M08-02-10P a g e 1
MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
AUGUST 2, 2010
The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Special Meeting on Monday,
August 2, 2010 at 6:00 P.M.
TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Diane McNutt, Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski, Council Member Steve Rice,
Council Member Barbara Spector, and Council Member Mike Wasserman.
Absent: None.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Nita Sabouri, Blossom Hill Elementary School led the Pledge of Allegiance. The
audience was invited to participate.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
There was no Closed Session scheduled for this meeting.
TOWN COUNCIL
COUNCIL/TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
Council Matters
There were no Council Matters for this meeting.
P a g e 2
Manager Matters
Mr. Larson
Commented that the Town of Los Gatos and the Chamber of Commerce will be
hosting the next Second Saturday’s Shop Local event on Saturday, August 14,
2010.
Commented that The Clerk Department is accepting "Vote by Mail" ballots for the
Special Senatorial Election until August 17, 2010.
Commented that August 20, 2010 will be the last day for residents and business
owners of Los Gatos to apply for the Los Gatos Leadership program offer ed by
the Town of Los Gatos and the Chamber of Commerce.
Commented that the Los Gatos Kiwanis will be hosting the Fiesta de Artes on
August 7 and 8, 2010. The Event will be held at the Civic Center and Main Street
will be closed from College Avenue to Fiesta Avenue.
Commented that he attended a meeting of the League of California Cities to
discuss the ethical and possibly illegal compensation of some officials in the City
of Bell, California. In response to the outrageous behavior, the City Managers of
the State in conjunction with the League of California Cities are adopting a
program of full transparency of all Council and executive staff salaries and
compensation.
Commented that the Town has complied with that historically and our executive
salaries and compensations are available on the Town’s website and the Town
also has submitted the information on an annual basis to the San Jose Mercury
News.
Did You Know??
Tom Bryan, KCAT Executive Director
Presented information about broadcasting of Town Council and Planning
Commission meetings and community programs on the local cable channel 15.
Commented that more information can be found at
www.losgatosca.gov\councilvideos or www.kcat.org or by calling KCAT at (408)
395-5228.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Accept report on Town Manager approved actions during Council recess.
2. Approve contract agreement between KCAT and the Town for services and
distribution of PEG funding.
3. Approve extended maintenance agreement and contract with Tiburon, Inc.,
for computer aided dispatch (CAD), Records Management System (RMS),
Automated Reporting System (ARS) and Mobile Data Systems (MDS)
P a g e 3
Consent Items - Continued
4. Accept report on the permanent installation of traffic calming devices for the
Vista del Monte neighborhood.
5. PPW Job No. 09-10C - FY 2009/10 Street Repair and Resurfacing Project 811-
9901
a. Authorize the Town Manager to execute a construction contract with
Intermountain in an amount not to exceed $1,725,121.
b. Authorize staff to execute future change orders to the construction contract
as necessary in an amount not to exceed $200,000.
6. PPW Job No. 09-07 University Avenue/Blossom Hill Road Intersection
Improvements 421-812-0106 Authorize the Town Manager to execute
Certificate of Acceptance and Notice of Completion accepting the work of
Joseph J. Albanese Inc., and authorize recording by the Clerk Administrator.
7. Adopt resolution modify a Conditional Use Permit to operate an existing
restaurant (Manresa Restaurant) with full alcoholic beverage service on
property zoned C-2. APN 529-04-048. RESOLUTION 2010-083
8. Appoint Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski as the primary voting delegate and Mayor
Diane McNutt as the alternate voting delegate for the League of California
Cities Annual Conference scheduled for September 15 -17, 2010 in San
Diego, California.
TOWN COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
9. Approve Council/Agency minutes of June 21, 2010.
10. Adopt resolution allowing recognition plaques in the new library to vary
from the standards set forth in the Solicitation and Donation Policy and
authorizing the Council Ad Hoc Library Sub-Committee to approve
additional exceptions, if necessary. RESOLUTION 2010-084
11. PPW Job No. 10-02 Pageant Grounds Access Improvement Design Project
831-1201. Approve plans and specifications for the pageant Grounds
Access Site Improvements Project and authorize staff to advertise the
project for bids.
P a g e 4
Consent Items - Continued
12. PPW Job No. 09-08 Library Undergrounding Project 472-821-2140. Authorize
the Town Manager to execute Certificate of Acceptance and Notice of
Completion accepting the work of Lewis & Tibbits Inc., and authorize
recording by the Clerk Administrator.
MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski to approve Consent Items
#1-12.
Seconded by Council Member Steve Rice.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
Opened/Closed Verbal Communications
TOWN COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
13. Abatement of Hazardous Vegetation (Weeds)
a. Conduct public hearing to consider the report of the County Agricultural
Commissioner’s Office on the abatement of hazardous vegetation (weeds).
b. Approve said commencement report (Attachment 1).
Staff report made by Kevin Rohani, Town Engineer.
