Loading...
Minutes 2008/09/15 I -_',"~~'.-~-_'~.~,,-,.".;."~' - -"-">""'~_g.~'""""",~,,,,,,"""'-""";'""""_"":'.""i'"'''01'''''':''''"~''","-';"--"'"'-""'''''~;C_<;'r''''''0='.'''''f''^~'''''''''''H<<',..,.~~~-"""""",=""",'*""""""",,-,,,",,g"""''''',!=''-.T''.,,,,~~";::,",-''''='''''''''_.u=~.~=-V4'--:''."_.'."""""'~';-;~""-_4.i.~",","".',",~,,~=e<"""\::':~"',":c;:i~"";;l"~'_":",f"-i ,----:."....'D_\.i::~~'il'>:,:"'.:;.o.:,,,,',-;.V,',:,t..'.,.."";l:l> City of Gilroy City Council Minutes Monday, September 15, 2008 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 The Invocation was given by Pastor Malcolm McPhail of New Hope Community Church. City Clerk Freels reported that the agenda had been posted on September 10, 2008 at 1 :00 p.m. Roll Call Present: Council Member Peter Arellano, Council Member Dion Bracco, Council Member Bob Dillon, Council Member Craig Gartman, Council Member Cat Tucker, Council Member Perry Woodward and Mayor AI Pinheiro B. Orders of the Day Mayor Pinheiro announced that Item VII.B. and Item VII.D. would not be heard. City Administrator Haglund stated that both items would be moved to a date certain. He explained that Item VII.B. would be returning at the October 20,2008 Regular Meeting and Item VII.D would be returning at the October 6,2008 Regular Meeting. 4 Mayor Pinheiro asked for a motion to continue both items. Motion to Continue Items VII.B. and VII.D. Motion was made by Council Member Tucker, seconded by Council Member Woodward and carried to continue Item VII.B to October 20, 2008 and Item VitO to October 20, 2008. 8905 C. Introductions There were no introductions. D. Presentations, Proclamations and Awards Walter Schinke presented the annual presentation of the Physically Challenged Board of Appeals sharing the importance for closed captioning of public meetings, ADA compliance within all capital improvement projects and all new neighborhood developments. Mayor Pinheiro read the Proclamation naming September 22nd, 2008 as Family Day - "A Day to Eat Dinner with Your Children" Mayor Pinheiro presented a Proclamation naming September 15 through the 19th, 2008 as "Constitution Week" to Mrs. Slater of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Mrs. Slater spoke on Constitution week sharing the importance of educators highlighting the week in their classrooms. Mayor Pinheiro presented the Volunteers of the Month Award for July, 2008 to the Gilroy Fire Volunteers Brad Ferrier, Eric Ortega, Manny Palomares and Ethan Ogal. Mayor Pinheiro presented the Volunteer of the Month Award for August, 2008 to Apolonio Jaurequi. 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 Susan Valenta of the Chamber of Commerce shared a new brochure produced by the Chamber. Steve Harris asked if there would be public comment on one of the items on the agenda. Mayor Pinheiro explained that there would be public comment on all items. III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the August 4, 2008 Regular Meeting B. Claim of Family of Gurmit Singh (City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of the claim) C. Resolution 2008-38 Revising the City Conflict of Interest Code Pursuant to its Biennial Review D. Approval of Notice of Acceptance of Completion of Property Improvement Agreement No. 2004-14, Tract 9545 - Hollyhock Hills, APN 783-04-018, Santa Clara County New Communities E. Approval of Notice of Acceptance of Completion of Property Improvement Agreement No. 2003-05, Tract 9483 - Church Street Homes, APN 790-08-005, South County Community Builders, a California Non-Profit Corporation 8904 F. Approval of Notice of Acceptance of Completion of Property Improvement Agreement No. 2004-18, Tract 9467-Transitional Housing, Monterey Road, APN 790-07-012 & 013, South County Community Builders, a California Non-Profit Corporation G. Approval of South Valley Disposal & Recycling Request for Thanksgiving, 2008 as a Non-working Holiday H. Approval of the Formation of a Sub-Committee to Work with Gilroy Gardens Board of Directors and Appointment of Council Members Bracco, Dillon and Woodward as Sub-Committee Members Motion on the Consent Agenda Motion was made by Council Member Tucker, seconded by Council Member Woodward and carried to approve the consent agenda. IV. BIDS AND PROPOSALS A. Approval of a Bid Recommendation for the Forest Street Pavement Rehabilitation (Lewis Street to Sixth Street) and Slurry Seal (Various Locations), Project No. 08-CDD-157 to Wattis Construction Co. in the Amount of $348, 334.00 Council Member Woodward recused himself explaining that he owned property within 500 feet of the subject property. He then left the dais. The staff report was presented by Engineer II Dey. Council Member Dillon asked if the slow construction season was causing bids to come in less than the Engineers estimate. Engineer II Dey agreed that the slow down in construction had caused contractors to come in more competitively with their bids. Motion on Item IV.A. Motion was made by Council Member Dillon, seconded by Council Member Bracco and carried (Council Member Woodward absent) to Approve Bid to Wattis Construction Co. in the Amount of $348,334.00 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Tentative Map Request to Create Six (6) Commercial Units and Thirty Six (36) Residential Units in a Proposed New Mixed Use Building Located at 7161 Monterey Street, APN 799-10-034 & 048, Ali Bakhtar c/o Reid Lerner, TM 07- 07 The staff report was presented by Planner II Mcintyre. Council Member Tucker asked about the other projects in the area asking if all of them would be 4-story. Planner II Mcintyre stated that one of the projects was planned as a 3-story project and the Fong Plaza proposal was 4-story. She then explained that she was unsure about the Banes Lane project. Council Member Arellano asked how many parking spaces were planned for the project. Planner II Mcintyre stated that there were 36. Council Member Arellano asked how many condominiums were planed. 8905 Planner II Mcintyre stated that there were 36 units so there would be 1 parking space for each unit. Council Member Arellano asked if there would be a homeowners association. Planner II Mcintyre stated that there would be one for the commercial side and one for the residential. The public hearing was opened. Reid Lerner the architect for the project spoke on the transit orientation of the development intended to make the public transit easy to use and shared the reconstruction of Gourmet Alley and Monterey Street as conditions of the approval. He then stated that the project would be energy efficient and would be following the "build it green" standards. The public hearing was closed. Motion on Item V.A. Motion was made by Council Member Tucker, seconded by Council Member Arellano and carried to Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution to Approve TM 07-07 VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Proposed Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amenity Policy, M 06-08 The staff report was presented by Planner II Durkin. Council Member Tucker spoke on the differences in opinion between planners and applicants asking what the appeals process would be. Planner II Durkin stated that it would take time to gauge the Council's preferences, but all applications would come before the Planning Commission and Council for approval. She suggested that the on-site amenities would be similar to what the Council had seen previously and off-site amenities would be brought forward and reviewed by Council for direction explaining that it would be an on-going process to meet the Council's goals. Council Member Tucker spoke on project proposals that did not get processed to the Council level asking if the Council would have the opportunity to review those initial proposals. City Administrator Haglund stated that the developer would play out their proposals to the Planning Commission first and any disagreement would come before the Council. Council Member Tucker stated that she didn't think her original question had been answered, but she did understand the process. City Administrator Haglund stated that the policy would help the developer to establish what would work for their size of PUD. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the process explaining that the applicant would need to share their original offer with Council if they were passionate about it. He explained that he understood Council Member Tucker' question as a developer may propose an off-site park or barbeque area as an amenity and staff may disagree with the proposal, which would lead the applicant to re-draft the proposal based on staff's recommendation. 8906 Council Member Tucker agreed, stating that she may agree with the developer's original proposal of the park. Council Member Woodward asked if there was a distinction between an infill PUD and a PUD on the edge of town. He asked if the applicants for the two types of PUD would have any different treatment and requirements for off-site amenities. Planner II Durkin stated that they would both be treated equally. Council Member Woodward then asked why the item was being presented as a policy instead of as a revision to the City zoning ordinance. Planner II Durkin explained that a policy was a way of implementing the zoning ordinance requirements that were in place. She explained that the City zoning ordinance required amenities for PUD's and the policy was being put in place so there would be direction to standardize what is being provided as an amenity. Council Member Woodward asked if the policy was to provide Council's interpretation of what the ordinance read. Planner II Durkin explained that it would direct applicants and staff to ensure the projects provided what the Council wanted to see in amenities. She explained that there would be some leeway, but Council would fine tune the policy with review of each PUD. She concluded by explaining that the policy was an attempt to direct developers in the direction the Council chose. Council Member Woodward stated that the reason the PUD amenities were not in the zoning ordinance was because the Council at one time had indicated that was their preferred direction. Planner II Durkin agreed stating that the direction had been to implement a policy rather than amend the zoning ordinance text. Council Member Tucker stated that the Council had previously reviewed the ordinance page-by-page asking if each element in section 1 would be each PUD. Planner II Durkin stated that the elements would be commensurate to the number of units and the number of exemptions. She explained that they had attempted the formula approach with a previous version of the policy, but it had not gone over well. She explained that the process as drafted was typical of the planning process. Council Member Tucker stated that it would be handled on a case by case basis. Mayor Pinheiro asked if the number of units constructed would determine the number of amenities. Planner II Durkin agreed. Council Member Gartman spoke on the reasons for adopting better definition to amenities explaining that when the item had gone before the previous Council the policy was very similar. He shared the reasons behind a PUD explaining that it was not an amenity process and the definitions for a PUD had not been accomplished in the policy. He explained that he did not believe the policy worked and he could not support it. Mayor Pinheiro stated that at the last meeting on the subject, the Council had directed staff to provide component number 1 as expected parts of the PUD stating that the Council did talk about the recommendation. He stated that he was comfortable with the differentiation between the two sections in the policy. 8907 Council Member Bracco asked how the greater good of the community was served by a developer putting in a pool, a tennis court and a club house explaining that it benefited the developer only. He explained that the policy was a way for a developer to get around the abuses of the PUD and gain favor for a project that was not good. He stated that many of the common areas in current PUD's in the community were not being kept up and the PUD contradicted the zoning ordinance. Public comment was opened. Rob Oneto spoke on the policy stating that he had looked at the original PUD ordinance which allowed for diversification of development. He explained that PUD's needed to provide a higher quality or standard of amenities but the policy lacked vision and definition suggesting that the amenities were a moving target and were highly subjective. He explained that a developer could not gauge the success of their project within the guidelines suggesting that the City use design guidelines such as the City of San Jose provided. He explained that design guidelines took time to implement and would help the process. Public comment was closed. Council Member Arellano spoke on the amenities in a PUD and use for in-fill projects suggesting that the zoning ordinance include the guidelines because the policy was subjective. He suggested that the guidelines be incorporated into the zoning ordinance stating that the item could be placed on the work plan agenda for the January summit. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the staff report spoke to the issue of ensuring for a better design and amenities explaining that the Council had seen PUD's that did not meet their standards for amenities and had requested that staff address the issue. He explained that the policy as presented had been enhanced as requested by Council during their last review. He asked Council to attempt to use the policy stating that it contained the same elements as seen previously. He then asked Planner II Durkin to speak to the other elements of a PUD. Planner II Durkin stated that staff always looked for good planning, adequate design, good landscaping and access explaining that the policy was a guide to developers for the amenities, but would not supplant the design review process, but would give more direction on how to meet the Council's goals with amenities. City Administrator Haglund explained that the policy as presented reflected the Council direction from the last Council review. He explained that component 1 of the policy was not amenities but standards of the PUD and would not count as amenities. He then explained that component 2 listed ideas for possible project specific amenities and component 3 were ideas for community amenities. He explained that PUD's in planning practice provided a developer with an option to develop their constrained parcel as a stretch beyond the more strict standards of the zoning to be a more attractive development. He explained that the Council was distinguishing design elements and not amenities and then project and community amenities. Council Member Gartman stated that he could not support the idea of adopting the policy as it was bad legislation. Motion on Item VI.A. Motion was made by Council Member Woodward to put the item on the January agenda for further discussion. The motion was seconded by Council Member Gartman. Council Member Tucker stated that she understood there was currently no guideline for developers to use, but the policy was not detailed enough. She spoke in support of Council Member Arellano's suggestion to review the policy in 8908 more depth in January as the policy as presented was not what she had envisioned it would be. Mayor Pinheiro spoke the study session process explaining that Council had the opportunity to discover and dissect an item during the process before it came back to them for adoption. He explained that the policy had been amended as Council had suggested during their last study session on the item. Planner II Durkin shared the changes made from the previous Council study session asking Council to provide clear direction on their suggested changes. Council Member Tucker stated that she had questioned the components as standards of the policy because she thought the direction had been given to have specific guidelines without subjectivity. Mayor Pinheiro asked the Council to provide clear direction to staff during study sessions so that items did not return to them that did not meet their standards. Continued motion on Item VI.A. The motion carried (Mayor Pinheiro and Council Member Dillon voting no) B. Sidewalk Survey Update and Discussion of Improvement and Maintenance Program The item was introduced by City Administrator Haglund sharing the background of the item and surveying of the city sidewalks. The staff report was