Loading...
Minutes 2008/04/07 8817 City of Gilroy City Council Minutes Monday. April 7. 2008 REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M. I. OPENING A. Call to Order at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Pinheiro led the Pledge of Allegiance. Father Dan Derry of Saint Mary Catholic Church gave the Invocation. City Clerk Freels reported that the agenda had been posted at 12:00 p.m. on April 2, 2008. Roll Call Present: Council Member Peter Arellano, Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Bob Dillon, Council Member Craig Gartman, Council Member Cat Tucker, Council Member Perry Woodward and Mayor AI Pinheiro B. Orders of the Day There were no changes to the agenda. C. Ceremonial Items Interim City Administrator Anna Jatczak introduced Police Chief Denise Turner. Mayor Pinheiro welcomed Chief Turner and administrated her oath of office. D. Introduction of New Employees Human Resources Director McPhillips introduced Tina Becerra, Human Resources Technician Fire Chief Foster introduced Jennifer Baker, Fire Department Secretary E. Presentations & Proclamations Mayor Pinheiro presented the of Employee of the Month Award for April, 2008 to Sandra Nava Mayor Pinheiro read the proclamation declaring April 25, 2008 as Arbor Day. Mayor Pinheiro presented the proclamation declaring April, 2008 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month to Perela Flores of Community Solutions. II. PUBLIC COMMENT A. BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA, BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MA TIER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. Maria Elena DeLa Garza spoke on the new facility opened by MACSA. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approyal of Minutes of March 3, 2008 and March 17,2008 Regular Meetings B. Claim of Alfredo Flores (Interim City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of claims) c. Claim of Caroline Martinez (Interim City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of claims) 8818 D. Approval of a Deferred Improvement Agreement No. 2008-01 with S & P Properties, LLC for Utility Undergrounding at 7711 Monterey Street, APN 799-03-055 E. Adoption of a Resolution 2008-11 opposing the Governor's 2008/2009 budget proposal and urging the Legislature to discuss all possibilities and revenue sources F. Adoption of an Amended Resolution 2008-10 Authorizing the Interim City Administrator or City Administrator to Apply for CalHFA Residential Development Loan Program Funds and to Execute Related Agreements Motion on Consent Agenda Motion was made by Council Member Dillon, seconded by Council Member Woodward and carried to approve the consent agenda. IV. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS A. Appointment of Tomas Haglund as City Administrator, Approval and Execution of Employment Agreement Motion on Item IV. A. Motion was made by Council Member Dillon, seconded by Council Member Bracco and carried to appoint Thomas Haglund as City Administrator and to approve his employment agreement. Mayor Pinheiro welcomed incoming City Administrator Haglund to the City. Mayor Pinheiro and Thomas Haglund executed his employment agreement. Incoming City Administrator Haglund thanked the City Council, the community and staff for the opportunity to serve as the City Administrator. Council Member Dillon thanked the Council sub-committee for their work with the recruitment. Council Member Gartman asked if the Council could hold a study session with incoming City Administrator Haglund before his start date. Mayor Pinheiro stated that staff could work on setting up a study session. V. BIDS AND PROPOSALS A. Approval of Contract in the amount of $78, 030 with RBF Consulting for the Preparation of the Housing Element Revision Interim City Administrator Jatczak presented the staff report. Council Member Bracco asked why a consultant needed to be appointed. Interim City Administrator Jatczak stated that the expertise needed for the preparation of the document was outside of the staff resources in-house. Motion on Item V.A. Motion was made by Council Member Dillon, seconded by Council Member Tucker and carried to approve the contract. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing to Review the Proposed 2008 Program Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Public Services Funding Allocations The staff report was presented by Housing and Community Development Director Roaf. Denise Apuzzo, Chair of the Citizens Advisory Committee shared the process the committee went through with the applications for the funding and spoke in detail on the Chamberlin's program which served an un-met need in the school 8819 The public hearing was opened. Eleanor Villereal of Rebecca Children's Services spoke on their application for funding thanking the City. Amy Carlson of Care Giver serves of Santa Clara County spoke on their application for funding thanking the City. Cheryl Huguenor of Live Oak Adult Day Care Services spoke on their application for funding and thanked the City. Mayor Pinheiro thanked Ms. Huguenor for the services the facility provided to the community. Council Member Dillon also thanked Ms. Huguenor for the services provided. Perela Flores of Community Solutions spoke on their application for funding and thanked the City Council. The public hearing was closed. Council Member Dillon commended the committee and staff for the work they performed on the recommendations. Council Member Bracco thanked the committee stating that they had done the best job with recommendations that he had seen. Council Member Arellano thanked that committee for their work on the recommendations. Motion on Item VI.A. Motion was made by Council Member Dillon, seconded by Council to Adopt/Modify Staff Recommendations and to Continue the Public Hearing to the May 5,2008 Regular Meeting to Consider Adoption of the 2008 Program Year CDBG Funding Allocations B. Consideration of the