Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

My brother used to drive me and my friend in the neighborhood to high school.

Yeah, he would drop us off a block away. And make us walk because he didn't take his silly little sister.

That's funny. Yeah. My girls will like that now. One of my girls used that on the youth commission.

Oh. So Yeah.

Actually, I heard that night. Yeah.

Actually

I'll bet that she's related to you.

Yeah. That's my oldest my oldest twin.

Yeah. So you were here or you were just watching the video?

No. I here. Was here.

Yeah. Yeah. For that.

Yeah. I was here for the interview. Yeah. And then I was here for the day they selected because it was the day they did the winery. Yes. Just Monday, right? Yes. Just Monday.

I figured that you probably will hear from that also.

Yes. All

right. Good afternoon, everyone. Ariana, you guys ready? All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to Thursday, August 7, Regular Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to start off with the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. Report on posting the agenda and roll call, please.

The agenda was posted on Thursday, 07/31/2025 at 12:04PM.

Roll

call. Commissioner Benson. Present. Commissioner L? Present. Commissioner Kushner? Present. Commissioner Landgaard? Here. Commissioner Valdez? Here. Vice Chair, Dellenhauer?

Chair Bondle? Here. Thank you, Desiree. Item four, public comments. Desiree, are there any public comments for items not on today's agenda?

There are no speakers.

Thank you. And we'll close public comment on the five point zero consent agenda. 5.1 Planning Commission meeting minutes for May. Commissioners, any questions, comments? All right. I move that we accept the consent agenda and the

Planning Commission meeting minutes from 05/01/2025.

Second.

Roll call, please.

Roll call. Commissioner Benson?

Yes.

Commissioner L? Yes. Commissioner Kushner?

Yes.

Commissioner Landgaard?

Yes.

Commissioner Valdez?

Yes.

Chair Bondo?

Yes. Thank you very much. Now we're going move on to Public Hearing 6.1, Arc and Site Review for Construction of two Industrial Speculative Buildings located at 8831 And 8841 Maraca Drive, Application Number AS-sixteen. Staff report, Vanessa.

Good evening, Commissioners, Chair and members of the public. The item before you tonight is architectural and site review 20 four-sixteen, located at 8831 And 8841 Maroka Drive. The project site consists of two vacant parcels that equal to a total of 1.67 acres. The site is located West Of Morocco Drive, East Of Monterey Road and Union Pacific Railroad and north and south of existing industrial buildings. The project is also located within the limited industrial zoning district, the Murray Los Animas overlay district, and the industrial land use designation.

The project being proposed consists of constructing two commercial industrial speculative buildings, one building per parcel. Each building will be 12,405 square feet and will have six tenant spaces per building. The project will have 72 total parking stalls, two trash enclosures, perimeter landscaping and two storm water management facilities. Both buildings will be managed by the same property manager and the tenant spaces will be individually leased. No tenants are currently identified for the speculative buildings, but it is intended to attract low intensity commercial and industrial uses that are permitted in the limited industrial zoning district.

Some examples of allowable uses that could potentially go into the buildings include office, warehouse and low intensity commercial uses such as building material sales. The anticipated operation hours will range from 6AM to 10PM and there will be no more than 40 anticipated employees on-site and no anticipated heavy truck traffic. This is the proposed floor plan for the project for both Building A And B. Each building again will be 12,405 square feet and will have six tenant spaces per building for a total of 12 tenant spaces overall. The typical floor plan will consist of a bathroom, a roll up service door and then the remainder will remain open for individual businesses to modify to their business needs through a tenant improvement.

Here we have the elevations for the proposed buildings. Again, both buildings will be identical to each other and the max height of these buildings will be 26 feet. They will be constructed out of metal siding, will have metal awnings over tenant entrances and will have large aluminum storefront windows on the corners of the front of the buildings. The front elevation will also include decorative trellises, both freestanding and wall mounted. And the color palette will consist of gray colors and a teal accent color along the roofline.

Here, we have the rendering showing a three-dimensional view of the project. This helps visualize what that front, east elevation will look like with the large storefront windows, landscaping and the trellises. This is the proposed landscaping plan for the site. There will be 17 European hackberry trees planted along the rear and front property lines, along with other shrubs and ground cover along the side property lines. Sorry, I think something happened to that screen over there.

The landscape plan also shows the trellises that are going be planted on the rear and front property line that will have the pink Jasmine vine growing on it. Staff has found that the project is consistent with the M1 zoning district standards, the Murray Los Animas overlay district policy, the industrial design guidelines and the goals and policies of the Industrial Park General Plan land use designation. Additionally, the project will be incorporating travel demand management measures to decrease the project's vehicle miles traveled or VMP to lessen significant. With the incorporation of the rideshare program and marketing and education of alternative modes of transportation, the project can be exempt from further CEQUA review pursuant to Section fifteen thousand three thirty two of the CEQUA guidelines. On 07/24/2025, staff mailed out two sixty one public notice postcards to notify all properties within the Las Animas Overlay District and all properties within 500 feet of the project of the upcoming hearing.

The project was also noticed in the Gilroy dispatch newspaper and the applicant installed two project notification signs on-site. Staff did receive a comment letter from a local community group, which promotes reduction of greenhouse gases and multimodal transportation and copies of that letter are provided at the front. The letter suggests that the the letter list suggestions that the project could incorporate. The applicant does acknowledge the letter and has agreed to incentivize biking to and from the site by providing an air pump station for use of bicycles. Additionally, a question was received from a representative of the NorCal Carpenters Union regarding the project's valuation and that information was provided to the union representative.

In conclusion, staff has analyzed the proposed project and recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to state CEQA guidelines section 15,332, class 32 and adopt a resolution approving architectural and site review permit application AS 20 four-sixteen. And that concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions and we have the applicant in the audience as well for any questions.

Great. Thank you, Vanessa. Commissioners, any questions for staff? Go ahead.

So firstly, I want to say this is, I thought, a very beautiful design for industrial area. The, vegetation that was selected was, really quite nice and that the the Jasmine facing the, train tracks. So when you're driving down Monterey, you know, as it grows and, even in the winter as it grows, it'll have the, when all the leaves fall and everything, it'll still look, I think, beautiful bear, and it'll look beautiful in the springtime and the summer as well. As for the bike pump, is that going to be in a secured location for tenants or would that be in public I don't want to say publicly accessible because it's in private property, but is it going to be not locked up out of curiosity?

I believe this site will not be gated. The applicant has indicated, potentially placing it near the EV charging station so that way both the vehicles and bicycles can't use it.

Thank you.

Any further questions? All right. I'm going to thank you for this. I'm going to open it up to public hearing. Yes, sir, are there any public comments?

The applicant.

The applicant, if you'd like. Thank you.

