Minutes - 10-23-13 - PC
Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 October 23, 2013
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
ACTION MINUTES
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
110 E. MAIN STREET
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2013
Chair Charles Erekson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Chair Charles Erekson, Vice Chair Margaret Smith, Commissioner John
Bourgeois, Commissioner Kendra Burch, Commissioner Thomas O’Donnell,
Commissioner Marico Sayoc, and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore
None
Others: Town Attorney Judith Propp, Planning Manager Joel Paulson, Senior Planner
Suzanne Avila, and Associate Planner Marni Moseley, Associate Civil Engineer
Maziar Bozorginia.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Vice Chair Smith.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2013 AND OCTOBER 9, 2013
Motion by Commissioner Bourgeois and seconded by Commissioner Sayoc to approve
meeting minutes of September 25, 2013, and October 9, 2013.
Motion carried 7-0.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
REQUESTED CONTINUANCES
1. 15644 Shady Lane (Lot 3). Architecture and Site Application S-13-035. Requesting
approval to construct a new single-family residence within an approved Planned
Development (Highlands of Los Gatos) on property zone HR-2½:PD. APN 527-09-012.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Davidon Homes. PROJECT PLANNER: Suzanne
Avila.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 23, 2013
Motion by Commissioner Talesfore and seconded by Commissioner Sayoc to continue
consideration of Item 1 (15644 Shady Lane, Lot 3) to the meeting of November 13, 2013.
The motion passed 7-0.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Historic Preservation Committee - Commissioner Burch reported that HPC met on October
23, 2013, and asked for a redesign and return of plans for the proposed remodel of 212 Bean,
and offered initial feedback to the potential new owner of 445 Los Gatos Boulevard in
consideration of either demolition or renovation of the existing structure.
North 40 Specific Plan Advisory Committee – Commissioner Bourgeois reported that the
Committee met on October 15, 2013, and after years of effort concluded its work with final high-
level comments on the document. This draft specific plan will be brought forth to the Planning
Commission as well as the associated draft environmental review.
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE
K. Christopher Branch, attorney for Item 3, requested priority of their item due to his three-hour
drive back following this hearing. He said he would appreciate if they could be considered out
of order.
Chair Erekson asked if there were any objections and none were raised. He said that the
Commission would hear Item 3 first as a reasonable accommodation.
CONSENT CALENDAR – NONE
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. 32 N. Santa Cruz Avenue - Conditional Use Permit Application U-13-011. Requesting
approval to modify an existing CUP for a formula retail store to allow beer and wine tasting,
sales, and events on property zoned C-2:LHP. APN: 529-03-055. PROPERTY OWNER:
Flick Family Trust. APPLICANT: Napa Style. PROJECT PLANNER: Marni Moseley.
Chair Erekson opened the public hearing.
Associate Planner Marni Moseley presented the staff report.
Chair Erekson asked if there were questions of staff.
Vice Chair Smith
Commented that the Conditional Use Permit was originally granted to Traditions and then
Napa Style moved in. The Conditional Use Permit runs with the land.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 23, 2013
Requested confirmation that the term “formula retail” is defined as having seven or more
locations.
Marni Moseley confirmed that Napa Style took over this location about seven years ago and that
the term of “formula retail” is defined as having seven or more retail locations.
Commissioner Talesfore asked if a condition could be included that limits this approval to that
specific business, Napa Style?
Planning Manager Joel Paulson commented that the Town does not place specific business
names into its Conditional Use Permits, which are for the use and not the operator.
Commissioner Talesfore asked whether restricting it to one operator had ever been done and
whether it simply can’t be done.
Town Attorney Judith Propp commented that an ABC permit for alcohol service as part of a
Conditional Use runs with the land. She added that staff would have to be directed by Council in
order to look at other models.
Commissioner O’Donnell
Commented that staff is once again recommending a Categorical Exemption under CEQA
Section 15061, in that there would be no adverse impact.
Asked if staff considers cumulative impacts.
Commented that the nature of alcohol sales in the Downtown has changed as well as some of
the hours yet we continuously hear that there is “no impact.”
Marni Moseley
Commented that the Categorical Exempt recommendation is based on Section 15061.
Commented that under the existing Conditional Use Permit, this business is permitted to
operate until 9 p.m. The proposed use would not exceed that even with the special events.
There is no intensification or additional hours proposed.
Commissioner Bourgeois
Commented that the tasting area accommodates no more than nine customers at any time but
special events are being proposed for up to 25 customers.
Commented that he is confused because there is supposed to be a barrier designating the
tasting area but it looks like it is moveable stanchions and ropes.
Commented that it appears the Police Department didn’t have any concern with that set up.
Asked how the Town could make sure only nine people are using the tasting area at any
given time if the barrier is moveable.
Marni Moseley
Commented that the barrier proposed by the applicant is what ABC requires but the Planning
Commission is free to give direction to the applicant in that regard.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 October 23, 2013
Commented that the tasting area would be closed off during special events and that the
special events will actually happen throughout the store.
Commissioner Sayoc
Commented on page 2 of the applicant’s statement that mentions that if they are unable to get
the required ABC license, they will lease out the use. Is it possible for them to lease out
those rights to another operator?
Commented that the Conditional Use Permit is for the use of tasting on that particular site,
regardless of who is the actual ABC permit holder.
Marni Moseley
Commented that they would have to operate in compliance with the provisions of the
Conditional Use Permit.
Commented that the applicant could speak further on that element of their request and
language could be added into the Conditional Use Permit.
Commented that Commissioner Sayoc is correct that the CUP is for the use on site rather
than the actual ABC permit holder for that use.
Commissioner O’Donnell
Asked if it is true that at special events served by an ABC-licensed caterer, alcohol can be
served at any time.
Asked if staff took that into account. He pointed out that the report reads that for a special
event with 25 people or fewer, with a licensed caterer, you wouldn’t need an ABC license if
you weren’t going to serve alcohol.
Commented that this use will involve both the tastings and general use of alcohol, which is
limited to special events.
Marni Moseley
Commented that if they were going to serve alcohol in bigger than one-ounce pours, the
caterer would have to have a separate ABC license to serve beyond those one-ounce serves.
Vice Chair Smith
Asked if there is a special event permit that could be provided for one event that would allow
alcohol service.
Asked if either Napa Style or a particular charity could apply for a special event permit to
serve alcohol.
Marni Moseley
Commented that the Police Department issues special event permits. There are certain
requirements. These types of events would not typically fall under those types of
requirements.
Commented that either Napa Style or a particular charity could obtain a special event permit
within the requirements that the Police Department authorizes.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 October 23, 2013
Commissioner Talesfore
Commented that per Condition 7 in the staff report, there is a limit of 25 guests per event.
Commented that it also says that an ABC-licensed caterer can serve alcohol at events.
