Loading...
Minutes 2007/10/01 ..-'::""~::E:.:':>.'~":'_.~~:~.'!::'->-":'i'~:C~"':;::';';",.:.k;'<'::""':~';. ~""=~"="",,;..,:..'i;T~,,,~;;:;/:i;':;":~~ 8714 City of Gilroy City Council Minutes October 1. 2007 Special/Reaular Meetina I. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9: one potential case. The City Council went into Closed Session at 5:30 p.m. II. ADJOURN to Open Session The City Council adjourned into open session at 6:00 p.m. I. STUDY SESSION Community Development Department update of on-going projects. I. OPENING A. Call to Order Mayor Pinheiro called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Pinheiro led the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The invocation was given by Pastor Mark Turner of South Valley Community Church. Closed Session Announcement Mayor Pinheiro stated the City Council had come out of Closed Session and had voted to pursue litigation against W.L.C. Architects on the Police Station. VOTE: Ayes: Bracco, Gartman, Pinheiro, Valiquette, Velasco. Noes: None. Absent: Correa and Arellano. City Clerk Freels stated that the agenda had been posted on September 26,2007 at 12:00 noon. Roll Call Present: Mayor AI Pinheiro, Council Member Peter Arellano, Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Craig Gartman, Council Member Russ Valiquette, Council Member Roland Velasco Absent: Council Member Paul Correa Mayor Pinheiro explained that Council Member Correa was ill and would not be at the meeting. B. Orders of the Day There were no changes to the agenda. c. Introductions There were no introductions. 8715 D. Presentations & Proclamations Mayor Pinheiro presented proclamations to the Gilroy Girls Little League Softball Team and coaches for their accomplishments at the Little League Softball World Series Mayor Pinheiro presented proclamations for Breast Cancer Awareness Month to members of the Gilroy Relay for Life Committee. Marcus Beverly presented the City with the Association of Bay Area Governments grant for achieving the framework and best practices milestones in the City's risk management plan. Mayor Pinheiro asked the Council if they would like to move Item VII. A. as the next item on the agenda. The City Council unanimously agreed to move the item up. VII. A. Approval of conceptual sketch drawings for three downtown streetscape sculptures presented by artist Marlene Amerian. Community Service Director Andrade-Wax introduced Marlene Amerian the artist for the project. Marlene Amerian presented the conceptual sketches of the 3 sculptures. Council Member Arellano stated that there was various history in Gilroy and suggested that the City look into it for the future. Motion on Item VII A. Motion was made by Council Member Velasco, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried (Council Member Correa absent) to approve conceptual sketch drawings. II. PRESENTATIONS A. BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA, BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL There were no public comments on items not on the agenda. III. CONSENT CALENDAR Item III. A was pulled from the consent agenda by Council Members Valiquette and Gartman. Motion on Consent Items B, C and D Motion was made by Council Member Valiquette, seconded by Council Member Arellano and carried (Council Member Correa absent) to approve the items. B. Adoption of Resolution authorizing the assurance of the City of Gilroy to complete the sixth street streetscape west under Santa Clara County VT A community design for transportation program and committing to the necessary local match. (Continued from 9/17/07) C. Recommendation to Approve Budget Amendmentffransfers. D. Adoption of Resolution endorsing the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. A. Minutes of the September 10,2007 and September 17, 2007 Regular Meetings. Council Member Valiquette asked if the minutes of September 17, 2007 should reflect that Council Member Gartman had turned over the materials as directed at that meeting. City Attorney Callon stated that it would not be reflected in the minutes of September 17, 2007. Council Member Valiquette asked if it would be reflected in the current meetings minutes. Mayor Pinheiro explained that it would be reflected as the Council went through the current agenda. 8716 Council Member Gartman asked to have the minutes continued to the next meeting as they had been delivered the previous day and he had not had enough time to revue them. Motion on Item III.A. Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member Gartman and carried (Council Member Correa absent) to continue the item to the next meeting. IV. BIDS AND PROPOSALS There were no bids and proposals. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Amending Gilroy City Code Section 7.4.1, modifying the boundaries of the zero fee area (as defined by exhibit "A") and providing that certain fees and costs charged to development projects in the zero fee area are eliminated until December 31,2008. (Introduced 9/17/07) The staff report was presented by City Administrator Baksa. Motion on Item VI. A Motion was made by Council Member Velasco, seconded by Council Member Valiquette to adopt the Ordinance. Mayor Pinheiro shared his concern with the date that plans must be turned stating that February 2008 would not allow enough time for plans to be brought in. City Administrator Baksa stated that the date was originated to put performance to it. Assistant City Administrator Jatczak explained that staff was attempting to add some flexibility to the ordinance to allow a frame work to complete the review process that would give enough time for a thorough staff review. Mayor Pinheiro asked if staff would have enough time to do a complete review process if the date were changed to June 2008. Assistant City Administrator