M08-16-10 Council/Agency Meeting 09/07/10
Item #
P a g e 1
MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
AUGUST 16, 2010
The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Special Meeting on Monday,
August 16, 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
• Dean Marchant, Fisher Middle School led the Pledge of Allegiance. The
audience was invited to participate.
PRESENTATION
Barbara Cassin - Donation Recognition
• Mayor Diane McNutt recognized Barbara Cassin for the contribution of her
entire trust estate to the Town’s Library.
• Commented that Ms. Cassin passed away on May 10, 2010 and will be
remembered by many people in the community for her wonderful paintings of Los
Gatos and her generous donation to the Library.
• Ms. Dydo, Interim Library Director commented that the Town will honor Ms.
Cassin’s wish that her trust will have a long lasting benefit for the patrons of the
Los Gatos Library.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
• There was no Closed Session scheduled for this meeting.
P a g e 2
TOWN COUNCIL
COUNCIL/TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
Council Matter
• There were no Council Matters for this meeting.
Manager Matters
Mr. Larson
• Commented that August 17, 2010 is the last day to turn in Vote by Mail ballots for
the State Senate Special Election and the ballots may be turned in at the Clerk
Department until 5:00.
• Commented that Friday, August 20, 2010 is the deadline to apply for the Los
Gatos Leadership program.
Did You Know??
Mr. Bankhead, Librarian
• Made a presentation about the Library's legal on-line free music downloads
program called Freegal.
• Commented that more information can be found at www.losgatosca.gov/library.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Accept Investment reports for Fourth Fiscal Quarter 09/10 (April through
June 2010)
2. Adopt resolution granting approval to modify a conditional use permit to
expand an existing restaurant (James Randall Restaurant) to increase the
number of easts, 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 RESOLUTION 2010-085
3. Adopt resolution rescinding Resolution 2009-137 and adopting a resolution
authorizing the Town of Los Gatos to apply for Federal Stimulus Funding
through the Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant
Program RESOLUTION 2010-086
P a g e 3
Consent Items - Continued
TOWN COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
4. Approve Council/Agency minutes of August 2, 2010
5. PPW Job No. 09-06-Los Gatos Library Project 411-821-2501
a. Authorize Town Manager to execute an agreement with Sheri Simons
regarding production, purchase and installation of a work of art for the new
Los Gatos Library in an amount not to exceed $118,736
b. Authorize Town Manager to execute second amendment to an agreement
with Noll & Tam architects in an amount not to exceed $40,650 for design
and coordination of donor-related signage and gift opportunity renderings
MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski to approve Consent Items
#1-5.
Seconded by Council Member Steve Rice.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Khanha
• Thanked the community for its support of the U.S. Census information gathering
and congratulated the Town for its participation rate of 77%.
Closed Verbal Communications
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a request to
demolish a single-family residence, to subdivide a .93 acre parcel into three
lots and to construct two new residences on property zoned R-1:8. No
significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this
project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APN 527-42-
008 Architecture & Site Application S-08- 30, S-09-33 & S-09-34; Subdivision
Application M-08-13 Negative Declaration ND-09-02 Property Location:15928
Union Avenue Property Owner: 217 O’Connor LLC. Applicant: Tony Jeans,
T.H.I.S. Design
P a g e 4
Public Hearings Item #6 – Continued
Staff Report made by Suzanne Davis, Senior Planner.
Council Comments
• Questioned if the current home would need to be demolished prior to the
recording of the map.
• Questioned the overlap with the Architecture and Site application and the Sub-
Division Map Act application.
• Questioned if the neighbors had met about the drainage issues.
Ms. Davis
• Clarified that typically the structures would be removed before the final map is
recorded, but the applicants have requested to retain the structure beyond the
recordation of the final map.
• Clarified that the Town’s engineering staff did meet with the neighbors and that
the neighbors did have some concerns about additional drainage issues and
runoff from the proposed homes. Staff felt that the drainage plan could meet the
goal of no additional runoff.
