M10-03-11P a g e 1
Council/Agency Meeting 10/17/11
Item #7
MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY MEETING
OCTOBER 3, 2011
The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on Monday,
October 3, 2011 at 7:00 P.M.
TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CLOSED SESSION BEGAN AT 6:00 P.M.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Joe Pirzynski, Vice Mayor Steve Rice, Council Member Steven
Leonardis, Council Member Diane McNutt, and Council Member Barbara Spector.
Absent: None.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Keith Kulick from Fisher Middle School led the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience was
invited to participate.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
Judith Propp, Town Attorney
- Commented that Council met in closed session to discuss the three items listed on
the agenda.
- Commented that the Town Council took no reportable action as to the first item.
- Commented that regarding the AFSCME labor negotiation, the Town Council
authorized negotiators to complete the process and return to Council with the final
agreement.
- Commented that the Town Council authorized retention of outside counsel
regarding the third item, the pending litigation.
TOWN COUNCIL MATTERS
There were no Council Matters for this meeting.
P a g e 2
TOWN MANAGER MATTERS
Greg Larson, Town Manager
- Commented that the Town Garage Sale took place October 1, 2011 with 150
participating locations, of which 100 were pre-registered online.
- Commented that Friends of the Library paperback book sale sold 100 items on
October 15, 2011.
- Commented that there are 21 vacancies on nine boards and commissions and that
the deadline to apply is October 13, 2011.
- Commented that the new library contractor completed parking improvements,
resulting in 12 new parking spaces.
Did You Know??
Kerry Harris, Sgt. Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department
- Commented that Los Gatos/Monte Sereno Police Department and CERT provide
information and trainings to prepare the community for a disaster.
- Commented that for personal emergency preparedness, residents should have
items on the 72 hour emergency supply list as well as a family communication and
reunion plan.
- Commented that more information is available at
www.LosGatosCa.gov/LosGatosPrepared
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Approve implementation of the Arts Plan as recommended by the Arts and Culture
Commission.
2. Authorize the Town Manager to proceed with explorations of the lease or sale of
Town properties.
3. Adopt a resolution authorizing the Town Manager to execute the FY 2011/12
Community Development Block Grant City-County contract with the County of
Santa Clara.
4. Adopt resolution making determinations and approving the reorganization of
territory designated Blossom Hill Manor No. 12, containing approximately .25 acres
located at 16380 Oleander Avenue (APN 523-13-049). File #AN11-022
P a g e 3
Consent Items - Continued
5. Authorize the Town Manager to execute a fourth amendment to the agreement
between the Town of Los Gatos and the City of Campbell through June 30, 2013 to
provide services for underground utility locating requests.
6. PPW Job No. 11-03 University Avenue Guardrail Replacement Project 411-812-
0119.
a. Authorize the Town Manager to execute a construction
contract with Midstate Barrier Inc., in an amount not to
exceed $175,380.
b. Authorize staff to execute future change orders to the
construction contracts as necessary in an amount not to
exceed $15,000.
7. Conditional Use Permit U-11-013. Property Location: 109 W. Main
Street. Property Owner: Sue Farwell. Applicant: Lisa Rhorer. Consider a
request for approval to operate a retail marketplace, wine establishment,
and cafe (Cento Nove) with beer and wine service on property zoned C -
2:LHP. APN 529-01-025 (Continued from 9/19/11).
8. North 40 Specific Plan Monthly Update.
- Council Member Diane McNutt pulled Consent Item #8.
TOWN COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
9. Approve Council/Agency minutes of September 19, 2011.
10. Accept staff’s recommendation that the Town not implement a downtown employee
parking permit program.
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Barbara Spector to approve Consent
Items #1-10, exclusive of Item #8.
Seconded by Vice Mayor Steve Rice.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
P a g e 4
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (Up to three minutes may be allotted to each
speaker to address matters that are not on tonight’s agenda.)
Mr. Guardino, Ms. Garcia-Koty, and Ms. Lindeman
- Invited the public to join in the Applied Materials Silicon Valley Turkey Trot to be
held on Thanksgiving Day to help raise money for three local non-profits.
- Thanked Mayor Pirzynski, Council Member Spector, Town Manager Larson, Chief
Seaman, and Commissioner Sayoc for their previous support.
- Commented that last year Los Gatos was the winner of the Extra Small City Mayor’s
Cup Community Challenge.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
11. Planned Development PD-10-004, and Negative Declaration ND-10-002.
Project Location: 16213 Los Gatos Boulevard. Property Owner: Margaret R.
Bishop. Applicant: Santa Clara Development Company.
a. Consider approval of a planned development to change the zone from CH
to RM:5-12:PD, to demolish the existing auto dealership buildings to
construct 22 single-family residences. APNs 529-18-031 & 055.
b. Consider adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan.
