Loading...
Minutes 2009/01/12 it City of Gilroy City Council Minutes January 12. 2009 I. OPENING A. Call to Order Mayor Pinheiro called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the pledge of allegiance. The Invocation was given by Matt Valencia of Calvary Chapel. City Clerk Freels reported that the agenda had been posted on January 7,2009 at 9:00 a.m. Roll Call Present: Council Member Peter Arellano; Council Member Cat Tucker; Council Member Craig Gartman; Council Member Bob Dillon; Mayor AI Pinheiro; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member Perry Woodward B. Orders of the Day Mayor Pinheiro stated that Council Member Gartman had asked to pull item III.A, the Minutes of December 14, 2008 from the agenda. Motion to Pull Item Ill.A. Motion was made by Council Member Woodward, seconded by Council Member Tucker and carried to pull the item from the agenda. 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 Riccardo Delgino from the Golden State Resolution SR Agriculture Transportation Education Fund shared the opportunity the City had engaged in through the City's participation in the "Who Named America" campaign. He presented the flag to the Mayor and thanked the City for participating in the increased knowledge in education. 9014 B. Presentation of the 2007/2008 Audited Financial Statements Pinance Director Turner presented the staff report. Mr. Ken AI-Amen auditor with Mayer, Hoffman, McCann, P.C., the City's auditing firm presented the auditing practices used and shared the City's 2007/2008 audited financial statements. Council Member Tucker asked who controlled the standards that were followed by the auditing firm. Mr. AI-Amen explained that the standards were an independent process following the auditing standards stating that the City management had no ability to abuse the standards. Council Member Tucker asked how the water and sewer allocation under-charges could have been caught asking if the auditor should have seen the monies as un collected. Mr. AI-Amen explained that it was difficult to see, but there was always an ability to expand the areas of the audit. City Administrator Haglund spoke on the water and sewer allocation collections stating that the monies were an on-going situation with the over use of allocations. He spoke on the ordinance language and the inability to efficiently track the over-use. He explained that staff had presented the need to re-write the ordinance to cause for the ability to catch the overuse and implement new agreements with those over users. He stated that the fees were developed to the cost of the infrastructure, not the on-going maintenance of the system. Council Member Tucker stated that she understood that the City was following the normal audit procedures and other mechanisms would need to be put into place to audit the issue. City Administrator Haglund explained that an auditor could be hired to audit the issue. Finance Director Turner spoke on the revenue and notification of the over users. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on the overuse issue explaining that it was above and beyond the allocation and explained that staff had recognized the over usage and loss of impact fee monies and had brought the problem to the Council's attention to correct. Council Member Arellano stated that staff had identified the over usage. C.' California High Speed Rail Alternatives Study (from Study Session> The staff report was presented by Transportation Engineer Dey. Council Member Woodward asked how the under grounding would work in the downtown. Transportation Engineer Dey stated that the platforms would be underground, but the station would be above ground. Council Member Arellano asked why the City of Gilroy had been selected. . Transportation Engineer Dey stated that Gilroy was selected because it was a smaller area and other counties would be using the railroad pacific tracks to connect to Monterey County. Council Member Arellano asked for a visual of an elevated train and track. Transportation Engineer Dey explained that the Transportation Authority had visuals on 9015 their website. Council Member Woodward asked if staff was asking the Council to recommend to the Authority to explore both the east side and downtown alignments. Transportation Engineer Dey stated that he was. Council Member Tucker stated that they would be going forward and were just asking the City for their preference. She then spoke on the alternatives provided stating that the City may be stuck with one of the alternatives that they didn't prefer if they suggested that both be explored. Transportation Engineer Dey stated that there was a goal of consensus stating that th~ City would want to help influence the final decision. Council Member Arellano stated that he thought that the Council was being asked to chose where they wanted to see the project stating that the down town area would die if the railroad was moved to the East. He then asked if the city downtown had been moved once before to meet with the train tracks. He spoke on the 660 station proposal explaining that the area was a flood zone area. He then spoke on the connection to the central coast and benefits to the community stating that he liked the downtown version. Council Member Gartman spoke on the movement of downtown stating that the City couldn't move the downtown to the 660 area because of agreements with LAFCo and the County. He then suggested that the downtown undergrounding option be explored sharing the safety in cities such as Reno. He spoke in support of the underground in the downtown area. City Attorney Callon spoke on the EIR input timing sharing the staff recommendations. She then asked where the city was in the process. Transportation Engineer Dey stated that there was a concern with the Pacheco Pass choice explaining that the process was in the preliminary design EIR process. He explained that the consultant was working on the project EIR for the area explaining that VT A and each City were being given the opportunity to give input. City Attorney Callon stated that it looked like the City was in the scoping study of the process. Mayor Pinheiro spoke on going through downtown Gilroy. He stated that an alternative could be presented sharing the east side proposal and the ability to handle the traffic impacts on the down town areas. He explained that it would be easier to put in the infrastructure in the east side areas. City Attorney Callon explained that the east side proposal would not be commented on at all if the recommendation to explore the option was not given. She then asked if the Council was being asked to have the study done on each alternative for the project level study. Council Member Woodward asked if the Council would be letting the Jeanie out of