Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Test. Test.

Hey. Hey. Y'all are much better. I love it. All

right.

You seem so far away.

All right. Good afternoon, everybody. I wanna welcome everybody to the 03/13/2025 regular meeting of the Planning Commission. I'd like to start off with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand.

Thank you. Ariana, report on posting the agenda and roll call, please.

The agenda was posted on Thursday, 03/06/2025, at 06:25PM. Roll call. Commissioner Benson? Present. Commissioner Elli? Present. Commissioner Kushner?

Here.

Commissioner Lingard?

Here.

Commissioner Valdez is absent. Vice Chair Donhauer?

Here.

And Chair Bandel?

Here.

You.

You. Arianna, are there any public comments for items not on the agenda?

There are no speakers. All right. Thank you.

Moving on to 5.1, consent agenda. 02/20/2025 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Commissioners, any questions, comments, discussion?

And I'll let the new planning commissioner know that even if you weren't at the meeting, you can still vote on those minutes.

There's no discussion. I will move that we accept.

I make a motion that we accept the minutes.

I'll second.

Roll call. Commissioner Ellie oh, sorry. Commissioner Benson?

Yes.

Commissioner Elley? Yes. Commissioner Kushner? Yes. Commissioner Lingard? Yes. Vice Chair Don Howard?

Yes. Chair Bondo?

Yes. Thank you, Ariana. Moving on to six. 6.1, architectural and site review and variance for removal of existing 35 foot monopole and installation of a 65 foot monopole and related equipment located at 401 First Street, Application AS 20 four-fourteen and V 20 four-one. Staff report by Vanessa.

City

York

currently developed with a commercial building with associated parking, landscaping and a two seventy five square foot lease area that contains a 35 foot tall monopole and associated equipment. This leased area is located behind the commercial building. The proposed project consists of removing the existing 35 foot tall monopole and installing a new 65 foot tall monopole and associated equipment. All work will be within the existing two seventy five square foot lease area. The project is requesting a variance of the maximum allowable height of the neighborhood commercial zoning district, which is 35 feet, to allow the 65 foot tall monopole.

In addition, a variance is also being requested to waive the required wireless facility setback. Per the zoning ordinance, a wireless facility must be set back the same distance as the overall height of the structure from all property lines. Here we can see an existing elevation on the left that shows the 35 foot monopole. And on the right, we have the proposed elevation of the 65 foot tall monopole. Here, we have existing proposed renderings.

These renderings are from the viewpoint of the intersection of First Street and Hana Street. On the left, we have the existing. And on the right, we have the proposed. And this is just a different viewpoint of those existing and proposed renderings. This is from First Street looking east.

So as part of the review, the applicant did provide the required radio frequency report that was prepared by SiteSafe. The report evaluated the proposed project's radio frequency exposure and found that the wireless facility is and will remain compliant with the Federal Communications Commission rules and regulations. The first first

twenty twenty

Gray and green

is signify radio frequency levels that are the safe for the general public. No restrictions are needed in this gray and green area. Blue, yellow and red signify exposure levels that are above the general public limits. The general public should be restricted from accessing these areas. So 20 the 20, the We potential The heights that we looked at were 32 foot RC, 46 RC and 60 RC, which corresponds with the 60 foot tall monopole being proposed.

So as we can see, the 60 foot RC placement provides a larger coverage area. Outdoor, in vehicle and in building coverage would be improved at the proposed height. The project was analyzed and was found to be in compliance with the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District, mixed use general plan designation and wireless telecommunication facilities section of the zoning code with the exception of the maximum allowable height and setbacks that are part of this variance request. The site is currently in compliance and will continue to be in compliance with all FCC regulations and standards. All proposed work will be conducted within the existing lease area, and there will be no disruption to the existing commercial business operations.

Additionally, the project has provided a letter signifying the willingness to allow other carriers to co locate on their facility and our condition to provide a color sample for review and approval by the community development director or designee. The project is found to be categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to section 15,303, class three of the CEQUA guidelines. And then I did want to disclose that questions from a commissioner were received regarding the project. The responses to those questions were shared with the commission and copies were made and However, the applicant has confirmed that the top of the pole does have a Sprint radon antenna that makes up the top five feet of the pole. That antenna will be removed with the overall pole.

And I did want to clarify what the FCC rules and regulations are for decisions on wireless facilities based on radio frequency emissions. So decisions cannot be made on or regulate radio frequency emissions if the wireless facility complies with FCC radio frequency emissions regulation. Additionally, new wireless facilities have a shock clock of one hundred and fifty days for formal determinations on the application. Shot clock is defined as the period of time in which a local government must act on an application for the deployment or modification of a wireless facility as mandated by Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The shot clock for this project ends on 04/10/2025.

In conclusion, staff has analyzed the proposed project and recommends that the Planning Commission find the following: Based on its independent analysis, determine this project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to state's CEQA guidelines, Section 15,303, Class III, and adopt a resolution approving the architectural and site review permit application AS 20 four-fourteen, questions.

I'm

you any the button. I I'm had the questions, but I'm not not sure sure. I have follow-up questions.

Of course.

It's I'm not sure if it's appropriate for staff or for the applicant. So

We can start with staff. And if it needs to meet the applicant, we can. Okay.

So there was I think I've answered my question, but there the graph on Page 53, the RF attenuation shows that the T Mobile is at 60 feet, but the pole is at 65. So I so it sounds like that the T Mobile equipment is at 60 feet. Yes. So I had asked with that RF attenuation, it says there's gonna be two antennas on the pole. Correct?

So there are a total of six antennas on the pole.

Correct. Two types. So

if we look at the composite view, you can see that there's one, two, three, four, five, six Right. Individual antennas. There's three mounts. Yes. But the individual antennas will be six of those.

Correct. So when I asked what antennas are being used for the simulation, all six Or okay. Awesome. For

the second.

You. This was unclear. So the rest of the questions don't relate. You answered number three because there was something on the top of that poll. Yeah.

So my question for the vertical azimuth, it was indicated that the composite view is that vertical azimuth. That is not. That is a diagram. So do we have a vertical as a horizontal azimuth? Sorry. My request was for horizontal azimuth Mhmm. Because of the and and I just want to be really clear. I'm asking a lot of questions, but that does not mean I am opposed to five gs any in any way, shape or form. I work in RF. That's what I do as part of my job.

