Loading...
Minutes 2008/12/15 .. City of Gilroy City Council Minutes December 15. 2008 I. OPENING A. Call to Order Mayor Pinheiro called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. The Invocation was given by Pastor Malcolm McPhail of New Hope Community Church. City Clerk Freels reported that the agenda had been posted on December 10, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. Roll Call Present: Council Member Peter Arellano, M.D.; Council Member Cat Tucker; Council Member Craig Gartman; Council Member Bob Dillon; Mayor AI Pinheiro; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Perry Woodward. B. Orders of the Day There were no agenda changes. C. Proclamations, Awards and Presentations Mayor Pinheiro presented a certificate of Recognition and Appreciation to outgoing Youth Commission Member Daniel Monroe. Mayor Pinheiro read a Certificate of Appreciation to Ruby Estorga of Catholic Charities for her 18 years of Service to the City as a server at the Gilroy Senior Nutrition Program. L 1 8995 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 Connie Rogers, President of the Gilroy Historical Society spoke on the possibility volunteering at the city museum sharing her plans to contact all of the members of the Historical Society to see if they would help operate the museum a few days each week. III. CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Woodward asked to pull item 1I1.A. and vote on it separately. B. Resolution 2008-54 of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Declaring the Acceptance of the Statement of Votes and Certification of Election Results of the November 4, 2008 Presidential General Election C. Resolution 2008-55 of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Approving the Public Records Request Fee Schedule in Accordance with the Open Government Ordinance D. Approval of a Notice of Acceptance of Completion for the Las Animas Veteran's Park Pond Area Improvements (Dog Park), APN 790-26-047, Capital Project No. 08-CDD-161 E. Resolution 2008-56 of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Authorizing Officers Who May Accept and Consent to the Acceptance of Deeds or Grants to the City of Gilroy and Consent to the Recordation Thereof Motion on Consent Calendar Items B. C. D. E. Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member Woodward and carried to approve Consent items B, C, D and E. A. Minutes of the December 1, 2008 Regular City Council Meeting Motion on Item Ill.A. Motion was made by Council Member Dillon, seconded by Council Member Bracco and carried (Council Member Woodward abstaining) to approve item Ill.A. IV. BIDS AND PROPOSALS < There were no bids or proposals. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearing items. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. A Zoning Ordinance Amendment for a Overlay Combining District, Modified Zoning Map and Design Policy in the Murray Avenue and Las Animas Avenue Vicinity from the North Edge of Cohansey Avenue, the South Edge of Leavsley <t Avenue, the West Edge of Monterey Road and the East Edge of South Valley Freeway, Z 08-03, City of Gilroy Motion on Item VI.A. Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member Tucker and carried to Adopt Ordinance 2008-13 of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Amending the Zoning Adding a Overlay Combining District, Modified Zoning Map and Design Policy in the Murray Avenue and Las Animas Avenue Vicinity from the North Edge of Cohansey Avenue, the South Edge of Leavsley 8996 Avenue, the West Edge of Monterey Road and the East Edge of South Valley Freeway, Z 08-03 B. A Resolution Approving An Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision to Deny a Variance Request to Increase the Floor Ratio for a Proposed Redevelopment Project to Remodel an Existing Un-reinforced Masonry Building at 7401 Monterey Street, APN 799-07-067,A1S 07-53 & V 08-04, Jose Montes Applicant Motion on Item VI.B. Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member Bracco and carried (Council Member Tucker voting no) to adopt Resolution 2008- 58 Approvi ng V 08-04 C. Architectural and Site Review/Planned Unit Development Master Plan for a Neighborhood District Development of 236 Residential Units and Commercial/Retail Space for a Property Located at 6261 Monterey Street, APN's 808-21-008, 009 & 016, Luchessa Road, LLC c/o Michael McDermott Applicant, AS/PUD Master Plan 06-31 The staff report was presented by Planner II Mcintyre. Mayor Pinheiro asked what the outcome had been at the Planning Commission meeting. Planner II Mcintyre stated that the applicant had worked well with the city staff though there had been some items that both staff and the applicant would have liked to have seen. Mayor Pinheiro asked if there were issues that had come out of the Planning Commission meeting deliberations that had been discussed. Planner II Mcintyre stated that they had been 99% in agreement. Council Member Tucker asked about the buffer. Planner II Mcintyre stated that many alternatives were provided to the applicant and the buffer walkway was the compromise. Council Member Tucker spoke on the storm drain concerns. Mayor Pinheiro asked if there were items that were not agreed upon. City Engineer Smelser stated that they had agreed upon the areas of concern. Mayor Pinheiro asked if the commercial areas had been cut. Planner II Mcintyre stated that the development went west to east stating that the commercial areas would be built out in approximately 6 years during phase 4. Mayor Pinheiro asked if the November 1 ih report had a different road as the line was in the staff report document. <t Planner II Mcintyre stated that it was the phase of the project. Mayor Pinheiro asked if the land had been purchased yet. Planner II Mcintyre stated that it had not. City Attorney Callon stated that there was an issue at the Planning Commission level regarding the condition to gain control of the last piece of property asking where it was conditioned. She explained that the Planning Commission had discussed that the # l 8997 density would change at the close of phase three if the last piece of property was not purchased. Planner II Mcintyre stated that it was in condition numbers twenty and twenty-two explaining that it was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. City Engineer Smelser explained that if suburban propane was still there at phase three, the buffer would not be loted and would be a remainder to eventually be loted. Council Member Arellano asked if phases one through three were being approved asking if the Council would be able to approve phase four if the developer did not own the property. Planner II Mcintyre explained that the Council had discussed the issue during the previous deliberations