the bottle if they recommended to study both options as the outcome could be the east side proposal, which may not be the Council's preference. Council Member Tucker stated that the costs would need to be looked at as well. . Council Member Arellano stated that there was a trench already in place on Highway 101 to place the railway. Transportation Engineer Dey explained that the east side had been a proposal that the City Council had considered at one time. Mayor Pinheiro asked if there would be a response from the City to the EIR. He then 9016 asked if the City would need to foot the bill for the impacts. Transportation Engineer Dey stated that he didn't know if they would choose to look at another alternative, but he could take the recommendations to the Rail Authority. He then explained that the region would be responsible for their regional costs explaining that the high speed rail authority would be putting in the rail and the mitigating impacts were the responsibility of the region. He explained that it was important to work regionally to make it work for everyone. A thumbs-up/thumbs down was taken on the recommendation that the east side alignment proposal be recommended by the Council. Only Council Member Gartman was in support of the recommendation. A thumbs-up/thumbs down was taken to recommend that the study be done on both the downtown above and downtown underground alignment proposals. The recommendation to study both the downtown above and downtown underground alignment proposals was agreed upon (Council Member Dillon against). Council Member Arellano asked if the Highway 101 proposal could be looked at. Transportation Engineer Dey explained that they had already looked at the freeway and had chosen against the concept. III. CONSENT CALENDAR B. Claim of Tad Hannigan (City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of claims) C. Claim of Francisca Hernandez (City Administrator recommends a "yes" vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of claims) D. Notice of Acceptance of Completion of Certain Offsite Improvements Associated with the New Las Animas School Agreement Between the City of Gilroy & the Glen Lorna Corporation for Review of Plans and Inspection of Improvements, Effective April 18, 2007, APN 808-19-011 E. Approval of First Amendment to Single Tenant Lease with Gilroy Gardens, Inc. for Gilroy Gardens Property Motion on Consent Calendar Items B. C. D. E Motion was made by Council Member Dillon, Seconded by Council Member Woodward and carried to approve Consent Items B, C, D and E. IV. BIDS AND PROPOSALS A. Approval of Bid for Well 8 and 8A Permanent Standby Generator Project No. 08-CDD-162 in the Amount of $257,700 The staff report was presented by Engineer II Krueger. Council Member Bracco asked why the portable generator was not being used. . Engineer II Krueger explained that the generator had stopped working. Council Member Bracco asked how long the water supply would last if it wasn't put in. Engineer Krueger explained that it would pump approximately 24 hours. Council Member Bracco asked why the water pumped up to the reservoir didn't have generators asking what good it would be to have a generator if the water would get l , 9017 trapped on the way to the reservoir. Engineer Krueger explained that the generator had been chosen because it was the second largest producing well the city had explaining. Council Member Arellano spoke on the pumping of the water and the pressure in the city lines asking if the water pressure would go down in the city if the reservoir went down. Engineer II Krueger explained that it was pushing water into the reservoir and there would be a short period of time that the city would have pressure without the generator. Council Member Tucker asked how long the pump would last. Engineer II Krueger stated that it would last approximately 20 years. Council Member Woodard asked how long the water would be available if there was wide spread firefighting going asking if the pump would help provide water for an emergency. Engineer II Krueger agreed. Council Member Arellano spoke on the possibility of broken lines in the event of a earthquake. There was no public comment. Motion on Item IV.A. Motion was made by Council Member Tucker, seconded by Council Member Arellano and carried (Council Member Gartman and Council Member Bracco voting no) to Approve Bid for Well 8 and 8A Permanent Standby Generator Project No. 08- CDD-162 to Best Electric in the Amount of $257,700 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearing items. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. A Resolution Approving 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 (Item Heard 12/15/08 with an affirmative vote of 5-2) There was no public comment. Council Member Woodward stated that he had reviewed the previous meeting explaining that he had identified that the plan with the public walkway was a better plan. He explained that people currently walked there and nothing would change suggesting that the Council look at the plan again. Council Member Arellano spqke on Sergeant Ashley's suggestions explaining that people on the interior would know each other and the other plan was a public walkway with the potential for more problems. Motion on Item VI.A. Motion was made by Council Member Dillon, seconded by Council Member Tucker and carried (Council Member Gartman; Council Member Bracco; Council Member Woodward voting no) to adopt Resolution 2009-01 Approving Architectural and Site Review/Planned Unit Development Master Plan for a 9018 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 VII. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS There were no new business items. VIII. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS City Administrator Haglund stated that there was a Gang information meeting planed on January 20th at 7:00 p.m. at the Senior Center. He then shared the dates for the upcoming Open Government Ordinance trainings scheduled January 20th at 6:00 p.m., January 13th and January 15th. IX. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS There was no report provided. X. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Arellano spoke on the many programs in the City to promote peace sharing an event the previous Sunday put on by Barrios Unidos in a run for peace. XI. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Pinheiro explained that there would be a community forum on January 28th at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers on the financial condition of the city budget. He then stated that it would be televised. XII. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS There were no items suggested XIII. ADJOURNMENT at 8:25 p.m. TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2009