Mr. Martello
• Clarified that critical to tonight’s hearing is whether the map goes forward as
proposed with a three lot sub-division. If it does not go forward then the
Architecture and Site becomes unimportant at this time because it would require
redesign.
• Clarified that if the Council does decide on a three lot sub-division then Council
can decide the Architecture and Site or give direction to staff and the applicant
and then refer it back to Development Review Committee or Planning
Commission.
Open Public Hearing
Mr. Jeans, Applicant
• Clarified that drainage issues will be less than they currently are at the site and
surrounding area.
• Commented that the density for the lots is consistent with the regulations in the
Subdivision Map Act.
• Commented that the Planning Commission when denying the application was
discussing issues that would happen after the Architecture and Site process and
therefore erred in their decision.
• Commented about configurations of homes in neighboring cul-de-sacs.
• Commented about the gradual change in house size from the older homes, the
newer homes, and the proposed homes in the neighborhood.
• Commented about the destruction plan for the existing home and the
construction traffic plan once the home is demolished.
P a g e 5
Public Hearing Item #6 – Continued
Council Comments
• Requested clarification on Planning Commission’s decision to deny the
application.
• Questioned the differential in grade between the proposed homes and Mr.
Mangano’s home.
• Questioned why Mr. Jeans chose the square footage proposed for the homes.
• Questioned why Mr. Jeans chose the cottage style home for one of the proposed
plans verses the craftsman style home.
• Questioned if the roof line on parcel #2 could be reduced to reduce the height of
the home.
• Questioned if the home on parcel #2 could be moved down and away from the
adjacent homes.
• Questioned if massing could be considered and does that mean that an approval
of the map could have a condition related to massing.
Mr. Jeans
• Clarified that the Planning Commission had concerns with the massing of the
proposed home on parcel #2.
• Commented that the Planning Commission started discussing the massing
issues and that is why they denied the subdivision.
• Commented that there were no elements brought up about the subdivision
improvements, but they denied it based on the massing that parcel #2 added to
the project.
• Clarified that the difference in height between the two homes is about one foot.
• Commented that he was trying to keep the smaller homes closest to Mr.
Mangano and Ms. Lynott.
• Clarified that he felt that he could get mass without the visibility if he went with
the cottage design for the proposed home.
• Clarified that they have proposed a two foot reduction for the home on parcel #2.
• Commented that the reduction could be done without changing the architectural
plan of the home.
• Commented that he could move the homes a bit and keep the 9 ½ foot setback.
P a g e 6
Public Hearing Item #6 - Continued
Mr. Martello
• Clarified that Council is charged with approval of a subdivision.
• Commented that historically the Town has looked at the project first and then the
maps come later, nevertheless, when looking at the design of the development
permits, the Council no doubt is thinking of how big of a home and where would it
go, and therefore, concerned about the potential size of homes and if the usable
lot area is within the discussion of the design of the subdivision.
• Clarified that when approving the project, even if Council does not get to
Architecture and Site, Council could put limits on where the envelope for the
house could be and how it should be massed and Council could give direction
along those lines and the direction would become conditions.
Mr. Schwartz
• Expressed concerns about the project and feels that the proposed three lot
subdivision does not fit on the site.
• Commented that the CEQA study is not adequate.
• Requested that the Council uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Council Comments
• Questioned if Mr. Schwartz was concerned about the massing of the proposed
home or the number of lots.
• Questioned if the Architecture and Site application as it currently exists has to be
encompassed in the environmental review.
Mr. Schwartz
• Clarified that his concerns are the lots and the configuration of the proposed
homes.
• Expressed concerns that the property is too narrow for the three proposed
homes.
• Commented that he would be more receptive to three single story homes at that
site.
Mr. Martello
• Clarified that this project went forward previously without Architecture and Site,
and then Architecture and Site was added to provide a better representation for
what the houses would look like, essentially to fill out a shape.
