Loading...
M02-01-101 MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FEBRUARY 1, 2010 The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on Monday, February 1, 2010 at 7:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION BEGAN AT 5:30 P.M. TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING CALLED TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Diane McNutt, Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski, Council Member Steve Rice, Council Member Barbara Spector, Council Member Mike Wasserman Absent: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Dylan Doblar, Alta Vista Elementary School led the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience was invited to participate. PRESENTATIONS Board/Commission/Committee - end of term commendations • Art Selection Panel - Sol Carson, Victor Nemechek • Arts Commission - Valerie Hopkins, Marianne Hamilton • Architectural Standards - Peggy Dallas • Building Board of Appeals - Tom Kane • Community Services - Nancy Marcus • General Plan - Margaret Smith • Transportation & Parking - Bruce Entin Mayor Diane McNutt presented commendations to the outgoing Board, Commission, and Committee Members for their years of volunteer service to the Town. Mr. Entin, Ms. Hamilton, Ms. Hopkins, and Ms. Dallas were present to accept their commendations, thanked the Town for the opportunity to volunteer in their community and urged all residents to volunteer. 2 CLOSED SESSION REPORT PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Government Code Section 54957) Title: Town Manager PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT (Government Code Section 54957) Title: Town Attorney CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Government Code Section 54957.6) Agency Negotiator: Rumi Portillo, Human Resources Director Unrepresented Employee: Town Manager CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54956.8) Properties: 20 Dittos Lane (Assessor Parcel Number 529-29-034) Negotiating parties: Town of Los Gatos (Negotiator: Bud Lortz, Deputy Town Manager) Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment Mr. Martello stated that direction was given and no reportable action was taken for the Closed Session items on January 26, 2010 and February 1, 2010. TOWN COUNCIL COUNCIL/TOWN MANAGER REPORTS Council Matters There were no Council Matters for this meeting. 3 Council/Manager Matters – Continued Manager Matters Mr. Larson • Commended the Friends of the Library for hosting another one of their successful programs last Friday night which included 10 minute plays. • Thanked the Friends of the Library for their ongoing support for the Town’s Library and literary services. • Commented on two acts of vandalism and graffiti at Blossom Hill Park which extended to Blossom Hill School and stated that staff responded quickly to paint over the graffiti. • Suggested that any residents with information regarding the vandalism may call the Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department at 408-354- 8600. • Commented that the Town has suffered two days of fatal accidents that have led to arrests for vehicular manslaughter. • Commented that these tragic circumstances highlight the need to emphasize safe driving and safe streets. • Commented that the Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department has applied for a Federal and State grant to enhance the Town’s traffic enforcement capability in the community. • Commented on the Town's street tree maintenance program which is required by Town ordinance. • Commented that Council recently approved a contract which would continue the ongoing regular street tree maintenance program and that program will be starting in two weeks as it usually does this time of year. Did You Know…? Sgt. J.R. Langer, Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department • Commented on the Helmet Awards Program that is funded by the Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Foundation. • Commented that the program gives recognition to children practicing safe bicycle riding skills, by distributing coupons for free ice cream to children wearing helmets. • Commented that more information can be found on the Police Foundation’s website at www.lgmspolicefoundation.org or by calling 408- 827-8655. 4 CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) 1. Approve Council minutes of January 26, 2010 Special Meeting 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth in Santa Clara County. 3. Accept Investment Reports for Second Fiscal Quarter 09/10 (October through December 20, 2009) 4. Adopt ordinance amending Articles I and IV of Chapter 23 of the Los Gatos Town Code to prohibit roadway solicitations. ORDINANCE 2185 5. Adopt ordinance to change the zone from C-1 to C-1: PD to demolish an existing supermarket (Safeway) and construct a new supermarket (Safeway) with underground parking. APN 529-07-083. Planned Development Application PD-09-02. Negative Declaration ND-09-03. Property Location: 470 N. Santa Cruz Avenue Property Owner/Applicant: Safeway Incorporated. ORDINANCE 2186 6. PPW Job No. 09-12 - FY 2009/10 - Retaining Wall Replacement Project At Cleland Avenue a. Adopt resolution declaring RP Engineering Company to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project and award a construction contract in