Loading...
Minutes 2007/11/19 .',,",,:,~;,T'r""'._.":-'1~'-'1'.;,"".~';;"__"';'.";""'-:' D. Presentations & Proclamations Human Resources Director McPhillips introduced promoted employee Adriana Contreras, Human Resources Technician, Administration. Introductions of promoted employee C. Introductions Mayor Pinheiro announced that Item VII. B. would be moved up the agenda following N., Bids and Proposals. B. Orders of the Day Roll Call Present: Mayor AI Pinheiro, Council Member Peter Arellano, Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Paul Correa, Council Member Craig Gartman, Council Member Russ Valiquette, Council Member Velasco (joined the meeting 7:10 p.m.) City Clerk Freels reported that the agenda had been posted on November 14, 2007 at 12:00 p.m. and the revised agenda had been posted on November 16, 2007 at 4:25 p.m. Pastor Mark Turner of the South Valley Community Church led the Invocation. Mayor Pinheiro led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. Mayor Pinheiro called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A. Call to Order I. OPENING City of Gilroy City Council Minutes Monday, November 19, 2007 Regular Meeting 8739 8740 Mayor Pinheiro presented a letter of Recognition of Eagle Scout Award recipient Matthew Dickson and shared his accomplishments. Mayor Pinheiro presented the Employee of the Month Award for November, 2007 to Dwane Camp, IT II. PRESENTATIONS A. BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FOR 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 Motion on III. Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried to approve the consent calendar. A. Minutes of November 5, 2007 Regular City Council Meeting B. Recommendation to Approve Budget Amendmentsffransfers C. Resolution 2007-86 designating certain City Officials who are authorized to enter into and execute contracts and purchase orders on behalf of the City of Gilroy D. Authorization to proceed with CalPERS Fresh Starts for Safety and Miscellaneous Retirement Plans E. Resolution 2007-87 denying the appeal of the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of vehicle storage and dispatch yard for a trucking business. No on-site storage of materials. Located at 9120 Murray Avenue, northeast corner of Murray Avenue and Las Animas Avenue, APN 835-05-004, applicant Oscar Sencion, CUP 07-03. IV. BIDS AND PROPOSALS There were no bids and proposals. VII. B. (moved during orders of the day) Small Project Exemption to allocate 15 residential units to property located in the Hecker Pass Special Use District, located at 1690 and 1750 Hecker Pass Highway, west of Santa Teresa Boulevard, APN's 810-21-004/005, applicant South Valley Community Church, SPE 06-05 The item was introduced by City Administrator Baksa. Planner II Durkin presented the staff report. Council Member Arellano asked what the total number of acres was asking how many of the acres were dedicated to the project and how many were for the church and school. Planner II Durkin stated that the area was 27 acres and 6 of the acres were for the special project with the remaining acreage for the church and school. Council Member Arellano asked what the definition of subdivision was. Planner II Durkin explained that the definition was to take one lot and create sevc;rallots out of it In one area. Council Member Arellano stated that the staff report explained that the property had not been subdivided. Planner II Durkin explained that it had not, but if approved that evening, the property would be subdivided. She explained that the staff report section was intended to explain that the existing 8741 configuration was as it had been for decades. Mayor Pinheiro explained that the applicant was brining the proposal before the Council to see if they were interested in it conceptually. He then explained that all of the normal steps in the process would still need to taken. Council Member Arellano spoke on the criteria of the subject site asking how staff was trying to justify the project asking if they could subdivide the other acreage later on. Planner II Durkin stated that the subdivision of the property would take place in the future, explaining that the rest of the property was planned for the church and school and would not be subdivided. Council Member Bracco asked if the applicant could come back and ask to subdivide the rest. Planner II Durkin stated that they could come back and ask to subdivide the rest and the Council could make the decision to deny it, but she knew that they did not plan to subdivide the rest of the property. City Administrator Baksa stated that the project would be a specific plan amendment and the amendment could restrict the subdividing of the rest of the property. Council Member Arellano asked if the dedication of property to the City and Uvvas Creek for a trail system would be changed. Planner II Durkin and City Administrator Baksa stated that it would actually add an additional acre of property for a park. Council Member Arellano asked if the City would own the park area. Planner II Durkin explained that because of the size of the park site, the City would not typically own or maintain it. Council Member Arellano asked if the park area would be fenced off from the public. Planner II stated that it would be for private use of the residents of the development. Council Member Arellano spoke on the section of the staff report which stated that the small project exemption may be considered for a special circumstance asking for a special circumstance. Planner II Durkin stated that she had analyzed the project as similar small projects asking for additional units, explaining that generally the Council would make the determination for