Commented that the letter of justification from the applicant is very specific in saying that
ABC-licensed caterers would be utilized for these events. She added that she would like to
see that intent and use of words included within the conditions of approval. There is too
much ambiguity with that existing condition and it needs to be tightened up.
Marni Moseley said that could be changed. The reason that staff used the term “may” was that
not all special events would necessarily include the service of alcohol.
Commissioner O’Donnell commented that if the Commission were to grant this request, no
Police Department permit would be required up to the approved number of events.
Marni Moseley said that is correct.
K. Christopher Branch, Attorney for the Applicant, gave a brief presentation raising a couple
of typographical errors including the need to amend page 2-B of the staff report to read, “beer
and/or wine.”
Chair Erekson asked Mr. Branch to clarify that it is their intent to limit the tastings events to
occur within the operating hours of the store, which closes at 6 p.m. Special events would occur
between 6 and 9 p.m., so the only activity in the store at that time would be the special event
itself.
K. Christopher Branch
Commented that Chair Erekson is correct.
Commented that the license for the tasting area would have to be suspended or taken away
from the premises during any special event where alcohol is served so there would be only
one operative ABC license for the premises on any given day.
Commented that the more practical way to do that is to suspend the privilege of the wine
tasting for the days on which a special event is being held. The suspension is for a full day
and not just during the specific hours’ of the special event.
Commissioner Burch
Asked Mr. Branch if they currently have this business model at all of their stores.
Asked for clarification as to whether this is a new aspect to their business and not something
that has been happening historically.
Asked if the tastings would happen every day while the special events could be on any day.
Asked if it was their practice to notify surrounding businesses of their events for either
parking or noise reasons.
Asked if notifying neighbors of scheduled special events is something he would take into
consideration.
Asked the applicant to elaborate on his thoughts about subletting the tasting use.
Asked if the Yountville store tastings are leased out to just one specific winery.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 October 23, 2013
K. Christopher Branch
Commented that there is only one other store now. This business model has been
implemented just last week at the Yountville store.
Commented that it is something that used to happen in Orange County but they have since
closed that store.
Commented that they started it again in Yountville and they would love to start it here in Los
Gatos as well.
Commented that the special events would be held when the particular charity wants. In
Orange County Sundays or Thursdays were the preferred days.
Commented that they didn’t notify surrounding businesses of special events, as they were
located within a huge shopping mall in Southern California. Their use of 25 more parking
spaces for a special event wouldn’t have made a difference on that center on a Sunday or a
Thursday evening.
Commented that he would be willing to notify neighbors of events during busier periods such
as the holidays. He said that he’s aware that parking is a lot more restricted in Los Gatos and
they would want to take necessary courtesies with their neighbors.
Commented that the model they are using at their Yountville location is to sublet. It’s leased
out to an independent winery. That would be an alternative model he may have to look at
here.
Commented that Yountville is leased out to just one specific winery.
Commissioner Bourgeois
Asked Mr. Branch about the differences between the non-profit organizations under 501-C-3
and C-6 and how they relate to fundraising purposes.
Asked how realistic their maximum of 25 events is. Why up to three per month? Do they
expect to have 36 events a year?
Asked what the frequency of events is for the Yountville store.
K. Christopher Branch
Commented that these special events help the non-profit to generate much needed revenue.
It’s hard for small charities to find a venue where they can serve alcohol that doesn’t charge a
corkage fee or other charges. It provides a venue for the charity to attract donors. Events in
restaurants are expensive and it’s harder to have them in peoples’ homes.
Commented that he is not sure that someone could have this type of event without the
Conditional Use Permit, even for just one night, the way he reads the Town’s alcohol rules.
Commented that this gives charities in the area the opportunity to do something they don’t
have right now.
Commented that they are asking for between 24 and 25 events per year anticipating an
average of two each month but wanting the option to have up to three is some months. This
leaves enough flexibility for the charities to schedule their events during busier times of year
such as the holidays.
Commented that since they have just started this program at their Yountville store they have
no averages established. He added that in Orange County they averaged one or two events
each month.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 October 23, 2013
Commissioner Talesfore
Asked if the proposed maximum attendance of 25 is just counting the invited guests but not
the employees.
Asked for a clarification on who qualifies as a C-6 tax group.
K. Christopher Branch
Commented that 25 is the maximum number of invited guests. It does not include
employees, caterers or anyone else who needs to be there on staff.
Commented that C-6 would be a business-related organization such as a Chamber of
Commerce as opposed to a service organization such as a Heart Association that would be a
C-3.
Vice Chair Smith
Commented that the need for such events may not be as great as the applicant thinks.
Commented that she knows many businesses that do have charitable events. They do get the
one-day permit and she has never heard a charity raise concern about a lack of venues.
Asked if the day-to-day business includes the beer and wine tasting.
Commented that page three of his applicant’s letter indicates they will have a refrigerated
non-fixed case as well.
Commented on her doubt of the need for this tasting business at this particular part of the
Downtown where they are located.
Asked who is competing with Napa Style that they feel the need to move into the beer and
wine business versus the home accessories business.
Asked if it is reasonable to have beer and wine service with every housewares store.
Commented that she wants the applicant to clarify that Napa Style believes there is a need to
be filled and their company is going to fill that need by having a beer and wine tasting room.
Asked if the winery subletting in their Yountville store is Chiarello's
K. Christopher Branch
Commented that they will have beer and wine tasting each day as well as wine sales of full
non-chilled bottles.
Commented that the chilled wine is for the wine tasting. He advised that white wines have to
be tasted chilled. He assured that they would only sell room-temperature wines for off site
consumption.
Commented that Napa Style is a wine-oriented business. He added that Napa is the name for
wine around the world. It expands the Napa California wine lifestyle.
Commented that he agrees there are other wine stores but customers can buy other goods at
Napa Style as well. They are offering a lifestyle within their business model.
Commented that there are a number of shops in Napa and Sonoma that have exactly the same
business model.
Commented that it is a need as well as an ability to market their household and wine-oriented
furnishings. It offers an additional marketing element for them and is also a way to sell wine
and beer that is made locally.
Commented that the winery in their Yountville location is indeed Chiarello's.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 October 23, 2013
Commissioner Talesfore
Asked what the store hours are currently.
Asked if the wine tasting would be available to anyone coming in to the store between 10
a.m. and 6 p.m.
Asked how the applicant would feel if the Commission were to reduce the hours of wine
tasting somewhat.
Asked if Mr. Chiarello's wine would be featured at the Los Gatos location.
K. Christopher Branch
Commented that their current hours of operation are from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Commented that tasting would be offered during all hours they are open.
Commented that limiting their wine tasting hours would not be ideal. As a result, they would
have to watch two clocks. They’d like to avoid that as it just causes confusion.
Commented that he didn’t think Chiarello wines would be featured in Los Gatos. He added
that he didn’t think they actually could be under a whole bunch of rules.
Commissioner O’Donnell
Asked if charity event attendees would be allowed to purchase Napa Style home accessories
during a special event if employees are present to make the sale.