Opened/Closed Public Hearing
MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski to approve abatement of
Hazardous Vegetation (Weeds).
Seconded by Council Member Steve Rice.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
P a g e 5
Public Hearings - Continued
14. Abatement of Hazardous Vegetation (Brush)
a. Conduct public hearing to consider objections to hazardous vegetation
abatement (brush).
b. Overrule objections and order hazardous vegetation abatement (brush).
Staff report made by Kevin Rohani, Town Engineer.
Opened/Closed Public Hearing
MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski to approve abatement of
Hazardous Vegetation (Brush).
Seconded by Council Member Steve Rice.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Larson
Commented about an additional property that the Town has raised to the County
of Agriculture for abatement of weeds. The abandoned property is located at 100
Longmeadow Drive.
Commented that the Town and the County are in the process of working with the
property owners on abatement efforts.
Commented that staff may bring forward a request for approval from Council to
take further action if the abatement efforts are not completed by the property
owner.
15. Consider a request for approval to expand an existing restaurant (James
Randall Restaurant) to increase the number of seats, to modify the hours of
operation, and to allow full alcoholic beverage service on property zoned C-
2. APN 510-14-048. Conditional Use Permit Application U-10-009. Project
location: 303 - 305 N. Santa Cruz Avenue. Property owner: Bert
Millen. Applicant: Brenda Hammond.
Staff report made by Jennifer Savage, Associate Planner.
P a g e 6
Public Hearing Item #15 – Continued
Open Public Hearing
Ms. Hammond, Applicant
Commented that they have a very small dining area and would like to increase
the space.
Commented that additional seating and space would allow people to st ay longer
and enjoy their meal.
Commented that fine dining is enhanced with alcohol service and the approval
would enhance the fine dining experience at James Randall.
Mr. Stowers
Requested that Council approve the application and that he was available for
questions.
Council Comments
Questioned if there is a concern about the shared space with CB Hannegan’s.
Questioned if the applicant has concerns about the language in the Conditional
Use Permit which states that the outdoor dining must have a fixed separation
with no ability to enter from the sidewalk.
Expressed concerns about planter boxes to separate the outdoor dining area
from the sidewalk. Would like to see consistency regarding the materials used by
other restaurants that have outdoor seating in the downtown area.
Questioned if the applicants would consider a more solid structure which would
resemble other outdoor dining areas on North Santa Cruz Avenue.
Mr. Stowers
Commented that they are open to other structures to secure the outdoor dining
area.
Ms. Hammond
Clarified that she does not have any major issue with the back area that is
shared with CB Hannegan’s.
Clarified that there would be very little impact in garbage with the proposed
increase of 12 seats.
Commented that they are working with the landlord to resolve the smaller issues
with the common area.
P a g e 7
Public Hearing Item #15 – Continued
Mr. Larson
Clarified that staff did contact the proprietors of CB Hannegan's and they stated
that they are currently in discussion with the property owner and the applicant to
resolve any issues with the common area.
Mr. Leonard
Commented that he supports the expansion and that the expansion would draw
more traffic and people to other shops in the area.
Ms. Hammond
Commented on the community's support for the expansion of James Randall.
Closed Public Hearing
Council Discussions
Expressed concerns about replacing retail space with restaurant space and does
not want the downtown to become restaurant row.
Commented that there is a value to fine dining and alcohol service, but would be
concerned about extending the hours of operation.
Clarified that a Conditional Use Permit runs with the land.
Commented that there is a benefit to a permanent b arrier for the outside dining.
Commented that Ordinance 2021 should be reviewed on a c ase by case basis
because retail is important to the vitality of the downtown area.
Commented that the downtown area is diverse and Ordinance 2021 helps
to maintain that diversity.
Re-Open Public Hearing
Mr. Arzie
Commented that the proposed expansion would not increase foot traffic for the
downtown area.
Commented that the Town is against small retail because small retail does not
support the Town's budget.
Commented against the conversation of retail to restaurant use.
Mr. Knowles
Commented on supporting the expansion of the restaurant and would like to
encourage more foot traffic on that end of Town.
Ms. Dashiell
Commented on supporting the expansion of the James Randall Restaurant.
P a g e 8
Public Hearing Item #15 - Continued
Mayor Diane McNutt requested a recess at 6:48 P. M. Meeting resumed at 7:03 P.M.
Mr. Tobiason
Commented on supporting the James Randall Restaurant.
Closed Public Hearing
Council Discussions
Questioned if the Town could require a certain number of tables for future "fine
dining" applications.
Questioned the language about restaurant hours when serving alcohol and that
the current language states that there shall be no alcohol service after 11:00 p.m.
and feels that that language is appropriate.
Expressed concerns about changing the language in this case, but recognizes
that there is an expectation for alcohol service with fine dining establishments.
Commented that there is a value to fine dining and alcohol service, but would be
concerned about extending the hours of operation.
Commented that the Planning Commission did raise the issue of the addition of a
service bar and questioned if the service bar would not be intended for stand -
alone service.