Approval of a Tentatiye Map Request to Subdivide a Three (3) Acre Parcel into 86,770 Square Feet Industrial Storage Lots and one Common area Lot of 64,462 Square Feet located at 6805 Silacci Way, APN 841-70-024, TM 07-09, PSC Development LLC (c/o Todd Zema) The staff report was presented by Planner II Mcintyre. Council Member Arellano asked what the industrial storage lots could contain. Planner II Mcintyre stated that boats, RV's and boat storage. Council Member Arellano asked if they would be covered. Planner II Mcintyre stated that they would be enclosed in storage buildings. Council Member Arellano spoke on the infilllanguage in the staff report asking how the project could have no habitat value. Planner II Mcintyre agreed stating that it had no protected CEQA habitat value. Council Member Arellano spoke on the mitigation measures stating that there were measures that were mitigated the impacts. Planner II Mcintyre stated that the design layout mitigated the visual impacts. City Attorney Callon spoke on the requirements of CEQA stating that it would be best to state that there were no significant enyironmental impacts. Council Member Tucker spoke on the term in-fill asking why the site was determined as infill. B820 Planner II Mcintyre shared the surrounding shopping center areas explaining that there was also industrial in the surrounding area. She explained that the areas were all developing because of the infrastructure in place. The public hearing was opened There being no comment, the public hearing was closed. Motion on Item VI.B. Motion was made by Council Member Bracco, seconded by Council Member Arellano and carried to Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution Approving TM 07-09 Council Member Arellano asked if the change to the environmental impacts would be made. Mayor Pinheiro stated that staff would make the change. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Tentative Map Request for a Fourteen Parcel Industrial Subdivision located Between Forest Street and Murray Avenue (South of Kishimura Street) APN 835-01-059, Forest Street Industrial Subdivision/Desmond Melia, c/o V. Sulic. TM 07-10 [Public Hearing held 2/25/08, item continued to March 3, 2008 with a 6-1 vote (Council Member Dillon voting no), continued from March 3, 2008 with a 5-1-1 vote (Council Member Woodward voting no, Council Member Tucker absent] The staff report was presented by Planning Manager Faus. Traffic Engineer Dey spoke on the need for a traffic study stating that during the Planning Commission hearings, the residents in the area had spoken on the inability to gain access into the industrial area, which was a city standard trigger for a traffic study. He explained that if a development estimated 100 trips or more, then the standard was to conduct a traffic study. He then spoke on the neighborhood concerns about the change of the General Plan circulation element and the possible changes to Murray and Forrest explaining that it was also a need for a traffic study. Council Member Bracco asked how the number of trips was determined for a project that had not been designed yet. Engineer Dey explained that the zoning as industrial was used to determine the trip generation rates, similar to other areas of the City. Council Member Dillon stated that the residents had been concerned about the traffic on Murray so the applicant had redesigned the roadway but the traffic study was still being required. Engineer Dey agreed that the residents had desired to change the traffic circulation, explaining that the change to the roadway network had caused a change to how the general plan had been analyzed when it was adopted. Council Member Dillon stated that the resident's chief complaint was the traffic on Murray and the traffic study was still being requested. Engineer Dey explained that there was still traffic going out to Murray and he didn't know how the shift in traffic would impact the circulation in the area. Council Member Tucker asked how the project was the triggering effect, asking how the City would address the traffic concerns if there was no project attached to the request. Engineer Dey stated that an updated traffic study would need to take place if there was a request from the residents. Council Member Tucker spoke on a letter received by the applicants attorney, asking if those concerns could be addressed later. 8821 Council Member Woodward spoke on the creation of the cul-de-sac asking if it was precedence setting, which caused the traffic study. Engineer Dey agreed sharing the residents concerns. Council Member Woodward asked if the traffic study was being triggered because of the change of the traffic from Murray. Engineer Dey spoke on the blocking of driveway access onto Murray explaining that the request for the cul-de-sac was the first and would need to be accessed for possible impacts. Council Member Woodward asked if the traffic study would be needed if there was no precedence being set. Engineer Dey stated that the neighborhood concern also triggered the study. Council Member Woodward asked if the concerns raised in the letter from the applicant's attorney could be addressed. Council Member Arellano asked if the traffic study could be done separate from the specific project. Engineer Dey agreed. Council Member Arellano spoke on studying the impacts of the change in traffic. Council Member Gartman asked if a traffic study would be necessary if a large industrial building were built with egress and access from Forrest. Engineer Dey stated that it would not and explained that the concerns raised by the residents had included the setting of precedence. Council Member Gartman asked if the residents concerns were the only trigger for the study. Engineer Dey stated that the request for no access to Murray had generated the trigger. Council Member Gartman stated that the street did not show up on the General Plan map. Engineer Dey stated that it was a local street and the General Plan would only show collector streets. Council Member Gartman spoke on the requesting of a traffic study in the future if there was further concern about traffic as developments occurred. Engineer Dey agreed stating that there were certain steps when there were concerns. Council Member Gartman asked if it were a State requirement. Engineer Dey stated that it was an internal policy. Council Member Gartman stated that the impacts on the neighbors triggered the traffic study. Engineer Dey agreed. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on addressing the area and possible impacts to the neighborhood stating that the cul-de-sac had been originally presented in the plan and after staff review, the applicant had redesigned the plan omitting the cul-de-sac. Engineer Dey agreed. Mayor Pinheiro asked if the neighborhood concerns had caused the applicant to design the cul-de-sac. 8822 Engineer Dey stated that he believed that the site plan and engineering review had caused the change. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on taking the time for the traffic study to give the project a full review speaking on the other un-developed lots in the area. He then asked that Council have full review of the study explaining that there were no time constraints. He then asked Engineer Dey how long it would take for the traffic study. Engineer Dey stated that it would take 2 months. Council Member Tucker asked Engineer Dey to expand on the concerns raised in the letter from the applicants attorney. Engineer Dey stated that he had talked with the attorney and they had disagreed about the 100 peak hour trips trigger. He explained that he believed that there was still some work to be done and the possible impacts to the area. Public Comment was opened. Vladirmir Solie, Engineer of the project, spoke on the application timing and information in the staff reports regarding traffic impacts. He spoke on the meetings with the residents and redesign following the last Council meeting. He spoke on the traffic study with the General Plan and quantity of trips allowed per day on both Forrest and Murray Streets. He spoke on the generated traffic with the redesign and the land use designation of the area asking how further developments would be served. He then asked the Council to approve the project as presented with the cul-de-sac as they were in compliance with both state law and the City land use designation asking that the condition be added in the approval for a portion of a future traffic study. Mayor Pinheiro asked why the project had been redesigned from the cul-de-sac. Mr. Solie stated that the terrain of the area had an impact on the design and then spoke on the discussions with staff on the long cul-de-sac and unacceptable issues. He then stated that he did not believe the property owner should be responsible for Hope and building their loading doc. Public comment was closed. Council Member Arellano asked what options the City had with approvals stating that the Council had the choice to make the decision or not explaining that the Council was not obligated to approve the project. City Attorney Callon stated that there was a State law for subdivision maps which required for a decision to be made within a certain amount of time. She explained that issues with environmental review had put into question if the original review was complete and the changes made by the applicant started the clock running. She then explained that the Council had the ability to weigh the information provided and to determine what action to take. Council Member Arellano spoke on the issues brought forth by the traffic engineer stating that it was a community concern that could not be ignored. He the spoke on the redesign based on the community concerns explaining that the impacts of traffic should be looked at. He stated that the traffic study could be done for the whole area outside of the approval of the project explaining that it was not a significant enough project to make a big impact. He spoke on mitigating the traffic concerns explaining that the applicant had done quite a bit, but he did want a full traffic study in the area to see what needed to be done for future projects. Motion on Item VII.A. Motion was made by Council Member Woodward, seconded by Council Member Dillon to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving TM 07-10. Planning Manager Faus recommended that the Council continue to item to allow staff the opportunity to develop a set of conditions for the new map. He explained that the direction to staff at the previous meeting was to look at the revised map for 30 days, 8823 which did not allow enough time for staff to develop a set of conditions for the revised map. Council Member Woodward asked if the item was agendized to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving/modifying or denying the project. City Attorney Callon stated that the list of conditions would return at the following meeting with the resolution asking if staff had enough time to prepare them. Planning Manager Faus stated that they could produce them by the next meeting. Council Member Gartman stated that the staff report stated that there were conditions for the map. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the Staff report was for the previous map. Council Member Gartman asked if the conditions were for the previous map. Planning Manager Faus stated that some of the conditions would apply to the new map but others would change. Council Member Gartman spoke on the staff 4 week review of the map asking if there was no intention to offer the Council the opportunity to approve the project as a complete package. Planning Manager Faus stated that there would be a requirement for improvement drawings but staff did not bring the item to that point. Council Member Woodward asked Planning Manger Faus to bring future items before the Council so that they could approve them. Council Member Tucker asked if there would be any impacts on the applicant as he may expect the item to be approved. Mayor Pinheiro stated that a set of conditions would be provided at the adoption of the resolution at the following meeting. He then explained that staff was merely going to analyze the new map. Council Member Tucker asked for clarification on the motion on the table. Council Member Woodward stated that the motion was for approval as presented. City Attorney Callon explained that the motion was to direct staff to prepare a resolution for approval. Council Member Woodward asked if Council Member Tucker was asking for an amendment to the motion. Council Member Tucker asked if the traffic study was included in the motion. Council Member Woodward stated that it did not. Council Member Tucker stated that she did not believe the applicant should be responsible for the full weight of the traffic study. City Attorney Callon stated that because there was a concern raised in the public hearing and by the residents, she did believe the traffic study could be added as a condition. Council Member Tucker asked if an amendment to the motion could be made that a percentage of a future traffic study be paid by the applicant. Council Member Arellano asked how the payment of the traffic study could be shared among the property owners in the future. 8824 Engineer Dey stated that he was not sure how it could take place explaining that a study of vacant lands could be done and the proportions be established. He then asked that the upfront payment should take place. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the payment of impact fees stating that the applicant would be reimbursed as with other construction. Council Member Tucker stated that she didn't believe the applicant should be required to do a traffic study at all. Council Member Woodward reiterated his motion stating that his motion was to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving TM 07-10 Council Member Arellano spoke on the reimbursement to the applicant for fees paid for a traffic study explaining that there was a trigger that caused for the traffic study to take place. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the General Plan process and lack of a voice from the neighborhood stating that the applicant had other approvals in the area and was piece- mailing the development of the area. He explained that there was an opportunity to make a decision for the area stating that the traffic study needed to be dealt with. Council Member Gartman asked how the roadway network had been designed for the business park during the General Plan process. Engineer Dey stated that he had not been on staff but he believed the full General Plan analysis determined the roadway network, not the business park itself. Council Member Gartman asked if the study had been done in 2001/2002 Engineer Dey agreed. Council Member Gartman stated that there were a number of businesses that had been designed in the area explaining that there was no trigger for a traffic study for the project before the Council. He explained that there had been a request by the neighborhood residents that the redesign take place and the request had been fulfilled stating that all of the conditions had been met and there was no need for a new requirement at the last minute. He stated that it had been a 6 month process and the Council's responsibility was to follow the same rules set for the applicant. He stated that he did not believe a traffic study needed to take place as the current traffic study was only 6-7 years old. Council Member Arellano stated that the responsibility was to the community as a whole stating that the residents had expressed their concerns with traffic stating that there was a trigger set by the residents concerns. City Attorney Callon stated that the traffic study would need to take place before the approval of the project as there had been a nexus established between the approyal of the particular project and the traffic. She stated that there were two options, but the Council could not require that a prepayment of the fees for the study. Council Member Tucker stated that the particular project did not warrant the traffic study explaining that the city's responsibility for a traffic study should not be paid by the applicant. Continued Motion on Item VilA. The motion carried (Council Members Arellano, Bracco and Pinheiro voting no) to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving TM 07-10 Mr. Solie provided the Council with a mapping of roadways provided to the residents in the area. City Attorney Callon asked if the vote included the responsibility for the applicant to participate in the traffic study. Mayor Pinheiro stated that it did not. 8825 B. Tentative Map Request to Convert 104 Apartment Dwelling Units into 104 Condominium Units on Property Zoned R3, located at 766 first Street (Mission Park Apartments) APN 808-13-001 & 007, Vasona Redwoods Inc., c/o Terry Maas. TM 07 -03. (Public Hearing held January 22, 2008, item continued from February 25, 2008 and March 17,2008 Regular Meetings) The staff report was presented by Planner II Durkin. She then asked that an update to the policy take place to include establishing the number of units developed in a specific time period, amenities and architectural and site reviews for the conversions. Council Member Arellano spoke on the number of rental units asking how the 5% rate had been developed. Planner" Durkin stated that the policy was set 25 years before. Council Member Arellano stated that a better number should be looked at. Public Comment was opened. Terry Maas, the applicant spoke on the balance in the community and explained that regardless of rental vs. ownership, the conversions would fill the affordable housing needs of the community. He then shared the deyelopment of rentals vs. conversions throughout the years. Council Member Arellano asked that