Loading...
M09-07-10P a g e 1 MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SEPTEMBER 7, 2010 The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Special Meeting on Tuesday, September 7, 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. Ab sent: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Bennett Shaw, Hillbrook School, led the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience was invited to participate. CLOSED SESSION REPORT There was no Closed Session scheduled for this meeting. Report from Closed Session on August 23, 2010: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT (Government Code Section 54957) Title: Town Attorney Appointments Mr. Martello stated that direction was given and no reportable action was taken. P a g e 2 TOWN COUNCIL COUNCIL/TOWN MANAGER REPORTS Council Matters  There were no Council Matters for this meeting. Manager Matters Mr. Larson  Commented that the recruitment process for the Town’s Boards and Commissions is underway and the Town will be accepting applications until October 22, 2010.  Commented that applications and more information is available at www.losgatosca.gov or by calling the Clerk Department.  Commented that the Town’s Community-wide Garage Sale will be held on October 2, 2010 and the deadline to register is September 17, 2010.  Commented that Screen on the Green is scheduled for September 24, 2010. Did You Know?? Sergeant Steve Walpole  Commented on Safe Routes to School.  Commented that the program is a collaboration of parents, the Los Gatos -Monte Sereno Police Department, and the Town Engineering Department.  Commented that Safe Routes to School Week is October 25th - 29th and that the Town will be promoting a safe environment for kids to go to school.  Commented that more information can be found at www.losgatosca.gov, saferoutesinfo.org or by e-mailing swalpole@losgatosca.gov. CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) 1. Approve Town Council Special Meeting Minutes of: a. August 17, 2010 b. August 23, 2010 2. PPW Job No. 10-11 Oak Meadow Park ADA Pathway Improvement Project Approve plans and specification for the Oak Meadow Park ADA Pathway Project and authorize staff to advertise the project for bids P a g e 3 Consent Items #1 – 8 – Continued 3. PPW Job No. 10-05 Blossom Hill Road Improvements Project (Cherry Blossom to Camino Del Cerro) 471-812-0 Authorize the Town Manager to execute a profession engineering design services agreement with BKF Engineers Inc., in an amount not to exceed $87,877. 4. PPW Job No. 10-04 Wedgewood Avenue Improvements Project (Mulberry Drive to Granada Way) 471-812-0112 Authorize the Town Manager to execute a professional engineering design services agreement with Harris & Associates Inc., in an amount not to exceed $80,000. 5. Adopt resolution setting date for consideration of reorganization of an uninhabited area designated as Hilow Road No. 4, approximately .58 acres (APN: 532-04-062); File #AN10-001. RESOLUTION 2010-088 6. Medical Marijuana Dispensaries a. Adopt Interim Ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos imposing as an Urgency Measure a Moratorium on the approval, commencement, establishment or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. ORDINANCE 2192 b. Accept and issue the written report prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 on the measures taken to date to alleviate the conditions that led to the adoption of an urgency interim ordinance imposing a Moratorium on the approval, commencement, establishment or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. TOWN COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 7. Approve Council/Agency minutes of: a. August 16, 2010 b. August 18, 2010 8. PPW Job No. 10-02 Pageant Grounds Access Improvement Design Project 831- 1201 a. Authorize the Town Manager to execute a construction contract with Redwood Engineering Construction in an amount not to exceed $488,888 b. Authorize staff to execute future change orders to the construction contract as necessary in an amount not to exceed $50,000 P a g e 4 Consent Items #1 – 8 – Continued Mayor Diane McNutt directed Jackie Rose, Clerk Administrator to read the title of the interim ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos imposing as an urgency measure a moratorium on the approval, commencement, establishment or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Steve Rice to waive the reading of the interim ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos imposing as an urgency measure a moratorium on the approval, commencement, establishment or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and approve Consent Items #1 - 8. Seconded by Council Member Mike Wasserman. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS Open/Closed Verbal Communications TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Consider a request for approval to increase the hours of operation and allow live entertainment in a new restaurant (Los Gatos Bar & Grill) on property zoned C- 2:LHP. APN 510-44-077. Conditional Use Permit Application U-10-011. Property location: 15 ½ N. Santa Cruz Avenue. Property Owner: La Canada Investments, LLC Applicant: Dave Powell, LGBG, LLC. (Applicant requesting continuance to 9/20/10) Mayor Diane McNutt stated that the applicant has requested that the meeting be continued to September 20, 2010. MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski to continue the request for approval of the Conditional Use Permit Application U-10-011. Property location: 15 ½ N. Santa Cruz Avenue to September 20, 2010. Seconded by Council Member Mike Wasserman. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. P a g e 5 Public Hearings – Continued 10. Consider a request to amend an approved Planned Development to allow off- site BMP units and construction of one fewer unit within the project on property zoned RM:5-12:PD and R-1D:LHP:PD. APN: 529-22-044 Planned Development Application PD-10-003. Property location: 371 Los Gatos Boulevard. Property Owner/Applicant: Santa Clara Development Company. Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski recused himself from Item#10 due to the location of his residence. Staff report made by Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner. Opened Public Hearing Mr. Robson, Applicant  Commented that the application would allow the Town more Below Market Housing units (BMP) and by replacing the larger duplex building with a more appropriately scaled single family home it allows the developers the opportunity to enhance the tree-scape along Los Gatos Boulevard.  Commented that replacing the duplex with a single family home will also allow for greater setbacks within the project. Council Comments  Questioned why this proposed plan did not come f orward during the original Planned Development application.  Questioned if the revised plan will improve the aesthetics of the project and requested clarification from the applicant as to why on-site construction of BMP units is not feasible or practical. Mr. Robson  Clarified that the developers continue to look at the project and refine it.  Commented that this request is part of an ongoing process of continuing to improve the project.  Clarified that the proposed building is four feet shorter and ten feet narrower than the original and it allows a greater setback.  Commented that by allowing off -site BMP units the Town would gain an extra unit for the BMP housing stock and would enhance the tree-scape for the proposed project. Ms. Bonnie  Expressed concerns that by adding additional BMP units to her neighborhood her property value would decrease. P a g e 6 Public Hearing Item #10 – Continued Ms. Scott  Commented that she does not support off-site BMP units for projects.  Expressed concerns that the BMP units may decrease the value of their property. Mr. Robson  Commented that BMP units at their other projects did not decrease property values of the neighboring homes.  Commented that the off-site BMP units would be indistinguishable from any other units within the development. Council Comments  Questioned Mr. Robson about plans for the proposed BMP units within the Pueblo De Los Gatos development. Mr. Robson  Clarified that he plans to upgrade the interior of the units and place them into the program. Closed Public Hearing Mr. Larson  Clarified the Town’s Below Market Housing Program requirements.  Commented that the market value decrease would only affect the BMP unit and not the value of neighboring homes.  Clarified that the applicant has proposed to buy three units at the current market rate and under their obligation through the Planned Development application they would sell those units at the below market prices to income eligible occupants. Council Discussions  Questioned if off-site BMP units should be allowed for this project only or if the Below Market Price Guidelines should be amended for consideration on future projects. Mr. Martello  Clarified that the policy would not need to be amended if the motion was to approve or deny this application. Mayor Diane McNutt directed Jackie Rose, Clerk Administrator to read the title of the ordinance. P a g e 7 Public Hearing Item #10 – Continued Council Discussions  Expressed concerns about moving the BMP units off-site.  Commented that the look and feel of the off-site BMP units should be the same as other units within the neighborhood.  Commented that BMP units should be seamlessly integrated into neighborhoods.  Commented on supporting three more BMP units to the Town’s BMP program. Mr. Martello  Clarified that the clearest way to avoid setting precedence is to articulate the suggestions or direction as part of the motion. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Mike Wasserman the planned development application PD-10-003, to make the required findings (attachment 1) and to approve the application subject to the performance standards included in the planned development ordinance (Attachment 2) and to waive the reading of the ordinance. Seconded by Mayor Diane McNutt. VOTE: Motion failed due to a 2/2 vote. Mayor Diane McNutt, and Council Member Mike Wasserman voted yes, Council Member Steve Rice and Council Member Barbara Spector voted no and Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski abstained. Mayor Diane McNutt  Concluded that the request to amend the Planned Development application failed due to a tie vote.  Called for a recess at 6:55 p. m. Meeting resumed at 7:00 p. m.  Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski re-joined the meeting. 11. Planned Development PD-08-004; and Environmental Impact Report EIR-09- 01. Project Location: 15881 Linda Avenue & 15950 Stephenie Lane. Property Owner/applicant: Mission Way Partners. a. Consider approval of a Planned Development to change the zone from R-1:8 to R-1:8:PD for a seven-lot subdivision, and a lot line adjustment between two parcels APNS 523-25-052 (formerly 020) and 051 (formerly 036) b. Consider Certification of the Environmental Impact Report Staff report made by Heather Bradford, Contract Planner. P a g e 8 Public Hearing Item #11 – Continued Council Comments  Requested clarification about the density and FAR for the project and if all the questions relating to the Environmental Impact Report have been mitigated.  Questioned if the Planned Development would establish footprints.  Questioned how maximum height would be determined through the Planned Development. Ms. Bradley  Clarified that the questions relating to the EIR have been mitigated.  