Loading...
M03-01-10 1 MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MARCH 1, 2010 The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on Monday, March 1, 2010 at 7:00 P.M. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Margaret Greer led the Pledge of Allegiance. The Audience was invited to participate. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Diane McNutt, Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski, Council Member Steve Rice, Council Member Barbara Spector, and Council Member Mike Wasserman. Absent: None. CLOSED SESSION REPORT CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Government Code Section 54957.6) Town Negotiators (Lead): Rumi Portillo, Human Resources Director Greg Larson, Town Manager Employee Organizations: Management Employees Confidential Employees Town Employees’ Association (TEA) Police Officers’ Association (POA) American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local No. 101 (AFSCME) Mr. Martello stated that direction was given and no reportable action was taken. 2 TOWN COUNCIL COUNCIL/TOWN MANAGER REPORTS Council Matters There were no Council Matters for this meeting. Manager Matters Mr. Larson  Commented that the Town has received an award from the Growing Greener Together Sustainability Showcase for three efforts including new recycling bins in the downtown area, the Los Gatos Growing Greener Together education campaign, and the new library which will be at least LEED silver.  Commented that on March 10, 2010, staff will be releasing the draft public document for the General Plan update.  Commented that the Town has received a number of communications since the last Council meeting regarding proposed changes to the crosswalk on Los Gatos Boulevard at Caldwell Avenue and Kennedy Road.  Commented there are no plans to change the crosswalk until August 2010. Changes to the crosswalk were directed as part of the adjacent Thrash House development to improve pedestrian safety at that intersection.  Commented that the Parks and Public Works and the Police Department looked at some changes including potentially moving the crosswalk to the north side of the intersection.  Commented that the improvements have been allowed for in the development at the developer’s expense, but staff will not be proceeding with those changes until they have further discussions with the impacted neighbors and schools.  Commented that Todd Capurso, Director of Parks and Public Works would be available to discuss issues with neighbors and to gather contact information following Verbal Communications. Did You Know…?  Ms. von Borck, Economic Vitality Manager updated the Council and the community on the Town’s Business Liaison Services.  Commented that more information can be found at www.losgatosca.gov. 3 CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) 1. Adopt resolution regarding the Retrofit Bay Area, a comprehensive residential building retrofit program. RESOLUTION 2010-025 2. Adopt resolution in support of the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act for the November 2010 Ballot. RESOLUTION 2010-026 TOWN COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 3. Approve Council/Agency Minutes of February 16, 2010. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Mike Wasserman to adopt Consent Items #1-3. Seconded by Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Bommarito  Expressed concerns about the traffic and safety of children walking and riding their bikes to and from school.  Suggested adding a crossing guard at the intersection of Kennedy Road, Caldwell Avenue, and Los Gatos Boulevard. Mr. Yonenage  Expressed concerns on the safety of bicyclists along Los Gatos Boulevard and especially at the intersection of Kennedy Road and Caldwell Avenue. Ms. McCurrie  Expressed concerns about the proposed design changes to the intersection and feels that it creates a greater hazard for children walking on the Kennedy Road side of Los Gatos Boulevard and that it will create increased traffic speeds in the neighborhood. 4 Verbal Communications – Continued Mr. Davis  Commented that there are a number of dead trees in Los Gatos that should be taken down and requested that Parks and Public Works take down the dead trees that are a public nu isance.  Expressed concerns about incumbents re-running for seats on the Town Council in the November, 2010 election.  Commented that there is $23 million in the Town’s designated reserve and that the reserve has grown by $3 million since the last report. Ms. Greer  Expressed concerns about the proposed intersection change at Kennedy and Los Gatos Boulevard and would like the proposed change to reflect the needs of the neighborhood. Mr. Greer  Expressed concerns about the proposed changes to the intersection at Kennedy Road and Los Gatos Boulevard and feels that the concerns he previously voiced to the Town were not heard. Mr. Larson  Clarified that during the Planning Commission discussion regarding the Thrash House they asked Parks and Public Works and the Police Department to come back with recommended pedestrian and traffic safety improvements for the corner of Kennedy Road and Los Gatos Boulevard .  