Loading...
Minutes 1993/09/27 L "'.'U' \ ,- Lif Invocation Posting Agenda Roll Call Pub.Hear. Forest st. Assmt. Dist. Regular Meeting September 27, 1993 Gilroy, California The Mayor led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Pastor Fred Edin, South Valley Community Church gave the Invocation. The City Clerk noted that the Agenda had been posted on September 23, 1993 at 8:38 a.m. Present: Councilmembers: Mike Gilroy, Leonard A. Hale, Paul V. Kloecker, Suellen C. Rowlison, Pete Valdez, Jr. and Donald F. Gage; Absent: Councilmember: Sara C. Nelson. The Mayor stated that it was the time and place scheduled for a Public Hearing to consider formation of an Assessment District re: Forest street, located north of Leavesley Road. The following written protests were noted from property owners within the proposed district: Christine M. & J. Frank Flautt; Kathryn Jean & Francis F. Blake; Gilroy All-Storage; and Wen-Hsueh & Tauan Chen. The Staff Report on responses to the protests was noted. Director of Public Works Allen gave an update on prior proceedings further explained by the following: Bill Henry, Garcia & Henry Civil Engineers, re: project improvements and benefits; Rick Smelser, City Engineer re: Circulation Element further explained by Director of Public Works Allen, noting that Murray Avenue is not within the Circulation Element of the General Plan. City Engineer Smelser further explained the benefit determination and discussion was had regarding dedication of properties noting that same cannot be required within an assessment district. This matter was further explained by the City Attorney. City Engineer Smelser further explained the costs of the proposed project, noted bids received and incidentals of the project; John Heindel, Consultant Engineer, explained the method of assessment spread, further explained by Bill Henry, Civil Engineers, noting that at earlier meetings with the property owners within the proposed district they were noted method of spread for assessments but not in detail, only basic methods. He further noted that utility costs have only been spread back to properties on Forest Street; and Philip D. Assaf, Attorney for Legal Bond Counsel, outlined proceedings and steps to be taken by Council. The Mayor asked if there were any persons in the audience wishing to speak on the proposal. The following addressed the Council: Tom westoby, 5675 Paradise Road, Salinas, property owner of 8565 Murray Avenue, noting that he does not have funds to pay annual cost of the proposed assessment district and would be forced to sell his property which he does not ever wish to develop. He further noted that from the very beginning of this proposed district he has verbally protested its formation but that this is not indicated on the map on display of property owners protesting this assessment district. Jeff Wong, representing Vollrath Property, objected to the proposed district and has since its inception. He further noted that two of the property owners that are in favor of the forma- L' 1 '..r "', r.......'-' tion of this district wish to pass all the costs of development to the other property owners that do not wish to be included. He noted that these property owners will be forced to increase the rental on their property and lose business or face foreclosure. He noted that the right-of-way belongs to Kishimura and Fortino so they can develop their properties. He noted that the property owners he is representing do not wish to develop their property. Frank Flautt, opposed to the formation of the proposed district, noting that his residence is at 5605 Mesa Road and notices of this district have been sent to his prior address. He noted that he is opposed to paying costs for someone else to develop their property; he does not wish to develop his property at this time. Mr. Philip Assaf, Attorney, Legal Bond Counsel, noted that the assessment district is looking at the highest and best use of the property and special benefit to that property. (At 9:00 p.m. the Mayor declared a recess and reconvened the meeting at 9:06 p.m.) John Heindel, Consultant Engineer, further explained that benefit is to property and not to property owners. Director of Public Works Allen noted that the original petition requesting formation of the assessment district contained 68% of the area in favor of an assessment district. Mr. Assaf further explained that protests in writing need to be filed with the City Clerk on or before the October 4, 1993 Public Hearing and that it would take 4/5's vote of the Council to overrule protests; further noting that percentage is based upon acreage of property subject to assessment. The following addressed the Council in regard to the proposed district: Kathryn Jean Blake, 8665 Murray Avenue, noting that she filed a letter of protest and that they originally signed the petition requesting formation of the district with the original estimated cost to be $46,000.00 and cost has tripled. She noted that they would have no objection to Forest street as the bound- ary of the district, but objected to inclusion of Murray Avenue; Jim Purcell, President and CEO of Hope Rehabilitation Properties, noted that because of the annual costs at this time they cannot support this project as presented. He noted that