Suzanne Davis, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Council Questions
- Questioned why there was no fiscal impact analysis performed.
Mr. Larson
- Commented that no fiscal analysis was requested for this project and that the
property was vacant for over six months.
Ms. Davis
- Commented that a General Plan policy states that residential development is the
preferred land use south of Roberts Road and that the Boulevard Plan states the
same, south of Shannon Road.
P a g e 5
Public Hearing Item #11 – continued
Mr. Robson, Project Applicant
- Commented that the present condition of the property is blight .
- Commented that the projected will include significant landscape upgrades and other
public improvements.
- Commented that according to the goals of the Boulevard plan, there will be various
architectural designs for the 22 homes.
- Commented that the proposed project preserves view sheds.
- Commented that the project will include traffic calming devices.
Council Comments
- Requested to view the video the applicant prepared.
- Questioned whether the applicant has considered the need for sidewalks and a
driveway-type entrance to create a courtyard feel rather than a through-street.
- Questioned how the applicant determined the density for this project.
- Questioned whether the site plan includes the single Below Market Program
(“BMP”) unit.
- Questioned why one BMP unit is on-site and the other unit is off-site
Mr. Robson
- Clarified that sidewalks are not required, based on the Town’s civil engineer’s
recommendation.
- Clarified that there are driveways, which will have pavers.
- Commented that the houses are sited appropriately to match areas where there is a
higher density of homes.
- Clarified that the site plan includes one on-site BMP and another off-site BMP, but
that the off-site BMP has not been identified specifically.
- Commented that the off-site BMP will be a low-income for-sale unit, which the Town
currently does not offer.
- Commented that the off-site BMP would be available more quickly, allowing for low
interest rates.
- Clarified that both BMP units could be on site but they would be consistent with
some of the smaller homes on site.
Tim Boyd
- Expressed concern about the amount of development occurring in the Town and its
effects on schools.
Council Comments
- Questioned whether the Town Attorney would clarify the law affecting the Council’s
constraint on making land use decisions based on school impacts.
P a g e 6
Public Hearing Item #11 – continued
Ms. Propp
- Commented that under state law, the Town is prohibited from using school impact s
as a consideration for approving or denying a project.
- Commented that the Town is restricted and may only collect statutory impact fees
and what the developer offers to pay.
Mr. King
- Expressed support for the proposed project.
Mr. Alarcon
- Expressed concern about the proposed project.
Ms. Braga
- Expressed concern about the proposed project.
- Commented that when she added a second story to her home, she had to remain
within prescribed Floor Area Ratios (FAR) and conform to the design guidelines of
the neighborhood.
Council Comments
- Questioned the improvements that Ms. Braga referred to.
Ms. Brown
- Expressed concern about the proposed project.
Ms. Garza
- Expressed support for the proposed project, but expressed concern about traffic
impacts.
Mr. Larson
- Clarified that the applicant voluntarily completed a traffic study.
- Commented that the school district provided student generation rates.
Ms. Witter
- Expressed concern about the proposed project.
Mr. Allen
- Expressed concern about the proposed project.
Ms. Quintana
- Expressed concern about the proposed project.
P a g e 7
Public Hearing Item #11 – continued
Ms. Davis
- Commented that residential uses in a Planned Development are possible with a use
permit.
Ms. McBriarty
- Expressed concern about the proposed project.
Mr. Metz
- Expressed support for the proposed project.
Ms. Bryant
- Expressed support for the proposed project.
Ms. Kuehn
- Expressed support for the proposed project.
Mr. Lyles
- Expressed concern about the proposed project.
Council Comments
- Clarified that the applicant of 11 proposed houses to which Mr. Lyles referred
withdrew the application.
Ms. Leung
- Expressed concern about the proposed project.
Ms. Yamamoto
- Expressed concern about the proposed project.
Mr. Campisi
- Expressed support for the proposed project.
P a g e 8
Public Hearing Item #11 – continued
Mr. Robson
- Clarified that residents who live in the development will walk to school.
- Commented that residential use is the lowest generator of traffic.
- Commented that retail will generate 10 times as much traffic as residential; an office
use will generate twice as much traffic as residential use.
- Commented that driveways have long aprons, so additional parking will be
available.
- Commented that the homes will have attics, so residents will have room to store
their belongings in places other than their garage.
- Commented that the density of the project mirrors the density in other nearby
developments, and the density is appropriate given the proximity to services.
Council Comments
- Questioned why the applicant did not pursue a higher density project with a different
format, such as with townhomes or a senior housing project.
- Questioned the methodology and results of the traffic analysis.
