Minutes 2008/11/03
.
CITY OF GILROY
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MONDAY. NOVEMBER 3. 2008
I. OPENING
Mayor Pinheiro called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. and led the Pledge of
Pledge of Allegiance.
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
Mayor Pinheiro announced that item 1I1.A., the approval of the minutes of
October 20,2008, would be pulled from the consent agenda.
8950
Motion on Item loB.
Motion was made by Council Member Tucker, seconded by Council
Member Bracco and carried to remove the item from the consent agenda.
D. Proclamations, Awards and Presentations
Mayor Pinheiro read the Proclamation Naming November, 2008 as "Who named
America Youth Education Month".
II. PRESENTATIONS TO COUNCIL
A. PUBLIC COMMENT 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 on items not on the agenda.
B. Annual Presentation of the Public Art Committee
The annual report of the Public Art Committee was presented by Public Art
Committee Chairperson Shirley Willard.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
B. Open Recruitment Period for City Boards, Committees and
Commissions with Member Terms Expiring December 31, 2008
C. Approval of Notice of Acceptance of Completion, Tract No.: 9812, Gage
Court, West Side of Thomas, North of Santa Teresa Blvd. , APN 808-20-
003, Masoni Vineyard
D. Approval of Notice of Acceptance of Completion, Tract No.:
9852,Painter Court at kern Avenue, North of Mantelli Drive, APN 790-
01-060, North Point
E. Approval of Deferred Improvement Agreement No. 2008-03, 923
Holloway Road, APN 841-70-004, Cintas Corporation
Motion on the Consent Agenda
Motion was made by Council Member Tucker, seconded by Council Member
Bracco and carried to approve consent agenda Items III. B through III. E.
IV. BIDS AND PROPOSALS - None
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Resolution Approving a Small Project Exemption for Eleven (11)
Single-Family Residential Units on a 1.95 Acre Site Zoned R2/PUD
located at 9060 and 9070 Kern Avenue, APN's 790-18-015 & 017, PaCific
States Development c/o Joe Burch, SPE 08-01
.. .~. .
Motion on Item VI.A.
Motion was made by Council llfember Di...., seconded by Council Member
Arellano and carr~., (Council Member Gartman voting no) to Adopt
Resolution 2008-47 ~ving SPE 08-01.
8951
B. Resolution Approving a Downtown Small Project Exemption for 196
For-sale Market-rate Residential Condominiums and Townhouses in
Three and Four-story Buildings on a Property Zoned Downtown
Expansion District, Located at 200 E. Tenth Street, APN's 841-16-004 &
061, DSPE 08-03, ACS Ventures, c/o Tony Sudol (Item Heard 10/20/08
with an Affirmative Vote)
Council Member Bracco recused himself and left the dais.
Motion on Item VI.B.
Motion was made by Council Member Dillon, seconded by Council Member
Arellano and carried (Council Member Bracco absent) to adopt Resolution
2008-48 approving DSPE 08-03.
VII. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
A. Consideration of the Approval of the Hecker Pass Public Park
Conceptual Plan
The staff report was presented by Community Services Director Andrade-Wax.
Council member Tucker asked how large the park would be.
Community Services Director Andrade-Wax stated that it was three (3) acres
and she then shared the process of revue by the committee of the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
Council Member Tucker asked if plan A was chosen by the committee and then
asked how close the entrance the park was to Village Green.
Community Services Director Andrade-Wax shared the committee revue and
then stated that it was quite a walk and explained that the facility did not have
restrooms. She then spoke on parking stating that there were 4-6 spaces on
each side for parking.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the number of residents that would be using the site
sharing the distance to walk to the park and the lack of sufficient parking.
Community Services Director Andrade-Wax stated that the park was presented
as a park to walk to from the neighborhood community.
Mayor Pinheiro asked if the size of the park had been negotiated as part of the
Hecker Pass Development agreement stating that there wasn't enough area
designated for parking.
Council Member Arellano spoke on the round abouts in the area stating that it
was still walk-able and people had the option to walk and then leave if they
chose to. He then spoke in opposition to giving up the grass areas in place of
parking.
Community Services Director Andrade-Wax stated that the parking spaces and
the round abouts were suggested because of the issue of walking distance.
Council Member Tucker asked for an idea of another park of the same size in
the City.
Community Services Director Andrade-Wax stated that rainbow park was the
same size.
.8952
Council Member Gartman asked if the traffic calming was intended for people to
walk and cross the street, explaining that there were no stop signs in a round
about.
City Engineer Smelser stated that with further study of traffic, the determination
was made to remove the round abouts so that stop control could be put in.
Council Member Gartman spoke on the traffic issue on Hirosaki.
Mayor Pinheiro asked if all of the round abouts had been taken out explaining
that the intent was to show the community that round abouts do work. He then
asked why the option was not going forward.
City Engineer Smelser explained that it had to do with the pedestrian control
explaining that consistency with traffic control was important for safety. He spoke
on the size of the area explaining that the initial proposal did not require the
round abouts stating that stop control was the safest for the specific location.