So when we talk about safety from the front of the tower, from the front of the antenna, we do not have enough information to identify how large that RF lobe is based on a side view, the vertical azimuth of that. So if we think about it, what I'm saying for people who are not in RF is that if you look at a sprinkler from the side, it looks like this. Right? But when you look from above, that sprinkler could be circular. It could be a quarter.

It could be half. It could be three quarter. It could be, you know, maybe doing something like this. Right? We don't know. This is why I'm asking for this information.

Okay. Yeah. So what is included in the report is, unfortunately, what we have. I don't have any additional documents that could have been prepared for tonight's meeting. So it's just what is within the report.

Okay. Now if the applicant had more time, would they be able to provide that information?

I would defer that question to the applicant. Okay.

Thank you.

And what about the shot clock?

Yes. So the shot clock ends April 10. So the next planning commission meeting is April 3, I believe.

And does it this is this doesn't go to counsel then?

No. It's

fine. Good question. Thank you. Also, too, when I asked for data sheets, I understand that four zero one has the information from the data sheets there, but those are not data sheets. I did find the data sheets.

I appreciate the there 'd be more height requirement if it was disguised as a tree and looked very strange coming out of a parking lot. And then I had asked specifically about other towers in Gilroy because T Mobile provided heat map of the coverage in the area and other towers there were provided. They're in that heat map. And while I understand that the clarification is that this tower is not owned by T Mobile, is the equipment owned by T Mobile? Yes.

Yeah. We should she should come up and speak to

the podium.

Yeah. Sure. Thank you.

When she

comes up, you can ask her

I'll ask the same question. Okay. So so that being said, the you know, when we look at the cell towers, in area. And we

have lot that the a of

I think, here. So I

think that sounds correct.

Okay. So T Mobile has services on 11 towers to be to make it accurate. Yes. Not necessarily that

they own the towers, but they do have their wireless equipment. Correct. Yeah. Okay.

And then my final question was or my final question, this is a simulation. Right? And then I'll ask you for make it official. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Ali. Commissioners, any other questions for staff? Commissioner I had a question for you actually that you brought it up. When we're looking at horizontal or vertical azimuths, what are we looking for? What does that for somebody who's not in RF, what does that mean? Is that coverage area? Is that the density of the signals?

So what you're looking at is and I wanted to have I had to recreate my notes. Oh, here we go. I have a piece of paper at the back, which I'm sorry, the video might not pick up. But so when you look at page, I think, fifth PDF, page 53, you can see they call they're called lobes, and you see it like the blue one is really easy to see. Right?

You see that big sort of blue I can pull up. Yeah. So you see that big blue lobe of RF Mhmm. And then another green one that extends past. And then you could see on some of the other antennas there. May I get up and point? Is that permissible?

You want to point?

Can I do that? Yes. Hello? We're looking at this one probably at you know, looking straight at the side of it. I'm speculating because it's very big.

And then this one, we're not really seeing anything here because we're probably looking at it from behind, and maybe it's shooting this way. So we could be seeing this lobe here. And this one, because it's doesn't look the same, it's probably at an angle away from us. Right? So because if you were if I'm holding this

like this

versus like this Different angle. It looks at a different angle. Now if we were looking at this above from above, I'm gonna use this microphone as the lobes. And if we were looking straight down on it, let's just say this green spot is the the screen simulated sign is the top of the tower, and you can imagine the antennas around it. Let's just say this is the antenna.

You would see something like this or a big lobe like that. These are not gonna be omnidirectional going everywhere because they would shoot back radiation and interfere with these guys. So they're gonna be mostly directional, but how directional? So, like, if you think of hose sprayer, like, you have all the different options. Right? And so you have the kind that's just straight, and then you might have the kind that's a fan, and then you might have the kind that's you know? So we don't know what that looks like from above. So this looks like, oh, hey. It's like shooting it looks really good. It's shooting over here.

But from above, it could be like this. We don't we don't know. So I'm just would like to know because in this site, there's a two story building right across the street. Right? So while I understand this is kind of in the green zone I mean, in the gray zone, when we say the safety, you need to stay a 111 feet away from the front of the antenna. Well, how big is this lobe? That's the dangerous lobe. Right? Is that lobe this big? Is it this big?

Or is it this big? What's that width? Where's the front of the antenna?

Yes, Does that make it does. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for staff? Commissioner Ali, would you still like the applicant to come up for questions that

you have? I think we should for official Sure.

We need to open the public meeting. Yes. Hearing.

Sure. Great. Thank you, Vanessa. At this time, I'm going open up for public hearing. If you'd like to speak on the item, please come out fill out a speaker card and the applicant can come up.

Hello.

Hi.

Thank you for coming up. I think Commissioner Ali has a few questions.

I just wanted to allow you to you of course, you can make a statement at any time, but I don't know if you wanted to make a statement or you want me to ask my questions again. Just ask her to ask. Okay.

If I

can. Thank you. And keep me honest, I'm not sure which ones asked about that. So the question, I think the first question was both types of antennas are on the on this graph?

Yes. Yes, okay.

And there's three sectors, so there's Correct. Yeah, set per sector.

And then, that must answer. And then one my other question was this is a simulation? Correct. Correct. And then page 52, just making a oh, that was addressed by staff.

But I'll ask it here. So Page 52 is not an RF plot. It's antennas and the placement. Oh, yeah. Yeah.

Would you like that brought up on the

screen? Yeah.

Vanessa, could you bring up page 52 on the screen, if you don't mind?

I think it was that one. Is it the slide the next one, the last one? No. It's not that one?

I'll have Aniana help me to pull up there.

Yes. PDF, Page 52. So I see the RF graph there, but I don't see any RF attenuation. Okay. So

So is that the view that you're wanting to see that

with the No. So I don't see any RF attenuation here in this in this view. Okay. Do I mean

I'm not qualified

to

talk on that. I'm sorry.

Fine. Okay. Just checking. Thank you. I just wanted to for the public, just to

make Yeah.

Clear. Okay. I

just do know that it meets all the standards, FCC

Yeah. Of course.

Of course.

