Loading...
M02-07-11 P a g e 1 MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FEBRUARY 7, 2011 The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on Monday, February 7, 2011 at 7:00 P.M. TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CALLED TO ORDER ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Joe Pirzynski, Vice Mayor Steve Rice, Council Member Steven Leonardis, and Council Member Barbara Spector. Absent: Council Member Diane McNutt. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE • James Marino, Los Gatos Youth Commissioner, led the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience was invited to participate. CLOSED SESSION REPORT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (ANNUAL) (Government Code Section 54957 (b)(1)) Title: Town Manager CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Government Code Section 54957.6) Agency Negotiator: Rumi Portillo, Human Resources Director Unrepresented Employee: Town Manager Ms. Propp, Town Attorney stated that direction was given and no reportable action was taken for the Closed Sessions of January 18, 2011 and January 22, 2011. 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 Los Gatos Library and Friends of the Library will be hosting the Silicon Valley Reads program on Friday, February 11, 2011. • Stated that Town Hall will be closed February 18-21, 2011 for electrical upgrades to the Civic Center. • Commented that the Mayor will be presenting the State of the Town address on Tuesday, February 22, 2011. Did You Know?? Pamela Jacobs, Assistant Town Manager • Presented an update on the Town’s Redevelopment Agency. • Commented about the downtown improvements, downtown business assistance, affordable housing, the Police Operations Building, and the new Los Gatos Library. • Commented that more information on the Town’s Redevelopment Agency can be found on the Town’s website at www.LosGatosCa.gov or by calling 408-354- 6832. CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) 1. Approve Council Minutes of: a. January 22, 2011 Council Retreat Meeting b. January 31, 2011 Special Meeting 2. PPW Job No. 11-10 - Energy Efficient Lighting Project - Approve plans and specifications for energy efficient lighting upgrades and authorize staff to advertise the project for bids. 3. PPW Job No. 10-21 - 123 Main Street Building Improvements - Reject bids for the 123 Main Street Building Improvements, approve plans and specifications, and authorize staff to rebid the project. 4. Adopt resolution denying an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a request to construct a single-family residence on property zoned R-1:8 and remanding the application to the Planning Commission for consideration of Architecture and Site Application S-09-33 at 15928 Union Avenue, Parcel 2. RESOLUTION 2011-006 P a g e 3 Consent Items – Continued 5. Adopt a resolution authorizing the Town Manager to execute an agreement with RRM Design Group to serve as a consultant to the Town for preparation of the North 40 Specific Plan, execute a reimbursement agreement for staff time, and execute an agreement for consultant time and resources associated with developing and processing the North 40 Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report. (No Resolution needed per Desk Item) TOWN COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 6. Approve Council/Agency minutes of January 18, 2011. 7. Adopt resolution in opposition to the Administration’s proposal to abolish Redevelopment Agencies in California. RESOLUTION 2011-005 Mr. Mangano • Pulled Consent Item #1b. Mayor Joe Pirzynski and Council Member Barbara Spector • Pulled Consent Item #5. Mayor Joe Pirzynski • Stated that pulled Consent Item #1b would be heard following Verbal Communications and pulled Consent Item #5 would be heard following the Public Hearings. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Barbara Spector to approve Consent Items #1a, 2,3,4,6, and 7. Seconded by Vice Mayor Steve Rice. VOTE: Motion passed 4/0. P a g e 4 VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Guardino • Invited Council to consider joining the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in Washington DC on March 15-17, 2011 or in Sacramento April 12-14, 2011 to support the question of “what would it take for employers to start producing manufacturing and technology jobs in the United States and in California again.” Mr. Mitchell • Expressed concerns about the process relating to the discussions for the Union Avenue Public Hearings by both the Planning Commission and Town Council. • Expressed concerns about neighborhood compatibility and the issue of Panorama Way and Union Avenue being included as part of the neighborhood. • Requested that any further hearings relating to Union Avenue be heard after any study session held with the Planning