Minutes 2008/10/06
T
'~''''^{'''''''''i,,,,',~,,,,,,,,,,,,,;'',,.~. ---
City of Gilroy
City Council Minutes
Monday. October 6. 2008
I. OPENING
Mayor Pinheiro called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
City Clerk's Freels announced that the agenda had been posted on October 1, 2008 at
10:00 a.m.
Roll Call
Present:
Council Member Peter Arellano,M.D., Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member
Bob Dillon; Council Member Craig Gartman; Council Member Cat Tucker; Council
Member Perry Woodward; and Mayor AI Pinheiro
Orders of the Day
Mayor Pinheiro announced that Consent Items III.H and 111.1. would be moved below
Consent Item 111.0. and voted on separately.
Council Member Bracco asked to move Item III. G and vote on the item separately
below item III. O.
Council Member Woodward asked to move Item III.N. as he needed to recues himself
from voting on the item.
There were no introductions.
Proclamations, Awards and Presentations
Mayor Pinheiro presented the Employee of the Month Award for July 2008 to Steve
Ynzunza
Mayor Pinheiro announced the Employee of the Month Award for August 2008 awarded
to Arica Hernandez.
Mayor Pinheiro present~d the Fmplpv~~ of th. Mpnth Award for Septempor 2008 to
Rosemary Guerrero. ·
Mayor Pinheiro presented the Team of the Quarter Award to Laura Mcintyre, ~III
Headley, Lisa Gabrielson, David Chulick, Steve Ynzunza, Deb Moore, Ann~ J~~fz~~
and Dale Foster.
Mayor Pinheiro presented the Fire Prevention Week Proclamation to Vicki Se9toll qf th,
Fire Department.
8927
Thomas Boe, Chair of the Planning Commission presented the annual Planning
Commission report thanking the Planning Division for their work and stating that the
RDO and PUD processes needed to be addressed to identify the best mechanisms for
each process.
Council Member Tucker thanked the Planning Commission for all of the work they had
done stating that their efforts were appreciated.
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
Richard Lemon spoke on the expansion of the City asking that a police substation be
put in to support other areas of the City. He explained that it may benefit the public to
have officers for a quicker response time.
B. Presentation by the "No on Proposition 7 Campaign"
The item was not presented.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Minutes of September 15, 2008 Regular Meeting
B. Claims of A & B Printing, Inc., & Jonathan Williams (City Administrator
recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute the
denial of the claims)
C. Claim of Kurt Ashley (City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the
Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of the claim)
D. Claim of Michelle Montez (City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under
the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of the claim)
E. Claim of Cricelda Orozco (City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under
the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of the claim)
F. 2009 Annual Calendar of Regular City Council Meetings
J. Open Recruitment for 1 Open Seat on the Physically Challenged Board of
Appeals
K. Resolution 2008-42 of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Approving TM 07-
07, a Tentative Map to Develop a Four-Story Mixed Use Building with Thirty-Six
(36) Residential and Six (6) Commercial Condominiums on Approximately .62
Acres Located at 7161 and 7131 Monterey Street, APN 799-10-034 and 799-10-
048 (Public Hearing 9/15/08 with a Affirmative Vote)
L. A Resolution 2008-43 of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Approving DSPE
08-01, an Application for a Downtown Specific Plan Exemption from the
Residential Development Ordinance for Six (6) Residential Units in a Four-
Story Mixed Use Retail/Residential Project on Approximately 0.05 Acres at
7401 Monterey Street, APN 799-07-067 (Item Heard 9/15/08 with a Affirmative
Vote)
M. Notice of Acceptance of Completion, Capital Project No.: 06-CDD-124, Forest
Park Production Well
O. Revised MOU Between the City of Gilroy and South County Housing
Regarding Use of Reyenues from the Los Arroyos Deyelopment
Motion on Consent Calendar Items A, B, C, 0, E, F, J, K, L, M, 0
8928
Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member
Woodward and carried to approve the items.
H. Resolution 2008-40 in Support Gilroy Unified School District Bond Measure "P"
Public Comment was opened.
Chris West spoke in favor of the ballot measure.