Clarified that the footprints are part of the Planned Development and would be established with approval of the Planned Development as well as maximum heights, however specific details of the architectural design would not be included. Ms. Baily  Clarified that the maximum heights are based on the elevation in the Planned Development and each structure has a maximum height noted.  Commented that Council could modify the performance standards if there were concerns about the height or square footage. Mr. Martello  Clarified that when Council adopts a Planned Development they are adopting the performance standards which include height limitations and setback limitations.  Clarified that the Planned Development becomes the zoning for the property. Open Public Hearing Mr. Garner, Applicant  Commented that the applicants have reduced the number of lots from nine to seven and have created open spaces and eco-trails.  Commented that they are dedicated to the restoration of the creek and have submitted a plan for the restoration.  Commented that the homes comply with the General Plan and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) complies with CEQA.  Expressed concerns that there are neighboring homes with no setbacks and that their retaining walls are at the water level of the creek.  Commented that the dedicated open space was not considered in the FAR comparison.  Commented that the density of the proposed homes is comparable with the neighborhood.  Commented that the EIR has been recommended by the Planning Commission for certification. P a g e 9 Public Hearing Item #11 – Continued Ms. Sprock  Expressed concerns about what will happen to Ross Creek if the development is approved.  Commented that Ross Creek becomes a drainage basin in the winter with heavy water flow and erosion.  Commented against the development as proposed with seven homes and would prefer a development with three homes.  Questioned if the soil was tested for arsenic and lead as the farmers used to use these as pesticides.  Expressed concerns that the creek will dry up if they only allow a 10 foot riparian cooridor.  Commented that they should require a 100 foot riparian corridor for the homes. Council Comments  Questioned if Ms. Sprock feels that restoring the creek is a positive effort from the applicants. Ms. Sprock  Clarified that the creek restoration would be a positive, but with seven homes it is likely that the creek will not survive. Mr. Yoffee  Commented against the Planned Development application.  Expressed concerns about the merging of properties to form the property for the Planned Development.  Expressed concerns about letters sent to selective neighbors. Mr. Engin  Expressed concerns about the threatening letters to the neighbors surrounding the development.  Commented that the project went to State Court and that the State Court along with the Town’s Planning Commission rejected the project.  Expressed concerns about the FAR and density of the proposed homes.  Requested that Council reject the proposed application. Council Comments  Commented that the FAR and density have been mitigated and questioned why Mr. Engin feels that there is inconsistency in the staff report. P a g e 10 Public Hearing Item #11 – Continued Ms. Swanson  Expressed concerns that the development will increase the number of cars coming into the neighborhood and that there needs to be a stop sign on Loma Linda.  Commented that the street should be at least 36 feet wide to allow for parking on both sides of the street.  Commented that his main concern is traffic impacts to the neighborhood. Ms. Guadagna  Commented that she supports the proposed project.  Commented that the applicants are focused on quality and that their other developments have improved the neighborhoods. Ms. Olofsen  Commented that the creek is very shallow and will thrive with the restoration offered by the applicants.  Commented that she is an investor for the project and also owns a home on Linda Avenue. Mr. Stiteler  Commented on supporting the development and feels it will benefit the area and increase the values of homes in the neighborhood.  Commented that the EIR has been very detailed and that the developers have followed the process properly. Mr. Ryan  Commented against the proposed development and feels that the project submitted as a Planned Development ignores the rules.  Commented that the proposed homes do not fit the neighborhood.  Expressed concerns that the access to the homes is one lane and creates parking issues. Ms. McWaters  Commented on the height fluctuations of the creek water and that the proposed project is going to affect the flow of the creek.  Commented against the proposed project because the riparian corridor will be compromised unless the project is reduced. P a g e 11 Public Hearing Item #11 – Continued Council Comments  Requested clarification from Ms. McWater on how the proposed project would affect the water flow in the creek.  Questioned how the current neighbors whose properties sit on the creek are impacted by the winter water flow. Ms. McWaters  Commented that the proposed barriers would allow more water to come down into the creek which would affect the older homes whose property sits on the creek.  Commented that the neighbors have water flooding their backyards during the winter and often lose items during the flooding.  Commented that there would be more erosion of the land and the wildlife would be affected. Mr. Crites  Commented on the purpose of the Planned Development Ordinance Section 29.80.80 of the Town Code.  Commented that Section 2.4.2 of the General Plan defines the open space element and feels that the proposed application does not follow the policy.  