Commented on supporting staff’s recommendation for alcohol service as stated
in the current policy language.
Commented that the architecture of the current building does not lend itself to
building an overhang, so a soft barrier would be more appropriate for outside
dining at the location.
Expressed concerns about a soft barrier such as planter boxes becoming
chaotic.
Suggested allowing a soft barrier and requesting a review of the barrier’s
condition in a year.
Questioned what staff would be reviewing with regards to the barrier.
Mr. Larson
Clarified that there is a one year review that is an option for the Condition of
Approval.
Commented that the option is part of Condition #11, under Attachment 2.
Commented that if the Council were to persue the one year review for the soft
barrier, then staff could do that in conjunction with the applicant.
Commented that the review could be done through the Development Review
Committee and then to Council, if needed.
P a g e 9
Public Hearing Item #15 – Continued
Mr. Martello
Suggested that if Council would like to include a condition for a barrier review the
suggested language should include:
If a soft or non-permanent barrier is installed, the barrier shall be reviewed
after one year of operation following final occupancy to determine if a
permanent barrier must be installed.
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Mike Wasserman to approve the
application subject to recommended Conditions of Approval as
modified by the Planning Commission with the findings in
Attachment 1, along with the approval of the soft barrier and the
additional wording regarding the soft barrier as follows:
If a soft or non-permanent barrier is installed, the barrier
shall be reviewed after one year of operation following final
occupancy to determine if a permanent barrier must be
installed.
Seconded by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
16. Draft Los Gatos 2020 General Plan and the Environmental Impact Report on
the draft Los Gatos 2020 General Plan Update.
Staff Report made by Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development.
Open Public Comments
Mr. Whitmore
Expressed concerns about the impact of housing and how it would add to the
student population at the schools in Town.
Expressed thanks to the Community Development staff for their efforts to
estimate how different types of housing stock in the Town could affect the
student population going forward.
Council Comments
Questioned if the school district is comfortable with the General Plan’s projected
numbers relating to the increase in students and the district’s ability
to accommodate those students.
P a g e 10
Public Hearing Item #16 – Continued
Mr. Whitmore
Clarified that they have forecasted the data and agreed on a student generati on
factor for the General Plan.
Commented that if a student lives in the district, the schools will accommodate
them.
Mr. Matsouka
Clarified that the “student generation” numbers suggested for the North Forty
project were high.
Commented that the projections within the General Plan are much more realistic,
but does raise concerns relating to facility growth that would have to
be addressed down the road.
Mr. Montgomery
Suggested alternative language in the General Plan relating to improving energy
and water efficiency.
Council Comments
Questioned if Mr. Montgomery’s main issue is that the Town’s current language
does not detail or address who would pay for the study and improvements.
Mr. Montgomery
Clarified that the main concerns are that the Silicon Valley Association of
Realtors do not believe that energy audits at time of sale will be a very effective
way of invoking change on property and that the current recommendation is still
too narrow and would place very burdensome mandates on property owners.
Mr. Pacheco
Questioned if the North Forty is under consideration at this time and if it is part of
the General Plan.
Expressed concerns regarding discussions taking place with a prospective
developer for a portion of the North Forty and encouraged the delay
of approval for that section of the North Forty.
Ms. Rooney
Clarified that the 2000 General Plan did not have parameters for how the North
Forty development would occur, so staff has studied and developed a plan for
what the maximum development capacity should be, which includes 750
residential units and 580,000 square feet of commercial office space.
P a g e 11
Public Hearing Item #16 – Continued
Mr. Maerte
Commented against the actions in ENV-10.2 because he presumes that the goal
is to have Los Gatos be a leader in environmental sustainability and this does not
accomplish that.
Suggested broadening the base to include all 13,000 or 14,000 dwelling units so
that all properties are considered, rather than burdening just those homes which
are on the market.
Mr. Arzie
Commented that the North Forty plan was added later and feels that it was fast
tracked so there would not be public input.
Commented that the new North Forty dialogue was not well advertised and
should not be the way things are done in Los Gatos.
Commented that the Town should wait and see what the North Forty developer
proposes. Asked for consideration in stopping this now and having a couple of
Town Hall meetings to discuss it. Recommended against using revenue as the
main decision factor.
Ms. Ogle
Commended all the people who put in many hours on the work for the General
Plan.
Expressed concerns about the North Forty overlay plan and feels that the plan
should not include such specificity.
Requested that Council look at this very carefully before including it in
the General Plan.
Mr. Crane
Recommended that Council adopt the language recommended by SILVAR
for ENV-10.2.
Commented that mandated retrofits are not the right way to make anything
happen in regard to environmental issues.
Mr. Knowles
Suggested that the General Plan add the consideration for allowing dedicated
off-leash dog times at specific parks in the Town.
Commented that if dogs aren’t allowed in dedicated parks, the issue will become
a "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy and people will continue to use the parks and
schools for their dogs, so we should do the right thing by putting the language
into the General Plan.