Lanny Brown spoke in favor of the ballot measure.
Council Member Gartman spoke against the ballot measure stating that he didn't
believe the plan for the use of the money was not a good plan.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke in favor of the ballot measure stating that the facilities were in
need of expansion to provide the ability for the schools to function well.
Council Member Bracco spoke against the ballot measure stating that he didn't believe
that the last bond measure promises were fulfilled.
Motion on Item III.H.
Motion was made by Council Mayor Pinheiro, seconded by Council member
Arellano and carried (Council Members Bracco and Gartman voting no) to
approve Resolution 2008-40.
I. Resolution 2008-41 in Support of Senate Bill 1420, Disclosure of Nutritional
Content of Restaurant Meals
Council Member Arellano spoke in favor of the bill stating that it would benefit the
overall health of the public.
Motion on Item III. I.
Motion was made by Council Member Arellano, seconded by Council Member
Woodward and carried (Council Members Bracco, Dillon and Gartman voting no)
to approve Resolution 2008-41.
G. Resolution 2008-39 in Support of Santa Clara County Medical Center Hospital
Seismic Safety and Medical Facilities Measure "A"
Council Member Bracco spoke against supporting the measure stating that the hospital
would not be shut down if the funding was not provided.
Council member Arellano spoke in favor of the measure sharing the nationally
renowned trauma and burn center that could be relocated due to the needed
renovations at the hospital.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke in favor of the measure sharing the need for the funding.
Council Member Gartman spoke against the measure stating that it was a bad plan.
Mayor Pinheiro asked Council Member Gartman to share examples of how the plan was
bad.
Council Member Gartman stated that much of the money from the bond would be spent
on things other than the medical center.
Motion on Item IIl.G.
Motion was made by Council Member Arellano and carried (Council Members
Bracco and Gartman voting no) to approve Resolution 2008-39
N. Approval of Revisions to the Loan Terms of the City of Gilroy Residential
Development Loan Program
Council Member Woodward recused himself from voting on the item stating that the
item related to a South County Housing project at the old cannery that he owned
property near. He then left the dais.
8929
Motion on Item III.N
Motion was made by Council Member Bracco, seconded by Council Member
Arellano and carried (Council Member Woodward absent) to approve the item.
IV. BIDS AND PROPOSALS
A. Approval of Christmas Hill Park Improvements Bid Recommendation, Project
No. 08-CDD-163 to Elite Landscaping in the Amount of $790,000.00
Project Engineer Headley presented the staff report.
Council Member Bracco asked how decisions were made on what work was done at the
park.
Engineer Headley explained that there were a number of issues from over the last
several years, many deferred renovations that were able to be funded through the grant.
Council Member Bracco asked why there was a difference in scope costs and the bid.
Engineer Headley explained that the original funding sources were identified as
available to pay for the improvements and the city was fortunate that the scope was
able to be kept low and the bids had come in low.
Council Member Bracco asked if there would be any other work done at the park.
Council Member Arellano asked if all of the bathrooms would be renovated.
Engineer Headley explained that it was the older bathrooms that would be renovated
sharing earlier bathroom projects that had been completed at the park.
Council Member Gartman asked how many ADA fountains would be put in asking if the
cost was $5000.00 per fountain.
Engineer Headley explained that they were 6 or 7 that were being put in stating that the
material costs were $1,500.00 each and installation was additional.
Council Member Gartman spoke on the Engineering estimate asking why there was
such a disparity in the numbers.
Engineer Headley explained that the City identifying the deferred maintenance
resources and had been tasked with finding the minimum needs for rehabilitation and
the bid had come in quite low.
Council Member Gartman spoke on the 440 fund asking if it was still part of the funding
source for the project.
Engineer Headley explained that the close out of the master plan combined with the line
item in the Capital Improvement Budget from the previous year.
City Administrator Haglund explained that the funding source was initially from the
master plan explaining that it had been listed previously as a combined funding source.
Council Member Gartman asked if there was any money coming from fund 440.
City Administrator Haglund explained that there were monies coming from the 440 fund
explaining that the remainder of the costs of the project from the $339,000.00 grant
would be from fund 440.