My name is Joe Turquado. I represent the private owners that are looking to develop this piece of property. And I guess, first of all, I'd like to thank Vanessa and the staff for their interactive work with us and getting through a significant workload. Part of the landscaping plan was part of planning's dialogue and direction. And so, think it did turn up to be a much better project.

Some notable things about this particular project. The partners that have purchased this property, have developed properties similar to this, in Salinas. And some notable facts, about the city of Gilroy, maybe you know, maybe you don't. As of today, we've located only four properties available for public for light commercial, industrial use in the city of Gilroy with properties under 2,500 square feet. So it's really a classification that's in short supply and allowing many smaller business to have a place of business to call home.

So, we have found that to be a very good product. When we talk about speculative buildings, the ownership that is working to develop this property will also commit to owning and maintaining this property in perpetuity. We develop these properties, we rent them and we maintain them. And so this is not something we're going to build and just pass off to somebody else. We're going to be part of your community for an extended period of time.

We've talked about the small businesses. I've actually grown up here in Gilroy and in Hollister area, and finding these types of facilities is difficult. This is a unique opportunity for us, and I hope the City Of Gilroy as well to have these facilities available to small businesses. Beyond that, you had asked a question about the bike pumps. Our intention is to make them open to the public.

They will be at the EV charging stations available to whoever needs them. And the intention at this point is not to charge, it's just to have an open bike pump that people can initiate and use. That would be our intention. Beyond that, we want to be good neighbors to the City Of Gilroy and to this industrial park. And I think it's a really great opportunity for us and I hope the City Of Gilroy and Res in businesses. So, you know, if I can answer any questions, I'd be glad to. If there's any questions.

Of all, I just wanted to say that was a very nice plan. And especially regarding the exterior because with all the fires that can not only happen with the building by storing materials, but that can come from outside. I think that was a great idea of having the metal the metal siding

Mhmm.

And

roof. I also would like to thank your staff for, you know, guide you, like, to make, like, it just a little bit can make so much better in the long term, like like just even a plant or something, like, it's not just like a like industrial box. So if those are kind of details that adds and we look for besides the, of course, the functionality of the building. But so overall, it's I We like the plan was very well

intentionally, in fact, of the facilities we put together like this, it doesn't take a lot of money, although this one here was more significant, but to make it look like it's on a prefabricated building. It has different textures. We put windows to break up the walls. We parapet we put parapets around the whole roof system to block all the rooftop look view. So it does turn out to be a very, very, appropriate building for the type of use, but also it's aesthetically pleasing. I think you would not be disappointed in this building.

It is. I have

one question. Did you guys consider any putting solar on top and generating some of your own power?

So we have. So typically, the building is designed fact, the building is designed for a solar additive. Most of those would be part of a tenant improvement component. We will set switchgear and power provisions for each facility, assuming, in fact, that when we build this building, we will build it as an open building to visible. And so it depends on who ends up moving into that building. We have some requirements that we have talked to the city about and they've asked us to incorporate with rideshare programs and things like that. But one of them is the potential for solar. Switchgear power systems are built to accommodate solar when it happens.

Okay. So everything else?

On the rooftop systems, yes.

Okay, great.

So we've got the accommodation Okay. For nothing else, thank you very much for your consideration today. Great. Thank you.

Is there are there anybody are

there any other speakers?

There are no speakers.

All right. Great. With that, I'm going to go ahead and close public hearing. Commissioners, it's time to disclose any ex parte communications on this project. I see there are none. All right. The floor is open for discussion or a possible motion.

If there's no discussion, may I make a motion? Both at the same

time? Okay.

I don't do this often, so you know. So I'd like to make a motion to determine this project A sorry, six-1A, determine this project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to state CEQA guidelines Section 15,332 Class 32 and b, adopt a resolution approving the architectural and site review permit application AS 20 four-sixteen.

I'll second that motion.

Thank you. Roll call please.

So we're having some technical issues with the system. The motion will not display on the screen. Roll call. Commissioner Benson? Yes. Commissioner Eli? Yes. Commissioner Kushner? Yes. Commissioner Landgard? Yes. Commissioner Valdez? Yes. Chair Bundle?

Yes. Thank you. That passes unanimously. Congratulations. Thank you. All right. Moving on to seven, seven point one, New Business Planning Commissioner Training, an overview of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA. And the presentation is By Jolie.

For some reason, I thought we were doing the step towards first. Sorry. Yes. So I guess I'll go down there. And there's cookies in the back.

And there's Ferrero Rocher candies.

Julie, do you have an indication how long the training piece is going to be? Thank you. That sounds good. No, that sounds good.

So this is just one of the ongoing trainings that we've been trying to do. We've done general training. We've done land use training. We've done, you know, conflict training, stuff like that. So this one, Sharon and I and Andy, we were talking about it.

And it's just a very basic CEQA training. So when you see stuff that it says, oh, this is exempt as a Class III, you know, infill exemption or something, you have a little bit more of an idea about it. So and then I go yeah, here we go. So CEQA was adopted way back in the '70s, and it was a statute to inform local agency. They sometimes say local agency, government agency, or state agency, but for us, we are a local agency and SEQA applies to us.

But it's to inform the city and the public about a proposed activity, which would be a project of the potential environmental impacts. It's used to identify ways to reduce, avoid environmental impacts. It's to help prevent environmental impacts by requiring project changes, you know, via alternatives or mitigation measures or even conditions of approval. And it's to disclose to the public the rationale for the city's approval of a project that may significantly impact the environment. And so one of the misconceptions about CEQA is CEQA doesn't approve the project, but you need CEQA approval to approve a project.

So you can if you deny the CEQA document, you should not approve the project. Whereas if you don't like the project but there's nothing wrong with CEQA, you should approve the NAIDEC or approve the exemption or certify you know, make a recommendation on the environmental impact report. And then if you want to change or modify the project or even deny different. So I always say if you don't want to approve the project, you know, don't kill it by CEQA, but kill the project. I know I shouldn't say that publicly, but that's the way if you really don't want the project but there's nothing wrong with the CEQA, you should go forward with approving the environmental document.

And again, CEQA is really just an information document. It is to explain to the public, look, we've looked at all these different areas, you know, water, air, you know, certain animals, certain, you know, are there any historic impacts, historic resource impacts? And you either have to there are some and you need to address them, but that's just the whole purpose of the environmental review. Oh, wrong button. So CEQA is governed by three primary sources: Public Resource Code, the CEQA guidelines, which I refer to in the rest of the PowerPoint, and judicial opinions, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, opinions.

And out of all the statutes, CEQA is really heavily, dependent on, judicial opinions. And it's been around for a long time, and the the the state the appellate court and the supreme court decisions have really helped shape the environmental guidance. And there's always new CEQUA cases coming out, and it's they're very helpful. So as land use practitioners and city practitioners, we really try hard to stay up with all the different CEQA decisions. And we can refer to them a lot of times by name, which is sort of our jargon.