Mayor Pinheiro then spoke on the committee discussions about the use of round
abouts.
Public Comment was opened.
Cathleen Clark spoke as the Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission
sharing issues with the proposal of the dog park concept. She spoke on the
elements of the dog park concept and requested that information be put together
to educate the commission and the public for future dog park proposals.
Mayor Pinheiro asked if the Parks and Recreation Commission had needed
additional information to make their decision.
Ms. Clark stated that they did, explaining that she felt that she was in the dark
when working on the concept. She then stated that they had approved the plan
and then spoke on the Las Animas dog park design stating that the decision to
put in a chain link fence had taken place. She then spoke on the black fencing
recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission and the use of
crushed granite stating that consistency or a standard should be put in all the
parks.
Council Member Gartman asked if she was requesting that the item go back to
the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Ms. Clark stated that she was suggesting that the Commission do further review
and conduct a study on dog parks.
Council Member Arellano asked if she was suggesting that the Council direct the
Commission to do a study speaking in favor of the concept. He then explained
that as the Chair of the commission, she could make such a recommendation.
Council Member Tucker stated that she thought the Commission's job was to do
what they thought needed to be done. She then asked that the Commission do
research as members of the commission and without the use of staff time.
"\l'l\'\"'~,~
Mayor Pinheiro asked if the Commission had reviewed any material on dog
parks.
Community Serv~ Director Andrade-Wax spoke on the steps taken sharing the
interim suggestionJor a dog park on the project site. She explained that the
proposal was far beyond budget and the park amenities such as chairs and
benches and the change in the fencing material were changed to stay within the
8953
budget. She explained that at the time it was a capital project.
Mayor Pinheiro asked when the Council had approved the project asking if the
changes had taken place after Council approval.
Community Services Director Andrade-Wax stated that the amenities had been
removed in the final project approval, such as the difference in the small and
large dog park.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the recommendation of the Commission asking if more
review needed to take place.
Council Member Dillon spoke on returning the review back to the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
City Administrator Haglund agreed with Council Member Dillon stating that the
item should return to the Commission for further review.
Mayor Pinheiro asked if there was a time frame for the approval of the project.
Community Services Director Andrade-Wax spoke on the PUD and design
review time frame.
Mayor Pinheiro asked if the dog park issue could be added to the approval.
CS Director Andrade-Wax stated that the Commission had unanimously
approved the project with the caveat that that they were to have further input on
the dog park.
Council Member Tucker asked if the item would have the chance to go back to
the Commission.
Community Services Director Andrade-Wax stated that as a conceptual design,
it would return to the Commission and the Council.
City Attorney Callon asked if the Council was being asked to approve the
conceptual design.
Community Services Director Andrade-Wax agreed explaining that the
development agreement detailed that the conceptual review of the park.
City Attorney Callon spoke on the language of the standard of amenities asking
why City staff was doing so much work on the park as the developer was
required to pay for the amenities for the park.
Community Services Director Andrade-Wax explained that as the developer was
going forward with the PUD they had the requirement for a conceptual plan of all
of the amenities.
Council Member Gartman asked when the PUD was being processed.
Rob Onetto of RJA explained that the PUD and conceptual design had been
previously reviewed, but:Jhe design had been changed since the conceptual
review. He explained that they were back for the changes to the park and the
Commission had approved the de~ign with the caveat that they be involved in the
details of any changes. .
Mayor Pinheiro asked if the developer was okay with the dog park site of the
park and the commissions input in the changes.
Mr. Onetto agreed.
8954
Council Member Gartman spoke on the number of homes that had gone through
the PUD process explaining that the entire Hecker Pass project had not gone
through the process yet.
Mr. Onetto agreed.
Council Member Gartman asked when the balance of the Hecker Pass
developments would come through. He then asked if there was any problem for
the developer if the Parks and Recreation Commission revisited the park.
Mr. Onetto explained that additional steps in the process of the development
needed to move forward explaining that the improvement plans needed to move
forward. He explained that the details would be presented at the improvement
plans stage. He explained that the dog park and materials would not hold them
up.
City Attorney Callon spoke on the PUD zoning explaining that the item was
simply the review of the park plan
Mayor Pinheiro suggested that the item be moved forward with the caveat that
the dog park be revisited by the Commission.
Council Member Arellano stated that one of the concerns was that the Parks and
Recreation Commission would be able to put the dog park blue-print in the
conceptual plan with the detail to come back to the City Council at a later time.
City Attorney Callon stated that the Council could do so, but the developer was
asking to move forward.
City Administrator Haglund explained that the request was for the conceptual
review and the developer was willing to let the more detailed issues of the dog
park to be reviewed by the Commission.
Jim Hoey of Hecker Pass Property Owners group spoke in support of the dog
park concept stating that as there were restrictions once the improvement plans
were set, they didn't want to have to amend the plan. He stated that they would
not be able to redesign the space designated for the park.
Motion on Item VII. A.