an amount not to exceed $131,577. RESOLUTION 2010- 011 b. Authorize staff to execute future change orders to the construction contract as necessary in an amount not to exceed $20,000 7. Approve Council/Agency minutes of January 19, 2010 8. PPW Job No. 09-08 - Library Utility Undergrounding Project 472-821- 2104 a. Adopt resolution declaring Lewis & Tibbits, Incorporated to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project and award a construction contract in an amount not to exceed $ 171,665 RESOLUTION 2010-012 b. Authorize staff to execute future change orders to the construction contract as necessary in an amount not to exceed $20,000 5 Consent Items – Continued Council Member Joe Pirzynski • Commented regarding Consent Item #4. • Expressed concerns about safety issues with the soliciting occurring primarily on N. Santa Cruz Avenue and Highway 9. • Requested clarification if some type of intervention could occur prior to the 30 day wait period required as part of adopting an ordinance. Mr. Martello, Interim Town Attorney • Clarified that typically before new ordinances are enforced there is a public education program with people that might be affected. • Suggested starting a public information campaign during the 30 day waiting period so that people are aware that there is a new law requiring them to leave the public right-of-way if they are soliciting, and that they would be subject to citation once the ordinance takes effect. Council Member Barbara Spector • Clarified that there is a desk item on Consent Item #5. Mr. Martello • Clarified that there was language in the ordinance that did not address clearly Council’s decision regarding the left hand turn lane or the direction of traffic in the back alley. • Clarified that Planning Condition #13 did address the issues, so the Desk Item combines them and makes them very clear and also tracks the permit conditions and litigation measures. Mayor Diane McNutt pulled Consent Item #5 so that Council could review the Desk Item prior to the vote. Mr. Davis pulled Consent Item #3. Mayor Diane McNutt stated that the pulled Consent Items would be heard after Other Business. MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski to approve Consent Items #1, 2, 4, and #6-8. Seconded by Council Member Mike Wasserman. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 6 VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Knowles • Commended Ms. Hamilton and Ms. Hopkins for their participation with the Arts Commission, for joining the Music in the Park Committee and encouraged others to volunteer in their community. • Commented that the members of the Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Foundation are thrilled to be funding programs like the safe helmet program. Mr. Davis • Commented on concerns about retired employees coming back to work for the Town and he feels that it is "double-dipping.” • Commented that he respects the Town Manager’s decision to hire Mr. Lortz back to work on Redevelopment projects for the Town. • Commented that he does not like the architecture of the new Library and that it does not express community values or the natural beauty of the mountains. Closed Verbal Communications TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Conduct protest proceedings and consider adopting a resolution making determinations and approving the reorganization of territory designated Arnerich No. 2, approximately 63.7 acres, for property pre- zoned RC and HR-20 to obtain high quality services to the residences of the area and allow them a full voice in local government. (APNs: 537-11-009 & 030, 537-17-005, 018, 015, 020, 021, 024, 027 & 032.) Annexation Application AN08-003 RESOLUTION 2010-013 Staff report made by Jennifer Savage, Assistant Planner 7 Public Hearing Item #9 – Continued Opened Public Hearing Mr. Kokinos • Commented that he feels the report recommending the annexation of Anerich #2 has errors and omissions which have been brought to Council’s attention and may require Council to re-think their vote. • Commented that the Frankle/Hirsch parcel consists of two APN’s: 537-17- 005 and 537-17-006 and that only parcel 537-15-005 is contemplated in this annexation proposal. • Expressed concerns that the proposed annexation creates a situation where one of the Frankle/Hirsch APN’s would remain in the county and one would be annexed into Town. • Commented that this would create a split jurisdiction and he feels that it would create a difficult situation when it comes to delivery of services. • Commented that the staff report on the proposed annexation includes parcel 537-07-019, which was not as part of the notification. • Commented that there is a LAFCO violation because of how the proposed annexation affects Hicks Road. • Requested clarification as to whether APN 537-17-019 is considered to be a part of the annexation. • Expressed concerns that it is confusing since the APN is listed on both the Site Map and Vicinity Map, but was not included as part of the notification process. Council Comments • Questioned what the significance is to Mr. Kokinos whether APN 537-07- 019 is in or out of the proposed annexation. • Clarified that the issue that is being focused upon tonight is whether or not the assessed value of the contesting land owners is greater than 50%, which staff concludes it is not, therefore the annexation can be approved. Mr. Kokinos • Commented that since APN 537-07-019 is listed in the previous reports as part of the annexation, but the annexation hearing does not include the APN, it creates potential conflicts for the land owner and the Town. • Commented that several land owners had given him petitions to rescind their support to submit to Council tonight as part of their protest of the annexation. • Requested that Council total the value of these petitions. • Clarified that the additional protests he is submitting will increase the assessed valuation in excess of 50%. 