Engineer Headley explained that the City Engineer was looking at the available monies
in all of the listed funds to determine which monies would come from which funds.
8950
City Administrator Haglund explained that when the initial project funding sources were
being identified the estimate had been distributed among the funds as listed. He then
explained that further through the process the narrowing of the scope of the project had
occurred and a refining of the engineers estimate had taken place which was below the
initial funding estimate. He then explained that the bids had also come in less than
anticipated which was to the benefit of the underlying funds identified as funding
sources for the project.
Council Member Gartman asked if 440 was an impact fund asking if the impact fees
were to only be used for growth. He then asked how money was being used for
maintenance and not expansion of the community.
Engineer Headley shared the elements of the project that were renovations and were
being brought up to standard, which were legitimate uses of the impact fee funding.
Council Member Tucker explained that there was a lot of money being spent on the
park asking if the grant was a matching fund grant. She suggested continuing the item
to the next meeting to get more clarification on the item. She then shared her concerns
with squirrel issues at the park.
Council Member Woodward spoke on squirrel abatement in the past.
Engineer Headley shared the various ways to abate squirrels sharing the sensitivity of
abatement which was monitored by the Department of Fish and Game and the County.
Council Member Woodward spoke on deferring projects for the sidewalk funding asking
City Administrator Haglund if the Christmas Hill improvements could be one of those
projects that could be deferred.
City Administrator Haglund stated that it could potentially be.
Council Member Arellano asked if the funds from the grant would be lost if they were
not used.
Engineer Headley stated that the funds would need to be used by the end of the year,
explaining that he would need to review the requirements in the contract.
City Administrator Haglund explained that the funding was prop 40 funding and he didn't
believe the City lost the funding but a project would need to be re-identified.
Council Member Arellano asked if it was a competitive grant that the city may not be
eligible for again.
Engineer Headley stated that it was a per capita grant that the city had to demonstrate
that the City was eligible for.
Council Member Arellano spoke on the use of the park stating that some of the
renovations to the park were in dire need. He spoke on the benefits to the community as
a whole and stated that as long as the money was still there to use in the future, he was
willing to support postponing there.
Motion on Item IV.A.
Motion was made by Council Member Dillon, seconded by Mayor Pinheiro and
carried to continue the item for a few wee~ to get more information.
Mayor Pinheiro asked that more information be provided by staff such as an
understanding of the prioritization of projects being brought forward and the period of
time that the funding would be made available.
Council Member Tucker asked for a detailed list of what the money would be spent on.
B. Approval of a Joint Use Agreement between the City and Santa Clara Valley
Water District for the Joint Use of a Trail in the Vicinity of the Camino Arroyo
Bridge Project
8931
The Staff Report was presented by Engineer Krueger.
Council Member Gartman spoke on the use of the trail asking if the bridge would open
in November.
Engineer Krueger spoke on the steps stating that the goal was to open it in November.
Motion on Item IV.B.
Motion was made by Council Member Bracco, seconded by Council Member
Dillon to Approve a Joint Use Agreement with Santa Clara Valley Water District
for the Joint Use of a Trail in the Vicinity of the Camino Arroyo Bridge
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearing items.
VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There were no unfinished business items.
VII. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
A. Consideration of Mills Act Requests to Allow Properties Located at 7541
Church Street and 7551 Hanna Street, APN's 799-06-007 and 799-19-040 to
Enter into Mills Act Property Tax Relief Contracts with the City of Gilroy, MA 08-
01, Richard and Elizabeth Barratt Applicants, MA 08-02, Joseph and Shelly
Coughlan Applicants
The staff report was presented by Planner" Durkin.
Council Member Woodward asked how many homes were rated 3, 4 or 5.
Planner" Durkin stated that there were approximately 1 00.
Council Member Woodward asked about the fees required in the conditions of approval.
Planner" Durkin explained that most of the fees were paid during the application
process stating that it was approximately $4,000.
Council Member Woodward asked why the applicant would pay so much.
Mayor Pinheiro explained that the preservation of the homes was the issue for the
property owner.