consistency. Council Member Correa asked if the project met the guidelines of a small project. Planner II Durkin stated that she believed that it met the guidelines of the ordinance as written. Mayor Pinheiro asked the applicant to make his presentation to the Council. Public Comment was opened. Rob Oneto of RJA spoke on the project application explaining that they concurred with the staff report, specifically option #2. He spoke on the reasoning of the proposal explaining that the specific plan allowed for changes. He explained that if other property owners in the specific plan area were seeking to build, they would also go through the same process for approval with a general plan amendment. He asked the Council to consider their thoughts on residential going in the subject area, explaining that the project was meeting the goals and policies of the specific plan and would be increasing the amount of community facilities in the area. Council Member Velasco asked what the density was of the proposal to that of the current specific plan. Mr. Oneto shared the differences in density from the existing east cluster to that of the proposal explaining that overall it was less from the specific plan. He then explained that the visual bi- 8742 product was an added park land area which would enhance the entry to the site. Mayor Pinheiro asked for the location of the park and asked if the area would be fenced. Mr. Oneto stated that it would open up the area towards Hecker Pass explaining that it would be up to the applicant to decide if the park would be open to the public. Council Member Arellano asked if it would be the decision of the association members. Mr. Oneto explained that there were private parks with public access easements explaining that many parks were open to the public. Council Member Correa asked if the applicant was making the park open to the public. The applicant stated that they were opening it up to the public. Council Member Bracco asked if the applicant had owned the property at the time of the specific plan. Mr. Oneto stated that they had been the owners of the property at the time, but had not been a part of the specific plan application explaining that at the time the church did not request RDO's as they were only intending to build a church and school. Council Member Bracco asked if the property had been originally zoned strictly as residential would the applicant be able to build the church. Mr. Oneto stated that in the special use district the uses were narrowed down explaining that churches were not normally zoned. He then explained that if another land owner had owned the property at the time, it would probably have been zoned as residential. Council Member Arellano spoke on the exemption process asking what would prevent other property owners from asking for additional residential requests. Mr. Oneto stated that they could ask for them and explained that the request before the Council was consistent with the intent of the specific plan. Bob Costamagna, spoke on behalf of South Valley Community Church explaining that the project supported multiple goals and policies in the specific plan. He shared the support of the property owners of the specific plan advisory committee and also explained that the intent was to keep the park open to the public. He spoke on the direction from Council to conform to the criteria of the specific plan explaining that they were willing to deed restrict to the 15 units. He then spoke on the number of units requested explaining that the density was 2.5 residential units to acre explaining that the project would also be built as a "green" project. Council Member Arellano asked why the applicant hadn't asked for a general plan amendment first. Mr. Costamagna explained that the costs associated with a general plan amendment along with the time it would take were prohibitive explaining that the investment would be difficult and challenging without the Council's approval of the conceptual proposal. Eric Smith, Pastor of the South Valley Community Church asked the members of the audience in support of the project to stand. He then spoke on the number of signatures on the petition in support of the project and shared the work with the planning process stating that the project would help the focus of the church to assist Gilroy community members. Public Comment was closed. Council Member Arellano spoke on the number of homes designated for the specific plan area asking how they were shifted throughout the specific plan areas. Planner II Durkin explained that there 488 units throughout the entire specific plan area and there was a target density for each of the residential clusters. Council Member Arellano asked if the planned specific plan density divided by home per acre had originally totaled 530 homes. He then asked ifthe 530 had gone to 506 units. 8743 Planner II Durkin stated that final number had been based on the density target for each cluster explaining that originally there had been 427 units requested so the Council used the same density formula for the application for the South ValleylRaily's site, which was 61 units. Council Member Velasco stated that the Railey's application had been for 85 units and had been reduced down to 61 to achieve the density level. Council Member Arellano asked if there were properties in the specific plan area that were not planned for residential. Planner II Durkin stated that all of the properties had residential units with the exception of the South Valley site as it had originally only been intended for the church and school. Council Member Gartman spoke on the Glen Loma project sharing the use of the specific plan exemption process. He then asked why