8 Public Hearing Item #9 – Continued Mr. Martello, Interim Town Attorney • Clarified that protests may be submitted, but asked staff to clarify if all of the property owners, including the ones with the new protests have been notified. Council Comments • Requested clarification from Mr. Kokinos if the petitions being submitted tonight bring the protest value over 50%. Mr. Kokinos • Clarified that at the current time the value is not up to 50%, but there are some outstanding petitions that could potentially change that this evening. Council Comments • Commented that the map shown by Mr. Kokinos includes a parcel that is not on any of the parcels listed in the staff report. • Questioned if the property owned by Mr. Lincoln, which was referenced earlier by Mr. Kokinos, is part of the annexation. Ms. Savage • Commented that exhibits displayed by Mr. Kokinos were received in the staff report at the Town Council meeting of December 21, 2009. The incorrect inclusion of that parcel that Mr. Kokinos points out was stated and noticed at the hearing and new exhibits were passed out. Ms. Hirsch • Commented that she owns two parcels and questioned why only one parcel is included in the proposed annexation. • Expressed concerns on how she would deal with the properties in a split jurisdiction. • Requested that her parcel not be annexed until the issue of a split jurisdiction can be resolved. Council Comments • Questioned if it is Ms. Hirsch’s desire to have both properties folded into the annexation. Ms. Hirsch • Clarified that she does not support the annexation, but the least favorite option is to have her parcels become a split jurisdiction. 9 Public Hearing Item #9 – Continued Council Comments • Requested clarification on Ms. Hirsch’s position that the proposed annexation did not allow for two parcels. • Questioned if staff could re-examine the assessed valuation to determine if it exceeds the 50%. • Questioned how Ms. Hirsh’s issue could be dealt with during the course of this hearing. Ms. Savage • Clarified that the current map that Council was provided was approved by the Assessor and the County Surveyor. • Commented that the issue of the split jurisdiction was brought to the Town's attention through the County Surveyor, but as explained by the County Surveyor, the Town cannot correct the issue through this annexation, rather the issue needs to be taken up with LAFCO by the individual property owners at a later date. • Clarified that staff will review the documents received tonight. Mr. Lincoln • Expressed concerns about the confusion of the boundaries of the proposed annexation map. • Questioned why his property is not on the annexation map since it had been before. • Expressed concerns of risks he may be facing in the future in regards to annexation. Mr. Kersten • Commented on supporting the annexation of his property. Ms. Pastorino • Commented that she is enjoying the results of the recent annexation of her property, the services which the Town provides, and is in support of the proposed annexation. • Complimented the Town on the ease of obtaining building permits and the service provided by the Planning Department. Ms. Perzow • Commented on supporting the proposed annexation and would like to benefit from being a part of the community. • Commended LAFCO, Town staff, and the County Surveyor's Office on the communication which has taken place to address the island issue and to make sure that the annexation process was understood. 10 Public Hearing Item #9 – Continued Mr. Sulic • Expressed concerns that the map which shows APN 537-17-006, owned by Ms. Hirsch, clearly shows that a portion of her property is located within the City of San Jose and is unsure how that happened. Mr. Weidert • Commented on supporting the proposed annexation and is looking forward to the services provided by the Town. Closed Public Hearing Ms. Savage • Clarified that the documents provided by Mr. Kokinos include two additional protest petitions by property owners. • Clarified that the property owners are the owners of the parcel located at 14090 Shannon Road. • Commented that after recalculating the percentage of protests, the new protest value was 43.9%, which was still less than 50% required by LAFCO to end an annexation process. • Commented that Council may still approve the annexation. Mr. Larson • Clarified that the documents submitted by Mr. Kokinos are for two property owners who own a single parcel at 14090 Shannon Road and takes the protest value to 43.9%. • Clarified that the documents Council has been given tonight do include information cited by Mr. Kokinos and the additional documents are irrelevant and a decision can be made by Council tonight. Council Comments • Questioned if the issues of errors and documentation brought up by Mr. Kokinos have been rectified by a subsequent document, or if APN’s as indicated are not necessarily as significant as the fact that Council has a map that shows us where the annexation is to take place. • Requested clarification to determine that there will be nothing down the road that will be problematic for the Town if the conflicts presented can be validated. 