But like we say, oh, you have to be careful. That could be a Save Terra issue. Well, Save Terra was a CEQA case where the council approved the funding and sort of pre committed to a housing project, and they hadn't done CEQA. And so they pre committed to it without the CEQA review, and the Court of Appeals said, no, you can't do that. So and that case is very interesting, because for the evidence, they looked at the city council's council meeting discussion, and they were saying stuff like, oh, we can't wait till this housing project comes in, or when this is such a great project, when they were only approving partial funding for it, but they hadn't even so the court said you you need to do CEQA, and that was part of the the project.

Funding was just one part of it. So, we refer to that, and then there's we can name a lot of different cases. But among the city attorneys, we will mention, oh, yeah, I almost had a Safe Terra issue the other night. And so we kind of have that jargon in the back of our heads. So here's the three step CEQA process.

That little chart's a little hard to see. We couldn't blow it up any bigger. But there's a preliminary review of the project, and then it will have a and then you can go to an initial study, and then you have the preparation of an environmental document. And I'll go through that better. So there's preliminary review.

Does CEQA apply or not? And if CEQA applies, the first step would be, is it exempt? So CEQA applies to discretionary projects, and discretionary means some sort of exercise of judgment or deliberation, and a project means an activity that has the potential to cause a direct or reasonable foreseeable indirect project or change to the environment. And project, there's case law on this, and it's also in the guidelines. Projects means the whole activity, the whole of the action.

And what the courts can overturn a project if you piecemeal the project and there's actually segmenting cases or piecemeal cases that someone tries to chop up the project so they don't have to do a whole environmental impact report, maybe try to do it all on exemptions or all on negative decks or something when they should look at the whole of the action. So it's it's important because the whole of the action will have different impacts than just maybe the individual pieces. So that's so a lot of those cases are, you know, you're building something and there's a road to that building, but there's going to be future buildings to that project and you're only doing one part of it. So you have to be careful not to piecemeal your project for CEQA. Yes?

How does the word discretionary factor into discussion?

Well, we're gonna get there. Okay. Stay tuned. So local agency includes projects directly undertaken by the city or requiring some sort of city approval or financing. And examples of that would be conditional use permits, variances, tentative maps, design permits, zoning ordinance, and general plan.

So that's the action. And then you'll get to discretionary or ministerial. So CEQA does not apply to ministerial. It applies to the discretionary, where there's you have to make findings, where there is some, you know, personal personal judgment on staff or the planning commission or on the council. But ministerial means little or no personal judgment.

It's ministerial. You go to the counter, you will if you've done you've filled out your ADU permit, you get your ADU permit. There's no hearing. There's no discretion. Business licenses. The one thing they may look for on a business license application is that business in the right zone, you know, or, you know, you can't have like an industrial use in a residential zone. And then like and building permits, if you meet the code requirements, you shall get a building permit. And that's what we mean by ministerial. And CEQA doesn't apply. There's an actual exemption for that.

So did that answer your question? So is a project exempt from CEQA? So after determining a project is subject to CEQA, the first step you will go to is, is it exempt? That's at the beginning of the charge. Is it a project? No, you go that way. Is it discretionary project? Yes, you go there. Three categories. There's statutory exemptions, categorical exemptions, and then there's the common sense exemption.

So statutory exemptions, they were enacted by the legislature. They chose certain things, activities that would be exempt. They're located in the Public Resources Code and the CEQA guidelines. And some are also found in the Fish and Game Code, the government code, water code. Some of the new housing laws touch on CEQA exemptions.

So there are some other statutes will just by legislation, say CEQA doesn't apply. So examples of that are ministerial projects that we just talked about, emergency projects And it has to be true emergency, like a flood damaged something and you have to go in and repair the bridge or you have to go and fix something right away. And so a harm to the public health and safety if you have to wait and go through the sequel project process. And then the one that I always find is very interesting is rate tolls and fares. So this is used for the impact fees or the processing fees.

Those could have some discretion, but they've been exempted from CEQA. And there really is a policy reason for that because the city needs to be able to charge fees and, you know, to keep the city going. But that one, I know we use for the fees. Then there's categoric exemptions. And these were promulgated by the Secretary for Natural Resources Agency.

And they're to help implement the Public Resource Code, CEQA, statutes. And these are the ones we refer to all the time. They're the CEQA guidelines. And today I noted that I used 15,260 to 15285 in the statutory in the other slide. And this one really should be it goes from 15300 to 15333.

So in case you wanted to go home and look it up, you could. It concerns projects that under normal circumstances typically pose no significant effect or impact on the environment. Examples, we just had one of these today, infill developments. Then there's existing facilities, like repair and maintenance of existing facilities will be exempt as long as it doesn't expand the use or, you know, the yeah, it doesn't cause an expansion of the use or create new impacts. And then the one we use a lot in planning is minor alteration to land.

Sometimes we use that one for maps, tentative maps and such. Any questions so far? Okay. Then we've got the categoric exemptions, and they're subject to

a There's few one question.

Yeah. Oh.

It's actually from the

beginning if you don't mind. Oh, sure.

So when so when we have a CEQA, it's it's a draft until it's approved. Correct? Yes. So if we see on the development community development site or if the public sees a draft CEQA, then that's that's not like a draft is in a working document. That is the CEQA, and then once it's approved, it's final. Correct?

Yeah. Usually, you don't the public wouldn't see a draft exemption or a draft negative deck. Those usually aren't public, but I think I know what you're talking about. A draft EIR?

Yes, that's A what I'm

draft EIR. It is a public document. Yes. And then it's that's a few slides ahead back here. And then it's circulated comments, and then you respond to the comments. And then you've got

your

draft. And then you've got your response your comments and your responses. And then that makes up your final EIR.

Okay. That's what I was confusing with. So the CEQA's final when we see it. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. It's it's final when you see it. And it's a draft EIR, and it will become a final EIR when all the comments are responded to. Wonderful, thank you.

Okay. So some of the exceptions, exemptions to the categoric exemptions, There's one section that says that it may not be exempt from CEQA if the project poses some unusual circumstances, or it may impact a historic resource, or the project's cumulative impacts will cause a significant environmental impact. Projects that fall under a categoric exemption, we call them cat exes, but it's a categoric exemption, you cannot impose mitigation measures. And people get mitigation measures mixed up with conditions of approval. So you can have a cat ex project, like tonight we had one, and it had conditions of approvals.

But those aren't mitigation measures for the project's environmental impact. Those are just conditions of approval for storm water retention and grading rules and, you know, for watering it if it's gonna be dusty. Those are just standard conditions of approval. But there are cases that if you use an exemption and you're actually trying to use the exemption but mitigate an impact, the courts have found that that's you can't do that. So and it's hard because a lot of times staff, the attorneys, everybody, we say, oh, yeah, don't worry.

