Loading...
M12-7-09 1 MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DECEMBER 7, 2009 The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on Monday, December 7, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CLOSED SESSION BEGAN AT 6:00 P.M. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Diane McNutt, Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski, Council Member Steve Rice, Council Member Barbara Spector, Council Member Mike Wasserman Absent: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Emma Hanck, Lexington Elementary School led the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience was invited to participate. 2 TOWN COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION REPORT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT (Government Code Section 54957) Title: Town Attorney Appointment Mr. Korb • Stated that direction was given and no final reportable action was taken. • Commented that he will be resigning on January 14, 2010 and taking a position with the Santa Clara County Counsel. COUNCIL/TOWN MANAGER REPORTS Council Matters Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski • Commented that he has received numerous complaints from the community that Los Gatos has been swarmed with a number of door-to- door solicitors in the neighborhoods. • Questioned the appropriateness of the matter, legal ramifications, and the fact that the community needs to know how to respond to door-to-door solicitors. Mr. Larson • Commented that staff has received numerous complaints regarding door- to-door solicitation. • Commented that this has been an ongoing concern and the Council has previously enacted an ordinance to address these issues. • Suggested that residents should: 1) Post "no solicitation" signs on the walkway or door area which would prohibit all solicitation at that residence, 2) Ask to see their solicitor badge and/or business card, 3) If there is any harassment or abusive behavior of any sort then residents are urged to call "911" to report the incident. • Commented that the Police Department has an ongoing tracking, follow- up, and enforcement system for solicitation calls and community participation is urged to effectively track illegal solicitation. 3 Manager Matters Mr. Larson • Commented on the successful community open house for the Police Operations Building. • Commented that over 1,000 people attended and learned how the Town’s Police Department operates both out in the community as well as in the Police Operations Building. • Commented that the Town hosted the annual Senior Thanksgiving Lunch event and thanked Council for their participation serving the meals to the Town’s senior community. • Recognized Linda Gallo as the Town’s Senior Coordinator and announced that she will be retiring at the end of December, 2009. • Commended Parks and Public Works, Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department, and the Clerk Department on their help with another successful Town Tree Lighting event and 53rd annual Holiday Parade. • Commented that the Town spends an estimated $30,000 a year for these well attended events. • Introduced Christy Wolter as the acting Parks Superintendent, who has been on loan from the City of San Jose as part of the regional Management Talent Exchange Program. • Thanked Ms. Wolter for her role with the Town's Balzer Field Master Plan. Did you Know.... Jessica von Borck, Economic Vitality Manager • Updated the Council and community on the parking opportunities in the downtown. • Commented that the community can visit the Town’s website to obtain more information on holiday parking locations. 4 CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) 1. Vista Del Monte Temporary Installation of Traffic Calming Devices a. Accept report on the temporary installation of traffic calming devices for Vista Del Monte neighborhood. b. Authorize expenditures up to $1,000 in Traffic Calming Program Funds (411-812-9910) for this project. 2. Accept donated artwork entitled, "Cruiser," in accordance with Town Public Art Selection Policy and Procedures. 3. Adopt resolution approving the Park Master Plan for Balzer Field. RESOLUTION 2009-123 4. Adoption of a resolution authorizing the Town Manager to negotiate and execute an amendment to the general plan contract with Design, Community and Environment to include a demographic study for student generation rates and authorizing the Town Manager to execute a cost sharing agreement for the preparation of the demographic study for student generation rates. RESOLUTION 2009-124 TOWN COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 5. Approve Council/Agency minutes of November 16, 2009. