Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll get started in just a few minutes, everybody. All right. Good afternoon, everybody. I want to welcome everybody to the July 16th Regular Planning Commission meeting of Gilroy. I'd like to start off with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand. Thank you. Arianna, please report on posting the agenda and roll call, please.

The agenda was posted on Thursday, July 9th, 2026 at 527 p.m. Roll call. Commissioner Benson. Present. Commissioner Donhower.

Present.

Commissioner Cotabande.

Present.

Commissioner Martinez is absent. Commissioner Valdez.

Present.

Vice Chair Elling.

Present. And Chair Bundle.

Present.

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

Great. I'm going to move on to public comment. Before we start this, I just want to make the announcement that the public comment is a three-minute time section for items not on the agenda. And a reminder that Section 6.1 of today's meeting is not specifically for the Amazon Data Center. So if there are any Amazon comments, please do it at this time during public comment. Ariana, do we have any public comment speakers?

Any speakers?

There are no speaker cards.

6.1 is about the zoning ordinance, and it's not expressly on the data center. So if you have comments on the data center, I would recommend you put them in general public comments. 6.1 is a zoning amendment about zoning process for Arkansas approvals. It's not about Amazon data center. If you want to speak about the Amazon data center and provide your comments at this meeting, I would suggest doing it at public comment.

Would you guys like to speak? No. Leave it at 6.1. I don't know.

Okay, let me start.

Sure, if you don't mind filling out a speaker card. My name is Michelle Nelson.

Okay, and

Yeah, there was an issue at the last city council meeting because I tried to do one thing and then I was moved to the other and I didn't get a chance to, anyway. So I am here to talk about the ordinance that you want to pass, but it also was precipitated by the process for the Amazon data center. That's why I'm confused about where I'm going to go with this. So... We're supposed to be looking at changing the ordinance. And on page three of one of the documents, the city will provide notice of development applications through a range of communication channels. including the online development project list, project web pages for applicable projects, and other digital communications to keep the community informed. Many people aren't digital natives. I'm not. So how are you going to reach those people? The original thing for the... Amazon project went out and there were six comments and none of them were from the public. It was a 45-day notice Library here and people don't are not notified the amendment will introduce new applicant responsibilities the applicant must mail notices of the project to nearby property owners and So going back to this particular project or any future project, I live in the Northwest quadrant. What if a project is not nearby? It's not clear what that means, but some impacts affect me personally also. So, and then residents, nearby residents, I don't know what that means. What is the current procedure for public hearing projects? Also, newspaper publication is not required. I don't know why that is in there. The applicant must host a community meeting to present the project, gather feedback. The Amazon presentation at Gilroy High School was characterized by many people as a dog and pony show, quote unquote. And people were complaining that it should have been a town hall. Also, why is it just once? Also, they're supposed to... So the mailing... The mailing to people, I don't know. That's not sufficient. It's supposed to document the community engagement efforts. Notice the appeal fee, it was over $2,500. And I just think it was odd. One of your goals, support growth and development that preserves and strengthens the city's historic small town character. provides and maintains safe, livable, and affordable neighborhoods, and creates beautiful places. If you have driven by the project, it's not beautiful. I just thought that was interesting. It flies in the face of land use goal eight. So I guess I'm done with 6.1 as well.

Yes, thank you.

And if you want to comment again when the zoning changes come forward and 6.1, you can do that as well.

Okay.

Thank you, Ariana. Any other speaker cards?

Yes. It's Greg Filios.

My name is Greg Filios. I'm with the Parks and Recreation Commission. I want to introduce myself to you guys. Parks and Recreation Commission, being a unit planning commission, there is a number of things coming up that being that you are the overseers of commercial, residential, and industrial, and all the land use. Well, we've got a number of things coming up in our parks. master trail in our parks trail master plan so We just want to make sure that you guys are aware that we've got a lot of things coming up. Please be aware of what we're doing come come contact us and Being the transparency is the big thing now and I know I know that Michelle Nelson likes transparency and so we all do being that we have the the ice tension facility and the data center two big issues and regarding planning, we in the public are aware of there's a number of things that possibly weren't transparent before or that we didn't know about. So now that we're more aware, thank you for bringing this out and making things aware to us. We see there's a number of things on the website on the City of Gilroy and the Planning Commission and the planning and development department that we can access. So thank you so much for that. And that's for general, that's for the city. Now, for personal, this isn't having to do with Parks and Rec, I live in Eagle Ridge. And being that you guys are planning on land use Glenn Loma is building lots of stuff. I want you guys to be aware of what is being built out there. I hope they're going through you guys, because we sure don't want to be surprised. When school starts, when Solar Sonos starts, It's already becoming very busy right now. And that intersection right there where we come out of Eagle Ridge right there at Club Drive, that intersection is amazingly busy in the mornings when they drop off and in the afternoons when they pick up. And that whole field right there, they're going to be building some more. So please be aware of what it is that they're doing and please be prepared for planning for the infrastructure, roads, etc., Okay, and so we're looking forward to your keeping an eye on that. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Greg.

Is there anybody else who would like to speak? There are no further speakers.

All right, great. With that, I'm going to close public comment and move on to 5.1, Consent Agenda, May 2026, Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes. Commissioners, any questions, comments, concerns? I'll make a motion. We accept.

I'm sorry. Can I get the first and second, please?

Yes. Manny as the first.

I'll second.

Roll call.

Please.

Commissioner Benson.

Yes.

Commissioner Donhauer.

Yes.

Commissioner Cotabande.

Yes.

Commissioner Valdez.

Yes.

Vice Chair Elling.

Yes.

And Chair Bondell.

Yes. Thank you. That was unanimous. Moving on to public hearing 6.1. Recommend City Council adopt a zoning code amendment to modify Chapter 30, Article L of the Gilroy City Code relating to ARC and site review permit process and to enhance public outreach. I turn it over to Michael. I think it's off.

I'm going to repeat everything I said. Good evening. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Planning Commission, fellow staff, and residents of the City of Gilroy. I'm Michael Fassati, Planning Manager with the City. And we're here this evening to talk about Item 6.1, the Architectural and Site Review Permit Amendment for Enhanced Public Notification. Back in January of this year, Councilmember Marquez and Councilmember Ramirez requested staff to review the existing architectural and site review permit process. In March, staff provided a summary of what I'd like to call the ASR process. Council directed staff to provide options on how the ASR permit could be processed in a manner to increase public engagement. In June, staff provided recommendations for enhanced public notification. which includes an online development project list, project web pages, and other digital communications to keep residents engaged. City Council then directed staff to incorporate these options into what we call a zoning ordinance amendment, which is what is in front of you this evening. There are two main amendments that are occurring for this project. The first is amendment one, a CEQA review threshold. Projects that require an EIR with one or more significant or unavoidable impacts will require Planning Commission review and approval. This is a concept that currently does not happen. If it does go to Planning Commission, the review findings and conditions remain the same as if it were reviewed by city staff. So the project doesn't change, it's just the decision body changes. If the applicant or the public are not aligned with the decision, the item may be appealed to city council. That's one of the amendments being proposed. The second amendment is what we refer to as enhanced public outreach. Currently existing architectural and site review permits, all ASR permits, do not require neighborhood notification. If this amendment were approved, the ordinance would require the applicant to send out notifications, mail notices, and provide comments back to the city for review. All ASR permits will need to have enhanced public outreach. So any project that triggers an architectural and site review permit would have to go through this process. We're looking at exempting new single family residential and accessory structures in the hillside zoning districts not to go through this process. That's because sheds in new single family homes in hillsides, even though they require an architectural and site review, there's some privacy concerns that family may not want to highlight. And also, typically, those are projects that don't significantly impact the community. It's just kind of one house. So we're asking that that's still exempt. It still has to require the architectural and site review process, just not the enhanced public notification. For all zoning ordinance amendments, You have to go through a general plan consistency, but before I even talk about that, the specific zoning code sections that are affected are placed upon your screen as well as in your staff report. Section 30.50.41B would be a new section as well as 30.50.41C. We'd also revise section 30.50.47E, extending the city council appeal rights for planning commission decisions. All other provisions within the architectural and site section of the city code would remain the same. If people would like to see exactly what's being drafted, it's within exhibit A of the staff report. All zoning ordinances require general plan consistency findings, which are also presented in the staff report. Yes, yes. So in the staff report, I'll speak at that. In the staff report itself, we have language that we're proposing. It's also included in Exhibit A, so it's in both locations. Sure. Yes. General plan consistency. Yes. Please note, we're referring to the architectural and site review process. That is a process that allows development to occur in the city in all different types of forms, typically for non-residential, commercial development, for multifamily residential, large development. It touches a number of different development projects in the city. THIS ZONING AMENDMENT IS CONSIDERED A PROJECT WHICH TRIGGERS CEQA, BUT THIS PROJECT SPECIFICALLY QUALIFIES FOR CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061B3, THE COMMON SENSE EXCEPTION. IF THIS AMENDMENT WAS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL, IT'S SEEN WITH CERTAINTY THAT THIS DOES NOT AUTHORIZE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY KIND. It just authorizes the procedural review of development. Therefore, it does not look like it would impact physical development or the environment itself. Staff sent public notices to the Gilroy Dispatch 20 days prior to this meeting. We've also posted notices on our city website and at City Hall. We received five email comments that were provided to the planning commissioners. And comments range from recommending more stricter regulations to degreasing the costs of the appeal process. In summary, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council find the amendment exempt from CEQA and adopt the ordinance amending Chapter 30, Article 50, relating to architectural and site review permit process. This concludes staff summary of the proposed project. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Michael. Commissioners, any questions, comments? Floor is open.

So have we looked at the delay in the process for the applicant? Like, how much more time does this add on to the process?

When this process was proposed to the council, we identified pros and cons. Cons would be being a delay. Staff can't say with certainty on how much of a delay it would be, but it would increase the timeline in general.

And is this consistent with other cities in our county and counties surrounding us? Or is it...

Some... THAT'S KIND OF A HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER. THERE'S MULTIPLE CITIES THAT WERE CONSISTENT IN THE FACT THAT LARGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ARE TYPICALLY NOT APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. TYPICALLY THEY'RE APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. BUT THE CITY IS KIND OF GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND WITH THE ENHANCED PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCESS. THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH OTHER CITIES. TYPICALLY NOTIFICATIONS HAPPEN WHEN A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED. We're looking at informing the community about a project that does not require a public hearing, yet still get the word out, for lack of a better term.

Perfect. And one final question. Have we calculated the additional cost to the city for this new process? Like, how much is it going to cost us extra?

No, there will be a cost. Bear on to the city, but the exact fees, we do not know.

Yeah, the June council meeting, we did let council know that if this gets approved, that we'll have to develop additional fees to recover all the additional staff time.

Okay.

Correct, yes. Michael, I had one question from the whole onset of this project. I realize it's in a zone in general plan area that's in allowed use. However, it seems like the significance of having it come before commission and council INSTEAD OF JUST STRAIGHT STAFF DEVELOPMENT, THINGS OF TRIGGERING OF THE WATER USAGE AND THE ENERGY USAGE, TO ME, SEEMED SO SIGNIFICANT AND THAT IT REALLY SCREAMED OUT TO ME, LIKE, WHY DIDN'T WE GET TO SEE IT? I mean, I've worked at the city for 19 and a half years. I was in the planning and engineering divisions. I worked on the general plan, you know, the 2040. And I was like, you know, I'm trying to explain, well, certain things are allowed. Then when I heard more about this project, I was going, wait a minute, why didn't we get to see it? Because of those issues alone. So that's what I'm shocked about. And I don't even see that being in here.