Motion was made by Mayor Pinheiro, seconded by Council Member Dillon
and carried to approve the conceptual plan with the caveat that the Parks
and Recreation Commission do the research to determine the dog park,
using the area as set in the plan, and that the dog park concept to then be
used with any other dog park in the city.
B. Update on Ground Squirrel Control
Operations Division Manager Ruigh presented the item.
Landscape Maintenance Supervisor Orr presented the staff report.
Council Member Woodward asked what had been done in the past.
Landscape Maintenance Supervisor Orr stated that they had fumigated in the
past and process of controlling the ground squirrels had stopped in 2005 or
2006.
Council Member Woodward stated that the problem with the squirrels was the
holes and then spoke on the capture of the squirrels sharing the process
IfW,;.."i".lItt
Landscape Maintenance Supervisor Orr spoke on the timing of the process and
the detail of the process.
8955
Operations Manger Ruigh stated that the City staff could do the control or it
could be contracted out explaining that there had been concerns by members of
the public in the past so the process of abatement had been stopped. She then
spoke on the gofer control in areas of the park.
Council Member Woodward spoke on the gofer abatement issues and the
fumigation process at the park.
Landscape Maintenance Supervisor Orr spoke on the gofer abatement process
at other park areas.
Council Member Arellano asked why the Council was addressing the issue as
the squirrels were in the non turf areas of the park and did not affect any of the
recreational areas of the park.
Council Member Tucker stated that she had asked for a report on what could be
done as she had seen the problem with squirrel holes at the park and had
received calls from the public on the issue. She then asked what other cities did.
Landscape Maintenance Supervisor Orr explained that other cities used the
same types of abatement.
Operations Manager Ruigh spoke on the urban setting of Christmas Hill park
explaining that the location was adjacent to urban areas and was much different
that most other cities which were more urban.
Council Member Arellano asked why the issue had arisen.
Council Member Tucker explained that she had seen that they were a concern
and she wanted to find out how the city had handled the issue in the past.
City Administrator Haglund explained that the question of abatement needed to
be addressed.
Council Member Dillon asked if the squirrels were non game animals.
Council Member Arellano stated that staff had determined that the squirrels did
not go on turf. He then explained that he wasn't comfortable with the fumigation
and the possibility of other animals picking up the poisoned squirrels. He
explained that they were not affecting the recreation activities on the ball fields.
Council Member Woodward spoke on the holes at Gavilan College and stated
that he was in support of fumigation as he would like to see more abatement
done at the park.
Council Member Arellano stated that Council Member Woodward was speaking
on gofer issues on turf. He then stated that he was not willing to spend money
on the abatement until after the budget review on the following Wednesday.
Council Member Bracco agreed with the need for abatement of the squirrels.
Council Member Tucker asked if there were issues with squirrels at the
amphitheater.
Landscape Maintenance Supervisor Orr stated that there were near the railroad
ties.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke in support of an abatement process for the squirrels such
as fumigation stating that the best way to conduct the abatement at the lowest
cost should be used.
Council Member Arellano spoke on the impacts on other animals in the area.
S956
Landscape Maintenance Supervisor Orr stated that a species biological survey
be done for the kit fox or burrowing owls to review of the impacts on other
animals explaining that his staff was not qualified to do such research.
Council Member Arellano stated that there would be financial impacts to abate
the squirrels and do the survey suggesting that the Council wait until after the
budget review.
Council Member Tucker asked if there was any issue with squirrels biting
humans.
Operations Manager Ruigh stated that Gilroy had not had any issues with
squirrels biting humans explaining that the issue had arisen in other
communities.
Council Member Gartman stated that the City had done the abatement
previously and was currently abating gophers. He then asked if the City had
done an environmental study for the abatement of gophers.
City Administrator Haglund stated that he wasn't sure that the biological study
was required or had been done previously.
Council Member Gartman asked if the study would need to take place. Council
Member Gartman spoke on continuing a process that had taken place for many
years previously.
City Administrator Haglund stated that the City needed to do whatever was
determined by law explaining that the need for a biological survey wa&
determined by the size of the area.
Operations Manager Ruigh stated that staff was looking for direction from the
Council explaining that they could return with more information on the abatement
and possible need for a biological survey if the Council requested it.
City Administrator Haglund stated that staff had enough direction to go forward
with a further report on the need for a biological survey.
Council Member Woodward spoke on steps to recognize the areas in need of
fumigation.
Landscape Maintenance Supervisor Orr shared the process of recognizingcmd
monitoring the process.
Council Member Arellano spoke on the elimination of any species stating that it
didn't need to be continued only because it had been done in the past. He then
asked the Council to wait until after the budget review the following Wednesday.
Motion on Item VII.B.
Motion was made by Council Member Dillon, seconded by Council Member
Bracco and carried (Council Member Tucker voting no) to accept the staff
report and take no action on the squirrels.
Iti'''.'"'.~'!r'
C. Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Establishing Regulations Governing Access to Public Meetings and
Public Records, and Establishing an Open Government Commission
("Gilroy Open Government Ordinance")
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the previous study session on the item explaining that
the Council would continue to finish their review of ~~nges and then would
possibly entertain the introduction of the ordinance.
