Loading...
Minutes - 02-27-13 - PCPlanning Commission Minutes Page 1 February 27, 2013 DRAFT TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION MINUTES TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 110 E. MAIN STREET WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 Chair Charles Erekson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Charles Erekson, Vice Chair Margaret Smith, Commissioner John Bourgeois, Commissioner Kendra Burch, Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell, Commissioner Joanne Talesfore, and Commissioner Marico Sayoc. Absent: None Others: Town Attorney Judith Propp, Acting Community Development Director Todd Capurso, Assistant Community Development Director Sandy Baily, Assistant Parks and Public Works Director Kevin Rohani, Principal Planner Joel Paulson, Senior Planner Suzanne Avila, Associate Planner Jennifer Savage, Assistant Civil Engineer Trang Tu-Nguyen, and Recording Secretary Linda Rowlett. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Commissioner John Bourgeois. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13, 2013 Commissioners Sayoc and Talesfore commented that they were absent at the meeting of February 13, 2011, but had reviewed the video and the transcript and would be participating in the vote. Motion by Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell and seconded by Vice Chair Margaret Smith to approve meeting minutes of February 13, 2013. Motion carried 7-0. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Senior Planner Suzanne Avila commented that there are two desk items for Item #1. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 27, 2013 REQUESTED CONTINUANCES - NONE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Historic Preservation Committee - Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell reported that the committee met this afternoon and approved a request to remove the home from the Historic Resources Inventory and recommended approval of the proposed demolition of the existing structure at 18 Fillmer Avenue, deferred an A&S application for 17265 Wedgewood Avenue, approved the repair and replacement of windows for 303 University Avenue, and continued an item for repair and replacement of siding and reconstruction of exterior stairs for 256 Bachman Avenue. General Plan Committee - Commissioner Marico Sayoc reported that the committee met earlier today and introduced new committee members Charles Erekson and Bob Beyer and re- elected John Bourgeois as Chair. The committee also reviewed the sites for the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHOZ) and the next meeting will be on March 27. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (AUDIENCE) - NONE CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 15928 Union Avenue (Parcel 1) - Architecture and Site Application S-12-039. Requesting approval to construct a new single-family residence on property zoned R-1:8. APN 527-42-080. PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'Connor LLC. APPLICANT: Tony Jeans, T.H.I.S. Design. PROJECT PLANNER: Suzanne Avila. Chair Charles Erekson opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Suzanne Avila presented the staff report noting that the Commission last considered this application on January 23 and continued the matter asking the applicant to address six items. Commissioner Marico Sayoc  Asked if the engineering staff have reviewed the desk item regarding the composition of the bioswale and asked for clarification on the clay versus the native soil.  Confirmed that the bioswale meets the current requirements.  Asked about the detention items that were reduced. Assistant Civil Engineer Trang Tu-Nguyen  Commented that Mr. Mangano had a question regarding the soil being put back. The plans being proposed today are for an alternative type of bioswale soil. Parcels 2 and 3 were under a different regulation that did not require a soil specification for this type of construction. Since that time, a new regulation has been enacted and this parcel was grandfathered in, but the applicant decided to go with the latest requirements of the Town. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 February 27, 2013  Commented that she is not sure if the detention items were reduced because there have been several iterations and calculations based on the pervious and impervious areas. The last approved plan set reviewed is what was actually constructed. Tony Jeans, Applicant, reviewed the modifications to the proposed plan. Terry Szewczyk, Civil Engineer, gave a presentation on the drainage issues on the proposed property. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked if storm drains or French drain were ever constructed. Terry Szewczyk  Commented that French drains are put in to control ground water coming up from below, but this project is subject to surface flow. Commissioner Marico Sayoc  Asked what caused the flooding in the neighbor's lot at 112 Panorama Way and if the development of Parcels 2 and 3 contributed to more surface flow going towards that neighbor.  Asked what will prevent another electrical failure from happening with the pump. Terry Szewczyk  Commented that the flood was caused by the surface flow off the street as well as the failure of the pump system.  Commented that the pump shorted out with the water so it was raised and corked around the outside. It was also put out of the path of the flowing water. Tony Jeans  Commented that all of the neighbors have had water under their crawl spaces, they all have sump pumps, and they have had problems for many years. Mr. Mangano remodeled his house eight years ago and has not had problems until this year. The French drain around his property should have taken care of the water. There is currently a partially implemented solution that will be complete with the implementation of Parcel 1 and hopefully remedy many of these water problems. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked if adding additional drains would help for overflow. Tony Jeans  Commented that if there was another failure, the surface system is designed to be the fail safe situation where it would convey the water to the public street across the back of the sidewalk and not over the neighbor's lot. The water will go to Panorama Way as an overflow if the electric power fails. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 27, 2013  Commented that the other drains are there but they are not yet hooked up. When it is implemented, all the water on Parcel 1 will be controlled on Parcel 1. Parcels 2 and 3 are only able to control the water on those lots. Commissioner Kendra Burch  Asked Mr. Szewczyk if he believed the upgrades to the gutters and curbs would mitigate the water flowing onto Blossom Hill Road and if the three new drainage inlets will adequately pick up water on that parcel and reroute it to the existing storm drain. Terry Szewczyk  Commented that they did the subdivision at the corner of Leewood Court and they anticipated drainage issues. The water main that was installed by Greenbriar for those houses was extended far down Union Avenue and was sized for all of these conditions. When this new catch basin is installed and connected it will reroute the water to the storm drain. Yazmin Martinez  Commented that she lives next door on Leewood Court and she still has concerns because they no longer have trees to provide privacy.  Commented that she also asked the developer to replace the fence that borders her property with an additional foot to avoid the headlights shining into their house.  Commented that the developer has agreed to align the property with trees to provide privacy for their backyard. Tom Mangano  Asked that if the proposed house is approved, that is approved based on two conditions: (1) The curbing, sidewalk, and street drains that were conditioned for Parcels 2 and 3 are completed prior to issuing a building permit for Parcel 1, and (2) that engineering staff be required to inspect every fill aspect of every bioswale and retention area and specify that it was built as planned.  Commented that he is shocked to hear that it is underground water rather than surface water that is the problem.  Commented that he is concerned that his neighbor is responsible for the pump and he does not even live there.  Commented that the original plan called for 2,000 feet of retention area but the plan was changed.  Commented that bioswale fill rather than clay should have been used. It was not built right. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Asked Mr. Mangano why he believes that the bioswale soil is not correct. Tom Mangano  Commented that the developer's interpretation is that native soil is fine. He observed the fill and native soil was put in above the rock between the filter paper and above. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 27, 2013 Luis Martinez  Commented that he lives on Leewood Court and showed pictures of his home when there used to be trees.  Commented that the proposed house is the same height as the two story homes in the neighborhood. His property is four feet higher than the neighboring property.  Commented that he would like to have trees put back in to protect their privacy.  Commented that the six foot fence is sitting on two feet of concrete but only reaches chest high when he stands up next to it on his side. He would like to have a taller fence. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Asked Mr. Martinez if he has seen the revised landscape plans with the trees. Luis Martinez  Commented that he has not yet seen the plans. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Confirmed that Mr. Martinez wants more trees and a higher fence. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Asked Mr. Martinez if there is room on his side to grow tall trees. Luis Martinez  Commented that he cannot put trees on his side because of the concrete barrier on one side of the yard and the solar panels for his pool on the other side of his property. Stephanie Lynott  Commented that she lives on Union Avenue and her basement is about eight feet deep and she gets ground water that comes up and goes out through a drainage system.  Commented that she appreciates the changes in the windows and doors, but the additional height still creates a problem. She would like to have the house reduced in size for neighborhood compatibility.  Commented that drainage is an issue. Commissioner Kendra Burch  Asked Ms. Lynott if she has been impacted by runoff water. Stephanie Lynott  Commented that she has had run off water from Parcel 2 and she did see clay being put in.  Commented that her basement walls are getting cracks that were never there before. Orv Buesing  Commented that he lives on Union Avenue and he handed out a document to the Commissioners. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 February 27, 2013  Commented that the height and mass is proposed to be higher than the two story homes on Panorama Way. He proposes that the height be set to 20 feet three inches as shown on drawing A-3 without the tower with new plans submitted.  Commented that street improvements should be completed before any construction work on the property.  Commented that Union Avenue is a busy two lane street and needs widening due to safety issues. Tony Jeans  Commented that street widening is a Town staff issue but he would propose that it be widened to the point that base rock and all subgrades are installed and then curb, gutter and sidewalk be put in before winter when the heavy construction will happen.  Commented that they are precluded from putting a fence higher than six feet. They are planning on planting additional trees to block oncoming headlights into the Martinez home.  Commented that the tower is not an issue from Ms. Lynott's view and he did not receive any negative comments on the tower from the Consulting Architect. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Asked if grading is being done on the property now.  Asked if the pump has died. Tony Jeans  Commented that dirt is being moved by PG&E to the extent of digging the trenches.  Commented that they pump has not died but the float that triggers the pump got stuck in the on position. Mr. Grant has called for repairs and has unplugged the pump in the meantime. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Asked for comments on the drainage issues and the soil in the bioswale. Jill Bicknell, Eisenberg, Olivieri & Associates  Commented on the C.3 requirements that are designed to provide treatment of storm water quality for small frequent storm events; they are not designed for larger flood flow events.  Commented that she reviewed the project in 2010 and she judged that the bioswales on Parcels 2 and 3 were more than adequate. Changes were made based on her review but she has not reviewed the revised plans.  Commented that she cannot speak to the native soil issue because she was not involved with the installation. Commissioner Marico Sayoc  Asked Ms. Bicknell what set of requirements should be used when requirements change during the course of a project.  Asked Ms. Bicknell if she still considers the the retention basins are sufficient for Parcels 2 and 3.  Asked if the pump might be faulty and need replacement. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 February 27, 2013 Jill Bicknell  Commented that typically the applicant is allowed to go with the original requirements when the plans were approved. The plans were approved before the requirements changed on December 1, 2011, and the applicant was not required to update them. However, applicants are always encouraged to consider installing per new requirements. The applicant has indicated that they do plan to use the bioswale soil mix that is now specified in the permit for Parcel 1.  Commented that it is a swale rather than a basin and it is a linear feature that is designed for small frequent events. For larger events, that swale will convey water across the property into the inlet where the pump is and it goes out to the street. After reviewing the engineering report, she agrees that all of the improvements planned for Parcel 1 in addition to what is already on Parcels 2 and 3 are adequate to prevent flooding on adjacent properties. Tony Jeans  Commented that there are two pumps. One pump sits lower and works at all times and the second pump activates if the first one fails. The float on the lower pump tripped and got stuck. He does not believe the pump failed. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Commented that the new story poles create a very large mass.  Asked how the tower came to be in light of the guidelines and if other options were ever considered.  Asked why the skylight was not considered.  Commented that Mr. Cannon's letter does not speak to the tower. Tony Jeans  Commented that they wanted a true California style and decided on a Spanish Mission style to provide a bridge between the smaller homes on the left and the taller area on Leewood Court on the right. When they submitted the plans, Mr. Cannon indicated that this design is a very good transition for the neighborhood with no negative feedback. They did ensure that the tower is as low as possible with a low pitch roof and is positioned well away from the neighboring homes. The roof structures are gable roofs and are well conceived.  Commented that they looked at other options to the tower but this design fits best with the neighborhood.  Commented that Mr. Cannon always comments on something that he does not like and he did not oppose the tower. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Commented that he believes the neighbors have an issue with the height of the building.  Asked how high the tower element is. Tony Jeans  Commented that the the house is not as high as a two story building at 20 feet three inches except for the tower element.  Commented that the tower peak is 26 feet 10 inches, but you barely see the peak because you never see the top. They would like to keep the tower element. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 February 27, 2013 Chair Charles Erekson closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Commissioner Kendra Burch  Asked if exceptions are ever allowed for fence height.  Asked how the Town regulates that the pump will be maintained. Senior Planner Suzanne Avila  Commented that fences higher than six feet require a height exception. The Community Development Director does have the authority to approve a fence up to eight feet high if there is a privacy issue. The fence is measured from the highest adjoining grade so the best they could do is approve a seven to eight foot fence at that location. Staff needs to go out to the site to check it further. Assistant Civil Engineer Trang Tu-Nguyen  Commented that the homeowners sign an agreement that they will maintain the pump once the final documents have been approved by the Town. If the homeowners fail to perform necessary maintenance, the Town can step in for repairs and bill the homeowners. There will be a schedule for certain maintenance items. Staff will periodically check to ensure that maintenance is up to date.  Commented that an annual report is submitted to the State with inspection reports for all the projects. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked what time of year the review takes place. Assistant Civil Engineer Trang Tu-Nguyen  Commented that staff typically goes out for project inspections prior to the rainy season. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Commented that the applicant was given clear direction on six items at the last meeting. Five of the items have been addressed. The drainage issue is still in question. The tower element was not discussed at the last meeting but the height of the story poles brings up a height issue. Drainage has always been an issue on this site, but the drainage will be vastly improved once the entire project is complete. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Commented that he agrees with Commissioner Bourgeois's comments except for the tower element.  Questions if the bulk and mass of the house would appear smaller if the tower was removed. He noted that Mr. Cannon did not raise any issue with the tower. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 February 27, 2013 Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Commented that the new story poles today make the tower jump out at her when standing in Ms. Lynott's driveway and she would like to have the tower eliminated or brought down in height. She reiterated that the Design Guidelines say to avoid towers and turrets. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Commented that he is not ignoring the Martinez's comments and he does believe that the comments could be addressed with conditions if the project is approved. Commissioner Margaret Smith  Commented that she likes the design of the home, that it sets a nice transition, and she does not have a problem with the tower.  Commented that she believes that the drainage issues will be resolved but is concerned that the pump is not working right now.  Asked if it can be certified that the pump is in good working order. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Commented that the pump issue can be conditioned if the project is approved. Chair Charles Erekson  Commented that the pump is not part of this particular project so it may not be appropriate to consider it on this application. Principal Planner Joel Paulson  Commented that the pump is not part of this application but staff will take action to ensure that the pump is operational and that the final maintenance agreement includes annual inspections as required by the State. Assistant Civil Engineer Trang Tu-Nguyen  Commented that the applicant just advised her that they have contractors on board to maintain and review the pump. Motion by Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell and seconded by Commissioner John Bourgeois to approve Architecture and Site Application S-12-039 subject to the conditions as noted in Exhibit 16 and the development plans as noted in Exhibit 20 of the staff report dated February 27, 2013, with the added condition that the fence between this property and the Martinez property be raised to the extent permitted by law with the applicable exception. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 15 of the staff report dated February 27, 2013. Commissioner Marico Sayoc  Asked if the completion of the street improvements is already a condition in the project or if it needs to be part of the motion. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 February 27, 2013 Senior Planner Suzanne Avila  Commented that there is a separate agreement that the applicants entered into for street improvements relative to the subdivision. She believes that the Council gave the applicant a time extension for completion. Assistant Civil Engineer Trang Tu-Nguyen  Commented that the extension for street improvements is until the end of the year; however, the applicant is currently working on it and it will be finished before the house is completed. The typical construction process is that they will put the base down, but will not do the final lift of asphalt until everything is complete to minimize the damage to the street. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Commented that he recalled that the applicant has agreed to do the street improvements. He would add to the motion the requirement that the preliminary improvements be put in before the building permit is issued. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Agreed with the added condition. Principal Planner Joel Paulson  Confirmed that the motion is to approve the application with the added conditions of a fence up to eight feet in height and to require street improvements to the first lift of asphalt be completed prior to issuance of the building permit. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Confirmed that the trees are already in the proposal. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Commented that she will support the motion but she sees an opposition with the Design Guidelines regarding towers and what is being approved. Principal Planner Joel Paulson recited appeal rights. Motion carried 7-0. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 15975 Cerro Vista Drive - Architecture and Site Application S-12-081. Requesting approval to exceed the maximum floor area and construct an addition to a single-family residence resulting in a floor area over 5,000 square feet on property zoned HR-1. APN 537-30-007. PROPERTY OWNER: TFR Management Group. APPLICANT: Rano Perrizo. PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Savage. Chair Charles Erekson opened the public hearing. Associate Planner Jennifer Savage presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 February 27, 2013 Daniel Wencel, Owner, gave a presentation on the proposed project. Rano Perrizo, Applicant, commented that landscaping has been added to the front to break up the facade. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Asked about the sizes of the windows. Rano Perrizo  Commented that in order to mirror the bottom windows, they needed to make them larger. The new windows are 3 feet x 5 feet above and 3 feet x 6 feet 8 inches on the bottom. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked if there is a way to align the top and bottom windows.  Asked if there were alternatives to adding square footage to the house.  Asked if they considered adding bay windows. Daniel Wencel  Commented that the windows are not aligned because there is a load bearing wall inside that offsets the window.  Commented that it is hard to find a design without increasing square footage with the original windows. Rano Perrizo  Commented that bay windows may have worked but this design makes the structure stronger. Commissioner Kendra Burch  Asked what they plan to use to break up the front mass. Rano Perrizo  Commented that they will add a belly band in stucco in a different color, along with additional planting. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Commented that he is not sure how it will look when it is complete and he is not sure that the new design will make the house more attractive. Rano Perrizo  Commented that the new plan uses the existing piers that are positioned out towards the front of the house. Daniel Wencel  Commented that any design would require redesigning the wall. It is not a huge mass of house. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 February 27, 2013 Commissioner Kendra Burch  Commented that she would like to see additional design options. Daniel Wencel  Commented that they have been working on this for two years and he is not sure what is being asked. They can bring back some additional designs on how to break up the mass. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Commented that alternatives could alleviate the issue of adding square footage. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Commented that he would like to see a more attractive design. Commissioner Marico Sayoc  Commented that they are not opposed to the extra square footage. One option is to bring back more detail or to work with the Town's Consulting Architect for ideas on breaking up the stucco. Chair Charles Erekson closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Asked if the Commission can ask the applicant to work with the Consulting Architect. Associate Planner Jennifer Savage  Commented that directing the applicant to work with the Consulting Architect is an option and it has been done in the past. Motion by Commissioner Marico Sayoc and seconded by Commissioner Joanne Talesfore to approve Architecture and Site Application S-12-081 subject to the conditions as noted in Exhibit 3 of the staff report dated February 27, 2013, with the added condition that the applicant work with the Town's Consulting Architect to provide recommendations for breaking up the front facade and that the design be approved at the staff level. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of the staff report dated February 27, 2013. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Seconded the motion based on the merit of revisiting the aesthetics of the building and redesigning it to make this building much more aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell  Commented that he would like to see the final design and prefers to continue to matter. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Commented that she thought the motion was a continuance and asked Commissioner Sayoc if she would revise the motion so that the design would come back to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 February 27, 2013 Commissioner Marico Sayoc  Commented that she deferred the redesign to staff level because she is not the expert. She is keeping the motion as is. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Withdrew her second. Motion by Commissioner Marico Sayoc and seconded by Chair Charles Erekson to approve Architecture and Site Application S-12-081 subject to the conditions as noted in Exhibit 3 of the staff report dated February 27, 2013, with the added condition that the applicant work with the Town's Consulting Architect to provide recommendations for breaking up the front facade and that the design be approved at the staff level. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of the staff report dated February 27, 2013. Motion carried 5-2 with Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore dissenting. Principal Planner Joel Paulson recited appeal rights. Chair Charles Erekson called for a recess at 9:15 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:25 p.m. 3. 90-160 Albright Way and 14600 Winchester Boulevard - Planned Development Application PD-12-001, Architecture and Site Application S-12-078, Environmental Impact Report EIR-12-003. Public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report regarding the request to modify the existing Planned Development to allow for redevelopment of the existing site with up to 550,000 square feet of new office/commercial buildings and approval to construct the improvements represented in the Planned Development. No formal action will be taken at this meeting. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). APN’s 424-31-053, 054, 063, 424-32-038, 045, 049, 054, 059, 060, 063. PROPERTY OWNER: LG Business Park LLC. APPLICANT: John R. Shenk. PROJECT PLANNER: Joel Paulson. Chair Charles Erekson opened the public hearing. Commissioner Kendra Burch  Commented that she works for a commercial electrical construction contractor that could submit a bid for some of the work in the future if this project is approved. Her compensation is not dependent or related to bids so she does not have a conflict and will be participating in this matter. Commissioner John Bourgeois  Commented that in the past he has recused himself from the item on Albright Way because the firm he worked for at the time prepared a Riparian Survey for the adjacent property. He no longer works for that firm and will be participating in the project. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 February 27, 2013 Chair Charles Erekson gave an overview of the process for the public hearing. Eric Anderson  Commented on the discrepancy in the document regarding the number of jobs created.  Commented that contrary to the information in the report, the existing 250,000 square feet is not fully occupied. Only about 25 percent of the park is occupied at this time.  Commented that the reference to modern tenant demands underestimates the number of jobs.  Commented that doing the PD (Planned Development) circumvents a zoning change. Jeff Black  Commented that he supports the project and believes the redevelopment of the property will offer a significant economic benefit to the Town.  Commented that development supports the General Plan policies of providing a mix of office uses that takes advantage of a location close to mass transit.  Commented that the traffic studies are based on professional standards and methodologies used to calculate traffic impacts. The studies were peer reviewed and coordinated with local agencies to ensure accuracy.  Commented that the community will benefit from this development and that the impacts are less than significant. Jack Van Nada  Commented that he will be addressing some of the hard and soft costs of the development along Lark Avenue, including the Albright project.  Commented on the increased traffic congestion impacts with this project, including the impact on the environment.  Commented that we should develop the solution at the same time that we develop the problem.  Commented that the project will bring too many people to support on an underdeveloped infrastructure.  Commented that we need jobs but not before considering the costs and consequences that come with them. Andy Wu  Commented that he wanted to address Chapter 5 regarding the three alternatives to the currently proposed project.  