Commission and Town Council to address the issue of neighborhood compatibility. Mr. Calise • Would like to address the need for electric vehicle charging stations in Town by providing Mr. Capurso with a report which may provide the Town with more information. Mr. Silva • Expressed concerns about traffic in the downtown area and the speeding cars along Santa Cruz Avenue. • Suggested that the Town lower the speed limit for traffic along Santa Cruz Avenue from Main Street to Blossom Hill Road. • Questioned the downtown parking needs as stores expand in the downtown area. Closed Verbal Communications TOWN COUNCIL PULLED CONSENT ITEM 1b - January 31, 2011 Special Meeting Council Comments • Mayor Joe Pirzynski referred to the Addendum and Desk Item which included revised minutes. • Commented that the revisions were made on Page 5, under Council Discussion. P a g e 5 Pulled Consent Item #1b – Continued Council Comments - Continued • Commented that to clarify the intention of the Motion Maker the following bullet is requested to be added as the first bullet in "Council Discussions" following the motion. "Maker of the Motion clarified that it is up to the Planning Commission to consider all of the facts and if the Planning Commission decides to consider Leeward Court in determining neighborhood compatibility, that is acceptable." Mr. Mangano • Commented that the revised meeting minutes accurately reflect the Public Hearing. • Expressed concerns that his statement regarding a framework of what the neighborhood suggested as an alternative design was not included in the minutes. • Requested that his statement regarding the 2,700 square foot framework be added to the minutes. Council Comments • Suggested to include Mr. Mangano's statement relating to the proposed 2,700 square foot framework and to include both Mayor Joe Pirzynski's and Council Member Spector's revisions to the revised minutes for January 31, 2011. Mr. Larson • Clarified that a third bullet could be added to Mr. Mangano's statements that said "presented a proposed framework for future approval of the project." MOTION: Motion by Council Member Barbara Spector to approve the minutes of January 31, 2011 with the revised version that has been provided in the addendum, to include the revision in the Desk Item, and to include the modification as referenced by Mr. Larson in regards to Mr. Mangano's framework proposal. Seconded by Vice Mayor Steve Rice. VOTE: Motion passed 4/0. P a g e 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a request to add three stations to an existing personal service business (Maddox Hair Salon) operating in conjunction with a retail store on property zoned C-2. APN 541-45-014. File #U-10- 013. Conditional Use Permit U-10-013. Property location: 22 S. Santa Cruz Avenue. Property Owner/Applicant: Ronald Tate Appellant: Lance Tate. RESOLUTION 2011-007 Staff report made by Jennifer Savage, Associate Planner. Council Comments • Questioned if the current salon is in violation of the Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Savage • Clarified that the salon is in violation of the Conditional Use Permit as they are required to have 50% retail space. Open Public Hearing Mr. Tate, Applicant • Commented about the history of his rental properties. • Expressed concerns about trying to maintain a retail establishment at that location and said at the end of the year the orchid shop may leave. • Commented that the parking lot is used solely for his customers. • Requested that Council approve the location for three additional salon chairs. Mr. Resteni, Salon owner • Commented that his intention is to include additional retail within his salon. • Commented that he feels constricted and his business may not make it without the additional salon chairs. Council Comments • Questioned what Mr. Tate would propose for the orchid shop space if they leave. • Questioned if Mr. Tate charges the same rent per square foot for retail and salon space. • Questioned if Mr. Tate has tried to get other retail tenants in that space. • Commented that there are many opportunities to continue retail at the location. P a g e 7 Public Hearing Item #8 – Continued Mr. Tate • Clarified that he has no idea of what he would put into the orchid shop's space if they went out of business. • Commented that the salon can hold quite a bit of additional retail. • Clarified that he does not charge more per square foot for salon verses retail. • Clarified that the foot traffic is very limited and he has tried to encourage other retail shops for that location. • Commented that people go to the farmer’s market to get their fruit and vegetables then leave. They don’t tend to shop at that end of Santa Cruz Avenue. Ms. Hope • Commented that the foot traffic does not support a retail business. • Suggested granting the request and make it a win-win