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Steve Rice to approve Consent Items #1-5. Seconded by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 5 VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Miller • Thanked the Town for supporting recycling efforts by adding the recycling cans in the downtown area. Mr. Davis • Commented that he is sorry to hear that Mr. Korb is leaving Los Gatos. • Commented that there are dead trees on Roberts Road and on Winchester Boulevard which are a hazard and are ready to fall. • Commented on a letter that was sent by the Bay Area Quality Air Board regarding the pollution coming from the cement plant above the City of Cupertino. • Commented that there are dangerous levels of arsenic coming from the cement plant and urged the community to take a stand. Mr. Dethlefson • Commented that KCAT filmed the Los Gatos Holiday Parade and that they will be airing the parade every two hours on Sunday, December 13, 2009. Closed Verbal Communications TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Consider a request to operate a restaurant with beer and wine service and outdoor seating on property zoned C-1. APN 406-30-015. Conditional Use Permit U-09-009. Property location: 14101 Winchester Boulevard. Property owner: Winchester Associates, LLC. Applicant: Tougas Enterprises Inc. Staff Report made by Marni Mosley, Assistant Planner. 6 Public Hearing Item #6 – Continued Council Comments • Requested clarification on whether or not there have been discussions with the applicant about providing benefits to the community. • Questioned the definition of a community benefit for the proposed application and how the sports benefits would run with the land. • Requested clarification on staff’s recommendation relating to the hours of operation for the application. Ms. Mosley • Clarified that there was minimal discussion about community benefits for the proposed project at the Planning Commission level and that staff had provided a letter from the applicant with some information. • Commented that the applicant has come prepared to talk more about the community benefits they would like to offer. • Clarified that staff’s recommendation for the hours of operation were based on the Town’s alcohol policy. Mr. Korb • Clarified that the only way Council can ensure that a specific requirement will live past the final decision of the application is to incorporate the requirement into the Conditions of Approval. • Clarified that a community benefit for a proposed project is based on the fact that the findings require that there be a benefit to the community demonstrated in the application. • Commented that Council makes the decision about what constitutes a community benefit. 7 Public Hearing Item #6 – Continued Open Public Hearing Mr. Tougas, Applicant • Commented that his family has been in business for over 50 years. • Commented that their concept is a family based concept and that the restaurant does not serve hard liquor. • Commented that each restaurant has three managers to run the operations. • Commented on the site plan and the patio area for the proposed restaurant. • Commented that they have a philosophy to partner with different organizations of the community verses conventional advertising. • Commented that they sponsor community teams and donate to the community through their Star Awards Program. • Commented that they receive many thank you letters from their customers. Council Comments • Questioned if his other restaurants are within neighborhoods and asked how Mr. Tougas characterizes a neighborhood. • Questioned the hours of operation for their other establishments. • Questioned if there have been many calls for police service at their other establishments and at the shopping center for the proposed restaurant. • Questioned if he considers Jake’s a sports bar. • Questioned if he has any issues with the proposed hours of operation recommended by the Planning Commission. • Requested clarification on what type of patrons would frequent the establishment during various times of the day. • Questioned if it is required that food be served with beer and wine consumption at his other establishments. 8 Public Hearing Item #6 - Continued Mr. Tougas • Clarified that his establishments are usually in strip malls within retail/residential areas. • Clarified that he does not consider the establishment a true sports bar, but more of a family oriented restaurant. • Commented on the hours of operation and that they have not had many, if any, calls for police service. • Commented that he does not have any issues with the recommended hours of operation. • Commented that all types of groups frequent the establishment at different times of the day and night. • Clarified that he is not aware of any restrictions relating to food service with beer and wine consumption at his other restaurants. Mr. Corbet • Expressed concerns that he sees no benefit from the hours of operation for the proposed application. • Expressed concerns about traffic and that he feels that the traffic patterns from the establishment will have impacts to the neighborhoods. • Commented that he does not support the proposed project and requested that Council not approve the application. Council Comments • Clarified that the recommended hours of operation for the proposed restaurant are the same as the hours of operation for Aldo's Restaurant which is in the same shopping center. • Questioned if Mr. Corbet felt that Aldo's hours of operation are a nuisance to the neighborhood. Mr. Corbet • Clarified that Aldo's has reduced