But but beyond that, I'm not

able to

And it I didn't see anything how it, like, how it extend above two because so we have a small airport close by

Mhmm.

In San Martin. And I don't know if that's, like, how the planes work, what's their airspace path that they go, but, like, how further, like, if a plane, like, has to pass Because there's a lot it's all small planes, and people should just, you know, fly them all around. Uh-huh. And then it's, like, how above how much they it's, like, safe is not gonna kind of interfere with the equipment Mhmm. Because that can create a problem too since you have, like, a airport very close by.

And so I would like to see something that's also on the top, how how it interferes with the top, like because it shows the radiations, like, sideways, but how further it goes up.

Okay.

You know? The other thing too is that regarding the wildlife, we have, you know, we have a lot of greenery. Mhmm. You know, we have a lot of, like, owls, big birds here because, you know, it's too it's a little bit of the countryside. So what's the interference seen with the especially with the birds, within the wildlife? Let's say, if they if they fly and land on it, what's what causes them, you know, for their health and

That I am not sure. I do know before any work is done on towers. During certain periods of the year, there will be a bird study done to make sure there's no nest or anything on the tower before any work is done, but I

don't know as far as health to the animals what it does.

If they land, don't know if they die, if they get the radiation and pass through the babies, or what's going on with the wildlife? I don't think it is. Because we have, like we have actually neighbor native owls. They're like a big owls here.

Uh-huh.

And, you know, it just I'm just concerned, like, what can happen to them because it's like maybe can put a cage or maybe, like, nothing happens to them. Like, at least, like, I think before I give any answer, I I think this is a must for me because we live very close to a lot of, like to mountains and greenery, and and I wanna make sure that at least for everybody, not only for us human, but for people who are flying the planes and and, you know, the animals that could be potentially landing on it.

Yeah. I do know there's I know T Mobile has either 11 or 13 other sites in the city. So I I mean

Just because they passed something comes back in the day, and I wasn't here to, like, ensure that, like, you know, those answers, those questions were answered doesn't mean that we should continue doing it just because we have 13, and then it would be one fourteen to, like, you know, to adds up to the problem if that is a problem. I'm not you know, maybe not.

Yeah. Okay.

So

I I I just want to chime in right now that this project was reviewed under CEQA, and there were no impacts. And it's coming under an exemption. So before you can get into an exemption, they looked at if there were going to be any environmental or wildlife habitat issues, and it's been determined that there aren't any, and it's exempt. So I just yeah. And then the planes, there's an existing tower there, and so they there is not interference with the plane from the existing tower.

So I don't know how relevant interference with planes for replacing that tower is with this discussion. So I do know if

we're within a certain distance from an airport, we have to do an FAA study.

And so I don't believe But you're not within that area. But Okay.

But But because those are small planes and I think it's same. So

I know with cellular I know with Wi Fi, you have to provide compliance to FCC. So with cellular in the five gigahertz range, you must either you first, you have to identify. You must always be listening for planes, and you either need to shut down your radios or you need to change channel. Now cellular is different. Wi Fi, five gs is different than cellular. They use the same band but different channels on those bands. Sometimes they overlap. But all RF, if it's FCC compliant, all RF will be compliant for airplane air flight.

And just, like, for curiosity, you know, I think, like, in general, the the signal in Giroi is pretty good compared with, like, Morgan Hill. Like, literally, like, the phone in Morgan Hill, like, barely work. It's horrible. So why Giroi and not Morgan Hill? Like, why do you think the signal, if it needs one more antenna, what's the need for that antenna just to bring the speed, the five gs?

No. It's to fill a gap in coverage for the public and emergency services.

Okay.

The coverage map showed the

There's also on Page 56 an engineer certification. If you read it, he's sworn to it and attested to all the things that you're asking about as far as whether it's FCC compliant. So I'm trusting what the engineer says.

Yes. But like each place, they kind of we cannot apply one rule for, like, you know, everything. So He's

he's he's using his license to attest to this. So, you know, I don't think we should be speculating that this thirteenth hour I'm may asking questions

because I have I have quest I have, you know, I wanted to know. I wanted to understand better. And I think it's my right as a citizen, and I'm representing the other people who they have no idea what the hell antenna is, how tall it is, what do they do. They don't even use the Internet. So I'm in here representing just like you, the people from UROID, and I can ask any questions

If we can please strike questions to

It's like, I'm asking to her.

I understand. You you can continue.

My right to do it.

Not you shouldn't be getting in a debate with your fellow planning commissioner.

You should speak one set of time.

Debating. You're you're arguing.

I'm not because the microphone the microphone is high right now.

You can continue asking questions if you have. Yeah.

Of the applicant?

That's what I was doing.

So the other thing that I want people to know about this application, and I think Commissioner Benson brought it up, is the application is supported by reports, engineers' reports, and that would be considered substantial evidence for the approval of this. So if we get off on tangents or we start speculating about certain things, we don't have substantial evidence in the record to support that there's impacts to planes or there's impacts for, you know, the gap, we don't have that evidence. And so I'm just wanting you to make sure that that the questions are going to be leading to evidence that we can use to approve or deny this variance. But

And part of it is to understand better, you know, what you know, how it works. And, you know, I didn't see a map of how it affects from the top or anything. So I just I just would rather understand what's going on.

I would like to say that I think Commissioner Elle Elle did an excellent job putting it to staff first so they have a chance to respond.

Commissioners, any further questions for the applicant representative?

No. But I forgot I have one more for staff that I forgot

to ask Close. Close public hearing. Thank very much. Thank you much. There any other public speakers for the item on agenda?

There are no further speakers. All right. I'm going

to go ahead and close public hearing and open it back up to staff

for questions. I forgot to ask, do we know how tall the service poles are nearby? So there's a couple wooden service poles.

PG and

E, things like that.

I think, yeah, like PG and E poles.

Let me pull up the

plans real quick. If they're near on the site at all, they might show them.

Maybe Melissa just Unless I might know. Well, knows. Well, I I

I just asked the the city engineer. They're probably in the range of 30. That's not exact, but in that range.

Great. Any further questions for staff? No. I do appreciate Commissioner Benson mentioning the questions that were e mailed to staff and the replies. We do appreciate that makes for an orderly meeting and a timely meeting. So in the future, I do request all commissioners, if you do have questions, to reach out to staff.