explaining that the property was not owned by the developer but the hopes were to invest in the purchase in future years. Council Member Gartman spoke on condition number 73 the shift of residents away from the property line to make room for a paseo which would cause for a loss of sidewalk. Planner II Mcintyre stated that the internal sidewalk would be removed on the specific side and the move of the garden court homes would take place. Council Member Gartman spoke on the variance needed. Planner II Mcintyre stated that it was a PUD and the Council was setting the approval of the change in set backs through the process. Council Member Gartman asked if safety had passed the design with one side of the area without a side walk. Planner II Mcintyre stated that they had. Council Member Arellano asked who was responsible for the upkeep and repair of the wall. City Engineer Smelser explained that an easement would be provided to the developer for them to maintain and repair the fence, the lighting and landscaping. Council Member Tucker asked about the undergrounding of the 90 inch piping on Luchessa. City Engineer Smelser explained that the agreement was made to create a clear space for future utilities stating that the reserve area would be created so that in the future utilities did not need to be moved. Mayor Pinheiro asked why staff was not behind the move to the buffer area. Michael McDermott the applicant suggested a change to the piece of property owned by the City explaining that it could be designed for the City as a trail parallel to the levy trail to allow for a sidewalk on the other side. He explained that he had discussed the issue with staff stating that the trail would stay out from the homes. <t Mayor Pinheiro asked why staff had not presented the issue to Council. He then asked what the Planning Commission had agreed to. Mr. McDermott stated that staff would like to see the buffer system. He then explained that the Planning Commission had passed the item unanimously without his suggested change. He then spoke on the project revenue generation and then spoke on the trail benefit to the community and the green planning aspects of the project sharing the work done by the neighborhood district advisory committee. 8998 Mayor Pinheiro asked why staff did not agree to the suggested change. City Engineer Smelser stated that it was a utility area and it would be difficult with a sidewalk on top of it explaining that he had believed that it had been resolved at Planning. Planner II Mcintyre stated that the safety issues were also a concern. Council Member Gartman asked if the area would be decomposed granite. City Engineer Smelser explained that it was a concrete sidewalk. Council Member Woodward asked if the use of crushed granite would eliminate the concerns. City Engineer Smelser explained that they would need to maintain the area and explained that they would be taking city property suggesting that a lease agreement would need to be put in place. Council Member Woodward asked where the walkway led asking why a public right of way to a public sports park was taking City property. City Engineer Smelser explained that a public path of travel on the levy was already in place. Council Member Gartman asked if the other pathway was necessary. City Engineer Smelser explained that it was a buffer zone created for safety. Sergeant Ashley explained that the buffer was more than a walkway. He explained that there were safety concerns with a public right away property right up against private homes. He spoke on moving the design of the homes explaining that the windows faced the walkway with lighting that would shine down on the pathway offering a 10-15 foot buffer. He spoke on the lowered possibility of criminal activity with the buffer due to the heightened visibility with the buffer sharing the discussions with the developer and the agreement to go with the paseo walkway plan as a compromise. He explained that there was no use for two trails on the west side explaining that the area to the south had not been developed yet and the agreed upon design worked well. Council Member Gartman spoke on criminal activity in a public walkway stating that the public would be using the paseo walkway. Sergeant Ashley explained that it was not a public walkway but an internal walkway. Council Member Gartman stated that he had heard that it was a public walkway. Planner II Mcintyre shared the two walkways: the internal walkway which was the buffer and there was a public walkway. She explained that the internal walkway would go internally to the internal park. Sergeant Ashley explained that there was no public roadway access into the development from the sports.. park explaining that the internal walkway was for the residents only. Council Member Woodward stated that there were people who used the roadway from Luchessa west bound to travel to over to the sports park. Sergeant Ashley explained that there was a roadway but it was not a public roadway. Council Member Woodward asked if the area was gated asking how people could get to the sports park from Luchessa. l 8999 Sergeant Ashley explained that the walkway was inside the fence stating it would not be easy to get into the complex into the sports park. Council Member Gartman asked if people would need to walk around the outside of the fence to get into the sports park. Sergeant Ashley explained that there was a roadway that was part of the levy trail. He explained that there would never be a way to stop kids from walking through dirt fields. Mayor Pinheiro asked that phase three identify if the 100 foot buffer take place sharing the importance of the commercial areas within the neighborhood district. Council Member Gartman stated that there was a need for sidewalks in residential developments stating that it was a dangerous precedence that was being set. Motion on Item VI.C. Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member Dillon and carried (Council Members Bracco and Gartman voting no) to Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution to Approve AS/PUD Master Plan, 06-31with all of the conditions as approved by the Planning Commission. City Attorney Callon explained that the resolution associated with the Murray/Las Animas Avenue overlay district creating the design policy had been inadvertently skipped during the discussion of the adoption of the zoning ordinance, suggesting that the Council go back to the item. Second Motion on Item VI.A Motion was made by Council Member Woodward, seconded by Council Member Dillon and carried to adopt Resolution 2008-57 Approving the Murray Avenue-Las Animas Avenue Overlay Combining District Design Policy. D. Update on Ongoing Funding for Sidewalk Repair The Staff Report was presented by City Administrator Haglund. Council Member Woodward made the motion that $350,000 be allocated to the 80/20 program from the gas tax fund for the current fiscal year. Council Member Tucker asked if the fund could be used for salaries. She then asked if the monies could be used for sidewalk injury litigation. City Administrator Haglund stated that an inter fund loan could take place but he had no plans to loan the monies to the general fund. He then explained that the money could not be used for litigation. Council Member Arellano read the staff report explaining that the general fund would need to cover any repairs if the gas tax fund were used. He explained that they didn't know what the State would take away from the city and if there were any improvements that would need to be funded by the gas tax funds. He then asked if the fund could be used for a loan to another fund. City Administrator Haglund explained that repairs would come from the general fund if there were no monies in th~ gas tax fund. He then explained that an inter fund load could take place as long as there was a repayment plan in place. Council Member Arellano stated that the City had insurance for sidewalk claims stating that he didn't see why the council would put the City in a position of risk. Council Member Bracco asked City Administrator Haglund if the projections he had provided shared the fall off of gas receipts. City Administrator Haglund stated that the tax was charge on the number of gallons 1 tUO pumped and the projection was not altered to reflect the reports from the state. Council Member Bracco stated that the gas tax fund could fall if receipts from the state declined and then asked if the City would be able to use the gas tax fund for a potential loan for salaries. City Administrator Haglund stated that they could stating that there was not a lot of money in the account explaining that $2.6 million was not a lot of money to loan. He then stated that the chip seal program added 7 years to the life of pavement. Council Member Bracco asked if the money would repair the streets like Wren and Eigleberry which were in poor condition. City Administrator Haglund stated that it would. Mayor Pinheiro asked if the money that was owed in the agreement with Gilroy Unified School District could be borrowed from the gas tax fund. City Administrator Haglund stated that it could if it didn't undermine the street repair program. Mayor Pinheiro stated that in July, 2009 there would be $375,000 for sidewalk repair for those people on the waiting list. He explained that there were other areas of the City that were in need of repair stating that those people on the list could wait until July. He explained that the City was putting itself at risk by using the gas tax funds for sidewalk repair. Council Member Arellano asked if there would be a lower reserve in 9 years stating that the City was trying hard to be fiscally responsible. He explained that people would still fix their sidewalks and be reimbursed in July when the budgeted funds were available. Council Member Gartman stated that he was surprised that a swimming pool was more important than fixing sidewalks. He then asked if an amendment could be made to the motion to add for the ability for those people who wish to participate in the 80/20 program to participate without immediate reimbursement and be reimbursed when monies were available. He explained that it would allow those people who wanted to fix their sidewalks to participate in the program after the $350,000 was expended. Council Member Tucker stated that the ability to do so was already in place. Mayor Pinheiro agreed. He then stated that the commitments to the school district were contractual for both the gymnasium and the swimming pool. Council Members Dillon and Woodward agreed to the amendment to the motion. Motion on Item VI.D. Motion was made by Council Member Woodward, seconded by Council Member Dillon and carried (Council Members Arellano, Bracco and Mayor Pinheiro voting no) to approve $350,000 to continue the 80/20 program for fiscal year 08/09 with the ability for those people who wish to participate in the 80/20 program to participate without immediate reimbursement and be reimbursed when monies were available. VII. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS A. Selection and Appointment of Members to City Boards, Commissions and Committees with Terms Expiring December 31,2010 and December 31,2012 The Council voted on the candidates for boards and commissions. Motion on Item VII.A. Motion was made by Council Member Woodward, seconded by Council Member l 9001 Gartman and carried to appoint the following Commission and Board Members: Planning Commission - Ermelindo Puente, Jr. 4 year term, Arts and Culture Commission - Carol Peters, Shirley Willard - 4 year terms, Library Commission - Phyllis Armenta, Carol Smith - 4 year term, Tom Engebretson - 1 year term, Parks and Recreation Commission - Allison Hodgdon - 4 year term, Personnel Commission - Barbara DeLorenzo - 4 year term, Building Board of Appeals - Pia Berryman, Patrick Little - 4 year terms, Physically Challenged Board of Appeals - Gloria Lauriano - 4 year term, Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Board - James Fennel - 2 year term, Historic Heritage Committee - Roberta Hughan - 2 year term Public Art Committee - Joan Buchanan, Arline Silva - 4 year terms B. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Amending the Gilroy City Code, Chapter 21, Article V, to Modify the Requirements for Undergrounding Utilities The staff report was presented by Engineer II Krueger. Council Member Bracco asked if a property owner with power lines running over his property would need to underground even if there were no poles on his property. He then asked if a business without overhead utilities would be free from paying for the undergrounding. Engineer Krueger stated that the undergrounding would need to take place for property owners without poles on their property explaining that they would need to under ground to the nearest pole outside of their property limits. He then explained that businesses without overhead utilities would not need to pay for undergrounding. Council Member Arellano asked if alley way lighting would be replaced. Engineer Krueger stated that it was required to be upgraded to acceptable standards. Council Member Gartman stated that lighting standards were not in place explaining that they should be set. Mayor Pinheiro asked if in the smaller lot sizes in the downtown areas had been identified. Engineer Krueger stated that a reasonable size had been determined explaining that even smaller lots had to pay into the undergrounding as stated in their deferred agreements. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the 100 foot area would cost too much. He then spoke on the Elliot School waiver on chestnut and maple based on the cost to the school district. City Engineer Smelser explained that the downtown area had an undergrounding utility district to utilize PG & E rule 20 A money to help in the downtown undergrounding. He explained that the smaller irregular shaped properties and spoke on the deferral of the undergrounding and the ability to use the rule 20 A money in the future. Mayor Pinheiro asked if the alley ways were included in the downtown undergrounding district. City Engineer Smelser spoke on the joint project abilities with the deferral of the undergrounding. He then spoke on grant monies allocated for sixth street. <t Mayor Pinheiro stated that he didn't want to see a downtown project be killed because of the costs to underground. City Engineer Smelser stated that the downtown district could be excluded in the ordinance and the rule 20A funding could be used for the area. Council Member Tucker asked if there was a timing concern with the adoption of the 9002 ordinance stating that it would be good to know what the downtown utility district would be reqaired to do. City Engineer Smelser stated that the district would be formed the following month. Motion on Item VII.B. Motion was made by Council Member Tucker, seconded by Council Member Woodward and carried to postpone the introduction of the Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Amending the Gilroy City Code, Chapter 21, Article V, to Modify the Requirements for Undergrounding Utilities . C. Review of the City of Gilroy Truck Route Study and Consideration of Amending Current Routes The staff report was presented by Traffic Engineer Dey. Mayor Pinheiro asked if the truck driver could park their vehicle on the truck route and then asked if those people affected by the change in the truck route had been notified of the changes. Transportation Engineer Dey explained that it was illegal if they were parking in an area that was not designated as a truck route. He then stated that he was asking for direction from Council and would notice those residents in the proposed truck route area explaining that he would receive the Council direction and come back with the routes for approval. Council Member Woodward suggested that the routes identified Council Member Tucker spoke on the Luchessa area asking if it was a designated safe route to school route. Transportation Engineer Dey stated that it was not. Council Member Tucker stated that it was a concern asking if the speed could be slowed in the area Transportation Engineer Dey stated that there were two traffic signals on Princevalle and Thomas and a separation on the bridge and an improvement over the bridge with the sidewalks. Council Member Bracco stated that during the Murray discussions he had cautioned the Council stating that it didn't stop the trucks from going down Murray for business purposes. He then spoke in opposition to the 10,000 lb. limit explaining that the city of Hollister had many neighborhood issues. He suggested that the limit be seven tons and then stated that the towing industry had to take there trucks home at night to respond to police calls explaining that they needed to be included on the list. Council Member Gartman stated that there were two issues: truck traffic going through town and then traffic deliveries. He then asked what would happen if nothing was changed. Transportation Engineer Dey explained that all of the state routes would be truck routes and the cannery district would be a truck route. <t Council Member Gartman asked what the financial impact was for labor. Transportation Engineer Dey explained that there was no dollar amount as the route had not been determined. He then explained that there wasn't a lot of activity for enforcement of the program. He then explained that it would take 200 hours to finish the plan to produce work orders and the $75 per sign was the cost for operations to put up the signs. l ! 9003 Council Member Arellano asked how 10,000 Ibs had been chosen. Transportation Engineer Dey stated that the County used 7 tons but he was following the current ordinance restrictions. Council Member Arellano asked if the city streets were built to take a certain amount of weight, Transportation Engineer Dey explained that the amount of trips on the streets was the issue explaining that the pavement deteriorated more quickly when there was more traffic. Council Member Arellano stated that the truck route roadways would need more repair stating that he would like to see what it would cost the city. He then explained that the current truck routes were in the older sections of Gilroy suggesting that re-routing the truck route should take into consideration convenience for the truckers and safety on the streets. Council Member Gartman suggested that the item come back with answers to the questions that the Council had presented. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the suggestions made by Council with regards to weight limits and other issues. Motion on Item VII.C. Motion was made by Council Member Gartman, seconded by Council Member Bracco and carried to have staff go back and revise the route with the recommended changes from Council. D. Consideration of Increasing the Public Noticing Requirements for Planning Applications The staff report was presented by Community Development Director Rooney. Mayor Pinheiro asked when the notice was mailed out. Community Development Director Rooney explained that it was mailed out so that it was to the property owner 10 days prior to the hearing explaining the notice would be difficult to send it out much earlier as the projects changed. Council Member Gartman suggested adding the meeting location to the notice. Community Development Director Rooney explained that it would be fine. Council Member Gartman spoke on the Morgan Hill differentiation between a project and large project. Community Development Director Rooney explained that she didn't know but she could find out. Council Member Tucker stated that she liked the noticing on the project site itself. Council Member Dillon agreed. Council Member Woodward asked for the process of noticing asking how often the notice went out. Community Development Director Rooney explained that the notice went out 10 days prior to the public hearing and those items that were continued did not have a requirement for re-noticing per State law. Council Member Woodward suggested adding language to re notice after the project 90;6.4 has been continued more than 6 months. City Administrator Haglund explained that the item would come back as a zoning ordinance amendment following the Council input. E. Appointment of Three (3) Council Members to the Open Government Commission