• Commented that we agreed with Mr. Schwartz that you cannot separate a project
out if you have environmental impacts however, since the outside building
envelope had been considered as part of CEQA, adding Architecture and Site did
not trigger a further CEQA analysis.
P a g e 7
Public Hearing Item #6 - Continued
Ms. Lynott
• Expressed concerns about mass and density of the proposed homes and
requested that the homes be single story to retain the view of the hills.
• Commented that the homes are massive from her home and from Mr.
Mangano’s home.
Mr. Jafari
• Expressed concerns about the mass and density of the proposed homes and that
the homes do not fit with the neighborhood.
Mr. Esche
• Expressed concerns about the intensity of the homes and that the three lot
subdivision would go against the Town’s Land Use Goals and the Town’s
General Plan.
• Commented that the homes in the neighborhood are ranch style homes and the
proposed craft style homes are large and massive.
• Commented that drainage is an ongoing problem for the area.
Council Comments
• Requested clarification on the styles of the homes in the neighborhoods and if
Mr. Esches feels that a one story home would be compatible with the
neighborhood.
Mr. Esches
• Commented that he would like to see homes that are consistent and would fit
with the scale and height of other homes in the neighborhood.
• Commented that the ideal proposed subdivision would have two homes with one
on the Union Avenue side and one located on Panoramic Way.
• Commented that there would be a huge impact to the neighborhood with three
proposed large homes.
Mr. Mangano
• Commented that he feels that the proposed subdivision is non-conforming and is
not compatible with the neighborhood.
• Commented against the proposed project and that the mass is overbearing on
his home and on the neighborhood.
Mr. Cabral
• Expressed concerns about the mass and density of the projects built in other
neighborhoods and feels that the developer has done a great job designing the
homes for this project.
• Commented that the project will bring construction work to the area.
P a g e 8
Public Hearing Item #6 – Continued
Mr. Jeans
• Confirmed that the proposed reduction to the height is just a bit over two feet.
• Commented that the proposals that have been put before Council meet all of the
guidelines of the Town.
• Commented that Mr. Mangano’s home is a craftsman home and blends with the
proposed homes.
• Commented that many homes in the area are larger than the proposed homes
for this project.
• Commented that all drainage would be deverted underground to Union Avenue.
Council Comments
• Questioned if the two foot height reduction was agreed to by the applicant.
• Questioned what design would be appropriate to accomplish the 9 ½
foot setback by Ms. Lynotts house.
Council Discussions
• Questioned, for the record, if Mr. Jeans was offering to include the two foot
height reduction and would move the home on parcel #2 southwest still allowing
a 9 ½ foot setback.
Mr. Jeans
• Confirmed that they were offering to include the two foot height reduction as part
of the proposed project and that he would include the 9 ½ foot setback.
Closed Public Hearing
Mr. Martello
• Clarified that the appeal is based on the Planning Commission's belief that the
proposed project does not meet the Town's density standards and that they
mostly likely meant intensity.
• Clarified that there is ample evidence in Council's packet from the professional
staff's point of view that the proposed project does meet all Town standards and
the goals of the General Plan.
P a g e 9
Public Hearing Item #6 – Continued
Council Discussions
• Commented that the general design is consistent with other cul-de-sac designs.
• Commented on supporting proposed design TM2 rather than TM1.
• Commented that the average lot size is comparable to other lot sizes in the
neighborhood.
• Commented that there is no basis to overturn the Planning Commission’s
decision.
• Commented that they denied the subdivision application based on Sections (b)
and (d) and five out of five Planning Commission Members felt that the
subdivision did not comply with Section (b) of the Subdivision Map Act.
• Commented that three out of five Planning Commissioners felt that Section (d) of
the Subdivision Map Act was not physically suitable for the proposed density of
the development.
• Expressed concerns about the sizes of the homes.