Motion on Item VII.A.
Motion was made by Council Member Bracco, seconded by Council Member
Tucker and carried to Approve Mills Act Requests MA 08-01 and MA 08-02
B. Consideration of the Approval of an Agreement with Jones Hall, A Professional
Law Corporation to Act as Bond Counsel for the Library Bond Project
The staff report was presented by Assistant City Administrator Jatczak.
Council Member Woodward asked how much they would be paid.
Assistant City Administrator Jatczak stated that they would cost $75,625.00 along with
any out of pocket if the measure passed.
Council Member Woodward asked if they had taken the initial steps in the hopes that
they would get paid.
Assistant City Administrator Jatczak agreed.
8932
Council Member Tucker asked how the fees would be paid.
Assistant City Administrator Jatczak explained that the fees would be paid out of the
bonds of issuance.
Motion on Item VII.B.
Motion was made by Council Member Dillon, seconded by Council Member
Woodward and carried to approve the item.
The Council took a 10 minute break.
C. Architectural and Site Review/Planned Unit Development Master Plan for a
Neighborhood District Development of 236 Residential Units and
Commercial/Retail Space for a Property Located at 6261 Monterey Street,
APN's 808-21-008, 009 & 016, Luchessa Road, LLC c/o Michael McDermott
Applicant, AS/PUD Master Plan 06-31 (Continued from 9/15/08 Regular Meeting)
The staff report was presented by Planner II Mcintyre.
Council Member Bracco asked why the applicant was being required to purchase the
Suburban Propane property.
Planner" Mcintyre explained that the Suburban Propane site was part of the master
plan.
Mayor Pinheiro explained that from day one, the applicant had shown the property as
part of the plan explaining that the applicant was still attempting to purchase the
property.
Council Member Bracco stated that he didn't see why they were being imposed with the
requirement.
Mayor Pinheiro explained that it was the commercial portion of the neighborhood district
master plan site and completed the project explaining that the applicant had included
the site as part of their master plan since 2006.
Council Member Arellano stated that the Suburban Propane site was proposed as the
commercial zone explaining that the applicant had planned to buy the site from the
beginning.
Council Member Gartman asked why the storm drain was a requirement for the project.
City Engineer Smelser explained that the requirement was not unusual sharing the
history of the target shopping center development. He explained that the pipeline would
not want to be disrupted in the future. He explained that it was a major intersection of
the city and the storm pipe would be put in under the intersection and at the frontage of
the property site so that there would not need to be future improvements at the site in
the future. Very difficult to put in after the fact, more costly, can be done now by the
developer.
Council Member Gartman asked why the storm drain was needed asking if it was an
overflow.
City Engineer Smelser explained that the master plan showed a reconstruction of the
culverts. He explained that the improvement cost of the Princevalle channel was in the
master plan as an in-lieu project. He explained that it would save the storm drain fund a
lot of money as it was much cheaper than the City doing the highway 101 project.
Council Member Gartman asked what the time frame was for the project.
City Engineer Smelser explained that it was a section of a long-term build out plan
sharing a road connection around the sports park which would speed up the rest of the
storm drain connection that could be as soon as 10 years out. He explained that the
improvements were looking at the build out of the City.
8933
Council Member Gartman asked what expenses would be reimbursed to the developer.
City Engineer Smelser explained that it was not a nexus to the project and they would
be reimbursed for the pipe. He explaining that the reimbursement would occur when
the impact funding was available following the reimbursement policy.
Council Member Gartman asked the developer would be reimbursed from the funds.
City Administrator Haglund stated that he was unsure explaining that the fund was one
of those that had been borrowed from for the purchase of Gilroy Gardens.
Council Member Dillon stated that he didn't believe it was fair to the developer to be
used as a bank.
City Engineer Smelser explained that it was an often used process explaining that the
pipe was adjacent to the project. He then explained that the project was moving forward
but the timing was difficult with the balance in the fund so low. He then explained that if
the pipe was not put in at the time of construction of the project, the street would need
to be torn-up and be reconstructed in the future.