situation for everyone. Mr. Tate • Commented that when the shelving is completed, the salon will have about 50% retail. • Commented that the salon will not survive on retail alone. • Requested approval for the application for three additional booths at the current location. Council Comments • Expressed concerns about losing the retail space if Council were to allow more personal service at that location. • Questioned if the previous salon owner was in violation of their Conditional Use Permit. • Commented on the importance of maintaining retail presence on Santa Cruz Avenue. • Expressed concerns about parking if more salon chairs are added to that location. • Would like to see retail remain at that location. • Expressed concerns about more personal service space expanding at the location. • Commented that the type of proposed use does not fit the General Plan. • Expressed concerns about saturation of personal service salons in the downtown. • Questioned why the traffic stops just south of Willow Street Restaurant and if the reason may be the need for the right type of retail at the location. Closed Public Hearing P a g e 8 Public Hearing Item #8 – Continued MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Steve Rice to adopt resolution denying the appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a request to add three salon stations to an existing personal service business (Maddox Hair Salon) operating in conjunction with a retail store on property zoned C-2. Seconded by Council Member Steven Leonardis. VOTE: Motion passed 4/0. 9. Consider a request to allow outdoor seating, live entertainment, dance lessons, and exterior modifications for a restaurant (Pedro’s Restaurant) on property zoned C-2. Conditional Use Permit Application U-10-019. APN 529-04-090. Architecture and Site Application S-10-044. Property Location: 316 N. Santa Cruz Avenue. Property Owner: Peter Rizio. Applicant: Pedro’s Restaurant/Mike Dipietro. Staff report made by Jennifer Savage, Associate Planner. Council Comments • Clarified that Council was not setting precedence when approving 15 ½ N. Santa Cruz Avenue and is continuing to monitor the effectiveness of the rules and restrictions there. • Commented that there was discussion at the Planning Commission meeting about whether or not the chimney was going to be removed as part of the proposed Architecture and Site plans. Ms. Savage • Clarified that the Architecture and Site application could be approved at staff level, but staff has requested that the Architecture and Site application remain with the Conditional Use Permit. • Clarified that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the exterior plans which included the elimination of the chimney. Open Public Hearing Mr. Anderson, Architect • Clarified that they will not be able to save the chimney with the proposed plans, but the applicants are working with staff to come up with solutions to improve the patio. • Commented that they have 200 signatures from patrons of the restaurant supporting the expansion. P a g e 9 Public Hearing Item #9 – Continued Mr. Dipietro • Clarified that he did not know he was in violation when he hired the bands and stopped them when he found out. • Commented that Pedro’s is a family restaurant and will continue to be a family restaurant. • Commented that when he hired the bands the music did not go past 10:00 p.m. on weekends. • Commented that he does not want the restaurant to turn into a night club. • Requested that Council grant the application which would allow them to stay competitive in Town. Council Comments • Questioned why the music and dancing would allow him to stay competitive. Mr. Dipietro • Clarified that once they had added the music and dancing there was a large upswing in foot traffic and sales at the restaurant. Mr. Anderson • Commented that the music and dancing will bring renewed life to Pedro’s restaurant. • Commented that the renovation of the patio will add an additional lift to the restaurant. • Commented that Pedro’s wants to be an important part of the community. Mr. Dipietro • Commented that he does not want Pedro’s to become a night club, but remain a family restaurant. Council Comments • Questioned why Mr. Dipietro does not think that by adding live music and dancing that it should not be considered as a night club. • Expressed concerns about music being played after the applicant’s were made aware of the restrictions. • Questioned why Mr. Dipietro did not inform Council about the incident where music was recently hosted at the restaurant. • Questioned when the renovation would take place and if the applicants would mind if the renovation was conditioned to be done all at once. • Expressed concerns about drink service extending near the sidewalk. • Questioned if Mr. Dipietro feels that the windows provide a type of outdoor seating. P a