Minutes 2007/09/10
1
8690
. .. ,.. ,....,..... ..... ... ,,~.,"..._...< .,.,~~,.",";"'''"c
-~~--~"- ~ -~--_.__..
-J "-;"-".. ,.'....'c.~".,.,~".:.~,.'j,~"".".'",c.~~"..->-',~""'.,,%{i:"'''''.~','ii'.':';',,-. .;,.,- --
.....---.-- ..~~----
City of Gilrov
City Council Minutes
September 10. 2007
Special & Ree:ular Meetine:
The City Council went into Closed Session at 5:00 P.M.
I. CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code section 54956.9)
City olGilroy v. Gera, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 1-05-CV 042344.
XII. CLOSED SESSION (Item moved from end of agenda)
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: LeeAnn McPhillips, Charles Sakai, Gregg Giusiana, and Carla Ruigh
Employee Organization: AFSCME, Local 101
The City Council adjourned into open session with no closed session announcements.
8691
III. Youth Commission Interviews
The City Council held interviews with Stephanie Castillo, Rachele Caserza, Weilan Cui,
Daniel Monroe, Rachel Tenney and Jasmine Ross for the Youth Commission.
I. Opening of Regular Meeting
A. Call to Order
Mayor Pinheiro called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Pinheiro then led the Pledge of Allegiance.
City Clerk Freels reported that the agenda had been posted on August 31, 2007 at 12:00 noon.
Roll Call
Present: Mayor Al Pinheiro, Council Member Peter Arellano, Council Member Paul Correa,
Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member, Council Member Craig Gartman, Council
Member Russ Valiquette, Council Member Roland Velasco
B. Orders of the Day
Item XII. was moved to the top of the agenda under I. Closed Session.
II. PRESENT A TIONS
A. By members of the public on items not on the agenda, but within the subject matter
jurisdiction of the City Council.
There were no public comments.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Arellano stated that he had reviewed the meeting of August 6, 2007 and asked
to amend the Minutes to reflect that he had been in attendance at a continuing education course.
Council Member Correa stated that he had reviewed the minutes and video of the meeting of
August 6, 2007
Motion on the Consent Agenda
Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and
carried to approve the consent agenda.
A. Minutes of the August 6, 2007 Regular City Council Meeting.
B. Recommendation to Approve Budget Amendmentsffransfers.
IV. BIDS AND PROPOSALS
There were no bids or proposals.
V. PUBLIC EARINGS
A. Public Hearing to Review Planning Commission Recommendations for the Requests of
Residential Development Allocations for the 2006 RDO Competition.
Mayor Pinheiro shared the previous years' RDO process, suggesting that the Council follow the
same process of hearing from staff and the applicants and then each Council Member would give
their rating of the projects. Then as a group, they could re-evaluate the allocations to those top
projects with 4 or more allocations.
Council Member Arellano asked if the Council Members could give their reasoning behind their
choices for the allocations.
City Administrator Baksa stated that the Council Members would have the opportunity to discuss
their choices explaining that the Mayor was attempting to design a framework to work within.
The staff report was presented by Planning Manager Faus.
The Public Hearing was opened
8692
Mayor Pinheiro explained that he would provide each applicant an opportunity to speak on their
request.
Mike McDermott of Oak Creek stated that he was available to answer any questions.
Joe Burch of Silver Leaf thanked the Council for the opportunity to compete for the allocations.
Jerry of Rancho Meadows stated that his project was infill.
Gary Couche ofUvas Gardens explained that he had met with the school district and had agreed
to cover their mitigation fee requirements.
The Public Hearing was closed.
Mayor Pinheiro asked the Council if they would like to follow his earlier suggestion, explaining
that the next step would be providing the first choice for allocations.
Council Member Bracco gave his first choice of allocations: 06-02 - 109 units, 06-05 - 10 units,
06-09 - 62 units, 06-10 -10 units.
Council Member Velasco asked to recuse himself from project 06-04 as he had a conflict of
interest stating that he would like to come back to vote on the rest of the projects.
City Attorney Callon suggested that Council Member Velasco disclose the conflict then the
Council could choose to deal with the specific project and include Council Member Velasco with
the rest of the projects allocations.
Council Member Velasco recused himself from the Rancho Meadows project 06-04, explaining
that he had received a commission on the sale of a home in the project area. He then left the
Council Chambers.