Commented that he would have had no problem if the DEIR proposed a project with the reduced intensity alternative, but the developers are proposing to build a monstrosity.  Commented that Los Gatos has a distinct character and it should consider the types of businesses that are appropriate.  Commented that the reason that the project is not based on the reduced intensity alternative is based solely on economics. Lezli Logan  Commented that she is a long time resident of Los Gatos and she has supported this project because of the benefits provided to the Town. Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 February 27, 2013  Commented that this project is consistent with the goals of the General Plan.  Commented that the data stating that the impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level is what needs to be evaluated when considering this project rather than personal perception.  Commented that the community will benefit substantially from having a development that allows job growth while providing a financial windfall for our schools. Dale Miller  Commented that he lives near Lark Avenue and Winchester Boulevard and can attest to existing traffic issues.  Thanked the Commission for allowing comments.  Commented that all three projects impact traffic in the area and they should be combined from a traffic perspective.  Commented that parking should be limited to half of what is estimated for the Albright project and encourage people to use public and alternate modes of transportation.  Commented that the ramp for southbound Highway 85 could be put in place.  Commented that the traffic flow on Winchester Boulevard could be partitioned to limit congestion.  Commented that Courtside is exceeding its allowed parking and impacting the area. Lee Quintana  Commented she is still in the process of reviewing the DEIR and will submit final comments prior to the deadline. Her preliminary concerns are the project alternatives, the staff's conclusions, the project description, compliance with the general purposes and explicit polices of CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) to inform and disclose, discrepancies within the text and the PD and A&S plan sets, references to the VLR (Vasona Light Rail) extension and station, and traffic analysis.  Commented that no analysis was made of an alternative that would meet most of the objectives of the Town and the applicant, as well as the land use policies and designations of the General Plan.  Commented that the project does not conform to the underlying General Plan designation and should require a General Plan amendment.  Commented that the definition of the project is not clear.  Commented that there appears to be a subtle bias for the project in the first three chapters of the DEIR. Ann Robinson  Commented that she has lived in the Charter Oaks community for 20 years and that her primary concern is that the residents of Charter Oaks have no way to adequately evaluate the impacts of the proposed buildings and parking structure without story poles.  Commented that the residents cannot determine the issues relating to their privacy, vistas, and lighting without story poles. She provided a diagram of suggested story pole locations.  Commented that she has sent requests to the applicant and to staff regarding the story poles. To date, she has not received an answer to her requests. She provided a copy of the petition Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 February 27, 2013 from the Charter Oaks residents asking the Town to require the developer to install the story poles consistent with her exhibit. Bob Shepherd  Commented that the majority of his commercial real estate work is in the Town and in west San Jose and he is in complete support of the Albright project.  Commented that he would like to see the project move forward as soon as possible.  Commented that the traffic will be mitigated and that it will create short and long term jobs. Larry Arzie  Commented that any variances granted to this development will mimic in the North Forty.  Commented that the Commission will get little to no help from staff on determining the correctness of this PD.  Commented that staff knowingly misled the Commission on meeting the parking district requirements for the Los Gatos Theater project.  Commented that there are questions on circulation, traffic, building heights, air quality and none of these should be sacrificed for property tax revenue. Light rail is a fantasy and not realistic for consideration for high density.  Commented that he does not believe that the project meets the integrity of the General Plan. It will only require more housing and more school needs. Chair Charles Erekson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore  Asked if there will be tours of the project and if there will be a scale model provided. Chair Charles Erekson thanked the public for their comments and reiterated that the public review period goes through March 14 and noted that written comments are welcome. CONTINUED OTHER BUSINESS - NONE NEW OTHER BUSINESS 4. Report from Director of Community Development a. Principal Planner Joel Paulson reiterated the environmental documents that are currently out for review: (1) the Albright DEIR. Comments will be accepted until March 14; (2) the Notice of Preparation has been distributed for the North Forty Specific Plan DEIR. There will be a scoping meeting on March 6 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Comments will be accepted until March 15; and (3) the Notice of Preparation for the Hillbrook School DEIR has been released and the comments will be accepted until March 14. Commissioner Marico Sayoc confirmed that the Hillbrook meeting mentioned in the Mayor's State of the Union address is separate from the Notice of Preparation. Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 February 27, 2013 5. Commission Matters - None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, February 27, 2013 ___________________________________________ Charles Erekson, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM AND ATTEST: _____________________________ Joel Paulson Principal Planner