Michael, do you want me to respond? The way the code was set up, it was a staff level determination and there have been other large projects that have been done at a staff level determination. But a certain project triggered this concern and the council reviewed and wanted and then looked at it and then you're the planning commission so they want you to review the zoning. Some cities have in their zoning code that the planning director or the zoning administrator, if there's a project that could, you know, could have possible larger effects or it could be, you know, IT COULD BE CONTROVERSIAL EVEN, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE IT UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. OUR CODE DIDN'T HAVE THAT. SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG FOR SOMEONE TO PUSH IT UP TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE APPLICANT WOULD SAY, WAIT, WHY ARE YOU PUSHING THIS UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN YOUR CODE DOESN'T ALLOW IT? THIS IS ALLOWING SOME FLEXIBILITY THAT WE CAN take larger projects that have significant environmental impacts, because you don't get to a statement of overriding considerations until they have those impacts that cannot be mitigated. So those projects will come to you. But it wasn't in our code before, and that's why we're adding it right now.

So we kind of got out, and now we can't pull it back. So... Are there review considerations? Because I never saw a staff report about those. I consider environmental impacts about the energy usage and the excessive water usage that could all affect our city. How are we going to address those when they come up? I think the cards, it's out.

Yeah, I know last year we had shared with the Planning Commission that created a project webpage where a lot of all the documents and approvals were posted. But one of the examples, adding on to Jolie's response, was that when we presented to Council on June 15th, A project is probably from about 10 years ago, the performance food group project was a similar process. I think that had even more impacts, but because of the zoning code, it went through that same thing. And if I can answer your question from earlier, in that agenda report, we also noted that the process, if this were to be approved, it could range from additional several months to, yeah, a few to several months.

I have a question. How do we limit this specifically to, like, large-scale commercial projects? Because this is going in, and I'm trying to read through this, and it's a little hard to understand.

Sure. Let me kind of explain how development here works. So if a new building is proposed in the city outside of a residential building, and it depends on the zoning district, we require an architectural and site review permit. Gilroy has always required an architectural and site review permit. What we're looking for for this situation is to not change that. What we're looking for in this situation is if a trigger, like a large commercial development or non-residential development, requires architectural site review permit, and it goes through the CEQA process, and the CEQA process determines via a fair argument that an environmental impact report's needed, and if an environmental impact report's needed, and it has overriding considerations, that the Planning Commission gets to review that. You're the decision-making body. The way to kind of go back to your question, how could we avoid?

I don't want to avoid. I just don't see in here that it says that residential projects are not are exempt from this. It just said hillside district, I thought.

Sure. No, Commissioner Valdez, you make up a good point. It's not really expressed in our zoning code, but there's state legislation out there when it comes to the multifamily residential projects because of state housing law that may preempt our discretion. In other words, there's certain projects that are large scale and residential that have affordable housing component that the city has to process. This, our enhanced public notification that we're proposing, we can still get the notification out to the community, notifying that there's a project happening, which will create a little bit more of a timeline. There may be some concerns because some of those housing laws are getting very strong and the timelines are getting very narrow, and it puts the city in a lot of risk. But we've been directed by the council to figure out options of providing as much community engagement as we can. And so... The council agreed to some of our recommendations, hence that's what we're giving you to the Planning Commission. I know that's kind of a different way to answer your question. I don't know if I hit it right.

Yeah, I'm just trying, sorry, forgive me as I fumble through this. So it talks about residential projects, anything over 2,500 square feet. So just if somebody is building a 5,000 square foot house, say, and they submit it, will that go to public comment? Yes.

Okay. And so, but that's not a change. So... It's a change in that it'll go to a public notification will happen. Yeah. But a house over 2,500 square feet would have always required an architectural and site review.

Totally. But now it will go to public notice.

If the commission does recommend that the council, correct.

Okay. And that was. Clarification. I think the question was. It requires public notice. Can you repeat your answer, please?

That's the enhanced public outreach.

It does trigger the hearing?

No, no. So, yeah, I want to make this clarification. There are two components to the proposal tonight, which is following council direction from June. Mm-hmm. The one we were talking about earlier, that's the architectural site review permits that will trigger planning commission review, and that's based on environmental impact. And for the enhanced public outreach, the exception is the single-family homes in Hillside Zoning District. And that would apply to all projects to get this enhanced public outreach, including the mailing notices to nearby neighbors and the public outreach meetings.

So I think my concern is if somebody's building a 5,000-square-foot house not in the Hillside District, then their plans are going to be public, like notified out to the public of where their kids' bedrooms are? I'm just trying to, like, follow my- Sure, no, I appreciate that.

No, what this is saying, the plans won't be broadcasted. Okay. But they will be required to host a community meeting, notify property owners and residents within, when we say nearby, to answer one of the individual's concerns, within 500 feet radius, they'll be required to have a community meeting. And at the community meeting, maybe they'll show the floor plan, maybe they won't. That steps on some other Senate state bills that we're unsure about.

Yeah. And the 500 feet, that's referenced in the ordinance part of it. Because it referenced the section which points you to the 500 feet. Yes.

But to answer your question, to make sure we're clear, I heard you say if someone wants to build a house over 2,500 square feet, would they be required? They would not be required to go to Planning Commission public hearing. They would be required to have a community meeting and take feedback, and take that feedback and provide it to the staff if you move forward with this amendment. Got it.

Thank you.

No, thank you for welcoming me with that.

What's involved in a community meeting that you're talking about? Is it just like in their community room up at Eagle Ridge or what?

Yeah, we haven't gone through those details yet, but in my experience, community meetings can either be held virtually or if, depending on the project, depending on the applicant, they may rent an area out where people can come in and they schedule a time. We would expect them... And the community development department will work on this, creating a template postcard where we would inform individuals they would like to have a community meeting because they're proposing a project.

In the 500-foot radius?

It would be sent down the 500-foot radius, yes.

Another question. Why 2,500 square feet? Why not 3,000 square feet? It seems like, you know, if you're going to do a luxury home, you're not going to – you're going to trigger it every time when, like, 3,000 square feet seems like – Okay, you're getting into, yeah, it's a little more, you know, 2,500 square feet feels low to me. I don't know.

Thank you for that question, Commissioner Benson. I can't speak to why. Right now in the ordinance that I'm not sure when it has ever been amended, it's always been 2,500 square feet. So I don't know why it's that size.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you. So can we make suggestions to change that, to trigger that?

You can. Can I make one recommendation? Yes. Typically, it's my understanding after we're done speaking, then you open up for public comment. After you open up for public comment, then friendly amendments can happen between you. You can bring it up if you like, but I just have to acknowledge it. And maybe Jolie can speak more about that.

You should bring that up in your deliberation. There we go. Great. Thank you.

So I had a question about some of the language here. And thank you for taking my call explaining that because the way I read this, it seems very unclear. It almost reads as if the postcards would be sent, but there would be, and that would be in lieu of, and there would be no newspaper notification. It's still after our conversation where you said the newspaper notification would be required. It still reads very confusing to me that it looks like that's not required. Can you please help clarify that?

What page are you on so everybody else can pull it up?

It is page 20 of 207.

Thank you.

In C1. Yeah. Okay, it says the applicant shall I mail notice of the community meeting to property owners and residents of the vicinity of the project in accordance with city code for projects requiring public hearings, except the newspaper procedures shall not be required.

So, Commissioner Elliott, I remember this conversation also. I shared with you, if someone needs to obtain an architectural and site review permit, they'll be required to go through the enhanced public notification process.

Yes.

If they have an architectural and site review permit that triggers planning commission review, they will have to have a newspaper notification.

Right.

We notify all public hearings via newspaper notification. All public hearings.

Right.

I'm sorry if I misspoke at that.

No, no, I understood our conversation, but after our conversation, I went and reread this again, and I still do not see, and I'm not the only one, because we received public notification, public comments, saying that, you know, this is concerning. So can... We can offer that in our amendments at our chance.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yes. But you're saying this is, if it's still, this language still does not say, does not omit the requirement of a newspaper notification.

If the project requires, you know, has permits as required to come to the Planning Commission.

So have a public hearing. So if a project triggers

planning commission review.

And the change that we're asking for, which is planning commission review, then they do not have to put it in the newspaper. That's what it reads to me.

Okay. I'm sorry it reads to you, but for the record, if a project triggers planning commission review, they would have to, the city would do newspaper notification.

And that's under a separate section of the zoning code. So this entire section is brand new, and it's requiring this community meeting aspect of it. It doesn't affect anything that would have triggered Planning Commission public hearing.

Okay, so the community meeting is not required to be in the newspaper. That's the difference. Okay, yes. Okay, you sounded like maybe, no.

That's why we have public engagement.

The community meeting is not in the newspaper. The community reading is only in the postcards.

A community meeting, I'm going to try to say what I believe I heard, maybe in different words. A community meeting will not require public hearing. A community meeting will not require a newspaper notification. A public meeting... for Planning Commission will require a newspaper notification.

Let's say as an example of that, if you had to do a zone change with your Arkansas, that would be one that would have to come to Planning Commission and would have the newspaper notice.

That is correct.

Yes, but if someone were to develop, let's say, a three residential unit on a parcel, that's going to require architectural site review permit, but not a public hearing. Then they would have to follow this for the community meeting process, the mailing notices and holding up that meeting.

I also had questions about... The triggering of this, hold on, let me get to the right page here. It is page, yes, 19 of 207B1. So there was... So it says here that city staff believes, sorry, I don't want, I could, notwithstanding any other provision of this section, signing review authority to the community development director or designee, the planning commission shall review and decide a duly noticed public hearing. any application for architectural and site review permit for a development project for which an EIR has been or is required to be prepared under CEQA and that city staff believes would result in one or more significant and unavoidable environmental impacts that would require adoption of a statement of overriding considerations to approve. So I have some questions about how do we determine that there are significant environmental impacts because there could be significant environmental impacts in the EIR, but there could be some sort of mitigation measure, which we see often that there is... You know a donation to a money put into a fund or something like that that then reduces Mitigated mitigated right so now it's not significant anymore So this is not clearly defined and I think it calls calls for a very high bar here To say and I know we're kind of now getting into the discussion area, but significant and unavoidable environmental impacts That's a very very high bar and in the City Council meeting that there was a question that said, like, what other projects would have hit this, you know, what they wanted to see happen. And they were told nothing. There's nothing coming up, and we haven't had anything that would have required any sort of, like, review that would have hit these qualifications. But then we were just talking, and I'm sorry, Director Goey, I didn't hear what she said, that there was another project that, like, within the past 10 years that had higher environmental impacts.

And more significant impacts. Yeah.

But what I'm saying is, in the city council meeting, if I recall, I could be remembering incorrectly, they were saying there's nothing that would have come across this that would have triggered this had we had it. And there's nothing coming up that would trigger it that we would have it. So to me, when I hear we've had something that had more environmental impacts, THIS, TO ME, SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRIGGERED. SO HOW IS THIS CLOSING THE GAP?

