR almost. All

right. Moving on to seven, seven point one new business. There is nothing to report there. 8.1, planning division staff approvals. I saw none.

All

right. We'll pass on to that. Nine, planning division report.

As all the commissioners may be aware, today is Cindy's last day. Just want to thank her for her invaluable contributions to the city of Gilroy in our department. I want to express our sincere gratitude for all your hard work, dedication and commitment to the city and the whole team. Thank

you, Sharon. It's been a pleasure working well with all of you. Thank you.

Good luck, Cindy. All right. 10. Assistant City Attorney Report.

No report.

Great. With that, I'm going to adjourn this meeting to the next meeting of the Regular Planning Commission of 02/06/2025, at six p. M. Thank you, everybody.