P a g e 12
Public Hearing Item #16 – Continued
Ms. Quintana
Commented that she is in favor of sustainability as one of the major focuses of
the General Plan update.
Suggested an opportunity for public discussion on the land use changes for the
North Forty.
Questioned why the North Forty needs to be a new land use designation since
the North Forty Specific Plan is just general guidelines.
Ms. Chang
Commented that the estimated increase in housing will generate an increase in
the amount of children that would be attending the Los Gatos-Saratoga High
School facilities.
Closed Public Hearing
Presentation made by Joanna Jansen, Associate Principal
Design Community and Environment
Land Use Designations
Council Comments
Expressed concerns that the policies for the North Forty portion within the
General Plan state the word "shall,” which is an imperative and that the Town is
locking themselves into something they may not want to be locked into.
Questioned the process for changing or giving directions for the proposed
General Plan.
Clarified that this meeting is to be considered a work session to allow for
discussion.
Expressed concerns that the North Forty Specific Plan is 90% complete, but was
never approved, and there is nothing concrete to evaluate where the applicant is
going versus where the Town wants to go.
Commented that the analysis with the North Forty has not been fully
discussed, except for the purpose of the Environmental Impact Report Analysis.
Commented that Council needs to look at applications as they come forward
and reach out to the community to determine what the needs are of the Town a t
that time.
Questioned if staff could come up with other language that could soften the word
"shall" on Page 16 and 17 that would still say it needs to reflect these guidelines.
Ms. Rooney
Clarified that the wording can be softened by adding additional language.
P a g e 13
Public Hearing Item #16 – Continued
Council Comments
Suggested that there are three specific bullets where the wording should
be changed regarding the North Forty portion.
Commented on not being averse to the word shall, rather the specificity and
suggested that the wording should state that development has to be consistent
with the North Forty Specific Plan.
Suggested making the section more general in case another developer wants to
do something else.
Questioned staff if, based on the discussions so far, could they come back with
alternate language that would be more general and less restrictive and/or just
reference the Specific Plan.
Mr. Larson
Clarified that if these principles were embodied in the General Plan it
would provide the direction to staff for the completion of the Specific Plan.
Clarified that the draft Specific Plan that was presented to Council a decade ago
did not include residential use in the North Forty.
Commented that these principles would guide staff working with affected property
owners and the community in the Specific Plan process.
Ms. Rooney
Clarified that the language changes can be made and brought back to the August
16th meeting.
Requested clarification on whether the word “shall” should be included or
softened.
Council Comments
Suggested keeping the word “shall,” but work on the three bullet points and make
them much more general.
Mr. Martello
Clarified that it is very important from an environmental standpoint to have the
maximum number of units listed, but would add wording stating: “that although
these are maximums, the Specific Plan may be approved at a lower density of
residential and commercial.”
Clarified that the North Forty Specific Plan is not an entitlement, so the wording
can be changed to state that the North Forty Specific Plan shall be evaluated
based on the following general guidelines, which will allow Council and the
community to control what the Specific Plan is.
P a g e 14
Public Hearing Item #16 – continued
Mr. Martello - Continued
Recommended adding a short comment to show maximum amounts and that the
Specific Plan may be approved at lower amounts and changing the language to
"the North Forty Specific Plan shall be evaluated against."
Council Discussions
Commented on supporting the language change suggested by Mr. Martello.
Clarified that the three bullets that need language changes because they have
something specific in them are: Bullet #3 about mixed-use development and
residential, Bullet #5 about 20% of units being affordable, and the bullet about
the grade change and split level buildings.
Suggested changes on the second page to keep only "take advantage of the
grade change across the site," which leaves it more open and eliminate "provide
vegetative buffer and screening along Highway 17 and 85,” and eliminate the
third bullet point about mixed-use.
Commented that there is no advantage to noting the grade change because right
now there is a two-story building along the Boulevard at the grade change, so
this is a reflection of what is already approved.
Expressed concerns that the statement that the North Forty shouldn’t compete
with the downtown businesses, but rather complement it, won’t give enough
protection, if any, regarding the downtown.
Suggested talking about the types of commercial in the North Forty that
complements the downtown area.
Commented that we need to see the commercial centers as a single entity and
do a higher level evaluation of what the business community needs are, so Los
Gatos thrives as a business community as a whole.
Consensus to direct staff to refine wording and bring back to Council.
LU-21 - Action LU-1.1 and 1.2
Council Comments
Commented on the concern of commercial intrusion in residential areas and how
it leads to the policy that we have in the General Plan about the boundaries
between commercial and residential.
Ms. Rooney
Clarified that the intent of the action item regarding the Home Occupation
Guidelines program was to look at other home occupations that may be
appropriate and evaluate whether the Town is being too strict on how we apply
the program.
Clarified that the Town would like to create more ability for residents to work in
their community and to expand the program without impacting the community.
Requested clarification from Council if they would like the studies to be
conducted.