And when you do that, just email them directly to staff, and then they'll respond and not say whose question. Sometimes you'll

get multiple questions, but what you

do is you cut and paste so you don't know who's asking which questions because we don't wanna get into a a serial meeting or a Brown Act violation.

I was just going to mention, I think on page 43 of the PDF, you can see a photograph that shows some other polls. And then if you continue on, some subsequent pages also have that. And I know it doesn't have exact distance, but it gives some perspective.

And just a quick note too. So I work all day long with I look at and often we find mistakes there. So, just because it was signed by engineer, you know, we don't have to, like you know, it's always 100%. It's like there is no mistake. There is no.

So we that's why we are here to ask questions and to make sure that, like, maybe that there is something else that other people, residents, they need to understand as well because each one of us brings something different to the table. And some people are more high-tech than others. Some people, they have a different kind of background. So just because it's signed by engineer does not guarantee that this is safe because I that's I deal with that all the time.

Thank you, commissioner. All right. If there's no further questions for staff.

Sure. I'm sorry. I the height of the pole, why do we have that setback?

It is in our zoning code. I would assume it's for safety, making sure maybe that. Able So we're we're do

We're three, the one that question sorry, the RF attenuation, that's the simulation. Yes. I mean, we could be seeing that in any angle. We have we don't really know.

Yes. So for this one, they are showing that it is a southwest angle. Right.

I mean

All right. Commissioners, if there's no further questions for staff, I'm going to ask for disclosure of any ex parte communications with the applicant or representative.

Me, Chair, is that we don't have to do any ex parte for citizens, correct?

Correct. Only for applicants.

Okay. Thank

you. Or representatives of the applicants.

Well, but if you spoke to a resident and they provided you information that wasn't in the staff report or you think it has bearing on this, you should share it. But just so everybody's sort of on the page.

You know me, I'm an oversharer.

You overshare.

All right. Great. And to confirm, I noticed that everybody said no. Moving on to five. Possible action. The floor is open to discussion and a motion.

Well, I did have some residents say they were opposed to seeing such a tall pole in that location and that it would be unsightly. I appreciate that it's difficult to disguise it there. I mean, we all know what the tree poles look like. But so they did identify that they had concerns with that.

Anybody can bring a motion?

So so sorry. So basically, what we are seeing that the report is approved, I mean, engineer wise, but they're looking for variants. Right? Correct. And what are the the, yeah, the basis for a variance change? I mean, like, yes or no? Because I just came back from the academy, Planning Commissioners Academy. So So

we have to make certain findings in order to make a variance, and those are identified in the resolution. A a foundation for the COVID-nineteen COVID-nineteen

have very

motion to approve this project.

Think we need two motions, don't we? We do. You yes.

And you got to read each one out. Yes. So 6.1a. 6.1a. So I make a motion.

I make a motion to approve 6.1 a.

You gotta read it out.

And I'm going to read it. Okay. Based on the independent analysis determined, this project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to state, CEQA guidelines section 15,303, class three.

I'll second.

Second.

Roll call. Commissioner Benson?

Yes.

Commissioner Elley? No. Commissioner Kushner?

No. Commissioner Liengaard?

No. Vice Chair Donhauer?

Yes. Chair Bando?

Yes. All right. So that's a three threes.

So that's a failed motion.

It's a failed motion.

So what we can do is ask for a different motion. Someone wants to say that they can't find that the project is that it's exempt from CEQA. I'm not sure what evidence we have for that.

Wait. I'm sorry.

Yeah. We were just doing

No. The approval of our Yes.

Let's try. I'm

just the motion.

Let's have a new let's have a new motion. We're just doing you're determining that it's exempt from CEQA.

So what happens if there's a tide in this situation? In this one? Yeah. So that we're learning.

Well, then it means that there's not a finding for the CEQA. And I'd ask for another motion, and maybe someone will say that they can't make that exemption, but I'm saying we don't have Grounds. Grounds for it. So I think if you if people and I don't wanna predetermine anything, But if people aren't going to approve the design review or the variance, you can still approve that it's exempt. The exempt.

Then if you want and, you you know, you don't wanna kill the project through the CEQA exemption. But if you want to deny the project or approve the project, do the CEQA first, and then you have to go to b and c and make those determinations based on Yeah. The findings.

No. I'm I agree. Sorry. I was reading this report, the CEQA. And I what can we do?

Let's Let's the motion.

Let's redo the

motion. I have one question. I also attended the academy, and an E and S without a variance would be ministerially approved by staff because the staff agrees that it does meet CEQA. So without the variance, this would have been approved by staff level. It's only the variance of the height that is really what we are interested in, although we're going to do both resolutions. So that's something to for somebody I know Stephanie and I both went to the academy, and we learned a lot, at least I Not

all A and S are staff level, though. So this one would be. Yes.

Yes. This one would have been. Because

it involves the wireless, and we have to make sure we don't have impediments to processing. And so all right. Let's redo that motion on the sequin.

Have

time

a. Part a, based on the independent analysis determined, we this project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to state CEQA guidelines, section 15,303, class three.

I will second.

Roll call. Commissioner Benson?

Yes.

Commissioner Elley?

Yes. Commissioner Kushner?

Yes.

Commissioner Liengaard?

Yes. Vice chair Donhauer?

Yes.

Chair Bondo?

Yes. Thank you. That was unanimous. Did you want to continue, Brian?

So I'd like to make a motion that we approve adoption. Part B, adopt a resolution approving the architectural and site review permit application AS 20 four-fourteen.

With conditions? Wouldn't you need to say with conditions?

No No conditions.

Okay. I meant no, the ones that are listed in the resolution. No. As written

in the resolution.

Okay. Perfect. Okay.

Will second.

Roll call. Commissioner Benson?

Yes.

Commissioner Elli?

No.

Commissioner Kushner? No. Commissioner Lingard? No. Vice Chair John Howard?

Yes.

Chair Bandel?

Yes. So split three three. A resolution approving the variance permit, Application V24-one.

I'll second the motion.

Roll call. Commissioner Bensen?

Yes.

Commissioner Elley?

