Loading...
Minutes 2007/09/17 -~~-- ~,,"_' -~",:;oc.'~","'F,\;';_O':"':.';"""'^"~~'''' - 'T";:'",.~~r,,';-,";';:'_~~.,~~' ~.~,',i1':'='''''''''''''''':r.",.''''''~_' ",',.-'T"",_".='~""'l'.t.l"!"",~',.!""'*',""':<"";;""::;;",'",~"",,::;,',,,,",'--;,-. ."'~",.",_' ," C'; -~,.,,,,,,,,,., > ....... -- .... --.;. .' """ B. Orders of the Day Item V.C was pulled from the agenda at the request of the applicant. Roll Call Present: Mayor AI Pinheiro, Council Member Peter Arellano, Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Paul Correa, Council Member Craig Gartman, Council Member Russ Valiquette, Council Member Roland Velasco. City Clerk Freels stated that the agenda had been posted on September 12, 2007 and the revised agenda had been posted on September 13, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. Ruth Brenton of the Bahai Community gave the Invocation. Mayor Pinheiro led the Pledge of Allegiance. A. Call to Order Mayor Pinheiro called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. I. OPENING The City Council adjourned into open session with no closed session announcements. III. ADJOURNMENT to Open Session. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: 251 Old Gilroy Street (APN: 841-08-033) Agency Negotiators: Jay Baksa and Anna Jatczak Negotiating Parties: Robert L. Fellom & Carol Fellom Matter Under Negotiation: Acquisition price and terms. II. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Agency Negotiators: LeeAnn McPhillips, Anna Jatczak, Dale Foster, and Ed Bozzo Employee Organization: IAFF, Local 2805 (Fire Employees) I. SPECIAL MEETING STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Barking Dog Ordinance City of Gilrov City Council Minutes September 17. 2007 Special and Ree:ular Meetin2 8699 8700 Motion to continue item V. C. Motion was made by Council Member Bracco, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried to continue Item V. C. - A Public Hearing on a zone change request to change the zoning designation from R3 (Medium Density Residential) to R3IPUD (Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development), A Tentative Map request to create 7 residential lots on approximately .44 acres on property zoned R3 (Medium Density Residential) and Architectural and Site-Planned Unit Development review to allow the construction of 7 new residential condominium units on property zoned R2 (Medium Density Residential), located at 570 Old Gilroy Street (old Pacheco Pass Hotel). Jose Montes, applicant (c/o M.H. Engineering, Gloria Ballard) A1S-PUD 06-37, until the applicant was ready to come back. C. Introductions New Employees Joe Carmack, Firefighter II/Paramedic, Daniel Lozano, Firefighter IIIParamedic, Jenny Knerr, Office Assistant I, City Clerk's Office, Laura Mcintyre, Planner II, Community Development, Robert Marshall, Deputy Fire Marshal, Community Development, Juan Rocha, Police Officer, Police Department and Yolanda Lira, Police Records Technician, Police Department were introduced. D. Presentations & Proclamations Mayor Pinheiro presented a Proclamation naming September 17, 2007 through September 23, 2007 as CONSTITUTION WEEK to the Gabilan Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Mayor Pinheiro presented the Employee of the Month Award for August, 2007 to Patricia Pretell. Mayor Pinheiro presented the Volunteer of the Month Award for May, 2007 to Anthony Kachakj Mayor Pinheiro presented the Team ofthe Month Award for September, 2007 to Bob Bozzo, Rick Brandini, and Chris Rogers. Mayor Pinheiro presented the Employee ofthe Month Award for September, 2007 to Bill Headley. II. PRESENTATIONS 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. Items III. B and III.C were pulled from the consent agenda. Motion on consent items A, D, E, F, G, H, I Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried to approve consent agenda items A, D, E, F, G, H & I. A. Request for the approval of a carnival to be held October 26, 2007 to October 28, 2007 at the Old Wal-Mart Parking lot, 7900 Arroyo Circle. Requested by Butler Amusements, Inc. D. Claim of Jose Vigil. (City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute denial of claims.) E. Recommendation to Approve Budget Amendment/Transfers. F. Approval of deferred improvement agreement 2007-12, 6001 Rossi Lane, APN 841-15-160, J.N. Abbott Distributor, Inc. G. Notice of acceptance of completion, Property Improvement Agreement no 2006-13, Tract 9570, McCarthy Business Park, APN 841-17-093, McCarthy Gilroy, LLC. 8701 H. Notice of acceptance of completion, Gilroy Sports Park Site Improvements, Phases I & II, Project No. 05-CDD-108, Don Chapin, Co. I. Approval of tract map, tract No. 9905, McAlpine Condo Conversion, APN 790-26-001 & 004, Randall W. McAlpine & Melanie J. McAlpine. B. Resolution authorizing the assurance of the City of Gilroy to complete the sixth street streetscape west under Santa Clara County VT A community design for transportation program and committing to the necessary local match. Motion to continue Item III. B. Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried to continue item III. B to the October 1, 2007 meeting. C. Resolution of the City Council establishing the build-out schedule and allocation of residential dwelling units for the 2006 RDO residential development review. Council Member Arellano explained that he didn't believe that there had been enough formal discussion of the impacts of pulling out the future RDO's. He stated that there hadn't been a motion or vote, it had just been a thumbs up and thumbs down decision. He explained that as such an important issue, a formal vote should have been taken and he didn't believe formal minutes had been taken as it was such a hurried decision. He suggested that in the future, things of such importance should be voted on openly. Mayor Pinheiro stated that he wanted all Council Members and the public to feel that the decision had been made out in the open, explaining that the issue could be re-visited before final approval. He then asked the Council Members to give their thoughts on the issue. Council Member Velasco stated that he was surprised at the comment that there hadn't been a vote to move forward as he had made the motion. He stated that he understood if Council Member Arellano wanted further discussion of the issue, but he was surprised to hear the comment that no vote had been taken. Council Member Arellano stated that there was no motion or vote taken, just a short discussion with a thumbs up and thumbs down. City Administrator Baksa stated that Council Member Arellano was correct that no separate motion had been made to decide to allocate passed 2014. He then explained that Council Member Velasco was also correct that the formal motion had been made at the end of the night, which put the allocations into those years. Council Member Velasco stated that the motion had extended out the allocations into 2013 & 2014. Mayor Pinheiro asked the Council for their consensus, stating that he didn't want any Council Member to feel that the issue wasn't heard or done properly. He then stated that the question had been asked up and down the dais during the deliberations of the item and a consensus was made to vote on it as a package. Council Member Arellano agreed stating that it should have been a proper motion, and though he had voted for the future allocations during the fmal vote, he didn't feel a thorough discussion had taken place on the impact of taking allocations from future years. He then asked that a proper discussion take place in the future. Council Member Velasco asked if Council Member Arellano was comfortable with the approval of the item if the Council also took his concerns into account. Council Member Arellano said he was. Motion on Item III.C. Motion was made by Council Member Velasco, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried approve Resolution 2007-68, a Resolution of the City Council establishing the build-out schedule and allocation of residential dwelling units for the 2006 RDO. 8702 Mayor Pinheiro clarified for Council Member Arellano that he always had the option to stop the Council during the deliberation of an item, and ask for discussion. Council Member Arellano agreed. IV. BIDS AND PROPOSALS A. Recommendation to award the bid for a lease agreement for a multifunction copier/printer/scanner/plotter device to San Jose Blue for the amount of$37,913.76. City Administrator Baksa presented the item. Council Member Gartman stated that the Model was a TCS500 not a TDS500. Motion on Item IV.A. Motion was made by Council Member Bracco, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried to approve the item. B. Approval to enter into contract between the City of Gilroy and Economic and Planning Systems, Inc., the consultant chosen from Request For Proposals (RFP) No. 08-RFP-HCD- 331 to prepare an Inclusionary and Housing Mitigation Fee Feasibility Study. City Administrator Baksa presented the item. Council Member Bracco asked why a consultant was needed for the study. Planner II Brisco stated that the economic feasibility study could require an AB 16 nexus study that was quite complicated and typically prepared by economic consultants along with the feasibility background analysis, which was an important part of the decision making process. Council Member Arellano asked for clarification on the in-lieu fees and mitigation fees. Planner II Brisco explained that the inclusionary ordinance and its resulting fees were land use fees or land use tools and the affordable housing fees were mitigation fees or impact fees which were issued as building permit fees and were separate by how they were established or governed. Council Member Arellano asked if a builder could pay the in-lieu fees instead of building homes. Planner II Brisco stated that they potentially could, but the economic feasibility study was needed to determine the gap between what the affordable housing owner could afford and what it would actually cost to construct the unit. The difference could be rolled into a fund and used for other affordable housing activities or the money for the entire unit could be rolled into a fund for affordable housing needs. The consultant would be doing the analysis to help determine what was best for the City to achieve its affordable housing needs. Council Member Arellano asked if the in-lieu fee was what the City wanted to do as more attainable homes should be spread through-out Gilroy and not in certain pockets. He explained that the in-lieu fees were in place developers would have a way to get out of building affordable homes. Mayor Pinheiro explained that the item was merely the study for the Council to make an informed decision. Council Member Arellano explained that if the section was left out, the money would not be needed to study it as an option Planner II Brisco explained that the Council would have the consultant come to them for specific direction before the study was done. City Administrator Baksa asked if the Housing Task Force would be reviewing it explaining that the Council would see their recommendation in about a year. Council Member Arellano explained that the decision was to spend money in certain aspects. 