P a g e 15
Public Hearing Item #16 – Continued
Council Comments
Expressed concern about the high number of proposed studies and suggested
Council take a look at the matrix of the studies and determine which studies
should be committed to.
Commented that the Town should be very judicious in determining which
studies should be conducted.
Consensus to eliminate any further study relating to action LU-1.1 and 1.2 and
to withdraw these from the General Plan.
LU-23 and LU-27 Policy 3.2, 6.2, 6.3
Council Comments
Recommended changing the language in Policy 3.2, 6.2 and 6.3 to define the
term "community benefit."
Questioned if we are using a statutory definition or a policy definition for
"community benefit."
Mr. Larson
Commented that “community benefit” is included in the Alcohol Policy, land use
developments, the General Plan, and a variety of other places.
Commented that there are varying uses for “community benefit.”
Mr. Martello
Clarified that “community benefit” should be used as a very general statement
and should remain in the General Plan.
Council Comments
Questioned if “community benefit” is general enough in Policy 6.2 and 6.3.
Suggested eliminating the words “community benefit” from Policy 6.2 and 6.3 and
adding wording that may be more of value to the community.
Ms. Rooney
Commented that staff can come back on August 16, 2010 with alternative
language, because there is a definite difference in the meaning of “community
benefit” within LU-23 Policy 6.2 and 6.3 and LU-23 Policy 3.2.
Mr. Larson
Commented that community benefit is used in multiple places and should have a
definition that links back to the goal.
Commented that after adoption of the General Plan, staff may need to go back
through all of the places where the term "community benefit" is located to ensure
the correct definition is used.
P a g e 16
Public Hearing Item #16 – Continued
Council Comments
Consensus to revise the language in LU-23 Policy 6.2 and 6.3 and LU-23 Policy 3.2 to
define the term "community benefit."
LU-24 Policy LU-3.4
Withdrew comments. Consensus to leave item in General Plan.
LU-24 Action LU-4.1
Withdrew comments. Consensus to leave item in General Plan.
LU-27 Action LU-5.3
Council Comments
Commented that commercial dominates the portion of Winchester Boulevard
between Shelburne and Pleasant View and that it seems odd to include this in
the General Plan since it is a neighborhood in transition which would most likely
move toward commercial rather than residential.
Consensus to delete ALU-5.3 from the General Plan.
LU-28 Policy LU-7.4
Withdrew comments. Consensus to leave item in General Plan.
LU-30 Action LU-9.1
Ms. Jansen
Commented that there is a Planning Commission edit to clarify the wording for
the preparation and adoption of the Specific Plan for the North Forty area prior to
development of the site.
LU-31 Policy LU-9.4
Expressed concerns about regional destination for commercial uses within the
North Forty Plan.
Consensus to leave the policy as is and to address any concerns during the
planning process.
LU-32 Policy LU-10.8 and 10.9
Suggested that on Policy 10.8 Mitchell Avenue is not the right street to have as
the border and should be replaced by Roberts Road.
Suggested new wording to indicate a Southern border as stated in Policy 10.9.
Consensus to refine policies with the suggestions listed above.
P a g e 17
Public Hearing Item #16 – Continued
Council Comments
Commented that the goal “to preserve, promote, and protect the small Town
character and quality of life within Los Gatos” for Land Use represents Los Gatos
and is concerned that the goal is being replaced with a new goal.
Expressed concerns that the prior goal was moved into Community Design
category which is not the major element of our General Plan .
Mr. Larson
Clarified that three alternatives were provided for Council consideration to
address the concerns.
Council Comments
Consensus to restore the prior Land Use goal within the Land Use element and
to have staff return the draft for Council review.
Mayor Diane McNutt called for a recess at 9:15 P.M. Meeting Resumed at 9:25 P.M.
Community Design
CD-8 - PCD-5.1
Questioned if this policy should be removed.
Commented that this policy was a reflection of the previous General Plan for
parking in lot 4, and does not think this policy is necessary since the buildings are
all occupied and there is no way to facilitate pedestrian access through the
buildings.
Consensus to delete this item from the General Plan.
CD-9 - Policy CD-6.3
Requested clarification from staff regarding the "in-lieu of" wording relating to the
visible mass intent.
Requested clarification from Council on the interpretation and how direction can
be provided to the Planning Commission.
Questioned if the staff really means "in-lieu-of" and should there be some
restrictions on the amount of additional square footage developed above grade to
constrain visible mass.
Mr. Larson
Clarified that "in lieu of" almost suggests a one for one replacement.
Commented that if the goal is to improve property values by allowing square
footage underground then the wording could stop after "square footage" and if
the goal is to reduce mass then maybe "in-lieu-of" becomes “to provide hidden
square footage to reduce visible mass.”
P a g e 18
Public Hearing Item #16 – Continued
Council Comments
Commented that the policy may not be needed and that the FAR requirements
do what is needed.
Express concerns about an application with the cellar being four feet above
grade, then it becomes a mass issue rather than a square footage issue.
Mr. Larson
Suggested that staff refine the wording to encourage hidden square footage or
reduce visible mass.