g e 10 Public Hearing Item #9 – Continued Mr. Anderson • Clarified that types of music dictate the type of club and his music does not promote a night club atmosphere. • Clarified that the kind of music they hire appeals to a family atmosphere. • Commented that they would rather do all the renovation work at once. • Commented that they could add a planter or some type of structure to block off the sidewalk. Mr. Dipietro • Commented that his vision of a night club is a bar that hosts music and dancing from 9:00 to 2:00 a.m. • Clarified that the music recently hosted was not authorized by the manager and he was not aware of the incident until the next day. • Commented that the management staff would be trained to monitor the volume of music and if they feel it was too loud then they would request that the band lower the sound to a more enjoyable level. • Clarified that the staff will be trained to make sure that whoever sits on the patio has full food service. Closed Public Hearing Council Discussion • Expressed concerns that the application violates the current Alcohol Policy. • Expressed concerns about expanding the current Alcohol Policy, and that any approved Conditional Use Permit runs with the land. • Expressed concerns about the previous violations relating to live music at the establishment. • Commented that improvements would be welcomed and that Pedro’s is offering a different type of family entertainment. • Commented that the proposed use does not feel like a night club environment. • Expressed concerns that the application feels like an expansion of the bar. • Expressed concerns about not being able to contain the noise within the restaurant with the proposed plans for an open space area. • Expressed concerns about restricted parking in that area. • Clarified that they placed many restrictions when approving 15 ½ N. Santa Cruz Avenue. • Commented that the restaurant itself should be the ambiance and attraction to the customers. • Expressed concerns about the proposed architecture and losing the chimney and window treatments. • Questioned if the original Conditional Use Permit has a restriction to alcohol consumption with food service. P a g e 11 Public Hearing Item #9 – Continued Council Discussion - Continued • Questioned if Council can restrict alcohol service since the original Conditional Use Permit has been opened with the submittal of the Architecture and Site application. Ms. Savage • Clarified that the original Conditional Use Permit does not restrict alcohol consumption with food service. • Clarified that Council may impose the Town’s current Alcohol Policy since the proposed Architecture and Site application has been submitted. • Clarified that there is a section in the Conditional Use Permit within the recommended Conditions of Approval that includes the current Alcohol Policy language. Ms. Propp • Clarified that Council has before them, a request for a Conditional Use Permit modification and may make motions regarding conditions on the existing Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Larson • Clarified that the Town Code has a conditional use modification that states if anybody with a Conditional Use Permit intensifies the use, then that allows the Town to take action to revoke that use. Council Comments • Requested clarification that if there was no decision made on the Conditional Use Permit, then would the old language remains active. Mr. Larson • Clarified that the original language would remain active. Ms. Savage • Clarified that Pedro’s current Conditional Use Permit does allow alcohol services without food service at all locations within the restaurant. Mr. Larson • Suggested using Exhibit A and the Conditions of Approval therein. • Commented about the Conditions of Approval and that Items #7-10 have not been discussed at this time. P a g e 12 Public Hearing Item #9 – Continued Council Discussion • Expressed concerns about Condition #10 with regards to special events and sensitivity to noise levels traveling through the neighborhood. • Questioned if non-amplified music would be less of an issue. • Clarified that the application states that music would end at 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. • Questioned if the entertainment application is separate from the Architecture and Site application. • Requested clarification on staff’s recommendation regarding the hours of operation. Ms. Savage • Commented that the applicants clarified to staff that their intention was to end all live music by 10:00 p.m. • Clarified that staff recommended the hours of operation because they felt that the hours of operation would be easier to enforce as a majority of establishments close at the same time. • Clarified that the entertainment application is a separate issue from the Architecture and Site application. • Clarified the special event