SURE. SO LET'S SEE IF WE'LL, OKAY. FIRST, I HAD A FEELING THIS, SO A QUESTION LIKE THIS WOULD COME UP. AND I MAY LEAN ON COUNCIL FOR SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. BUT WHAT WE FIRST NEED TO, WE'RE REFERRING TO CEQA, THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AND TYPICALLY, JURISDICTIONS, WE FOLLOW THREE DECISION PATHS, AND THIS GETS BACK TO THE CITY BELIEVES WHEN IT COMES TO A PROJECT. SO FOR ALL PROJECTS, WE DO WHAT THEY CALL AN INITIAL STUDY. I KIND OF HAVE THE BOOK HERE. AND THE INITIAL STUDY REVIEWS, I BELIEVE IT'S 16 OR 18 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS. AND THERE'S CERTAIN QUESTIONS IN THE CALIFORNIA CODE THAT TALK ABOUT WHAT THE FACTORS ARE ENVIRONMENTALLY. IF THE INITIAL STUDY, WHICH WE DO THIS REVIEW, IT'S KIND OF A CHECKLIST, IF THE INITIAL STUDY FINDS NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, THEN THE CITY, IT CAN DO A NUMBER OF THINGS. SOMETIMES IT EXEMPTS IT, SOMETIMES IT DOES A DOCUMENT CALLED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION STATES THAT THIS IS A PROJECT, WE'VE REVIEWED ALL WHAT WE CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND THIS PROJECT DOES NOT CREATE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. IF AN INITIAL STUDY FINDS POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, BUT SPECIFIC MITIGATION MEASURES, AS YOU SAY, COMMISSIONER ELLI, WILL CLEARLY REDUCE EACH IMPACT TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT, AND THE APPLICANT ACCEPTS THAT MITIGATION, THE CITY, AS THE LEAD AGENCY, WILL PREPARE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. SO IT'S A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, BUT WE SAY MITIGATED BECAUSE THEY FOUND SOLUTIONS TO MITIGATE. IF ANY IMPACT MAY REMAIN SIGNIFICANT OR IF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUGGESTS A FAIR ARGUMENT OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT DESPITE PROPOSED MITIGATION, THE CITY PREPARES AN EIR. SO IN THE COMMENT STATING THE CITY BELIEVES, THERE'S SOME SUBJECTIVITY IN A CEQA. THE CITY MAY BELIEVE ONE THING, THE APPLICANT MAY BELIEVE ANOTHER. WHERE THE EIR COMES IN, THE CITY MAY BELIEVE ONE THING AND STATE THAT MITIGATION WOULD BE THIS, AND THE APPLICANT MAY SAY WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S MITIGATION, WE HAVE TO DO THAT. THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THE ONLY WAY YOU GET TO THE EIR IS GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THE CITY HAS TO BELIEVE VIA FAIR ARGUMENT, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE A LEGAL TEAM TO DETERMINE IF AN EIR IS REQUIRED. ALL CITIES HAVE TO DO THIS. WHERE WE'RE FORTUNATE IS TYPICALLY IN THE INITIAL STUDY, THERE ARE SOME PARAMETERS, VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED, AIR QUALITY ISSUES, THAT HAVE A CERTAIN STANDARD THAT IF THIS PROJECT GOES ABOVE THAT STANDARD, THEN THAT TRIGGERS THE EIR AUTOMATICALLY. BUT SOME OF IT'S SUBJECTIVE. SO THE ONLY WAY WE CAN WRITE THIS IN A FORM THAT IS LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE IS IF WE STATE THE CITY BELIEVES. because that's the only way you get to the environmental impact report. But if I'm hearing you right, and maybe this is something you could discuss, as you wish there was more of a clear standard that would require the EIR.

Absolutely, because, again, you could say one or more significant and unavoidable, and it could be, but once you apply the mitigation measures, now it's not significant. but still possibly unavoidable. But here it says significant and unavoidable. That is a really high bar, and it's very fluid in how it could be perceived. And another thing, too, when it comes to the EIR, I have spoken with somebody in the community, and they're like, well, the EIR is, you know, what about our health, personal health? When we went to the training from League of Cities, it was very clear that the EIR is about environmental impacts. Yes, we all understand that environmental impacts impact human beings, right? But that is not what they cover in an EIR, right? So People are saying, well, you know, if it's going to make us sick, then we should, if the EIR says it's going to make us sick, then we shouldn't, and I'm just summarizing for simplicity, then there should be a problem with that. But the EIR is not going to be talking about the impacts upon humans. It's going to talk about the impacts upon the environment. So I have an issue when we are talking about looking at the CEQA and the subsequent EIRs to identify if this is something that the community wants or if it fits within our general plan when, I mean, the CEQA doesn't even mention any, the EIR doesn't even mention any of that. And in addition, we don't have a cap, a climate action plan that, well, we do. We have a draft from 2012 that we're supposed to be following right now that we don't even reference. I mean, we do reference it in our plan. So we really have no real guidelines in these changes here. So in regards to the EIR, those are my concerns. And then when we look at the public outreach, how do we identify the residents in the community? How do we get their contact information, especially if you're asking about residents? How do we do that? When I ran for city council, you have to identify, you know, to get voter information, you have to make a lot of promises on what you're going to do with that information and what you're not going to do with that information. How do we get that information? How do we identify people's rights of privacy? And there's a lot of people here concerned about the data center. So I'm just, this is not bias against the data center. This is just saying, IF YOU LOOK AT 500 YARDS FROM THAT DATA CENTER, THERE'S VERY FEW PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE NOTIFIED, RESIDENTS, AS FAR AS OWNERS OF PROPERTY. AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE RENTING IN THOSE PROPERTIES. AND THE SAME WITH THE BUSINESSES. THOSE BUSINESSES USUALLY DON'T OWN THE BUILDING. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE 10-DAY NOTICE FOR A COMMUNITY MEETING, THAT'S NOT A LOT, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S IN PERSON. I don't also see, do we have any identification for these community meetings? The onus is now on the applicant and the community, and this is sort of a fox guarding the hen house type of situation. The person who has triggered this is now creating a meeting where there's no third party there. There's no neutral party. There's no city representative there. There's no validation that they sent out to all the folks that they need to be sending it out to. The notes that they bring back to the city, I mean, there's no validation that that's accurate. We talk a lot about, you know, the extra work for the staff. And I have to say, I support Sharon. I'm sorry, Director Goey. She has made so many wonderful changes here to promote the city of Gilroy. And now we're creating, and she got a lot of vitriol for when a lot of people were involved for a lot of years for a project that was, you know, to our code, which is not up to standards for a modern city, and now we're saying we're gonna just point all arrows at the director and have one place to point blame, and I have a problem with that too.

Thank you for your comments, Commissioner. I don't know how to respond. Maybe this is something for a conversation as you deliberate?

Yeah, but I mean, we don't, but the comments are, the questions are, how are we validating these meetings? How are we validating that they're fair? How, you know, what is staff going to do? Okay, they've done all the things on the checklist, great. Are anybody validating any of that? So depending on the... We don't have that identified in here. None of that is identified in here.

So depending on the Planning Commission's overall decision, whatever information is taken from this Planning Commission will be shared with the City Council for their review. Is there any other questions? If not, we may want to close for public comment.

Commissioner, any other questions for Mr. Fasati?

I do have one question. So the first change on page 17 of 207, any decision to issue an architectural and site approval, it is a discretionary decision subject to the CEQA. Now, does that – can you –

I can speak at that.

Thank you.

Sure, sure. So CEQA is only for projects, okay? So a project is something that has discretion. I'll give you an example. Someone wants to replace their water. I'm looking at you guys too, if you don't mind. Someone wants to replace their water heater. They have to get a permit. Getting a permit doesn't require discretion. It's just you need to get a permit so we make sure you clearly install that water heater. There's no yet, no, you can't get a permit because we're not, you know, there's no discretion. An entitlement has discretion. It has subjectivity. So if a project has subjectivity, it triggers the California Environmental Equality Act. There are other local jurisdictions that have been challenged by developers that say like, hey, my development, and it's a big development, doesn't require discretion because your code doesn't say it triggers the California Environmental Equality Act. It says if I meet these standards, I'm approved. That's the way they read it. and developers have gotten away with that. So in other words, there's been bigger developments in other cities that did not go through the planning permit process because their zoning codes, they say if you hit these marks, just like a water heater, if you hit this mark, you give us the plans, you show how you connect it, you're approved. We wanted to make sure we held that discretion because we've been challenged on the way our zoning code looks. Please note, OUR FIRST PROJECT, OUR FIRST ENHANCEMENT IS IF A PROJECT TRIGGERS AN EIR, WHICH WILL GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW, A PROJECT THAT TRIGGERS AN EIR WITH A SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT. THE LEVEL OF REVIEW THE PLANNING COMMISSION WERE TELLING IS THE EXACT LEVEL OF REVIEW OF THE STAFF. THE DISCRETION IS NOT CHANGING. THEY'RE JUST ASKING SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY INSTEAD OF ONE PERSON. BUT THE LAWS AREN'T CHANGING. We want to be clear to let developers know that any project that requires an architectural site is considered a project. So don't argue with us and say it's not a project, therefore not trigger CEQA, therefore not have to go through any community process. That's a long-winded way, maybe Council Member or maybe the Chair.

Okay, that makes sense. And additionally, I'm sorry, now, for CEQA, would... An EIR, does it measure like a strain on local water resources or, sorry, local water rates?

I'll read off the environmental factors potentially affected that would trigger an EIR. Aesthetics, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, land use planning, population housing, transportation traffic mandatory, well, transportation traffic, agricultural and forestry resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, public services, tribal cultural resources, air quality, geology, soil, hydrology, water quality, noise, recreation, utilities, and service systems. So I guess to answer your question, CEQA does review water.

Yeah, but it doesn't talk about local water rates or, I mean, it looks at inefficient use of water, right? Or unnecessary consumption of energy, but it doesn't look at how that use of those resources impact a community.

I guess I would ask, what do we mean by impact?

Well, like rates.

So, do the fiscal, I... Yeah, like water rates.

Like, if something, if there is... So, I think that, like, our commercial, we have a... an amount of water that we allot to commercial use versus residential use. But what happens if a commercial environment uses more water in such a way that it puts a strain and that it brings rates up?

So if I'm hearing you right, I don't work for a water company, but does CEQA review potential fiscal impacts to the community? If a resource... A LOT OF OUR RESOURCE NEEDS TO BE USED FOR THIS ONE USE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY IMPACT THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE THEY USE THAT RESOURCE TOO. DOES CEQA GO INTO THAT? IN MY EXPERIENCE, NO. BUT WHAT CEQA DOES DO, IT DOESN'T REVIEW THAT. WHAT IT REVIEWS IS PROJECTS BEING PROPOSED, DOES THAT CITY HAVE CAPACITY?

Right, I understand that. It doesn't measure the economic output. Oh, I know. That's what I'm making really clear is that it just looks at information to make a decision on whether it has enough water for that project. Outside of projects that have already been built and outside of projects that are already coming down the pipe, just based on that data, right?

No, it would look at its water capacity, water supply, and also who's the permitting agency because they would also review the EIR. But they would not, CEQA won't review water rates, but it will water capacity and consumption. But it will also look at if there's other, and no pun intended, other pipeline projects that there could be a cumulative impact to the water use. So when you have a project And it's under review for EIR purposes. They look at other projects that are coming in and are there going to be cumulative impacts by this project and this one coming down the line. So you have one that may be using water, another one coming down the pipeline that is a water user too. That would be considered under cumulative impacts.

It would also look at capacity at the treatment plant as well. But it wouldn't look at rates. But, yeah, it would look at the water you can produce, the water that you use, I mean, all that. But this didn't get that. At least the AI didn't get it.

Commissioners, anything else before I open for public hearing?

Yes, I was asked about the... THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND HOW WILL WE DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, IN THE ORDINANCE WE'RE SAYING A COMMUNITY MEETING WOULD BE REQUIRED, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT IN THE and they would come up with a checklist. Usually the applicant has to find the mailing labels for the postcards or provide the postcards. But all those details would be determined by staff and usually that's in some sort of, that would go along with the application. Here's your checklist for how to do the community meeting. But we don't bake it into the ordinance If you want to change it, then you have to change the ordinance. It would be a follow-up policy or checklist.

Yes, go ahead.

So why did we focus on CEQA rather than – because this seems like a lot of work for staff. If staff believes, if staff looks at this, if staff determines that, then staff – why didn't we just say projects of this size, this square feet, has to go through this review, end of story?

So just to reiterate what I heard, why didn't we, instead of the CEQA, why didn't we have another threshold, like a project of a certain size?

Yeah, I mean, I see a lot of other communities doing something like that, whether it could be size. It may have several components, size, electricity, water, other resources. There was a question of what are we doing in comparison to other counties and other cities I looked around. They are just making it very simple for staff, saying, like, we're just going to say, if it's this size, then it's going to trigger this, right? This is a lot of work for staff, a lot of work for the community, and it just seems very simplistic to me to say, you know, hey, just whatever the size, it triggers it, end.