Yes. I'm sorry. No.

No. Commissioner Kushner?

No. Commissioner Lingard?

No. Vice chair Donhaler?

Yes.

Chair Bondo?

Yes. That is also a failed motion.

So that

is a failed motion, and it will have to be appealed to the city council. I am stating that your your denial was not supported by any evidence. So it will it's it's a denial. It's a failed motion. So it will go up to counsel, and we really don't have a good record to send up to counsel except it was a tie vote, and it failed.

I have a question regarding, like, the the is a lack of a lack of, like, information. For example, the angles, the different angle provided that, you know, the radiation, different angles, they just showed one instead of the other ones. So because it's kind of like a missing important information, is that considered to be reason? Like, you know, a

Well, it it will be noted it will be noted in the in the report that goes to counsel, but it does sound like your basis was the EMF And and under the federal law, you can't deny an application for that. But we'll just it's a it's a failed vote, and it will go up to counsel. That way, you'll the applicant will have to appeal. Okay.

So but my understanding from our previous trainings and our sessions that we both went to with variance, though, what did the

Oh, there were yeah. So there were no one made any no one countered the variance findings in the in the motion. So Yes. You do need variance findings to approve it, and there has to be something unique and special. And we had findings in the staff report attached to that resolution that set forth those.

So to not approve the variance, we don't have really any evidence of why you didn't approve it. So but it's denied, and you couldn't make those findings, and you felt that you couldn't, so it will go up to counsel that way.

Can we talk offline so I could have a better understanding of something that we learned? I'm not today. Well, I mean, what are what are

you saying about ovarian? So

my understanding is there has to be the pro and the con, and I never saw any con in there to deny not to deny it, but the what are the negatives of approving this variance. We did not see that in here. And it's to have a variance change that necessarily need to what's the I don't know if I'm using the right terminology to the to you just said it, to deny the findings. There we go. Yeah.

There's nothing that says we have to give you pro and con findings. I think if you're going to deny it, you would have had to make counter findings to the approval findings. And so

That's something different that we learned at the session that I learned at the session. Yes.

I How would you put that? Because how would you put that in practice? Because I think it's kind of confusing. At least I'm not clear on that subject.

Julie, question. In the resolution for the approval on the variance, one of the first things it said, number one, there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property arising from the property size, configuration, existing structures that prevent the wireless facility from meeting the minimum 65 foot setback from all property lines. Additionally, the proposed coverage would not be able to be comparably obtained at the maximum allowable height of the C1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. Zoning districts that would allow a monopole height of 65 feet are not located in the general facility of this coverage. And then next line, number two, that because of such exceptional or extraordinary services, the literal enforcement of specified provisions of zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship such as to deprive the applicant of a substantial property right possessed by other owners of property in the same class or district.

The literal enforcement of the wireless facility setback would cause hardship due to the lots configuration and existing conditions. Additionally, colocation on an existing facility would not be possible as there are no other existing wireless facilities within 1,000 feet of the site. There is no zoning district within 1,000 feet of the site that would permit a 65 foot tall monopole without going through the variance process. Most of the surrounding properties are zoned neighborhood, commercial or single on residential zone properties are not preferred as it would not impact the character of the residential neighborhood and has a potential to pose a greater impact to public safety and general welfare. The location of this being in the neighborhood commercial area is far superior to being in a residential district.

I mean this is why I'm recommending approval.

Those are the variance findings for that staff said that they can make. And so for denying the variance, no one went through and said, I can't make that finding or there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. But

Well, when I made the you know, I think I did the second on this one. I read all these before. So I understand the variance, and that's why I recommended approval.

All right. Great. I'm going to continue on with the hearing. Thank you, Vanessa and applicant. We appreciate your time.

And there is it says in the staff report, the appeal procedures, it does say within twenty days. So under the zoning code.

Thank you, Julie. All right. New Business 7.1, VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan Update presented by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

There we go.

Should I just jump right in?

Yes.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Lauren Ledbetter. I'm a senior transportation planner. I manage the bicycle and pedestrian program at VTA. And we were asked to come to this commission to provide an update on a plan that we are developing. It's actually an update of a plan that we developed a few years ago, the Bicycle Superhighway implementation plan. Before I jump into it, I just want to give a bit of context.

So VTA, you all know, is the transit agency for Santa Clara County. The the also

on right the of

we're

the use and transportation integration. So if you're

also wondering working why the transit agency is here talking to you about bikes, that's why. So to give you just kind of the background, we adopted the most recent countywide bicycle plan in 2018. We've had a plan for many, many decades. This was the most recent update. And in that update, we introduced this concept of bicycle superhighways, which are intended, you can see here, to be essentially high quality continuous uninterrupted bikeways that connect the county.

Typically, the way we think about this is we want them to be very comfortable and very safe. And generally, what that means is they're physically separated from motor vehicles. It could either be a trail or it could be a physically protected bikeway on the side of a roadway. And then the main goal of this concept is like we have the expressways, like we have the freeway system in our county, we want to develop a system, a limited system of bikeways that can basically be like that mental map for people in the community if they want to bike long distances from one location to the other, perhaps going to work, perhaps going to visit another community or even for recreation or for school. Actually, let me go back real quick.

So that's the Guadalupe River Trail up in North San Jose, and it sees about 2,500 bicyclists using it every day. It's very well used commuter route, basically, and a recreational route. Also have a lot of people walking on it. And these are just some concept designs from a feasibility study that VTA led with the city of Santa Clara, the county of Santa Clara and the city of San Jose to look at a 10 mile east west connection through the central part of Santa Clara County. The picture on the left is actually a concept of what El Camino Real could look like, where you have a sidewalk level bikeway.

We've basically taken over the parking lane for that. And you can still have bus transportation. And then on more local roads in San Jose, you can see the concept on the right of a physically protected bikeway. So this implementation plan. So the bike plan that we developed in 2018, it introduced concept, and it had a list of 12 potential corridors, but it included no map.

And so we knew that we needed to follow that up with more detail and honestly, more communication with the local agencies and the communities. And so leading up to the 2021 bike highway superhighway implementation plan, we sat down and met with city staff, presented to a few of the local bicycle pedestrian advisory commissions, presented to the VTA Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and actually came up with a map of bike highways, generally identifying projects that were already in existing local plans as either a physically protected bikeway path or a bicycle trail. The plan has a map, I mentioned. It includes some assumptions about the design of the bike highways. It gives these very high level cost estimates by route.