• Suggested sending the Architecture and Site application back to Planning
Commission with direction to bring the height of the homes down.
• Questioned the impacts to the neighborhood.
• Commented that the height will have an immediate impact to Mr. Mangano’s
and Ms. Lynott’s property.
• Questioned how the massing affects the neighbors on Panoramic Way.
• Commented that parcel two has more mass than the proposed home on parcel
three.
• Question if it would be an improvement if there was a one story home.
P a g e 10
Public Hearing Item #6 – Continued
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Mike Wasserman to grant the appeal of the
decision of the Planning Commission on Subdivision Application M-08-13
and Architecture and Site Application S-08-33 and S-09-334 subject to the
following additional conditions and findings:
A. Additional Conditions:
1. Applicant shall re-design the structure on lot #2 to reduce
the mass consistent with Council direction.
2. The structure on lot #2 shall be set back at least 9 ½
feet from the property line.
3. To include the two foot height reduction offered by the
applicant.
B. Additional Findings:
1. The Council finds that a three lot subdivision on the
subject parcel is compatible with the neighborhood and
that a two lot subdivision which would consist of two
15,000 square foot lots would be less compatible when
compared with the size of the neighboring lots.
2. That the project is well designed to fit in with existing
development and the three lots proposed produces one
additional housing opportunity for the community.
Seconded by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski.
Council Discussions
• Commented that the appropriate conclusion is that the Planning Commission did
err for the reasons stated by Mr. Martello, and there were no findings given and
the decision did not validate the discussion.
• Questioned if Council would be really denying the application or is Council
approving the application with conditions to some portion of redesign with parcel
#2.
• Suggested that trucks and construction be staged at the property line farthest
from the neighbors.
• Expressed concerns about height massing and the impact to the neighbors.
• Expressed concerns about the height of parcel #2
Mr. Larson
• Explained that the proposed plans have not been submitted for parcel #1 and the
Architecture and Site applications include parcel #2 and parcel #3.
• Commented that the demolition and parcel #3 could be approved tonight.
P a g e 11
Public Hearing Item #6 – Continued
Mr. Martello
• Clarified that Council would be approving the application for Architecture and Site
for parcel #3 and remanding parcel #2 back to the Planning Commission.
VOTE: Motion passed 4/1. Council Member Barbara Spector voted no.
Mayor Diane McNutt called for a recess at 8:07 p.m. Meeting resumed at 8:17 p.m.
7. Draft Los Gatos 2020 General Plan and the Environmental Impact Report on
the Draft Los Gatos 2020 General Plan Update (Continued from 8/2/10)
Staff report made by Wendie Rooney, Director of Community Development and Joel
Paulson, Associate Planner.
Open Public Hearing
Ms. Reagan
• Commented about the dog friendly nature of the community and would like to see
stronger language to secure off leash dog times at specific parks.
Mr. Mangano
• Commented that the vision for Los Gatos includes views of the hills and by
eliminating Policy CD-15.8, which relates to discouraging development on or near
the hillsides, it eliminates part of the vision.
Ms. Quintana
• Commented that there are many changes to the General Plan and there needs to
be an opportunity for the public and Council to review the final document prior to
adoption.
Mr. Larson
• Clarified that at the end of the General Plan deliberations, Council will be
presented with the option to give staff direction to publish the changes, or to bring
it back and further review the final draft document before it goes to print.
Council Comments
• Commented that Council is eager to read the revised document with all the
changes that have been made and the next steps would be discussed at the
Special meeting on August 18, 2010.
P a g e 12
Public Hearing Item #7 – Continued
Closed Public Hearing
Page LU-16
Council Comments
• Consensus to replace the word "supplement" with "complement."
LU-17, j. - North 40 Specific Plan Overlay
Council Comments
• Commented that the phrases "based on recent Town Council direction" and "a
new General Plan designation is proposed” are not appropriate General Plan
language since the document is in use for 10 years.