their hours of operation and that they seem to be closed by 10:00 p.m. 9 Public Hearing Item #6 – Continued Mr. Hajiakbar • Expressed concerns that his restaurant (Jackie Boy Pizza) will not survive if Council approves the proposed project. • Commented that business is slow and that the community does not need another pizza restaurant in the neighborhood. Ms. Sanghera • Expressed concerns that the proposed restaurant will add additional noise to the quiet neighborhood. • Commented that she lives across the street from the proposed establishment and does not want to live with a restaurant open until midnight across from her home. Council Comments • Questioned if Ms. Sanghera is representing herself or the homeowners association. Ms. Sanghera • Commented that she has not had any discussions with her homeowners association and is representing herself. Mr. Mason • Expressed concerns that the application was not fully reviewed and requested that if the application is approved that there be a one year review of the application and establishment. Mr. Edwards • Commented that there have never been any calls for service for disturbances at the shopping center. • Commented on supporting the proposed application. Mr. Jones • Commented on supporting the proposed establishment. • Commented that their other establishments are very quiet. 10 Public Hearing Item #6 – Continued Ms. Wright • Commented that she is the property manager for Vasona Station and wanted to clarify that the palm trees which were located on the property were old and had to be cut down prior to the proposed application. • Commented on supporting the proposed project and that the proposed establishment is right for the location. Mr. Tougas, Applicant • Commented that he appreciates the concerns from the neighbors and is willing to continue to work with the neighbors and the other establishments to address their concerns. • Requested that Council approve the proposed application. Council Comments • Questioned if the applicant understands that alcohol must be served with food. • Questioned if the patio faces Winchester Boulevard and is open to the elements. • Questioned the hours of operation for the patio. • Questioned if the proposed establishment would be open seven days a week. • Questioned the options for the community benefits and if they could be added to the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Tougas • Clarified that he understands that alcohol must be served with food, but he has never heard of such a policy for other cities. • Commented that they may not take advantage of the full hours of operation for the patio and for the establishment. • Questioned when the Alcohol Policy was established in Los Gatos. Ms. Mosley • Commented that Council may want to add a one year review to the conditions of approval. 11 Public Hearing Item #6 – Continued Mr. Larson • Clarified that the Alcohol Policy was provided to the applicant during the Planning Commission hearing and as part of the Town Council staff report. • Commented that the policy is no different from any condition the Council has approved after the adoption of the Alcohol Policy. Mayor Diane McNutt • Clarified that the Town’s Alcohol Policy was established in 2004. Mr. Korb • Clarified that staff would define the community benefit and include it as part of the Conditions of Approval. • Commented that it would require some kind of record keeping by the applicant and staff could do some type of auditing. The option of a one year review would be a great opportunity to conduct the audit. Closed Public Hearing Mr. Larson • Clarified that in response to the community comments and Council discussions, staff would have the recommendation to include the one year review permit and if the Council directs any action approving this item, then staff would recommend direction to include a community benefit condition within the resolution that is brought back to Council implementing the Conditional Use Permit. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Steve Rice to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation and approve the Conditional Use Permit Application. Make the required findings for approving the Conditional Use Permit (Attachment 1), to approve the application subject to the conditions included in Attachment 2 with the addition of a one year review, and to include a community benefit condition within the resolution Seconded by Council Member Mike Wasserman. 12 Public Hearing Item #6 – Continued Council Discussions • Commented that the community benefit should include the community in general and requested clarification on the recommendations for the community benefit. Mr. Korb • Clarified that the recommendation for the community benefit was to include the program that the applicant’s restaurants are engaged in at their other locations which promotes community organizations. • Commented that he will go back over the hearing to listen to the types of programs that the applicant suggested along with the one year review and include them as part of the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Larson • Clarified that there is opportunity for minor modifications to the Conditional Use Permit with staff based approval and that staff would not approve any change unless it was perceived as an equivalent modification. Mr. Korb • Clarified that the condition relating to a community benefit would be general and would not specify any class of organization or specific organizations, but rather that they be community based organizations. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 7. Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying demolishing a single family home, construct a new residence with reduced setbacks, and an above grade pool on a slope greater than 30%, on property zoned HR-1. APN 532-40-023. Architecture and Site Application S-09-017. Property location: 132 Teresita Way. Property owner: Dave and Heather Maggetti. Applicant/appellant: Dan Townsend. Staff Report made by Marni Mosley, Assistant Planner. 13 Public Hearing Item #7 – Continued Council Comments • Requested clarification why staff recommended to the applicant that the best course of action would be to proceed to Town Council. Ms. Mosley • Commented that in cases such as this application, staff usually recommends that the application go directly to the Planning Commission as a study session, but the most likely result of that would not give the applicant the opportunity to appeal to the Town Council. • Commented that based on previous applications and the language in the Hillside Standards and Guidelines staff felt that it was more of a policy decision to be made by the Town Council more so than the Planning Commission. Mr. Larson • Clarified that the most recent exception to the Hillside Standards and Guidelines was not recommended by the Planning Commission, but was an issue that the Town Council recommended and approved and was the only exception to the Hillside Standards and Guidelines in recent history. Open Public Hearing Mr. Maggetti, Applicant • Commented that he feels that the Planning Commission did not approve the project because of the above grade pool. • Commented that the pool is not visible from anywhere except from his deck. • Commented that there is no off haul or cutting into the hillsides. • Commented that he has chosen to keep the home single story to reduce any visual impacts. • Expressed concerns that by disturbing the garage the project is considered as a complete demolition. • Commented that they are willing to work with staff to complete the project. • Commented on a letter submitted by his immediate neighbor who is in support of the project. 14 Public Hearing Item #7 – Continued Council Comments • Questioned the setbacks requirements for areas 1 and 2. • Questioned the unclear elements for the back of the home. • Commented that the application is an incomplete application and that there are many issues unresolved. • Questioned if areas 1 and 2 encroach on the setbacks with the demolition. • Clarified that the applicant is not willing to move forward with the project without the pool. • Clarified that if the application is considered as a demolition, then the current setbacks would be enforced for the project. • Requested clarification from Mr. Maggetti on how he feels about violating the Hillside Standards and Guidelines. Mr. Maggetti • Clarified that the garage is within the setbacks. • Agreed that they are not interested in the project without the pool. • Commented that they have worked with staff to move the pool. • Commented that they have consulted with environmental consultants who have agreed that the pool would not have any impacts. Mr. Larson • Clarified the definition of demolish as stated in the Towns ordinances. • Clarified that the proposed project does encroach on the setback requirements. 15 Public Hearing Item #7 – Continued Mr. Larson - Continued • Commented that staff tried to differentiate three possible options for the Council: 1) Uphold the appeal and grant the applicant the exception to the Hillsides Standards and Guidelines and provide the justification for providing the swimming pool on a 30% grade. Then Council would remand the project back to the Applicant, staff, and the Planning Commission to complete the application. Council would only be addressing the policy issue providing the exception to the prohibition to swimming pools or sports courts on a 30% or more grades. 2) If the applicant wanted to proceed with the project without the violation of the Hillside Standards and Guidelines, that would be new information. Council could then remand the application back to staff, the applicant, and the Planning Commission for redesign and completion of the application and the technical review with it coming forward with no significant violation of the Hillside Standards and Guidelines. 3) Uphold the Planning Commission decision, deny the appeal and the project is terminated at that point. • Commented that to date the applicant has not expressed any interest in the second recommendation. Mr. Korb • Clarified that the primary issue is the above grade pool. • Clarified that the issue is not that the pool is above grade or in ground, but that it is prohibited on 30% or more slopes. Ms. Mosley • Clarified that the Hillside Standards and Guidelines talk about development outside the LRDA whether that be cut, fill, or pier systems. The intent is to not allow an applicant to reduce any type of development within a 30% slope. 