Council Member Arellano gave his first choice of allocations: 06-06 - 58 units, 06-03 - 24 units,
06-04 - 39 units, 06-09 - 60 units
Council Member Correa gave his first choice of allocations: 06-02 - 65 units, 06-03 - 12 units,
06-04 - 39 units, 06-05 - 10 units, 06-06 - 40 units, 06-08 15 units, 06-10- 10 units.
Council Member Valiquette gave his first choice of allocations: 06-02 - 141 units, 06-06 - 40
units, 06-05 -5 units, 06-10 - 5 units.
Council Member Gartman gave his first choice of allocations: 06-02 - 140 units, 06-04 - 40
units, 06-05 - 5 units, 06-10 - 6 units
Mayor Pinheiro gave his first choice of allocations: 06-02 - 140 units, 06-06 - 51 units.
City Administrator Baksa suggested that the projects with 1 or less votes be dropped.
City Attorney Callon suggested that the Council address 06-04, Rancho Meadows first so that
Council Member Velasco could return to address the rest of the allocations.
Mayor Pinheiro asked for the number of allocations for project 06-04.
Planning Manager Faus stated that Project 06-04 had 39,39 & 40 units.
City Administrator Baksa stated that Council Member Velasco's first choice was needed to
address the rest of the projects in the scoring system.
City Attorney Callon stated that the past practice had been to address the project that was a
conflict for the Council Member, and then he could return to address the rest.
Mayor Pinheiro asked if the Council could address the projects with the fewest numbers
explaining that the discussion had been that those with 1 or fewer votes would drop off.
City Administrator Baksa stated that 06-02, 06-05, 06-06, 06-10 all had 4 votes or more.
8693
Mayor Pinheiro asked if the Council agreed that those top projects would stay on top.
Council Member Arellano stated that his allocations for 06-08 could be taken off, stating that he
would re-allocate as they continued.
City Administrator Baksa stated that 06-07 and 06-08 would be dropped off the list.
City Attorney Callon suggested that the Council address the 06-04 Rancho Meadows project.
Council Member Correa asked to move his allocations for 06-08 to the Rancho Meadows 06-04
project.
Council Member Gartman stated that the Rancho Meadows project was an on-going project,
which would allow more infrastructure to be built in the area and would open up the lots near the
Fire station for the City to sell.
Council Member Bracco spoke on Uvas Gardens stating that it didn't merit units as the previous
allocations had not been used. He explained that during the Hecker Pass specific plan, he
understood that there wouldn't be any additional development in the area. He then spoke on 06-
09 explaining that the Sobrato Center and approved development would be built around it, which
would leave a dump in the center of the South County project.
Council Member Arellano stated that he would like to see Council Member Velasco included in
the deliberations and asked if the Rancho Meadows allotment could be given so that Council
Member Velasco could return to give his opinions on the projects also.
City Attorney Callon agreed that they could address all of the other projects with Council
Member Velasco if Rancho Meadows was dealt with first.
Council Member Arellano stated that he would like to have Council Member Velasco in on the
discussions so that comments would not need to be repeated.
Council Member Correa stated that he was ready to address the Rancho Meadows project to
allow Council Member Velasco back into the discussions. He then stated that 06-04 would be
completed with the additional allocations and he was in support of it.
Mayor Pinheiro explained that the Rancho Meadows project had 3 votes, and another would be
needed to bring it to the top of the list.
Council Member Arellano stated that Rancho Meadows was in-fill and would be finishing the
area with the additional allocations.
Mayor Pinheiro dropped his units from 140 to 120 for project 06-02 and added the 20 units to 06-
04 Rancho Meadows project.
City Attorney Callon suggested that a determination for Rancho Meadows be made, even if it
was a preliminary determination, to allow Council Member Velasco to return and be included in
the rest of the allocations.
Mayor Pinheiro suggested that the Rancho Meadows project be dealt with.
Council Member Bracco asked what the financial conflict could be if Council Member Velasco
merely sold a home in the area.
City Attorney Callon stated that it was Council Member Velasco's decision to recuse himself.
Council Member Arellano shared his reasons for allocating, sharing the connections of the
projects to the City's goals and criteria on impacts on the school district, environment,
availability of resources such as parks, regional share of housing, affordable housing, and public
services. He then spoke on the projects that were infill and were fulfilling a need for affordable
homes explaining that market rate homes should also be spread throughout the community. He
then spoke on the Uvas Gardens project explaining that there was a good specific plan in place
that was within the City limits. He spoke on addressing projects that were energy saving stating
8694
that resource conservation was worth 6 points. He concluded by stating that infill, continuity and
supporting specific plans were all important in the decision making process.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that the Council could provide future allocations outside of the RDO to
help complete the allocation needs for those projects close to completion.