Yeah, over the last several months, actually, staff did look at all of that. We looked at multiple options, a whole range of options, including size, square footage, height, and many other criteria. And through internal discussions, along with the city attorney's office and city administrator's office, this was what the direction we received, and that was the direction we received from city council from June. So that's kind of a summary of the answer.

And is there any projects coming down the pipe that would trigger this?

There should be.

Is there any projects that we're having any applications for or any preliminary applications that would trigger this?

Yes, we received, I mean, it was an initial submittal for a monopole, for a cellular pole. They want to increase in height. That potentially will... That either will, I think that'll go to Planning Commission, but if it doesn't go to Planning Commission, it would require the community meeting. Either a community meeting or a public hearing.

Okay, but an increase, a height outside of the zoning code would come to Planning Commission, right? Because we've seen those before. So would, I mean, this triggering of this, I mean, that comes to Planning Commission anyway, right? If they need to get an exception outside of the height.

Well, yeah, but projects that, I heard you say projects are not consistent with the zoning code.

No, I said, is there any projects that would have triggered this? Well, I asked previously, are there any projects that would have triggered this in the past or any projects in the future that we see coming down the pipe that would trigger this? And then your response was, yeah, well, we have one that's a tower that they want extra height, which I interpreted maybe miscorrectly, that they want to go height outside of the the allowable code so they need an exception, that would come to us anyway. It's not that it triggers this, it still comes to us as a public hearing.

So is the question, are there any questions that would go to Planning Commission that, there's no projects I'm aware of that are projects that require an EIR that are only doing architectural review permit. The majority of projects, and we said this at the council meeting, are architectural site permits with tentative maps, which trigger Planning Commission. Architectural site permits with conditional use permits, which trigger Planning Commission. The majority of projects are multiple entitlements. Am I aware of any solo architectural and site project that would be triggered to go to Planning Commission because of this? The answer is no. There's no development application that we've received. If someone says, I want to build this, and I'm submitting an application, and I'm paying the fee, that's the only ones I can report back to you or the community. And we haven't received that.

Great, Commissioner. If there's no other questions, thank you, Michael. I'm going to open it to public hearing. Sorry, public comment.

Yes, we have four speakers. I'll go ahead and start with Patrick McBride.

Great. Thank you. And I just want to let the speakers know that there won't be any commentary back and forth between the planning commissioners and yourself. This is just public comment.

Good evening, folks, one and all. I want to thank you for giving me the time. I'm an outsider. I live out off of Kenyatta Road. And so this whole discussion... that to me the most important point is kind of the wagon we've been circling around, and that is letting the public know and what letting the public know means. So being as we're not going to have a dialogue but we're going to have monologue, I'm about three and a half miles to the southeast of where the data center is. And my concern all stems from the Moss Landing lithium battery fire from January 2025. And knowing that there's going to be a huge best system out there for when they do have a power outage. And without the prevailing wind coming to my place, I'm concerned about that. And we've kind of gone around in circles on that too. Planning Commissioner Stephanie, you asked the questions about nearby neighbors. 500 feet is not a nearby neighbor to me, being as I do live in the country. You know, I think the people that have a Gilroy address should be made aware. And whether that's posting it on a telephone pole like they did back in the day, or we can have evacuation announcements made when we had a fire out there in... 2023 and we got evacuation announcements online, right? So we've got data centers and you've got data on just about everybody in the country so you could send them a announcement of the public hearing Via that method whether it's a postcard whether it's a little bit more work or a lot more work for the staff I think it's important to regain the trust of the people that live in and around Gilroy and And I'm a short timer, I've only been here 32 years. But we did raise a family here, and I love it here. So from the standpoint of like, I'm not a lawyer, but I happen to know a couple of them. And there's this right to know and the duty to inform. And that was totally lost in the process. I have also a friend who used to be up there where you're at, and he shared with me that in 81 is when the 45-year-old part of the ordinance that said it could be taken care of by one person and one person only. So when you had that unilateral decision made, and I listened to the different conversations that were going on over at the Amazon Web Services meeting, and there were people that were just dumbfounded because they hadn't heard a thing about it. They didn't read. If the duty to inform was the two four by eight ply boards that were at the exit and egress, right, from the project, then that's pretty weak. Someone had to take the time to stop and take a look at it. So that's my reason for commenting tonight. There's, as I said, the city council and the 62nd went off on me and it's about to again, is people need to know And you need to do the right thing. And, I mean, you're one piece of the city pie. So I rest my case. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. McBride.

And I do apologize if I mispronounce the last name, Mary Yates.

Okay, good evening. Commission members, my name is Mary Yates. I live on Carmel Street here. I've been in Gilroy for 40 plus years. However, I'm not one of the original people, so I realize that. So this is a renewed request for introduction and adoption of an interim urgency ordinance under government code 65858, imposing a citywide moratorium on new data center land use applications that have been or potentially will be filed including the current Amazon data project. You have to know that when we're talking about this urgency ordinance that we are generally referring to the Amazon project and any other data centers which supposedly what the grapevine says that there was another application filed in April this year for another data center. It is the duty of all city employees, regardless of their post, to act in the best interest of the residents of this community whom they serve. We are in new and tumultuous times, what with ICE, data centers, AI, political situation. We have elections coming up in November. We have 14... proposals, 14 ballot measures on the California ballot alone coming up. So there's a lot going on. And employees can no longer just rubber stamp something because it seems to meet the current rules. Everything needs to be looked at and questioned as to how it will potentially affect the citizens of Gilroy. As I looked further into some of the documentation, I noticed that the report refers to the general plan goals. Goal number one, protect and enhance, protect and enhance. Gilroy's quality of life and unique identity while continuing to grow and change. When I moved here 40 years ago, there were 17,000 people in this town. Now there's like 62. Yes, we have burdens as far as population and building houses and also businesses. However, we still need to protect that small town feel, which is what everybody moves here for in the first place. The recommendation, sorry, At the June 15th Gilroy City Council meeting, Mayor Bozo directed staff to come back with recommendations for improved outreach to Gilroy residents. How is public notice to be given so that it reaches the broadest possible number of community members to be implemented when we have nearly a 62,000 population? And why does it say except that newspaper publication is not required?

And I know there's a lot of... Ms. Yates, I don't want to cut you off. Your time is up. However, if you do... I would like another minute. I'm more than happy to extend another minute for you.

Thank you. So the staff recommendation does not reflect what the people have asked for. A second data center is there in application. Additionally, the appeal for architectural and site review permits of $2,500 plus should be eliminated or waived as it reduces the ability of the public to participate. So I formally request that the Planning Commission not recommend adoption of ordinance requirements Z26-01 in its current form instead. Please go back and direct staff to do further review and come up with things that really update our code, protect our council from encroachment by big businesses like Amazon. And finally, did you know that Amazon could supply their energy cooling by using solar and not water? data centers are doing this in other areas where water is an issue. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Armando Benavides.

Good evening, commissioners. Residents have certainly asked for greater public notice and participation and opportunity to participate. But just as importantly, they have repeatedly expressed concerns about the impacts that large-scale data centers have on Gilroy's infrastructure, water resources, emergency services, industrial land, public safety, and overall quality of life. Their concerns are, unfortunately I have to say, are largely not addressed in the recommendations before you. Residents want Gilroy to update its zoning regulations with meaningful standards, size, height size, building size, amount of electricity use, water usage. Those are reasonable standards that need to be implemented. Instead, the recommendations focus almost entirely on procedural changes. Who reviews a project? And when the public is notified, Those are worthwhile improvements, but they do not establish the standards that many Gilroy residents are asking the city to develop. The recommendation limits planning commission review to projects requiring an environmental impact study with significant and unavoidable impacts. Many large industrial projects never reach that threshold because impacts are often mitigated through the seek-up process. As a result, large-scale projects that may still consume enormous amount of electricity, water, or industrial land could continue to receive administrative approval. I am concerned about the messages they send to the community. The recommendations before you address only a small portion of the concerns residents have raised, have consistently raised. Public engagement, and I want to repeat this, public engagement should mean more than providing notice. It should also mean listening to what residents are asking for and incorporating those concerns into policy. Gilroy has an opportunity to be proactive rather than reactive. It is not widely recognized that AI data centers are fundamentally different from traditional industrial development. And they should not be regulated as to they are the same. So you heard that the staff discussed different options including standards, reasonable thresholds, building size, amount of water use, electrical use, those will be reasonable standards that can be applied and the developer as well as the city would be able to determine whether it's appropriate or not. Also this review process that our city council should not get involved with large scale industrial, and I have four minutes, hopefully you give me a couple more. I'll give you a minute. Thank you, I appreciate that. So when you look at that you're saying that our city council is going to have no role whatsoever in deciding large-scale industrial development that comes in that has a tremendous amount of impact on our community and we don't even engage our city council so that we know as voters how they're voting for this project so that we could hold them accountable. We cannot hold you accountable. I guess we could, but we cannot hold our city manager or our developer because they're just following the standards that are in place. We want to hear what our elected officials, we want to hear them vote on projects that are large scale that are going to have a tremendous impact in our community. So my recommendation, and I would respectfully encourage you to recommend that the city council view these recommendations as only a first step and encourage the council to direct staff to continue developing a comprehensive regulatory framework that addresses the broader concerns the community has consistently raised. Thank you.

Thank you.

Michelle Nelson.

Hello again. I'm going to jump around because I'm taking notes while people are talking. So I heard one of the commissioners mentioned something about a delay. How much delay is there going to be? I think it's better to have a little bit of a delay. rather than cause things to blow up in our faces. I also have heard the rumor that Amazon has applied to put in another data center by 152. It was going to be a distribution center and that fell apart, so I'll find that out. Significant and unavoidable, so just to give you an example, And this is from the Amazon. So I read the EIR. It's very exciting. So one of the areas was vehicle miles traveled, the transportation. The citywide average for vehicle miles traveled is 18.79 miles. The recommendation from the Bay Area quality person is 15.97. When the project is finished, it is projected to generate 19.14 vehicle miles traveled. The mitigation was voluntary carpooling. Okay, so even if employees do take advantage of the voluntary steps to reduce their vehicle miles traveled, it would only reduce the vehicle miles traveled by 4%. Amazon is going to have to buy carbon offsets. It's better than nothing, but it doesn't disguise the impact. And that was one of the significant and unavoidable things. I need to read that again because it was so exciting. At the Amazon meeting for feedback, They had something at the entrance, exit, you know, here you can give your feedback for how you felt. So I wrote it down. I said, where do I put this? Well, just give it to me. So we need a third party, I think, to monitor that sort of thing. My question also, I know you don't want to have too much detail in the ordinance. I know at the school district they have the board policy and then they have the administrative regulations. So the administrative regulations get down to the nitty gritty. And I don't know how much nitty gritty stuff you can put in here. Is it possible to have two meetings to allow more public input? Because somebody might miss it and say, I really would like to give my input. Is it possible to notify the entire community, not just 500 feet away, because that really is kind of ridiculous if you think about it. And two community meetings, you know, in the form of town halls. not just have, I'm going to share a story, the Amazon. So I went up to the water section when they were having their different stations, and I asked, where are you going to get the water? And I swear he's answered, from the fire hydrant.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any more public?

Is there anybody else who would like to speak? There are no further speakers.

With that, I'm going to close public comment. Commissioners, I'm going to ask for any ex parte communication regarding this agenda item. I assume none. I see no. All right. The floor is open for deliberation and discussion.