Council Member Arellano stated that the project could be delayed until the City had the
money to put the pipe in.
City Engineer Smelser stated that he didn't know if the applicant would want to go with
such a proposal.
Council Member Arellano stated that the City was looking to save the tax payers money
by asking the developer to put the pipe in explaining that it worked for the City and it
worked for the developer.
Council Member Tucker stated that she understood that the process was done in the
past, but with the market changes the City might not be able to continue to do the same
thing as developers may not have the funding to do so. She then suggested that the
City look at what other cities were doing.
City Engineer Smelser explained that other cities had RDA's and other funding sources
available to them. He explained that the impact fees were the only funding sources the
City had as a mechanism to reimburse developers. He then spoke on the Leavsley
widening project explaining that the outlet mall had a 10 year reimbursement program
and the precedence had been set.
City Administrator Haglund stated that it was not uncommon to have the 10 year range
reimbursements in cities.
Council Member Tucker stated that there needed to be another option as the climate
was changing and there would be no more building if no other option was put in place.
Council Member Woodward asked if there was nexus from the project to the pipe asking
what the trigger was for the physical need of the pipe.
City Engineer Smelser explained that at the current rate of build-out the City's master
plan spelled out that it would be needed by the end of build out.
CM Woodward stated that the pipe may not be needed for another 20 years.
City Engineer Smelser stated that he would not disagree that it could be 20 years.
Council Member Dillon asked if it was an interest free loan.
City Engineer Smelser explained that the outlet mall program had been structured to
keep the amount in the impact fund and the project was being increased by the
construction cost index.
Council Member Bracco asked why a perimeter buffer was needed around the project.
8934
Planner II Mcintyre explained that the Parks and Recreation policy required the
perimeter as well as the requirement in the neighborhood district policy and the staff
recommendations from the police experience.
Police Sergeant Ashley stated that he looked at the safety of the residents of the area
explaining that the rear and sides of homes that were built up against public areas
would be impacted by the large numbers of people who attended games sharing the
numbers of potential noise and light complaints. He then spoke on the levy side of the
property explaining that it was master planned as a high frequency use trail that was
elevated and would look into the yards as planned. He shared his proposed to move the
roadway as a 20 foot buffer that increased safety to the high use areas. He then spoke
on the ability for a criminal to jump over a fence from the levy without the buffer and
then shared an example of a burglar storing stolen goods in the creek bed. He
explained that there had been higher felony's on the levy and stated that the design as
proposed took away from any neighboring visibility.
Council Member Woodward spoke on Hersman Drive asking if any research had been
done on increased burglary in the area in the last 20 years since the levy had been in
place.
Sergeant Ashley stated that he did not have any personal experience on activity from
the backyards in the Hersman Drive area explaining that from the review of brake-ins in
the Miller Avenue area along Third Street along the levy, data showed that
approximately 75 calls were crime related, but there had been no determination that a
brake in occurred from the back yard.
Council Member Woodward spoke on the levy areas asking if there was more activity
on the levy vs. other areas.
Sergeant Ashley stated that there were 2 possible rapes and a flashing on the levy
explaining that determining the back yard as entry to burglarize the homes could not be
evidenced in many reports. He explained that it was a common sense entry for a
burglary.
Council Member Tucker asked how the widening of the road to (4) four lanes was
inconsistent with transition to the homes in the back.
Planner II Mcintyre explained that it didn't meet neighborhood district policy as designed
explaining that the rural residential didn't meet with it, but in the future with the zoning
that was allowed, there may be a fit.
Council Member Tucker stated that she the master plan was calling for mixed use and
high density, but she didn't see how it was a deemed as inconsistent.
Planner II Mcintyre stated that part of the concern was that thought the neighborhood
district suggested a mix of residential types the planned development had no R 1
parcels. She then shared the Glen Loma neighborhood district with the traditional R 1
mix.
Public Comment was opened.