That will be mitigated. But we're using that in a common sense. But it really it's you can't mitigate them. It's they'd be a standard condition of approval. And I always try to say, oh no, that's in the conditions of approval.

So keep my ear open for that. So the unusual circumstances, that's based on when the city reviews it, local agency reviews it. It's based on substantial evidence. And if there are unusual circumstances or not. Substantial evidence is a more general kind of review and it you can have some things that not like strict scrutiny or something.

It's just substantial evidence. Do you have some evidence to support that there are no unusual circumstances? And then if unusual circumstances are found, then it you look at the agency needs to look at if there's a reasonable possibility that a significant environmental impact will result from the unusual circumstance. So you go to phase one. That is, are there unusual circumstances?

If not, you don't go to phase two. If so, then you'll look at it to see, is it reasonable is there a reasonable possibility that that unusual circumstance will result in a significant environmental impact? Now that level is under the fair argument level, which is a very, very low threshold. And so that means if there's just a difference of opinion, then you will get pulled out of that categoric exemption.

That was same question.

I was going to ask you.

Oh, yes. And so and that's based on the Berkeley Hills case, because the courts were kind of all over the board about the first phase, was that substantial evidence or was that fair argument? So the petitioners trying to sue the city, they always wanted to say, no, it's a fair argument. And the cities are saying, no, it's based on substantial evidence. And we do have evidence and to support our categoric exemption.

The Berkeley Hills case went to the Supreme Court even. It finally resolved it to phase one is substantial evidence, which is really, gives deference to the local agency. And then if you get past phase one and into phase two for the unusual circumstances, then that is a fair argument. And that essentially is sort of like the same evidence that you use in a NAGDEC case. If there's is there a fair argument that there could be an EIR will be needed?

Do you have any questions on that? I kind of got into the nitty gritty on that, but it's very important to know that some of these exemptions, they're not absolute. You can get pulled out of them. So there's still protection for the environment, but it just takes an extra review. Then there's the common sense exemption, and that one is where it can be seen with certainty that there's no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment.

You see this a lot with ordinances, because an ordinance is discretionary, but does it actually cause an environmental impact? You can do the common sense exemption for some general zoning, because that zoning just sort of changes the color on the map, but then if someone comes in to implement that zoning change, that would be that would go through environmental review. So I think that's probably the best example. I don't know, Sharon, do you have any we do use common sense on a few things. I know for zonings and some ordinances.

I can't think of an example during the time I've been here.

Yeah. But just know sometimes for general ordinances or for general rezonings, I think now we use the it complies with the general plan or implements the general plan. We use that one a lot, too. So that's the common sense exemption. And then an exempt project.

If a discretionary project is subject to any of the exemptions in an exempt project, it's exempt. There's no public review, no public hearing required. And you'll have it in your staff report, but you make that determination that it's exempt, but we don't notice it like a negative deck or an EIR. It's just part of the packet, and we do ask you to find that it's exempt. And the city may file a notice of exemption, an NOE, and that would be five days after the project is approved, and then that shortens the statute of limitations for someone to challenge the action.

So if this is the next phase of the CEQA review. If a project is subject to CEQA and is not exempt, then the city will do what is called an initial study. And an initial study will study whether there's substantial evidence exists that the project will cause a significant impact or effect on the environment. If there are significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, then the city must prepare an impacts that can be mitigated, the city may prepare a mitigated neg deck. And if there are no significant impacts, city may prepare a negative deck.

I don't know why I put there's nothing that needs to be mitigated. So that was a typo I missed. So significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, you go to EIR land. If there's impacts that can be mitigated, then you can do a mitigated neg deck. And if there's no significant impacts or nothing that needs to be mitigated, you can do prepare a negative deck. But we normally do, NMDs, if we're doing that at all. Don't negative decks that much, just plain negative decks. Usually just do mitigated neg decks. Yes.

I was wondering if you want to just show that flow chart so that you can kind of show the slides you've gone over and sort of like where we are.

Yes, there we are. So at the top, is it a secret project? No. No further action needed. Is it a secret project? Is it exempt? Yes. NOE? No. Initial study, does the project have potentially significant impacts? So where we are here is yes, then you go to EIR Land, as I call it, and then yes, but they all can be mitigated to less than a significant level, then you prepare a mitigated neg deck and no, a neg deck. So that was a good idea. Thank you.

Yeah, was made much more clear.

Okay. And then so I'll just leave that up there. So preparation of an EIR. So the city must prepare an EIR if it determines that there's a fair argument that low threshold exists based on substantial evidence that a project may have a significant impact on the environment. The EIR must include analysis of the project alternatives and cumulative impacts.

So, you know, there's in the project alternatives, there's cases about how many are enough, or are there too many, too little. But the standard alternatives, there's always the no project alternative, there's the project alternative, then there's usually an environmental superior alternative, and then a lot of times oh, and then I don't know if I said it then there's the no project alternative. So that and that document in the EIR gets analyzed so the public and the decision making body, you get to see all these different alternatives and you can decide to certify the EIR or, you know, change the project or, you know, choose one of the alternatives that's not the project alternative I mean, the project. The EIR process starts with an initial study, just like an ag deck or mitigated ag deck. There's the preparation of the draft EIR.

That's what Commissioner L was talking about. Then there's public comments on the draft EIR. And those can be no less than thirty days. We usually do forty five before we circulate it. And then there's the preparation of the final EIR, including responses to comments.

Then the city certifies the EIR. So you adopt a mitigated NAGDEC or you adopt a NAGDEC or you approve exemption, but EIR is certified by the local agency. Then the project may be approved subject to the EIR and the city may file an NOD, notice of determination. And that, like the NOE, shortens the statute of limitations for a challenge. So you can have one hundred and eighty days to challenge the project, but if you file an NOE or an NOD, that reduces it to thirty days to file suit.

Oh, I'm not doing that anymore. Okay. So the mitigated NAG deck, as I mentioned, you may yes?

On your last slide preparation of an EIR, I'm just a little bit confused here. It says that the city must prepare an EIR if it determines that a fair argument exists based on substantial evidence that the project may have a significant impact. So they would have to establish that before actually doing the EIR? Seems to me like you wouldn't even be able to determine that you had substantial evidence until you kind

of went through the process. Well, it would be you you have a fair argue, you know, based on the fair argument. But the city would have substantial evidence at the time they reviewed the project to see if there's going they could determine then.

So this is based on staff analysis when the project gets submitted and they're going through the process of

Determining. And what can happen is the city may have a mitigated neg deck and it goes to for review and then the project is going to be approved based on that mitigated neg deck. And someone comes in and opposes the project and says, wait, I think there's a fair argument here that you need an EIR, this mitigated neg deck isn't so they can challenge it that way.