8703 Planner II Brisco explained that the City mayor may not spend the money based on direction from the City Council. Motion on Item IV. B. Motion was made by Council Member Correa, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried to approve the item. C. Recommendation to rescind the previously awarded bid for Custodial Services, Project No. 07-ASD-138, to Commercial Custodial Services, and award the bid for custodial services, to Pacific Maintenance Company in the amount of$159,949.00. City Administrator Baksa presented the item. Mayor Pinheiro suggested that a bid bond be presented at the time of bidding along with the surety bond requirement. Council Member Valiquette spoke on the length of the contract asking if it was for 7 months or to the 3007 expiration date as written in the staff report. Motion on Item IV. C. Motion was made by Council Member Valiquette, seconded by Council Member Arellano and carried to approve the item. D. Recommendation to award bid for seven (7) 2008 new model year Ford police interceptors vehicles, Bid No. 08-ASD-146 to Downtown Ford Sales in the amount of $162,704.08. City Administrator Baksa presented the item. Council Member Bracco asked how many patrol vehicles the City had as it seemed that the City was purchasing more. City Administrator Baksa stated that the cycle was up for many of the patrol cars. Council Member Bracco asked the City Administrator to provide him with information on the number of vehicles in the police department. Motion on Item IV.D. Motion was made by Council Member Gartman, seconded by Council Member Arellano and carried to approve the item. E. Recommendation to award bid for two (2) 2008 new model year Chevrolet Tahoe 2wd police package vehicles, bid No. 08-ASD-147 to Gilroy Chevrolet in the amount of$63, 971.60. Motion on Item IV. E. Motion was made by Council Member Gartman, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried to approve the item. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing to consider revision and adjustment of rates and charges for municipal water service to be effective January 1, 2008 and to hear protests thereto. The item was presented by City Administrator Baksa. Co-Finance Director Turner presented the staff report and spoke on the 218 process, stating that there had been 190 letters in protest received by the City Clerk. She shared the historical rate increases throughout the previous years and asked that the Council hold the public hearing. Council Member Arellano asked if a study had been done on the use of solar panels to generate the power for the electric pumps as the solar panels could pay for themselves after time. City Administrator Baksa stated that the issue of centralized pumps was key to the use of solar panels, explaining that the land availability at the individual well sites was limited. 8704 Council Member Arellano stated that he was specifically interested in the big tanks. City Administrator Baksa stated that the booster pumps were in very small locations, and were pulling tremendous amounts of electricity. He then explained that if smaller panels in those locations were an option, it would be an ideal location. Council Member Arellano asked if the water conservation fliers and low flow shower head information was still available to give out to the public with the water billings, suggesting that the City continue to share information on water conservation through mailings and the City website. City Administrator Baksa spoke on the voluntary conservation program through the water district, explaining that additional materials would be provided to the public. The public hearing was opened. There being no public comment the public hearing was closed. Council Member Valiquette spoke on rate increases for other services such as gas and electricity in comparison and explained that the increase in the City's water had been in part, induced by the Water District. He shared water rates of various other communities, explaining that the City of Gilroy was one of the cities with the lowest rates in the region and explained that the City of San Juan Bautista water rates had gone up over 50%. Motion on Item V.A. Motion was made by Council Member Valiquette and was seconded by Council Member Velasco to approve the item. Council Member Gartman stated that issues had come to light and information had been provided to him that he hadn't had enough time to properly research. He continued that the issue had to do with the water rates and money that had been in the water account. He stated that hearing from 190 citizens was 2% of the property owners, which was excellent. He then stated that he would like to be given the opportunity to investigate the claims that had been made concerning issues with the water fund and he wanted to share it with Council, after he understood it better. He asked to continue the rate increase question until the meeting of October 15th and hold a study session then or before to discuss the things that had come to light. Mayor Pinheiro asked Council Member Gartman to share the information with the rest of the Council as what he knew could give the rest of the Council an idea of why they should wait. Council Member Gartman explained that he hadn't had a chance to properly go through the information provided to him. Mayor Pinheiro asked if it was information that he had gotten. Council Member Gartman stated that it was information that was given to him. He continued by explaining that it talked about how funds were taken from the water account and used for the downtown improvements. He explained that the question raised was to the use of the water funds, which were to be used for repair and maintenance of the water system and the allegation was made that the funds were used for a redesign, which did not fall under the criteria of the water funds. He explained that he wanted to take a look at the criteria and research the allegations, which would make it easier for him to make a decision on the justification of the rate Increase. City Administrator Baksa stated that the accusations were totally false, explaining that the $1.3 million of water funds had been put into the replacement of water lines in phases 1,2 and 3, as they were very old and the Council had known and voted on the replacements. He explained that the water lines were replaced at the same time as the improvements so that future failure of the old lines would not cause the brand new improvements to be tom up. He explained that the money was in the CIB and the Council had known about it and approve it. He concluded by stating that there was nothing illegal or improper about it and making such an accusation was wrong. 