presented by City Engineer Smelser. Council Member Woodward asked for a definition of severe damage. City Engineer Smelser stated that sever was a totally uplifted sidewalk with cracking and the minor repair was sidewalk that could be ground down. Council Member Woodward asked if there were areas in the focused area that would be able to be repaired by grinding. City Engineer Smelser explained that there were intermixed damage categories in the focused areas. Council Member Woodward asked what direction City Engineer Smelser had provided on the levels of needed repair. City Engineer Smelser explained that the focused areas had been determined with a survey on a block by block basis so that the project of repair could be done block by block. He then explained that a severe sidewalk displacement had been determined as sidewalk that was in need of complete removal and replacement. City Administrator Haglund asked if there was a differential in displacement used as a guide. City Engineer Smelser explained that % inch was the basis of deviation and anything with more of a lift than % inch would be determined as in need of repair. Council Member Woodward asked if the determination as severe was a subjective determination by the staff conducting the survey. City Engineer Smelser agreed that it was subjective. Mayor Pinheiro asked if the issue of tree related lifting had been surveyed. 8909 City Engineer Smelser stated that the distinction between areas with tree related lifting and non tree related lifting had not been distinguished in the survey. Mayor Pinheiro stated that there were areas of lifting sidewalk that had not been marked during the survey asking if the survey had been all encompassing of areas with and without trees. City Engineer Smelser stated that all areas of the city had been surveyed and if there was a section in need of repair that had not been marked then it had been inadvertently missed in the survey. He then explained that there was not a distinction between the tree damaged sidewalks and those that were not damaged due to trees. Council Member Bracco asked if there was a measurement of the amount of sidewalk that needed to be replaced. City Engineer Smelser explained that he did, sharing the summary of all parcels totaled together. Council Member Bracco asked how the total cost for the sidewalk repair had been determined. City Engineer Smelser explained that they had used the City experience with costs and had worked with the engineering firm Harris and Associates. Council Member Bracco asked if any contractors had been contacted. City Engineer Smelser explained that recent contractor bids were used along with the professional guidance of Harris and Associates for overall project costs. He shared the process of determining the costs and the fluctuation of costs based on the size of the project. Council Member Woodward asked how bad the sidewalk had to be to be marked red asking if all defects were raised a certain amount. City Engineer Smelser stated that sidewalk rising of % inch had been the formative factor in the determination of need of repair. Council Member Gartman asked how the % inch measurement had been conducted if there were no measurements taken. City Engineer Smelser explained that there was 4 Engineering staff that had worked as a team and walked the sidewalks to determine those areas of damage. Council Member Gartman asked if it was strictly a visual observation and not a tangible survey. City Engineer Smelser explained that the lead Engineer, AI Signorotti had been working on the sidewalk repair program for over 10 years. Council Member Woodward asked if the estimates included tree replacement. City Engineer Smelser explained that it did. Council Member Woodward spoke on the 80/20 sidewalk repair program asking if the repair of 67 sidewalks out of the 255 sidewalks that need repair was considered success. City Engineer Smelser stated that the City had never seen anything like it in the 10 years of a sidewalk program explaining that the program was approaching expended all of its funds in the first 2 months. 8919 Mayor Pinheiro stated that the direction of Council had been to fund every 80/20 project and not keep a waiting list because funding was exhausted. He explained that Council had directed staff to find an alternate source of funding if there were people who wanted to use the program. He then spoke on the willingness of the public to partner with the City on the repair of their sidewalks if the trees and gutter portions were not a part of the program. He then asked why the older sections of town were not considered the focus areas. City Engineer Smelser explained that the first cut was the worst areas and others would still be looked at. Public comment was opened. Steve Harris, member of the operating engineers union shared a list of licensed union contractors from the area and spoke on the sole proprietorship contractors who were not required to hold workers compensation insurance but did have several people working at their jobs. He stated that his concerns were for the homeowners and the City as they may be liable for any injury to these workers if there were no workers compensation insurance requirements of the contractor. He explained that the Charter City of San Jose required certified payroll requirements and the payment of prevailing wage. He stated that the City of Gilroy needed to perform a better screening process and the reimbursement by the City should trigger the prevailing wage laws of the State. Butch Cabrerra, member of the operating engineers and representative of the joint apprenticeship program of Northern California spoke on the number of apprentices in the community and their need for training. He asked that the City pay the prevailing wage and include the apprentices from the community on the list of engineers. He shared the names of two local contractors and explained that the cement masons employed apprentices. Dennis Garringer of the local operating engineers union spoke on the need for work for local contractors and the reuse of those funds back into the local economy. Manual Pinheiro of the local operating engineers spoke in support of the use of journey people from the local union and suggested that the city pay prevailing wage to improve the city overall. Joe Solazano of the Foundation for Fair Contracting spoke on the use of non- union, non-prevailing wage workers asking if the bids that were awarded were to those who did not have union employees. Public comment was closed. Council Member Arellano spoke on the state prevailing wage issue asking if the City was responsible to pay prevailing wage. City Administrator Haglund explained that he had recently been researching the issue of prevailing wage explaining that as Charter City could exempt itself from paying prevailing wage for projects that were deemed a public work. He explained that there was a test which entailed the project being a solely municipal project which was managed by the City. He explained that the test was evaluated on a case-by-case basis sharing the case history of various other Charter Cities. He explained that the City had to determine if it met the requirements. Council Member Arellano asked for clarification in the variation of the costs for prevailing wage vs. non prevailing wage as presented in the stafb'fiWort. 8911 City Administrator Haglund explained that in the 80/20 program or in a program that the City took on by itself would exempt the City from paying the prevailing wage. He explained that under the State of California labor codes the City could exempt itself from the prevailing wage. Council Member Tucker asked if a prior Council had given the direction not to pay prevailing wage. City Administrator Haglund explained that the Gilroy Charter had exempted itself by including the operative language in the City Charter. Council Member disagreed with not paying the prevailing wage asking if the Council would be able to give direction to pay prevailing wage. City Administrator Haglund stated that it would ultimately be a policy decision at the Council level explaining that the City had been paying prevailing wage with all current contracts. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the 80/20 sidewalk repair reimbursement program explaining that it was the property owner who determined which contractor they wanted to work on their project and the City did not chose the contractor. Council Member Tucker stated that the City could determine which contractors were on the list and be sure they were prevailing wage paying contractors. Council Member Gartman spoke on the listing of contractors asked if any contractor could be put on the list. City Engineer Smelser stated that it was not a closed or recommended list explaining that any contractor could be added to the list. Council Member Gartman asked if any of the contractors who were looking for work could get on the list to be called by property owners. Mayor Pinheiro asked if the City checked on any of the contractors on the list for insurance requirements and licensing. City Engineer Smelser explained that the program was primarily a reimbursement program and the city was looking to see if it was a reasonable bid for the project. Mayor Pinheiro suggested that the City following the normal guidelines that the City followed for other contractors. City Engineer Smelser stated that they would begin to do so. Council Member Tucker asked for a comprehensive plan on the trees and tree wells asking if there was another component of the issue of sidewalks and street tree damage. City Engineer Smelser stated that the Community Services Director was working on the street tree issue and may be able to provide an update on that portion of the issue. Council Member Tucker stated that she would like to see information on the tree portion of the sidewalk issue as well. Council Member Arellano spoke on low bidders explaining that the City needed to be cognizant of the issue of workers compensation requirements for all contractors and spoke in support of using prevailing wage contractors. He requested that staff be certain that all of the contractors listed be insured and have workers compensation insurance for their employees. 8912 City Attorney Callon suggested that the contractors provide their exempt status if they are exempt from carrying workers compensation insurance. She explained that the Council could refer the prevailing wage status information to the City Administrator for him to return to the Council with. Mayor Pinheiro stated that Council could give direction to review the contractors for their licensing and insurance needs and ask staff to provide additional information on the prevailing wage issue. Council Member Bracco stated that he didn't believe the Council should be telling the homeowners who they should contract with, but he did agree that the insurance requirements should be met. Mayor Pinheiro explained that all of the contractors would be required to provide all of the same information. Council Member Arellano suggested that the tax payer's monies were being used to pay a portion of the repair and he believed that the topic of prevailing wage should be addressed. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the Council could give direction to bring the issue of prevailing wage back at another meeting. He then asked the Council if they wanted the issue to return to them. Council Members Dillon, Gartman, Woodward, Bracco and Mayor Pinheiro all disagreed with the request for additional information on the use of prevailing wage. Mayor Pinheiro then asked Council for their direction to staff on the issue of the provision of insurance, licensing and workers compensation insurance as requirements for all contractors on the city list. Council Member Arellano asked how a contractor could be exempt from providing workers compensation insurance. Council Member Bracco explained that contractors who had no employees were exempt from providing the insurance. Mayor Pinheiro explained that it was up to the contractor to identify their business as not having employees and it would be the City's responsibility to pull off those contractors who were on the list that had not met the requirement. The Council agreed that the contractors listed by the City would be required to hold workers compensation insurance for their employees or a statement that they were exempt from the requirement and would be required to have a business license in the City. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the staff report explaining that the next step would be a review of the funding options. City Administrator Haglund shared the funding portions of the staff report. Financial Analyst Benson shared the Capital Improvement Budget items from the staff report. City Administrator Haglund continued his presentation of the funding portions of the staff report. Council Member Arellano stated that he would like to continue on with the 80/20 program and follow the suggestions of staff to use the gas tax funds. 8913 Mayor Pinheiro stated that the City needed to continue the focus on staying financially healthy suggesting that the City continue with the 80/20 program. He then asked if the staff report had suggested that there was $1 million dollars available. Financial Analyst Bentson stated that Council Member Gartman had suggested that $1 million dollars be pulled from the fund, but it would leave the fund with very little money. Mayor Pinheiro explained that he didn't want to see a waiting list for the 80/20 program explaining that the City would be prudent in working with the property owners with the program. Council Member Arellano spoke on the waiting list suggesting that a mechanism could be put in place to allow for repayment to the property owner when the next funding became available. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the mechanism was in place, but those property owners who were only able to afford their portion of the costs to repair the sidewalks would still be on the waiting list. Council Member Gartman asked there was a waiting list explaining that the Council had directed staff that there no waiting list. He then spoke on the 80/20 program explaining that if there was no tree or curb and gutter repair it was still a 50/50 program. He then spoke on the report provided stating that Council had wanted to see examples of the repair costs and had also requested the street tree portion of the sidewalk issue in the update. He then shared his research on street trees asking if additional information would be provided by staff. He thanked staff for their report on the sidewalk issue and requested that a study session be held on September 29th to dig into the issue deeper. He then spoke on a recent sidewalk related claim against the City. Council Member Bracco stated that he had wanted to see additional information on the issue and had asked for a percentage of sidewalks that were damaged without cause from street trees. He suggested that the item return as an agendized action item so the Council could take action on it. Council Member Arellano stated that there were examples that were being requested but he didn't see how the information would be helpful in the Council discussions. He spoke on catching the problem early in those areas it was possible and explained that staff would be doing a large amount of work to provide examples and there could be several variations of examples throughout the City. He spoke on the decision before the Council and stated that Council Member Gartman's suggestions were over reaching the funding availabilities of the City budget and staff was suggesting that the Council not over extend the funds. He concluded by stating that it was a policy issue and stated that there was an identified funding source for the 80/20 program and he disagreed with the idea of holding another workshop on the issue. Mayor Pinheiro agreed explaining that the City budget needed to be looked at as a whole and the Council needed to be prudent when making decisions such as funding 100% of the sidewalk repair. He spoke on the 80/20 program sharing the detail of the portions of the repair that were paid. He asked the Council to be guardian of the City funds explaining that though there were multiple items that the City Council wanted to see accomplished but a business decision needed to be made. He explained that the citizens of the City had services they expected and the number one priority was to be sure the City would