Commented that if so that would mean that two businesses are going on. One is the sale of
their retail products and the other is the charitable event.
K. Christopher Branch
Said that is correct, customers could also buy the bottled alcohol. That is why they broke
this use up into three items. The first is the sale of beer and wine. The second is the tasting
of beer and wine. The third is the special events.
Vice Chair Smith
Asked the applicant to clarify whether there is a difference between a special event and a
charitable event.
Asked if Napa Style having its own event that allows shopping to 9 p.m., counts as a special
event.
K. Christopher Branch
Replied that both a special and charitable event are the same thing.
Commented that he must go back and correct himself. If they suspend their ABC license
during the charitable events, they could not sell the bottled alcohol during those special
events. Bottle sales would have to suspend at 6 p.m.
Commented that if they were to have an event selling their goods up to 9 p.m., they would
have to stop the wine tasting by 6 p.m., but the store would be open and they could sell beer
and wine in bottles just not taste it.
Commented that they hadn’t thought of that idea.
Chair Erekson closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission
for deliberations.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 October 23, 2013
Commissioner O’Donnell
Commented that it seems that per staff’s CEQA review it has been determined that if the
store closes at 6 p.m. and special events are held until 9 p.m., there would be no impact.
Asked if they could actually sell their retail goods while special events are underway. It
seems that was staff’s understanding of how they intended to operate.
Commented that the conditions about operating hours are for when they are open to the
general public. The ABC restrictions are separate from the conditions of approval.
Asked if someone wants to buy something, but that person is unrelated to the special event
underway, could they come in to purchase Napa Style merchandise.
Marni Moseley said that they could not come in after the operating hours. The store would be
closed to the general public.
Commissioner Talesfore asked what the term “instant application” was which was referenced in
the applicant’s letter of justification.
Judith Propp said that “instant application” is a lawyer’s term that means “this application.”
Commissioner Talesfore asked how the Town would keep track of these special events to be
allowed under this proposed Conditional Use Permit. She added that she is concerned about it
because of the alcohol provision.
Marni Moseley commented that the Planning Commission could impose a condition of approval
that requires the applicant to provide documentation of its events in some form on a regular
basis.
Commissioner Burch asked how many parking spaces are currently allotted to this store.
Asked if the subletting of the tasting area would stay with the Conditional Use Permit for that
property.
Marni Moseley replied correct.
Commissioner Talesfore
Commented that in the Conditional Use Permit it references home accessories and home
goods. The only other store able to operate under this Conditional Use Permit would be
another home products store.
Asked for clarification from staff that the tasting area could never be walled off.
Marni Moseley
Commented that the proposed use is for home and dining accessories, including limited
packaged food items and room temperature beer and wine packaged for off-site consumption.
Commented that the site would have to function as described in the proposed plans.
Vice Chair Smith asked about the parking spaces provided for this use.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 October 23, 2013
Marni Moseley said that there is a minimum of seven spaces based on the square footage of the
suite. They may have additional spaces within the Parking District but staff does not have access
to that information at this moment.
Commissioner Burch
Asked how parking is accounted for with special events that include 25 guests, plus catering
staff and Napa Style’s staff. This is especially true on a busy Friday.
Commented that she is starting to see parking needs compile.
Asked if there is anything such as a specialized parking fee.
Marni Moseley
Replied no.
Commented that the Planning Commission could provide a recommendation if it feels that 25
attendees is too many and recommend reducing the number.
Commented that when staff considered this number, it looked at seating for a restaurant,
which is based on one space for every four seats. Using that ratio, they would be within that
range, as far as 25 seats, with their existing seven parking spaces.
Commissioner Sayoc
Commented that parking is determined by the square footage, which is how the seven
parking spaces were allotted.
Asked if it takes into consideration the hours of operation.
Commented that between 6 and 9 p.m., it was staff that limited the number to 25 participants.
Staff compared this with the restaurant parking standard.
Commented that restaurants are based on chairs in a particular space.
Commented that there is no consideration of how much time we predict someone would
actually be in that space. Whether they’re at an event for three hours versus eating a meal,
that doesn’t change the parking criteria.
Commented that the 25-participant maximum doesn’t take into consideration employees or
caterers.
Asked for confirmation that other restaurants don’t take into consideration how much staff is
there when it is allocated parking.
Commented that the hours of operation in the proposed Conditional Use Permit indicate
between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. daily. It sounds like during the hours between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m.
on evenings with special events that retail will occur.
Asked if the hours of operation need to be changed, since technically they’ll be there until 9
p.m.
Marni Moseley
Commented that the applicant proposed the 25 participants. Staff then compared that against
the restaurant requirement to see if it was in line with that type of parking requirement.
Commented that Commissioner Sayoc is correct that restaurant parking is based on number
of chairs.
Commented that the parking requirement is the same for a fine dining versus a high turnover,
or between a sit down restaurant versus a fast-food restaurant.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 October 23, 2013
Commented that the restaurant requirement is based on seating assuming the total number of
guests. That is how staff compared those two requirements.
Commented that if the Commission feels that number should be reduced to accommodate the
staff, that is the Commission’s purview.
Commented that the hours of operation have to do with when they are open to the public.
Vice Chair Smith
Commented that she is not inclined to forward this on to the Town Council. She is more
inclined to deny this.
Commented that she did not think that she could make the required findings for this
Conditional Use Permit and doesn’t believe this is going to enhance the Downtown or life in
Los Gatos.
Commented that there are many alcohol establishments within yards of this retailer. This is a
retailer whose main business has not been beer, wine, food or the service of food.
Commented that she does think there will be an intensification of parking demand for these
events.
Commented that she applauds Napa Style for wanting to participate in these charity events
but that is not compelling her to approve this Conditional Use Permit and send it on to the
Town Council.
Commissioner O’Donnell
Commented that he started off where Vice Chair Smith is.
Commented that the problem the Commission is concerned with is not specifically related to
this store but rather to a broader question.
Commented that it is to the Town’s benefit to have a good store be successful. This
restricted tasting space (at about 200 square feet) is of a small magnitude.
Commented that he is torn between wanting this existing seven-year-old business to do as
well as possible and better than presently. At the same time, he is worried about the issues of
character, parking and traffic impacts.
Commented that if the Commission does it on just this one store, it doesn’t seem fair.
Commented that this is a relatively minor change to an existing business. It s not changing
the nature of their business. He is leaning more toward supporting it for those reasons
although Vice Chair Smith’s comments are well taken.
Commented that the same point was raised at the last meeting and perhaps we have a
cumulative problem.
Commented that the Commission keeps saying everything is Categorically Exempt. That
reasoning is beginning to fail. However, he doesn’t think saying no to this particular use at
this time will solve the problem.
Commented that he would like the Town Council to consider issues such as where is the
Downtown going? What is the traffic like?
Commented that everyone knows that traffic is getting worse and that issue should be looked
at in a more global way.