Okay. And that's include planning commissioners? Or it can be anybody?

It could be a member of the public, yes.

Yeah, okay.

But the planning yeah, okay. So I'm going to go back to where I was. So we were talking about alternatives and so we haven't had any EIRs in front of us for a while. Yeah, we might in the future. So the statute of limitations is shortened.

Okay. So then mitigated NAGDEX, You do the initial study, like the flowchart says. And then if there's a significant impact that can be revised so the project can be revised or there can be mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less than a significant level. You would prepare a mitigated neg deck. And then you may prepare a negative initial study determines it does not have the project does not have significant effects on the environment.

The MND process is very similar to the EIR. There's an initial study. There's the preparation of the MND. And then there's public comments on the mitigated deck. And that is circulated, and it can be no less than twenty days.

It's not as much time as the EIR. And if there's comments to the mitigated NAGDEC, the city does not have to respond to those comments like an EIR. But we usually do make responses if we get significant comments on a MND just for a better record. It's like we've, you know, we've looked at these and they're and it also helps the Planning Commission and the council say, wait, these people made all these comments, you know, are they bad or, you know, are we okay? And yes.

So we try to answer we try to respond to comments, even though you're not required to. And so then the city adopts the MND, the city then may approve the project, and then the city may file an NOD, which is like the NOE and the EIR NOD. It shortens the statute of limitations to be able to challenge the project. So, yes.

Where is the I noticed here you have the mitigated and you have the negative. Where is the no project with the findings are that the impact is indeed severe and cannot be mitigated? That would be

at the very beginning when the project it's just staff doesn't process the project for some reason. You don't have to do CEQA for a project that's denied.

So the denial would be at the beginning before you go through the motion of the

Well, the staff could staff can make a determination not to take a project forward if it's if it's if they can't recommend that it be approved, or they can take it forward and make a recommendation of denial. And at that point, would you do CEQA? Maybe not, because if the staff says, this applicant wants this project to go forward, we're not recommending it because it doesn't meet the general plan, it doesn't meet the zoning. But some of the housing laws have changed some of that as well. But you get into the no project alternative only in an EIR.

You don't have that in a mitigated neg deck or a neg deck case or an exempt case. The city's already decided that this project meets the zoning and the general plan and can go forward to be approved based on an exemption or a mitigated neg deck or an EIR. You still look confused. You think that you can just deny a project?

No, no. Quite the opposite.

Yeah. Oh.

The decline or the go forward should be at the very end of the EIR, not in advance of it.

The no project alternative is a requirement of an EIR. And it's just so the decision making body can say

substantiate the reason for it?

Yes. There's we're looking at the impacts. There's the impacts from the no project, no impacts because there's no you know, the no project alternative is you leave the land as it is. And then you have these other alternatives, the project alternative, there's usually the environmental superior project, the reduced scale project, and that is how you analyze all these, the different impacts and how they can be mitigated. And the council, you know, the council care or the planning commission can decide that, you know, they want one of the project alternatives.

But in an EIR, you have to the city has to make findings that the project alternatives are feasible or they're not feasible, and each one of those project alternatives needs to be substantiated with findings. And you can't just say it's infeasible, but you need to say why it's infeasible. A lot of times it's infeasible because the mitigation measures might be too expensive for the applicant, or the alternative doesn't meet the applicant's project goals. The project you know, the goal of the project is to build this big of a building the size of an office building, and the reduced scale project alternative doesn't meet the applicant's goals for that project. But all of the alternatives have to be analyzed and it has to be in the final substantial evidence.

So there was one thing I did want to bring up about substantial evidence because we we talk about that a lot. I talk about it a lot. So substantial evidence, and I have I was going to I think I wrote it on here. Yep. So substantial evidence, it includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinions supported by facts, arguments, speculation, inaccurate information, unsuspendiated opinion, and social or economic impacts unrelated to the environmental impacts are not substantial evidence.

Generalized complaints, speculation, and unsupported conclusions do not constitute substantial evidence. And in determining whether a project will have a significant effect on the environment, mere uncorroborated opinion or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence. And the issue is whether or not the project will adversely affect particular persons, but whether the project will adversely affect the environment of persons in general. So just because some people don't like the project or complain about the project, that's not a sequel impact. It has to be related to the environment.

And that leads into my question. So I think when we did the training earlier this year at the Planning Commission Symposium, I think they were saying that like so for example, like the EIR might say that there is environmental impact and whatever that but it'll never say, like, and this environmental impact will then affect human beings in such a way. It's always about the environment.

There can be air quality issues that become a human health impact. Like if you're going to build housing near a freeway, which they're encouraging because they want people not to drive so far to work, but then you're going to also have to analyze the air pollution and the impacts of the people living there. So you've got clean air and human health risk, but they just need to be addressed. Got it. Thank you.

Yes. Any other questions? So Michael, do you have any? No. Did I say anything you disagreed with? No?

Good evening, by the way. You haven't met me yet. I'm the Planning Manager with the City of Gilroy Michael Fassati. And Joliet's Defense, typically, the planning department, we work in the sequence so Jolie doesn't have to deal with some of these projects. So speaking specifically, the questions I had heard specifically about the projects, the one thing I just wanted to share and you're right, common sense exemption, that's typically the Planning Commission, I believe you typically deal with development projects.

I want to build a building and it's x number big and slowly come to Planning Commission, that's common place for a planning commissioners to be able to approve or deny those projects. The common sense exception is typically with policies that are associated with the future development or just just how the city is going to interact with the the environment. And so the common sense exemption is used because by proving this policy change, it will have it's common sense it's not going to affect the environment. I kind of want to speak at that. Commissioner Kushner, you had shared a question about Yeah, the NULL project, I actually my, I think one thing that we discussed is this initial study.

If you determine a project is not exempt from CEQA, the planner or the CEQA consultant goes through a checklist. So the question Commissioner Elle talked about, what's the environment? This checklist has, I believe, like 23, 24

Yeah, Appendix G.

Appendix G.

Yeah. I think I brought it, yeah.

And aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, there's these sections that we consider as the environment. And we do a checklist to see does this project affect aesthetics? Does this project affect air quality? And if there's a determination that this project could affect one of these, I think that was that you were posing, that allows staff with a legal counsel to determine which avenue of environmental review will do.

Are those weighted in any way? When you say that the checklist has whatever twenty twenty three items on it.

Does one way more than that? No. That they're all weighted the same.

Oh, okay. So then there's a quantitative, there's a threshold of how how many you have to meet to?

The hope is the project doesn't affect any one of those 24.

Oh, I

think it's 21. Or 21.