It's clear I have some concerns that the details about this. I agree that we need something. Gilray is not ready for a modern city. There was a request for a drive-thru ordinance, and we're still waiting on that. But you know what we got? We got a drive-thru in the meantime. So we have no ordinance, but we have a drive-through. Our climate action plan, nobody knew where it was, but it's referenced in our 2040 plan. I found it. We're supposed to be using it. We're not. I mean, I know we're working on one now. When our zoning was created, we have more technology in our back pocket than we had at work. So many things have changed in how we build data centers back then. And I'm not picking on data centers, obviously. I'm talking about other projects here. But how we build data centers now, very different. We don't have any surveillance policies. or privacy policies in our code ordinance. A lot of large industrial builds are using face recognition and they're listening and videotaping. So we don't have any protection there for people. We don't have noise standards for low frequency. We don't have any noise monitoring built into these larger projects. Nothing on heat island effects, right? I'm concerned about emergency preparedness. Somebody mentioned about batteries, the battery fires in the past. We're already down one fire station, right? And you know, so we've got that challenge as well. Maybe I could say a fire station and a half. community notification and transparency. I mean, everybody has questions about that. And I used to live on the East Coast, and I still get calls from the mayor, and I could opt out, but I still get calls from the mayor. Here's Mayor Betancourt. You know, you need to move your car, right, because it's a snow day, right? But I like it because I know what's going on. There's, you know, there's someone, there's been a shooting, there's somebody on the loose. you know, please stay inside, you know, be careful, there's a problem with something, because I know what's going on with my neighbors, my old neighbors, so I can reach out to them. I mean, I get those probably every couple weeks, sometimes twice a week, but I love getting them. And I would love to have something like that here. And then, you know, I don't know, and I trust staff, that we are planning our infrastructure for you know, emerging industries. But, you know, I don't really know. I would, since I don't know, I'm going to say we aren't. So I have concerns, and I don't think that when we are looking at a CEQA, when it says, it's referencing the CEQA, looking at a CEQA to carry out land use element goals and policies, that's not what CEQA looks at. It doesn't, look at enhancing Gilroy's quality of life, and CEQA's, you know, don't look at facilitating and encouraging the support of development, right? They don't really look at any of that. I agree with a lot of the people who came up and commented that this puts a lot of pressure on staff, and, you know, I think having a size or... resource use or something like that would be more appropriate. And, you know, I would like to understand, you know, what happens if we vote no on this? Or what are our options here? Vote no? Vote yes? Can we ask staff to go back and make revisions? What's our choices here? Because I feel like we need to do something. I don't think that this meets the threshold of what city council has asked to be put in place. So what's our options here?

There's accept, there's decline, or there's make friendly amendments to pass on the city council. Just those three things.

Can we ask for continuance and to have staff do that? Not just a denial, straight out denial. Can we ask them? Come back. Don't go to council. I don't want to take your time, but I have comments, too, in line with that.

Why don't we take all the comments and then decide what we're going to do?

And I just want the commissioners to remember we're focusing on 6.1. I know there's a lot of outside comments and issues that are coming up regarding this, but let's try to keep it at 6.1 as it's written.

Well, I've made my – I'm sorry.

Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize those comments, too, regarding, you know, they'll make about AI, whatever, but – I think Mr. Benavides, in his email that he sent to us, he did bring some... points that are not really addressed in here. They're not only significant, of course, to AI, but they bring up the concerns we are having about establishing limits on electrical demand, water demands, infrastructure impacts, because those are still impacts from any kind of development. And I don't think that is not really kind of in here enough, personally. And I think that it should... not go forward to council. I think it's a good start, but I don't think it's the place to jump off and say, oh, I approve it at this point. So that's what I'm thinking.

I guess in my comments, obviously I know everybody were focused on data centers, but just drawing attention to what this does for homeowners with this enhanced public outreach approach, Yeah, if you're adding onto your house, building a new house, or want to do an ADU, you now have to hold a community meeting if you want to put an ADU in your backyard. Unless you're in the Hillside District, that's what it says.

No, ADUs are ministerial.

No, it's like a shed or something, not ADUs. Let me look.

Michael, am I reading that wrong? It just says except for new single-family residences and accessory structures in the hillside zoning districts.

Through the chair, you're not reading it wrong, but ADUs don't require an architectural site review permit. Therefore, they wouldn't go through this. There is an impact on development projects in general, yes. Just not accessory dwelling units.

I would agree with you. I don't want to add undue burden for homeowners. We're really concerned about commercial projects. And again, large-scale residential, in my opinion, is a commercial project. So I just think it's a little too broad in what the enhanced public outreach is meant for. So that's my comment.

And the cost of doing that broad public outreach could be?

Could cancel someone's project. Absolutely. For a homeowner.

Exactly.

It's different for a large entity.

Commissioner Donahue, any comments?

Yeah, I was going to make a comment about the public outreach just being able to. Like a lot of the other public comments were about it being over 500. Like, I would agree with that. I mean, I'm about 2 miles away. I know the data center is a huge conversation, but I'm 2 miles about that away from that. So I never received any. personal things besides my personal email address or that. So I think that would be a great topic to discuss about increasing that limit beyond 500 yards. So that's about it on my end.

And that meeting, the notification is 10 days before, which I think that that could be very difficult for people if they get their mail, happen to get it 10 days before. Are they looking at it? That's not on the onus of the sender, that's the onus of the receiver. Well, let's say they get it, they look at it the next day or whatever. What if they cannot change their schedule to go to this meeting? 10 days is, for people who work, Might not be enough time.

I can speak to myself personally. I wasn't able to attend the meeting because I was in Texas for work. So for me, that hits really close to home. I wasn't able to attend. So better outreach, I think, would be great for the community because this involves everybody. So I think that that's a big topic for me. And then to your point, providing essentially days, like maybe a month in advance, 45 days, would provide better for community. Sorry, I didn't want to cut you off.

So to add on to your point then too, I have worked for developers and I have hosted these meetings and they were in the middle of the day and a lot of people can't necessarily attend that. So maybe something in there about maybe there should be one during work hours and then one after work hours. Just a suggestion. That way people feel heard and have an opportunity.

Michael, I have a quick question. Just around the housing, I know that was a big topic about projects that are over 2,500 square feet. Do we have any projects in the pipeline around houses that are being built in Gilroy that are over that by single homeowners, or is that?

We do have some developments for Arkansas that are over that limit. I know there's a discussion on data centers, but architectural and site review approvals touch a lot of projects. If the Commission would like, I can read off the projects it touches. The construction, installation, and major remodeling of structures in the industrial, commercial, professional office, public facilities, or open space zone. So any project that's an Arkansas would have to go through this process. Residential developments having two or more total units on a parcel would have to go through this process. Relocated or moved buildings have to go through this process. Changes in historic or neighborhood combining districts, WHICH THE PLANNING DIRECTOR DETERMINES ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT AND THEREBY DO NOT REQUIRE FURTHER REVIEW, STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, ARCHITECTURAL INSIGHT. I'M JUST READING OFF WHAT THE CODE SAYS. FOR THAT ONE SPECIFICALLY, I CAN READ THE WHOLE THING IF YOU LIKE. I DON'T BELIEVE THE HISTORIC HERITAGE COMMISSION SHALL REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. I BELIEVE THERE'S NO HISTORIC HERITAGE COMMISSION ANYMORE. I BELIEVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TAKES THAT. DEVELOPMENT OF FOUR OR MORE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS WHICH HAVE BEEN CREATED ON THE SAME PARCEL MAP THAT WOULD REQUIRE THIS PROCESS. SITE IMPROVEMENTS IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. would go through this process. Use of lots of outdoor use, use of a lot for outdoor use or storage purposes would go through this process. Homes and accessory structures requiring building permits in the residential hillside zoning district would not have to go through this process. Some building, I'll just kind of cut to the chase, building demolitions, The creation on or above ground through installation, construction, and replacement of 2,500 square feet of impervious surface would go through this process. And I've been doing this a lot of years. And anytime I add an additional process developer, they're asking me, why am I adding additional costs? This enhanced public outreach increases costs, increases uncertainty, and monies that the developer's paying. I'm not trying to advocate for them. I'm just sharing with you what's happening on our side. Council directed us to provide options, which Director Goey and I provided options. Council directed the options that we're sharing with the Planning Commission now. I hope the takeaway is no matter what you decide, it's going to not only touch data centers. It's going to touch all development, which could potentially have an impact fiscally to the city. We'd love the engagement. I love hearing the... the residents and the community speak. It's your call. I just want that to kind of be in the air that there's multiple things this is touching depending on what you decide.

I have a question. First, a comment. I can only speak for myself. When I'm looking at this, I'm not looking at data centers. I'm looking at architectural site it's in development and so when you say Can you please repeat the line two or more structures?

Can you just repeat that line for me because I just want to hear it properly sure our verbatim from what the city code says Residential developments having two or more total units on a parcel unless otherwise exempted under this chapter So it okay because I wrote two or more structures.

You're saying two more units. What's that defined as I?

Like a duplex?

That would be fair, a duplex. Since it says unless otherwise exempted under this chapter, and I don't want to get in the weeds on this. Accessory dwelling units are in that chapter, so they probably wouldn't qualify.

But not like garages or sheds or things like that? Agreed, yeah.

Conditioned space, if I may, right?

I just wanted to be clear. Thank you. Can we recommend that they are, again, not limited to all of those projects? I think that might deter any sort of development. Can we recommend that it goes towards, like I mentioned before, commercial projects or that are deemed commercial instead of all of those things you just touched? And again, I'm not talking about architectural site review. I'm just talking about the enhanced public outreach portion. Can we limit that down to commercial projects?

There's a lot of large... historical homes, whether they're like in the historical registry or not. I mean, you know what I'm saying? Older homes that were here when it was just like a home here and a home there and that land has been sold off. I've bought one of those houses built in 1950, right? But there are other homes that have multiple structures that are being used as ADUs, you know, and things like that. And I'm thinking, you know, we drive by these buildings every day, and I'm thinking that now these folks who have these, who are fortunate enough to have these beautiful large homes, but now that they have to now do this outreach if they want to do anything, right? Whereas before they didn't have to. And I think that that creates a huge burden on the community that they're taking that burden based on, like you were saying, commercial or commercial residential buildings that are being built. Why is it that the community not only has to... That's for our discussion. I feel like the community has to... Be aware of what's going on. Police it. Be at the meeting. Follow the rules and costs of the commercial bailout because they want to do something on their property. And I have a problem with that. I also have a tiny house, so it would not affect me.

Yeah, I would comment that I noticed like in the city we were promoting individuals to go through our permit process with GoPermit having that accessible online. With having individuals do a community outreach on building on their own property or adjusting, it's going to prevent them from doing that. They would say, hey, I'd rather just build something illegally because they don't want to go through telling everybody what they're building. And I think that's going to just pretty much make it worse, I think. Also on that topic, can I add in that if we were to do community outreach for commercial projects, can we make it better accessible than our website? I feel like the website's a little bit difficult for people to go onto to see upcoming projects. I mean, even if we were to look up and to see who's the planner, I feel like those areas are a little bit difficult as is. I feel like the community will have more difficulty if they were to see upcoming projects, if we have like a bulletin or something that's a little bit more accessible, if we were to go that route, I think that would probably be better. Just my two cents, sorry.

Don't be, it's just, we do what you tell us to do, and then we're going to take it.

It's my first time off mic, so.

Fair enough, fair enough.