Commented that staff made those recommendations to the Planning Commission and the recommendations were encompassed in the Council’s action roughly nine months ago.  Commented that two weeks ago the Final Tract Map came forward to Council as a Consent Item and that the Tract Map is the implementing action where basically the developer of the property is obligated to pay for the traffic and pedestrian improvements that staff and Council ultimately decide need to go forward at that intersection.  Commented that staff has confirmed with the developer that they are not going to implement any improvements until August, 2010, which would provide ample time for staff to discuss the proposed changes with the surrounding neighborhood and to consider alternatives as requested by the neighborhood. 5 Verbal Communications – Continued Council Comments  Commented that Council has not seen any proposed improvements to the intersection and questioned if that specific item would come back to Council for approval. Mr. Larson  Clarified that if the changes entailed anything more than a minor modification to the Thrash House Development or Tract Map, then the item would require coming back to Council. Ms. Danilyle  Expressed concerns about the increased speed of vehicles traveling along Los Gatos Boulevard.  Commented that there are fewer parking spaces on the street since the repaving of Los Gatos Boulevard and feels that makes bicyclists more vulnerable to the traffic.  Commented that cars drive in the bike lane on Los Gatos Boulevard and suggested that the Town add more markings that say "bike lane" to deter motorist from thinking that the bike lane is another lane for vehicles. Council Comments  Requested clarification as to the extent that Council may discuss the issue since it does not appear on the agenda. Mr. Martello  Clarified that under the Brown Act, no action may be taken on the item, but Council can discuss whether the item should be sent to a committee, staff, or brought back to Council on a future agenda. Council Comments  Requested clarification on why the parking spaces were removed and the bike lane had been widened without the bicycle demarcation.  Expressed concerns about information brought forward by the public tonight.  Commented that the Town has several list serves that inform the community about what is happening in the Town and e ncouraged the public to provide their email address if they would like to join any of those services. 6 Verbal Communications – Continued Mr. Larson  Clarified that when the Town contracted to do the slurry seal of the street to improve it to a new finish, some of the lane markings were changed. Remarking the bike lane is a relatively simple task that staff can plan to do.  Clarified that based on comments from the residents, the Town is in the process of remarking the right turn lanes going from the Boulevard northbound turning onto Kennedy eastbound and from westbound Kennedy turning onto the Boulevard northbound to prohibit right turns on red.  Clarified that the intersection changes were recommended by staff to improve the safety of the intersection and staff will further discuss the issues with the neighborhood.  Commented that the proposed plans relating to north of Kennedy Road included some potential elimination of parking spaces.  Commented that he will review that issue relating to the parking space changes south of Kennedy Road with staff. Closed Verbal Communications TOWN COUNCIL - PUBLIC HEARING 4. Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving a request to operate a personal service business (salon) on property zoned C-2:LHP. APN 529-01-018. Conditional Use Permit U-09-025. Property Location: 23 W. Main Street. Property Owner: Dave Flick. Applicant/Appellant: Rene Chadsey. Council Member Steve Rice Recused from Item #4 due to the fact that he is in the midst of a real estate transaction with the building owner, Dave Flick. Staff report made by Marni Mosley, Assistant Planner. Council Comments  Commented about discussions relating to the personal service moratorium brought up during previous Planning Commission meetings and requested clarification that there is no moratorium on personal service businesses at the current time and has not been since 2004  Would like to confirm that the applicant’s current Conditional Use Permit runs with the land and does not move with the tenant. 7 Public Hearing Item #4 – Continued Ms. Mosley  Confirmed that there is no longer a moratorium on personal service businesses and the Conditional Use Permit for the applicant's current location does not move with the tenant. Opened Public Hearing Ms. Chadsey, Applicant  Commented that the appeal she submitted is only about the condition that restricts the number of stations.  