Loading...
Minutes 1974/07/29 Roll Call Pub.Hear. re Park. Dist. #1-64-1 3597 July 29, 1974 Gilroy, Cal ifornia The Regular Adjourned Meeting of the Gilroy City Council was called to order by His Honor Mayor Norman B. Goodrich at 8:00 p.m. Present: Council Members: Dennis L. DeBell, George T. Duffin, John Hughan; John E. Pate, Anthony C. Silva, David V. Stout and Norman B. Good rich. The Mayor stated that it was the time and place scheduled for the continued Publ ic Hearing on Modification of Parking District No. f Project No. 64-1. Councilman Pate noted that he had interest in the property at 7598 Monterey Street; that said property appl ied to the Parking District No.1, 1964-1; and that the attorney has advised him that he has the right to vote on any action pertaining to said District and that he intends to vote on same. City Administrator Wood presented his presentation in regard to modification of Parking District #1 - Project 1964-1 and on Monterey Street Improvement Project 1974-3; and noted that Staff's presentation would apply to both Districts. Mr. Phil ip D. Assaf, Attorney, noted that all the propert notices had been mailed and posted including the notice of the continued public hearings with certifications of same on file in the office of the City Clerk. 3598 City Administrator Wood presented a sl ide presentation in regard to the proposed District. Mr. Ed Peterman, representing the Downtown Merchants' Committee, gave a slide presentation of various projects of this nature in other communities. Director of Publ ic Works-City Engineer Hansen presented sl ides qnd comments on the design and layout of the proposed projects. Mr. William K. Henry, Engineer for the projects, submitted the Engineer's Report and evidence relating to the method of spread of assess- ment in accordance with benefits. ......... A report on the bid received from Granite Construction Company on July 26, 1974, in the amount of $304,762.00 was noted. The Engineer1s --- estimate for said project was $260,129,10 and noted by Staff that the major cost increase was due to the increase cost price for asphalt under the State's reconstruction work. It was recommended by Director of Public Works-City Engineer Hansen that the City contact the State to determine if the City should re-bid the project or will the State pay the difference in the asphalt cost of the present bid. It was noted by the City Clerk that no written protests had been received from property owners within the Parking District No.1 - Project 1964-1 . The Mayor asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak in favor of the modification of the Parking District #1 - Proj. 1964-1. The Mayor asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak against the modification of Parking District #1 - Proj. 64-1. There was nO comment from anyone in the audience. Motion was made by Councilman Duffin seconded by Councilman Hughan and carried that the publ ic hearing be closed. .,,~ It was noted by the City Attorney that Council action in regard to modification of Parking District No.1 - Project 1964-1 could be tabled until after the public hearing on Monterey Street Improvement Project 1974-3. Said matter was tabled. ..........' The Mayor announced that this was the time and place of continued public hearing on the Engineer's Report prepared pursuant to the Gilroy City Code and Resolution No. 1799 of Prel iminary Determination and of Intention regarding the proposed Monterey Street Improvement Project 1974-3. It was noted that the previous Staff presentation would apply to this continued Public Hearing. The Mayor asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak against the proposed Monterey Street Improvement Project 1974-3 District. The following property owners and interested citizens addressed the Council and spoke in opposition to formation of the proposed District: Mr. I rv i n Ho 11 is ter noted that he was opposed to the plan of the proposed District. He further commented that, as a result of the ]0] Bypass, there was no truck traffic, noise or dirt on Monterey Street; that when the resurfacing of Monterey Street was completed, it will be a beautiful street without trees, grass, flowers, lawn, etc. He further noted that parking was the prime importance. He noted that previously, Council had promised the property owners on Fourth and Sixth Streets additional parking and in- quired as to when they would get same. ..... ...,.J City Administrator Wood noted that under Parking District No.1 - Project 1964-1 bonds had been authorized in the amount of $150,000; that $110,000 had been spent for parking lots on Eigleberry Street. A satis- factory location for remaining Lot B. The original location of Lot B at the rear of the building located along the east line of Monterey Street, between Martin and Sixth Streets, had never been fully acceptable to the downtown merchants nor the City. It is now proposed to use the $40,000 for Lot B for on-street parking and beautification. 