Well, I want to say, Mike and staff, you guys did a great job. I mean, I don't want this to be a knee-jerk reaction, which IT KIND OF HAS TURNED INTO BECAUSE OF THE PROJECT THAT EVERYONE IS REFERENCING. COMMUNITY HAS A LOT OF GREAT FEEDBACK. I'M PART OF THE COMMUNITY. I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING THAT'S COMING OUT OF EVERYONE'S MINDS AND IT'S ALL VALID. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY VALIDITY TO EVERYTHING THAT'S SAID. I ALONG WITH COMMISSIONER BENSON HERE, I'M GOING TO FEEL THAT WE SHOULD MAYBE POSTPONE THIS PERHAPS WITH OUR COMMENTS BACK TO STAFF AND COME UP WITH A REVISED AND WE CAN GO BACK

in a month or whenever we can and revisit the council, the council, the commission, you do have a right to continue it. Um, however, the task in front of you is the zoning ordinance amendment for the arc and site review process. And that's very limited and you're continuing it. If you, if you continue it, You need to continue it with recommendations of how you want this ordinance to be revised. We can't add other things like looking at project impacts for water, power, those other impacts. That's not part of this ordinance and it wouldn't be within the scope of a continuance. So if you continue it, provide feedback to staff on the changes you want in the notices. You don't want 500 feet. You want staff to look at a larger radius and provide comments on that. But saying you want to come back with other another process or another that would be a whole different ordinance and that is not what's in front of you tonight so you do have to be limited by what's in front of you if you continue this it doesn't mean staff can't come back with some other ordinance later on and if if you want to send this to council with your recommendations of the changes the noticing and the community meetings and certain things we've heard tonight, you could also say that you also want the city to look at these other items, but it's not part of this agenda item. So I do want to be careful about Brown Act, you know, and also don't just continue to just continue. You need to continue with recommendations and specific recommendations because a continuance Without that, it will come back and you'll have the same conversation again. So you really do need to be specific.

Okay, so can we give the list of our comments and then ask that next meeting there's a new revised one to review before we put it towards council?

The staff can do that, or the staff can say, this recommendation we didn't accept because it doesn't work for this reason, or something like that. I mean, some of these things staff will have to review and consider before they just add it into the ordinance.

Totally understood. I just would mean, will it come back to us with, hey, we heard these things, these are the things we addressed, these are the things we didn't, here's the new one?

Yes.

Okay. Great. So do you want us to give you a specific list of those items now, or has the feedback been given? What is your preference, Michael?

We would have to.

So Commissioner Benson. Yeah, well, one of the things, I mean, I'm looking at page three, right, of the staff report, and in the red, any decision to issue an architectural and site approval is a discretionary decision subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Well, these are a few more things that we want staff to be looking at. You know, I don't necessarily disagree with what Jolie is saying, but I'm thinking... Well, some of these things we're talking about tonight are a little more specific. So I don't know if they should be in here, but I feel like they should.

But CEQA is limited, and we can't add things to the CEQA checklist for review.

No, but it's not adding them, per se, if you're talking about, you know, evaluating, you know, water resources, electrical resources, you know, Sewage capacity, that's not an add. So the ordinance already requires CEQA review.

Yeah, but I think you can't direct how the CEQA review is going to be done. That's up to the staff or the consultants when they do their initial study. If there's going to be impacts, can they be mitigated? If they can't, then if there's going to be an EIR, and so for purposes of this notice requirement, if an EIR is required, all of those issues will be addressed in the EIR.

Yeah, but then we get comments of, well, where do you think the water is going to come from, applicant? Oh, the fire hydrant. I mean, come on. I mean, where's the mitigations for projects unless we see them? And we approve it.

If it's going to require an EIR, you will see it.

So, Commissioner Benson, are you asking for to defer this out to the next meeting so that we can prepare comments? Or what is...

You don't save your you should give your comments tonight if you're going to continue it so you have we are continuing this to a another the next meeting or so and we want staff to look at This ordinance and these are the changes or modifications We're recommending staff will look at them and see if they can be done or if they can't be done this ordinance is this notice ordinance is triggered by an environmental impact report.

But we've asked for continuances before so we can continue reading large packets or things like that. I mean, we're just now, you know, understanding that, you know, what our options are here. So why can't we continue, do a continuance so that we can thoughtfully prepare after we've got the presentation, had our questions answered, and then we have time to think about and prepare what we would like to have as possible edits to this and then bring that back in the continuance. How is that different from having to put our feedback in today right now?

Usually you've continued it because the THERE'S BEEN CHANGES TO THE PROJECT OR SOMETHING AND YOU HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO REVIEW. I'M JUST SAYING THAT IF YOU CONTINUE THIS WITHOUT ANY FEEDBACK TO STAFF, WHAT WILL LIKELY COME BACK WILL BE THE SAME ORDINANCE AND WILL BE RIGHT BACK WHERE WE ARE AND PEOPLE WILL SAY, WELL, YOU DIDN'T LISTEN TO US OR WE WANT TO MAKE MORE CHANGES. I DO KNOW THAT IF YOU THINK THAT THIS NOTICE REQUIREMENT That's all this is, is a noticing requirement in the zoning code. You're not going to be able to change other project review features with this ordinance. This is just enhanced noticing for certain projects that need an EIR. It's not going to change CEQA, and it's not going to change the environmental review process. So I'm trying to say what you can do and what you can't do But if you do continue this, it would just be fair to your fellow commissioners and to staff to provide some guidance.

I think we can come up with some guidance. I think the enhanced public comment or the noticing, I think that's one of the big items that we all discussed. So we can come up with some ideas to take back.

Does anybody have a suggestion on what we're going to request for the noticing distance? Commissioners?

Well, I'm looking at the ordinance and the suggested ordinance that's going to go to them, and I think that may be what needs to be changed. The staff report might be fine with some tweaks, but the ordinance, I don't think it's gone far enough. And I don't develop ordinances.

The excerpt in the staff report, it's copy and paste from the ordinance. The red line portion? Yes, it's exactly what the ordinance.

Yeah, but I'm looking at the ordinance here, and this ordinance, yeah.

Yeah.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Benson. This does not feel like that this proposed change is just a noticing requirement. Because we talk about where decision-making is made, who makes those decisions. They come to the Planning Commission. They don't go to the City Council. It's not just about notification.

I agree.

To say this is just a notification requirement, it does have a notification requirement element. I agree with that. But there's so much more here.

I don't want to get into a debate, but it is a noticing requirement ordinance, and it's triggered by staff determining that an EIR is necessary, and it's an EIR that contains a statement of overriding considerations as well. So that's a high bar for CEQA, and it's not... what a design review process is going to look at. It's just the noticing. What the fair memo from council was in the council discussion was they discussed enhanced noticing requirements for certain projects. How do we get to these certain projects? Staff looked at size of projects or the process and what what goes to Planning Commission and what doesn't. Council's reviewed this. They have come up with some suggestions. And because this is a zoning ordinance, it has to, by law, come through the Planning Commission. But this ordinance is not going to change and cannot add. We want to look at electrical impacts and water impacts outside of CEQA. That could be something else, but it's not going to be in this noticing ordinance, and it's already contained in CEQA because those are impacts to the environment. So again, it will take four people to continue this, and I would advise please provide comments, or it could be sent to council WITH THESE ARE THE CONCERNS WE HAVE ABOUT THIS NOTICING REQUIREMENT AND COUNCIL, WE ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT OTHER IMPACTS TO THE CITY AND YOU KNOW, YOU WANT THE COUNCIL TO BE AWARE OF THAT AND MAKE A POLICY DECISION IF THEY EVEN WANT STAFF OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO LOOK AT IT. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP EVERYBODY ON TRACK HERE. I would suggest making detailed recommendations if you continue this, or recommend it to counsel. You can recommend a denial to counsel, or you can recommend approval and with your suggested edits.

So I 100% hear what you're saying, and I understand that. I don't think it does enough. I understand we can't add anything to it. I do think that we do need to look at the verbiage that says one or more significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. I think it should be one or more unmitigated significant or unavoidable environmental impact.

Can you say that again? I'm sorry.

One or more significant unmitigated or unavoidable environmental impact. So you're just changing and to or. I'm adding unmitigated and changing and to or.

Great. So that's specific. There we go.

One or more significant unmitigated impacts or.

And when I mean one or more significant impacts, I mean before mitigated, right? Before, mitigation could be applied to it in the CEQA, right? But if there's one or more significant impact, mitigated or not, then it would trigger this.

That's not the requirement for a statement of overriding considerations per CEQA. So that's actually changing. The council wanted, what the council came up with is it would be a project and the EIR has found significant and unmitigatable impacts that cannot be avoided. And then it goes to the statement of overriding considerations and then the elected legislative body can DO A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDE WHERE YOU BALANCE THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT AND THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS UNDER A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. BUT IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION, WE CAN, WE'LL LOOK AT THAT, BUT YOU'RE ACTUALLY CHANGING THE REQUIREMENT UNDER CEQA FOR A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.

AND YOU'RE SAYING WE CAN'T DO THAT? So CEQA has its own statement of overriding considerations. Yes, it has. Yeah, I just pulled it up, but I don't trust this. I don't trust that. I'm going to the document.

You know me. But it is, it's actual, I don't have my book with me, but a statement of overriding consideration would be required, and it's for unavoidable AND UNMITIGATABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

SO THAT LANGUAGE COMES FROM CEQA.

COMES FROM CEQA AND WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE. A LOT OF TIMES WE'VE HAD TO DO IT FOR AIR QUALITY BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE SMOG BASIN.

IF I MAY, THROUGH THE CHAIR, PERHAPS A CLEAR DIRECTION IF YOU WANT TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL, PERHAPS YOU WOULD LIKE PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE AN EIR. SIMPLY. IF A PROJECT REQUIRES AN EIR, IT GOES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S CONCRETE, YOU KNOW. I'M ASKING HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW.

I LIKE THAT THAT'S EASY AND DOESN'T REQUIRE A LOT OF STAFF TIME, RIGHT? Well, but I mean, they're going to be doing it anyway, right? But now they don't have to do all this determination. If it requires an EIR, it comes to... Planning Commission.

We could bring that to you.

What about in the circumstance that is the elephant in the room, they use the existing EIR that was developed decades ago?

No, no, they didn't.

They did an EIR for the AI project?

Yes. It's not an AI project. It's not an AI project. The data center required an environmental impact report. So if you were to move, whether there's an impact or not, if a project requires an environmental impact report, the planning commission's asking, is it recommended to the council that it be reviewed by the planning commission, not staff?

Then let's do it. Put that in there.

We need a consensus. But that is something.

I would like to make a motion.

I'm all excited. I want that one.

Let's get it all down first. Let's get all our amendments that we'd like to make.

One is for the meetings, the 10-day notice. We can discuss that. The means of communicating, that's something that we could address. A lot of this we can't though, right? It's outside of the scope.

For example, you could require a newspaper notice and a community meeting. You could do a newspaper notice and you could do a community meeting with the surrounding

neighbors or whatever, 500 feet, 1,000 feet or something, but you... Are there any thresholds, like the gentleman who made the public comment, he's three miles away from currently where the data center's going, and he referenced Moss Landing. Could it be extended to say a project that's more than 15,000 square feet, 10,000 square feet, has a two mile radius?

What we did was we referenced the code section that has the requirements for public hearing notice. So here, under the Gilroy existing code, public hearing notice has the 500 feet radius. And that's why, you know, staff modeled it after that. So that's why it's by reference if you see the code section 30.51.30B2. Got it. Yeah.

But that public hearing is...

That's public hearing, but we're just referencing that, utilizing that for the community meeting as well. And if you wanted to require a larger distance, that could mean the community would even be reaching broader versus a public hearing.

And I think a mile would probably be the maximum you could do. You know, if the council would even go for that. I think in this circumstance, maybe 500 isn't enough, but two miles is way too much. But then also... THE PUBLIC NOTICE IN THE PAPER, THE CITY IS VERY GOOD ABOUT ON THE CITY NEWSLETTER PUTTING STUFF IN AND ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEWSLETTER. IT'S FREE. I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE COMPUTERS BECAUSE I CAN TELL. BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S TOO. I MEAN, IT'S KIND OF HARD. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET TO EVERY SINGLE RESIDENT IN TOWN? I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW. BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THE CALL FEATURE FOR AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW. But there are different ways you can increase it, but I don't know how far we're going to go. But I like where we're headed now talking about the different things.

Okay, so can we make our recommendations? Neighbors within one mile in the city newsletter and a newspaper.

Do we want to limit that or restrict it to a size limit? Absolutely.

So I think overall the application for the enhanced public outreach program I THINK WE'D ALL LIKE TO PUT A SIZE ON THAT PROJECT.