Planning Manager Faus stated that the ordinance allowed for allocating out 5 years beyond the
current RDO if no more than 25% of those future years allocations were given
Council Member Arellano suggested offering allocations to the projects that would be building
out in the next three years.
Mayor Pinheiro explained that most of the projects were ready to go except for Uvas Gardens.
Gary Couche ofUvas Gardens stated that they were ready to go and were requesting allocations
for 2009-2010.
Council Member Gartman asked for the status of the Uvas Gardens development agreement with
the City.
Gary Couche ofUvas Gardens stated that they were about 1 week away from signing the
development agreement to submit it to the City.
Council Member Gartman stated that the development agreement had been approved by the City
9 months prior and the ownership group still had not signed it. He stated that the specific plan
had been approved which provided 506 allocations to the project and the developer was asking
for RDO's as a place holder.
Council Member Bracco suggested that if the first 5 projects would be pulled from the next
competition then future allocations for all of the projects should be given.
Mayor Pinheiro explained that he was specifically talking about the remainder of the units for
Rancho Meadows and Silver Leaf as they would be minimal units from the next competition. He
then explained that it would fulfill the projects' needs for build out. He explained that it was just
a suggestion that had been done before in previous RDO competitions.
Planning Manager Faus stated that there was a discrepancy in the request for allocations
explaining that Oak Creek was requestingl91, Rancho Meadows was requesting 39 and
Monterey was requesting 62.
Council Member Valiquette stated that he was surprised with the Planning Commissions
recommendations as they were very close to his own thoughts on developing a boundary for the
west and the south areas of the City.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that the process had come to the point that the projects were being
discussed and unfortunately the Council could not accommodate Council Member Velasco.
Council Member Gartman stated that there were 5 definite leaders and he believed that a
determination should be made for the top 5.
Council Member Arellano spoke on the need for LAFCO approval and annexation for the two
requests for 5 homes explaining that they should be addressed at the next RDO. He stated that
infill and specific plan projects should be addressed first suggesting that the 4 top projects
receive allocations.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that he hadn't allocated to the two 5 home projects explaining that the next
RDO process would be revamped with a vision to the future for developers to follow. He
explained that the rest of the projects either had a specific plan or were part of the neighborhood
district.
Council Member Valiquette spoke on his conversations with one of the 5 home developers
explaining that they were willing to work with the school district in any way possible.
8695
The Council discussed the number of votes given for each development.
The Council recessed for 5 minutes.
Mayor Pinheiro announced that the Council would address the project allocations for the top
projects and then ask Council Member Velasco to return to give his allocations.
Council Member Gartman gave the following allocations: 06-02 - 142 units, 06-04 -39 units, 06-
05 - 5 units, 06-10 - 5 units.
Council Member Valiquette gave the following allocations: 06-02-141 units, 06-05 - 5 units, 06-
06 - 40 units, 06-10 - 5 units.
Council Member Correa gave the following allocations: 06-02 - 82 units, 06-04 - 39 units, 06-05
- 10 units, 06-06 - 50 units, 06-10 - 10 units.
Council Member Arellano gave the following allocations: 06-04 - 39 units, 06-06 -61 units, 06-
02 - 101 units.
Council Member Bracco gave the following allocations: 06-02-146 units, 06-04 - 35 units, 06-05
- 5 units, 06 -10- 5 units.
Mayor Pinheiro gave the following allocations: 06- 02 - 140 units, 06-04 - 39 units, 06-06 - 12
units.
Council Member Correa asked for the total project votes.
Planning Manager Faus stated that all of the Council had voted for 06-02,06-04 and 06-05 had 5
votes and 06-06 and 06-10 had 4 votes.
Council Member Velasco returned to the dais. He then spoke on his reasons for allocations
explaining that the RDO was a model and some developers were stepping up to support the
school district. He stated that his top 3 projects were clean-ups stating that he didn't believe the
City should allocate units that were outside of the unincorporated areas. He spoke on both the
Uvas Gardens and the Masoni Ranch projects explaining that the infrastructure was done and the
Uvas Gardens project had a development agreement with the City.
Council Member Velasco gave his allocations: to 06-02 - 150 units and 06-06 - 41 units.
He then spoke on readdressing the RDO process and the need to work with the school district
and the development community on the neighborhood districts. He then suggested the remained
of the RDO request of 20 units be pulled from the future allocations to help finish off the project.