16 Public Hearing Item #7 – Continued Ms. Quintana • Questioned if the standards for grading in the Hillside Standards and Guidelines apply to the proposed above grade pool. • Commented that in looking at the plans for the proposed project the applicant would need to add additional fill than is allowed by the grading standards. Council Comments • Requested clarification if a cantilever deck would be considered as fill. Mr. Gaylord • Clarified that the Hillside Standards and Guidelines talks about maximum cut and fill for projects. For a pool structure the maximum cut can be about 4 feet and the maximum fill can be 3 feet. • Commented that the top of the pool deck above the existing grade is approximately 15 feet above the existing ground. • Commented that there has been a bit of confusion on the applicant’s definition of fill. Fill is defined as any man-made thing that is put above ground, so the pool deck, the earth to fill for the pool and the pool itself could be considered as fill. • Commented that there is substantial fill for the proposed project and a small area of cut through the storage facility underneath the pool. • Clarified that a cantilevered deck would not be considered as fill. Mr. Davis • Commented against the proposed project and that it is an oversized development and visible from the ridges in the area. • Commented on protecting the hillsides and community values in Town. • Commented that the natural beauty of the hillsides needs to be maintained. Mr. Townsend • Commented that there are ways to design the pool without grading and fill issues. • Suggested using suspended pillars for the proposed pool. • Commented on step retaining walls for the proposed project and that the pool is purely schematic at this stage of the plans. 17 Public Hearing Item #7 - Continued Mr. Maggetti • Commented that he is unclear about basing decisions about slopes and grading when De Santis had graded a mountain. Council Comments • Questioned if the applicant could respond to building a pool on a 30% grade/slope. • Clarified that the Hillside Standards and Guidelines were written to protect the hillsides. Mr. Maggetti • Commented that there is no impact to the environment and he does not understand why a pool can not be placed on the property. Closed Public Hearing Council Discussions • Questioned if the concrete for the above ground pool would be considered as cut and fill. • Questioned if the pool would be considered as part of the fill. Mr. Gaylord • Clarified that it was unclear as to what the applicant would be using for decking. • Commented that typically in-ground pools do not constitute grading volumes. Council Discussions • Expressed concerns about area 3 and placing a pool on a slope. • Questioned if the current house needs to be demolished if the lot is a non- conforming lot. • Questioned if area 2 is considered non-conforming. Ms. Mosley • Clarified that any additional substance to support the pool would be considered as fill. • Commented that the substance that they were going to use for fill was never clarified to staff by the applicant. 18 Public Hearing Item #7 – Continued Mr. Larson • Commented that if Council were to take action to remand the application back to the Planning Commission, staff could add a performance standard to work with the applicant where there is not a demolition of 50% of the walls. This would come forward as part of the design phase of the project. • Requested clarification from Ms. Mosley if she feels that there is a possibility that the project could be redesigned to that performance standard. Ms. Mosley • Clarified that the floor to ceiling windows could be an issue with the demolition, because once they are removed there will be no wall. • Commented that the demolition design would need to be looked at more closely by staff. Council Discussions • Commented that the Planning Commission made a decision based on the Hillside Standards and Guidelines and that since the proposed project is based on a slope greater than 30#, it is prohibited. • Commented that the Council would need to find an error to reverse the decision. • Commented that the applicant does not want to go forward without the pool, so there is no basis to overturn the Planning Commission's decision and no compelling reasons to deviate from the Hillside Standards and Guidelines. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Barbara Spector to deny appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying demolishing a single family home, construct a new residence with reduced setbacks, and an above grade pool on a slope greater than 30% with the additional information that the applicant does not want to go forward without the pool, so there is no basis to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision, no compelling reasons to deviate from the Hillside Standards and Guidelines. Seconded by Council Member Steve Rice. 19 Public Hearing Item #7 - Continued Council Discussions • Commented that the Planning Commission did not have the authority to approve a project with the special policy issues. • Commented that he feels that area 3 of the project does not damage the hillsides. • Expressed concerns that the Planning Commission did not have a complete application and were left with no option but to deny. • Commented that the fill for the proposed project may have varied materials, but the pool itself should not be considered as part of the fill. • Commented that the project has several technicalities that need to be addressed. • Questioned if an extended pool makes sense for the project. • Would like to see the proposed project refined by staff and the Planning Commission. • Questioned if the intent of the motion was to send it back to Planning Commission. • The Maker of the Motion commented that she feels that there is no basis to send it back to the Planning Commission. • Commented that the issue of the suspended pools is new information and that item "C" in the findings would address the issue and allow Council to remand the project back to the Planning Commission and to staff. Mr. Korb • Questioned what facts would apply to finding "C" of the staff report. • Commented that the exception to the policy would have to be based on compelling facts made by the applicant and those facts would have to be incorporated into the resolution. • Clarified the grading policy for pools. Council Discussions • Commented that if the pool could be designed without the grading and placed on top of a suspended area, this would be unique engineering and would be a compelling fact and the exception may apply. 20 Public Hearing Item #7 – Continued Mr. Korb • Reminded Council that the Hillside Standards and Guidelines as written states that swimming pools and sport courts are prohibited on slopes greater than 30%. • Commented that it does not go into further detail whether they are in, on or above ground and that there are separate issues regarding grading, but those issues are not fully analyzed because of the state of the application. Council Discussions • Clarified that the application is not defined and therefore gives Council the opportunity to make an evaluation, because the prohibition has the possibility of having an alternative that has not been evaluated or adjudicated to the satisfaction of the deciding body. VOTE: Motion failed 2/3. Council Member Steve Rice and Council Member Barbara Spector voted yes. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Mike Wasserman to send the decision back to the Planning Commission, applicant, and staff with policy decision "C" which states: That there is an issue or policy which the Planning Commission did not have the discretion to modify or address. Motion failed due to lack of second. MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski to send the application back to the Planning Commission, applicant, and staff, because new information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not readily and reasonably available for submission to the commission. Seconded by Council Member Mike Wasserman. 21 Public Hearing Item #7 – Continued Council Discussions • Commented that the new information is that the applicant is willing to redesign the pool and this information was not available to the Planning Commission. • Commented that the applicant is not willing to move forward unless he has the pool which gets back to a standard which we have no basis to deviate from. • Expressed concerns about the applicant returning to the Planning Commission thinking that the pool is ok. • Commented that the pool violates the Hillside Standards and Guidelines. • Commented that staff moved forward to Council with one component of the application which they thought would allow the applicant to decide if he may or may not want to move forward with the project. • Commented that the application requires further analysis. Mr. Larson • Clarified that staff understands that the motion includes 1) That the applicant is to return with a complete application before approval or denial by the Planning Commission, 2) The policy question of whether or not a pool can be placed on a 30% slope or not is not determined by the Council as part of the motion, therefore if the applicant wants to provide a pool on a 30% slope they’ll have to meet the standards in the Hillside Standards and Guidelines and the burden of proof shall be on the applicant to show that the compelling reasons for granting the requested deviation in writing, 3) Based on Council’s discussion, staff will evaluate the cut and fill proposed for the project and whether or not it violates the Hillside Standards and Guidelines. If the applicant comes forward with a pier proposal for the pool that does not violate the fill standard, the information will be provided to the Planning Commission and the Council, 4) There is considerable discussion to avoid this project being a demolition, staff will persue the issue with the applicant and if the applicant agrees, direct