continue to be financially healthy. Council Member Bracco agreed stating that he wanted to see the 80/20 program continue which was why he was suggesting that an agendized meeting be held. He stated that a comprehensive street tree policy needed to be put in place to 8914 address the issue and the task force had presented one but it had not been adopted. He then suggested that the 80/20 program be used. Council Member Tucker stated that another meeting needed to be held with a comprehensive program as she had previously requested. She then agreed that she was willing to continue on with the 80/20 program until a workshop or study session was held. Council Member Arellano asked if Council member Tucker was suggesting that a comprehensive program in her mind was a comprehensive street tree program. He then stated that if the repair was done section by section it would be done so slowly that the first section would again be in need of repair once the last section was completed. Council Member Woodward stated that he didn't believe the burden of the cost for the repair of the sidewalk should be borne by the property owner stating that it was a City problem. First Motion on Item VI.B. Motion was made by Council Member Woodward and seconded by Council Member Gartman to hold a study session on sidewalks on September 29, 2008. Mayor Pinheiro stated that he would not be able to attend the September 29th meeting. He then spoke on the suggestion of 100% responsibility, explaining that the State law of 50% of the responsibility for maintenance fell on the property owner. Council Member Arellano agreed with holding the study session on the comprehensive plan as suggested but he was convinced by hearing the staff report that it was not prudent for the City to continue to pursue the 100% burden of the costs for the repair. Council Member Woodward stated that his motion was to hold a study session. He then stated that he was not aware that Mayor Pinheiro was not going to be available to attend the meeting. Mayor Pinheiro stated that he was fine with the meeting being scheduled on the 29th and he just wanted to be sure the rest of the Council would be available. Council Member Tucker stated that she would prefer to have the entire Council present at the meeting. Mayor Pinheiro explained that staff was being requested to do a large amount of work in 2 weeks. Second Motion on Item VI.B. Mayor Pinheiro made the motion to go forward with the 80/20 program and direct staff to schedule a study session with the tree information that was requested and a comprehensive plan. The motion was seconded by Council Member Bracco. Council Member Arellano asked what Council Member Woodward was suggesting that the topic of the study session would be so that staff had an idea of what to be prepared for. Council Member Woodward stated that Council Member Arellano did not have to vote in favor of the motion to hold the meeting. He then stated that he was willing to amend his motion to change the date so that all of the Council could be in attendance. 8915 Council Member Gartman stated that the issue of sidewalk repair had been a campaign issue as long as he had been living in the City since 1986, asking why it was wrong to tell staff what to do instead of having staff tell the Council what to do. He stated that all of the Council agreed as to the importance of the issue and he was tired of waiting and believed that the Council needed to move forward and stop delaying the issue. He stated that he didn't see why one Council member's absence would hold up the item. Mayor Pinheiro stated that he was prepared to make a decision and it was to go forward with the 80/20 program and he was not prepared to pour money into the issue. City Attorney Callon suggested that the Council take a vote on the second motion on the table as they were straying away from the specific motion. Continued Second Motion on Item VI.B. The motion passed (Council Members Gartman and Woodward voting no) Community Services Director Andrade-Wax stated that staff understood that the Parks and Recreation Commission was to review the street tree policy over the next year and did not recognize that it was to be reviewed immediately. She explained that the first step would be to update the Council with the current policy and then come back with the overlay that the overall priority of the policy would be that there be no damage to the sidewalks. Council Member Bracco suggested that other street tree policy documents be provided from other cities such as Los Angeles and Oakland to start over with the current policy in place. Community Services Director Andrade-Wax stated that the 10-year old policy was geared to the overall look of the street trees. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the current policy had the designations of trees that were preferred for certain streets. He then suggested that the policy be redrafted to those preferred trees that could be used throughout the city. Council Member Tucker explained that she would like to see components in the sidewalk program that designated what trees could not be planted as a preventative maintenance program. Community Services Director Andrade-Wax explained that the strength of the tree policy would require amendments as well. Mayor Pinheiro asked what the turn around time would be for the policy to return to the Council. Community Services Director Andrade-Wax stated that she could provide the Council with the existing policy and recommendations for revision but she would need to go through the process of taking the item to the Parks and Recreation Commission and Planning Commission. Mayor Pinheiro asked what the timing would be. Community Services Director Andrade-Wax stated that it would take a month to get the staff recommendation to Council. Mayor Pinheiro stated that she would need to make the item a priority to get it through the process. Council Member Gartman asked how quickly the current street tree policy could be provided to Council. 8916 Community Services Director Andrade-Wax stated that she could do it the following day. Council Member Tucker asked that the discussion of an end date to the sidewalk repair program be included in the study session. Continued First Motion on Item VI.B. The motion carried (Council Members Arellano, Bracco and Mayor Pinheiro voting no) City Administrator Haglund asked for direction on study session materials. Council Member Woodward stated that the Council needed to continue to dig deeper into the subject. Council Member Gartman suggested that City Administrator Haglund take notes of the discussion that had taken place such as examples and trees. Mayor Pinheiro asked how the Council had motioned to go forward with the 80/20 program was correlating with the motion to hold the study session. Council Member Tucker explained that she understood that the 80/20 program was being continued until the study session. Mayor Pinheiro asked City Administrator Haglund if he had received enough direction for the study session. City Administrator Haglund stated that he would provide information that related to the discussions that had taken place, but unless the Council was reaching into the General Fund reserve, he was concerned that the City did not have the financing capacity. Mayor Pinheiro asked for clarification on the study session requested by Council Member Woodward as he understood that the financing had already been addressed. Council Member Woodward stated that the motion was to have a study session on the sidewalks. Mayor Pinheiro asked what staff was being requested to provide. Council Member Woodward stated that the Council was getting together to talk about sidewalks. Mayor Pinheiro explained that staff would not need to bring any additional material for the study session. C. Gilroy Gardens Master Planning The staff report was presented by Community Services Director Andrade-Wax. Council Member Tucker asked if Staff had looked into the possibility of selling portions of the property to the open space authority to see how much money the property would sell for. Community Service Director Andrade-Wax stated that they had not, explaining that those types of decisions were typically looked at during the master planning process itself. Council Member Arellano stated that keeping the property in the open space authority would be the Council's goal explaining that he believed it should be the 8917 mission for the property. He then suggested that the plan should be for Gilroy Gardens Theme Park to succeed. Council Member Woodward spoke on the boundary of the property abutting Eagle Ridge suggesting that the property nearest to the development could be sold to pay back the City. Community Service Director Andrade-Wax explained that during the master planning process, interviews would be conducted. She spoke on working with the architect to follow the City's objectives to possibly sell the property if the Council wanted to. Council Member Dillon spoke on the purchase suggesting that a green/open space entity may be interested purchasing portions and then explained that he would like to see the areas such as the picnic areas and facilities on the site refurbished to give the public the opportunity to use the area. He then stated that he didn't see a big capital outlay for the property. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the Council needed to focus on giving direction to staff to get the master planning process going with formation of a task force. Council Member Gartman asked if there were any private sector interest in the property. Community Service Director Andrade-Wax stated that had not been. Council Member Gartman spoke on the purchase of the property, separate from the theme park business, sharing the interest of some of the Council to have some of the facilities upgraded and an additional well site on the property. He stated that the focus groups would need direction from Council on the development of an additional well, or ball fields or possibly an amphitheater explaining that they would use the Council's direction to move forward with the process. Council Member Arellano stated that he would like to hear from the community first as the property was the entire community's suggesting that the vision of the members of the community should be determined first before it came back to the Council. He then stated that he would like to have the task force be very diverse so that all people in the community were well represented in the decisions that were made for the property. Mayor Pinheiro asked if staff was looking to compile a task force of members throughout the community. Community Service Director Andrade-Wax agreed explaining that the process would include working with Council for parameters and also work with the task force which would be dedicated to the outcome of the plan. She spoke on the various types of community meetings that could be held throughout the City to gain input from all segments of the community. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the same process had been followed with the downtown revitalization task force. Community Service Director Andrade-Wax agreed. Council Member Tucker stated that she agreed with the task force process explaining that it was a huge investment of time. She then spoke on the property as a land bank explaining that the Council needed to be fiscally responsible and she didn't want to spend the money on a facilitator for the task force. Council Member Woodward suggested that the sale of a small percentage of the land could take place to off set the investment in a facilitator. 8918 Council Member Tucker stated that the a task force would need to be in place to develop the plan for the property first before a possible sale could take place as each Council Member had their own ideas of what should be on the property. She then spoke on the general plan process explaining that the vision of the plan was to go with agricultural and tourism for the area. She shared the community input sessions and use of a consultant for the process suggesting that Council follow the general plan. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the options were to direct staff to develop a task force to come back to the Council with the elements. He then asked what the $150,000 budgeted for the master planning would include. Community Service Director Andrade-Wax stated that it would pay for a architect. Mayor Pinheiro asked if the architect was a consultant. Community Service Director Andrade-Wax explained that the consultant would be a landscape architect. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the task force would help guide the process and the Council could meet with the architect to give some of the Council's thoughts. Council Member Gartman stated that $150,000 budgeted for the process explaining that the money could be used for sidewalk repair. He suggested that the Council decide if any money should be used for the process. Council Member Arellano stated that the land was the City's and there was no rush to get the master planning process completed. He spoke on waiting to spend the money due to the economy as he didn't believe there was a rush to develop the property. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the Council needed to look at the opportunities to decide what the community wanted to see out at the area so that when opportunities came forward, then the Council could make decisions as set forth in the plan. He spoke on providing the board of directors of Gilroy Gardens with the City's plan explaining that they were to be a part of the planning process. He spoke on giving clear direction on what the City envisioned for the property. Council Member Bracco stated that the Gilroy Gardens board of directors did need to know what the City was planning to do with the property explaining that by doing nothing, the City was actually doing something. He explained that the board needed to know if they could invest money in the park and stated that he didn't believe a consultant architect didn't need to be hired as the task force could move forward without the design faze decided. Council Member Arellano agreed, explaining that the Gilroy Gardens Park did need to know what was planned for the property. He spoke on selling open space explaining that $150,000 to pay for a consultant may keep City programs going. He stated that he didn't want to see the land piece mailed explaining that it needed to be master planned as a whole land. He stated that the Park was an asset to the City. Council Member Woodward stated that the City could reach out to open space authority or the County to get the City out of the financial constraints it was in. Mayor Pinheiro suggested that a visioning process take place without the use of a consultant architect to look at the whole park with the input of the whole community. He explained that once such a process took place, the City would be in a good position to address any future proposal. City Administrator Haglund agreed that such a process could take place. 8919 Mayor Pinheiro asked the Council if they were interested in such a process without spending $150,000 on a consultant. Council Member Arellano stated that he wanted the comments of Community Services Director Andrade-Wax on the importance of the architect in the process. Community Services Director Andrade-Wax stated that the architect would be very important in the process as they knew the appropriate land uses and would survey the land to understand the demographics. She then explained that the City was not a member of the open space authority. Council Member Woodward explained that there were other conservation entities than the open space authority. City Attorney Callon explained that the City didn't need to be a member of the open space authority to sell land to them. Community Services Director Andrade-Wax explained that the architect would identify the best long term and short term uses for the land. She explained that the City did not have a landscape architect on staff. Council Member Tucker spoke on her experiences on the Parks and Recreation commission suggesting that the task force be utilized as it was less subjective in the suggestions that were made. Council Member Gartman explained that he had recently spoken with the open space authority and they had stated that they were not purchasing lands at the time. Mayor Pinheiro asked the Council what direction they would like to go in. Council Member Bracco suggested that