8957
Council Member Woodward spoke on the section on closed session language
stating that the catch-all suggested by City Attorney Callon was not necessary.
Mayor Pinheiro asked if there was a problem with adding the catch-all language.
Council Member Woodward stated that it didn't make sense.
City Attorney Callon suggested that additional language be added in reference
to the safe harbors in the Brown Act such as "these have been changed".
Council Member Woodward spoke on the notice language stating that it didn't
say anything about noticing for additional requirements.
City Attorney Callon suggested that it may be acceptable if section 2.90
permitted topics precluding some of the Brown Act sections. She explained that
it would couple 2.60 "as follows and may hold other closed sessions as
permitted in the Brown Act".
Council Member Woodward stated that City Attorney's firm had reviewed the
ordinance multiple times during study sessions and the Council was again being
asked to make changes in the language.
City Attorney Callon explained that her duty was to bring forth comments even if
they were new as the comprehensive review of the ordinance had not taken
place since January.
Mayor Pinheiro explained that the Council wanted the item to return in order to
work out all of the final aspects of the ordinance. He then stated that the City
Attorney had identified something that needed to be addressed in order to allow
the Council to make a final decision.
Council Member Arellano stated that the City Attorney was winging the
ordinance on the side and Council needed to give the City Attorney the time and
courtesy to make needed comments before the item moved forward. He
explained that he would prefer that the City Attorney look at the ordinance to
allow the Council to proceed.
Council Member Gartman stated that the ordinance had gone through four (4)
revisions and at a point in time the decision needed to be made to move
forward. He suggested that the Council make notes after adoption along the way
and review the ordinance again in the next year.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that all of the Council needed to give their input on any
suggested changes and then the Council would move forward with the item.
City Attorney Callon spoke on section 2.90 expressing her concern that the
number of closed session permitted topics was not spelled out as it was in the
language of Brown Act.
Mayor Pinheiro stated the Council would vote to go into closed session.
Council Member Arellano disagreed stating that there were items that had to be
handled in closed session.
City Attorney Callon explained that the ordinance only allowed certain permitted
topics to be discussed in Closed Session explaining that her concern was that
not all of the closed session topics from the Brown Act were identified in the
ordinance.
Council Member Woodward explained that the section intended to limit the items
allowed in closed session asking the City Attorney to identify those sections from
8958
the Brown Act that she believed needed to be included.
Council Member Bracco spoke on the discussions in closed session explaining
that there would be no use for the ordinance if it mirrored the Brown Act. He then
spoke on voting to address an item in closed session.
City Attorney Callon stated that the ordinance required that the Council go into
Closed Session only on those permitted topics in the ordinance and then take
the vote to continue in closed session or not.
""....".
Council Member Woodward agreed.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the ability to go into closed session stating that the
section read that there was no other choice other than those topics in the
ordinance.
Council Member Gartman suggested language "as long as it doesn't violate the
Brown Act"
City Attorney Callon explained that the item could not be agendized until the
following meeting as the language of the permitted topic would not be disclosed.
Council Member Gartman disagreed stating that the Council could go into closed
session and then decided to continue in closed or not as the Charter allowed for
the calling of closed session.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that the Charter allowed the City Administrator and the
Mayor to call a closed session. He explained that the approach could be to call
the closed session and then vote to have it or not.
Council Member Tucker stated that the section on video taping had been
omitted and the vote to go into closed session had been added in its place.
"",..,
Council Member Arellano stated that the ordinance was meant to open up
government stating that the process as it was being proposed was to vote on the
items could be closed and which could be open. He suggested that the arbitrary
decision to go into closed session should not take place stating that he would
prefer to have the ordinance spell out the specific closed session topics.
Council Member Woodward stated that he didn't see anything in the ordinance
that prohibited the Council from going into closed session for Brown Act topics
as the language was open enough to allow the Council to go into any allowable
topic of closed session.
City Attorney Callon suggested that the heading "Permitted Topics" be removed
from the title of 2.90.
Mayor Pinheiro asked for confirmation of the City Administrator and Mayor's
ability to go into closed session.
Council Member Woodward agreed stating that once the Council went into
closed session, they would vote to go forward in closed session.
,..,.'~'
City Attorney Callon spoke on removing section (e) on page 11 and the majority
of the Council agreed to remove the language.
City Attorney Callon spoke on the requirement to vote and the report out of
closed session asking if the vote to report out be included.
Council Member Woodward stated that he didn't believe the vote to report out
was necessary.
8959
Council Member Arellano stated that the Council could report out the vote to
release information suggesting the language.
Council Member Woodward suggested language "such a vote should be
reported out of closed session as soon as possible in open session".
Mayor Pinheiro and Council Member Gartman agreed.
City Attorney Calton spoke on page 13, section (3) settlement speaking on the
public report explaining that the 1 0 calendar day period may not be able to be
met.