the small project exemption was being used for South Valley. Planner II Durkin stated that the applicant was using the small project exemption because of the smaller number of units and they wanted some assurances of approval before going through the specific plan process. Council Member Gartman asked if the 15 units could be given back to the small project exemptions in the future if the Hecker Pass specific plan was updated and allocations came available. City Administrator Baksa stated that precedence had been set with the downtown specific and it had been done. Mayor Pinheiro stated that he had a discussion with the applicant on the same issue explaining that he would prefer not to take the SPE from the pool as other projects in the community might come forward. He explained that the Council needed to discuss both the issue of residential use in the project site and then the issue of using SPE's or the Glen Loma model. Council Member Bracco spoke on the use ofSPE's in the site explaining that he could support the project using the Glen Loma model. Council Member Correa stated that he was in support of the project and could go either way with the allocations. Council Member Arellano spoke on the criteria stating that it was an application for exemption and the City did not want to say yes to anyone who came in. He spoke on the specific plan process and explained that if there was a decision on a change, it would be on an individual basis. He then shared his concerns with the special circumstances that were outlined in the requirement for a small project exemption stating that he needed to see what the circumstance was. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on special circumstances explaining that the City had helped another 501 C in the past. Council Member Arellano spoke on the number of units allowed with a small project exemption asking how 15 could be allowed instead of 12. Planner II Durkin stated that she was looking at consistency with other projects in the past, explaining that the application was only a few more units and would have no substantial impact on the environment or aesthetics in the area. Council Member Correa stated that the 15 was not unreasonable and with 15 the applicant would be able to build a school. He stated that the project would easily exceed the requirements and standards of the specific plan and he suggested staff look into deed restrict the project to the 15 units. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the project should be proved on its own merits and he believed that the project before the Council was within the specific plan intentions and provided the community with a school and a church. Council Member Arellano spoke on the work done by the Planning Commission explaining that 8744, they had worked diligently with their deliberations on the item and had done what they could using the policy before them. Council Member Bracco asked how a motion could be crafted to allow the allocations to come through the specific plan process instead of from the SPE process. Planner II Durkin shared the options she had given in her staff report. Mayor Pinheiro shared a third option, which was to put the units aside through the specific plan process and if the SPE units were necessary then they would use them at that time. Council Member Velasco asked about the units that had not been counted on the RDO competition asking how many units were not counted. Planner II Durkin explained that 50 units was the total of exempted throughout the term of the RDO competition period. Council Member Velasco thanked that applicant and staff on the project and spoke on the community involvement with the City Council. He spoke in support of the project sharing the services of the school and church to the community. He then spoke on using units that were not from the RDO explaining that the 15 units should come out of the SPE process. Council Member Valiquette spoke on the area off of Hecker Pass asking that they do their best to keep the project out of site. Chris Vanni stated that he was in support of the project. Council Member Arellano read from the staff report asking if the allocations would be considered entitlements from the Specific Plan process. Mayor Pinheiro explained that the motion would need to include that the approval through the general plan and specific plan amendment process would need to be received first. Council Member Arellano stated that he would prefer that they receive the SPE if they wanted something separate from the specific plan. Motion on Item VII. B. , Motion was made by Council Member Bracco, seconded by Council Member Gartman and carried to grant 15 units under the RDO exemption provisions of the General Plan! Specific Plan amendment process if the amendment is approved. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There were no unfinished business items. VII. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS A. Downtown Small Project Exemption to allocate 6 residential units to property located in the DHD-HN (Downtown Historic-Historic Neighborhood) district, located at 7529 Monterey Street, APN 799-06-050, applicant Phoi Phan, Phan Architects, DSPE 07-03 Architectural and Site review to allow the construction of a mixed-use 4-story building on property located in the DHD-HN (Downtown Historic-Historic Neighborhood) district, located at 7529 Monterey Street, APN 799-06-050, applicant Phoi Phan, Phan Architects, AS 07-23. The staffreport was presented by Planner II Polubinsky. Council Member Arellano spoke on the trash collection areas asking where the receptacles were located. Planner II Polubinsky stated that the trash enclosures could be designed to limit the smell explaining that the downtown specific plan did have discussion of downtown trash compactors. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on his communications with the planning staff and South Valley Disposal explaining that community trash areas were being discussed in place of bins in the alleyways. He 8745 then spoke on his meetings with other property owners in the adjacent area who were in support of the bins. Council Member Arellano spoke on the residential units on the second floor and the need for covered trash receptacles. Planner II Polubinsky suggested that the Council provide that direction if they chose to add the condition. Council Member Arellano asked if it was a condominium or residential apartments. Planner II Polubinsky stated that they were apartments. Council Member Gartman asked if the units were individually metered. Planner II Polubinsky stated that the applicant would submit the plans at building permit submittal. Council Member Velasco asked if staff thought that the project would become condominiums at some time. Planner II Polubinsky stated that he had misspoke. Public comment was opened. Phoi Phan offered to answer any of the Council questions. Council Member Arellano spoke on enclosed trash receptacles and trash compactors suggesting that they be included in the project. Mr. Phan stated that he agreed with the suggestion. Motion on Item VII. A. Motion was made by Council Member Valiquette, seconded by Council Member Correa and carried to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving DSPE 07-03 Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member Valiquette to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving AS 07-23 with the inclusion of adding the requirement of an enclosed trash area and trash compactors. Friendly Amendment to Motion on item VII.A. Council Member Gartman spoke on the store front sharing the objection from a member of the Historical Heritage Members asking to add a friendly amendment to the motion to make the change to wood or wood facade in place of the aluminum. Council Member Valiquette spoke on the use of materials and explained that the Historical Heritage Committee had discussed the issue of materials and would be making a presentation before the Council in January. Motion on Item VII.A. continued Council Member Arellano and Council Member Valiquette agreed to the friendly amendment with Council Member Arellano adding to his motion that the issue of the trash odor be addressed also. The motion carried. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Increase to Traffic Development Impact Fee The staff report was presented by City Administrator Baksa. The Public Hearing was opened Larry Cope of the Economic Development Corporation presented the Council with materials on impact fees in neighboring communities suggesting that the continued impact fees would limit the city in the ability to be competitive from a business perspective. 8746 The Public Hearing was closed. Council Member Bracco spoke on the residential charges. City Administrator Baksa explained that the fee was based per unit. Council Member Bracco stated that it was high. Council Member Velasco spoke on the 2.8 asking if it was reflective of what the increase had been in the past. City Administrator Baksa explained that the increase had been 13%. Financial Analyst Bentson stated that it had been 13% the previous year and 6 % the year before. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the self review the City had taken the previous year. Armenta Jensen spoke on her review of bids in both the private and pubic projects throughout the area explaining that she looked at the surrounding bids on a unit price and her review of the CPI. Council Member Velasco stated that his concern was that the increase was low. Armenta Jensen explained that she had seen the fluctuation happen on the bid process. Council Member Velasco spoke on the subsidy of the general fund explaining that it was important to continue to review the fees. He then asked what would happen if the increase was higher. City Administrator Baksa explained that there was flexibility with the process of increasing the fees as at sometimes the City was subsidizing and at some times there was some excess, which had allowed the city to make additional improvements to bridges and streets. Council Member Arellano explained that the City was not making money on the impact fees. Mayor Pinheiro explained that a special session on impact fees was a good idea as there was an impact on future development when fees were increased. Motion on Item V. A. Motion was made by Council Member Bracco, seconded by Council Member Arellano and carried to adopt Resolution 2007-88 Increasing the City's Traffic Impact Fee. City Attorney Callon asked staff to add the resolution language to the exhibit. C. Tentative Map approval to create 10 residential condominium units from two 5-plex apartment buildings. The project includes common open space and garage spaces. Located at 7460 and 7470 Rogers Lane, APN's 841-53-005 & 006. Applicant Creekside Crossing, c/o Sal Akhter. TM 07-04. The staff report was presented by Planner II Polubinsky. Council Member Velasco asked if a HOA would be developed. Planner II Polubinsky stated that it would be developed because there was common open space. Council Member Velasco asked if the small number of units would be a problem for a HOA. Planner II Polubinsky explained that it was up to the Department of Real Estate and generally it was more difficult to build a HOA with 2-4 units as it was difficult to get a board of directors. Council Member Velasco shared his concerns with HOA's explaining that they would not be able to establish reserves for the long term. Mayor Pinheiro explained that it would be harder to maintain if there was no ownership of the buildings. Council Member Velasco then stated that he wanted to raise the awareness to the Council. 