Michael McDermott, the applicant spoke on the process of the master planning of the
project and sh~req the conditiorl~ th~t he was in opposition to: the perimeter buffer,
timing of the aoq~isition af Supurball PrQP~me, the storm 'Ilfr~str~ct~ra! the PU~ And
sidewalk dimensions and the traffic signal at Church and Luchessa. He then asked
conditional #1 be modified to keep the master plan valid for the tenure of the project,
suggested that the perimeter buffer condition by modified, the condition for purchase of
the Suburban Propane Site be modified to phase 4, deletion of the condition for the
storm drain, deletion of the traffic signal at the intersection of Luchessa and Church,
PUE design to 10 feet from the curb and modified, removal of parking condition until
future entitlement stages, private roadway condition removed and the park condition
removed. He then spoke on the 10 additional RDO's explaining that he was more than
happy to remove them from the application and explained that he had data on crime
8935
reports.
Public comment was closed.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the conditions that Mr. McDermott disagreed with asking staff
if the Planning Commission had seen the applicant's response to the conditions that
had been set.
Planner" MciNtyre stated that they had been provided in written form.
Mr. McDermott stated that he did not go through the line by line conditions with the
Planning Commission stating that they were articulated in more detail for the Council.
Mayor Pinheiro asked staff what Planning Commissioner Boe and Gailey were
expressing when they had stated that the item should not go forward to the City Council.
Council Member Woodward shared his conversations with Planning Commissioner
Gailey stating that after they had spoken, he had recognized that staff and the applicant
had not worked out all of the details.
Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the issue of the perimeter road vs. fencing for safety asking if
the adjacency was to the side yards.
Planner" Mcintyre agreed that they were side yards.
Mayor Pinheiro asked if the GUSD staff had given any input on the project.
Planner" Mcintyre stated that they had been provided with the development agreement
but there had been no formal interactions with them regarding the master plan.
Mayor Pinheiro asked City Engineer Smelser to share the policy that was designed by
the Council following the McCarthy Ranch project.
City Engineer Smelser explained that McCarthy Ranch had developed the roads and
infrastructure but the city had not received any revenues until after the building permits
were received explaining that the City had reimbursed the developer before any building
had taken place. He explained that the City was putting money out before getting any
back in from the development.
Mayor Pinheiro explained that the experience had caused the Council at the time to re-
look at the reimbursement policy and had directed staff to re look at the policy.
Council Member Woodward asked what year the issue had taken place.
City Engineer Smelser explained that it was 1 % years prior stating that the fund now
had to have a positive balance forward and the project had to be in the fund as a project
identified in the master plan.
Mayor Pinheiro explained that the City didn't want to be in the place where the funds
would be expired. He explained that choices had been made to use the funds, but the
borrowing of the funds was supposed to be looked at to see if the borrowing needed to
be extended. He then explained that the decision was made by the Council level to look
at extending the fund borrowing to pay for sidewalk repair, Gilroy Gardens, the Library
and the Cultural Center. He then explained that the developer had to make decisions
whether it was worthwhile to him or wait until the funding had been revisited by the City
Council. He then spoke on requiring the developer to put in the pipe and spoke on the
reimbursement back to the developer asking if there were other options in the design.
City Engineer Smelser explained that they had to survey the line and grade and would
need to integrate the pipe system which would complicate the design explaining that the
city could not come back after the roadway was built as it had to follow a grade and
integrate. He then explained that if it could be done later, he would not have brought it
forward.
8936
Mayor Pinheiro asked Mr. McDermott about the purchase of Suburban Propane asking
why the acquisition couldn't take place until final map.
Mr. McDermott explained that the project would come back in 4 to 5 final maps
suggesting that the condition be placed at final map #4 or issuance of the 175th building
permit as the Fire Department would require a 100 foot set-back from the site if the
tanks were present.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that he wanted to see the piece integrated into the project as the
corner would finish the project
Mr. McDermott shared the previous site of Suburban Propane explaining that it had
been moved before.
Council Member Arellano asked if the agricultural mitigation agreement was for
$128,000.
Planner" Mcintyre stated that the applicant had presented the number but it had not
been finalized and wouldn't be finalized until the tentative map.
Council Member Arellano stated that he wanted to have the number and then asked if
the roadway improvements were required on Luchessa if the propane site property was
not purchased.