Council Member Woodward stated that a settlement in the amount of $50K was
significant and he believed there should be an ability for the public to give input
on the process. He then spoke on settling a case the morning a case went to
trial stating that the 10 day requirement wasn't a big problem as the judge would
be informed of the timing issue.
City Attorney Callon stated that it didn't have to be changed but it would work
better with language such as "except in an emergency situation" be added to the
end of the section.
Council Member Gartman asked for a specific situation speaking on previous
settlements the City had been in.
City Attorney Calton spoke on courthouse steps settlements explaining that she
was concerned that there was no out in a timely situation.
Council Member Gartman asked if the rules would be known by both parties.
City Administrator Haglund stated that he had experienced the exact situation as
a decision needed to be made that day with the Council direction of "prior
authority" .
Council Member Gartman stated that the previous prior authority would have
been given by the Council in session.
Council Member Arellano stated that the item still needed to come back to the
City Council explaining that the public would need to know prior to going to
settlement.
Council Member Woodward spoke on the knowledge lawyers would be well
aware of 10 day period explaining that nothing in the court system would happen
in 10 days.
Council Member Bracco asked how settlement parameters would take place.
Council Member Woodward stated that it would prohibit those parameters from
being decided ahead of time and would allow the public to see the settlement
before it became final.
Council Member Bracco explained that it would expose the City decision making
process.
Council Member Woodward stated that the Council could explain to the City
Attorney what the parameters could be, but it would not be final until the public
weighed in.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the setting of parameters explaining that the public
may not have all of the information that the Council had to help them determine
the settlement.
8960
Council Member Woodward explained that the litigation strategy would not be
shared with the public and it was not perfect, but it would be an opportunity for
the public to have a say.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that the public would not be privy to all of the information
that helped the Council make their decision on a closed session stating that the
public would be falsely involved.
Council Member Arellano spoke on non-discloseable settlement material
explaining that members of the public would not be privy and the public would
be given false-hope.
Council Member Woodward stated that the deliberative process was an
important process.
Council Member Arellano agreed explaining that the public should be made
aware that they wouldn't have all of the information on the settlement.
Council Member Bracco stated that he believed the public had given the Council
the power to make those types of decisions because they trusted that the
decisions were made in their best interests. He then spoke against the 10-day
requirement
Council Member Tucker stated that she didn't have a problem with having it in
the open as it would give the public a chance to talk to the Council about closed
session items.
Mayor Pinheiro explained that the public had to be allowed to speak on any item
on an agenda under the Brown Act, including closed session.
Council Member Tucker stated that the public didn't have the opportunity to
speak on every item on the agenda.
Mayor Pinheiro explained that the public did have the right to speak on every
item of action before the Council per the Brown Act.
Council Member Arellano spoke on the inability to discuss confidential
information in open session and the possibility of accidentally disclosing it.
Council Member Gartman stated that it wasn't the noticing of the agreement, but
the release of the settlement documents.
Council Member Woodward explained that there was additional language that
allowed the Council to not disclose documents if it was to be a detriment to the
City.
Council Member Gartman shared the language on the release of settlement
documents that may be used in multiple suits.
Council Member Woodward asked the City Attorney if those types of settlements
would have to be brought to the Council and made known publicly.
City Attorney Callon stated that they would be taken to the Council and
disclosed publicly.
Council Member Arellano spoke on the issue of the 10 days stating that the City
Attorney was asking for an exception.
A majority of the Council agreed to the 10 days.
8961
City Attorney Callon spoke on section (4) stating that the title of the position, not
the name of the employee was reported out of closed session in the Brown Act.
She explained that employees had administrative appeal rights, and the name of
the employee could not be disclosed.
Council Member Woodward suggested the language"... reported immediately in
a manner that identifies the position affected" be added.
City Attorney Callon explained that the section should allow for the
administrative appeal process giving the example of the Personnel Commission.
Council Member Woodward suggested that the language be amended to
". . . action taken by the City Council..." and striking out the language "that names
the employee".
Council Member Gartman explained that the titles of employees were very
descriptive.
City Attorney Callon explained that the Brown Act required the position of the
employee be disclosed. She then stated that employees had the right to closed
sessions on some matters.
Council Member Arellano asked if there was a reason for staff to remain in the
audience due to the lateness of the meeting.
Mayor Pinheiro explained that the staff would be affected by the ordinance. He
then spoke on the time for the retention of web casts asking if the Council had
spoken on the change to 3 years.
Council Member Woodward stated that City Clerk Freels had noted there were
two sections of the ordinance that addressed web casts and the two sections
didn't reflect the same retention.
City Clerk Freels stated that she had suggested 3 years as the City was already
currently retaining the web casts.
Council Member Gartman suggested that the City retain the web casts
indefinitely.
Council Member Tucker stated that the audio recordings would be kept for 20
years.
Council Member Gartman suggested that the web casts we retained for 20
years.
City Clerk Freels explained that the web casts were maintained on the Granicus
server and she didn't know if Granicus would maintain them for the City for 20
years. She then explained that the LaserFiche records were maintained on the
City server which was completely unrelated to the retention of the web cast files.