Mr. Robson
- Commented that he made a presentation to CDAC with a higher density and mixed
use components, which CDAC did not support.
- Commented that the 22 homes were supported by the CDAC because the densi ty is
appropriate for the site.
- Commented that the scale of the homes is very small and there are adequate
setbacks, so the density will not be as obvious.
- Commented that the architecture and site process will allow for further refinement of
the project.
- Commented that the project would offer $150,000 to mitigate the impacts to
schools.
Mr. Black
- Clarified that a recent court decision affected the method for CEQA traffic analysis.
- Clarified that the level of service at nearby intersections was not affected by the
increased traffic.
Closed Public Hearing
P a g e 9
Public Hearing Item #11 – continued
Council Comments
- Commented that the Planning Commission worked arduously, but split 3-3 on the
final decision regarding the various aspects on the project.
- Commented that the final motion from the Planning Commission had a 5-1 vote for
a recommendation to the Town Council of residential only with 2 BMP units on-site.
- Commented that this project offers an important transition on Los Gatos Boulevard
from commercial to residential after Roberts Road or Shannon Road.
- Commented that the Boulevard Plan and the General Plan supports the conversion
to residential.
- Commented that courtyard-type driveways will provide visual cues that will
discourage cut-through traffic, such that only homeowners and their guests would
enter that area.
- Commented that sidewalks on the interior streets would not be necessary if the
courtyard-type interior is available as a play area.
- Commented that the four bedroom BMP and for-sale unit for low income residents
would further the goals of the policy.
- Commented that if both BMP units were located on-site, the density would increase
to 23.
- Commented that the General Plan states that land use decisions should make
available as many different kinds of units for various income levels.
- Commented that if the BMP units were located on site, then they should not be
made obvious as the BMP units.
- Commented that sidewalks on the interior streets are not necessary.
- Commented that allowing the two BMP units as proposed would offer two types of
BMP units not in the Town’s current BMP inventory.
- Commented that off-site BMP units should not cluster with other BMP units.
- Commented that residential is the lowest traffic generation use.
- Commented that retail space should be preserved.
- Questioned the economic ramifications of re-zoning the land to residential.
Mr. Larson
- Commented that staff cannot divulge specific sales tax revenue; however, as a rule
of thumb, car dealers generated sales tax in the amount of about $500,000 per
year, prior to the recession.
- Commented that it is not likely that new car dealers would locate on this site.
- Commented that the Town has four luxury car dealerships.
- Commented that residential use generates the lowest traffic impact.
P a g e 10
Public Hearing Item #11 – continued
Council Comments
- Commented that the purpose of the rule for BMP units being built on-site is because
developers used to just pay in-lieu fees, but would not actually build any affordable
units.
- Commented that the loss of the former school on the current Jewish Community
Center site changed the school-related traffic flow, resulting in traffic issues today.
- Commented that the density of this project is appropriate.
Mayor Joe Pirzynski directed Mazarin Vakharia, Clerk Administrator, to read the title of
the proposed ordinance.
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Diane McNutt to waive the reading of
the proposed ordinance.
Seconded by Vice Mayor Steve Rice.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
Council Comments
- Commented that according to the Boulevard Plan and the General Plan, residential
use is the most appropriate for this land.
- Commented that car dealerships will not return because their business model has
changed.
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Diane McNutt to accept the Planning
Commission's recommendations in the form of meeting minutes.
Seconded by Vice Mayor Steve Rice.
VOTE: Motion passed 4/1. Council Member Steven Leonardis voted
no.
The following comments were made prior to the vote:
Council Comments
- Commented that this property has future economic viability for commercial use.
P a g e 11
Public Hearing Item #11 – continued
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Diane McNutt to adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (Exhibit 2 to Attachment 4) and the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan (Attachment 1).
Seconded by Vice Mayor Steve Rice.
VOTE: Motion passed 3/2. Council Member Steven Leonardis and
Council Member Barbara Spector voted no.
The following comments were made prior to the vote:
Council Comments
- Commented that the Mitigated Negative Declaration supports 22 units, which is too
dense.
- Commented that the neighboring properties have five to six units per acre and this
project has 11.6 units per acre, so density is an issue.
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Diane McNutt to adopt the findings
supporting the zone change in Attachment 2 and Application
subject to the performance standards in the Planned Development
Ordinance introduce the Ordinance in the Desk Item, with the
exception of Section 2 Condition 4 of the Desk Item.
Seconded by Vice Mayor Steve Rice.
VOTE: Motion passed 3/2. Council Member Steven Leonardis and
Council Member Barbara Spector voted no.
The following comments were made prior to the vote:
Council Comments
- Commented that given the Boulevard Plan and the General Plan, a residential use
is acceptable on this property.