City Engineer Smelser explained that it could cause the city to go into a condemnation
process for the roadway improvements but not the parcel explaining that the off-site
improvements would be required at the first phase of the project.
Council Member Gartman spoke on the reimbursement process asking how the
applicant would be reimbursed in the future. He then spoke on the traffic signal
requirement at Luchessa and Church Streets.
City Engineer Smelser explained that it was dependant on the type of agreement
improvement or development, explaining that the City was contracting with the
developer that reimbursements would be made when the impact fund was flush with
monies as set forth in the policy. He then explained that the signal on Luchessa and
Church was not part of the master plan and was not a reimbursable project as it was not
in the CIB.
Council Member Gartman asked if the signal at Thomas and Luchessa would be
reimbursed.
City Engineer Smelser explained that it was scheduled and was part of the Glen Loma
specific plan as part of the development agreement.
Council Member Gartman stated that the storm drain was not in the CIB and was not in
the master plan asking why it couldn't just be added to the road.
Smelser explained that he was worried about the road and dry trench utilities in the area
explaining that the design needed to be inclusive of all utilities. He explained that it
would be more costly explaining that the south side of the development would need to
be put in so it wouldn't need to be reconstructed.
Council Member Gartman asked how many pipes were being put in.
City Engineer Smelser explained that at an intersection or other location with many
utilities would need to be in several pipes.
Council Member Gartman asked how long the design of the pipe would be.
9)ty Engineer Smelser explained that the survey would determine the line and grade
.~ would go the entire length.
Council Member Gartman asked if it would come back with the master plan.
8937
City Engineer Smelser explained that it would come back with the next master plan
explaining that the RFP would go out the next summer.
Council Member Arellano asked if the master plan for the storm drain was set and could
not be changes.
City Engineer Smelser explained that it was a high level look at the future infrastructure
needs for the City
Council Member Arellano asked if adjustments could be made.
City Engineer Smelser explained that it could be adjusted as long as the need to drain
the area of the City was met explaining that it was cheaper for the City to do it as it was
being proposed. He then explained that the City was not bound to the master plan he
then explained that it was a high-level look at the infrastructure needs of the City.
Council Member Arellano asked how often the master plan was looked at.
City Engineer Smelser explained that it was a normal to look at the plan when as a new
development triggered it.
Mayor Pinheiro suggested that the item was too premature to be addressed suggesting
that the item be returned to the staff level and the Planning Commission for additional
revue.
Council Member Woodward stated that the City was in different times explaining that
further staff revue and work with the applicant was needed. He agreed with the Mayor's
suggestion to have the project return to the Planning Commission for preliminary
determinations on the conditions stating that if staff was locked into their positions on
the conditions of approval it would be difficult.
Council Member Arellano stated that the project had been going forward and he wanted
everyone to see the project for its loss of open space and improvements and
enhancements to the community. He explained that the economic issues for the
developer did not belong in the decision and stated that the Planning Commission
needed to look further into the applicant's concerns and agreed that the item needed to
go back to staff and the Planning Commission.
Council Member Bracco spoke on the slowdown of development explaining that the City
needed to work with developers as times were different and stating that he didn't believe
that the developer should be extorted and the item needed to go back to staff.
Motion on Item VII.C.
Motion was made by Council Member Bracco to send the item back to staff with
clear direction to iron out as much as possible with the developer and then return
to the Planning Commission.
Council Member Tucker stated that the City was facing different times and she felt the
requirement for the pipe was unethical stating that she agreed with having the item go
back to staff to iron out the concerns.
Mayor Pinheiro explained that staff was protecting the City as they had been directed to
by the City Council. He spoke on the infrastructure positioning of the City in comparison
to other cities who were poorly planned. He stated that the Council had given staff
direction to keep up the infrastructure explaining that it was no different than it had been
done in the past. He suggested that the Council be very careful with the direction they
gave to staff explaining that the buck stopped at the Council level and the City had
certain levels of service which translated into impact fees. He concluded by explaining
that staff should not be given mixed messages
Council Member Woodward stated that he didn't believe it was fair to say staff was
extorting the developer as they were following the direction provided by Council. He
suggested that there be a negotiation with the developer to work the disagreements out.