8705 Council Member Gartman asked if the City Administrator had seen the allegation, stating that it was about 3 pages long. City Administrator Baksa stated that he had seen something in an email earlier in the day that was similar to what Council Member Gartman was sharing, but it was a simple comment. He then stated that there was nothing wrong with putting water replacement money into the downtown and nothing was put into the downtown improvements. Council Member Arellano spoke on the water shortage in the state sharing the need to conserve water. He explained that the local aquifers were replenished by water pumped from the Sierras sharing the need for the additional water in the valley. He stated that the plan of providing water to the valley, and the payment in relationship to other cities was not bad. He stated that conserving water was necessary for the whole area. He then stated that the allegation of misuse of the water funds had nothing to do with the water rate increase and it was being used to divert the vote. He then asked to call for the question. Council Member Velasco requested to ask a question. Withdrawal of Second on Motion on Item V.A. Council Member Velasco withdrew his second on the earlier motion. Council Member Velasco asked if postponing the item would have any affect on the item. City Administrator Baksa stated that it probably would not, though it would postpone the gear-up for the 5% increase. He then asked Council Member Gartman to provide the information. Mayor Pinheiro suggested looking into the allegations, and agreed to follow up with a study session. He then explained that the need was there for the water rate increase based on the factors presented and he believed the fair way to address the issue brought forward by Council Member Gartman was to hold a study session as suggested. Mayor Pinheiro then suggested that direction be given to staff to get the information from Council Member Gartman to get clarity on the information and setup a study session. Motion on Item V.A. Motion was made by Council Member Arellano to call for the previous question. The motion carried with a 6-1 vote (Council Member Gartman voting no). Adoption of Resolution 2007-69 approving the adjustment of water rates. Mayor Pinheiro clarified that Council Member Gartman was to provide the information to staff and work with City Administrator Baksa to set a time to get the information back to the Council in a study session or regular meeting. Council Member Arellano stated that he had heard the concern, and suggested that if Council Member Gartman wanted to investigate it and then make a formal allegation if he deemed necessary, he could. He then stated that it wasn't necessary to vote on it. City Administrator Baksa stated that if Council Member Gartman had not brought it up on TV and in front of the newspaper, it would not have been a problem, but the city would be hit with the allegations. Mayor Pihheiro shared the normal process of bringing information to the City Administrator and asking questions to get a feel for the issue, and then bringing it to Council. He then asked for a vote on the follow up. Council Member Valiquette asked to see the information before staff began working on it as Council didn't know what it was. Second Motion on Item V.A. Council Member Bracco moved that an accusation had been made and direction should be given to staff to jump on it and get to the bottom of it. The motion was seconded by Council Member Velasco. 8706 Mayor Pinheiro stated that the motion had been made to move on the allegation and get all the information and bring it back as a study session or as City Administrator Baksa thought best. Friendly Amendment to Second Motion on Item V.A An amendment was made by Council Member Valiquette that as soon as staff had the information, copies would be made for the Council. Council Members Bracco and Velasco agreed to the amendment. The motion carried with a 7-0 vote. The City Council took a 5 minute break. B. A Public Hearing for a General Plan Amendment to 1) amend the General Plan to include this area in the Downtown Expansion District, 2) to amend the Downtown Expansion District along the Tenth Street corridor to allow residential development without a commercial component (stand-alone residential), and 3) to revise allowable General Plan outdoor noise levels along the Downtown Specific Plan railroad corridor which would also make them consistent with California State and HUD guidelines, on 6.29 acres of property zoned CM (Commercial Industrial), located at 200 E. Tenth Street (old Indian Motorcycle). San Ysidro Square, applicant (c/o Tony Sudol), GPA 05-02. A Zone Change request to change the zoning designation from CM (Commercial Industrial) to DED (Downtown Expansion District), on property located at 200 E. Tenth Street (old Indian Motorcycle). San Ysidro Square, applicant (c/o Tony Sudol), Z 05-11. Council Member Bracco recused himself from deliberating on the item due to a conflict with property ownership within the area of the item. He then left the Council Chambers. The staff report was presented by Planner II Polubinsky Council Member Arellano spoke on the water discharge run-off concerns asking if there had been a response. Planner II Polubinsky stated that the concerns had been addressed in the fmal initial study, but he did not recall the exact mitigation. Council Member Arellano asked if there had been any response to the possibility of a Native