3599 Mr. Hollister further inquired of the Environmental Impact Report requirement for the proposed project. City Administrator Wood noted that a publ ic agency can, when no right of way of acquisitions are required, proceed under an Exemption Proceedings. The City has properly filed such an exemption. Mr. Holl ister inquired of the City's traffic count on Monterey Street. Director of Publ ic Works-City Engineer Hansen noted that a traffic count on Monterey Street had been conducted in July of 1973. """.... Mr. Hall ister inquired if the City Administrator and City Council would take full responsibil ity for the success and/or failure of the proposed project. .... Mr. Holl ister noted that in regard to the proposed agle parking for the project, there would be 35 parking spaces on the east side of Monterey Street and 48 parking spaces on the west side of Monterey Street from Fourth to Sixth Streets; net loss of 37 parking spaces. Mr. Holl ister inquired if the City had considered meters on Monterey Street and that the violators could pay for the parking. Mr. Hall ister asked where the City money of $37,900 originated. City Administrator Wood noted that the City received a grant for the street cut- thru improvement at Fourth and Lewis Streets in the amount of $64,000; that turn-bays provided in the proposed plan eliminated the need for the cut-thru. The additional $10,000 would be from Gas Tax monies. Mr. Hall ister suggested that an additional 2 1/2 years be granted for study and solution to the problem. Mr. George Porcella addressed the Council and noted that the community is in an earthquake area and that if the 101 Bypass was closed, does the Council want traffic on Church Street, Miller Avenue, etc. He further sug- gested that the City accept the will of the protestants and abandon the project. If'!-'C:"llI The Mayor asked if there was anyone else in the audience wishing to speak against the proposed district. -- Mr. Charles Haines, 770 Lawrence Drive, noted that he has worked at a Sixth and Monterey Street business for many years and that he is not in agreement to spending money for trees and bushes on the proposed project; further, that he is not in agreement to parking on the west side of Monterey Street and two lanes of traffic on the east side of Monterey Street; that he further talked with the Pol ice and,ffre Chiefs and that he bel ieves that they too, are against this plan. Mr. Augie Vtllalobos addressed the Council and noted that he bel ieves that Monterey Street is satisfactory the way it is; that we do not need to spend additional money on same. Mr. Robert Kishimura addressed the Council and noted that he is against alteration of the traffic pattern on Monterey Street and not against beautification of same. He noted that one of his renters ( Rreston) has informed him that the change in the traffic pattern on Monterey Street will reduce his business by 30%. He further noted that he had been told :that if the traffic pattern proposed was a failure that Monterey Street would be made a one-way street and Eigleberry Street one-way in the opposite direction. City Administrator Wood noted he had personally told Mr. Kishimura of the one-way traffic pattern, included in the City's General Plan as a solution to downtown traffic circulation. "",... .... The Mayor asked if there was anyone else in the audience wishing to speak against the project. There was no comment from anyone in the audience. The Mayor asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak for the project. Mrs. Dorothy Gutterman, manager of MacDonald's Restaurant, addressed the Council and is in favor of the Beautification Project. She noted that MacDonald's Restaurant had made considerable studies prior to locating in Gilroy and that, as a result of same, this company concluded that Gilroy is growing and she feels needs to improve Monterey Street to enhance the entire commun i ty. Mr. Jerry Fuchs, 7466 Monterey Street, representing the Downtown Beautification Committee, addressed the Council and noted that the Committee 3600 had worked on the project for 2 1/2 years. He also submitted petition he claimed contained 200 signatures in favor of the project. Mr. Lesl ie W. Ley, President of Santa Cruz Lumber Company, new owners of the Woolworth Building, addressed the Council noting that a similar Beautification Project in Santa Cruz had received acceptance for their project and that he is in favor of the proposed Monterey Street Improvement Project. Mr. Dick Ryan, of KSND Radio, addressed the Council noting that a recent survey had been conducted by the Radio Station, a requirement of~ [C; that beautification of the downtown area ranked 6th on the survey and better shopping facil ities ranked 4th. He further noted that shopping centers will take all businesses off of Monterey Street if something is not done about the downtown area. ..... - Mr. Phil ip Lawton, 7436 Monterey Street, noted that people are now thinking toward ecology and that shoppers want beautiful surroundings. Mr. Frank Caliri, Cable TV, addressed the Council and noted that he was in favor of the project. Mr. E. H. Duerr, local architect, noted that the main street has de- teriorated and needs improvement. He further noted that the proposed project is only a beginning of a long range project to beautify the entire downtown area. He noted that costs to accomplish this project will never be less expensive than they are today. Mr. R. H. Green, Real Estate Representative of Union Oil Company, addressed the Council and commented on the Union Oil Service