Council Member Gartman stated that u-tube had a huge amount of video stored
and he believed that Granicus could store a large amount of video as well. He
then explained tnat there wasn't a financial re<:lSQn not to store the adqitjonal
video and he believeq it was a good idea to keep it out there.
City Clerk Freels explained that she would have to find out from Granicus if they
could maintain the records for 20 years.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the costs for retention of records on the City server.
Council Member Woodward asked if the files were being removed.
City Clerk Freels stated that they were not.
8962
Council Member Woodward suggested that they continue to be stored as they
had been.
Mayor Pinheiro asked if the Council was okay with maintaining the web casts for
ten (10) years.
The Council agreed to the change to ten (10) years.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on section 2.150 (a) asking if there was a need for a
description of the type of minutes.
Council Member Dillon suggested that the boards and commissions continue
with the same type of minutes that they were currently providing.
Council Member Gartman spoke on posting the City Council study session notes
on the website asking that the study session notes retention be added to the
ordinance.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that it could just be done.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on changing the title under section 3.20 (i), the second
sentence suggesting that the language be changed to "administrator".
Council Member Woodward spoke on the duty of the City Administrator to be
sure that City materials be retained with the City.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the section on public officials stating that the ordinance
should reflect all officials. He then spoke on the retirement of the previous City
Administrator.
Council Member Tucker spoke on the requirement to return public records.
Council Member Woodward spoke on the removal of public records by a high
level official in 1980's and the importance that such records be retained by the
City .
City Attorney Callon suggested that her title be removed from the section
regarding department heads and the City Administrator's title be added. She
then suggested that she be responsible for the elected officials.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the home office as well as the City offices.
City Attorney Callon suggested that the elected officials affirmative duty to
surrender their public records to the City Attorney.
Council Member Woodward suggested language that "the City Attorney or their
designee... when an elected official or City Administrator leave office..."
City Attorney Callon spoke on the section on preparing a legal opinion.
Council Member Woodward stated that he would remove the last two sentences.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that 3.60 (3) (ii) and (iii) were to be removed from the last
discussions.
Council Member Woodward agreed and then stated that he would suggest the
removal of section (3) all together.
Council Member Arellano stated that he wanted to see the final pffittuct before
the ordinance was introduced.
8963
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the decision from the last meeting that the language
on page 23 "under any circumstances" be removed.
City Attorney Callon stated that there could be a reason to redact information.
She then stated that the language could be omitted.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on page 23 regarding the agreement for approval asking
if the last sentence was to be removed.
Council Member Garman agreed stating that he had suggested that the section
be removed.
Mayor Pinheiro then spoke on section 3.120 Index to Records explaining that a
determination on the amount of time it would take to compile the index would
need to be made.
Council Member Woodward stated that the City Clerk would report on the index
process with a annual review stating that the Open Government Commission
would be apprised as to the progress on the indexing.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that he wanted the Council to be aware that City Clerk
Freels would have less help as identified on the material the Council received on
the budget and there would be more to do with the adoption of the ordinance.
Council Member Woodward stated that the change from 3 years to 10 years for
web casts.
City Attorney Callon spoke on the review of the Form 700's and the need for the
City Clerk to review the forms and not the various staff liaisons as the City Clerk
was trained on the process.
Council Member Woodward asked City Clerk Freels if she agreed.
City Clerk Freels stated that she was as she was already reviewing all Form
700's.
The Council took a 10 minute break.
The Council reconvened.
City Attorney Callon spoke on the possibility that a conflict of interest may occur
with the requirement for the City Attorney as advisee the Open Government
Commission as she may also be providing advice to a member of staff. She
then stated that it may come up that the City Attorney may need to bring in
additional Counsel and she was merely brining the issue forward.
Mayor Pinheiro suggested that a clean version of the ordinance come back to
Council with a report on the impacts of the ordinance on staff. He suggested that
the Council be made fully aware of the costs associated with the approval of the
ordinance.
Council Member Bracco stated that he would prefer to have the ordinance come
back as a finished product to then approve.
Council Member Tucker stated that any costs that came forward would be
estimates stating that they shouldn't stop the Council from moving forward with
the ordinance.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that he was willing to approve the ordinance, but he
believed it would be a mistake to not identify the impacts on staff explaining that
staff members such as the City Clerk would be impacted by the ordinance. He
8964
explained that it was merely information to be looked at when making the
decision to introduce the ordinance.
Council Member Woodward stated that the ordinance did not place many
demands on staff. He explained that introduction of the ordinance could take
place and the City Administrator could return with his review of the impacts on
staff.
City Administrator Haglund stated that there would be increased costs and staff
time needed to adhere to the ordinance. He explained that the pending budget
cuts would have an impact stating that staff would do their best to abide by the
ordinance.
Council Member Arellano stated that he wasn't ready to introduce an ordinance
that was not clean explaining that he would prefer to see a clean form of the
ordinance prior to introduction. He then spoke on opening up the ordinance to
the public in final form prior to introduction.