American site. Planner II Polubinsky explained that letters had been sent out to the local tribes, but none of the tribes had responded back. Council Member Arellano asked if there were school concerns. Planner II Polubinsky stated that staff saw the crossings as a safe intersection. Council Member Velasco spoke on the exemption of the project from the RDO allocation process. Planner II Polubinsky explained that if approved, the project would draw from the downtown allocation through a specific plan process granted by the City Council. Council Member Velasco asked for the number of units for the downtown allocations. Planner II Polubinsky stated that the original estimate was 1500 residential units, for a 20 year period in the downtown specific plan document Council Member Velasco asked if the allocations for the proposed project would be added to the 1500 or subtracted from it. Planner II Polubinsky stated that they would come off from the 1500. Mayor Pinheiro explained that if the project was approved into the expansion district, allocations would be available to it. 8707 Planner II Polubinsky explained that they would go before the Council for their expansion district units before they started. Mayor Pinheiro stated that they would not need to go through the RDO process as they had a pool to draw from in the expansion district. He then asked if they would become a part of the specific plan. Planner II Polubinsky stated that the specific plan would need to be amended. Mayor Pinheiro asked if the project was included in the downtown specific plan process Planner II Polubinsky stated that the project would be weighed on its own merits. He then spoke on the discussions on the project location during the downtown specific plan process. Council Member Velasco asked if the 1500 was allocated to a specific section of the specific plan area. Planner II Polubinsky explained that the 1500 units were throughout the entire specific plan area. Council Member Arellano asked if the issues and concerns in the staff analysis had been responded to, asking if the traffic turn lane concerns were a concern. Planner II Polubinsky stated that it would be a fully safe intersection when the traffic and pedestrian signals were in. Senior Civil Engineer Dey shared the enhancements to circulation and additional safety in the area once the project was built. Council Member Arellano asked how the safety enhancements would take place for the turn lanes as the road was being widened, asking for a description of pedestrian enhancements. Senior Civil Engineer Dey explained that high visibility crosswalks and count down crosswalks could be put in. He then explained that the current crosswalk was not unsafe, but enhancements could be made to it if necessary. City Attorney Callon asked what type of approval the property would be receiving. Planner II Polubinsky explained that there would be an Architectural and Site approval in the future and the project would look similar to the design. He explained that if the project would need to meet the requirements of the downtown expansion district and the environmental study would need to be done. Mayor Pinheiro asked if there had been any discussion with the School District regarding a pedestrian bridge. Planner II Polubinsky stated that there had been many discussions with the School District. City Council Member Velasco spoke on the 1 st floor retail requirement in the downtown expansion district. Planner II Po1ubinsky explained that the general plan amendment request was a request to change the requirement on the Tenth Street corridor. City Council Member Velasco spoke on the Suner project asking why the 1 st floor retail requirement was not being required for the current project. Planner II Polubinsky explained that the stand alone residential use would be similar to the gateway as the Tenth Street corridor was not a pedestrian friendly retail experience. Council Member Velasco asked if the designation was correct. Planner II Polubinsky stated that it would not become an island of its own. 8708 Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the changes in the parameters, asking why the City was not reviewing the original parameters set by the specific plan committee to understand their reasoning. Planner II Polubinsky stated that it was only the property immediately adjacent to the Tenth Street corridor. He explained that it was a different way to look at Tenth Street as there was already plenty of retail in the downtown district. The Public Hearing was opened. Tony Sudol, the applicant of the project shared the history of the project, sharing his goals for the project, mitigations measures with the School District and steps he had taken in the process. Robb Mendiola, Planner for the Gilroy Unified School District, stated that the School District was in support of the project stating that the developer had agreed to the mitigation needs of the school. Mayor Pinheiro asked how the School District supported the project when other projects had been before the City and had not had School District support due to their impacts. Denise Apuzzo, Board Member of the Gilroy Unified School District spoke on the need for affordable housing in the City explaining that many teachers and other young professionals were looking for the type of housing as it was scarce. Council Member Velasco asked if the School District was concerned with busing kids to schools. Denise stated that the School District was not concerned with busing students and then spoke on the foot traffic at the movie theater and to the high school and biking across Tenth Street. Jeff Barnes, project owner north ofthe subject site shared his support of the proposal. Steve Ashford spoke in support of the project sharing the benefits of the proposal. The Public Hearing was closed Council Member Valiquette