Vice Chair Smith commented that she understands Commissioner O’Donnell’s reasoning but is
concerned over future such requests.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 October 23, 2013
Commissioner Talesfore
Commented that she arrived with no idea how she felt on this request. She is glad to hear
everyone’s comments and questions.
Commented that she is always in favor of a store wanting to provide a venue for charities in
our region but she is uncomfortable with how this Conditional Use Permit is written and she
hopes nothing important is being overlooked.
Commented that this is sort of a new idea for Los Gatos and the Conditional Use Permit runs
with the land, which is bothersome to her. This includes the leasing of a part of the use to a
winery and being able to serve wine all day. Parking could be an issue.
Commented that she agrees that the Commission may need more of an understanding of
where the Town is going.
Commented that another housewares store may be interested in going after this as well. They
already have cooking lessons and that’s a perfect place to do something like this.
Commented that if this moves forward, she’d like to tighten up a lot of the conditions of
approval.
Commissioner Bourgeois
Commented that this item would go to the Town Council, regardless of the Commission’s
action.
Commented that there are three things before the Commission – the tasting, the sale of beer
and wine, and the charity events.
Asked if it would be possible to make recommendations on those three things individually.
Marni Moseley said it would be best to modify the conditions of approval accordingly.
Joel Paulson added that the Commission could indicate more of a preference for one aspect over
the others in its motion.
Commissioner Bourgeois said that he agrees with Vice Chair Smith that it is an odd fit to have
wine tasting with a business selling retail household goods. He made a motion to recommend
that the Town Council approve this request with changes to the conditions of approval to exclude
the second sentence of Condition 3, to eliminate Condition 6 completely, and to keep Condition
7 but define a charity event a little better so it is more clear.
Commissioner Talesfore pointed out that this store now sells packaged food items.
Commissioner Bourgeois said that is true. He suggested leaving that in but to remove the
reference to room temperature beer and wine packaged for off-site consumption.
Commissioner Talesfore seconded the motion, saying that she supports it as long as the
definition of “charity event” is really tightened up. She added that the letter of justification
provided by the applicant makes it very clear. This use will offer another venue for charitable
organizations.
Commissioner Bourgeois asked Commissioner Talesfore to be more specific as to her
recommendation.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 October 23, 2013
Commissioner Talesfore referenced paragraph 3 of the applicant’s letter of justification that
describes charitable entities as being those with 501C-3 or C-6 tax exempt status; up to 24 times
a year or not more than three per month, events will take place after business hours, the applicant
will utilize ABC licensed caterers to serve food and wine throughout the entire store limited to
25 patrons, all of whom would be over the age of 21.
Commissioner Bourgeois said that he was not accepting all of those changes except for defining
the charitable events. Everything else is already covered.
Commissioner Talesfore once again seconded the motion.
Commissioner O’Donnell stated that considering what other stores might want as well if this is
approved doesn’t make sense since that is the reason for the Conditional Use Permit process, to
consider each use. He said he has no problem judging each request on its own basis.
Commissioner Bourgeois said that if Napa Style goes out of style and a new use comes in, the
way the Conditional Use Permit is written doesn’t make sense.
Commissioner O’Donnell said that is a good point. He suggested modifying this to say as long
as the use continues to offer wine related goods and brands.
Chair Erekson
Commented that he cannot support the motion as it stands. The applicant’s proposal was a
package deal and the Commission should either accept it or not. It’s not fair to pick a piece.
Commented that he could support a denial but it is not reasonable to just cherry pick their
request.
Commissioner Bourgeois commented that he understands and reminded that this is a
recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Town Council. He said he is okay with
the charity events but not with the tasting. He struggles with parts of this proposal.
Chair Erekson commented that he has concerns with parking and suggested a maximum of 25
persons per event including staff.
Commissioner Burch
Commented that she agrees with Chair Erekson. She has more of a concern about the
amount of parking for special events and the concept of subletting the special events than she
has with the actual wine tasting or wine sales. That’s how retail is moving, particularly in
boutique towns such as Los Gatos.
Commented that as this proposal is more of a package, she cannot approve any of it because
she sees a problem with subletting. As to tastings, increased parking is a big problem in this
town. Small applications are piling on. Parking needs to be dealt with soon.
Commissioner Bourgeois restated his motion to recommend approval to modify a Conditional
Use Permit with formula retail with the following changes to the recommended conditions of
Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 October 23, 2013
approval. Condition 3, remove the sale of room temperature beer and wine. Remove condition 6
(tastings) completely. Condition 7, clarify the definition of charity event.
Commissioner Talesfore seconded the restated motion.
The vote was 2-5 and the motion failed.
Chair Erekson asked for another motion.
Vice Chair Smith asked if a motion for denial is now needed since the original motion failed.
Joel Paulson said right now no action has been taken so the Commission needs a motion of
some nature.
Motion of Vice Chair Smith and seconded by Commissioner Burch to recommend denial to
the Town Council of U-13-011 for the following reasons: approval of this modification to the
Conditional Use Permit would lead to intensification of parking in the Downtown and would
lead to an additional location for alcohol service without benefitting the public.
Commissioner Talesfore
Commented that she would not support this motion, as there is some merit in having a venue
such as this. Perhaps suggestions could be made to alleviate concerns such as reducing the
number of events per year. While there is merit, it does need to be modified.
Commissioner Sayoc
Commented that she would support the current motion but there are nuances that she hopes
the Town Council takes into consideration.
Commented that the tastings do not support the existing retail.
Commented that she has no problem if there are sales of beer and wine packaged for off-site
consumption and kept at room temperature. That is just an extension of retail.
Commented that she would be in support of allowing charity events but has trouble with the
parking allocation associated with it.
Commented that there is a larger problem with the formulas being used to determine
appropriate number of parking spaces.
Commented that by approving these applications one at a time, the cumulative impact is
becoming quite a problem.
Motion carried 4-3.
Joel Paulson stated there are no appeal rights on this action as it represents a recommendation
being forwarded on to Town Council.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 October 23, 2013
2. 16268 Los Gatos Boulevard - Architecture and Site Application S-13-050, Conditional Use
Permit Application U-13-020. Requesting approval to demolish an existing commercial
building and to construct a new commercial building on property zoned C-1. APN 532-06-
060. PROPERTY OWNER: Fox Creek Fund, LLC. APPLICANT: Gary Kohlsaat,
Architect. PROJECT PLANNER: Suzanne Avila
Chair Erekson opened the public hearing.
Senior Planner Suzanne Avila presented the staff report.
Chair Erekson invited the applicant to present.
Gary Kohlsaat, Architect and Applicant, gave a presentation on the project.
Commissioner Sayoc asked what issues the owners of the corner retail center have.
Gary Kohlsaat advised that those owners are present this evening and can advise the
Commission directly.
Commissioner Sayoc
Commented on concerns about construction impacts in this busy intersection especially
during school hours and given the construction currently underway across the street.