staff review the number of rental units in each school boundary area stating that it be taken into consideration speaking on the school performance in various areas. Motion on Item VII.B. Motion was made by Council Member Dillon, seconded by Council Member Woodward to Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution Approving TM 07-03 Council Member Arellano asked for a friendly amendment to have staff look at the number of vacancies and number of apartments and affordability in each school area. Mayor Pinheiro stated that there were two issues being addressed explaining that the policy was a different issue to the items Council Member Arellano was requesting. Council Member Arellano stated that there were other concerns that could be addressed within the policy. Mayor Pinheiro stated that there needed to be items the applicant could take and check mark that they had met as items that were expected of them. Council Member Arellano stated that he thought it could be an item that could be check marked. Council Member Dillon stated that he did not want to add the friendly amendment as it was a separate request. Continued Motion on Item VII.B. The motion carried (Council Member Gartman voting no) to Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution Approving TM 07-03 Mayor Pinheiro stated that staff could bring back the information that addressed the information Council Member Arellano was requesting. Council Member Bracco stated that the issue of the apartment conversion was a service to allow those homes to be purchased. Council Member Woodward suggested that Council Member Arellano speak with staff to identify addressing his concerns. Council Member Arellano stated that the people who were renting the apartments might not be able to purchase them as condominiums stating that the policy of the Council was to go forward if it was a majority of the Council that was in support of the concept. 8826 Motion to Bring Back the Conversion Policy Motion was made by Mayor Pinheiro, seconded by Council Member Bracco and carried to follow staff's recommendation to look into the changes to the policy. VIII. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS A. Architectural and Site Approval to Demolish an Existing 1-Story Unreinforced Masonry Building located at 7515 Monterey Street, North of Fifth Street intersection, APN 799-06-053, Richard Chavarria, AS 08-09 Council Member Woodward recused himself explaining that he owned property within 500 feet of the project site. He then left the Council Chambers. The staff report was presented by Planner II Mcintyre. Council Member Dillon asked how the building would be demolished. Steve Ashford stated that there were several of the buildings being demolished which had common walls and would come down together. Motion on Item VIII.A. Motion was made by Council Member Dillon, seconded by Council Member Tucker and carried (Council Members Gartman and Woodward absent) to Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution Approving AS 08-09 IX. INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS Interim City Administrator Jatczak shared the Granicus video streaming use by the Gilroy Dispatch X. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS XI. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Dillon welcomed Mayor Pinheiro back from his vacation. Council Member Tucker asked when the Cultural Arts Center item would be brought back to Council Interim City Administrator Jatczak stated that the committee would be meeting on April 26th and the study session topic would be addressed by the Mayor. Council Member Tucker asked to agendize the Assembly Bill 346 on alcopops. Mayor Pinheiro stated that it would be placed on the next agenda. XII. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Pinheiro thanks Mayor Pro Tern Dillon for sitting in for him during his absence. A. Set Date for Council Study Session on Work Plan Prioritization Mayor Pinheiro asked the Council to work together to determine when the study sessions would take place. Council Member Bracco stated that in the past the Mayor would set the schedule and the Council would be responsible for attending them. Council Member Woodward stated that there had been a 3 week hiatus and there may be times that the Council would need to meet in the Mayor's absence. Council Member Bracco stated that it had taken place in the past. Council Member Tucker stated that the full Council would need to be in attendance at the prioritization of topics. 8827 Council Member Arellano stated that the calendar could be set for the future but advance notification was necessary. He then stated that some meetings were higher priority than others explaining that it was usually taken care of at the summit and not carried forward into the year. He then stated that the normal process of study sessions on Mondays had worked in the past. Mayor Pinheiro stated that he was at City Hall just about every day of the week and the Mayor had his own businesses as well. He explained that his schedule was set many months in advance and just as other Council Members businesses take them away, his would and he always gave enough notice. He then asked the Council to work together. Council Member Bracco agreed stating that he would be gone for 2 weeks but he had confidence in his colleagues that they would take care of business in his absence. Mayor Pinheiro agreed stating that the prioritization needed to take place. Council Member Arellano stated that he was not begrudging Mayor Pinheiro for taking his time off as everyone needed to. Council Member Tucker asked if everyone was comfortable with meeting on Saturdays, especially for the prioritization workshop. Mayor Pinheiro asked the Council to send him an email on their availability on Saturdays. He then asked Council to be sensitive to other Council Members calendars XIII. ADJOURNMENT at 9:50 p.m. i\ J ,Ii ~ \.~ lQc 'J... s~wn$r,eeIS. Me City Clerk