- Commented that that in this one case, one BMP unit could be located on -site and
the other one would be off -site.
- Commented that the density of 22 units per 1.9 acres is too dense and the positive
results from the development could occur with fewer units per acre.
- Commented that this density is allowed because of the Planned Development
Ordinance, which relaxes the standards for setbacks, parking, and limitations on lot
coverage.
- Commented that more open space with good design can occur with less density.
- Commented that density cannot just be defined by homes per acre.
- Commented that Almond Grove is a dense project that is a crowning jewel.
- Commented that smaller homes are underrepresented in this community.
P a g e 12
Mayor Joe Pirzynski requested a recess at 9:25 p.m. The meeting resumed at
9:35 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
12. PPW Job No. 10-15 Los Gatos Creekside Sports Park 411-831-4402.
a. Review and approve the Creekside Sports Park Master Plan.
b. Direct staff to explore options for providing pedestrian sidewalk access to the
sports park from Lark Avenue to the sports park entrance on University Avenue.
c. Direct staff to explore alternative alignments for a pedestrian bridge connection
between the Los Gatos Creek Trail and the Creekside Sports Park.
Christy Wolter, Parks and Facilities Superintendent, presented the staff report.
Council Questions
- Requested a description of the tot lot.
- Questioned how many parking space the public could access at 980 University.
- Questioned how to protect the parking spaces at 950 University.
- Questioned the operational guidelines described in the master plan.
- Questioned whether the park is open every day or just when scheduled.
- Commented that the park should not sit idle because there are many potential uses
with various partner programs.
Ms. Wolter
- Commented that the tot lot include one medium-sized climbing structure.
- Commented that parking spaces will be protected by signage, patrol, and an onsite
manager.
- Commented that potential users would commit to educate the users about parking
regulations.
- Commented that operational guidelines will depend on the final use agreement.
Ms. Outler
- Expressed support for the proposed project.
Ms. McBriarty
- Expressed concern about the proposed project.
Ms. Wolter
- Commented that the award for the traffic signal at that intersection of University and
Lark Avenues will come before the Council on October 17, 2011.
P a g e 13
Public Hearing – Item #12, Continued
Mr. San Juan
- Expressed support for the proposed project.
Closed the Public Hearing
Council Comments
- Questioned the status of the grant with the Santa Clara Water Valley District.
Ms. Wolter
- Commented that the grant has been approved and that Town has five years to
execute a pedestrian bridge.
- Commented that the funds would need to be returned if the Town decides not to
build a bridge connection to the trail.
- Commented that the purpose of grant funding is to connect trails to recreational
facilities and extend the trail system.
MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Steve Rice to approve the
recommendations of Staff of the revised Creekside Master Plan as
reflected in the Desk Item; direct staff to explore options for
providing pedestrian sidewalk access to the sports park from Lark
Avenue to the sports park entrance on University Avenue; and
direct staff to explore alternative alignments for a pedestrian bridge
connection between the Los Gatos Creek Trail and the Creekside
Sports Park.
Seconded by Council Member Barbara Spector.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
Pulled Consent Item #8
8. North 40 Specific Plan Monthly Update.
Council Comments
- Expressed concern about moving down a path that may be unfair to developers and
the community.
- Commented that there will be technical and environmental review of plans that may
not be approved and that there will be public perception that the environmental
review underway is for projects sponsored by the Town.
- Commented that there will be more detail when the staff report comes back.
- Council could give its input and then it could go back to the advisory committee,
not to circumvent the process but to add a recommendation from Council.
P a g e 14
Pulled Consent Item #8 – Continued
Mr. Larson
- Commented that there are two options for the Council:
1. Provide a conceptual review of the project, similar to the process followed for the
sports park.
2. Convene another joint meeting Town Council and Planning Commission with the
North Forty Advisory Committee.
Council Comments
- Commented that the General Plan Advisory Committee struggles with processing
applications every single meeting.
- Commented that when the sports park came to the Council, it was very far along
and the North Forty should not feel that way.
- Commented that convening a joint meeting may be advisab le.
- Commented that the Committee should get a chance to come to some closure and
provide updates to Council.
Ms. Rooney
- Commented that this will be an iterative process and that timing is important.
- Commented that this is a Specific Plan, not an application or a project.
Council Comments
- Commented that staff should analyze what information environmental review
exactly defines before going forward with a joint meeting with Town Council,
Planning Commission, and the North Forty Advisory Committee.
- Commented that it is not particularly important to complete this project before the
Council and Planning Commission members change.
- Commented that any joint meeting should occur in Council Chambers and be
televised.
Mr. Larson
- Commented that the only action is for Council to accept the staff report.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m.
Attest:
/s/Mazarin A. Vakharia
Clerk Administrator