Station at the corner of Third and Monterey Street. He noted that since improvements had been made at this location, business had increased 70% and that the Union Oil Company is in support of the proposed pnoject. Mr. Tom Taricco, 7473 Monterey Street, Continental Telephone Co., addressed the Council noting that his first impression of Gilroy was, '~hat did he get himself into?' and later, traveling throughout Gilroy, had a much different impression. He stated support for the proposed project. .... Mr. Robert Infelise, Superintendent of Schools, noted that the pro- posed project would enhance the entire community. -' Mr. Will iam Patterson noted that sometimes the opposition is too close to the problem; that the opposition of the project was from only those owning businesses or working at businesses located on Monterey Street. He stated that this was not a main street issue; that it touches all of Gilroy. Mr. Ballback, President of the Downtown Mer-chants' Association, addressed the Council and noted that all members of the Association, with the exception of one member, was wholeheartedly in favor of the proposed district. He noted that, as Manager of Montgomery Wards Catalog Office, said company moved their business location to the Monterey Street area knowing that a Downtown Beautification project was proposed for the downtown area. Mr. Ed Peterman, 7510 Monterey Street, addressed the Council noting that two-way traffic patterns had worked in other communities with only 10 ft. traffic lanes; that the City has proposed a similar traffic pattern with 12 ft. traffic lanes. He cited other communities that have done the same type of project. Mr. Cezar vtale addressed the Council noting that he was not in favor or against the proposed project; that the City should not compare their project with other communities, that Gilroy should do this project on its own merits for Gilroy. .... "'"_'''AM' Mr. Paul Baxter addressed the Council noting that the General Plan justifies endorsement of the proposed downtown project as it indicates commercial development from Church Street to Tenth Street and that the City should maintain said area, through this downtown beautification project. The City Clerk presented and read the following petitions in favor of the proposed project noting that said property owners are withdrawing from the original petition opposing same: El izabeth W. Fullerton, Agent for the Wills Family; B. E. Richmond, and Bridges Construction Company. 3601 Mr. Steve Mill ich, P. O. Box 183, Morgan Hill, attorney representing Mr. George Porcella, addressed the Council and noted that Beautification of the downtown area was the first step and that the second step was forcing the improvement of their buildings. He stated that all of Gilroy should pay for the proposed project, not just a few. He noted that Gilroy has had a long problem of burglaries and inquired if the downtown beautification project would increase burglaries. The Mayor asked if there were any further comments from anyone in the audience. There was no comment from anyone in the audience. I1f1"""'* Motion was made by Councilman Hughan seconded by Councilman Duffin and carried that the Publ ic Hearing be closed. -- Discussion was had by Council on the proposed project. Councilman Duffin noted that the five (5) protestants do not want to do anything to the downtown area. He noted that this was a one time opportunity for the downtown property owners to receive fund contributions from both the City and State towards a long time needed project. Councilman Stout noted that he tried to protect the people in opposition to the recent Sign Ordinance enforcement and stated that now that the signs are down, he thinks it does look better than before. He noted that through his real estate business he has found his clients have a nega- tive point of view for the downtown area. He noted that the investment will more than benefit from the proposed project and that he bel ieves it is economically feasible to approve said project. Councilman Pate noted that the proposed project is a reasonable solution to the problem, not an end result, but can be afforded now at this time. ",.,-. City Administrator Wood noted that 52.4% of the property owners were in opposition to the formation of the proposed District; further noting that considering the existing Parking District and the proposed new District combined, the opposition amounted to ]8.26% and that approximately 82% did not protest. -- Mr. Philip D. Assaf, attorney, noted that the protest was based upon square footage and that those in opposition to the formation of the proposed District had to be calculated with only those property owners protesting within the new District. Councilman DeBell noted that 2 1/2 years had been put into the proposed project, and that the design by the Committee was a good one. He said that either the downtown area could completely deteriorate or be im- proved. He believes that the project would benefit the whole community and that comparisons were important of other working projects. Discussion was had by Council in regard to the 52.4% majority in opposition to the proposed district. Mr. Assaf noted that the Council had the authority to overrule majority protests. Res. #1837-1841 Resolution No. 1837, A Resolution Overrul ing Protests on Resolution No. 1799 of Preliminary Determination and of Intention, was read. On motion of Councilman Duffin seconded by Councilman Silva and unanimously carried, said Resolution was adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 1837 "".... A RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS ON RESOLUTION NO. 1799 OF PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION AND OF INTENTION - MONTEREY STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1974-3. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of July, 1974, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: DeBELL, DUFFIN, HUGHAN, PATE, SILVA, STOUT and GOODR I CH COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ..... NOES: ABSENT: Resolution No. 1838, Finding and Determining that the Publ ic Con- venience and Necessity Require Proposed Acquisitions and Improvements, was read. On motion of Councilman Duffin seconded by Councilman Silva and unanimously carried, said Resolution was adopted. 3602 Res. #1838 RESOLUTION NO. 1838 A RESOLUTION FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECES- SITY REQUIRE PROPOSED ACQUISITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS - MONTEREY STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1974-3. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of July, 1974, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: DeBELL, HUGHAN, PATE, SILVA, STOUT and GOODRICH NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Res. #1839 Resolution No. 1839, A Resolution Adopting Engineer's Report, Confirming Assessment and Ordering Work and Acquisitions, was read. On motion of Council- man Duffin seconded by Councilman Silva and unanimously carried, said resolu- tion was adopted. -- - RESOLUTION NO. 1839 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT AND ORDERING WORK AND ACQUISITIONS - MONTEREY STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1974-3. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of July, 1974, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: DeBELL, DUFFIN, HUGHAN, PATE, SILVA, STOUT, AND GOODR I CH NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Res. #1840 Resolution No. 1840, A Resolution Designating Collection Officer, was read. On motion of Councilman Duffin seconded by Councilman Silva and unani- mously carried, said Resolution was adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 1840 A RESOLUTION DESI ~ATING COLLECTION OFFICER - MONTEREY STREET IMPRmVEMENT PROJECT 1974-3. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of July, 1974, by the fol lowing vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: DeBELL, DUFFIN, HUGHAN, PATE, SILVA, STOUT and GOODR I CH NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None lIIIlIII!III ""...'.'-iO'\IJ Res.#1841 Resolution No. 1841, A Resolution Determining Convenience and Necessity and Ordering Changes and Modifications was read. On motion of Councilman Hughan seconded by Councilman Duffin and unanimously carried, said Resolution was adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 1841 A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AND ORDERING CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS - PARKING DISTRICT NO.1 - PROJECT. NO. 64-1. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of July, 1974,by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: DE BELL, DUFFIN, HUGHAN, PATE, SILVA, STOUT and GOODRICH NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None At 10:35 p.m., the Mayor declared a Recess and reconvened at 10:40 p.m. Res. #1842 City Administrator Wood presented a Resolution Requesting the State Department of Transportation to obtain a differential for the asphalt costs of the projec.t Motion was made by Councilman Hughan seconded by Councilman Silva that the reading of Resolution No. 1842 be waived and that it be adopted. .... ..- RESOLUTION NO. 1842 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY REQUESTING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO AMEND PARTICIPATING COSTS IN THE RECONSTRUCTION" AND RE- SURFAC ING OF STATE ROUTE 101 (MONTEREY ROAD), 04-SCI-IOI. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of July, 1974, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: DE BELL, DUFFIN, HUGHAN, PATE, SILVA, STOUT and GOODR I CH COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: None NOES: ABSENT: Dump Body,' t Hoist Equip. Inter-City Counc i 1 Ad j ou rnmen t 3603 A Report on bigs received July 25, 1974, for one (1) Dump Body with hoist as embly was presented. It was noted that one bid was received from Heil Equ pment Company in the amount of $4,044.12 for said equipment. Motion was made by Councilman Pate seconded by Councilman Silva that said bid be accepted and awarded to Heil Equipment Company, and that same would require a budget amendment in the amount of $1,301 for said equipment. The Mayor inquired as to City Officials planning to attend the Inter- City Council Meeting August 1, 1974, at the Gilroy Elks Lodge. It was noted that nine (9) reservations should be made for same. At 10:45 p.m., the Mayor adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, (~?J!~f;a4Ylt() ? ' cd (;;:;::ti~/-r City Clerk ~