Council Comments
Suggested leaving the language as is and take the opportunity to determine
whether or not we can actually achieve what the language assumes which is a
reduction of visible mass through the inclusion of a basement or cellar.
Mr. Martello
Commented that if you are not going to count your basement as FAR, you are
not encouraging anyone to reduce visible mass.
Clarified that 6.3 is part of CD6 which is trying to preserve neighborhoods where
there might be smaller homes and encourages new home builders to accomplish
their desired square footage needs by use of a basement.
Commented that the current system is working, but it is not incentivizing anyone.
Council Comments
Questioned if there needs to be an action item to address the cellar policy.
Consensus to add an action item to address the issues relating to
basements and cellars.
CD-13 - PCD-10.2
Council Comments
Commented that the current language is not encouraging and would like to refine
the wording to encourage outdoor seating for restaurants, coffee shops, when
the historic character and quality of the downtown and adjacent neighbors can be
maintained.
Consensus to refine the wording as suggested above.
CD-24 Action CD-14.2
Withdrew comments. Consensus to leave item in General Plan.
P a g e 19
Public Hearing Item #16 – Continued
CD-24 -14.5
Council Comments
Expressed concerns about the wording "staff should err" to begin a statement
and is concerned that we are directing staff to err on the side of requiring an
Environmental Impact Report for projects in the hillsides.
Expressed concerns that Environmental impact Reports are being required for
every home or development in the hillsides.
Ms. Jansen
Clarified that staff has recommended to modify the policy to include "or mitigated
negative declaration" after "EIR" and also to remove the word "err.”
Ms. Rooney
Suggested refining the wording to state that staff should require adequate
environmental analysis for projects in the hillside area.
Mr. Martello
Recommended having a little more threshold then just the word “project,” since
“project” could mean something as small as a kitchen remodel.
Clarified that the real concerns would be grading, access, drainage, and things
like that.
Recommended that staff come back with explanation of wording for
addressing significant projects in the hillside area.
Mr. Larson
Commented that staff has some ideas for refined language and will bring forward
to Council.
Council Comments
Consensus to recommend that staff come back with wording for
addressing significant projects in the hillside area.
CD-25 PCD-15.3
Commented that the policy may be in contradiction to the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines because it tends to constrain more than the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines do at this time.
Mr. Larson
Confirmed that the policy does contradict the Hillside Development Standards
and Guidelines.
P a g e 20
Public Hearing Item #16 – Continued
Council Discussion
Suggested changing the word "shall" to "should" be cause "shall" leaves no
option.
Commented that the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines contain the
wording in PCD-15.1, 15.2 and 15.3 and would like to minimize the General Plan
policy section by making reference to the Hillside Design Standards and
Guidelines so the information is not in two places.
Mr. Martello
Commented that this is an important policy issue to the Town and suggested the
General Plan is where it should be placed to better protect the hillsides.
Commented that there is nothing wrong with redundancy and that the Ordinance
should site the General Plan.
Recommended to eliminate the last sentence and also the word "shall" to
"should" to allow more flexibility when approving a project.
Council Comments
Consensus to eliminate the last sentence replace "shall" to "should."
CD-26 & CD-27 PCD-15.8 & 16.3
Council comments
Questioned if Council is comfortable with the language in the two policies or is
there a way to tailor the language so that it doesn’t come back as a problem
when we are actually using it.
Commented that the term "discouraging development on and near the hillsides"
is not appropriate and suggest revising 15.8.
Suggested to remove 15.8 altogether.
Consensus to remove PCD-15.8 and to re-write PCD-16.3.
CD-29 Policy 17.4
Council Comments
Requested clarification on how to define "major developments."
Requested clarification on an application for a two acre development.
Ms. Rooney
Clarified that if a parcel is less than 40,000 square feet a Planned Development
application is not allowed.
Mr. Paulson
Clarified that 40,000 square feet is referenced in the Town Code, and would be
at staff’s discretion. It is not intended for single family applications.
P a g e 21
Public Hearing Item #16 – Continued
Mr. Larson
Suggested clarifying the language to reflect that other than single family
residences, development proposals on parcels greater than 40,000 square feet
should be processed as a Planned Development.
Council Comments
Questioned if that wording would be interpreted as single family applications
would never be put through as a Planned Development.
Questioned if the intent is to say "should be" or "may be."
Mr. Larson
Clarified that he was not intending that the wording be interpreted to say that
single family applications could never go through as a Planned Development.
Commented that staff would use wording to reflect that an application for a
special circumstance single family application could apply as a Planned
Development.
Council Comments
Questioned if it is Council’s intent to say that they "should be" or "may
be" processed as a Planned Development if the parcel is over 40,000 square
feet.
Mr. Paulson
Clarified that it is not staff’s intent that every parcel over 40,000 square
feet needs to be processed as Planned Development.
Staff would like direction from Council as to whether specific sites like
commercial sites on Los Gatos Boulevard or large sub-divisions on the hillsides
be processed as Planned Developments.