Jatczak stated that 1-1 Y2 years would be sufficient but a project requiring a more complex review would need more time. She then explained that staff had explored extending the application deadline and extension process, but felt that too many extensions would be coming in, which would put the City back in the same position. City Administrator Baksa stated that staff was attempting to put something together that would be guaranteed. Assistant City Administrator Jatczak stated that staff was attempting to devise something that would work for the applicant also. Mayor Pinheiro asked if the Council would consider that the date be changed to June, 2008 from February and if special circumstances came up, then those be brought to Council. City Administrator Baksa stated that pressure would be put on staff to get full review done at the very end of the project. Mayor Pinheiro stated that he would prefer that the City Council make the decision on extending a full EIR or extenuating circumstances explaining that a project of substance should have a chance to survive as a major impact to the downtown. City Administrator Baksa stated that the City Council's goal with the incentives was to get something to happen; explaining that in November 2009 the City would get hit. Mayor Pinheiro stated that it would happen in November of2009 either way. He then asked for a friendly amendment to the motion. Council Member Velasco asked if the fee elimination would change. 8717 City Administrator Baksa stated that the fee elimination date would not change explaining that it was the incentive date to get the AlS in would change to June 30, 2007. Council Member Arellano asked if a project was sold in June 2008, would the Council extend to yet another date. Mayor Pinheiro explained that it would be up to the Council at the time, explaining that 1 ~ years should be enough time for staff to get their review done. He then stated that if it was a big project then February was too close. Council Member Velasco asked if the AlS date would change from February to June, 2008 and the building permit process would end in December of 2009. Mayor Pinheiro stated that everything else would remain the same. City Administrator Baksa stated that it would be 18 months instead of 22 months. Council Member Arellano spoke on the possibility of someone be told their project was less important than another project explaining that he didn't think the Council should make that sort of decision and a firm date should be fixed. City Administrator Baksa stated that the dates would be fixed. Mayor Pinheiro explained that if a property owner had just purchased a project they may not have enough time but he end date would remain the same Public Comment was Opened James Suner spoke in support of large scale development explaining that re-structuring the impact fee system was necessary. He then shared the impact fee systems for various cities and suggested that the impact fees generated by the City be targeted for parking and other amenities in the downtown areas. Mayor Pinheiro explained that the City would be holding study sessions on the issues Mr. Suner was sharing. Mr. Suner stated that the City needed to look at the more global larger picture in the downtown, explaining that a long-term approach should be looked into. Mayor Pinheiro agreed explaining that the ideas Mr. Suner was presenting would be brought to the table with the downtown task force. Tony Sudol spoke on impact fees, stating that it was still a work in progress and a cut dead date did not need to be set as the downtown was not done. City Attorney Callon explained that the Ordinance would need to be re-introduced as the it was being changed. Council Member Velasco asked if he should withdraw his motion on the item. Withdrawn Motion on Item VI. A Council Member Velasco withdrew his motion on the item. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the Council was not trying to stop the downtown, but was trying to use a mechanism to get more done in the downtown with a different approach. Motion on Item VI.A. Motion was made by Council Member Velasco to read the ordinance by title only, with the change in the date to June 30, 2008 and everything else to remain the same. The motion was seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried (Council Member Gartman voting no and Council Member Correa absent) An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Amending Gilroy City Code Section 7.4.1, Modifying the Boundaries ofthe zero fee area (as defined by exhibit "A") and providing that certain fees and costs charged to development projects in the zero fee area are eliminated until December 31,2008 City Clerk Freels read the ordinance by title. 8718 Vote to Introduce Item VI. A. The item carried (Council Member Gartman voting no and Council Member Correa absent) B. DSPE 07-01, an application for demolition of two unreinforced masonry buildings and architectural and site approval for a new three-story building in the downtown historic district (DHD), on approximately 0.16 acres located at 7517 and 7525 Monterey Street, north of Fifth Street intersection, Akshar LLC, c/o Jeffrey King DSPE 07-01lAlS 07-18 (on 8/6/07 agenda, Council Members Arellano and Correa absent and continued from 9/17/07 meeting) A/S 07-18, Architectural & Site Plan Review for eight (8) residential condominiums in a three-story mixed use building, as Downtown Specific Plan Exemption units. Request for the demolition of two (2) URM buildings in the Downtown Historic District, located at 7517 and 7525 Monterey Street. Akshar LLC, c/o Jeffrey King, DSPE 07-OlIA/S 07-18 (on 8/6/07 Agenda, Council Members Arellano and Correa absent) The staff report was presented by City Administrator Baksa. Council Member Arellano stated that he had reviewed the minutes from the August 8, 2007 meeting explaining that it was mentioned that they would be held to a certain fm;ade. Mayor Pinheiro explained that the Historic Heritage Committee had approved it. Council Member Valiquette explained that the HHC would review all of the remodels of the downtown URM buildings. Motion on Item VI. B Motion was made by Council Member Bracco, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried (Council Member Correa absent) to adopt Resolution 2007-71 approving DSPE 07-01. Motion was made by Council Member Valiquette, seconded by Council Member Gartman and carried (Council Member Correa absent) to adopt Resolution 2007-72 approving A/S 07-18. C. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy approving GP A 05-02, a General Plan amendment to change the General Plan land use designation from general services commercial to downtown expansion district on approximately 6.29 acres, located at 200 E. Tenth Street, APN's 841-16-029, 841-16-061 and 841-16-004, to amend that district along the Tenth Street corridor to allow stand-alone residential development, and to revise certain limits on outdoor noise levels along the downtown specific plan railroad corridor. San Ysidro Square, applicant (c/o Tony Sudol), Z 05-11 Council Member Bracco recused himself from deliberating on the item stating that he owned property in the area and he then left the dais. The staff report was presented by City Administrator Baksa. Council Member Arellano stated that the Negative Declaration read that the property was in the northern part, outside of the City limits. City Attorney Callon explained that the Negative Declaration had a typo as it was within the incorporated area. Motion on Item VI. C. Motion was made by Council Member Gartman, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried (Council Members Correa and Bracco absent) to adopt Resolution 2007-73 approving GP A 05-02, a General Plan amendment to change the General Plan land use designation from general services commercial to downtown expansion district on approximately 6.29 acres, located at 200 E. Tenth Street, APN's 841-16-029, 841-16-061 and 841-16-004, to amend that district along the Tenth Street corridor to allow stand-alone residential development, and to revise certain limits on outdoor noise levels along the downtown specific plan railroad corridor. D. Introduction of an ordinance approving application Z 05-11, for a change in zoning designation from commercial industrial (CM) to downtown expansion district (DED) on approximately 6.29 acres located at 200 E. Tenth Street, APN's 841-16-029, 841-16-061 8719 and 841-16-004.Ysidro Square, applicant (c/o Tony Sudol), Z 05-11. (Public Hearing held 9/17/07) Motion on Item VI. D. Motion was made by Council Member Velasco, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried (Council Members Bracco and Correa absent) to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading of the ordinance. City Clerk Freels read the ordinance title. Motion to Introduce Item VI. D. Motion was made by Council Member Velasco, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried (Council Members Bracco and Correa absent) to introduce an ordinance approving Z 05-11, for a change in zoning designation from commercial industrial (CM) to downtown expansion district (DED) on approximately 6.29 acres located at 200 E. Tenth Street, APN's 841-16-029, 841-16-061 and 841-16-004.Ysidro Square, applicant (c/o Tony Sudol), Z 05-11 Council Member Bracco returned to the dais. E. An Ordinance of the City of Gilroy amending Gilroy Zoning Ordinance Sections 11.13 and 39.30 relating to the City of Gilroy's accessory dwelling unit provisions. (public Hearing held 9/17/07) City Administrator Baksa presented the staff report. Council Member Arellano asked which sections had been changed. City Administrator Baksa explained that the entire ordinance was new. Council Member Arellano asked if a property owner was zoned R 1 in an older section of town, would they be allowed to add more units based on lot size and set-backs. City Administrator Baksa stated that they would if they met all of the requirements. City Attorney Callon explained that some of the sections of the ordinance were the same, explaining that the staff report shared all of the cross-out sections. Motion on Item VI.E. Motion was made by Council Member Gartman, seconded by Council Member Bracco and carried (Council Member Correa absent) to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading of the ordinance. City Clerk Freels read the Ordinance by title. Motion to Introduce Item VI. E. Motion was made by Council Member Velasco, seconded by Council Member Gartman and carried (Council Member Correa absent) to introduce an ordinance amending the Gilroy Zoning Ordinance Sections 11.13 and 39.30 relating to the City of Gilroy's accessory dwelling unit provisions. Z 07-02, the City of Gilroy applicant. VII. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS B. An Ordinance amending the Gilroy City Code by adding a new Article V regarding the creation of a construction and demolition debris diversion program and the requirement to submit and comply with a waste management plan (WMP) for certain construction, demolition and renovation projects within the City. The staff report was presented by Environmental Programs Manager Jensema. Public Comment was opened Chris Cote spoke in support of the Ordinance and shared the suggestion that the Ordinance have a requirement for a higher percent of recycling with a financial incentive attached. He then suggested that buildings less than 5000 square feet be required to recycle also. 8720 Council Member Arellano asked how many square feet of Mr. Cote's project. Mr. Cote stated that that 16, 000 square feet was being demolished and 30,000 square feet would be constructed. City Administrator Baksa stated that the City had success with implementing a little at a time and the City wanted to get compliance with success and then move the percent up. Mr. Cote stated that it was easy to get 50% stating that it was shooting lower than the City needed to and other cities were doing it. Council Member Velasco asked what higher percent could be suggested. City Administrator Baksa stated that the City could start off higher. Environmental Programs Manager Jensema stated that of the cities surveyed in the Bay Area the average was between 50% and 75% but they had not determined how long it took them to get there. Mayor Pinheiro suggested that the City try the 50% and bring back the Ordinance in one year with a goal to find out what can be done. City Administrator Baksa stated that the size of the project could be looked at as Mr. Cote had suggested. Council Member Arellano asked what penalties would be imposed on projects that didn't comply. Environmental Programs Manager Jensema stated that the City did not want to penalize, but educate on recycling. Council Member Arellano asked why the City was concerned with the size ofthe project. Environmental Programs Manager Jensema stated that recycling rate was built into the agreement with South Valley Disposal and their recycler. City Attorney Callon shared the sections of the Ordinance on the penalty assigned to non- compliant projects. Phil Couche of South Valley Disposal stated that the 50% was an achievable goal sharing the resources needed for recovery. Mayor Pinheiro asked if the next goal could be set at 60%. Mr. Couche stated that the data would be started and a judgment could be made. Council Member Arellano spoke on the raise in recycling % asking why a goal wasn't being established for the recycling %. He then stated that educating people to recycle at a higher % would be a win-win situation. Mayor Pinheiro stated that South Valley Disposal had set up the load rate at 50%. Mr. Couche stated that 100% recycling material could be taken. Council Member Arellano spoke on the recycling rate and amount of sorted materials. Mr. Couche stated that the recycling facility would work through the materials submitted to separate the recyclable materials and determine the % recycled. Council Member Arellano asked if the recycling facility would be able to sort out higher than 50%. Mr. Couche stated that the requirement was on the developer to bring the materials to the recycling facility for 50% recycling. 8721 Council Member Velasco explained that the recycling center was guaranteeing a 50% recycling rate and Mr. Cote was doing his own 100% recycling prior to brining the materials to the facility. He then asked if another facility would need to be found for a 75% recycling guarantee. Mr. Couche explained that the 75% rate could be achieved at the recycling center if the source was separating as Mr. Cote was doing at the construction site itself. Council Member Arellano suggested that the developers put in more time into the ordinance for a higher %. Motion on Item VII. B. Motion was made by Council Member Velasco, Seconded by Council Member Bracco and carried (Council Member Correa absent) to read the Ordinance by title only and waive further reading of the ordinance. The Ordinance was read by City Clerk Freels. Motion on Introduction of Item VII. B. Motion 'Was made by Council Member Velasco, seconded by Council Member Arellano and carried (Council Member Correa absent) to introduce an ordinance amending the Gilroy City Code by adding a new Article V regarding the creation of a construction and demolition debris diversion program and the requirement to submit and comply with a waste management plan (WMP) for certain construction, demolition and renovation projects within the City with the additional requirement that the item come back to the Council in November, 2008. The City Council took a 5 minute break. VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS A. Report on water fund monies and downtown streetscape project. City Administrator Baksa shared the background of the anonymous letter presented to the City and presented materials to the Council in summary response to the anonymous letter regarding the Monterey Streetscape Phase III Waterline ReplacementlUpgrade Project. Senior Civil Engineer Dey presented the background on the water line replacement project. Council Member Valiquette stated that the fire hydrants had been connected from Lewis and Monterey Streets down to the Post Office explaining that the replacement of the water lines had to do with public safety. City Administrator Baksa shared the downtown streetscape project timeline sharing the accounting of all three phases of the project and funding sources. He explained that the water and sewer funds had been used to fund small portions of replacement only. He explained that the anonymous letter was very difficult to follow but as many questions brought forward in it were answered in the handout. He explained that the 2005/2006 numbers had been used in the letter so they were not accurate to the City audited numbers. He explained that the City had presented the Dispatch with a press release and a follow-up letter and nothing had been printed. He then concluded by explaining that there had not been any misappropriation of funds and all utility services such as gas lines had been replaced as in previous projects explaining that the water lines could be replaced with fund 720 water funds and the streetscape project called out for the project and the City Council had appropriately approved the project. Council Member Valiquette spoke on the Council's direction to have Council Member Gartman turn in the letter to staff asking when staff had received the letter. He then explained that the email that the Council received had nothing to do with the letter. He asked Council Member Gartman to give the date that he had received the letter and asked if he had fmished his investigation and had any findings to share with the Council. City Administrator Baksa stated that he had not received a copy of the letter. Council Member Bracco asked if the Mayor had made the copy for the City Administrator. Mayor Pinheiro stated that had brought the letter to the City Administrator the Thursday after it was given to the Council. 