Asked about extra steps that could be taken to keep the nearby schools informed, about
phasing and how to deal with pedestrian problems during construction.
Gary Kohlsaat
Commented that the other project (Laurel Mews) is wrapping up.
Commented that there is sufficient land on site to both park and stage this construction.
Commented that their contractor has an excellent track record and is good at communicating
with surrounding neighbors.
Commented that they will also deal with Public Works on a regular basis as well.
Commissioner Sayoc asked Mr. Kohlsaat if he would be comfortable with added conditions,
including one requiring a contact person and number be available while construction is underway
and another agreeing to delay heavy construction from blocking traffic during school commute
hours.
Gary Kohlsaat
Commented that he could agree to schedule heavy impact work for after the school drop off
particularly when the concrete is poured. This is fairly common.
Commented that they have a pre-construction site meeting with all involved agencies to
coordinate construction.
Commissioner Burch asked the applicant to explain how they came to the determination that
they were unable to do a project with underground parking.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 October 23, 2013
Gary Kohlsaat
Commented that the biggest hurdle was a 24-foot wide easement that is 150 feet long. That
easement area cannot be used for a ramp. They can use it for site access, but no building can
occur on it.
Commented that this site is constrained with all its required setbacks.
Commissioner Talesfore
Commented that this site is within a sensitive and transitional area.
Asked how to make the building honor the historic character of the area as it transitions into
a residential area.
Asked if they have a vision of how they have complemented the buildings around it.
Commented that she has a problem with compatibility at this point.
Gary Kohlsaat
Commented that he was not sure the project was required to respond to historic character but
rather to complement the nearby residences.
Commented that the architecture has a Frank Lloyd Wright look to it. It is not a big box. It
has defined windows in compliance with the architectural guidelines and the roof is not flat.
It incorporates typical residential elements including landscaping and symmetry.
Commented that to the left there is a retail building and to the right is church-owned property
with older homes on it including an old brick house and a bungalow. The church uses these
homes. The adjacent church is a very contemporary building.
Commented that they understand this site will serve as a transition and the Town wanted it to
be more residential in appearance.
Commented that they agreed with Consulting Architect Cannon’s recommendations and have
come up with a handsome and attractive building.
Commissioner Talesfore
Commented that when one looks around this neighborhood, one sees a lot of gable ends and
tile roofs. Although a metal roof is a lifetime material, a tile roof lasts 100 years and might
soften the appearance and make it more compatible.
Gary Kohlsaat said that they are open to the possible use of either composition or concrete tile
roofing. They are willing to talk about that.
Vice Chair Smith
Commented that the setback used to be 60 feet and is now proposed at 15. That is why it
looks massive.
Asked if that was addressed with Mr. Cannon. Did they discuss pushing the building further
back onto the lot?
Commented that landscaping is being used to soften parts of the architecture. She asked if
the low lying bushes at the front of the building would be allowed to grow taller since there
are some low windows located there.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 October 23, 2013
Gary Kohlsaat
Commented that they are trying to adhere to the guidelines that call for bringing buildings
forward closer to the boulevard.
Commented that pushing the building back 20 feet would result in losing six parking spaces.
Commented that with office design it is important to have a lot of glass as well, to screen and
soften the building. The bushes will grow to three or four feet, but that’s not what is desired.
Commissioner Burch
Commented that this seems to represent such a dramatic change with the building being
placed so close to the street.
Asked if it couldn’t transition better somehow. Perhaps the second floor windows could be
recessed back, pushing the second story back a bit. Had they considered that? Or a minimal
front plane to create more shadowing.
Gary Kohlsaat
Commented that they hadn’t and the reason has to do with parking.
Commented that they didn’t want a cantilevered design and also don’t want to lose square
footage within the building.
Commented that if they could leave the roof as it is but push the second floor back to have a
covered balcony, would they be willing to look into that as it would be great for those tenant
spaces to have those balconies for the second floor.
Commissioner Bourgeois
Commented that the design paid attention to the Commercial Design Guidelines and he
appreciates that. The height is lower than the maximum allowed. However, that doesn’t
change that this is a dramatic change for this parcel and it’s going to be jarring for some
people.
Commented that he wanted to talk a bit about the building height and how it applies to their
uses.
Asked if there are goals for the plate height. Is the building set up for a specific use needing
a specific ceiling height? Are there ways to minimize the plate height but still meet the
aesthetic goals of the proposed uses of the building?
Gary Kohlsaat
Commented that they looked at that very carefully. Added that they have no intention for
medical uses in this building. It is strictly professional offices.
Commented that the building is as low as it can get for the second floor. They need a
minimum of headroom to get cars into the garage. They have the minimum necessary to
place plumbing and other things they need to fit beneath that for the podium to get to that
second floor.
Commented that from the first to second floor, the second floor is 10-feet, 2-inches above
grade. That is with a 9-foot high plate. For an office building that’s fairly low. A typical
office has between 10 to 12 foot ceiling heights.
Commented that upstairs they have 8½-foot height on the south side to skirt under the
daylight plane.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 October 23, 2013
Commissioner Talesfore
Asked if the applicant had provided a landscaping plan.
Asked if there was opportunity to plant a tree in the left corner as facing the site.
Asked if it would be possible to provide more articulation on the north side.
Gary Kohlsaat
Commented that the landscaping plan is included in the package.
Commented that the landscape plan includes three large trees. He cautioned that landscape
depicted on the elevation is not exact as to a corresponding proposed landscaping plan. He
assured that several large trees would shelter or shield this building from other properties.
This project is full of landscaping, including bamboo all along the side of the building to
provide a green screen.
Commented that there is already quite a bit of articulation on the north side per the Town
Architect’s recommendation.
Marshall Smith, owner of the adjacent commercial retail building, said he was concerned about
loss of visibility of their retail building next door to this project site due to the proposed
placement of this new building at the front of the site. He said the building does not go with the
surrounding area and will change it. He is concerned about delivery trucks blocking access to
the easement and that traffic from this site will cross their property to get to Shannon Road. All
of this will impact the use of their building. Again, his concerns are visibility of his building,
ingress-egress across his property, and diminished value and use of their property.
Commissioner O’Donnell
Commented that some use or the other would be going in next door.
Asked what use Mr. Smith thought would have less of an impact on his property. What
should be there?
Marshall Smith said that the building should be placed further back on the property.
Vice Chair Smith
Commented UPS and FedEx would park where they are asked to park or not to park.
Asked the age and size of Mr. Smith’s building.
Asked what use in this new building would be detrimental to Mr. Smith’s property.
Commented that his tenants might draw new customers from this building.
Asked if he had considered renovating his building.
Marshall Smith
Commented that his building is 3,300 square feet and was built in 1966. It currently has a
nail salon. It had previous included a 7-Eleven store that left in 2000. Since then there have
been various food stores there.
Commented that they did some renovating about four years ago.