Council Member Tucker stated that she would pull her name from the appointment. Council Member Bracco asked how much time the Commission would take. Mayor Pinheiro stated that he didn't know how long it would take. Motion on Item VII.E. Motion was made by Council Member Gartman, seconded by Council Member Dillon and carried to Approve the Appointment of Council Members Arellano, Woodward and Mayor Pinheiro to the Open Government Commission F. Library Construction Update The staff report was presented by Assistant City Administrator Jatczak. City Administrator Haglund stated that he would bring the item back to the Council for the architectural and engineering aspects of the project. Mayor Pinheiro stated that he and other members of the Council could use the refresher course as an overview of the project. Council Member Arellano stated that the most recently designed libraries had an amazing array of offerings to the public. Council Member Woodward asked staff to look at expediting the project due to the low costs of construction at the current time. Mayor Pinheiro suggested that the debriefing on the library take place as soon as possible. Council Member Ar~lIano spoke on the greening of the city and the use of LEED standards. Mayor Pinheiro suggested that the funding from the bonds should be looked at due to the loss of property tax revenues. Council Member Tucker spoke in favor of using the LEED standards and stated that she didn't want the project re-designed as it was a project ready to be built. Mayor Pinheiro stated that he couldn't support a building that didn't meet energy standards and the Council was pushing developers to build green and he would like to see the design of the new library incorporate those standards if possible. Council Member Arellano spoke in support of building the library as the first LEED building in the City explaining that the building shouldn't be built out-dated. Council Member Dillon spoke on the 90% design of the library. <t G. Change of the Reporting Responsibilities of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Board Transportation Engineer Dey presented that staff report. Council Member Gartman asked how staffing was delegated to support the board. Transportation Engineer Dey explained that both Community Development and l 9005 Community Services provided staffing to the Board. Council Member Gartman suggested that the board be staffed by the Community Development staff. Transportation Engineer Dey explained that the Physically Challenged Board of Appeals fell within the Community Development Department. Council Member Arellano suggested that one member of the board be from the disability community. He then spoke on elevating the board to a commission status. Council Member Tucker stated that the board didn't need to be a sub-set of the Parks and Recreation Commission stating that an increased awareness could be achieved if the board reported directly to the City Council.. Council Member Gartman stated that there was no difference between boards and commissions in the City Charter and Municipal Code stating that a definition between the two may be a good idea. City Attorney Callon suggested that the ordinance would need to be amended to make the changes as recommended. Transportation Engineer Dey explained that the ordinance would not change as the by- laws would be amended to reflect the reporting structure. Public Comment Rebecca Scheel, Parks and Recreation Commission member assigned to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Board, spoke on the Council direction out of the 2007 January summit stating that the board was attempting to change to a commission to be appointed as independent citizens, not members from other commissions. Mayor Pinheiro asked if the Parks and Recreation Commission wanted to split from the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Board. Ms. Scheel stated that they did want to split, but they hadn't taken a formal vote to do so. Council Member Woodward asked how the Council could direct staff to change the Board to become a Commission. City Attorney Callon explained that Council could direct staff to draft an ordinance to create the Board into a Commission. Thomas Muniz, Chair of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Boark spoke in favor of the change to a Commission with 7 members of the community at large. Mayor Pinheiro suggested that the Parks and Recreation Commission give the Council their input on the recommendation. Council Member Tucker suggested that the term be extended to a 4-year term. City Attorney Callon stated that all boards should serve 4-year terms per the Charter. Motion on Item VII.F. Motion was made by Council Member Woodward, seconded by Council Member Dillon. and carried to change the reporting responsibilities of the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Board to a 5 member Commission, serving 4-year terms and changing their title to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission <t H. Endorsement of the 2008 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study 900& The staff report was presented by Transportation Engineer Dey. Council Member Arellano spoke on the work done to accommodate the City of Gilroy. Motion on Item VII.F. Motion was made by Council Member Woodward, seconded by Council Member Arellano and carried to approve the endorsement of the 2008 Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study VIII.A. City Administrators Report on Further Budget Reductions City Administrator Haglund presented the report. Council Member Woodward asked if the DARE program would be eliminated. City Administrator Haglund stated that it would. Council Member Woodward asked if any of the bargaining units had provided proposals. City Administrator Haglund stated that the AFSME and Management Group as well as the Fire Unit had. Council Member Tucker asked if there had been any discussions of furlough opportunities in the City. City Administrator Haglund stated that it was a meet and confer issue and both the AFSCME and management units had come forward to confer over the issue. Council Member Tucker asked for the rational behind the cuts with regards to the management positions in the recreation division. City Administrator Haglund explained that the Community Services Director position would remain open to allow for the re-alignment of the services between Community Services and Community Development. He then explained that the Recreation Manager was the only other management position in the division and he then shared the responsibilities of the five recreation supervisor positions. Council Member Woodward asked if the approval on November 5th had included the direction to have the City Administrator return with his recommendations to take the additional $1 million in cuts for the 09/10 fiscal year. City Administrator Haglund explained that the Council had amended the language of the motion to add the additional cuts of $1 million at the discretion of the City Administrator. Council Member Woodward stated that the Council needed to discuss if it was what the Council wanted to do suggesting that the Council consider not eliminating the DARE program or the reduction of the CSO. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the Council had given the City Administrator direction to find the additional $1 million. He then stated that the DARE program had been scrapped at the request of the school district. Council Member Bracco agreed. <t Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the need to take cuts sharing the % cuts by bargaining unit and stating that the professionals within the organization had come up with the cuts. He spoke on the letter sent to the Council from the Police Officers Association stating that they would eliminate all of their special assignments. He explained that the City was still going into a deficit and the Police Officers Association had received the benefits when things were good and they needed to come forward as things were tough. He continued by explaining that many other municipalities were addressing the same issues l 9007 suggesting that both the Police Officers Association and the Fire units no longer have their personal portion of their retirement paid for by the City just as the other employee bargaining units paid for their own share. He spoke on the drop in revenues explaining that the professionals had provided the direction and he believed the Council should support it. Council Member Bracco asked who would be staffing the jail when the other MSO was off. He spoke on the Matrix study suggestion to remove the MSO position. Chief Turner explained that the MSO position was a very valuable function sharing the variety of functions of the position. She explained that they were not sworn officers and she was proposing that 2 of the 5 MSO positions be reduced and an officer be re- allocated. She explained that there were no other cuts that were viable to continue to operate. Council Member Woodward stated that there had been 5 shootings since the November 5th meeting stating that it was the worst spike in violence since the early 90's. He then stated that the City of Gilroy violent crime rate was higher than any other City in the County explaining that the Chief was doing what she was directed to do but she was not saying it was safe. Council Member Woodward asked if the City ran 3 beats a day. Chief Turner stated that they were running 3 beats at a time and there were a variety of other positions out on the streets. Council Member Woodward stated that the affect of the reduction was taking an officer off of the street. He then spoke on the letter from the Police Officers Association explaining that he had interpreted the intent of the letter as the members sharing their willingness to give up their positions as a sacrifice. Chief Turner explained that she had begun tracking training, deployment and equipment and supplies to support the various specialty assignments which came to $345,000 per year. She then spoke on the cuts she had made to the amount of personnel assigned stating that there were a few assignments that she was unwilling to give up as a Police Chief such as the SWAT team. She explained that she was willing to take the SWAT team to 10 people from 18 explaining that Gilroy had joined with Morgan Hill to get expenses down. She explained that she had deliberated with her staff and other Santa Clara County chiefs to make her determinations Mayor Pinheiro read the letter from the Police Officers Association asking how the positions discussed in the letter were considered volunteer positions. Chief Turner explained that the process of selection included set required training. She stated that if officers did not want to perform their duties on SWAT she would look for other officers though they were highly committed and qualified. She then explained that the County Sheriff was willing to be the SWAT team. Chief Turner explained that the SWAT team was highly trained and she could direct any officer to surround a house but they may not be as well trained and could be <a liability. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the amount of time and money invested in the people who had taken the training. Council Member Dillon stated<t that the Police staff could not be forced to perform in the position. Council Member Woodward asked what the costs would be with the cut of the CSO position. Chief Turner explained that the officer would be re-deployed back to patrol and the CSO would be and the MSO would be $130,000 per year. She explained that it would be 9008 about $89,000 and the rest was call out which would still be needed. Council Member Woodward suggested keeping the SWAT team and all MSO positions stating that the City would be $40,000 short from the target reduction. Chief Turner explained that if she were to eliminate the canine and mounted programs she would only be saving $26,000 in savings. She explained that everything else was mandated training and the SWAT training. Motion on Item VIll.A. Motion was made by Council Member Woodward, seconded by Council Member Gartman to direct the City Administrator not to eliminate any MSO positions at this time. Council Member Arellano stated that the Chief had provided the Council with her recommendation and he didn't believe she should be second guessed. He spoke on the cuts to other areas stating that the City was a unit and one area was not more important than the others. He explained that the City Administrator had worked with his Department Heads to make the decisions. He then spoke on the violence in the city explaining that the City had very high violence statistics for years. He spoke in opposition to the motion made and suggested the Council support the City Administrators recommendations. Council Member Bracco stated that he was concerned about the cuts stating that he was more concerned about the rise in crime in the community. He spoke on the relief fire fighters asking how often they were used. City Administrator Haglund explained that they were regular employees assigned to a shift. Council Member Bracco suggested using relief firefighters for the sunrise station. City Administrator Haglund explained that they could be used suggesting that the compliment of line fire personnel was 33 personnel and 3 at sunrise. He then spoke on the brownout of sunrise as a relief pool explaining that it could be configured with the relief pool to fill positions at the other stations. Chief Foster shared the compromise