8722 Council Member Gartman stated that he had received the letter on the Thursday before the meeting and he had done some investigations on Tuesday and Wednesday and had provided them with the letter to the Council the Wednesday after the meeting but he still had more to investigate. Mayor Pinheiro asked why it had taken so long to bring the document forward explaining that the Council norms were to bring items to the City Administrator or the Mayor. He explained that the Council had given Council Member Gartman direction to bring the letter to staff and it had not been followed. Council Member Arellano explained that it was a waste of the City's time and resources to pursue the anonymous letter, explaining that the City staffhad answered the accusation and he accepted that it was done right and there was no reason to continue to consider the allegations. Council Member Bracco stated that the City had to address it as the allegations had been presented in a Council Meeting. He then stated that a high ranking person with background in the City had to have been behind the allegations. He then asked how much time the City had spent on the allegations asking where the City's responsibility stood on staff time used to explain things to the public. City Administrator Baksa stated that it had taken 100 hours of staff time to provide the report to the Council and explained that much of staff time was spent on explaining things to the media or the public explaining that staff did try to balance their time. Council Member Bracco stated that it was shameful the way the issue was handled explaining that the City was constantly defending itself and needed to set a policy for dealing with such accusations as staffs work would not get done if they were constantly . Council Member Velasco shared the timeline of the issue stating that it was inappropriate for Council Member Gartman to withhold the documents from City staff, keeping the accusations from being investigated. He stated that the Council needed to hold themselves to a higher standard. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the rest of the Council Members would have provided the materials to staff right away explaining that the process of working as a team was part of the responsibility of the City Council. He explained that the Council should try to work as a team and bring such issues to the Council as a whole. He concluded by stating that the issue needed to be brought to an end. Council Member Arellano spoke on the need to be an open City, explaining that staff bent over backwards to help the public. He then stated that an anonymous letter would not be worth the City's time or the Council's time. Council Member Gartman explained that the letter had not asked him to do an investigation. He explained that he had glanced at the letter on Thursday and then looked at it more thoroughly on Monday. He then stated that if a member of the public brought their concerns to him, he would look into them and he shouldn't be criticized for it. He spoke on the time line explaining that he compiled information to clarify the letter and had provided it to the Council and had seen that the Mayor had provided the material to the City Administrator the following day. He concluded by stating that he hoped that the staff work on the item would clear it up, and he was not ready to put it to bed until he was satisfied. Council Member Valiquette shared the Council norms that were not followed by Council Member Gartman during the deliberations of the Water Rate increase. He then explained that he had not followed the Council direction to submit the letter to staff stating that he was not a single Council Member, but part of a body of 7 and Council Member Gartman had excluded the rest of the Council. He then spoke in opposition to the statement of a conspiracy of misuse of funds. Mayor Pinheiro asked the Council to make a decision on the item. Motion on Item VIII A. Council Member Bracco made the motion that the City was fmished with it, and accepting the report and conclusions of it as presented, unless someone wanted to come into City Hall and speak with the City Administrator. The motion was seconded by Council Member Arellano. r- 8723 Council Member Velasco asked that the motion be amended that the Council was receiving the report and keeping it open and there was still time for members of the public to come in and talk about it. Amendment to Motion on Item VIII.A. Council Member Arellano amended the motion to: the Council was accepting the Cities claim as fact and there was no basis to the letter and no future action needed. Council Member Bracco agreed to the amendment and it carried (Council Member Gartman voting no and Council Member Correa absent) IX. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS There was no report. X. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Arellano stated that the City had come a long way with accepting the Mayors climate protection agreement. XI. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Pinheiro explained that the process of forwarding emails directly to the City Council from the City website had been made. XIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.