Gilroy Growing Smarter Newsletter, Fall 2021

Dear Gilroy Growing Smarter Friends,

Our Core Group has been quite busy for the last few months. Here’s what we’ve been working on that we want you to know about. Please act on these as your time and values permit.

1) VTA’s PLAN TO BUILD MULTI-STORY APARTMENTS ON THE PARKING LOT OF OUR GILROY TRANSIT HUB.

Mayor Blankley has invited GGS and the public to participate in a special virtual study session of the City Council and VTA transit dept. next Tuesday night, Sept. 14th at 6 PM.

Several of us participated VTA focus sessions about building up to 270 multi-story apartments on the current station parking lot. It is fair to say that a majority of us were very concerned about losing parking needed for commuters. VTA’s answer was that High Speed Rail (HSR) will be building a parking structure east of the rail tracks in the future. See VTA’s conceptual plan “A” below where all current Cal-Train parking is removed:

The Mayor and City Council have requested VTA to delay their plans so the city can study the effects of this project more thoroughly. They feel the parking is critical to keeping our station area a Transit Hub. VTA has granted a 60 day postponement of seeking bids to build the housing there.

We believe that our parking lot is needed to keep transit viable here. We are the end of the Caltrain line. Unlike other stations north of us, commuters from miles away come to Gilroy to access Caltrain. Also we don’t have convenient transit within Gilroy so our own residents must drive to the station and need the parking lot. We are not against affordable housing, but we don’t think it should be built at the expense of our Transit Hub. We want to make sure Caltrain ridership can be served.

Please go to http://gilroyca.iqm2.com/Citizens/default.aspx for the agenda and access information. You can call in or submit written comments in advance which will be collated by City Administrator, Jimmy Forbis.

2) PROVIDING COMMENTS ON OBJECTIVE STANDARDS THAT THE CITY IS ADOPTING.

The City has almost completed the process of adopting Objective Standards for multi-family residential buildings. New state housing laws have been enacted that will allow developers to build apartments automatically without City Council review or ability to deny a project and without any public input. If they meet all the city’s Objective Standards, they would automatically be approved. In other words, these Objective Standards will be a “check list” for city planners to apply to the plans builders submit. This makes them even more important. If developers choose not to adhere to any one of the standards then they would have to go through the normal city review process including public input and could be denied. Several GGS members participated in Zoom meetings last winter and spring and submitted these suggestions.

Orientation: We support all these standards.

Massing and Articulation: Should there be a limitation on volume or mass? The sheer size of a building in relation to those around it makes a big difference.

In regards to structure length, the massing breaks should be more frequent, perhaps every 25’ along street frontage. There should be limitations on the length of any one building. ie. instead one building 100’ long there could be two buildings 50’ long.

Entries and Stairwells: Require front entry and window treatments.

Balcony walls should be under 4’ and designed to provide privacy or of solid construction.

Colors and Materials: The primary and secondary colors should not be dark because dark colors absorb heat and make the building hot. We suggest a Light Reflective Value of 50 or more. One accent color should be sufficient, but a large project might warrant 30% having another complimentary color.

Circulation: Parking stalls should have a 5’ wide landscape break every 12 stalls unless it is underground or podium style.

These came in part from the City’s 2001 landscape standards.

Open Space and Common Areas: A variety in types of plants, including native shrubs and trees shall be required.

We believe that attractive landscaping is one of the most important factors to make the living space enjoyable.

Lighting: We support both recommendations.

Fences and Walls: We support the recommendation to prohibit chain link fences.

Utilities and Service Areas: Storage space for residents shall be required, perhaps in a carport or laundry room area.

Screening, Refuse Enclosures and Refuse Enclosure Access: We support all these recommendations.

Energy: Require solar panels and all electric appliances.

3) SENATE BILL 10

Last spring it was brought to our attention that SB10 allows elected bodies (City Councils and Boards of Supervisors) to overrule an Initiative approved by a vote of the people if a majority vote to do so. This could be very dangerous, because sometimes even one vote could allow an approved Initiative to be overturned. Although we don’t think our Measure H is vulnerable, we certainly don’t want to take that chance. It was overwhelmingly approved in 2016 to establish our Urban Growth Boundary and prevent sprawl. It allows for additional land to be annexed and zoned. To our knowledge Gilroy does not have exclusionary zoning and has not experienced red-lining, practices which SB 10 is aimed at preventing. Our own City Council has the power to re-zone land now and our General Plan uses Neighborhood Districts which include a percentage of multi-family housing.

Over the summer we have participated in several Zoom meetings with Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, the attorneys who wrote our Initiative and many others. We contacted our representatives, Assemblyman Robert Rivas and Senator John Laird with these arguments against SB 10:
1) It has no provisions that actually create housing
2) It doesn’t provide any funding for affordable housing
3) It jeopardizes the right of Initiative provided by the State Constitution
4) It will have unintended consequences
5) It is intended to address exclusionary zoning and redlining, problems we don’t have in Gilroy

For these reasons we signed on to this letter with several other groups. Unfortunately SB 10 has passed both houses now and awaiting either signing or veto by the Governor.

On behalf of our executive team,

Connie Rogers
Chair, Gilroy Growing Smarter