Commented on Section 6.1 of the General Plan which describes a Planned Development policy as a tool for creating open space and feels that the proposed project does not follow the policy.  Commented on the FAR range and that it is inconsistent with the neighborhood. Council Comments  Questioned the difference between the net lot sizes listed by Mr. Crites and the ones shown in the staff report. Mr. Reed  Commented that the proposed development never started out as a compatible project with the neighborhood and although changes have been made there still should be sufficient setbacks along the creek.  Commented against the proposed development and requested Council consideration if approving the project to include the alternative which would allow four or five homes. P a g e 12 Public Hearing Item #11 – Continued Council Comments  Commented that setbacks are measured from differing locations and requested clarification from Mr. Reed as to where he considers the setbacks to begin. Mr. Reed  Clarified that he would begin the measurement at the top of the bank. Ms. Guzzetti  Commented on supporting the proposed development. Mr. Guzzetti  Commented on supporting the proposed development.  Commented that as a certified green builder, he will actively be engaged in as many of the green building elements for the proposed homes. Ms. Houston, Applicant  Commented that the project’s Environmental Impact Report considered the impacts of the Planned Development zoning, density, and aesthetics.  Commented that the Environmental Impact Report found the project consistent with density, FAR, and the General Plan.  Commented that the Planned Development zoning has been met and the environmental impacts have been addressed.  Commented that the lot size and density are all consistent with the Town Code.  Commented that the further submittal of the Architecture and Site will add review of minor architectural details of the homes.  Commented that the Town has complied with the Navigable Waters Map Act.  Commented that the project meets the Subdivision Map Act and the developers met the neighbors’ concerns by providing access to the creek from the property.  Commented for the record that Mr. Joman’s declaration is not supported by sufficient facts to determine whether Ross Creek is in fact a navigable stream. Ms. Bradley  Commented that originally staff recommended approval of the proposed development, however in support of the Planning Commission’s recommendation, staff recommends denial. Ms. Strelow  Commented that the structures are setback approximately 25 to 80 feet from the top of the bank and the structures are setback approximately 20 to 70 feet from the edge of the 100 year flood plain. Mr. Martello  Commented that Council should be cautious about the documentation provided by many experts. P a g e 13 Public Hearing Item #11 – Continued Council Discussions  Questioned where the 100 year flood line is located and how it is measured.  Questioned the impacts to Ross Creek if the development was approved. Ms. Strelow  Commented on the CEQA analysis and on the information obtained to determine the 100 year flood line.  Clarified that the 100 year flood line is located closer to the top of the banks.  Commented that all of the proposed homes are above the 100 year flood line and are not exposed to flood hazards. Council Discussions  Commented that the Environmental Impact Report provides an objective thorough analysis.  Questioned what soil tests were conducted.  Questioned the number of cars verses parking spaces and the traffic count for the project.  Questioned if there are safety concerns regarding the width of the road.  Questioned erosion prevention on part of the development.  Questioned if the alternative FAR calculation includes adjustments for slope. Ms. Bradley  Clarified that there was a phase one analysis conducted and the recommendation of the analysis was that no further testing was necessary due to the nature of the time which chemicals would have been used at the site and duration of the lapse in that time.  Commented that the traffic analysis determined that there would be about 5 morning peak hour trips and 6 evening peak hour trips added as a result of the project.  Commented that it was determined that there will be approximately 4 ½ parking spaces per unit, which is sufficient for homeowners and guests.  Commented that the street is 22 feet wide and the Fire Department has determined it is adequate.  Commented that there are bio-swells designed throughout the development to collect and treat water prior to disbursement into the creek.  Clarified that the average site slope is about 20%. Council Discussions  Requested clarification on the discrepancy of parcel square footage as stated on Page 5 staff report verses Mr. Crites table which was submitted during the public hearing. P a g e 14 Public Hearing Item #11 – Continued Ms. Bradley  Clarified that the staff report excludes the creek area and water distribution.  Commented that the staff report refers to the gross lot size of parcel one.  Commented that the common open space is considered a separate parcel.  Clarified that the net buffer and riparian canopy were deducted from Mr. Crites table. Council Discussions  Questioned where a performance standard is located within the report. Ms. Baily  Clarified that Attachment 17 of the staff report is the Ordinance and lists the performance standards. Closed Public Hearing MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski to accept the Planning Commission's findings and recommendations in the form of meeting minutes (Attachment 9.) Seconded by Council Member Steve Rice. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Steve Rice to uphold the Planning Commission’s recommendation to certify the Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 2) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 3 of Attachment 3.) Seconded by Council Member Mike Wasserman. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. P a g e 15 Public Hearing Item #11 – Continued Council Discussions  Commented that staff has made it clear within the staff report that this is a project that could be approved.  Commented on supporting the FAR calculations and feels that they are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.  Commented that the massing proposed for the seven homes meets the Town’s design guidelines.  Commented that there is no benefit to reducing mass or square footage of the proposed homes.  Commented that the Architecture and Site application is still with the Planning Commission and has not been recommended to Council at this time.  Suggested that the Architecture and Site portion of the Planned Development go back to the Planning Commission.  Expressed concerns about supporting a motion that defines the Architecture and Site issues.  Clarified that the intent is not to have the Planning Commission redesign. Mr. Martello  Suggested that Council include in the motion to accept the overall comprehensiveness of the science within the Environmental Impact Report and acknowledge that Council is satisfied with the answers presented within the report opposed to other information presented tonight. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Steve Rice to adopt the findings supporting the zone change (Attachment 4) and approve the application subject to the performance standards included in the Planned Development ordinance and introduce ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos effecting the zone change from R-1:8 to R-1:8 PD (Attachment 17.) Seconded by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski. Council Discussions  Commented that with regards to the Architecture and Site application Council has reviewed a very complete package with some minor issues such as design and massing of the homes.  Commented that the design and how the homes look should be brought to the Planning Commission through the Architecture and Site application.  Commented that the completeness of the Environmental Impact Report was outstanding.  Questioned if more information regarding the rationale of Council’s approval other than referring to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan and the Reporting Program needs to be stated as part of the motion. P a g e 16 Public Hearing Item #11 – Continued Mr. Martello  Clarified that because there were a lot of other reports that had to do with science presented to Council, the recommendation would be to clarify for the record that Council understands the document provided by the consultants and that it is the document that Council would use to approve the project.  Suggested that Council could use wording such as “persuaded to support the project based on those scientific studies.” Council Discussions  Questioned if the Maker of the Motion plans to change paragraph one or paragraph three of the Planned Development.  The Maker of the Motion clarified that his intent was to send the Architecture and Site Application back to the Planning Commission.  Clarified that he was not directing the Planning Commission to make a reduction in size and views the footprint as the envelope and does not want to see them move closer to the creek. Council Discussions  Direction to the Planning Commission would be to allow some flexibility to have input on the Architecture and Site application, but at the same time there are basic elements decided which have been embedded by the Town’s consulting architect and by the process which Council has been through.  The Maker of the Motion clarified that the motion reflects that the size, the location, and the footprint of the proposed homes is pretty much settled. Ms. Baily  Clarified that staff could add wording to keep the footprint the same and to not move the homes any closer to the riparian corridor.  Clarified that the Architecture and Site application is a separate issue and will be decided by Planning Commission based on Council’s decision. Mr. Martello  Clarified that because the footprint of the homes is so critical to the analysis, for the view sheds, setbacks, FAR, and riparian corridor, the footprint and height of the proposed home is pretty much set.  Suggested that it would be consistent to have a condition read “that the footprint is determined as part of the Planned Development application process with the Architecture and Site application sent to the Planning Commission with direction that they may make minor changes such as final movement of windows, rooflines, and things like that.” P a g e 17 Public Hearing Item #11 – Continued Council Discussions  The Maker of the Motion and the Seconder agreed to amend the motion to include “that the footprint, square footage, and height shall be consistent with the Planned Development plans.” AMENDED MOTION: Motion by Council Member Steve Rice to adopt the findings supporting the zone change (Attachment 4) and approve the application subject to the performance standards included in the Planned Development ordinance and introduce ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos effecting the zone change from R-1:8 to R-1:8 PD (Attachment 17) and to include the following additional wording: That the footprint, square footage, and height shall be consistent with the Planned Development plans. Seconded by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski. VOTE: Motion passed 4/1. Council Member Barbara Spector voted no. OTHER BUSINESS  There was no Other Business scheduled for this meeting. ADJOURNMENT Attest: ______________________________ Jackie D. Rose, Clerk Administrator