Commented that they have had some potential national tenants looking at their building,
including a paint store but none have come to a lease agreement as of yet.
Commented that if another food store should come to the site, they will need parking as well.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 19 October 23, 2013
Joe Piazza spoke in support of this project.
Marlow Smith
Commented that he appreciates the Commissions efforts and advised that he served as a
Planning Commissioner for 12 years.
Commented that he only learned of this project last week and feels it is out of place for the
boulevard.
Commented that they tried to meet with this new owner when they first bought the property
but that never happened.
Commented on an April meeting that he did not receive notice for.
Doug Nunes, with Calvary Church of Los Gatos, spoke in favor of this project. He added that
the church would be willing to offer use of its parking occasionally during construction, provided
it does not conflict with church uses on Sundays and Wednesdays.
Commissioner O’Donnell asked Mr. Nunes if the church had received written notice about this
project. He asked if they had for a meeting in April. He asked if Mr. Nunes remembers when
the story poles went up.
Doug Nunes said they had not received a written notice. He saw the sign and asked to see the
plans. He added that the first story poles went in about six weeks ago and the second set about
three weeks ago.
Muffet Brown
Commented that she appreciates that the applicant changed the architectural style to a Prairie
or Craftsman style. She likes the hip roof.
Commented that the first she heard of this project was when the story poles were installed.
Commented that it is hit or miss as far as receiving mailings for nearby projects.
Commented that there should be a row of parking in front and the building set back a bit
from the boulevard. A building right up to the street is not a good idea. The Los Gatos
Boulevard Plan needs revising.
Gary Kohlsaat
Commented that the ingress-egress issue has been looked at pretty well. They have also
allocated a place for delivery trucks to pull in (location shown on site plan).
Commented that it is clearly stated in the Commercial Design Guidelines to bring buildings
forward.
Commented that Los Gatos Boulevard will change over time in a dramatic way for the better.
Vice Chair Smith asked Gary Kohlsaat if he agrees to include balconies on the second floor or
just to consider including them.
Gary Kohlsaat commented that he would consider the inclusion of balconies. He has no
problem with the architectural style of that at all if they can make it work without losing usability
of the tenant spaces.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 20 October 23, 2013
Commissioner O’Donnell asked Gary Kohlsaat about the noticing list.
Gary Kohlsaat said he would defer that question back to Ms. Avila.
Commissioner Burch asked about the wall between this site and the adjacent that will be
located between trees. How will those trees be protected?
Gary Kohlsaat
Commented that the Code requires that commercial located next to residential “shall” put up
a six-foot tall masonry wall. However, if they did that here, it would kill five oak trees.
Commented that they have proposed a solution that staff feels meets the intent of that rule,
which is to provide solid screening. They have come up with a way to zigzag a fence
between the trees with a different material that could be light weight and span from post to
post. They are proposing a steel fence that would be covered with vines.
Commented that they are putting in concrete block wall as much as they can do without
disturbing those trees and will work with the arborist to zigzag the alternate fence material
around the trees.
Commissioner Burch said that she appreciates this option that will preserve those oak trees.
Commissioner Talesfore
Asked if the building color has been decided and, if not, if it would be approved by staff.
Asked if the applicant was willing to incorporate tile roofing to help soften the building.
Commented that in the guidelines there’s a requirement to provide “visual continuity along
the street frontage.” She said that this might be a time where parking in the front should be
allowed. Is that something they could work with?
Asked just how complicated a redesign would be if required or if it could be done at all.
Gary Kohlsaat
Commented that they have two colors they have yet to forward to Mr. Cannon for review.
(Colors were displayed at meeting.)
Commented that ultimately it is up to this Planning Commission if they follow the guidelines
or not with this project.
Commented that they had been given the direction to follow those guidelines. If they venture
off that, they might encounter other resistance from other Commissioners, the Town’s
Architect, or staff.
Commented that they have taken a look at a design that pushes the building back and puts
parking in the front. It is another major redesign for them and complicates the parking
pattern quite a bit.
Commented that they came up with several roadblocks to a redesign. If you have parking up
front, you have to have a turnaround and they don’t have the space for one. Perhaps they can
have a racetrack that goes around the building, which adds further paving to the site.
Commented that they also have quite a few trees on the right-hand side that they are trying to
stay away from as much as possible.
Commented that they think what they have submitted is a better design.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 21 October 23, 2013
Vice Chair Smith
Commented on the issue of ingress and egress. She said she didn’t see how Mr. Smith’s
concern that his property would be a probable cut-through for traffic leaving this site to get to
Shannon Road. That concern would not be alleviated if there is parking at the back or at the
front of this proposed new building next door.
Commented that since they have this easement, people are going to cut through if they so
desire.
Gary Kohlsaat said that is a fair assessment.
Commissioner O’Donnell asked Gary Kohlsaat if they had considered at all any movement of
the building back.
Gary Kohlsaat commented that they are right at the limit on every minimum dimension. The
literally have it shoehorned in on four sides. They could potentially push the second floor back
but that lengthens the building visually. Again, if you push the building back, you lose parking.
Commissioner O’Donnell asked how that can be the case when they have a 45-foot rear
setback.
Gary Kohlsaat said it’s not about the upstairs but rather it’s about the lower level and where the
first floor touches on the ground.
Chair Erekson closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission
for deliberations.
Commissioner Bourgeois asked staff about the Town Council’s recent consideration of the
issue of “community benefit”. Was there anything that could be of guidance to the Commission
this evening?
Joel Paulson said no. The Town Council gave direction to staff to bring back information to the
Council for further discussion.
Chair Erekson reminded that Commissioner Talesfore had raised the issue of continuity along
the boulevard. Is that issue of continuity with existing structures that don’t meet the guidelines
or continuity with the guidelines?
Suzanne Avila
Commented that continuity should be with the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan and the
Commercial Design Guidelines.
Commented that there are existing buildings in the commercial area that are set back on the
site. However, most new commercial buildings are built along the boulevard, including the
Swanson Ford site, with parking behind or underneath. That has been the trend.
Commented that the Consulting Architect did not take any exception to the placement of this
building.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 22 October 23, 2013
Joel Paulson
Commented that this is a timing issue. The Town has Commercial Design Guidelines that
have been adopted. We also have existing commercial structures that were built decades or
more before when things were done differently.
Commented that the direction from the guidelines is to pull these buildings forward to create
more of a pedestrian connection with those buildings rather than to have seas of parking
along the boulevard.
Commented that the continuity that Commissioner Talesfore is speaking of is trying to
conform to the current fabric of the neighborhood.
Commented that because the guidelines require it, staff will continue to provide that direction
and the Planning Commission can interpret that based on both of those concepts the way they
see fit.
Chair Erekson said the existing surrounding properties would eventually be changed as well.
Commissioner O’Donnell asked staff if notices were sent out.