Commented that from a business perspective, she needs a minimum of ten stations, (eight hair stations, one facial room/station, and one manicure/pedicure station) to be a viable business. Council Comments  Commented that the issue of traffic and parking is usually associated with numbers of seats in restaurants, but in this case there is no n exus between parking and seats.  Questioned if there is anything that states that there could be a limit on the number of stations other than what has been agreed on and if a personal service business could be approved without any restrictions.  Questioned the Planning Commission’s rationale for approving seven stations.  Commented that the Planning Commission’s decision was to determine whether or not this particular site was appropriate for a personal service business.  Questioned if the prior business located at that site had any relevance to the Planning Commission’s decision and the significance to the number of stations being proposed.  Commented that the recommendation to Council from the Planning Commission for seven stations without legal basis leaves Council with much more flexibility in approving the number of stations. Ms. Mosley  Commented that there is nothing that says there could be a limit on the number of stations and a personal service business could be approved without any restrictions.  Commented that she believes the Planning Commission made their decision based on the presumed number of stations held by the previous tenant. 8 Public Hearing Item #4 – Continued Mr. Martello, Interim Town Attorney  Clarified that there is no legal relevance in the Planning Commission’s decision to approve seven stations, but it may have persuasive relevance as Council determines.  Commented that the Planning Commission's decision was a cross between the presumed seven stations that were pre-existing and somewhat of a consensus decision with the Commission feeling that they did not really know what to base their discretion on. Council Comments  Questioned if applicant is before Council tonight looking for the approval of twelve stations and if she could elaborate on what services she would be providing in each station that she is requesting. Ms. Chadsey  Clarified that in order to survive, she would need a minimum of ten stations, which would be eight hair stations, one facial room and one manicure station, but ideally she would like ten stations plus two for facial and manicure. Ms. Speno  Commented against supporting the proposed application.  Commented that the Planning Commission demonstrated an unfair bias when approving the Conditional Use Permit for the applicant based on erroneous information.  Commented that the salon which previously existed at the property was 880 square feet and had seven stations.  Commented that the building has nine parking credits and feels that the seven stations approved in the application fill those parking credits, if not exceeds them. Council Comments  Requested clarification on the Findings for the proposed application.  Questioned whether or not there is an expansion of the property. Ms. Mosley  Commented that the Findings in the staff report are for the CEQA exemption and relates to additional square footage that the building itself would encompass and that there is no expansion of the building. 9 Public Hearing Item #4 – Continued Ms. Hope  Commented on supporting the proposed application.  Commented that the Planning Commission did not intend to impose an unfair disadvantage on the applicant, however, the highly restrictive condition did exactly that. Mr. Vennerbeck  Commented against the proposed application and that parking will be an issue with a hair salon at that location.  Expressed concerns that the building was significantly smaller prior to the renovation and that the Nail Works had occupied the smaller space. Mr. Machado  Commented on supporting the proposed application.  Commented that it took a long time to do a thorough job to rehab the property to bring it back to the luster that Los Gatos deserves and he feels it is not proper to revoke the existing Conditional Use Permit because the building was restored. Mr. Boland  Commented on supporting the proposed application.  Expressed concerns that if the existing Conditional Use Permit is taken away it will be detrimental and will discourage people from doing this type of preservation to buildings in the future. Ms. Castro  Commented against the proposed application.  Commented that the potential of the number of customers could pose parking congestion. Ms. Pozas  Commented on supporting the proposed application. Ms. Martin  Commented that she feels it would be hard for a personal service business to afford the rent in a building of this size with only seven stations. 10 Public Hearing Item #4 – Continued Ms. Denholm  Commented against the proposed application.  Commented that the purpose of a CUP is to monitor new business and that most applicants would have to submit a parking analysis and environmental reports.  