Thank you. Was trying to

think, yes.

But as Julie had stated, if it does, then that tells staff we have to go through a more environmental review. And that's where because there's this potential and then we kind of go through the mitigate negative declaration, the negative declaration, and those ways, that's where the analysis takes place and that's where we determine if something needs to be mitigated or not. So by using the checklist, first determining is the project exempt, yes or no. It's black or white. If that's as a then we go through the checklist and then we go through this negative declaration, mitigate negative declaration.

What I thought I heard, if we determine that there is an impact so significant, that's where the EIR kicks in. And then when you do that analysis with the EIR, there's a potential the city may do what they call an EIR approval with overriding consideration. And the argument and this takes brought up to the planning commission, is the project is so supportive to the policies that the cities and that the city values that this impact that it's gonna be made is is less weighted than the gain that the city is going to get. Mean, forgive me for saying that as eloquently, but I believe you understand We what I'm

saw that recently with housing development.

Correct. You know, the city pushed by the state refers to this housing in general and there's such a need for housing and potentially maybe the site is going to affect the environment per the checklist in a way that can't be mitigated. Yet housing is so important to the city and to the state that we're looking to look past that because the benefit of housing is going to affect so much more people.

So I had a question about like when we look at when the ones that we have seen that have come in, they'll say, okay, and I'm going to just because we're California, we're always in a drought. Like, I don't know when we've never not been in a drought. Right. So so so they always say, like, we're gonna use so much water, but we never see, like, we we're gonna use so much water now, but we never see like, well, we're going to grow and this is what the expected future water use is going to be or, you know, whatever that might be. So how come we don't gather that information to look at the futures with regards to CEQUA and EIRs and things like that?

Certain projects have to do a water analysis. It's projects over 500 units. I think if you're doing a map or a project over 500 units, it needs accompanying water supply analysis.

Right.

Right. But I mean, like, with housing, I'm thinking maybe more about commercial use. So if you have a I don't know. I can't think of anything. I can't think of an example on the spot. Okay. Well, let's say let's say this. I'm making something up. I don't know if anybody would ever do this. But we're I wanna build a group, like, a greenhouse company and I want to grow things, but I'm going to build this gigantic greenhouse or several of them, but I'm only going to be using, you know, I only anticipate so much usage of them and I submit that.

But then as I grow, you know, I'm able to maybe due to technology or the way I'm able to grow my seedlings or something like that, I can triple my usage in these buildings over time. But that was never part of the original project. And I know this because I know my neighbor and competitor is doing it. So I can anticipate so I'm going to take it back. I can anticipate that here's how I'm going to start with so many thousands of gallons, but I know in ten years I'm going to be using three times, four times the amount because I know my competitors are doing that and I want to get in on this business.

We don't see ever see those futures or, like, if we're seeing, like, traffic or anything like that. We see sort of a snapshot in time.

Well, if you're

Well, what I would say is that gets into the whole of the action. If you're going to build this size of a greenhouse, but you would want to look at maybe the maximum size and you would analyze that for sequel purposes.

Right. The hydrology and water quality is

Part of the checklist. On checklist.

Yeah. So I mean, in defense of about no one knows the future. Right. So I love I love Commissioner Elliott how you said it. It's like the snapshot in time of our current conditions. And so there's two ways depending on if it's in a city and they have a utility and they're able to provide x number of quantities of water that's not going to affect the city's operations, potentially it's not an impact. You go out to a county that doesn't have the infrastructure, potentially that is an impact. But one thing I love what Jolie said, CEQUA is only one component of it. The project itself will make that determination whether it affects the environment or not.

Okay. I just think I have a better way of maybe explaining that. So we so when we looked at our 2020 water report, right, there was like sorry, there was like this is our estimated housing and housing growth usage and then question. So then we had like a commercial growth estimate. And in my mind, I was thinking like, you know, as companies grow, they use more resources, right?

But I think is that this is the wrong audience probably. Or is that the that we have more companies coming in using resources, not the companies that are already there or growing.

Are you talking about like phases of a project? No. Okay.

I think she's thinking maybe about cumulative impact.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. I think that that report might be cumulative Kind of

forecast, right,

for

the virtual? Specifically

So CEQA has what is called a project setting, and that's the baseline. And that is your project is in the pipeline and there's some other projects that are in the pipeline. And that snapshot of time will consider those projects because it's foreseeable that maybe there could be cumulative impacts for growth, for traffic, for water demand. And you try to analyze that. But really, like the baseline is you coming in with your application and trying to do the best forecast of what that project's impacts are going to be. Okay. Thank you.

So we received the agenda about like a week, ten days before the meeting. And it already went through a process. But then if there is any filing during the meeting or just before the meeting when the agenda is posted, Any important finding, considerable finding that could like potentially affect rethink the sequel analysis of the project. So is there a way to file a report, like a documentation during when we are here to, like, let's say, put a project on hold. Let's go analyze this and redo the sequel of the project, the analysis.

No. That Joel, you tell her that that would already be addressed in the findings because you have to mitigate

addressed in the staff report. And it Already if during the public hearing process, people come and say, hey, you didn't analyze, you know, the spotted toad or the butterfly, and it's not analyzed, then that we could go back and have the consult the CEQA consultants review that. There is there it's an iterative process. And the CEQA for the project, any and I was going to talk about this if it came up, and it's coming up. A member of the public has standing to present evidence into the record.

And it can be oral or it can be written and complain. And if we get enough of those complaints, then sometimes the project gets continued and we take it back to the environmental consultant or staff, and then we try to explain it either at that planning commission meeting or the next one if it gets continued. Or if it goes to counsel, we will have responses to those concerns so we have a good record. But we really, the staff report should include all of the CEQA impacts. I'm just going to walk along here and show you like what the checklist looks like.

Why can

you can you send us through email? So we can have

you can see that it says, here's a status, potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation incorporated, less than significant, no impact. And this is what the planners will go

through and check. And that's how they determine that. And I think we've seen this see we've seen the checklist in some of our

What take

It's been a while.

Goes to common sense of the person who is writing this down initially.

Well, the staff staff member reviews all that for their checklist.

Yeah. I understand that doesn't mean doesn't mean doesn't mean it's it's completely locked because you know, may somebody may come here and say, okay, I have this finding and I think you should take

in

consideration and that's when it goes back to you, to the city staff to reanalyze. Well, I I the Right.

Way it works is we we determine if there's an effect. There's an analysis and this is all before it gets to you. Yeah. There's an analysis done to determine if that effect is accurate or not or if the effect can be mitigated. Once there's a determination, we go to the planning commission to adopt the environmental document or whoever the authoritative body is.

Decision making body.