Suzanne Avila commented that staff prepares the notice list, not the applicant. Staff uses
County records and sends notices to property owners. If the owner doesn’t reside on the
premises, notices are sent to occupant. For commercial buildings all tenants are noticed.
Commissioner O’Donnell asked if the addresses are those used for mailing tax bills.
Suzanne Avila said yes. The Town uses County Assessor’s records using Metro Scan and puts
“occupant” on the envelope.
Commissioner O’Donnell asked about a meeting held in April.
Suzanne Avila advised that this application was submitted on May 30, 2013, so there was no
meeting regarding this project held in April. This is the first public hearing.
Commissioner O’Donnell asked when the notice would have gone out for tonight’s hearing.
Suzanne Avila said that they go out about two weeks before a hearing.
Vice Chair Smith referred to Condition of Approval #64 (Construction Noise). She asked if this
is a boilerplate condition or could it be modified.
Suzanne Avila said that it is possible to modify it but these are standard construction hours from
the Town Code. Town Code allows construction from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., weekdays, and from 9
a.m. to 7 p.m. on holidays and weekends. Sometimes hours are modified if the applicant is
willing to do so.
Vice Chair Smith
Commented that there is an ingress/egress conundrum that cannot be solved at this time. The
Commission can’t fix this problem from the podium
Planning Commission Minutes Page 23 October 23, 2013
Commented that this is a well-designed building that complies with the design guidelines.
The applicant has agreed to add balconies on the second floor that will soften the building
and be a point of interest.
Commented that she is inclined to approve this application if a motion is made.
Commissioner Talesfore
Commented that continuity is of concern and she doesn’t want this building to visually look
out of place. She didn’t think landscaping would help enough.
Commented that she encourages incorporating some parking at the front.
Commented that she cannot make a motion for approval but appreciates the change to a tile
roof.
Motion of Commissioner Burch to approve Architecture and Site Application S-13-050 and
Conditional Use Permit Application U-13-020 at 16268 Los Gatos Boulevard for construction of
a new office building based on findings, compliance with design guidelines, with design
modifications to include a change to a tile roof, the addition of balconies on the front second
story, the use of wall materials so as to preserve oak trees, consider the possibility of providing
minimal parking up front and to step the building back a little bit.
Commissioner Sayoc requested the inclusion of a construction management plan, notification to
neighbors including Fisher and Van Meter Schools, and that heavy construction traffic (such as
foundation pours) is deferred to 8:30 a.m. or later to miss impacting peak school traffic.
Suzanne Avila advised that the Traffic Control Plan could include condition restrictions on
times that heavy equipment should be brought in.
Commissioner O’Donnell asked about prohibiting construction on Sunday.
Both Commissioner Burch and Commissioner Sayoc said that is an excellent idea.
Commissioner Bourgeois
Commented that if the project were redesigned to include parking up front, the Commission
would need to see this again.
Commented that this is a difficult lot. The applicant followed the Commercial Design
Guidelines. This area is changing.
Commented that pushing it back may require making the building smaller.
Commissioner Burch commented that parking is going to be difficult with the amount of space
available. Said that if the applicant is able to create one row of parking at the front she trusts
staff to ensure that it meets Code and setback requirements.
Joel Paulson said that Town Code doesn’t allow one-way dead-end aisles so unless they went all
around the building this is not going to be possible. While there is the potential for the provision
of two-way aisles that have a turnaround, they would be challenged to make that work.
Commissioner Burch said that she would withdraw that from her motion.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 24 October 23, 2013
Commissioner Sayoc said that was fine with her as the second.
Chair Erekson asked them to restate their motion.
Commissioner Burch said that the motion is for design modifications including adding recessed
second floor to add balconies on the second floor, to change the roof material to tile, that the wall
constructed between the commercial and residential properties be constructed to allow the oak
trees to be preserved, the requirement for neighbor notification, a prohibition of any construction
on Sundays and a sensitivity to having heavy construction traffic starting after 8:30 a.m.
The vote passed 6-1.
Joel Paulson recited the appeal rights.
4. 115 N. Santa Cruz Avenue - Conditional Use Permit Application U-13-015. Requesting
approval to modify an existing CUP for an existing restaurant with full liquor service and
outdoor seating to increase the permitted outdoor seating on property zoned C-2:LHP. APN:
510-17-102. PROPERTY OWNER: Parineh Living Trust. APPLICANT: Dean Devincenzi
PROJECT PLANNER: Marni Moseley
Chair Erekson opened the public hearing.
Associate Planner Marni Moseley presented the staff report.
Chair Erekson asked if there were questions of staff.
Commissioner O’Donnell
Commented on Exhibit 3, conditions of approval that states that the maximum hours of
operation shall be same except alcohol service ends at 10, Sunday through Thursday, and 1
a.m., Friday and Saturday.
Asked if these hours are regarding the outside seating area.
Commented that as to the maximum number of seats not exceeding 159, is the upper floor
currently being used for seating.
Commented that with 58 seats for outside and the existing first floor seats, that leaves just 14
spaces hanging there. How do they use the second floor?
Marni Moseley
Commented that this comes from the existing Conditional Use Permit but the Planning
Commission can revisit that language.
Commented that those hours would apply to the existing use and to the new proposed seating
area as well.
Commented the upstairs was never converted to office so it is currently used as dining area.
The plan shows 16 seats and a larger group area upstairs that is not used that frequently.
Commented that the applicant submitted a proposed seating plan including the indoor,
outdoor and upstairs seating. It simply reflects fewer total seats than their maximum allowed
Planning Commission Minutes Page 25 October 23, 2013
of 159. They don’t have to actually have their maximum number of seats in place but can’t
go above that number.
Chair Erekson commented on the total between existing and proposed seating for the patio as
totaling 58 in the report but 60 if you add the old and new together.
Marni Moseley said that was just a typo and the total should indeed be 60.
Commissioner O’Donnell
Asked what it means exactly that people can wait on that porch. Will there be a place for
people to sit? Will drinks be served out there?
Asked how many seats are proposed for that area, as it is a pretty small porch.
Commented that there has to be a maximum number of seats allowed on the porch for
waiting patrons. He said he is having trouble visualizing what they are doing with the porch
but assumes the applicant will explain.
Marni Moseley
Commented that the existing Conditional Use Permit restricts any seats being placed on the
porch for waiting patrons.
Commented that the applicant is proposing to be able to place seats there for patrons waiting
for a table.
Commented that the applicant can best respond to how many seats they’d like to have
available on the porch. The Commission can also restrict that number.
Commissioner Sayoc
Commented that per page 3 of the report, the existing Conditional Use Permit doesn’t allow
seats on the porch because of concerns the neighbor had at the time it was granted.
Asked if it is known which neighbors had concern at that time? Have they been reached out
to this time as well?
Asked if there have been any complaints, either noise or other issues, regarding this
establishment to either staff or the Police Department.
Marni Moseley
Commented that staff doesn’t have the specific name off hand but that resident lived to the
rear right corner. She believes they have since relocated.