his estimated costs were $1,300.00 per month and same has been increased to $2,500 per month which he cannot support; Frank Flautt noted that two landowners within the proposed district are 50% of the petitioners that signed the original petition containing 68% of the land owners; Egon Vollrath, property owner on Forest Street, noted owners were previously promised the cost of the project would not exceed $1.9 million and signatures on the petition were obtained under those conditions; Virginia Fanelli, representing Gilroy Associates Ltd., 10052 Pasadena Avenue, Suite B, Cupertino, noted the costs for improvement are exceptional and unreasonable. She further noted that Kishimura and Fortino properties will be benefiting. She requested the cost and procedures used to obtain original signatures on the petition be reviewed and that the City not proceed until the project costs are as originally proposed; Bill Reimal, 7551 Kentwood Court, representing Kishimura and Fortino property owners, noting that estimates were given to property owners at the first meeting. He further noted that Fortino property is not land-locked, and the properties he represents are 40% of the land owners in favor of the district f " , ) 'J ',} (' ...... and not 50% as previously noted. He further noted that dedica- tion of property for rights-of-way can be an option and that there is not additional cost to other property owners for same. He further noted that original petitioners were informed that they could protest at the hearings if they did not wish to proceed with the improvements. He noted that Kishimura and Fortino have paid for the entire engineering up to this point and that improvements on Murray Avenue would increase property values when the parcels are developed and that these improvements will allow development of said properties; Tom Westoby, 8565 Murray Avenue, noted that his property is not an "eye sore" and believes that "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." He further noted that improvements would be an increase in value to property not to owner and "do we care about property or people?"; James Costanza, 135 Las Animas and property owner of #25 and #26 on Murray Avenue, questioned why Murray Avenue is part of the proposed improvements and that he is not opposed to Forest Street Improvements, however is opposed because of the inclusion of Murray Avenue. The Mayor asked if there was anyone further in the audience wishing to speak for or against the proposal. There was no further comment from anyone in the audience and the Mayor continued the Public Hearing to October 4, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Assaf, Bond Counsel emphasized that protests must be in writing due on or before the time set for the second public hearing of October 4, 1993 and that the letters should identify the property and explain the grounds for protest. He further noted that a petition protesting the improvements would not be advisable; that they should be individual letters of protest. Discussion was had by Council on the matter. Mr. Assaf noted that notices were posted, published and sent to each property owner as required by law and he read the legal notice that was mailed to each property owner within the proposed district. Director of Public Works Allen noted that the costs would be recalculated on each assessment and additional notices would be forwarded each property with any new information. He further noted that Kishimura and Fortino properties have to date fronted all of the costs of the proposed improvement district. Dominic Fanelli, General Partner of Gilroy Associates Ltd., requested additional information on requirements of written protests further explained by Mr. Assaf that the letters should explain the reason for protesting. Garbage Rates A recommendation to join with the City of Morgan Hill to hire Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson to perform advisory services to review the South Valley Disposal & Recycling, Inc. rate increase proposals was presented and further explained by City Administra- tor Baksa. Discussion was had by Council regarding the services to be received by the Consultants. City Administrator Baksa noted Staff would meet with the Consultants requesting specific information as part of the scope. The City Attorney noted that consulting services would not give away the City's ability to set rates as this is part of the City's contract with South Valley Refuse & Disposal, Inc. Council requested that the consultant review prior years assumptions of future years rates with actual rate increases last year and this year proposals. Council also requested consultant review payees and other agencies assessment to determine if the City is being assessed its fair share and if the 1994 garbage can Grape Boycott Gang Task Force rate changes in pick-up process are included in this proposed rate increase. Council also requested a break-out of all state fees, capital expenditures, county administration fees, county solid waste fees, etc. Motion was made by Councilman Kloecker seconded by Councilman Gilroy and carried that the City be authorized to join the City of Morgan Hill in hiring Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson, Consultants, to perform advisory services