He then thanked the Council for their indulgence.
Mayor Pinheiro suggested that the Council look at the top 5 projects.
Council Member Arellano suggested that the Council look at the top 3 projects.
Mayor Pinheiro asked the Council if they were comfortable with taking the top 3 and deciding if
they would allocate only the 191 or if they wanted to also allocate any future allocations.
Council Member Valiquette suggested that the yearly RDO's for each project be voted upon as
the Council went through the vote.
Mayor Pinheiro asked if the Council was comfortable with voting on the top 3 of the 5.
City Administrator Baksa suggested that the Council decide if they wanted to use future
allocations and then allocate out to those projects including the future allocations.
Council Member Velasco stated that he was comfortable with either Oak Creek or Uvas Gardens
getting the future allocations, as long as they had all their allocations.
Mayor Pinheiro explained that Uvas Gardens could work within their development agreement
and asked if they could work within their allocations in the specific plan.
8696
Gary Couche of Uvas Gardens stated that if they had 41 and then the additional 20 they could
work within the system as long as they knew they had it there.
Mayor Pinheiro explained that it might free up units for Oak Creek who had dealt with the school
district and were ready to build.
Council Member Gartman stated that the development agreement was 3 years up and 3 years
back.
Gary Couche asked to have the last allocation in 2014.
Council Member Gartman explained that the building schedule was in the development
agreement.
Council Member Arellano spoke on voting on the top 3 first before borrowing on the future.
Council Member Gartman suggested that the Council address master plans and specific plans in
the next few months.
The Council Members agreed to allocate to the top 3 projects 06-02, 06-04, 06-06. (Council
Member Correa against, and Council Member Velasco abstaining from 06-04).
Mayor Pinheiro asked if the Council wanted to allocate into future years.
The Council Members agreed to allocate into future years (Council Members Arellano and
Bracco against)
Council Member Bracco asked if all of the allocations would be given because they had agreed to
use future years allocations.
Mayor Pinheiro explained that it was dependant on which requests for allocations would be given
in the future years.
The Council took a 5 minute break.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that Council Member Velasco was once again out of the Council
Chambers. He then explained that the Council would vote on the top 3 project allocations and
any additional future allocations.
Council Member Bracco gave his allocations: 06-02 - 156 units, 35 in the future, 06-04 - 35
units and 4 in the future.
Council Member Arellano gave his allocations: 06-02 -91 units, 06-04 - 39 units, the remainder
in the future, 06-06 - 61 units.
Council Member Correa gave his allocations: 06-02 - 91 units, 06-04 0 39 units, the remainder
in the future, 06-06 - 61 units.
Council Member Valiquette gave his allocations: 06-02 - 91 units and 100 in the future, 06-04 -
39 units, 06-06 - 60 units.
Council Member Gartman gave his allocations: 06-02-152 units, 39 in the future, 06-04 - 39
units, 06-06 60 units, I in the future.
Mayor Pinheiro gave his allocations: 06-02 -152 units, 39 in future, 06-04 - 39 units, 06-06 60
units, 1 in the future.
Council Member Velasco returned to the Council Chambers and gave his allocations: 06-02 -
111 units with the remainder in the future, 06-06 - 41 units with the remainder in the future.
Planning Manager Faus averaged out the allocations for each project.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on Uvas Gardens explaining that they would be able to share the rest of
8697
the allocations with the other specific plan owners and would be able to get their project going.
He then stated that Oak Creek needed the units to get their infrastructure going. He then asked for
Council discussion on the future allocations.
Council Member Arellano stated that he looked at what was being put at risk when going out into
the future. He stated that he wanted to spread it out to give them all a shot at getting something in
the future.
Council Member Gartman asked for clarification on Council Member Arellano's comments
asking if it would be more acceptable for the Council to grant to the specific year.
Council Member Arellano spoke on the allocations given to Glen Loma explaining that there
might not be a RDO competition if all were given out to the future. He then stated that the future
Council should decide on the allocations.
Council Member Gartman explained that they had a development agreement that gave them a 7
year window to build.
Council Member Velasco stated that the Council had done a good job with the allocations and
then spoke on giving Oak Creek flexibility as they had offered to work with the school district
and were willing to be flexible with the development agreement and reimbursement of the nF.
He then spoke on Uvas Gardens explaining that they were willing to work with their allocations,
suggesting that the Council shift allocations to the Oak Creek project.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the Oak Creek project explaining that there was a need for the
developer to have enough allocations to begin the infrastructure for their project. He then
explained that the Uvas Creek project had the numbers that they needed.