Decision making body. Yeah. The way SEEK was built, the the onus is on protecting the environment. So to to your question, if someone comes at the eleventh hour and I love the there's a frog that's not Mhmm. Planning Commission can say, thank you for that. We're going to adopt the sequel document. They still have a right to appeal. They even still have a right to eventually go through their administrative remedies and then file litigation. Okay. Okay.

Got it.

Right. It's just yeah. Just because if it comes to the eleventh hour, there's there's many ways that that's why some developers don't like CEQUA because it really it just creates this timeline.

Yeah. Okay. So

Yeah. The document dumps. Yeah. Yeah. You can before the close of the public hearing, someone can come in with, you know, binders of information saying, oh, you didn't study this frog or this house is really historic. And depending on what kind of evidence the city or

the

staff believes, sometimes you continue it or sometimes you just go forward because you know you have a very good mitigated neg deck or you have a very good, you know, solid EIR and you're like, no, it was already covered. We've already responded to that. So

I noticed that, like, basically, I would say most, if not every single time when we're gonna approve a resolution, it says to drop, like, the CEQA. That's that's why. So because that kind of locks the whole project moving forward and that is not like in between, like at some point further on. Somebody comes in with like a new finding and is that the reason why?

Well, the majority of projects in my experience at the Planning Commission were reviewed, they're already categorically exempt. They're being developed in an area we Infill. Infill, where the city already has the adequate utilities. Traffic unfortunately is not an impact anymore in regards to CEQUA, but where the project can be developed without affecting the environment. And so they qualify for this exemption. And so the whole CEQA process is not it's applicable because we determined it's a project, but they're exempt from the project because the quality of the project meets the exemption.

Yes. And there's another one that we use quite often because we have a new general plan. And so the new general plan addresses the build out of homes, and that considers the roads, the water, the all of that. And so a lot of projects, if they the zoning and the general plan have already analyzed it in this global 2040 general plan EIR, we also use that exemption a lot. Or addendum. Addendum, yes.

Mr. Chair?

When I was working at the city, this is be a really good reference for any of you want to check history is to get into the, Chappell Eagle Ridge Environmental Impact Report. That was quite something. We had not only archaeological remains, we had the tiger salamander issue.

Checkered butterfly, I think.

Yes, the tiger salamander was the killer and the remains. But it's in history somewhere around here, planning department will probably know, but that would be really quite something for you to all see.

And it also had that, it had the certain kind of rock formation. The the it was like a serpentine rock. Serpentine rock.

It's just some some cancerous Yeah. It's like asbestos Yeah. Coming from it. Yeah. That's in the Eagle Ridge, as well.

That would be a fun well, I'm kinda that would be a fun fun thing to go over as a group. So I just have three questions and then I'm done. And I think two will be pretty quick. So one is the so if this project is denied, but the CEQA is approved, someone else and then maybe the applicant's like, I'm done. I don't wanna do this project or I'm off to different things. Someone else can come in and use that CEQA for their project. Yes?

No? They could if it was the same.

No. The projects would be different.

Well, if it's identical, technically they could, but most projects are typical.

Not makes sense. Okay. And then

It doesn't run with the land or anything.

Okay. That makes sense. I I that was once I said it, was like, oh, yeah, different projects. So it wouldn't work. So you mentioned, like, if it if it goes if the project goes to city council. So I you know, we understand that not all projects come through the planning commission. When would something not go to City Council? I mean, I know there's some things we the city would not have discretion on like Builders Remedy, like once that's I mean, I don't know if it goes to City Council or not, but it wouldn't matter because we have no discretion. But when would it not go to city council?

Well, let's say use permits and variances under the existing code. You're the final decision maker. And we would do the because that's a discretionary project. You have to make findings and everything, and we would most likely use some sort of exemption. And it wouldn't

go to counsel unless it's appealed. Got it. And also, I think alcohol use. Right? That's the we're the final arbitrators on that.

Yeah. And then Oh, the the looking for the impact of a new alcohol business. Is that the ABC review?

Yeah. Oh, okay. And then so when we're I see a lot for farmland, like, oh, because we're developing on farmland and then but we're reserving some farmland because to counteract to, like, mitigate. Where is all this reserved farmland? Like where is it? Where are we reserve? Where is it in Gilroy?

It's future annexation and this is what the general plan, the EIR on the growth had to do with. They looked at future sites and things like that. So yes, a lot of this land isn't in the city limits yet. As it comes in, then you're going to have urban service areas and things like that. They'll have to be reviewed and projects as they come in.

Then the Chair is supposed have agricultural and forestry resources and part a, convert prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance as shown in the maps and you would you analyze it even in the checklist. Is this going to

Right. But we I I see often that in to mitigate that we're building on farmland, that we are preserving some farmland. That's a mitigation measure and we have a, ag mitigation policy. Policy. You see it

more in the county level than you see it in the city level.

Yeah. Okay. But that land exists?

Not much in Gilroy. Preservation, yeah.

No. But you can go if you need to mitigate ag, you can buy it in a nut. You don't you put it under a conservation easement Got it. Security. So you may build on this ag land, but you're going to

go preserve. Another piece. Another piece. Do we have it? Do we have? Because we've seen it a couple times in the documents we've received, and I'm always wondering where is it? We could talk offline. It's not Yeah.

Where is

the where is the farmland or where

is Where is the the preserved Ag land? Like what where is it?

I know that we have a few

Probably some probably some zoning designations help preserve some Ag land, but the conservation easement as a tool that allows Got it. And remember, so when it does come to Planning Commission, it's an entitlement phase. It's it's pretty much the African saying, if you let me build this, this is what I'm going to do. So we put mitigations and conditions and as they go through the development that those things

See, now that's a see, that would be your and you have to determine if it's statewide farmland or prime farm ag land or whatever. And if it is an impact to that, that would be mitigated by By state law. By set getting or putting some aside on your property or putting another piece of property under a conservation easement.

So I heard, I think you threw out the term Builders Remedy. Where does that fit in as far as a project being? It's not really ministerial, right? It's a

Well, Builders Remedy is ministerial, but you can require

CEQUA. Yes. Okay. I mean, unless it falls under AB 130 or well, no, that wouldn't

fall No, under no.

That's

Yes, wouldn't be applicable.

Yes. So the yes, at least. So the I believe the Builders' Remedy Project that we just

approved, well, it's No, we have both going through the CEQA

Yeah, both are going through the CEQA process, but we the one that was fighting if they were going to go forward, we said, yes, you go forward, but you have to do CEQA. So both yes. Of Both doing full CEQA.

So and we will see the draft EIRs for public comment as it being part of the

I don't think it will come to planning.

They are

going through well, it's being determined right now what documentation is going to come out of those and they've all just started within the last Yes, I few

thought I had heard that the public had an opportunity to make comments and add to the list of findings.

