Pre-Application For Residential Infill Outside Gilroy

Cameron Boulevard proposal, image via Google SatelliteCameron Boulevard proposal, image via Google Satellite

Pre-application permits have been filed for a residential infill project in unincorporated Santa Clara County just outside the city limits of Gilroy. The proposal would create 567 units, featuring apartments, single-family homes, and townhomes on an unaddressed property. Swenson Builders is the project developer.

The following text was provided as the only glimpse into the preliminary application:

Proposed residential development, including single-family homes, townhomes, and affordable apartments. The proposed development includes 220 townhomes, 237 single-family homes, and 110 affordable apartments totaling 567 units.

Swenson Builders is the applicant and the property owner for the Gilroy proposal, doing business through the Green Valley Corporation.

The roughly 75-acre parcel is currently covered with agricultural land next to Cameron Boulevard and a storage facility. Future residents will be close to the Gilroy Center strip mall, and about two miles from Downtown Gilroy. The estimated cost and timeline for construction have yet to be shared.

Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail

Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews

.

16 Comments on "Pre-Application For Residential Infill Outside Gilroy"

  1. Yet another south valley sprawl development on ag land. Gross!

  2. Damn, I love auto-centric & traffic-choked dystopian living. How I can this be described as “infill”?

  3. How is it infill if it’s outside the city limits?

  4. Isn’t this the exact opposite of infill? I guess the headline is an ironic commentary….

  5. Sorry for nitpicking but it’s hard for me to see how this project outside the city limits of Gilroy would be considered “infill.” While it may be a great project, in order for it to be described as “infill” it would have to be in an already urbanized area.

  6. And a mediocre builder

  7. Frisky McWhiskers | November 17, 2024 at 4:04 pm | Reply

    Disgusting how YIMBY is shilling for greenfield suburban sprawl. Such an astroturf “movement.”

  8. “…shilling for greenbelt sprawl”? Huh? The article looks to me like straight news reporting. YIMBY took no sides, just laid out the available facts. That informs more people than otherwise would have heard of the pre-application, which provides people like you more time to object.

  9. Too much traffic already on the 101 is the south valley, this development is also no where near transit. a 30 minute commute is not 2 hours!!! STOP THE SPRAWL!

  10. Inner Dimensions | November 18, 2024 at 11:52 am | Reply

    I agree with everybody else here. This is a hirrible idea and it’s only there for tax money.. it has nothing to do with considering the comforte or what the people of Gilroy want. It’s going to cause more congestion on the freeways, making it more difficult to get in and out of town and into stores and out of parking lots and just all around more difficulty and stress! If we wanted that, we would move to San Jose or somewhere bigger! Who is approving this moronic nonsense?! And what good does it do to live in a so-called democracy if what people want isn’t what is given? These developments are not to address the need for low income for people already in gilroy, it’s meant to draw people from outside the area to again, increase the tax revenue..We already have crime getting worse and worse and worse down here, just get on the neighborhood app and see.. Constantly crime happening, cars being stolen, packages being stolen, moronic kids riding like idiots all over the streets on their electric scooters, you want to add more to that?! We already can’t manage the way things are as it is! The grid goes down all the time, we have serious infrastructure issues that aren’t addressed for the population that already lives here. Why are we bringing more people into this mess?

  11. This is not infill. It is sprawl. I’d like to know what the rating of the soil is. Keep taking the great A-1 soil that can grow anything because once it is gone it is gone. We don’t need houses in the middle of ag land. What was attractive here in South bay is almost gone. The traffic that has been pushed out here is unacceptable. And the builder greedy

  12. So sad. Infill in Gilroy should be more affordable housing inside of the city where there are open lots of land. The percentage of homes will be 1.5M or higher priced homes. This is NOT infill. This is developers doing what they do best. They make their money without dealing with the infrastructure needed to handle these huge housing projects. Money in the pot today, tomorrow more taxes and bonds for the residents of Gilroy. City managers not caring about what the bigger picture on growth planning should be. Tax revenue gain with poor planning/management = what Hollister now is dealing with, terrible infrastructure issues. Check out the latest Hollister poor management issue with Amazons “fulfillment center” now going to be a “warehouse” so Amazon doesn’t have to pay Hollister taxes. Hollister gave away huge amounts of tax revenue by doing business with a “hand shake deal” with Amazon. Gilroy heads up! learn from HOLLISTERs mistakes. Einstein‘s theory is true

  13. Why doesn’t anyone who is against this project move.

    Just bring here is adding to the problem.

    Or is the slrrsdy have mine argument going to be employed.

    Why do the complainers keep voting democrats and seemingly endless immigration requiring more and more housing.

    I get the feeling no one in California is capable of seeing consequences of anything.

  14. I think that Andrew Nelson just made a cut-and-paste error from another post and in reality, the developer didn’t have the cojones to call this a residential infill project in their proposal. ‘Mike’ and ‘Slamdunk’, above, have it right, this is the opposite of infill, or alternatively, ‘sprawl’.

    Words have to have meaning, Andrew knows this. The California Planning Roundtable defines infill development as “the construction of buildings on vacant and underused land, in places that have been previously developed.” This is just converting agricultural land.

  15. These F****** just can’t stop building huh? How can me let outsiders just come into our town and just throw money at our faces. I just hope that the people that are in charge of the city well better take a Lesson of what happen to Hollister and read each print before accepting the hand of the devil.

  16. The area needs more housing but this is not infill, it is undeveloped ag land. Also I am very familiar with the area around Tractor Supply Co and the storage facility and the tract picture does not match nor does Cameron Boulevard appear to run by the property tract in the picture??? Why is an address not given.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*