ARE WE TALKING COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL?

YES, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AT WHATEVER SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO I'M TERRIFIED. Yeah. Right.

Not the house. And then do the 3,000 square feet for housing in the hillside. And, you know, if we want to do that. But not the 1,000, not a mile radius. That residential area could still do that.

I think we just limit the entire enhanced public outreach to commercial projects of this size or larger.

Yeah. And the EIR requirement.

Right.

Yes. Yes. Definitely.

So what size commercial projects 10,000 square feet or larger? Do we feel good about that?

I'd say 15,000 square feet. Okay. Great. So you're going to catch something.

Yeah. So enhanced public notice is commercial projects, 15,000 feet or larger. We're asking for a one mile radius for that enhanced public notice. We're asking for a newspaper.

POSTING.

POSTING. AND THEN WE'RE ASKING FOR THE CITY NEWSLETTER. THOSE THREE THINGS? YEAH. ONLY FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS OVER $15,000.

AND INDUSTRIAL.

AND INDUSTRIAL. INDUSTRIAL.

AND HOW MANY DAYS NOTICE?

THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING. MAYBE. TWO WEEKS. TWO WEEKS. BEING THAT IT WAS IN STAFF, YOU KNOW, YOU HAD TO, IT'S TOUGH TO GET ALL THESE.

WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO DO A 30-DAY NOTICE AND THEN DOING A REMINDER

You're going to push out meetings doing that. I'd say go for two weeks notice or 15 days. Otherwise, you're going to get stuck out months. I'm going to look at our meeting schedule for us. Yeah.

And you have to understand a two-week notice that's in the newspaper is The notice needs to go to the paper. Ahead of that. That's what I'm saying. As staff, I know how tough that is to get it in six days ahead for the 14-day notice. And no longer do a joint notice of planning commission and council. They changed that rule. So we used to double notice. So now everything gets bumped out further and further because of the notice requirements.

Yeah.

The paper. Yeah.

So you can't get too far out. BECAUSE OF THAT NOTICED LEAD TIME.

THERE CAN BE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO THE APPLICANT, TOO, IN TIME AND MONEY. IF YOU'RE COUNTING ON A PROJECT TO TAKE SO LONG TO BREAK GROUND BECAUSE OF FINANCING AND DURING THAT DELAYED PROCESS INTEREST RATES GO UP, YOU'RE TALKING SIGNIFICANT MONEY TO THE APPLICANT BY DELAYING TOO FAR OUT. Right? And so to be fair to the public is one thing, but you also have to look at the people whose money is on the line to be fair to them, too.

Yeah, so about 14 days. That's two weeks.

Yeah, I think that's great.

Also, what about the concern about a staff person maybe being present at one of these community meetings? THAT WILL HAVE TO BE HELD SO THAT IT'S RUN PROPERLY OR, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE'S THERE AS A LISTENING FOR THE CITY.

THIRD PARTY. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

MICHAEL OR SHARON, WHEN THEY HAVE THE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, DOES THE STAFF PERSON ATTEND NOW?

When we have community meetings, like for EIRs, yes, yes, that person typically attends.

Yeah, and if it's an EIR meeting, the consultants there, and usually staff is there.

Yeah, I'm thinking about those smaller ones, smaller little meetings where there's hillside maybe or whatever. I don't know. What do you think?

we won't be having those smaller community meetings based on the criteria you just said, 15,000 square foot building, commercial or industrial. So you're limiting the scope to projects that will have staff, will have an ERR to represent. We already have staff. Yeah.

So there's two amendments that are on the floor. One of the amendments, I believe, was talking about projects that would be triggered to go to Planning Commission. And you haven't decided yet. We're just talking it out.

I think with my notes, and this is what I have, if any project triggers an EIR, it gets referred to Planning. And then on the enhanced public notice, anything 15,000 square feet or larger would require a one-mile radius for noticing. It has to be in the newspaper. AND 14 DAYS OUT. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL.

I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE A YEAR. THE NEWSPAPER NOTICE, I FIND THE THRESHOLDS UNDERSTOOD. I'VE NEVER IN MY ENTIRE LIFE NOTICED WITH A MILE RADIUS. THAT'S GOING TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL COST TO THE DEVELOPER. We'll take it if it's agreed upon, and I'll take it to council. But I'm just sharing that. At the council meetings, there was some council members, and it's taken their direction, put some of the onus on residents to stay informed, and that's why we use these digital communications. If you want to increase 1,000 feet, I have experience with that with development projects, a mile. And I'm just taking it directly from Director Goey and I had recently got a request for 2,000 feet, which is not a mile, and it was a substantial cost for an affordable housing project on the noticing component.

So then if we leave it at 500 feet and we just do the newspaper and the city newsletter?

And then extend it out four more days?

Yeah. And then 14 days?

How about 1,000 feet? At least that's enough.

Yeah, 1,000 feet is kind of more. Yeah, that's something that's been done.

Yeah, that's a lot.

Yeah, I was just actually doing the math because, you know, one mile is 5,280 feet, which is 10.56 times. And, you know, the square of that, that's 111 times squared. Yeah, area of coverage.

In the 1,000 feet and then the other areas to make it visible, the newsletter, the paper. Next door. I mean, before.

Yeah, so that would be four times the area versus.

I don't mean next door in the publication, Jolie. Sorry, I don't agree with a lot of the stuff on here.

We have our website. We don't co-make. Yes.

Commissioner, is there anything else?

Yes. Can we also add that that should be seen by City Council, not just by Planning Commission? It should be reviewed by City Council?

It will be once we approve it.

No.

Say again? Whatever we do, unless we straight out deny it, goes to Council.

No, I don't think so. I think with this...

It's a PC decision, appealable to council. Correct. It's appealable to council. Appealable to council. But it doesn't.

And the reason we did that was because right now, as you've seen in a lot of architectural site review permits, it's at staff level. And even though, and I want to take this chance to kind of clarify that too. Even though the code designates community development director or designee, there's a whole team of city staff from multiple divisions and departments that review all these projects over many, many months. and just one person is designated to approve on behalf of the city. And because right now it's at staff level, and as you know, just planning commission is kind of the next step, and then council is the next step. So instead of kind of jumping ahead to that, that's why staff have proposed this, and this is what council direction from June was too.

Okay, that makes sense. Because there's an ordinance here. Council approves ordinances, not us.

No, no, no, no. You're misunderstanding the project. But that makes sense, Director Goey. Are we able to add just that I understand that the fair... Well, I don't know. Okay, so the fair memo was to increase public awareness and engagement. So... That fair memo does not encompass a guideline for creating an ordinance or some sort of code to look at the size of a project or water use or anything like that, correct? That's right. Got it. So can we ask that they consider that?

If you approve this ordinance with these changes, your recommended changes, and your recommending approval to the city council, then you can have a, you can say and provide direction that you would like to see something else. In addition. Yeah, in addition.

I would like to do that.

WHAT'S THE SOMETHING ELSE WE WANT TO SEE? WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE THINKING, BUT COUNCIL WON'T KNOW UNLESS WE SPELL IT OUT.

RIGHT. YOU COULD REQUEST THAT COUNCIL REVIEW CONSIDERING AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD REVIEW CERTAIN IMPACTS THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE ARE COVERED BY THE CEQA REVIEW INCLUDING THIS, THIS AND THIS.

Because that would be an ordinance, and that would be a policy decision from council.

So you could request that they review it and provide direction on if they want to do that.

I would like to do that with some of the things that we've been talking about here. And the public has communicated, including size, electrical use, water use. THEY CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MR. PANABIDIS SAID THAT WANTS US TO RECOMMEND A COUNCIL TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION BEYOND THE CURRENT PROCEDURAL AMENDMENTS AND THEN CONSIDER DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE DATA CENTER ORDINANCE THAT ESTABLISHES OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BEFORE MAJOR projects are proposed. I mean, that's sort of what we're talking about, right, Jolie?

Yeah, you could ask the council, you want the council to consider that. Yeah, I think we should. And then, and council, it would be a council policy or not to do that. Yep.

That's exactly what I would like to do.

Yep. There's some great wording here on his last paragraph on the first page. That way, if they vote no, you'll know who voted no.

If I just, if I made through the chair to make sure, once you go through your votes, I believe, depending on if you approve or deny, but the recommendation would include projects that require an EIR go to Planning Commission. That's one threshold. Industrial commercial project. Well, no, no. Because the enhanced public notification of industrial commercial with a threshold of 15,000 square feet would trigger enhanced public notification, which would include a 1,000-foot radius, 14 days of a decision being made after that meeting is commenced. And for council to consider... the drafting of a data center ordinance to create objective standards because there's concerns such as electrical use and water use.

I would not want to limit it just to data centers. I would like to ask them to establish objective development standards governing the size, intensity, and operational characteristics of projects. You've got to give a threshold, though. No, I mean, no, I don't need to give a threshold. If they're going to direct staff to look at that, then this can be identified through staff can identify these items, right?

That every project would need to get their energy and their water usage looked at?

No, no, no. I'm not saying that we are saying that every project should look at that. But I'm saying that they should direct staff, just like they directed staff to say, hey, we need to have more public outreach. I'm asking them, and staff looked into that, right? And they brought this before us. But I'm saying that they should look at projects that They need to establish an objective development standard governing the size, intensity, operational characteristics of projects, and how we review those. So I don't want to just say data centers, because I think we're back in 1984, because what are data centers going to look like 10 years from now? They've changed so much in five years. I don't think this is really about data centers. I think this could be about all sorts of industrial buildings or commercial buildings, okay, so you're asking staff to come up with another No, I'm asking ordinance like this that we then look at that has thresholds on it That's what we would have to do anyway because that's not what was asked by staff from staff by the City Council City Council the is that that am I saying that correctly?

Yeah, you after you make your motion here, then you're just gonna say we'd also I request that the council consider looking at this type of ordinance And Michael first Clarification the 14-day notice you said that's prior to the Or is that post approval I had said I?

And I may have been wrong. I had said a decision won't be made until 14 days after the meeting when I believe the commission wants that if a meeting is set, you need to give residents 14 days to attend that. The way it sounded was 14 days after decision.

And I agree.

And I will own that. I did say that. But I didn't. I misinterpreted what the commission.

Yes. And I was just going to mention, actually, we didn't include the 10-day in here. Because if you look at that reference, it's only to the 500 feet. But I know if you're looking up that section and looked above, that's where the 10-day is. So 10-day wasn't actually. Yeah.

So the 1,000 feet and the notice is going to have to go specifically in this ordinance, I believe. Yeah, I think. Because we can't refer to third.

Right, because we're not referring to. Correct.

So I'll have to redraft the ordinance with the new.

And it will be embedded in this ordinance, which is not like we usually do. We usually always refer to those sections, and you appeal by this section. But this one will be specially crafted.

I would just like to support our attorney. I looked up the Fair Memo Act, and it specifically says we would like to propose for consideration asking that staff be directed to return to council with options as to what hearings should be appropriate for certain application and to which body, example, staff, planning commission, or city council, to allow residents the opportunity to be engaged in the process. This is this. And then we are also asking them to make a similar request with regards to an approval process, procedural approval process regarding applications and approvals based on Objective development standards and additional impacts and additional impacts Right no, and I agree I'm not opposed to that

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? SOMEBODY DOES HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION. IT HAS TO BE SECONDED. WELL, FIRST WE'VE GOT TO DO CEQA SEPARATELY, RIGHT?

YEAH.

RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

THE CEQA.

AND THEN THE RECOMMEND WE WOULD ADOPT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION PROVING THE AMENDMENTS

I have a question. Are any of the things we're asking for, is there any reason that it wouldn't go into the ordinance? The things we listed? Okay, that's all. Like I don't want us to say that we want to do this and then what goes to council isn't all the things that we asked for. Does that make sense?

Are you going to send this ordinance and then the amendments separate, or are you going to do a new version with these amendments embedded? These embedded?