Yes, they'll notify like it'll be at the library for you to go review it or look at it or whatever. But commissioners, we don't get the EIRs to look at. It's the agencies that get the EIRs to look at, like the fire and parks and the state area like the salamander thing, but we don't get it individually, but you can comment it on it as a member of the public. There'll be areas for that. It'll be published where it's at.

Because we're not making there's no decision making on our part. Well, you can comment as

a member of the public, but the planning commissioners don't get it to comment on it as a commission.

Right. The State of California has an agency referred to the state clear housing. Right. So in order to start an environmental impact report, you have to document that with the state. They associate that with a number. And there's and just the public are able to kind of see all the EIRs that are coming, not just City Of Gilroy, the State of California, because there's so many projects happening. And that's where you get an opportunity to say, oh, I'm interested and then you can kind of I I love how you said it, Commissioner Benson, that you kinda follow where it's located. Typically, the city by law, we put it on our website, say you can take it to the library. We used to print it back in the day. They give the public an opportunity to find that environmental document where you can comment on it.

And the city as the lead agency will also be required to if it there's another agency, not the lead agency, but another agency with reviewing authority, it could go to Caltrans. It could go to the Water District. It could go to

Bay Area Air Quality?

Yeah. Yeah. Bay Area. And then so it goes out there, but then it also goes to the State Clearinghouse. And then that one covered everybody, that covers everything, so. Yes, there's lists for all the agencies and then the Clearinghouse is

one who spreads it out basically, right? They used to print EARs when I worked here.

Yes, we still do. Yes, we still do. And I think by law

Yes, we have to put a copy of the library. That's when we buy the really thick binders.

Okay. That's the end of my Thank you.

Thank you, Jolie. Thank you. All right. We're going to move on to eight, eight point one, Planning Division Staff Approvals. Any questions? I don't think we So

I think that one lists the Amazon data center. That was the architectural insight review permit that staff approved on July 3. And staff did receive an appeal. It's posted. We created a project web page last year already, and it's posted there. If the appeal proceeds, the item will come before the Planning Commission.

Yes. And I just want to remind the Planning Commissioners that this is going to be that if it goes to the Planning commission on appeal, it will be a de novo, a full new review of it. It will be quasi legislative or quasi judicial, meaning you'll be making a record there, you'll be making findings and so you should be very cautious about saying anything out in the public or discussing it that would could be perceived as being biased for the project or biased to the applicant. So, you know, we've had training on common law conflicts and there's the project bias and then there's the applicant bias. So, just be very careful.

We want if it if the appeal goes forward, we want the applicant and the project to have a fair hearing and we and so I'm just cautioning you because we have had that training.

I'm sorry, is that a project that we've already seen or does it ring a bell from No.

Was approved at a staff level and so under the ordinance, can then it can be appealed to the planning commission which they have done and then after the planning commission, it can be appealed to, the council.

So I have a question.

So why is it in the appeal stage already? Who's appealed it?

Yeah, there's a public member that filed an appeal.

Oh, see. Yeah. Yeah. I was reading so two things. One is, so let's say the appeal doesn't go through or however that happens. Would this project still go to city council? Because you said if it goes to city council. So would this project go to city council if the appeal No. No?

It has to go here first and then appeal to city council. So they have to exhaust their remedies.

So

So I'm just saying what if they withdraw their appeal?

Doesn't go stays where it is. Doesn't go anywhere.

Oh, really? Oh, okay. So it won't go to city council then. It won't go anywhere. Oh. And I was reading the appeal and this is process question. Is a very specific amount that they are going to pay for the cost of the appeal? How is that amount identified?

That's part of our fee schedule. It's like an application fee.

Okay. And it's exempt under rates, tolls and fares.

Thank you.

We just wanted to give you a heads up on the appeal and it is now on the website and it may go forward, it may not. We've just received the appeal. We're working on staff reports for it in case. We're proceeding that it will go forward but.

I guess, this is not a housing

project. It's a data center.

Data center. So the ministerial applies for the commercial projects as well then, is that?

It's an architectural site review permit and the zoning code is that's our staff approval. That's why staff had approved it. Okay. Interesting. Okay.

All right. Moving on, there's no further questions for Sharon. Nine Planning Division Report.

So I want to formally introduce you to our new Planning Manager, Michael Fasati. Yes.

It's really a pleasure to meet you, Planning Commission. I'm honored privileged and honored to be working for the City of Gilroy and to be able to participate and all these land use decisions that are really important. I see how many questions you have and we'd love that feedback and hopefully I can kind of add some value to the city.

I forget, where which city were you at before?

Oh, sure. So my initial background, I started out as I have a Master's degree in planning, I'm a certified AICP and I started out in San Carlos. After a couple of years in San Carlos, I moved to Saratoga and we were a planner there for approximately eight years. Decided I wanted to have a little bit more of urban feel. You see there's a difference between rural and urban. So I my last job was a senior planner at for the city of Milpitas. And I have an affinity for Community Development Director at GOE. And so I wanted to see if there's anything happening around her neck of the woods and she shared with me Gilroy had an opening, which I applied for it and here I am. I have approximately eighteen years of planning experience.

And our other planner went to Sarah.

Right. Arrived at the quick facts, I used to work in Saratoga with your other planner, Cindy McCormick, both me and her started our second planning positions and we worked for a number of years together. We're still good friends. Her partner and my partner were all pals. Thank

you. Thanks. Thank you. Nice to meet you.

So the more of the story is that we all know each other, all the different jurisdictions.

City attorneys are like that too.

Yes. It's a small pool. So yes. And then just a quick reminder, I e mailed several of you about AB1234 training and also left your copy. So just please take a look when you have a chance. Thank you.

Is this normal to get it this late in the year?

No, it's twice a year. So if you recall, two years ago, it was actually September 30 was also the timeline. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Sharon. Assistant City Attorney report.

I'll just report. I'm not speaking at the Planning Academy in the spring. Well, I'm not sure if I am, but I have been asked to speak at the City Clerk's Conference in November on the administrative record. So I will know if any planners will go to that, but it is something that, you know, you always hear people talk about, well, it's in the record or it's not in the record and you as planning commissioners and counsel and staff, we we always try to make sure that the record is good and supports the city's decisions. So anyway, it will it will be fun and the title of it is Administrative Record, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

So it will help city clerks because they're tasked with trying to put together that record. Garrett's working on a record for me right now and so he's learning about how you organize it, how you put it together, but it is the fundamental, you know, planning commission staff starts it, planning commission adds to it, counsel adds to it, and it's the basis for winning a lawsuit or losing a lawsuit. So we always are very keen on having a good record, not a bad or an ugly one. I'm excited about it. It will be fun.

Great. Thank you, Jolie. And with that, I'm going to adjourn our meeting to the next one of 09/04/2025 at six p. M. Thank you, everybody.