8938
Council Member Arellano stated that the Council needed to think about the people who
were going to live in the homes speaking on the suggestions from staff explaining that
the future needed to be recognized to build a better project.
Council Member Gartman asked when the item would return to the City Council.
Mr. McDermott asked if the item had to return to the Planning Commission because the
argument had not been provided to them condition by condition.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that the Planning Commission advised the City Council. He then
explained that Mr. McDermott would need to go item by item with staff and then return
to the Planning Commission.
Council Member Woodward asked if it would be an expensive process for the applicant
to go back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. McDermott stated that the printing of additional sets of plans was costly.
The Council returned their plans to staff.
Planning Division Manager Faus explained that the soonest the item could return was
the December Planning Commission meeting as the agenda was locked in the second
week of each month for the following month.
Continued Motion on Item VII.C.
The motion was seconded by Council Member Arellano and carried.
VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
City Administrator Haglund announced the ethics training on October 9th at City Hall.
IX. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
There was no report provided.
X. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Dillon spoke on the graffiti abatement in the City and shared the
communications from the City Administrator on the reimbursement to the City asking
that the item come before the Council at a future study session or summit.
Mayor Pinheiro asked if the payment for damages could be made to the City.
City Administrator Haglund stated that the municipal code had a process for payment
for damages and a subsequent lien process.
Council Member Woodward suggested addressing the item with the District Attorney's
office.
XI. MAYOR'S REPORT
Mayor Pinheiro apologized for the audio problems during the September 29th study
session. He then shared the open seats on the Santa Clara County Cities Association.
He then spoke on attending the Takko Machi, Japan 20 year celebration of sister cities
stating that he had traveled to the event at his own expense. He then shared the
greetings from the Takko Machi Mayor who founded the relationship between the two
cities sharing the street named Gilroy street and sharing the economic exchange of
garlic products and bond between the two cities
Council Member Arellano thanked Mayor Pinheiro for his participation in the partnership
between the two cities.
XII. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
8939
Council Member Tucker spoke on the process of placing an item on future agendas.
Council Member Woodward shared the process of placing items on a future agenda
stating that items that needed staff time would need to be voted upon.
Council Member Tucker asked to discuss the squirrel abatement at Christmas Hill Park.
The Council voted 6/1 to place the item on a future agenda (Council Member Arellano
voting no).
Council Member Tucker asked to have a future agenda item on the noticing/re-noticing
requirements in the zoning ordinance extending it to 500 feet from 300 feet and what it
would take to change the requirements.
The Council unanimously agreed to place the item on a future agenda.
Council Member Tucker asked to agendize a discussion item on the T AC
responsibilities.
The Council unanimously agreed to place the item on a future agenda.
Council Member Gartman suggested that a 6 month performance review of City
Administrator Haglund be place on a future agenda.
Mayor Pinheiro stated that he didn't recall a 6 month review was included in the
agreement with City Administrator Haglund.
Council Member Tucker stated that she recalled that a 6 month update be provided by
the City Administrator, but not a performance review.
Council Member Arellano asked if it was a formal or informal review.
Council Member Gartman suggested that the Council and City Administrator Haglund
would talk.
The Council unanimously agreed to agendize the item and adjourned to closed session
at 10:12 p.m.
XIII. CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.8
Property: 3050 Hecker Pass Highway, Gilroy, California
Agency Negotiator: Thomas Haglund
Other Party Negotiator: Michael Russell
Matter Under Negotiation: Real Property Sale
The Mayor announced that two actions had been taken: (1) to direct staff to pursue
further an unsolicited expression of interest that the City had received regarding the
possible purchase of the Gilroy Gardens property; and (2) to appoint an ad hoc
subcommittee of the Council, consisting of Mayor Pinheiro and Councilmembers Tucker
and Woodward, to work with staff on this matter.
I~
XIV. ADJOURNMENT TO MEETING OF OCTOBeR 20, 2008 ~i
'c/Y'
, Shawna Freels, C C
City Clerk