stated that the project wasn't adding to urban sprawl and shared the history of the downtown residential areas in years past with the cannery and railroad noise. He spoke on the School Districts agreement with the project Council Member Correa spoke in favor of the project explaining that the specific plan was a living document that would need to grow and change with the needs of the area. He spoke on other City planning efforts to grow retail and residential uses stating that the project made a lot of sense. Council Member Velasco stated that he had struggled with the project, but he believed it was moving in the right direction. He spoke on the timeline of the project, and the next steps in the process explaining that it would be 2-3 years down the road which would not compete with the downtown. Council Member Arellano spoke on his discussions with the developer, stating that it was a great infill project that he supported. He then spoke on using green building standards. Mayor Pinheiro asked for the time lime of the project. Planner II Polubinsky stated that it would be 3 years before the project was started. Mayor Pinheiro shared his concerns with the project as it had not been included with the specific plan for the downtown. He stated that it was very important to him that the project not take from the downtown cannery project and other units in the downtown areas. He spoke on the need to continue the partnership with the school district and the need for continued conversations on incoming projects. He then stated that the time line had helped with majority of his concerns. Motion on Item V.B. Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member Valiquette 8709 and carried (Council Member Bracco absent) to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed in compliance with CEQA, that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City, and that there is no substantial evidence that the project as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member Correa and carried (Council Member Bracco absent) to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving GPA 05-02. Motion was made by Council Member Valiquette, seconded by Council Member Arellano and carried (Council Member Bracco absent) to direct staff to prepare an ordinance approving Z 05-11. C. A Public Hearing on a zone change request to change the zoning designation from R3 (Medium Density Residential) to R3/PUD (Medium Density Residential Planned Unit Development), on property located at 570 Old Gilroy Street (old Pacheco Pass Hotel). Jose Montes, applicant (c/o M.H. Engineering, Gloria Ballard), Z 06-10. A Tentative Map request to create 7 residential lots on approximately .44 acres on property zoned R3 (Medium Density Residential) located at 570 Old Gilroy Street (old Pacheco Pass Hotel). Jose Montes, applicant (c/o M.H. Engineering, Gloria Ballard), TM 06-10. Architectural and Site-Planned Unit Development review to allow the construction of 7 new residential condominium units on property zoned R2 (Medium Density Residential), located at 570 Old Gilroy Street (old Pacheco Pass Hotel). Jose Montes, applicant (c/o M.H. Engineering, Gloria Ballard) A/S-PUD 06-37. The Council continued the item at the opening of the meeting. The Council took a 5 minute break. D. Public Hearing on a zone text amendment to zoning ordinance Sections 11.13 and 39.30, the City's accessory dwelling unit provisions. Z 07-02, the City of Gilroy applicant. The staff report was presented by Housing Planner Adams-Brisco. Council Member Velasco asked about the noticing requirements for the properties. Housing Planner Adams-Brisco stated that the CUP requirement was recommended regardless if there were neighbors concerns. The Public Hearing was opened. There being no public comments the Public Hearing was closed. Motion on Item V.D. Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried to direct staff to prepare an ordinance approving Z 07-02. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy providing for the maintenance and repair of sidewalks and the liability of adjacent property owners by adding a new Article XI entitled "Maintenance and Repair of Pubic Sidewalks"; adding a new article XII "Construction of Public Improvements" to Chapter 20 of the Gilroy City Code; and by deleting Article X, Section 20.117. (Introduction on 8/6/07 Council Member Gartman voting no and Council Members Correa and Arellano absent) The item was presented by City Administrator Baksa. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on public confusion with the ordinance regarding the liability sections and suggested that the Council consider splitting the ordinance into two separate documents, one on 8710 the proportionate liability section to pull it out and discuss it further, and the other document the sections of the ordinance that the Citizens Task Force developed. Council Member Valiquette asked if the ordinance was built based on the recommendations of the Task Force and asked how many members of the Task Force were involved. Senior Civil Engineer Dey said that it was and stated that there were 6 members. Council Member Valiquette asked if the 50/50 program would be dissolved. Senior Civil Engineer Dey stated that it would not. Council Member Valiquette asked if the City would be liable for accidents on the sidewalk. City Attorney Callon explained that the ordinance was not transferring any liability to the property owners for any damage to the sidewalks or accident caused by a city maintained tree. The determination would be made in court on the proportion of liability. Council Member Valiquette asked if damage done by a contractor doing work on a home could be held liable for damage done. City Administrator Baksa stated that the contractor would be proportionately responsible. City Attorney Callon asked if the