• Consensus for staff to revise policy wording.
LU-27 - Policy 6.2.and 6.3
Council Comments
• Questioned if the Development Policy for In-Fill Projects is a document identified
or defined somewhere.
Ms. Rooney
• Commented that the Development Policy for In-Fill Projects is an adopted policy
and the intent is to use it as a guiding policy to determine what "community
benefit" means and how it’s utilized and to be able to make a change to the
policy, without having to change the General Plan.
Council Comments
• Commented that it is still unclear what the Development Policy for In-Fill Projects
is by reading Policy LU-6.2 and LU-6.3 and questioned if it is identified
somewhere.
Ms. Rooney
• Commented that staff will include in the General Plan glossary, the title of the
Development Policy for In-Fill Projects and identify where to find it.
LU-27 - Policy LU-6.2 and 6.3
Council Comments
• Consensus to combine both policies, as they are very similar.
P a g e 13
Public Hearing Item #7 – Continued
CD-27 - Policy CD-16.3
Council Comments
• Commented that the policy wording sets up the expectation that everyone is
guaranteed a great view all the time.
• Consensus to refine the policy wording.
CD-29 - Policy-17.4
Council Comments
• Commented that the wording implies that single-family residences cannot be
processed as a planned development.
• Commented that Council does not want to preclude single-family residences from
planned developments applications.
• Consensus to rephrase the wording so single family residences are not
excluded.
TRA-16, Add new bullet for Intersection of National and Samaritan
• Commented that the language should be changed or an additional statement
should be added reflecting the safety issues at the intersection and future actions
that may be taken to alleviate the issues.
• Consensus to direct staff to refine the language.
TRA-44 - Policy TRA-14.3
Council Comments
• Commented that the recommendation of a two-story parking structure at the Post
Office should not be suggested as part of the General Plan because it is
problematic as the gateway to the community from the south.
• Commented that the Town should leave itself open to options of parking
structures, but should be cautious about the insertion of language related to
multiple levels.
Mr. Larson
• Commented that it may be premature to reference the Post Office property in the
General Plan given it’s not a parcel that’s out of lease or for sale.
• Clarified that the area of the Post Office property reference in Policy TRA-14.3
has not been designated at this point.
P a g e 14
Public Hearing Item #7 – Continued
Council Comments
• Consensus to direct staff to revise wording by keeping the first and last
sentence, and to strike everything in between.
TRA-32 and 33
Council Comments
• Expressed concerns about the limitations on the dual access and that the current
language does not protect the residence against major safety concerns.
• Requested that an emergency egress be added for emergency purposes only.
Mr. Larson
• Commented that there are two policies in the Safety area that are recommended
to provide additional clarification on access and egress.
• Commented that the policies in Traffic clarify that the Town is not utilizing
the access areas as traffic capacity enhancement.
Council Comments
• Consensus to include the recommended wording.
CD-26 - Policy CD-15.8
Council Comments
• Commented that the intent was not to have a policy to "discourage"
development.
• Commented that the policy should be kept as a stand-alone policy which
communicates that the discouragement of development is not the significant
issue and that some language be maintained that focuses on what is done to
protect the hillsides.
Ms. Rooney
• Commented that if the concern with the policy is more about ecosystem
preservation, it would be appropriate to remain in the section; if it is more about
view preservation, a more appropriate location should be designated for the
policy.
Council Comments
• Consensus to strike Policy CD-15.8, but keep the first line as Policy CD-14.
P a g e 15
Public Hearing Item #7 – Continued
OSP-11 - Policy OSP-2.3
Council Comments
• Commented that the term "all hillside developments" is very restrictive and
questioned if “all hillside developments” is what was intended.
• Consensus to refine wording to read: "all subdivisions in hillside developments."
OSP-14 - Policy OSP-4.6
Ms. Rooney
• Clarified that non-traditional, active recreation space might include activities such
as bocce ball, outdoor chess areas, and activities that aren’t typically seen in
parks.