them to come forward with a complete application that avoids the demolition and further encroachment on the setbacks required for the sub-standard lot. 22 Public Hearing Item #7 – Continued Council Discussions • Requested clarification from the Maker of the Motion if the motion was to include discussion to avoid the project being a demolition and that staff persue the issue with the applicant and if the applicant agrees, direct them to come forward with a complete application that avoids the demolition and further encroachment on the setbacks required for the sub-standard lot. • The Maker of the Motion confirmed that Mr. Larson’s points were right on target and should be embedded in any language that derives from the motion and goes back to staff and the Planning Commission. • Commented that the Planning Commission had made no mistakes and had done what they needed to do in regards to the application. AMENDED MOTION: Motion amended to include the following recommendations to staff: 1) That the applicant is to return with a complete application before approval or denial by the Planning Commission, 2) The policy question of whether or not a pool can be placed on a 30% slope or not is not determined by the Council as part of the motion, therefore if the applicant wants to provide a pool on a 30% slope they’ll have to meet the standards in the Hillside Standards and Guidelines and the burden of proof shall be on the applicant to show that the compelling reasons for granting the requested deviation in writing, 3) Based on Council’s discussion, staff will evaluate the cut and fill proposed for the project and whether or not it violates the Hillside Standards and Guidelines. If the applicant comes forward with a pier proposal for the pool that does not violate the fill standard, the information will be provided to the Planning Commission and the Council, 4) There is considerable discussion to avoid this project being a demolition, staff will persue the issue with the applicant and if the applicant agrees, direct them to come forward with a complete application that avoids the demolition and further encroachment on the setbacks required for the sub-standard lot. VOTE: Motion passed 4/1. Council Member Barbara Spector voted no. Mayor Diane McNutt called for a recess. Meeting resumed at 10:10 p.m. 23 OTHER BUSINESS 8. 15928 Union Avenue APN: 527-42-008; Architecture and Site Application S-08-30; Subdivision Application M-08-13; Negative Declaration Nd-09-2; Property Owner: 217 O’Connor LLC; Applicant/Appellant: Tony Jeans. a. Adopt resolution denying appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a request to demolish a single family residence and to subdivide a .93 acre parcel into three lots on property zoned R-1:8; or b. Decide whether to reconsider decision denying appeal. Staff Report made by Orry Korb, Town Attorney. Council Comments Council Member Steve Rice • Commented that his request was based on the fact that what Council had before them when the item was voted on in November was something that he could not support, however new information was brought to Council’s attention that indicates that Council could have remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for a redesign of the sub division. • Commented that Mr. Jean, who is the architect for the project feels that he can come up with a design that is acceptable for all parties. • Council Member Steve Rice stated that he feels that the applicant deserves the opportunity to go back to the Planning Commission and see if he can come up with an acceptable design. • Commented that his goal when asking for the reconsideration was to discuss with Council the idea of reconsideration to remand the project back to the Planning Commission for redesign. Open Public Comments Mr. Davis • Commented that he supports the pubic right to request reconsiderations. • Commended Council Member Steve Rice for his position on the previous item. Mr. Buesing • Commented against the proposed development and requested that Council adopt the proposed resolution. 24 Other Business Item #8 - Continued Mr. Holmberg • Commented against the proposed project and requested that Council adopt the proposed resolution. Mr. Schwarz • Commented on the Sub Division Map Act and that the Town’s resolution accurately captures the Council’s actions. • Requested that Council adopt the proposed resolution. Mr. Mitchell • Commented that the density is not suitable for the proposed project. • Commented that there is a clear distinction between neighborhoods when entering the surrounding area. • Commented that it does not feel like the lots are consistent with the immediate neighborhood and it does not feel right to have three lots. • Expressed concerns that the proposed project does not meet the requirements for the Sub Division Map Act. • Requested that Council uphold their decision and adopt the resolution. Mr. Magano • Requested clarification on the reasons for the decision to be reconsidered. • Commented on the precedent that Council is setting by approving reconsideration. • Requested that Council adopt the proposed