Council Member Dillon stated that he agreed with Council Member Tucker that
the financial impacts could not be determined and he was in support of moving
forward with the ordinance.
Council Member Woodward stated that he had 11 changes asking if he read
them into the record.
City Attorney Callon agreed that the changes be read into the record with the
introduction of the ordinance warning the Council that any subsequent changes
could only be typos or the introduction would need to take place again.
Motion on Item VII.C.
Motion was made by Council Member Woodward, seconded by Council
Member Dillon to read the Ordinance by Title Only and Waive Further
Reading of the Ordinance.
*"""~
Mayor Pinheiro asked why the ordinance needed to be hurried.
Council Member Gartman spoke on the time taken to review the ordinance
stating that he was in support of voting on the item for introduction.
Council Member Arellano suggested that the Council allow the public the
opportunity to weigh in on the ordinance as amended as there had been several
last minute changes.
Council Member Gartman stated that if there were changes, the public had the
opportunity to weigh in on the ordinance at adoption.
Council Member Tucker stated that she didn't see why the Council needed to
wait an additional two weeks to introduce the ordinance.
Council Member Arellano stated that the public had not had the chance to see
the last changes.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on seeking consensus on the Council stating that the
courtesy could be extended to others on the Council who were requesting the
clean copy. He then explained that the Council had done their job and was
finished with the full review of the ordinance. He explained that the Council
would need to make major decisions the following Wednesday and the
Mayor Pinheiro then asked to make a friendly amendment to the motion to divide
the motion into two questions, to wait two weeks and then introduce with the
changed sections.
8965
Council Member Woodward declined the amendment and then asked for motion
language from the City Attorney.
City Attorney Callon stated that the motion would be to introduce the ordinance
and read it by title only except for the sections that were changed which would be
read. She then stated that it would take a majority vote.
Mayor Pinheiro motioned to wait two (2) weeks to introduce the ordinance in a
clean copy. The motion was seconded by Council Member Arellano but died
with a 2-5 vote (Council Members Bracco, Dillon, Gartman, Tucker and
Woodward voting no).
Continued Motion on Item VII.C.
Motion was made by Council Member Woodward, seconded by Council
Member Dillon to read the Ordinance by Title Only and Waive Further
Reading of the Ordinance except for those sections that had been
amended. The motion carried (Council Member Arellano voting no)
Council Member Woodward read the 11 changes into the record:
Sections: 2.10 (4) (e) policy bodies shall mean the City Council, appointed sub
committees of the City Council, except for ad hoc sub committees appointed for
a single purpose on a temporary basis; 2.90 Closed Sessions removal of
;permitted topics); 2.90 (c)(3) omitted; 2.110 (a) addition of "such vote shall be
recorded as soon as possible in open session"; 2.110 (b)(4) under employee
actions "action taken by the City Council"; 2.130 (b) the words three (3) years
was changed to ten (10) years; 3.20 (i) .....the City Attorney or its designee shall
have the duty to all City Officials and the City Administrator have the
requirement to surrender documents to the City Attorney" and the last 2
sentences removed; 3.60 (3) removed in its entirety; 3.60 (d) "under any
circumstances" removed; 3.60 (e) "...until an agreement is executed" is the end
of the sentence and the removal of everything after; 3.140 changed to ten (10)
years; 3.160 (b) staff liaisons replaced with "city clerk". He then read the
ordinance title.
Council Member Arellano stated that he was not comfortable with okaying a
rough draft of anything stating that he believed that the City Council had
disregarded other members requests for a clean copy.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that he was in support of the ordinance, but he was very
disappointed with the hits the ordinance was taking. He spoke on finding
consensus and respecting each other. He stated that he had two concerns: true
transparency with the Council being as transparent as possible though he didn't
think the document was as transparent as it could be. He then explained that the
Council had made the item such a high priority and then statements had been
made that the meetings that were conducted to create the ordinance took to
much time and he believed it had not been a waste of time.
Council Member Bracco stated that he though that more courtesy could have
been taken on Council, but he would be supporting the ordinance. He explained
that the Council had a reputation as one that did not work well together and he
knew that a special meeting would be called if the vote to introduce the
ordinance did not take place. He then stated that the ordinance was a great step
and was much better than what the city of Milpitas had.
Second Motion on Item VII.C.
Motion was made by Council Member Woodward, seconded by Council
Member Dillon and carried (Council Member Arellano voting no) to
Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Establishing Regulations Governing Access to Public Meetings and Public
Records, and Establishing an Open Government Commission ("Gilroy
Open Government Ordinance")
VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
8966
A. Update on Stop Sign on Hirosaki Avenue
City Administrator Haglund presented a report of the accident that had occurred
mid block on Hirosaki sharing the neighborhood safety program that was being
introduced to the City by Chief Turner. He spoke on the recent accident
explaining that neither speed nor a intersection were issues in relation to the
incident, explaining that alternative approaches were being looked at in the
neighborhood.