We also look at the vehicle miles traveled, VMT reductions by route using the VTA travel model, travel demand model that we have for the whole county and provided some other guidance around maintaining them and operating them and some potential funding opportunities. So a lot has actually been done on many of the bikeways. They're mostly being developed by local agencies. VTA is leading the photos I showed you for the in the beginning were the Central Bikeway. We're leading that one, but a lot of the other projects are being led by the local agencies.

So we wanted to do an update. We reached out to city staff this past summer. We got input from staff to make modifications to the plan, including from Gilroy staff. This update adds another bike highway in Palo Alto. This is the Charleston Arrastadero corridor.

We updated some of the other items like the reduction in DMT and the cost ranges. So we include a map. And if you squint here, you could see it's essentially it's a grid of bikeways that connects the county. And just to give you a little bit of context here, the color that you see, it's a little hard to tell the difference. The green color is a path, so like the Guadalupe River Trail.

And the blue color is a bikeway that's going to be on a roadway. And the dark the solid line means it's actually built. You can currently ride on a physically protected bikeway. And the dashed line means it's not built yet. There might be a bike lane there, but the way we're determining whether it's a dash or a solid line is if there's actually physical protection from motor vehicles.

So currently, as you can see, we have a lot of really excellent bike paths that follow the rivers and creeks and lead to the bay. And we also have the Bay Trail, which you can ride on. Currently, if you start in Palo Alto, you can bike entirely on trails, 20 miles to Downtown San Jose. So we already have a network. And of course, we also have a lot of the Coyote Creek Trail that you can catch in South San Jose and bike down into South County for that.

The challenge is to connect people across the county West. We don't have these natural rivers. And so that's where we're going to we're looking at these on street bikeways. The Gilroy is in the lower left hand corner, and we identified Monterey Road as the potential bike highway. And we would love to get feedback from the community on this.

We are still in the process of moving the plan through our committees and getting it adopted by the Board. So I will go to the next slide. Each bikeway in the plan has sort of a one or two page spread with similar information. So what are the agencies that it goes through, the destinations? What could VTA potentially do?

In this case, we could potentially lead an effort. We could provide support to the local agencies to develop something. When I say Monterey Road, this is from San Jose all the way down to Gilroy. And next slide. We also provide these planning level cost ranges.

I've been involved in a few capital projects over the last few years, and what we are seeing is the costs are increasing dramatically. And so we decided for this one, we didn't want to put actual dollars in here. We wanted to do more of a range, although we do have a key down there. Some of these are very, very expensive. And so getting funding and implementing them will definitely be a challenge.

The TBDs are because the actual design hasn't been or the actual design doesn't we don't have enough information to actually even get a planning level cost estimate. I also mentioned the vehicle miles reduction estimate. So this is how many miles of motor vehicle trips will be reduced daily by the build out of each of these bikeways. Really briefly, the way we calculated this was we have a county transportation model that allows us to estimate vehicle miles traveled from one traffic analysis zone to the other. We took three typical bikeways and did pre and post models of this going out to, I believe, did 2,050.

So we incorporate the land use changes, and we looked at basically how many trips along that bike route could potentially be non motorized trips. We also looked at the percentage or we looked at the households and the employment within various buffers of the bikeway to also kind of estimate what the potential was for how many trips we could capture. And so we did that for three representative bikeways to get kind of a if you have a trail bikeway, it's this. If you have a others. So these are very conceptual ideas.

But I think in terms of like the relative amount of VMT change, I think it's pretty relatively, it probably makes sense. So this is next steps for VTA. This is not this is just an information item for this commission. We are going to be bringing the plan to our standing committee in probably April now and the Board of our Board of Directors in May for having them adopt the update. And we're just this is kind of a living document.

We're continuing to work with cities to check-in on the status and have them update the plan. So with that, I can take any questions.

Will this come back for a planning commission

some of the responsibilities of the BPAC. So That's correct. That's why

I was wondering if it came back because this is they changed their hat and their BPAC when they need to be. So that's why I was asking if it would be coming back.

Our portion is the capital portion.

And Got it.

Okay. So Our this commission the is the education portion. Yes.

I thought, though, that we already maybe it was just an informational report. I think it was before your time, commissioner, where we did have a planning staff. So I guess it's more of a question. So we and we're not really in question mode. Okay. Cherry says go ahead. So I think that we had a planner come up and and talk about this. I can't remember if we voted on it or not, but they described that they were gonna put a bike lane, and maybe it was for a grant approval.

I I think that was a question.

Wasn't that HEFA? Yeah. HEFA Public Works. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

It's public works. It was public works. Did we vote on that? We

did. Okay. That was the

8,800,000.0. Yeah. It was an application. For the grant.

The grant.

Okay. Thank you. This is

I've seen

Since

this is more informational, could you give more details about the Monterey Highway bike? How what's the name now? Bike Highway? Yes. Highway. Yes. So could you give a little more details so then, you know, our community will understand a little bit more? And if they have any questions, they can, I guess, direct the question to you guys or you

know? Sure.

So I would say at this point in time, it honestly is just a line on a map. Okay. Right? The actual details of how to implement something like this in the city of Gilroy haven't been determined, and it would be at this point, it would be up to the city and the city staff. And so there's I can give examples of how VTA has been working with cities in some of these.

Like in some situations, the cities are like Stevens Creek Trail extension, Mountain View and Sunnyvale have applied independently for grants to to develop that trail and extend it. And so they're leading it entirely. And VTA's role in that is either potentially sitting well, in that, we are a funding agency for some of the things. So they apply for competitive grants. So we support it that way.

And the fact that it is in the bike highway implementation plan gives us additional points on some of the grants. For the East Channel Trail, which is another North south we're that. To do And then we projects have very have have of

projects

as assistance or actually leaving it.

So for the Monterrey, again, did you guys do any kind of already, like, a pre kind of preparation? Did you guys do, like, a like, already some rerun some reports? Like, what's the work that has been done for the Monterey?