of best levels of service with the least amount of impact on the City. He spoke on the coverage issues and delays in response time explaining that the mutual aid was dwindling. Council Member Dillon stated that he supported the motion. Council Member Woodward asked when the DARE program would end stating that she couldn't back fill until the program had ended. Chief Turner explained that it ended in June and then explained that she had 2 training officers to backfill from their County task force duties and then spoke on the mutual concerns in the county with the reductions in all agencies. Public Comment Kim Sullivan, MSO in the Gilroy Police Department, spoke on the duties of the MSO position. <t Council Member Tucker stated that all employees were important and the City couldn't balance the budget based on fear suggesting that a safety tax be levied in the future. She suggested following the City Administrator and Chiefs determinations. Motion on Item VIII.A. Motion was made by Council Member Woodward, seconded by Council Member Gartman and carried (Council Member Arellano, Council Member Tucker 9609 and Mayor Pinheiro voting no) to direct the City Administrator not to eliminate any MSO positions at this time. Council Member Gartman asked what the total expenditures would be for the fiscal year asking what the following year total expenditures would be for 08/09 from the general fund. He then spoke on the call volume at the fire stations speaking on the closure of the sunrise station. He then suggested that the Finance Director Turner explained that it was $44.7 million in expenditures before reductions and with the reductions it would be $40.9 million in expenditures for fiscal year 08/09 and 09/10 would be $36.3 million. She then explained that the revenues expected were approximately $33.74 million for 08/09 and $38.9 million for 09/10. She then stated that the numbers were not right and she would need to look at them again. Council Member Gartman spoke on the decrease in revenues asking for the projected revenues. He then spoke on the income verses expenses sharing various figures he had gleaned from the quarterly reports. He then stated that the Council needed to know the numbers and staff needed to know the projected revenues in order to make the right deCisions. He then spoke in support of keeping a Fire Fighter or Police Officer before keeping a soccer program. Mayor Pinheiro stated that Council Member Gartman had provided a bunch of numbers and was challenging the City Administrator and Finance Director's recommendations though they were in the professional position to provide the material necessary. He stated that the numbers provided by Council Member Gartman were meaningless as there was no review with the City Administrator stating that it was inappropriate for him to suggest that staff did not know what they were doing. Council Member Tucker explained that on November 5th the City Administrator was given the authority to make the decisions. She stated that she was in full support of the figures provided by the City Administrator and the finance department stating that she didn't believe the Council should be going forward blindly. Council Member Arellano stated that Council Member Gartman could have received the information he was looking for prior to the City Council meeting instead of putting on a big show. He explained that staff was doing their jobs and shouldn't be second guessed. City Administrator Haglund explained that the City Council adopted a $3.9 million deficit budget and in September had taken action to evaluate sales tax and property tax and development fees and general fund revenues. He explained that the Council had been informed on November 5th of the deficit projection as a best estimate based on solid work with the development community, the county and the consultant firm used for sales tax. He explained that the Council had wanted expenditure reductions beyond the $6.7 million but all of the revenue projections were best guess. He then spoke on the spreadsheet Council Member Gartman had presented crafted from the quarterly reports which were generated at the end of each quarter and were un-audited. He explained that the figures were trued up with the state at various times throughout the year and the quarterly reports were not amended to include those true figures so they could not be used as a guide for the previous fiscal year. He concluded by stating that staff had done the level best to arrive at the figures and the amount cut from the budget was a reasonable figure. Finance Director Turner shared the adjusted expenditure figure for 08/09 of $40.9 <t million and revenues of $38.2 which was a projected $2.7million deficit. She then shared the 09/10 adjustment to $37.9 million in expenditures and $38.9 in revenues without the change in the MSO position. She then explained that deceases in the estimates for sales and property tax had not been made to the revenue projections. City Administrator Haglund explained that staff would be returning with other savings options with the joint proposals with the City of Morgan Hill and Hollister, amendments 9010 to the fire command structure and meet and confer options. Mayor Pinheiro asked for the difference in costs for a MSO and a police officer. City Administrator Haglund stated that they were a 10-12% difference. B. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Historical Heritage Committee (HHC)Responsibilities Council Member Tucker asked how the T AC had the right to approve or deny a project. Community Development Director Rooney agreed sharing the pass and fail system with permitting. She spoke on the case in the staff report explaining that code compliance issues were imposed regulations that were passed on to developers and they were not addressed many times by developers. She explained that the issue was indicative to every city. She spoke on the difficulties with smaller developers and spoke on the standardizing of conditions that were attached to the conditions. Council Member Tucker stated that the Murray avenue cul-de-sac was an example stating that she would like to see something that explained why the proposal was denied. Community Development Director Rooney stated that the study work was being done for the Murray Avenue project. City Administrator Haglund spoke on the fail mark from the computer system explaining the process. Council Member Tucker stated that she would like to know of the changes that projects had gone through when the project was amended. City Administrator Haglund stated that something needed to describe that changes had been made. Community Development Director Rooney stated that in the hand-off of the project the HHC had not re-reviewed the project. Mayor Pinheiro explained