Council Member Gartman spoke on the speeding of vehicles on the street stating
that it was a dangerous area and suggesting that a stop sign be put in on Mora
and Hirosaki.
Council Member Arellano stated that he had been in the area and had talked with
people in the neighborhood and everyone had wanted a stop sign in their area.
He then spoke on the process of placement of a stop sign suggesting traffic
calming devices and speed monitors be looked at as well as discussions with the
neighborhood.
Council Member Bracco suggested putting in temporary stop signs to see if it
helped.
Council Member Tucker stated that it wasn't just the neighborhood as many
people used the street as a short cut to get to Rod Kelly.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the policy of placing stop signs suggesting that criteria
be used to determine where stop signs would be put in.
Traffic Engineer Dey stated that there was an analysis process to determine if
there were concerns with the Fire Department and the Police Department.
Council Member Gartman stated that Council had discussed a criteria or policy
but it hadn't been put into effect. He then spoke on previous requests for
controlled intersections without a criteria.
Mayor Pinheiro warned against just putting in stop signs arbitrarily suggesting
that
Motion on Item VIII.
Motion was made by Council Member Dillon, seconded by Council Member
Gartman and carried to have the review by the Neighborhood Traffic Safety
process and come back to Council.
City Administrator Haglund shared a new page for the 11/5/08 budget and told
the Council that he would be out of the office the following Friday and Monday.
IX. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
There was no report.
X. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Tucker
Council Member Tucker spoke on the paper and plastic bag legislation proposed
by the recycling and waste reduction committee to the Santa Clara County Cities
Association.
Council Member Arellano
Council Member Arellano stated that the recycling containers had been put in the
downtown and then encouraged everyone togo out andvote the next day.
8967
Council Member Gartman
A. Discussion and Formal Approval of Funding Plan for City Sidewalks
Council Member Gartman spoke on his proposal for funding of sidewalks from
the gas tax funds and the ADA fund sharing his suggested process of using the
red and blue indicators in two phases. He shared the process of conducting the
repair and permitting the work explaining that the property owner would take the
lead and then be reimbursed by the City. He then spoke on the City project
management for those property owners who didn't want to take the lead stating
that multiple projects would be more cost effective.
Council Member Tucker spoke against addressing the item until after the budget
issues had been resolved.
Council Member Bracco stated that he didn't see the logic in telling the property
owners to do the project management stating that the Council had said it was
City sidewalk.
Council Member Gartman spoke on the cost savings to the City and the
empowerment of the property owners stating that he had taken the suggestion
from Council Member Bracco He then spoke on the payment of prevailing wage
stating that people who wanted to participate could do so with the lowest bidder.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that the budget discussions needed to take place first
before the sidewalk issue was re-addressed. He asked the Council to chime in
on the issue.
Council Member Woodward asked if the Mayor's suggestion was to wait until
after the Wednesday night discussions.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that he could go either way stating that the Council had
taken a straw vote for the 100% payment for sidewalks and he believed it was
difficult to proceed when staff hadn't had the chance to analyze the proposal.
Council Member Woodward stated that he was in support of waiting until the
November 17th meeting.
Council Member Gartman stated that in June the item had been addressed and
a draft was provided in September.
City Administrator Haglund spoke on the direction of Council in September to
analyze the City funds to see if $2 million could be found by delaying projects to
fund the sidewalks. He continued by sharing the review of the development
revenues and the funds explaining that November 5th had been set aside to
address the funding of sidewalks but the date had been taken for the needed
budget session. He explained that the discussions on the 5th would identify the
funds and movement of projects out to support the City.
Council Member Bracco stated that the Council needed to wait until the
Wednesday budget meeting speaking on the impact of the proposed budget
cuts on the employees of the City.
Council Member Arellano spoke on Council Member Gartman's proposal stating
that he believed the discussion of the item was ridiculous when the City was in
such dire financial condition.
The Council agreed to discuss the issue on Wednesday and then possibly on
November 17th.
8968
Council Member Gartman spoke on the Bicycle Pedestrian Committee request
to come before the Council and then spoke on the Granicus s issues that were
being addressed by the Council sub-committee and then spoke on holding a
mock meeting on November 20th and suggested that the Council tentatively
schedule November 24th as the next training session.
Council Member Woodward stated that he would not be available.
Council Member Bracco shared his concerns with the Granicus system asking if
the City had looked at using different vendors for the system.
Mayor Pinheiro agreed that the system should have worked explaining that there
were some customizations that the City had asked for.
XI. MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Pinheiro announced that December 4th was the Cities Association dinner
stating that Gilroy was hosting the event at the Elks Lodge. He then asked
everyone to get out and vote.
A. Appointment of Council Member Dillon to Serve as Representative to
the Advisory Council of the CouncU on Aging
Mayor Pinheiro announced that Council Member Dillon was the only Council
Member qualified to sit as representative on the Advisory Council on Aging.
XII. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
There were no Council initiated agenda items.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT TO MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 2008
The Council adjourned the meeting at 12:04 a.m.
na Freels, CMC
City Clerk
Jt