process for the proposed application. Mayor Joe Pirzynski re-opened the Public Hearing Mr. Dipietro • Clarified that there has never been any complaints from the music hosted at the establishment. • Commented that the music is an important part of the business now. • Commented that the music would end at 8:30 p.m. on weekdays and 10:00 p.m. on weekends. Mr. Anderson • Requested that Council continue the Item and have the applicants revise and bring back a more in-depth plan. Closed Public Hearing P a g e 13 Public Hearing Item #9 – Continued Council Discussion • Expressed concerns about the entertainment policy, hours of operation, conformance issues, architecture issues, and security issues. MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Steve Rice to continue the application to the Town Council meeting of March 21, 2011. Seconded by Council Member Barbara Spector. VOTE: Motion passed 4/0. PULLED CONSENT ITEM 5. Adopt a resolution authorizing the Town Manager to execute an agreement with RRM Design Group to serve as a consultant to the Town for preparation of the North 40 Specific Plan, execute a reimbursement agreement for staff time, and execute an agreement for consultant time and resources associated with developing and processing the North 40 Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report. (No resolution required per Desk Item) Council Member Spector • Expressed concerns about a reference in the staff report to a four or five story hotel within the North 40. • Clarified that the language of the original proposal that included 750 dwelling units and 580,000 square feet of non-residential use were considered ceilings not targets and for purposes of the General Plan approval the Town needed to have those types of specifics. • Clarified that LU-18 and LU-19 were focusing on the overlay for the North 40. • Commented that the General Plan Update Advisory Committee decided that a four or five story hotel was not something that they would approve. P a g e 14 Pulled Consent Item #5 – Continued Ms. Rooney • Clarified that there was a lot of discussion on what should be included as part of the General Plan. • Commented that the reference was provided for background. • Clarified that nothing has been established except for a ceiling. • Commented that the language came from the General Plan EIR in the project description when the document was written and published in March, 2010. In June, 2010 when it went through its various revisions and final EIR reviews the language was still in the document. • Commented that the language is a project description and is simply background and the scope of work and North 40 Specific Plan will determine dimensional standards for the North 40 and determine uses for the North 40. Mr. Larson • Suggested that Council, if approving the item, may provide direction that there should be no presumption of four of five story buildings or hotel until it is studied through the North 40 Specific Plan process. Council Discussion • Questioned how the Town gets proposals that are outside the scope of the General Plan, the Los Gatos Boulevard Plan, and the Commercial Guidelines. • Questioned what staff expects as an end result from the consultant. • Questioned if the Town is starting over with the new consultant or is the Town integrating the draft North 40 Specific Plan. Ms. Rooney • Clarified that the product that would come back from the consultant would be a mini zoning code for the North 40. • Clarified that the proposal from the consultant will have to be consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Larson • Clarified that the North 40 Specific Plan process, discussions, and analysis would come back with any recommendations for any exceptions to the General Plan, Los Gatos Boulevard Plan, and Commercial Design Guidelines and those would have to be flagged as exceptions and opportunities. P a g e 15 Pulled Consent Item #5 – Continued Council Discussion • Commented on the need for an oversight body such as the General Plan Update Advisory Committee. • Recommend that Council reinstate the General Plan Update Advisory Committee to act as the oversight body. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Barbara Spector to move to authorize the Town Manager to execute the documents designated as 1, 2, and 3 of the staff report, however, with regard to the agreement for consultant services, Scope of Services Sub Section G, to add as reference documents: the General Plan and the draft North 40 Specific Plan and also to have the General Plan Update Advisory Committee as the reviewing body/oversight committee. Seconded by Vice Mayor Steve Rice. VOTE: Motion passed 4/0. OTHER BUSINESS There is no Other Business scheduled for this meeting. ADJOURNMENT Attest: /s/ Jackie D. Rose ____________________________ Jackie D. Rose, Clerk Administrator