resolution. Mr. Grant, Applicant • Requested clarification on the reconsideration process. Closed Public Comments 25 Other Business Item #8 – Continued Mr. Korb • Clarified that Council is operating under its existing reconsideration policy which is fairly complicated. • Commented that the policy committee is working on a re-draft of the reconsideration policy. • The existing policy states that a motion for reconsideration may be made at the meeting of the Council action or the meeting immediately following the original action provided that the matter appears on the agenda unless the request for reconsideration is made by two members of the Council at the meeting immediately following the original action, in which event the item would be placed on the next available agenda for Council action. • Commented the policy requires two Council Members to give consent to agendize an item. Once the item is on the agenda, it can be decided. • Clarified that in this situation Council Member Steve Rice and Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski had agreed to place the item on the agenda. The only question that was on the agenda for tonight was whether to have the reconsideration discussion. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Steve Rice to reconsider the application for the 15928 Union Avenue sub division and place the item on a future agenda. Seconded by Council Member Mike Wasserman. Council Discussions • Question how the reconsideration would appear on the future agenda. • Council Member Rice explained why he chose to ask for reconsideration. • Commented that he felt that there was new information regarding alternative designs. • Commented that by reconsidering the decision would not mean that Council is approving a three lot sub division. 26 Other Business Item #8 – Continued Mr. Korb • Clarified that unless Council advises otherwise, it would appear as an "Other Business" item, not as a "Public Hearing" item, and the Council would be in a position to decide the original appeal in the same manner that Council previously decided the appeal. • Commented that if the Item goes as "Other Business" Council is not obligated to have public testimony, however as in the past, Council has allowed the members of the public to speak to all items that are on the agenda. • Commented that the public and the applicant would be able to speak to Council on the merits of the application for up to three minutes each and then Council would go to the decisional phase. • Clarified that staff will be notifying the neighborhood of the date and time of the reconsideration item. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Korb • Clarified that staff will be notifying the neighborhood of the date and time of the reconsideration item. 9. Adopt a resolution authorizing the Town Manager to execute a Lease Agreement Between Town of Los Gatos and Los Gatos-Saratoga Community Education and Recreation. RESOLUTION 2009-125 Staff Report made by Regina Falkner, Director of Community Development. Council Comments • Requested clarification about the Senior Coordinator position for the Town. • Expressed concerns about renaming the neighborhood center "Los Gatos Senior and Adult Recreation Center" and would like to hold off on any name change until further discussion. 27 Other Business Item #9 - Continued Ms. Falkner • Clarified that the Town’s Senior Coordinator position includes case management needs and services. Council Comments • Questioned if Mr. Rauwolf would consider holding off on a name change to a future date. • Questioned if Mr. Rauwolf would consider "Los Gatos Adult Recreation Center." • Questioned if there would be a value to forming a senior advisory body which could provide feedback on the changes over the year as well as represent the senior community. Mr. Larson • Clarified that the Town is not recommending the re-creation of the Senior Coordinator position, it’s only that portion of the current Senior Coordinator position that is dedicated to case management and the Town is pursuing the avenue of outsourcing it to another non-profit who has specialty in that area. • Commented that staff has explored many options with the Recreation Department relating to the name change and suggested that staff could include the name change with the policy on naming of buildings which would be presented on a future agenda for discussion during the first part of 2010. Mr. Rauwolf • Clarified that the Los Gatos-Saratoga Recreation Department had researched the "senior" and "adult" language for the name change. • Commented that the Los Gatos Recreation Department Board has put a lot of thought into the new name and may not be receptive to another name. 28 Other Business Item #9 – Continued MOTION: Motion by Council Member Steve Rice to adopt a resolution authorizing the Town Manager to execute a lease agreement between Town of Los Gatos and Los Gatos- Saratoga Community Education and Recreation and to name the center Los Gatos Adult Recreation Center. Seconded by Council Member Mike Wasserman. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Attest: Jackie D. Rose, Clerk Administrator