Commented that the applicant informed staff that they had spoken with the rear neighbors.
Commented that no complaints had been received regarding this site.
Commissioner Talesfore asked if there is a maximum load or occupancy for a porch. If not,
could one be created?
Marni Moseley replied no. As far as she understands, occupancy load is based on enclosed
space but Building would have to speak to that.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 26 October 23, 2013
Joel Paulson added that this is also something that the Commission could recommend to the
Town Council.
Vice Chair Smith
Commented that the plan design for the outside is rudimentary. There is already an outside
patio and they had previously wanted to put a canopy cover there.
Commented that what is being approved today is in a different location of the patio. Is the
approval just for tables? Would it include umbrella tables?
Asked if they could be required to put in any kind of small fence around this new patio area
to prevent patrons from walking away from the area with their drinks.
Commented that she believes that it was required for the other side of the deck, the outside
deck.
Marni Moseley
Commented that this request does not include any type of physical improvements. It would
just be seating that would be complimentary to the existing.
Commented that potentially an umbrella or two or outdoor heaters would be allowed but they
would have to be temporary, non-permanent fixtures.
Commented that the front is currently gated and would suffice for the Town requirement.
Staff discussed this with the Police Department and asked if they had any concerns or found
it necessary to add any additional fencing or gates and they declined to require anything else.
Commented that the Building Code requires the railing for the raised patio on the other side
but this area is at grade so there was no Building Code requirement for that here.
Commissioner Talesfore sought verification that there is no requirement of any kind for
delineation with a fence or something else to the back alley.
Marni Moseley responded that if the Commission feels it necessary, it could add that as a
requirement. Again, staff consulted with the Police Department and they usually are the ones to
require that element if necessary.
Vice Chair Smith asked if the hours are different for the current outside patio. Do they stop
serving at 10 p.m.? What about food service outside?
Marni Moseley said that the existing Conditional Use Permit requires that alcohol service cease
on certain days of the week by 11 p.m. There is no restriction under the existing Conditional Use
Permit but again it is under the Commission’s purview to discuss this point.
Chair Erekson opened the public portion.
Dean Devincenzi, Applicant, made a brief presentation.
Vice Chair Smith
Commented that this building is beautiful and she appreciates the work done there.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 27 October 23, 2013
Commented on the potential tunnel effect of noise travel at night and asked if there are any
plans for landscaping to help buffer that alley.
Commented that the patio to the left is buffered by the building.
Asked if the applicant would agree to a condition not to seat anyone at this new area after 10
p.m.
Dean Devincenzi
Commented that there were no plans to buffer that alley. This is not that type of environment
and they stop serving there by 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. at the latest. He added that there is no noise
from the big patio whatsoever.
Commented that he was fine with a condition limiting the latest use of the new area to 10
p.m.
Asked why a Conditional Use Permit is not issued for a specific business rather than just for
a location.
Chair Erekson said he would let staff explain that off line.
Commissioner Talesfore
Commented that the porch is quite small and she saw there were seats there already. How do
they plan to use that area? How many seats do they propose for the porch?
Asked if patrons will be offered alcohol service while they are seated on the porch waiting
for a table.
Commented that this site was previously before the Historic Preservation Committee to
discuss the addition of a trellis. Is that trellis not happening?
Commented on a banner on site that seems temporary.
Dean Devincenzi
Commented that they will have ottomans available for seating those waiting patrons and just
long enough for their table to become available.
Commented that they are proposing eight chairs for use by patrons on the porch. They would
be served drinks but no food and just as they wait for their table.
Commented that the cost for a constructed trellis was too high at $50,000. They had
originally wanted to install an awning but the Town didn’t like it.
Commented that the banner advertises their Cantina Hour. If he must, he will take it down
and had been unaware of the sign protocol regarding it.
Chair Erekson stated that he could attest that there is a quality bar inside this restaurant. People
who are waiting on the porch for their table should be allowed to consume their drink on the
porch. Asked if the applicant could not accommodate patrons who are waiting for a table within
the interior of the bar.
Dean Devincenzi
Commented that he could accommodate the waiting patrons within the bar area but everyone
wants to sit outside to wait.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 28 October 23, 2013
Commented that he likes to think that what needs to happen is to get people back to Los
Gatos. He’s worried about what’s going on in Campbell and its effect on businesses in Los
Gatos.
Chair Erekson closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission
for deliberations.
Commissioner O’Donnell
Commented that he is not concerned with having a drink on the porch.
Commented that he is concerned with Condition 3. Since, apparently the applicant is willing
to forego serving there after 10 p.m. that solves that problem about Sunday through
Thursday.
Vice Chair Smith
Commented that when this Conditional Use Permit talks about outside seating, the deck
seating goes to 1 a.m.
Commented that tonight the Commission is only concerned with the new section of outdoor
patio outdoor seating and making any changes to the hours.
Marni Moseley reminded that the entire Conditional Use Permit and all of its conditions are
under the Commission’s purview for providing direction to the Town Council. The discussion
tonight included restricting the seating of the additional outdoor area to no later than 10 p.m.
Commissioner Bourgeois
Commented that he loves and appreciates this building. It is an iconic building and he wants
to see something be successful there. That is good for the Town.
Commented that incorporating outdoor dining opportunities allows us to capitalize on living
in one of the most beautiful places in the world so this request is very reasonable.
Commented that the whole property is gated so this request makes perfect sense.
Motion of Commissioner Bourgeois and seconded by Commissioner O’Donnell to
recommend that the Town Council approve Conditional Use Permit Application U-13-015 with
all conditions contained in Exhibit 3, with all required findings, and with one change in hours
from the current 11 p.m. to 10 p.m. for the cessation of alcohol sales for the proposed seats.
The motion passes 7-0.
NEW OTHER BUSINESS
5. Report from the Director of Community Development
Planning Manager Joel Paulson
Commented that an envelope was distributed this evening with the Environmental Impact
Report for 100 Prospect Avenue. This will be coming before the Commission to receive
comments on the Environmental Impact Report on November 13, 2013, with the deadline for
comments due by December 6, 2013.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 29 October 23, 2013
DRC Meeting of October 22, 2013: DRC approved a new residence on Alexander Avenue
and a two lot subdivision on Frank Avenue, which included the demolition of the existing
single-family residence and construction of two new single-family residences.
Town Council Meeting of October 20, 2013: Discussed Community Benefit and provided
direction and recommendations to staff to come back with additional information for further
discussion on that topic.
Commissioner Talesfore asked staff for the size of the house on Alexander. She said she was
just curious as she used to live nearby.
Joel Paulson said he didn’t recall but it was not the largest house in the neighborhood and it did
not exceed the FAR for the property. He said he could provide more information at a later date.
6. Commission Matters - None
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
___________________________________________
Charles Erekson, Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND ATTEST:
_____________________________
Joel Paulson
Planning Manager