Task Force dealt with the proportionate liability issues and gave input. Senior Civil Engineer Dey stated that they did listen to the presentation by ABAG and all of the issues surrounding sidewalks. Council Member Bracco asked if the Council had an interest in doing something about the removal of trees that were causing damage. City Administrator Baksa suggested that the Council put some thought into a prevention program. Council Member Bracco asked that it be added to the January retreat agenda. Council Member Arellano spoke on planting strips and types of trees that caused damage. He then asked how the Mayor was proposing the division of the ordinance as he too had difficulty clarifying the ordinance for people. Mayor Pinheiro asked that the remainder of the ordinance stay in tact and the proportional liability section be addressed separately to clarify the misunderstanding. Council Member Arellano spoke on the City's designation as "Tree City" stating that the Council had wanted to maintain the designation. Council Member Velasco asked how the City would go forward with the rest of the ordinance removing the liability section removed. Mayor Pinheiro stated that it would need to come back as a new ordinance. City Attorney Callon spoke on the state law sections and the additional City provisions. City Administrator Baksa asked why the state law sections were included in the ordinance. City Attorney Callon stated that she was not sure and would research it. Council Member Arellano spoke on adding language for the state law sections. Public Comment was opened. Walter Shinky spoke on the reflection of the state code sections in the ordinance and stated that 8711 the City was liable for trips and falls and suggested that the City go by the state codes for repair. He then shared ADA issues on the City sidewalks explaining that he had been working with the City for many years on compliance and the City was still not compliant. He the spoke on the problems with the sidewalk crosswalks for the visually impaired, stating that they were not up to code. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the City Council at the last summit had given direction to staff to begin to mitigate the issue. Mr. Shinky stated that the City should work with someone who was hearing or sight impaired to comply with the ADA requirements. Council Member Arellano spoke on splitting the ordinance stating that the issue of liability would be revisited. Council Member Valiquette asked for clarification of the liability sections. Mayor Pinheiro stated that outreach would be done with the community on the liability and everything else would stay in tact. Council Member Gartman spoke on the new section on curb and gutter and hardscape of the ordinance stating that the section should be looked at as well as the homeowner was being asked to pay for 50% of the repair. Mayor Pinheiro asked if it was new section added to the ordinance stating that he had believed that the curb and gutter had always been in the ordinance. Senior Civil Engineer Dey explained that the 50/50 program included the repair of tree root damage to curb and gutter and had always been in the ordinance. Council Member Gartman stated that it was highlighted now and he now realized that the sidewalk fund was to paying for sidewalks, curb and gutter stating that he was surprised to see the section as it he believed it had nothing to do with the property owner and asked that it be removed. Council Member Arellano stated that he did believe it had a lot to do with the homeowner and the trees were an amenity that was a benefit to the property owner. City Administrator Baksa stated that there were two issues; one was curb and gutter damage done by trees with the liability to the City and the other issue was the maintenance, explaining that if both were repaired at the same time it would become a shared responsibility. He explained that if the section on curb and gutter was removed, it would lessen the liability. Motion on Item VI.A. Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member Bracco and carried to bring the ordinance back forward after staff cleans up some of the language, leaving in tact the sections of the ordinance recommended by the citizens committee, pulling out the sections on liability and having staff research the state code sections and brining them back for a separate discussion. B. A Resolution approving Architectural & Site Plan Review for eight (8) residential condominiums in a three-story mixed use building, as Downtown Specific Plan Exemption units. Request for the demolition of two (2) URM buildings in the Downtown Historic District, located at 7517 and 7525 Monterey Street. Akshar LLC, c/o Jeffrey King, DSPE 07-01/AlS 07-18 (on 8/6/07 Agenda, Council Members Arellano and Correa absent) City Attorney Callon explained that there was an additional resolution that had not been included in the original Council packet, but was part of the item to be considered. She suggested that the Council make the motion to add the resolution to the agenda as a matter that did not make it to the agenda and was an immediate need. Council Member Velasco suggested agendizing the item at the next meeting if there was no urgency. 