11 Public Hearing Item #9 – Continued Ms. Savage • Clarified that there are two properties that would be split between the Town and the City of San Jose. Currently they are split between the County and the City of San Jose. • Commented that the County Surveyor’s Office confirmed that this issue does occur on occasion and cannot be corrected through this process, but could be corrected with LAFCO after the annexation is approved by each individual property owner. Mr. Larson • Commented that through his review of the documents that Council has received tonight, they do accommodate for the issues raised by Mr. Kokinos. Parcel 537-07-019 is not included in the annexation, so to call it missing on the handout is irrelevant. • Clarified that APN 537-07-006 is not missing, because it is the portion that is within the City of San Jose and therefore was not included as part of the annexation. Mr. Martello • Commented that if the County portion of the split parcel were excluded, it would create a County island, which is exactly the opposite goal of the annexation. Council Comments • Commented that parcel 537-07-006 shown on Exhibit “B” of the map is not marked as part of the annexation, but it appears to be within the Town when looking at the map. • Requested clarification on the parcel as to whether it is in the City of San Jose or the Town of Los Gatos. Ms. Savage • Clarified that Exhibit “B” does not include parcel 537-07-006. 12 Public Hearing Item #9 – Continued Mr. Larson • Commented that in reviewing the documents, one issue has been identified. There was a typographical error in the parcel numbers referenced in the resolution attached to the staff report. Parcel number 31 is actually parcel number 32 as indicated in the staff report. MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski to adopt a resolution making determinations and approving the reorganization of territory designated Arnerich No. 2, approximately 63.7 acres, for property pre-zoned RC and HR-20 to obtain high quality services to the residences of the area and allow them a full voice in local government. (APNs: 537-11-009 & 030, 537-17-005, 018, 015, 020, 021, 024, 027 & 032.) Annexation Application AN08-003. Seconded by Council Member Mike Wasserman. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS 10. Reconsider decision denying an appeal of Planning Commission decision denying a request to demolish an existing single-family residence and to subdivide a .93 acre property into three lots 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 and Site Application S-08-30; Subdivision Application M-08-13; Negative Declaration ND-09-2. Property Location: 15928 Union Avenue. Property Owner: 217 O’Connor LLC. Applicant/Appellant: Tony Jeans Staff report made by Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner. 13 Other Business Item #10 – Continued Council Comments • Clarified that the reason the request for reconsideration of the application was made was to remand it back to Planning Commission with direction. • Commented that the concern with the original application was that the application was not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. • Requested clarification on the purpose of sending this back to the Planning Commission. • Clarified that the idea of reconsideration reopens the conversation of a two lot or three lot design in a different configuration than what had been presented to Council and the Planning Commission at their previous hearings. • Clarified that previously there was only one design to consider and now Council is presented with new information which includes two additional designs that may be more consistent with the General Plan. Open Public Comments Mr. Davis • Expressed concerns and disappointment that land use laws are passed in the Town of Los Gatos just to make money and are not in the public’s interest. Ms. Powell • Commented in opposition of the proposed project on behalf of the residents from Panorama Way, Union Avenue and Cambrian Way. • Commented that the project may be compatible with two lots, but not three lots. • Commented that she does not believe the three findings that must be made pursuant to the government code are able to be made, which would require the project to be denied. • Requested Council to deny the project and not remand back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Schwarz • Expressed concerns that if the project is remanded back to the Planning Commission, the neighborhood may feel a lack of confidence in the public process. • Commented on not supporting the proposed project and asked Council to deny it. 14 Other Business Item #10 – Continued Ms. Lynott • Commented that she does not support the proposed project and requested that Council deny the appeal. Mr. Jeans, Applicant • Commented that he provided new information to Council that the Planning Commission has not seen, which he feels justifies it to be