Council Comments
Consensus to bring back the policy with revised language.
CD-29 Policy 17.5
Council Comments
Questioned the role of the Community Development Advisory Committee
(CDAC).
Suggested changing the "should" to something less compelling.
Commented that the purpose of the CDAC is for applicants to get direction and if
they are not getting the right direction then it would be defeating the process and
may cost the applicants a lot of money.
P a g e 22
Public Hearing Item #16 – Continued
Mr. Martello
Cautioned Council that in deliberations when saying "may" could be interpreted
as "are entitled to."
Mr. Larson
Clarified that staff can find another verb for the policy and take a look at the role
of the CDAC.
Suggested that staff look at adding an action to the policy that would define the
role of the CDAC.
Council Comments
Suggested to look at what would be lost if CDAC did not exist.
Consensus to bring back the policy with revised language.
CD-31 Action 18.6
Council Comments
Consensus to remove action from General Plan.
CD-31 Action 18.1
Questioned if a study is needed for this policy.
Mr. Paulson
Commented that this action was a carry-over from the previous General Plan and
could be eliminated.
Ms. Rooney
Commented that a Planned Development would give flexibility to smaller, hard to
develop parcels.
Council Comments
Clarified that the ability to use a Planned Development is currently prohibited on
property slightly under an acre or 40,000 feet.
Questioned what current zoning expectations the Town would want to avoid and
what development expectations would the Town like to conform to.
Mr. Larson
Commented that a Planned Development is used where a traditional zoning
map does not work.
P a g e 23
Public Hearing Item #16 – Continued
Mr. Paulson
Expressed concerns that a Planned Development may be used as an opportunity
to not necessarily conform to those codes in place for development.
Council Comments
Consensus to remove Action 18.1 from General Plan.
CD-31 Action 18.4, 18.5, and 18.7
Council Comments
Suggested eliminating the studies for all three policies.
Questioned if the Town would want to replace lot coverage in commercial and
industrial zones with FAR.
Commented that a conversation about the issue would be more productive than
conducting a study.
Commented that if the goal is to update the Town Code and reflect current
conditions in the Town, then the goal might be to agendize the issue to the
Planning Commission and pass recommendation to Council.
Mr. Larson
Clarified that is not uncommon to do a zoning code update following the General
Plan update.
Commented that the goal places the Town in position to do the update, but it
does take work, staff time, and taxpayer dollars.
Commented that the policy direction is clearly easier if the Council would be
willing to provide policy direction without a study.
Commented that an audit of the Town Code would need to be done.
Actions 18.4 and 18.7 are discretionary studies, and there is not a necessity to
do a study if Council is not interested in doing a policy change.
Commented that Policy 18.5 is work that we should do following a General Plan
update.
Ms. Rooney
Suggested leaving the Action 18.5 and removing Action 18.4 and 18.7.
Council Comments
Consensus to remove 18.4 and 18.7 and to leave 18.5 as is in the Gen eral Plan.
P a g e 24
Public Hearing Item #16 – Continued
Transportation
TRA-14 E. 2a, First Bullet
Council Comments
Consensus to delete from the General Plan as the project was completed.
TRA-16, Bullet 1
Council Comments
Withdrew comments. Consensus to leave item in General Plan.
TRA-16, Bullet 3
Withdrew comments. Consensus to leave item in General Plan.
TRA-16, Bullet 6
Expressed concerns about public safety and congestion at the intersection of
National Avenue and Samaritan Drive.
Questioned if the intersection at National Avenue and Samaritan Drive could be
added as a priority to this portion of the policy.
Mr. Paulson
Clarified that staff will go back and see what types improvements were approved
with the project currently slated to begin at the corner of Samaritan Drive and Los
Gatos Boulevard.
Mr. Rohani
Clarified that when the project was being developed, staff worked with the City of
San Jose to have a pedestrian light further east of National Avenue towards
Samaritan Drive.
Confirmed that the traffic study did not recommend installation of a traffic signal
at National Avenue and Samaritan Drive because it would cause more
congestion at the intersection at Samaritan Drive and Los Gatos Boulevard.
Council Comments
Commented that until the project is completed the intersection is a high risk and
would like it added in to the policy.
Consensus to add additional wording to the policy relating to the intersection of
National Avenue and Samaritan Drive and to include this as a priority.
TRA-16, Last Bullet
Council Comments
Withdrew comments. Consensus to leave item in General Plan.
P a g e 25
Public Hearing Item #16 – Continued
TRA-17, Bullet 1
Council Comments
Withdrew comments. Consensus to leave item in General Plan.
TRA-17, Bullet 3
Council Comments
Withdrew comments. Consensus to leave item in General Plan.
TRA-18, Lark Avenue improvements and Samaritan intersection
Withdrew comments. Consensus to leave item in General Plan.
TRA-19 v. Bullet 1
Council Comments
Expressed concerns about a two-way turn lane with cutouts near Safeway.