I would say the Monterey the determination of putting Monterrey in as the potential bike highway was based on both the countywide bike plan where we went out to the community and we worked with city staff. Again, that was in like we were doing that planning work in 2015, '16, 2017. So it's quite long ago. And that came out as a corridor that bicyclists were wanting to bike And then through the first bike superhighway study, we also reached out to staff and asked, okay, what basically, what alignments we think there should be something through your community. What should the alignment be?

Yeah.

So I just want to put it out. You know, we are able to you know, this is right now, it's a concept idea. We are able to and we want to be consistent with the local planning transportation efforts. So if there's an alternative North South route that the community prefers, we can incorporate that into our plans. So but we haven't done a lot. We haven't done the types of studies that you

And the dollar sign that you put it out there is kind of like you did you go back to the '20 February, like, whatever, 'eighteen when that was first came out? Or is like kind of like updated you guessed that's how much it's to cost?

For the costs, we looked at relatively recent per mile costs for constructing a physically protected bikeway on a roadway, and we just costed it out using that assumption. Okay. Yeah.

I had a few questions, but I think after this conversation, there might be staff questions. So feel free to defer me to the city of Gilroy. So on Page 91, it talks about separated bikeway paths. It defines them. And it says that a minimum and it gives like a minimum recommendation with with a a buffer buffer for for the it has six the six and and seven seven foot wide and the five foot wide. So does the minimum include the buffer? So could or does the is that inclusive of the buffer or the minimum plus the buffer?

Right. I understand your question. So the recommendation is the bikeway itself where people are going to be riding is a minimum of six to seven feet. And then the buffer is the physical protection. And so if you if the bikeway is at the street level, like in the two pictures to the right, you want the buffer to be three feet wide. And if the bikeway is at the sidewalk level, like the picture you have on the left,

estimates are created so I can look that up. You said the VTA travel demand model?

Yes. We have a whole modeling group. Am not the expert on it. So if you have really technical questions, I'd have to defer.

That's fine because this is more

of

a general So and I think you already answered this. But on PDF Page 81 and PDF Page 93, it looks like the Gilroy portion was planned with a separated bike way. But then the when you look at 15, which is us, it says on Page 123, shows concept needs more study. So they're still doing the more study for us.

Yes. Concept. And generally, the way we put that in is if we could not point to a city plan that had been adopted that specifically said that roadway will be a physically protected bikeway. We did not want to say anything but concept. Got it. So it's a concept in our plan, and there needs to be additional work done So, I mean determine what the North South connection should be.

So I'm not suggesting anything, but just like so at that point in time, if they say because I just went on Google Earth and I did some measurements, like, four four lane roadways on Monterrey with the turn lane is 69 feet plus the that's on the side, so minus 10 feet for a separated thing. But when you get down to downtown, which is still Monterey, you the city and yourselves could decide to maybe pop that bike lane off to a side street Mhmm. And then bring it back around.

That is definitely a possibility depending on you know, there's different things you can But, yeah, absolutely, that's a possibility. And just I ate before I came here in downtown and right by Monterey Road, and I'm like It's tight. It's tight.

Tight. Yeah. Yeah. And then

so when Hema came and spoke with us, she said that that it would not be protected. And as someone who enjoys biking and and used to commute to work and can't really commute to San Jose now, I'm on a it's a little far for a bike, but and I've also been hit by a car. I love the idea of secure safe, but she said that it would not necessarily be that way on Monterrey. It wouldn't have physical barrier because we lack equipment. So again, is that a city decision, or is that a requirement to have barrier based on this based on this report? And you could say you don't know. I mean, that's fine too.

I mean, I think it depends is kind of an unsatisfying answer, but sometimes it depends. It depends on the context. It also sometimes depends on the funding source that you're applying for. So and there certainly are other cities, Sunnyvale, for example, that have not been putting in physically protected bikeways yet because they want to solve the maintenance issue first. They want to make sure they can maintain them before they get Right.

Because Teva had indicated we don't have that equipment yet.

Most yes, most cities don't have the small street sweepers. Right. So And then

two more questions. Again, safety.

So would there be any CCTV or anything like that along those longer corridors for safety? Or is that not part of the plan? Or has that has that been implemented anywhere?

I don't know if it's been implemented. And I actually haven't gotten that request yet, but I'll write it down because it's a really interesting idea maybe at certain locations.

I went to one of the bicycle coalition conferences, and they supplied us with a very thick book of statistics information, which my copious amounts of free time I'm I'm slowly reading through. And one of the things that they indicated, and as a female bicyclist, I can attest to, is that, you know, 90% of men are distance 90% bicycles are men who distance. And I may be getting the stats wrong, but I think it's actually higher than 90%. And women usually bike to run errands and more local and things like that. And I would definitely I mean, one of the reasons I don't bike long distance is because you're out there all by yourself.

Right? And there's statistics. We're the to that. And move forward with implementing new city plan amendments, but they talked about how that changes safety situations for building. And some of these some of the changes for moderate fire awareness sorry.

I'm just trying to protect my throat here and not be coughing on everybody. I've come very close to that, to Monterey. And where I'm going with this is is at the very end of the map, about just south of downtown, just West of Luchessa and Princeville Intersection and at Day Road, 1,800 feet from Monterey Road, we have moderate fire. And one of the mitigations that they talked about for high fire areas at the academy was wider roads for evacuation. Now I know these this plan is not in the bike trail is not in the in those areas, but obviously, Monterey would be used for an evacuation situation.

And right now, with the measurements, we could add a bike lane without reducing any of the size of the bike lanes sorry, car lanes and still keep our center turn lane. Is that something that VTA and cities are considering? I mean, I know it just changed, right? Those maps just changed in February. But is that anything that's come up, like in Saratoga or Los Gatos or anything like

Not that in particular with the deterioration routes, but we have I am aware of needing to design the physically protected bikeways, particularly the ones where you're bringing the they're at the sidewalk level, you're bringing the curb. They need to be designed if you have a tall building so that the fire departments can get close enough to the building and their ladders can reach. And so it depends on the geometry of how far back the building is and how wide the sidewalk is. And so in one situation, actually has designed this is one of our transit sites, has designed a mountable curb so that the fire department can come and pull in adjacent to the building and not. So I think there's potential design solutions where you can do both, but it would absolutely have to be context, very specific detailed designs.