to review the South Valley Disposal & Recycling, Inc. rate increase proposals; City of Gilroy's share of $17,601.00 for said services. A request of United Farm Workers of America AFL-CIO was noted requesting support and endorsements of the City for "No Grapes" Campaign and "No Grapes Week." The Mayor asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak on the matter. The following addressed the Council in opposition to the request of the United Farm Workers of America AFL-CIO: Adian Ortega" representing Grape Workers & Farm Coalition, 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90024, requested the City oppose this request, noting that UFW is no longer working in the California table grape industry. He distributed information to Council in opposition to the boycott; Dan Vanni, President of Santa Clara County Farm Bureau, opposed to the boycott; Connie Rosales, representing Mac Farland California, opposed the boycott and unemployment for the grape workers; Aaron Jones, member of the Grape Workers & Farmers Coalition, noted the UFW Boycott is discredited by many groups rejecting the boycott and requested Council not support same. He further noted that the pesticides issue is a cover-up; that the grape industry are leaders in the proper use of pesticides; Ted Kubota, 787 Lawrence Drive, requesting Council not support the boycott for the same reasons as the previous speaker; Nancy Richardson, Executive Director of the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau, requesting Council not support the boycott, and noted that Caesar Chavez could be honored without punishing agriculture; and Roland Codiga, President of the Santa Clara County Cattlemen's Association urging Council not support the boycott. Discussion was had by Council on the matter. Councilman Kloecker suggested that the City take no action on the basis of the testimony and noted the proposed proclamation referred to Caesar Chavez and that no action on the boycott has no reference to Caesar Chavez who the City has previously honored for his social changes and efforts for farm workers. Councilman Valdez agreed that the Grape Boycott issue should be separate from recognition of Caesar Chavez. Council agreed to take no action regarding support of the Grape Boycott issue. The following informational item was noted with no separate discussion on same: Santa Clara County General Plan Review Advisory Committee Meeting of Agenda for September 23, 1993. The Minutes of the Gang Task Force Meeting of September 8, 1993 were noted. c " 1 ~.1 t t.~~P ,:_i ,'.1 P& R Com. Adjrnmt. The Minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting of August 17, 1993 were noted. The Minutes of the Senior Advisory Board Meeting of August 16, 1993 were noted. The Minutes of the Library & Culture Commission Meeting of September 14, 1993 were noted. City Administrator Baksa distributed inutes from the Council study Session on strategic Planning. City Administrator Baksa inquired if Council receive copies of the weekly League of California Cities Legislative Bulletins. City Administrator Baksa distributed an article from the Public Management Magazine regarding Cable TV for information. Council set October 12, 1993 at 7:00 p.m., as a Council Study Session re: continued discussion of the Anti-Violent Crime Report. Councilman Hale noted that he has not seen Staff response to the Santa Clara County General Plan Review Agendas regarding subjects to be discussed. Councilman Hale inquired as to the City's representative at the separate League of California Cities - peninsula Division Meeting scheduled at the time of the annual League Conference in San Francisco. It was noted that Councilwoman Rowlison is the Conference Delegate and would also be the city's representative at said meeting; Councilman Kloecker, Alternate Delegate. Councilman Kloecker distributed three booklets regarding Air Pollution further explaining same. The Mayor noted the following meetings/events: Santa Clara County Cities Association General Membership Meeting, september 30, 1993 - 6:30 p.m., Monterey Whaling Company, Mountain View; Joint Gilroy, Morgan Hill, Hollister City Councils' study Session, October 5, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., re: Discussion of 1992 Cable TV Act, Gilroy City Hall Council Chambers, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020; To be televised. League of California Cities 1993 Annual Conference, October 17th to 19, 1993, Moscone Center, San Francisco; Gilroy City Council Regular Meeting of October 18, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., Cancelled; Municipal Election Forum, October 26, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers, City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA To be televised. Sponsored by AAUW; and Municipal Election Forum, October 28, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers, City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA. To be televised. Sponsored by Gilroy Chamber of Commerce. The Mayor reminded JPA members of the september 28, 1993 South County Regional Wastewater Authority meeting. At 10:50 p.m. the Mayor adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, /~ /" -,. , "J "1~--1-....,.. i /' " / " -,' /'-- tu ~ 0" /~ !u##l1.~ I, City Clerk d