8747 Council Member Valiquette asked if the City could require the developer to set aside monies for the HOA. City Attorney Callon stated that in other cities developers put up a maintenance fund to be drawn from. Council Member Velasco stated that he was concerned for the long term maintenance. Planner II Polubinsky explained that as a tentative map approval there were limited restrictions that could be placed on the approval but the Architectural and Site Approval could include requiring payments into the escrow account. He suggested that the Council ask to have it addressed there. City Attorney Callon explained that the establishment of the maintenance fund could be brought back during the Architectural and Site Approval. Mayor Pinheiro suggested that a discussion would need to take place so that all projects had the same requirements. City Administrator Baksa stated that an action would need to be discussed from a conceptual point of view so that there were no unintended consequences. Council Member Arellano asked to have the discussion at the January retreat. He then spoke on the future of the homes explaining that the hope was that ownership would cause for better care of the homes. He then spoke on the medium income owners explaining that a discussion should take place with the Council. Council Member Velasco spoke on the limitations of generating funding for a small HOA. Public Comment was opened. Sal Akhter explained that the entire structure was being upgraded which was essentially improvements that the owners would receive. He spoke on maintenance issues explaining that 15-20 out was when major structural issues would need to be addressed and the HOA would have enough reserve to make the needed repairs. Public Comment was closed. Motion on Item VII. C. Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member Correa and carried to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving TM 07-04. D. City of Gilroy Youth Memorial The staff report was presented by Community Services Director Andrade-Wax. City Administrator Baksa spoke on the memorial he had seen on the east coast. Council Member Arellano spoke on the educational efforts that should be utilized to remind youth and adults about the seriousness of driving a vehicle. He then spoke in favor of a youth memorial. Council Member Bracco stated that he liked the concept and believed members of the youth commission should be on the task force. Mayor Pinheiro asked that a list of the suggested membership to be brought back to Council. Motion on Item VII. D. Motion was made by Council Member Bracco, seconded by Council Member Arellano to approve the concept to form a youth memorial task force, including youth commissioners in the task force makeup and directing staff to return with the committee makeup. E. Appointment of Mayor Protempore from December 3, 2007 to July 31, 2008 Mayor Pinheiro announced the appointment of Council Elect Bob Dillon as Mayor Protempore from December 3, 2007 to July 31, 2008 8748 Motion on Item VII. F. Motion was made by Council Member Correa, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried to approve the appointment. F. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Amending Chapter 4, Articles II, III and IV, of the Gilroy Code (The animal control ordinance) to clarify certain violations and to increase insurance requirements contained therein. The staff report was presented by Chief Giusiana. Motion on Item VII. F. Motion was made by Council Member Bracco, seconded by Council Member Valiquette and carried to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading of the ordinance. City Clerk Freels read the ordinance by title. Motion on Item VII. F. Motion was made by Council Member Bracco, seconded by Council Member Arellano and carried (Council Member Gartman voting no) to introduction of An Ordinance ofthe City Council of the City of Gilroy Amending Chapter 4, Articles II, III and IV, of the Gilroy Code (The animal control ordinance) to clarify certain violations and to increase insurance requirements contained therein VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS There were no City Administrator's reports. IX. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS There were no City Attorney's reports. X. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS XI. MAYOR'S REPORT A. Consideration of the request of League of California Cities urging the USPS to issue a commemorative stamp of Tom Bradley Mayor Pinheiro asked if the Council was in support of adopting a resolution to support the commemorative stamp. The Council Members all agreed to support the commemorative stamp. B. Discussion of January 25th & 26th, 2008 Council Policy Summit Mayor Pinheiro announced that the policy summit would be held January 26th, 27th and 28th, 2008, changing the days from Friday through Sunday to Saturday through Monday. Council Member Bracco stated that he would not be able to attend the Monday session. Mayor Pinheiro asked the Council and Council elect to send him an email with their cOffimitteelboard membership interests for the upcoming appointments. Mayor Pinheiro reminded the Council of the December 6th Holiday Party for the SCC Cities Association and asked them to give their reservations to City Clerk Freels. The Meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. to the December 3, 2007 Regular Meeti~. . If' f/, --/:;' n ~::ti if ~Lt<<) SJ;mwn~ Freels, CMC / City Clerk '