Expressed concerns that the building owner is using CEQA Section 15301 for exemptions from any parking analysis or environmental report and she feels that CEQA exemption does not apply to that property because the property borders a river. Ms. Bacchi  Commented on supporting the proposed application.  Commented that parking should not be an issue in approving the application. Ms. Garland  Commented on supporting the proposed application.  Commented that parking should not be an issue in approving the application. Ms. Rigo  Commented on supporting the proposed application. Ms. Herman  Commented on supporting the proposed application.  Commented that there has always been parking issues in the Town and Ms. Chadsey’s business would not create more parking issues due to the location of her salon. Mr. Oliver  Commented on supporting the proposed application.  Commented most clients in most establishments in Los Gatos probably do not park on-site, but elsewhere. Ms. Wilson  Commented on supporting the proposed application.  Commented on the four distinct issues brought up tonight which were station size, parking, use of a building and turnover time for clients.  Commented that there is no standard that applies to all salons regarding station size, and then it should not be a factor in tonight's decision, rather based on the need for Ms. Chadsey to operate a viable business. 11 Public Hearing Item #4 – Continued Mr. Cloonan  Commented on not supporting the proposed application. Ms. Tenore  Commented on supporting the proposed application. Mr. Masouris  Commented on not supporting the proposed application.  Commented that the Town is over-saturated with salons already and to allow another salon will be an impact on existing salon businesses. Ms. Davis  Commented on not supporting the proposed application.  Commented that the Town Code should be adhered to and rules should not be changed for any businesses. Ms. Hernandez  Commented on supporting the proposed application. Ms. Turley  Commented on supporting the proposed application. Mr. Flick, Building Owner  Commented that the building had to be replaced to match the exact square footage that it previously was.  Commented that the prior business, Nail Works, was required to move because the building was a major structural hazard and could not be insured.  Commented that he was not aware that the previous Legal Non- Conforming Use Permit expired differently than a Conditional Use Permit.  Commented that he is only asking for what was there before and that no expansions are being made. Council Comments  Questioned how Mr. Flick found out that the Conditional Use Permit had lapsed.  Questioned Mr. Flick why a personal service business is attractive to him, as opposed to a retail business at this location. 12 Public Hearing Item #4 – Continued Mr. Flick  Commented that he found out that the Conditional Use Permit had lapsed when Ms. Chadsey went to the Town to move her permit to the new location.  Commented that if he had known that the Conditional Use Permit would expire in 365 days, he could have made changes to the building that would have been done easily within that timeframe.  Commented that most of the tenants in his buildings require a Conditional Use Permit and it’s not about his preference of a salon over a retail business, but about having good business owners as tenants in his buildings. Closed Public Hearing Council Discussions  Commented that the Planning Commission did the right thing in approving the application, but disagrees with the limitation of seven stations.  Commented that the Conditional Use Permit runs with the property.  Commented that the property was in need of repair and Mr. Flick did a great job with the restoration to enhance the historic look of the building.  Commented that there should be an exception to extend the existing Conditional Use Permit due to the extensive historic restoration that took place.  Commented that there is documentation that states that the previous tenant had approximately 10 stations.  Commented that the previous use was a personal service salon and is reasonable that it continue to be used as a personal service salon. MOTION: Motion by Council Member Mike Wasserman to approve additional stations (as per appeal) and to make the required findings. Motion failed due to lack of second. 13 Public Hearing Item #4 – Continued Council Discussions  Commented that the application is not about a moratorium since the moratorium ended in 2004.  Commented that the application is not about her current business on Broadway since that Conditional Use Permit stays with the land.  Commented that the pre-existing use did expire and was a non- conforming use that was grandfathered in.  Commented that this is a new Conditional Use Permit and given the testimony, the request for 8 hair stations, 1 manicure/pedicure station, and the facial room is reasonable.  Commented that the moratorium was put in place to control the saturation of personal service salons in the downtown area.  