So, thank you. I live by a trail. Mhmm. And, when there is fire, actually, the fire department use the little trail, they use as a as a way to get into the bush. And I see that as actually as a add on because people even in bike, motorcycle, can escape.

It could be, like, used for motorcycle people to escape of, like, a major fire. People even in bike, running, whatever it takes. Even smaller cars can pass through it, you know, can use that as well. Because I see happening, like, next door to me. Like, I can like, even the police, the the police just goes there in cars in a tiny little, probably, like, six feet. They just they just use that as a as a like, a driveway when it's, like, And we're

And

we're do that. Be curious, what percentage of these completed projects in the North Bay were completed with 100% grant money? And how much of it was put back on, if you know the answer? Or how much of it was put back on to the jurisdictions?

I don't know the answer. I would say a large proportion of the bike paths were grant money, but usually, the grant money requires a match of between 50% to 20%. So it's always it's typically a combination.

Yes. And also, do you guys work as a guide kind of like a guidance resource for the city? So let's say, do we like you have this, like, kind of a preplan, you know, routes for possible, you know, bicycle, trails. And then let's say you guys know about, like, a grant, a federal grant or something. Do you guys have is there a place where you guys offer all the information, gather all the information in one kind of store, whatever you guys have in one place and then kind of let the cities know, hey, look, they are offering these grants, like, kind of like almost like a share, collaborate kind of like resource?

Yes. Those are great questions. We do have a programming and grants group that keeps track of the transportation related grants that are available to the agencies in Santa Clara County. And we have a monthly meeting of a it's called the Capital Improvement Program working group, which consists of staff from public works or transportation departments at all of the jurisdictions within our within Santa Clara County. And that is where discuss upcoming grant funding.

We also if we receive something from a federal source or a state source that's relevant, we will forward it to that group. So we are trying to keep the communication channels open for the grants. I also haven't done this in a little while, but I have been proactively reaching out to the city staff, asking them what their top priority unfunded bicycle projects are. Not that I we necessarily have money, but if VTA, as a funding agency or an agency that deals with funding, knows about the projects, it's easier for us to make that connection and say, Oh, you should definitely think about this grant.

So Okay. Thank you.

Great. I don't see any other questions. Thank you for the presentation.

Thank you.

We appreciate it. Right. Moving on to 8.1, informational items, Civic Center Master Plan Community Workshops. Sharon?

So as you saw in the packet, so I left a copy hard copy for you. The city has been conducting some community workshops to develop a civic center master plan. And I had e mailed that to you because if we had waited till today, you would have missed the first one. So I'm glad I think some commissioners were able to attend, and so hope you're able to make some future workshops, too.

Thank you, Sharon. Eight point two Planning Division staff approvals. Are any questions? No? All right. I'll move on. Nine planning division report.

I have a question about the the community workshop. For people who speak Spanish, it's gonna have a, like, a different time.

They have people there speaking Spanish when I went.

Okay.

Yeah. Thank you. Yes.

If you look at sort of toward the top here, workshops will be conducting English and Spanish.

Okay. Because it's just all the time.

I thought I was really positive, the first one, with having all the huge 10 foot by 10 foot color boards and everything and talking to each staff person and then the one that's Ryan, I guess, that's here at the city. So I thought it was very informational. I'm looking forward to the other ones. I've already got time off for the number two. So yes.

Yes. I went to the first one too, and it was really well done. And I thought they were really exhaustive in all the potential uses to the point where when after I'm going through, I couldn't think of anything they missed, which was pretty impressive.

Yes, think we'll be hearing some good feedback. So thank you.

Yes, very positive. It's just the whole funding issue at the very end is like, Oh,

we need to do the lottery.

Yes.

So back to the planning division report. We just received this flyer last night, so I sent it out today to you via e mail. Left you a copy to, and that's regarding the district based election. And you'll see there are some upcoming community workshops as well. That's why I wanted to give you the information as soon as possible.

I'm still waiting until the next meeting. And there will be a series of public hearings also that will be held at the city council meeting, culminating in the adoption of a district and map. And also, there's a website that was linked in my e mail. It's also on the flyer too at the lower left. Yes.

And Spanish language interpretation services will be provided at all the meetings that's referenced here. So welcome your input and participation. And then one other item, I've also e mailed you because we did not well, we had an interim city clerk who was working part time. So I sent you the information regarding Form 700 a couple of days ago. And for the two new commissioners, I will talk to you afterward because I think you received something slightly different. Okay. Yes. That would be great. And I'm going left you a copy of the e mail I have sent. Just to remind you, please complete those by April 1. Otherwise, we'll enter some fines according to the state laws.

All

right. Thank you.

Thank you, Sharon. 10, Assistant City Attorney Report. Jo Lee. Very good. Nice and easy. And with that, I'm going to adjourn to the next meeting of April 3.

Can we make a comment about the real quick about the academy? I didn't know if we were going to have time, but I just have something briefly sorry, something briefly that one of the reports had to do with doing the regulations and stuff for ministerial and things like that on the zoning ordinance to be in compliance with your has gone a long, long way from one of the attorneys who was presenting. I walk up to her, and I said, which city of is it? And she said, the city of Belmont. So Sharon, you might want to make contact with them to find out what they've done exactly.

It might streamline it for Gilroy. That's something I I wanted to share with you.

Well, we have that zoning update. We have a zoning update, and a lot of the project approvals will be more staff level. Right.

That's what we took away from it as well. Ministerial, yes, like I was talking about. But we have to make all these regulations, but Belmont has already done it.

And I haven't put all my notes in, but I will do that and send it to you, Sharon. And then just to know that there is all the presentations are available to download and there's they're all very, very good. There's one in particular that goes over all of the stuff that's coming down the pipe with regarding housing and other things that we need to make changes for our city plans, like for the fire. Like, we have to include a fire evacuation, things like that. So it's long, but definitely check it out.

And it gives you all the legislative nightmares that are on the horizon, what to look for ABs and SBs and whatever.

Great. I will now move to adjournment to the next meeting of 04/03/2025. Thanks, commissioners and staff.