8712 Mayor Pinheiro stated that he did not see it as a problem to hear the item as it was just a typo and was part ofthe same project and the project did have a time line. Council Member Arellano stated that it was cleaner to set it for the next meeting. Motion to Continue Item VI.B Motion was made by Council Member Gartman, seconded by Council Member Arellano and carried to continue the item to the October 1, 2007 meeting. C. A Resolution approving Architectural & Site-Planned Unit Development review to construct a recreational vehicle sales office and display area on a property zoned CM-PUD (commercial industrial planned unit development), located at 5990 Travel Park Circle, Lance McAlpine, c/o Jeffrey King. A/S PUD 06-52. (on 8/6/07 Agenda, Council Members Arellano and Correa absent) The item was presented by City Administrator Baksa. Motion on Item VI.C. Motion was made by Council Member Bracco, seconded by Council Member Gartman and carried to adopt Resolution 2007-70, Architectural & Site-Planned Unit Development review to construct a recreational vehicle sales office and display area on a property zoned CM-PUD (commercial industrial planned unit development), located at 5990 Travel Park Circle, Lance McAlpine, c/o Jeffrey King. A/S PUD 06-52. VII. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS A. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Amending Gilroy City Code Section 7.4.1, Modifying the Boundaries of the zero fee area (as defined by exhibit "A") and providing that certain fees and costs charged to development projects in the zero fee area are eliminated until December 31, 2008. (Continued from 8/6/07 City Council Meeting) The staff report was presented by Community Development Directory Rooney. Mayor Pinheiro asked what projects in the process meant. Community Development Director Rooney stated that a planning application would need to be on file. Motion on Item VII. A. Motion was made by Council Member Correa, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading of the ordinance. City Clerk Freels stated that the Mayor had read the ordinance title at the introduction of the item. Motion was made by Council Member Correa, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried (Council Member Gartman voting no) to introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Amending Gilroy City Code Section 7.4.1, Modifying the Boundaries of the zero fee area (as defmed by exhibit "A") and providing that certain fees and costs charged to development projects in the zero fee area are eliminated until December 31, 2008. B. Appointment of Youth Commission Members. The Council discussed the applicants and gave their recommendations for appointment. City Clerk Freels asked if the Council wanted to determine the terms of office as there were 2 openings of 1 year terms. The Council agreed to have the seniors take the unexpired 1 year terms. Motion on Item VII.B. Motion was made by Council Member Gartman, seconded by Council Member Correa to 8713 appoint Stephanie Castillo, Rachele Caserza, Weilan Cui, Joel Gray, Daniel Monroe, Jasmine Ross and Rachel Tenney as new members to the Youth Commission VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS City Administrator Baksa stated that the South Valley Disposal Study Session had been cancelled and the sub-committee for the City Administrator recruitment would be meet at 6:00 p.m. instead. IX. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS There was no report. x. CITY CLERK'S REPORTS City Clerk Freels provided the City Council with draft Meeting Notes of July 30, 2007 City Council Study Session and notes of July 20, 2007 City Council Policy Summit for direction on summary style. She then shared the Report of upcoming vacancies on the Art's and Culture Commission, Library Commission, Personnel Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, Building Board of Appeals, Physically Challenged Board of Appeals, Bicycle/ Pedestrian Advisory Board, Historic Heritage Committee and Housing Advisory Committee. City Administrator Baksa reminded the Council that interviews for board and commission seats were scheduled for December 10th. The Council gave direction to advertise for the open positions and work with the media with a deadline for applications of November 30,2007. XI. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Arellano suggested that Council discuss the powers duties of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board at the next policy summit. Council Member Gartman stated that he had heard nothing but positive comments on the City staff from Cal Fire during the fire and thanked the local businesses for their contributions. Council Member Velasco asked if the financial plan presentation was scheduled the following Monday. He then asked when the Council would be hearing the Gap Closure Plan. City Administrator Baksa stated that it was not ready for Council yet. Council Member Velasco then spoke on grouping all general plan amendments as one item Council Member Arellano stated that all of the sessions on the Westfield project were off-line and he would prefer to have them come before the Council in public discussions. City Administrator Baksa stated that it would be a good retreat item. Council Member Velasco stated that he felt comfortable bringing it to the policy summit. XII. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Pinheiro explained that the October 26th mini-retreat was scheduled close to the November 61th election and he felt it would be better to reschedule to when the new Council was in place. The Council agreed to cancel it until January. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the September 24th Study Session had been cancelled and then invited the Council and the public to the upcoming transparency Budget Sessions and offered to bring the session to public forums if anyone in the public was interested. The Council adjourned into closed session. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 ,... .."CO"_"',:;.... '.-., ..".,'l.,......".c' ,.OJ.: ',;",,,;,,,;,;"'~"~''''''''';,~;;~:;>';-,,,, '"'~''--'>''~:'" , 8714 Property: 251 Old Gilroy Street (APN: 841-08-033) Agency Negotiators: Jay Baksa and Anna Jatczak Negotiating Parties: Robert L. Fellom & Carol Fellom Matter Under Negotiation: Acquisition price and terms. There were no closed session announcements. The Council adjourned at 11 :30 p.m. to the meeting of October 1, 2007 I. '