sent back to the Planning Commission. • Requested clarification on the rationale used for density and site suitability and why it would not be applicable in this project. • Commented that if the project is remanded back to the Planning Commission, he will propose the project as a pie configuration and ask for slight modifications to widen the cul-de-sac from the 30 feet allowable to 40 feet at the frontage and give a little bit better lot configuration on the back-end. Mr. Mitchell • Commented that he believes that the property is only suitable for a two-lot subdivision. • Commented that if Council does not uphold the Planning Commission’s decision of denial, the project will come back to Council through the appeal process again. Mr. Buesing • Commented that he would like Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project. Mr. Esche • Commented that he does not support the proposed project because a three lot development is not suitable for the neighborhood. • Commented that the neighborhood extends farther then just Panorama Way. Mr. Mangano • Commented that he supports Logan and Powell in their comments against the proposed project. • Requested that Council provide clear direction if the project is remanded back to Planning Commission. Closed Public Comments 15 Other Business Item #10 – Continued MOTION: Motion by Council Member Steve Rice to remand the application back to Planning Commission for further review, in light of new information that was given at the Council meeting. Seconded by Council Member Barbara Spector. Council Discussions • The Maker of the Motion requested that the application be sent back with direction that the neighborhood compatibility issue should focus primarily on Panorama Way and Union Avenue as the neighborhood for the benefit of the applicant who specifically requested information on perspectives of density and site suitability. • The Maker of the Motion commented that he is not directing the Planning Commission specifically to a two or three lot sub-division. • The Maker of Motion commented that he is not directing the Planning Commission specifically as to the lot configurations as they go around the cul-de-sac. • Commented that density issues are less of a concern than the neighborhood compatibility issues. • Expressed concerns that the previous design and layout of the lots would have required specific architectural characteristics of the homes that would be built there. • Commented that every other street that ends in a cul-de-sac does have some lots that move around the cul-de-sac, so there would be a chance of lots that are pie shaped or rectangular configurations. • The Seconder agreed to the direction as proposed by the Maker of the Motion. • Clarified that Council has new information before them to take into consideration, which is the new design. Since there is new information, it must be remanded back to the Planning Commission. 16 Other Business Item #10 - Continued AMENDED MOTION: Amended Motion by Council Member Steve Rice to remand the application back to Planning Commission for further review, in light of new information that was given at the Council meeting and to include the following direction: • That the neighborhood compatibility issue should focus primarily on Panorama Way and Union Avenue as the neighborhood for the benefit of the applicant who specifically requested information on perspectives of density and site suitability. • That the motion is not directing the Planning Commission specifically to a two or three lot sub- division. • That the motion is not directing the Planning Commission specifically as to the lot configurations as they go around the cul-de-sac. Seconded by Council Member Barbara Spector VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Mr. Davis - Pulled Consent Item #3 • Expressed concerns that the Town Treasurer is no longer an elected position and that he feels that the public is not getting adequate reports regarding the Town’s funds. • Expressed concerns that he has not received any reports on the amount of money in the Town’s "slush fund," as he calls it or, as the Town employees call it, the designated reserve and was wondering what the value is now. Mr. Larson • Clarified that the Town does not have a "slush fund" and that all of the Town’s financial information and documents are available on the Town’s website and through Town Offices. • Commented that Council and the public will be receiving the Annual Financial Report at the Town Council meeting of February 16, 2010. • Clarified that the Town's designated reserve, which is common with most organizations, includes those funds that the Council has previously set aside for specified uses. 17 Pulled Consent Item #3 - Continued MOTION: Motion by Council Member Steve Rice to accept Investment Reports for Second Fiscal Quarter 09/10 (October through December 20, 2009) Seconded by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Diane McNutt - Pulled Consent Item #5 • Questioned if Council had any concerns relating to the Desk Item for Consent Item #5. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Steve Rice to approve Consent Item #5 as amended in the Desk Item. Seconded by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Attest: /s/ Jackie D. Rose _____________________________ Jackie D. Rose, Clerk Administrator