I would just like to see it embedded.

Yeah, just revised, I think, is the goal.

If you get enough votes, it wouldn't have to come back. But I do want to preface this meeting. There's a 15,000, you know, the threshold, the projects that would trigger the enhanced public notice are ARC and site review permits, 15,000 square feet. I want to say commercial and industrial, not just commercial. Yes, correct. Non-residential.

Yes.

Maybe if I say non-residential, that'll... Non-residential.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

And then are we going to put in there that it has to go to the notification in our newsletter? Can we add that as part of that?

On the city newsletter?

Yeah, I mean, that would just be a staff procedure. Oh, okay.

Put that in the ordinance. Got it.

Yeah, but the applicant requirements is what we want to put in the ordinance.

Okay. So all of that.

Yeah. Not bad at all.

So I make a motion for all of that.

You've got to be way more specific. I know, but... Wait, do you...

Okay. Do you want? Mike's already got all the notes. Okay. I mean, I just want, if you want us to kind of summarize it, and then you can make a motion accordingly. Would that be easier?

Well, no, I kind of like Director Goey. You want me to do it? If Director Goey summarizes it and you agree, then Commissioner Benson could say, I recommend the amendment as stated by Director Goey. Unless it's incorrect, and then we'll. Because I am a bit lost on the objective standard. I apologize. That's not going to be part of the whole thing. Correct, correct. But I want to make sure when we do go to council, I articulate the planning commission's recommendations.

I know it's not the ordinance, but I'm just a little... Let's get the approval through, and then we'll circle back to the recommendations. Thank you, Commissioner. Really clarify it at that point. Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner. The second one is the zoning.

Well, I only see one ordinance. Is there more than one?

You have to see core first. Yeah.

Okay. Go ahead.

I make a motion that we recommend the city council, based on its independent analysis, find that approval of the city council code zoning amendment is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15061 , the, quote, common sense, quote, exception.

I second.

Roll call. Commissioner Benson? Yes. Commissioner Donhower?

Yes.

Commissioner Cotabande? Yes. Commissioner Valdez? Yes. Vice Chair Elling?

Yes.

And Chair Bondell?

Yes. Thank you. That was unanimous.

Okay, I'd like to make a motion to recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance Z26-01 to approve amendments to the Gilroy City Code, Chapter 30, Zoning, Article L, Planning Department applications relating to architectural and site review permit process with the amendments as identified by Director Goey?

Second. Yeah, I'm... I'm sorry, you've got to read them first. Pardon me.

Okay, so under Section 30.50.41, proposed Section B, so we'll be modifying this to architectural site review permits requiring planning commission review for projects that require an environmental impact report as determined by the California Environmental Quality Act. And then for Section C, as proposed tonight, we'll be modifying that to... rather than referencing, I'll just read it. Okay, the applicant shall, one, mail notice of a community meeting to property owners and residents in the vicinity of the project, rather than referencing to an accordion of city code section 30.51.30B2, we will say 1,000 feet. And actually sorry go up going above that the main section see Rather than where it stays now except for new single-family residences and accessory structures and hillside zoning districts We're going to indicate this will be limited to non-residential projects 15,000 square feet or larger And then below, you know, in the Section 1, we will insert the 14-day notice ahead of the committee meeting and adding the newspaper notice in addition to the mailed notice.

That is correct.

Yes, I did. Yeah, I removed that reference to the co-section, replaced it with 1,000 feet.

Second. Roll call. Commissioner Benson? Yes. Commissioner Donhauer? Yes. Commissioner Cotabande?

Yes.

Commissioner Valdez? Yes. Vice Chair Alley? Yes. And Chair Bondal?

Yes. Thank you. That was unanimous. Hold on.

You didn't include the add the... Oh, that's it? Yes.

Okay. I'm sorry. Separate motion. Okay.

So I'm trying to do that.

We can just do that by consensus.

We really don't have to take a motion, but so someone, how do I say that?

Um, the planning commission gave direction to provide a direction to have the council review and consider adopting an ordinance related to

Establishing objectives, development standards governing the size, intensity, or operational characteristics of projects, including but not limited to water consumption, battery energy storage systems, fuel storage, campus size, et cetera.

There was a consensus. Raise your hands. Okay. So it was a unanimous consensus.

Well, Mike, thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right. All right. Commissioners, do you guys want to take a short break?

Yes, please. Sure.

All right. We will. Five minutes. I think the ER way is probably the better way.

Ah, got it, got it, okay. Tomorrow I won't be there, but I'm going to be here.

You know what? It was so funny when we were talking about directors. I came home. We were just talking about directors. After tonight, I don't want to end in here. Okay, I can hit this, right? That was for the 6.1?

Yeah, I can close out all his stuff right here.

You want to stay for the whole thing? I'll tell you later. Oh, in terms of that?

Yeah, sure.

It is my dad's birthday, but he knows I'm here. He's like, we'll save a cookie for you.

A cookie?

I'll be fine. Whatever dessert he chooses. He's like, we'll save some.

I can leave this here because they can't see it, and then I just do this.

Whenever you want to present, just hit that button.

Don't hit it now, though, right?

If you want to test it, sure. I don't think anyone's looking or anything, so it's...

Okay.

So, yeah, there you go. A little test run.

And I think I can see that.

Yeah, you can adjust your fonts.

Oh, that's too small. Okay, there. Right there. Okay. Hopefully mine's easy-peasy. Because it's not controversial or they're tired or they're hungry. I'm hoping it's one of them.

Okay, sweet. Yeah, thank you. Awesome. Is the second one related or two separate things?

They're related.

Okay, gotcha.

Yeah, they're two separate, like, actions.

This is my first one, so all this is my first and only, because I'm a part-time intern, so my internship's over before the next commissioning. And what are you going to school for? I graduated from UC Berkeley, like, two months ago in May with a political science bachelor's degree.

I used to work for the city of Berkeley as their city engineer.

That had to be fascinating. They've got all kinds of stuff going on. Did you work with the university projects that were happening?

Yeah, yeah. And you know where City Hall is by that point. City Park or Milvia and Center Street, I think. Center Street, Center Street.

Yes, it's next to the... Yeah, yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about. So you did... How long were you there?

Three years. And when did you leave? July 2020.

Oh, okay. So just before I was up there. Okay, gotcha.

Yeah, I left during COVID.

Oh, I see.

So yeah, it was just before. But I don't know.

Yeah, what made you come down here? I don't know.

Oh, I went to Seaside, and I was their city engineer, director, public works director, and then came.

Gotcha. Gotcha. Okay. Yeah.

But, yeah, no, Berkeley's...

How do you really feel?

I think it's a dump, basically. It's kind of dirty and a lot of homeless. A lot of homeless, a lot of homeless. Especially close to home.

It's enough for a student that goes to the university to know them like regulars. Yeah. You knew their faces. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I knew the ones that I'd have to pass by when I was like this late. Oh, yeah, that wasn't.

Yeah. Because I worked late at the Whole Foods off Gelman for a year. Oh, okay. And so I'd bike. up from there at like 10 p.m. So yeah, I'd pass quite a few. I'd be like, oh, I've seen you by the Target during the daytime. Like, now I know where you're sleeping every night. Goodness.

I mean, Berkeley's such a good school, but I mean, I don't think people know what kind of environment they're going to live in for four years.

Well, this will give you a perspective. My parents, literally, for the longest time... Where are you from? I'm from here. Oh, you're from Gilbert? Yeah. So my parents actually took me on a tour to Berkeley because I didn't even know the school existed, to be frank.

Oh, okay.

When I was in high school, I applied to Irvine, UCLA. I didn't really know about this, which is weird knowing where it landed.

All right, commissioners, 30 seconds.

Okay, let me get my notes. Yeah, of course. Sorry. Oh, no, no.

I want to hear that, though.

That's pretty interesting.

So just the surroundings. Our management, me,

Brian, have you met him?

He was there two years while I was there. We were in the same program for two years.

Have you met him yet? I never met him.

Oh, okay. We were there for two years at the same time. He was in the last two hours. I have no idea how cities work. But I mean, for his junior and senior year, I was there at the same time, just two years. But if you were at the school at the same time, in the same program, I still didn't leave.

Like, that's crazy. He's a good guy.

But I have met him here.

It's cool. It's awesome.

Yeah, I know.

We're really friendly because, yeah. Do you work every day here?

All right, commissioners.

Oh, you're part-time, not an intern. That was it.

Thanks that you got in here. I liked it. Yeah. It's awesome. With a political science degree, at least you get to see local government and see if that's something you want to do.

What's that?

Uh-oh. What happened? What happened? Yeah.

Got to go up there.

What's going to happen here?

There's a lot of speaker cards.

Can we turn this?

Wait, hover over this?

Over this?

Yeah, that might be a second. Oh, okay. Okay. I got worried for a second. Yeah, me too. Yeah, we're good.

Okay, I think this is... You know where to go from there. I'm feeling positive. This is going to go quick.

Go for it, yeah. That's a one-one.

Whatever they say to go. Exactly. But the chair is not on his desk.

I was like...

Or no? Sharon, is it? But your point was exactly right.

You continue this, and you come back with your comments, then it's continued again for a third time when it comes back with final revision.

You're right.

Don't just continue it to continue.

Right.

All right, commissioners, our small break is up. We're going to continue on with new business here shortly. All right, we are back in session. Welcome back. Moving on to 7, 7.1, New Business. Planning Commission Review of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Complete Streets Checklist for OBAG 4 and CARE Grants. Good afternoon, Nisha.

Yes. Good evening, Commissioners, staff, and members of the public. I'm Nisha Patel, City Engineer and the Transportation Engineer, and tonight, I will be presenting the Complete Streets Checklist for the application of OBAG IV and CARE grant funds. The City is applying for federal grant assistance through OBAG and CARE programs overseen by MTC. These applications are due on July 27. MTC requires the City's Planning Commission, acting as the bicycle and pedestrian body for the City of Gilroy to review and provide input on the Complete Streets Checklist for each of the projects. You will see the checklists that are in your packet have a lot of just basic information, but we're still happy to receive suggested changes. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission review and provide feedback on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission MTC Complete Streets Checklist for the application of OBAG IV and Care Grant funds to be able to move forward with three important projects to benefit the community. As a requirement of the grant, the projects are in equity priority communities, which are in more of the disadvantaged areas of Gilroy. The city had developed a community-based transportation plan, CBTP, which identified a list of capital improvement projects. The CBTP was created in partnership with VTA and was developed using feedback from various community outreach efforts. The bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvement projects identified in the CBTP are eligible to apply for CARE grant funds. Staff is planning to apply for funds to construct a new sidewalk along Carmel Street between First Street and Second Street and address deficient sidewalks on Sixth Street between Prince Val Street and Carmel Street. These improvements will help improve mobility for many types of users. And the city is planning to apply for one Bay Area government OBAG program grant funds for two projects, and they are the sidewalk along the east side of Monterey Road between Luchessa Avenue and 10th. And this is approximately 3,000 linear feet from Luchessa to 10th, but the sidewalk in front of Gateway Senior Living and also Rome Apartments has already been constructed. So it would be less than that. And the project would improve pedestrian access to transit and essential community services in the downtown area. And then we're also trying to move forward with the traffic signal at Monterey Road and I00F. And this project would improve motorist and pedestrian safety and circulation especially to two schools, the South Valley Middle School and also Gilroy Prep, which are nearby. And this gives you a visual where all the projects are located. The star is where the signal project is located. And then the care project is where the two smaller red segments are. That says Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements Project. And then there's the Monterey Road sidewalk from Luchessa to 10th. And this zooms in on the areas. This is the Monterey Road OBAG project from 10th to Luchessa. This shows from 10th down to the Rome Apartments and then And then we'll construct again from south of the Gateway Senior Living Apartments down to Luchessa. And then this is the IOOF Monterey Road location where we'll have a new traffic signal.