the Council move forward without spending the $150,000. Council Member Woodward suggested directing staff to look into any ideas that would generate revenue from surplus land. Motion on Item VI.C. Motion was made by Mayor Pinheiro, seconded by Council Member Tucker to have staff put together a task force for a visioning process and to look into ways to sell the open space. Council Member Arellano asked if the direction was to put the task force together and they would come back to Council with their direction. Mayor Pinheiro stated that they would also conduct community meetings for input. Council Member Tucker explained that it would be a basic plan. Council Member Gartman asked if the Council would give any direction. Mayor Pinheiro stated that the task force could be given direction as had been done in the past. City Administrator Haglund asked if the Council wanted to review a list of recommended stake-holders and the elements of the task force assignment. Mayor Pinheiro explained that it would be a part of the process. Council Member Woodward suggested that alternative models be explored with and without the theme park. 8920 Mayor Pinheiro agreed explaining that alternatives would need to be explored. Council Member Arellano asked if the task force would take all of the Council recommendations or if they would use the majority recommendations. Mayor Pinheiro explained that they would come back to the Council for direction from the Council as a whole. He then explained that the process was intended to get the overall majority of the community input. Council Member Arellano stated that the generalized planning process be followed. Continued Motion on Item VI.C. The motion carried with a unanimous vote. City Attorney Callon suggested that a review of the development agreement take place as the planning of the continued development of the property was included in the document. VII. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS A. Consideration of the Approval of a Downtown Small Project Exemption for a Subdivision of Six (6) Residential Condominiums Located at 7401 Monterey Street, APN 799-07-067, Jose Montes Applicant, DSPE 08-01 The staff report was presented by Planner II Mcintyre. Council Member Arellano spoke on the mixed use in the downtown areas asking why the item was being presented as an exemption Planner II Mcintyre explained that the exemption was for the six residential units being allocated explaining that the residential units were special exemptions that were approved by the Council. Mayor Pinheiro stated that he thought the units were automatically 1500 units for the downtown. Council Member Gartman spoke on the RDO plan explaining that the special exemptions fell within the downtown specific plan units. Mayor Pinheiro explained that under the downtown exemptions the units were available. Council Member Tucker asked why there was no parking asking if the 50% parking was being waived. Planner II Mcintyre explained that the item was not a architectural and site plan explaining that the item was for the residential units. City Attorney Callon explained that the item was the granting of the 6 residential units and the rest of the presentation was what the applicant was planning to bring back to the Council at a later time. Mayor Pinheiro asked Community Development Director Rooney if the downtown specific plan was still in play speaking on the elements of the downtown areas. He explained that the intent was to find a mechanism and spoke on the parking issue. He then asked why the 6 units were before the Council. Community Development Director Rooney explained that the process was to bring the exemption before the Council as was being presented. She then spoke on the parking waiver conditions. 8921 Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the parking district asking why the exemption came before the Council if there was a pool of allocations available. Community Development Director Rooney explained that most of the projects came through a process even though the units were available. Motion on Item VitA. Motion was made by Council Member Bracco, seconded by Council Member Tucker to Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution to Approve DSPE 08-01 Council Member Bracco explained that previous projects in the downtown came before the Council as SPE's. Public comment was opened Jose Montez, the applicant explained that the process had taken a very long time stating that their needed to be a process in place to help guide projects along in a more timely manner. Continue Motion on Item VitA. The motion carried with a unanimous vote. Mayor Pinheiro asked staff to address the comments regarding the process going through the Historical Heritage Commission. Planner" Mcintyre spoke on the discussions with the Historical Heritage Commission explaining that there were 2 proposals before the commission and there elements that revised. She then spoke on the review of the Technical Advisory Committee explaining that there had been several changes needed based on the review of staff. She explained that the project was at the point of proposal back to the Historic Heritage Commission once the Technical Advisory Committee had approved all changes. Mayor Pinheiro suggested that the Council work on providing guidance to the Historic Heritage Commission as there were projects that were being held up due to the delay in their approval. Council Member Arellano spoke on the proposal asking why the exemption was not proposed to the Council in March when the project was applied for. Planner" Mcintyre explained that the DSPE application had not been provided until June. Council Member Gartman stated that the Technical Advisory Committee was also in need to guidance as there were elements of their requirements that had not been reviewed by the Council. Community Development Director Rooney explained that there were FAU's in the downtown explaining that there were development standards in place in the downtown plan. Mayor Pinheiro stated that he still believed that the Historic Heritage Commission needed guidance to help development in the downtown. Community Development Director Rooney suggested that the design guidelines and direction be provided to the Historic Heritage Commission in a joint meeting with the Council. Council Member Bracco spoke on the development of downtown guidelines explaining that it was very different from other areas of the city. He spoke on 8922 working with planners who were knowledgeable in Historic restoration explaining that it would be a much better way of doing business. He suggested that a planner be dedicated to the downtown areas. Council Member Tucker agreed, speaking on projects going back and forth because of the review boards that held the project up suggesting that the Council be provided with information on what the boards were concerned with. B. Consideration of the Approval of a Small Project Exemption for Eleven (11) Single-Family Residential Units on a 1.95 Acre Site Zoned R2/PUD located at 9060 and 9070 Kern Avenue, APN's 790-18-015 & 017, Pacific States Development c/o Joe Burch, SPE 08-01 The item was continued to the October 20,2008 Regular Meeting. C. Environmental Programs Initiative/Green Building Standards (Sustainability) The staff report was presented by Environmental Programs Coordinator Jensema. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the replacement of the alley way clean up program explaining that the Council had given direction that the program be revised but staff had not followed the direction. Environmental Programs Coordinator Jensema explained that the program that was being presented was an approach to a city-wide opportunity so staff was proposing a more comprehensive program. Mayor Pinheiro asked how the alley way clean up for trees would be addressed. Environmental Program Coordinator Jensema stated that the Community Services Director Andrade-Wax would be presenting the item at the October 20th Council meeting. Council Member Arellano asked for a cost report for all of the illegal dumping. Environmental Program Coordinator Jensema explained that it was being tracked and could be associated to a dollar amount if the Council requested it. Mayor Pinheiro explained that the Cities Association was working on the item. Council Member Gartman asked what a single use bag was. Council Member Tucker explained that it was any bag that was less than .9 millimeters stating that the recycling and waste reduction board was working on the legislation as well as a single use with other convenience retailers. Mayor Pinheiro explained that the Cities Association was asking that the cities adopt resolutions in support of the ban. Council Member Arellano asked for definition of sustainability and greening. He then asked how staff had determined that the category was sustainability. City Administrator Haglund explained that there was a broad definition suggesting that the City work on the definitions of sustainability and greening. D. 