Commented that the first choice for the location would be retail, which is very important to the downtown.  Questioned if the business would enhance the fabric of the downtown business community and testimony shows that the personal service salons do bring in business to the surrounding shops and restaurants.  Commented that a retail business in this location would link both sides of the bridge along Main Street.  Expressed concerns that there are not enough retail establishments along Main Street.  Commented that studies show that if you have too many personal service businesses in prime retail locations it interferes with flow of pedestrian traffic.  Commented that by requiring a Conditional Use Permit for personal service businesses, it would slow down the saturation of these establishments within the downtown retail areas, and gives staff the opportunity to analyze if the business would interfere with the flow of retail in the downtown area.  Commented that during the moratorium, grandfathering existing personal services was a way to be fair and would allow for a "change in the mix" if the business left that building. 14 Public Hearing Item #4 – Continued MOTION: Motion by Council Member Barbara Spector to modify the Planning Commission’s decision on the basis:  That there was error on the part of the Planning Commission and the error was in defining the number of stations as seven based on a pre-existing use which did no longer exist.  Modify the limitation on the number of stations to 10 and to specifically include: 8 hair stations, 1 manicure/pedicure station and 1 facial room.  To make the findings with regard to the Conditional Use Permit specified in Attachment 2. Seconded by Council Member Mike Wasserman. Council Discussions  Clarified that the establishment has always been a personal service business.  Commented that during the study for the moratorium the location was looked at as a personal service business and has continued as a personal service business.  Commented there is a tremendous amount of testimony supporting the appellant and that evidence went to the desirability of the use permit.  Commented that the proposed uses would not impair the integrity and character of the zone.  Clarified that the economic vitality of the downtown needs to be monitored so we do not get a saturation of the same kinds of businesses.  Commented that with similar businesses people can evaluate the shops and competition is what makes the downtown thrive.  Requested that if there is a retail component within the establishment to have it up front in the window.  Commented against the application due to the fact that the moratorium was put in place to maintain prime locations in downtown for retail use.  Commented that the support for the application is a unique decision, it sets no precedence, and is based on the extraordinary demonstration on the part of the appellant and the property owner to expand the stations for economic reasons and for all of the factors discussed.  Commented that Council does not want to give up lightly on any spaces in the downtown to businesses other than retail. 15 Public Hearing Item #4 – Continued Mr. Martello  Suggested that Council may want to amend the motion to add a finding because of the extraordinary circumstance that in theory the applicant when renovating the building could have asked for an extension of the Conditional Use Permit, but did not have the knowledge.  Commented that this finding would state clear understanding that Council is not setting precedence for other establishments. Council Discussions  Maker of the Motion requested to amend the motion to include a finding that recognizes the loss of a pre-existing personal service business was as a result of the long term preservation of the historic structure which was an overall community benefit and therefore Council did not want to penalize the property owner.  The Seconder agreed to the amendment. AMENDED MOTION: Motion by Council Member Barbara Spector to modify the Planning Commission’s decision on the basis:  That there was error on the part of the Planning Commission and the error was in defining the number of stations as seven based on a pre- existing use which did no longer exist.  Modify the limitation on the number of stations to 10 and to specifically include: 8 hair stations, 1 manicure/pedicure station and 1 facial room.  To make the findings with regard to the Conditional Use Permit specified in Attachment 2.  To amend the motion to include a finding that recognizes the loss of a pre-existing personal service business was a result of the long term preservation of the historic structure which was an overall community benefit and therefore Council did not want to penalize the property owner. Seconded by Council Member Mike Wasserman. VOTE: Motion passed 4/1 Mayor Diane McNutt voted no. 16 OTHER BUSINESS There is no Other Business Scheduled for this meeting. ADJOURNMENT Attest: /s/ Jackie D. Rose Jackie D. Rose, Clerk Administrator