Commented that there does not seem to be an issue with traffic along that
portion of the street.
Commented that the cut-outs make it impossible to park more than one vehicle,
the street sweeper has issues, and it will eliminate parking.
Recommended to ask our traffic engineer to not impose this policy and to leave
the street as it is.
Consensus for direction to staff to refine Bullet 1 with the comments listed
above.
TRA-19 vii. Bullet 1
Council Comments
Recommended a continuation of a sidewalk to basically complete the street from
Shelborne Avenue to Lark Avenue.
Mr. Rohani
Clarified that the Town will continue to look for grant opportunities or other
funding to continue the sidewalks from Vineland Avenue to Lark Avenue.
Commented that the Town has not observed any congestion or necessity to
widen the road.
Council Comments
Consensus to eliminate this bullet from the General Plan.
TRA-26 Action 3.1
Council Comments
Questioned if a traffic study will be required for a single-family home.
Ms. Rooney
Clarified that the literal writing of the policy would indicate that a traffic study will
be required for a single-family home.
P a g e 26
Public Hearing Item #126 – Continued
Mr. Paulson
Clarified that the Town has an existing traffic policy which sets a threshold at
approximately 19 trips.
Council Comments
Consensus for staff to refine language to reflect the current traffic policy.
TRA-27 Policy 3.8
Council Comments
Expressed concerns about the need for requiring a resident to put a new curb or
sidewalk in front of a new home that may not have curbs or sidewalks.
Mr. Rohani
Commented that the current policy states that an "in-lieu fee" would go into an
account and accrues over time to be used when improvements are needed.
Council Comments
Consensus to refine the language to reflect the wording of the existing policy.
TRA-28 Policy 4.1
Council Comments
Expressed concerns about the policy which states that Highway 17 should not be
widened to provide additional lanes south of Lark Avenue and that there should
not be an interchange at Blossom Hill Road.
Commented that the two issues should be separated and expressed concerns
about the blanket statement relating to Highway 17.
Recommends leaving language as it is, but to split the items into two separate
policies.
Expressed concerns that deleting the policy would run the risk of inviting the
expansion of the Highway and feels that it would be a problem for the Town.
Questioned if the Town has jurisdiction of what happens on Highway 17.
Mr. Martello
Clarified that the Town has no jurisdiction that he’s aware of, but the General
Plan may have a goal and state a Town position.
Council Comments
Consensus for staff to split the policy into two separate issues and to leave them
in the General Plan.
P a g e 27
Public Hearing Item #16 – Continued
TRA-24 Policy 2.2 & 2.8
Council Comments
Questioned if the contents in Policy 2.2 and 2.8 are the same.
Commented that this may be something that was left over from the previous
General Plan. Staff recommended revised wording.
Consensus to revise the policy wording.
TRA-31 Policy 6.5
Council Comments
Withdrew comments and consensus to leave as is in General Plan.
TRA-31 Policy 6.2
Council Comments
Questioned if the two intersections listed in the policy are beyond the Town’s
scope and control.
Mr. Rohani
Clarified that both the Highway 9/University Avenue intersection and the Highway
9/N. Santa Cruz Avenue intersection are maintained by CALTRANS and they
generally have allowed cities to do improvements if the cities come up with the
funding for the improvements.
Council Comments
Consensus to leave the policy in the General Plan.
TRA-32 and 33 Policy 7.2 and 7.4
Council Comments
Expressed concern about streets with one entrance and one exit and the need to
provide two means of access.
Commented on the importance of a secondary emergency exit if an evacuation is
needed.
Consensus to add additional information to policy which would strengthen the
policy relating to streets with one entrance and one exit and the need to provide
two means of access.
TRA-32 Policy 6.3 and 6.5
Questioned if it’s warranted to do a feasibility study.
Consensus to delete item from the General Plan.
TRA-33 Policy 7.8
Council Comments
Consensus to delete item from General Plan.
P a g e 28
Public Hearing Item #16 – Continued
TRA-35 Policy 8.7
Council Comments
Consensus to change language by eliminating the word "bus station.”
TRA-36 Action 8.2 and 8.3
Council Comments
Consensus to withdraw item from the General plan.
TRA-40 Policy 11.3
Council Comments
Consensus to withdraw item from the General Plan.
TRA-44, Policy 14.3
Council Comments
Questioned if there could potentially be more than one level of parking added to
the lot at Montebello Way if the Montebello Post Office was gone.
Questioned if parking would be limited on the hillside a long the south end of that
lot.
Commented against supporting the idea of having tall, two story parking
structures, however the point of having them in limited areas might be good if the
policy was well defined.
TRA-45 Action TRA-14.3
Council Comments
Consensus to eliminate any further study relating to the Kaku report on parking
management and to withdraw it from the General Plan.
Mayor Diane McNutt directed staff to continue the General Plan discussion to August
16, 2010.
OTHER BUSINESS
There is no Other Business scheduled for this meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Attest:
Jackie D. Rose, Clerk Administrator