Council Member Arellano suggested that the Council give Oak Creek 120, Rancho Meadows 39
and 32 for Uvas Gardens with the remainder in the future.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that the applicant for Uvas Gardens had stated that it was not an issue to
have all of the allocations explaining that there was an allocated number in the specific plan.
Council Member Arellano spoke on compromise with the allocations for Oak Creek stating that
each Council Member would need to compromise to an agreed allocation number.
Gary Couche ofUvas Gardens stated that they would need 41 units to begin their infrastructure
and could put off 20 for the future.
Council Member Correa stated that he would take 20 from his 61 to give to Oak Creek.
Mayor Pinheiro asked for a final vote of the Council on the allocations.
Council Member Bracco's allocations remained the same at: 06-02 - 156 units, 35 in the future,
06-04 - 35 units and 4 in the future.
Council Member Arellano gave his allocations: 06-06- 45 units, 16 in the future, 06-04 39 units,
06-02 - 107 units.
Council Member Correa gave his allocations: 06-02 - 111 units, with the remainder in the future,
06-04 - 39 units, 06-06 - 41 units, with the remainder in the future.
Council Member Valiquette gave his allocations: 06-02 - 91 units with 100 in the future, 06-04 -
39,06-06 - 61 units
Council Member Gartman remained the same at: 06-02-152 units, 39 in the future, 06-04 - 39
units, 06-06 60 units, 1 in the future.
Council Member Velasco gave his allocations: 06-02 - 120 units, 06-04 32 with the remainder in
the future.
Mayor Pinheiro's allocations remained the same at: 06-02 -152 units, 39 in future, 06-04 - 39
8698
units, 06-06 60 units, 1 in the future.
Planning Manager Faus averaged out the allocations by project with 5 units over the 191.
The Council agreed to pull the 5 extra allocations from the Uvas Gardens project (Council
Members Arellano, Bracco and Correa against)
Council Member Arellano asked why the Uvas Gardens project averaged to 25 units.
Planning Manager Faus explained that 2 Council Members had not voted for the project.
The allocations were given as follows: 06-02 -127 units with 64 in the future, 06-04 - 39 units,
06-06 - 25 units, with 36 in the future.
Council Member Gartman suggested following the Planning Commission recommendation for
build out for all three projects.
Council Member Correa suggested breaking down Oak Creek as they had requested and then
offering the other two projects their allocations when they needed them.
The allocations were given by year as follows: Oak Creek 2009 - 38,2010 - 23,2011 - 23,2012
-23,2013 - 20. Rancho Meadows: 2009 - 12,2010 - 11,2011 - 11,2012 - 5. Uvas Gardens
2012 - 13,2013 - 12.
Gary Couche of Uvas Gardens stated that they were hoping to work with the numbers given as
they were separate owners, but they would need the guarantee ofthe balance of36 in 2014.
Council Member Velasco spoke on the future allocations stating that the Council should
determine which allocations should be set into those years
The Council agreed to place allocations for the future years. (Council Members Bracco and
Valiquette opposed)
Future year allocations were given as follows: Oak Creek 2014-32 units, 2015-32 units, Uvas
Gardens 2014-36 units.
Motion was made by Council Member Velasco, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and
carried to approve the numerical allocations for Oak Creek: 2012 - 13 units, 2013 - 12 units,
2014-32 units, 2015-32 units and Uvas Gardens: 2012 - 13 units, 2013 - 12 units, 2014-36 units.
Council Member Velasco recused himself and left the Council Chambers.
Motion was made by Council Member Correa, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and
carried to approve the allocations for Rancho meadows: 2009 - 12 units, 2010 - 11units 2011 -
11units, 2012 - 5 (Council Member Velasco absent)
Council Member Velasco returned to the dais.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There were no unfinished business items.
VI. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
There were no new business items.
VII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
There was no report.
IX. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
There was no report.
X. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco thanked the New Hope Church for their efforts during the Like Fire.
8699
Council Member Arellano spoke on the annual League of California conference asking to discuss
some of the material at the next Council summit.
XI. MAYOR'S REPORT
There was no report
The City Council adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
J
// ~)
___ / ,i._ /+ /
-.. ,/' ,. '\
'..~._ ~ 1~~1
. ~/! ,. i~!/ ,/ ;....'
. j , " I l > ( , ,
Sh~ Freels'; CMC '7
City Clerk