that staff needed to let the applicants know that they could take things to the next level if they were not code compliance issues. He then shared the ability applicants had to go to the next level. He then spoke on the McDermott project and need to find an agreement. Council Member Gartman stated that a conflict with staff often times meant that the project would not go on to the Planning Commission. He spoke on kicking projects back from the T AC because of design issues. City Attorney Callon explained that state law required that city staff determine when and whether an application was complete or not which was how the planning process worked under state law. Council Member Gartman stated that the staff reports should reflect the reasons staff wasn't recommending items in a design. Community Development Director Rooney explained that architecture was subjective and she then spoke on resoh1ing issues during the staff level revue so that the Council and Planning Commission were dealing with policy issues. Council Member Tucker stated that the HHC was looking for strict guidelines. Community Development Director Rooney stated that the source book dealt with retrofitting explaining that guidelines should be put into the next budget cycle. l 9011 c. Stimulation of Development - Survey of Residential Building Incentives Community Development Director Rooney shared the staff report. Public comment Skip Spiering spoke on the incentives stating that some way to reduce the fees for the standing inventory. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the reduction in impact fees of approximately $50,000 asking if in 6 months when the home was built if it would be enough for the developer to cause them to build. Mr. Spiering explained that the interest on the lot was a continuing cost and the reduction in the fees could possibly pull off the development of the project. Council Member Dillon spoke on the incentive program in the downtown area and the building that took place once the fees were waived. Mayor Pinheiro suggested that a time line be set to end the reduction of fees. Council Member Woodward asked if the general fund would offset the reduced fees. Community Development Director Rooney stated that as the fee structure was set, it would be difficult to waive fees and not pay it back. Mr. Spiering suggested changing the fee schedule for 6 months. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the need for a nexus to the fee charged. City Attorney Callon explained that the nexus was that the City could not charge more than the costs. Mayor Pinheiro asked if public funds would be given away without charging the fees. City Attorney Callon stated that the city could have incentives and could contribute general fund monies. Community Development Director Rooney explained that processing fees were being given away not impact fees. City Administrator Haglund explained that the impact fees were established for roads and other infrastructure needs explaining that if the city charged less for that then the costs would be born on the backs of the existing development. Community Development Director Rooney spoke on the ROO process and deferral of the oak creek impact fees. Council Member Dillon spoke on the deferral of fees. Mayor Pinheiro asked if deferring the fees was something that staff could support. He then suggested that staff come back in January at the summit with more creative ideas. Council Member Arellano stated that he was hearing about helping the developer but the city was not in a position to give away fees. Mayor Pinheiro suggested that the direction was to bring something back that would provide revenues to the City coffers. D. Traffic Update 1. Princevalle and Sixth Street diverter 9012 2. Hirosaki Avenue stop sign request. City Administrator Haglund presented the staff report speaking on the neighborhood safety process both areas were going through. E. Update on Water and Sewer Allocation Ordinance City Administrator Haglund presented the staff report stating that the item would be returning to the Council at the January 12th meeting. IX. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS There was no report. X. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Tucker stated that the Waste Reduction Commission had sent the draft ordinance to each city in the county to the City Administrator for discussion at the Council level and it will go back to the Commission in February. Council Member Arellano spoke on the Salinas Valley Savings building on Fourth and Monterey Streets stating that it was an eye sore. He then shared items that had been discussed throughout the year one of which was street crossings for the sight impaired at new intersections, reducing the carbon footprint for Gilroy, which was an item on the list from the summit and the building of a parking structure for the library instead of paving more property for parking. Council Member Gartman wished everyone a merry Christmas. Council Member Dillon wished everyone a merry Christmas. XII. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS There were no items. XI. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Pinheiro spoke on his meeting with the Morgan Hill City Manager and Mayor and the proposal to hold a joint meeting of the two Council's during the January goal setting session asking if the Council was fine with the idea. The Council all agreed. He then asked the Council to share any information they may have when during the deliberations at a meeting. He then wished everyone a merry Christmas. A. Appointment of Council Members as 2009 Representatives to Boards and Committees Motion on Item XI.A. Motion was made by Council Member Tucker, seconded by Council Member <t Dillon and carried to appoint Council Members to the following boards: Economic Development Corporation Board, Gilroy Downtown Business Assoc. Board, Gilroy Sister Cities Association, LAFCO, Santa Clara County Cities Association Board, Gilroy Street Naming Committee, South County VT A Policy Advisory Board, VTA Policy Advisory Committee, Gilroy School District Accountability Task Force, SCRWA, Santa Clara Valley Water District Uvas/Uagas Committee, South Santa Clara County Planning Committee, Santa Clara Valley Water District Water Committee, Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness I~ 9013 Council, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan Liaison Group, Association of Bay Area Governments, PAB County Expressway Advisory Board, Gilroy Visitor's Bureau, Santa Clara County Recycling & Waste Reduction Commission, Gilroy Gang Task Force, Gilroy Gardens Board, Historical Heritage Committee, Santa Clara County Library JPA XIII. ADJOURNMENT TO MEETING OF JANUARY 12, 2009 at 1 :27 a.m. Is/ SHAWNA F City Clerk S,CMC