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 8923 The item was continued to the October 6,2008 Regular meeting. VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS City Administrator Haglund spoke on the URM findings of the Youth Center sharing the re-housing of the MAC SA programs. Council Member Bracco asked why the URM findings were not determined when the City had taken ownership a few months prior. City Administrator Haglund explained that it was determined in a rountine inspection of the building. Council Member Bracco asked why the inspection had not been done prior to acceptance of the bulding. City Administrator Haglund explained that building had originally been purchased by the City and had tendered title to the Gang Task Force and it had just been returned to the City. He then spoke on the purchase of the property in the 1980's explaining that the findings had been made, but the City had still continued to purchase the property. IX. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS City Attorney Callon shared the recent decision regarding the Gilroy Garlic Festival vs. Top Hatters litigation. X. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Tucker A. Resolution in support of Senate Bill 1420 Council Member Tucker requested that the City Council adopt a Resolution in support of Senate Bill 1420, sharing the background of the legislation. She then spoke on the new VT A proposal for the purchase of a "fast track" to utilize the commuter lane. Council Member Bracco stated that he was not in support of the Senate Bill. Motion to add the item to the October 6, 2008 agenda Motion was made by Council Member Tucker, seconded by Council Member Arellano and carried (Council Members Bracco and Dillon voting no) to place a Resolution on the next agenda in support of the measure. Council Member Arellano A. Resolution in Support of the GUSD Bond Measure Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member Tucker and carried (Council Members Bracco, Garman and Dillon voting no) to place a Resolution in support of the Gilroy Unified School District Bond Measure P. Council Member Arellano asked the Council if they would allow him to place an item on the next agenda to support measure A, a measure on the November 4th ballot to fund retrofitting the South Valley Hospital burn unit. City Attorney Callon suggested that the item be brought up during the future council initiated agenda items. Mayor Pinheiro asked for clarification on the process. 8924 Council Member Woodward explained that the item would take staff time, so it would require the request under future agenda items. City Administrator Haglund shared clarification on the process explaining that the council initiated agenda items was the process for items that were brought up during a meeting. Council Member Woodward explained that if staff time was required then the item would be place under council initiated agenda items. Council Member Gartman A. Illegal Signs Council Member spoke on Illegal signs explaining that the staff report in the packet was addressing the issue. B. Big League Dreams Council Member Gartman stated that the Council would need to address the item sharing the invitation from Big League Dreams to tour the Manteca facilitiy. Mayor Pinheiro asked for clarification on the issuance of citations for illegal signs. Community Development Director Rooney explained that the Code Enforcement Division had picked up 250 illegal signs during the last two weekends and shared the outreach with businesses in violation of the sign ordinances. Mayor Pinheiro asked if there were any fines for violating the City sign ordinance. Community Development Director Rooney stated that she would need to review the ordinance. City Administrator Haglund stated that staff would research the ability to fine. Council Member Arellano asked for a "hot-line" number for sign violations. Community Development Director Rooney explained that there would be targeted enforcement and would be out at least one weekend per month. Council Member Bracco spoke on the Big League Dreams proposal explaining that the revenues generated from the facility would be a huge asset to the City. Council Member Arellano asked if the invitation was financed by the Big League Dreams group speaking on conflict of interest. Council Member Gartman stated that they had invited the Council to visit the facility. Council Member Tucker spoke in favor of the possibility and spoke on the re- allocation of park funds. City Administrator Haglund stated that the funds could most likely be used. Mayor Pinheiro asked for more background on the item. City Administrator Haglund explained that he would return to Council folloWing his discussions with Big League Dreams sharing the success in other municipalities. He share the costs to the Cities and spoke on the multiple projects that the city was proposing for the future suggesting that the Council prioritize the priority projects due to funding. He then stated that he was hoping to bring the 8,925 prioritization to the Council in late October or early November. He the shared the proposal before the City of Morgan Hill explaining that they may be interested. Mayor Pinheiro asked the Council to give direction to staff on the item as the item was not on the top 10 priority list. Council Member Tucker spoke on flexibility with proposals and stated that she was interested in it. Council Member Bracco stated that he would like to pursue the proposal Council Member Arellano stated that he was not in support of pursuing the proposal explaining that the majority of the revenues generated were from the sale of alcohol. Council Members Bracco, Tucker, Woodward, Dillon and Gartman all agreed to pursue the proposal. Council Member Arellano asked how the item would be addressed by staff as it was not on the top 10. Mayor Pinheiro explained that the majority of the Council had given direction to pursue the proposal. XI. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Pinheiro stated that the Executive Director of the Cities Association Joanne Benjamin was leaving and he wished her well. XII. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS Council Member Arellano asked the Council if they would add an item on the next agenda to support measure A, a measure on the November 4th ballot to fund retrofitting the South Valley Hospital burn unit. Motion to add the item All of the Council voted in favor of adding the item to the next agenda. XIII. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: Assessor's Parcel Number 799-07-074, Along Eigleberry Street in Gilroy, California (Between 5th and 6th Streets) Along Gourmet Alley Agency Negotiators: Tom Haglund, Bill Headley Negotiating Parties: Charlotte Cimino Under Negotiation: Price, Terms of Payment CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: Assessor's Parcel Number 841-08-033,251 Old Gilroy Street in Gilroy Agency Negotiators: Tom Haglund, Bill Headley Negotiating Parties: Robert and Carol Fellom Under Negotiation: Price, Terms of Payment CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 Agency Negotiators: Tom Haglund, LeeAnn McPhillips, Charles Sakai Employee Organization: Gilroy Management Association (GMA) 8.926 ADJOURN to Open Session: Public Report of any action taken in Closed Session and the vote or abstention of each Councilmember, if required by Government Code Section 54957.1. There were no closed session announcements. ,> XIV. ADJOURNMENT at 1:20 a.m. Shawila Freels, C City Clerk