Council Comments
• Consensus to recommend that staff refine wording to clarify the policy.
OSP-14 - Action OSP-4.2
Council Comments
• Consensus to remove Action OSP-4.2.
OSP-14 Action 4.4 and 4.5
Council Comments
• Commented that this is more of a policy issue rather than an action to conduct a
study.
• Commented there should be a policy statement that includes opportunities to
actively pursue off-leash dog recreation areas and then conduct a study that
looks into all opportunities, instead of just a dedicated dog park.
Ms. Rooney
• Clarified that OSP-4.4 has already been removed.
Council Comments
• Consensus to direct staff to draft a policy statement and bring a revised action
back.
P a g e 16
Public Hearing Item #7 – Continued
OSP-14 - Action 4.1
Council Comments
• Commented that Policy OSP-4.6 and Action OSP-4.1 seem redundant.
Mr. Capurso
• Suggested conducting a needs assessment rather than a study for all action
items with the exception of 4.1, 4.5 and 4.7 and retaining 4.1 with the
specificity removed.
Council Comments
• Consensus to remove Actions OSP-4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.6 and refine the wording
of Action OSP-4.1 with the specificity removed.
OSP-15 - Policy OSP-5.3
Council Comments
• Commented that the Policy should have an operational component added to it.
• Consensus to revise the wording to add an operational context to it, which may
include “street furniture” to encourage people to sit and converse.
OSP-16 - Policy OSP-5.8
• Consensus to revise the wording.
OSP-16 - Policy OSP-5.9
Council Comments
• Suggested listing additional language that specifies the minimum size of multi-
family projects that would be required to have a tot lot.
Ms. Rooney
• Clarified that the Town has current regulations for multi-family residential, which
states that a tot lot is required for three or more units.
Council Comments
• Expressed concerns that it is unreasonable to require 2, 3, and 4 unit complexes
to provide a tot lot, but does agree that larger complexes should be required to
provide one.
• Consensus to revise the wording to 8 units.
P a g e 17
Public Hearing Item #7 – Continued
OSP-16 - Action OSP-5.3, 5.4 and 5.5
• Expressed concerns about not providing a cost in action OSP-5.3.
Mr. Larson
• Commented that it is appropriate to place the actions in a General Plan and the
cost can be evaluated at a later time as an operational issue.
Mr. Capurso
• Commented that the typical type of signs along the trails cost between $1500
and $2000 per sign.
• Commented that this is more of an action as sites are redeveloped, and not
necessarily a mandate to update existing sites that are not undergoing
improvements.
Council Comments
• Consensus that staff’s interpretation is appropriate and recommended a change
in the wording to make it clean.
OSP-17 - Policy 6.6
Council Comments
• Questioned if the Town is trying to increase density on Highway 85 and it seems
contradictory to what is already a policy within the General Plan.
Ms. Rooney
• Commented that this policy is referring to site design issues rather than actual
use issues.
Council Comments
• Consensus to refine the wording of the policy.
OSP-18 - Action OSP-6.2
• Consensus to strike entire action.
OSP-18 - Action OSP 7.4 and 7.5
Mr. Capurso
• Clarified that this action is identifying the areas where there are access issues
along the creek trail. Once identified, and as development opportunities come
along, the issues can be identified and worked on.
Council Comments
• Consensus to combine Action OSP-7.4 and 7.5 and to refine the wording.
P a g e 18
Public Hearing Item #7 – Continued
OSP-17 - Policy OSP 6.10
Council Comments
• Consensus to direct staff to refine the wording.
OTHER BUSINESS
• There is no Other Business scheduled for this meeting.
Mayor Diane McNutt continued discussion on the General Plan update to a Special
meeting on August 18, 2010.
ADJOURNMENT
Attest: /s/ Jackie D. Rose
Jackie D. Rose, Clerk Administrator