M09-19-11P a g e 1
Council/Agency Meeting 10/3/11
Item #9
MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011
The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on Monday,
September 19, 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
The Youth Citizens of the Year led the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience was invited
to participate.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
Judith Propp, Town Attorney, stated that no reportable action was taken.
TOWN COUNCIL
TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
Pamela Jacobs, Assistant Town Manager
- Commented that Screen on the Green will take place on September 23, 2011.
- Commented that the Los Gatos Wine Walk will take place downtown on September
24, 2011.
- Commented that the Town Garage Sale will be held on October 1, 2011.
- Commented that Second Chance Day will take place on October 2, 2011 in the
Adult Recreation Center.
- Commented that there are 21 vacancies on nine boards and commissions and that
the deadline to apply is October 13, 2011.
P a g e 2
Did You Know??
Kerry Harris, Sgt. Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department
- Described the Town’s Emergency Preparedness/Strategic Goals Workplan.
- Commented that the Community Emergency Response Team increases the
presence of more highly trained and organized CERT’s in neighborhoods.
- Commented that Los Gatos Prepared/Safe at Home provide information and
training to prepare our community for a disaster.
- Commented that Personal Emergency Preparedness (PEP) accesses regional
training resources to improve community preparedness.
Council Comments
- Commented that this is an opportunity for the public to be as prepared as possible
for natural disasters that may occur.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Approval of Emergency Preparedness/Strategic Goals Workplan for 2011-2012
2. Approve settlement and authorize Town Attorney and Town Manager to negotiate
and execute a settlement agreement in Fiedler v. Town of Los Gatos.
3. Requesting Town Council ratification of the November 1, 2010 approval of the
2007-2014 Housing Element.
o Council Member McNutt pulled Item #3 from Consent.
4. Adopt ordinance amending Article VIII of Chapter 14 of the Town of Los Gatos
Town Code, the Rental Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Ordinance .
5. Adopt resolution setting date for consideration of reorganization of an uninhabited
area designated as Blossom Hill Manor No. 12, approximately .25 acres located at
16380 Oleander Avenue (APN 523-13-049) File # AN11-002.
6. Adopt resolution affirming General Plan designation and zoning of Santa Clara
County surplus property at 375 Knowles Drive. APN 406-28-032.
P a g e 3
TOWN COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
7. Approve Council/Agency minutes of September 6, 2011.
8. Adopt an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos to conditionally elect and implement
participation by the Town of Los Gatos and the Town of Los Gatos Redevelopment
Agency in the Alternative Voluntary Redevelopment Program pursuant to Part 1.9
of the California Community Redevelopment Law.
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Barbara Spector to approve Consent
Items #1-8, exclusive of Items #3 and #4.
Seconded by Vice Mayor Steve Rice.
VOTE: Item 1-8, exclusive of #3 and #4 passed unanimously.
Item #4 passed by a vote of 3/0. Council Member Steven
Leonardis and Vice Mayor Steve Rice abstained.
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (Up to three minutes may be allotted to each
speaker to address matters that are not on tonight’s agenda.)
Mr. Boyd
- Expressed concern about traffic issues at the intersection of Caldwell and Los
Gatos Boulevard, and how they affect students at Van Meter Elementary School.
- Commented that he is working with parents to mitigate the situation.
Council Comments
- Questioned whether a volunteer crossing guard would be helpful.
- Questioned whether parents could work together to provide some immediate relief.
Ms. Jacobs
- Commented that staff is working with residents on this issue.
Mr. Goguen
- Expressed concern about traffic issues at the intersection of Caldwell and Los
Gatos Boulevard, and how they affect students at Van Meter Elementary School.
P a g e 4
TOWN COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. Planned Development Application PD-11-002. Project Location: Placer Oaks Road.
Property Owner: Landmark Development Corporation. Applicant: Cupertino
Development Corporation. Consider a request for approval of a Planned
Development Amendment to allow an off -site below market price housing unit on
property zoned R-1:8:PD. APN 529-16-073. (Continued from 7/25/11) Applicant
requesting continuance after January 2012.
Mayor Joe Pirzynski asked if anyone in the audience wanted to comment on this item.
Ms. Propp
- Commented that a motion to continue would require a Council Member with a
conflict to recuse herself but not to leave the dais because the motion is procedural
and not substantive.
MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Steve Rice to continue the item to a date
uncertain.
Seconded by Council Member Barbara Spector.
VOTE: Motion passed 4/0. Council Member Diane McNutt recused
herself.
10. Requesting approval to operate a restaurant (Pizza Simpatico) with indoor and
outdoor seating, beer and wine service, and modified hours of operation in a space
currently occupied by an existing delicatessen, wine bar, and specialty retail use
(Los Gatos Gourmet) on property zoned C-2:LHP. Conditional Use Permit U-11-
006 APN 529-01-025. Project Location: 91, 101, and 109 W. Main Street. Property
Owner: Sue Farwell Applicant: Lisa Rhorer (Continued from 8/15/11)
Jennifer Savage, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
P a g e 5
Public Hearing Item #10 – continued
Council Comments
- Questioned what the tipping point is for retail to be ancillary to restaurant use.
- Questioned whether a separate conditional use permit and/or an operating
agreement was considered.
- Questioned what community benefits have been approved for recent past projects
in which a conditional use permit was modified.
Ms. Savage
- Commented that there is not an exact tipping point , but less than 40% of revenue
from restaurant sales would be ancillary, with the final determination
of percentages being up to Council’s discretion.
- Commented that for Gardino’s, the community benefit was two downtown public
benches, which totals about $4,000.
- Clarified that the Rootstock, Pedro’s, and James Randall restaurants conditional
use permit modifications did not include any community benefit because the
restaurants added only a few seats, which did not impact traffic.
Council Comments
- Questioned how to reconcile the operational agreement language and the kitchen
cooking equipment language.
- Commented that Council’s intent is to create a deli marketplace, which is a new
category that is not defined as “restaurant” or “retail.”
- Commented that staff is defining retail as items for sale, which d oes include
delicatessen items.
- Commented that this is a hybrid retail establishment with food service.
- Questioned how the square footage used was calculated.
- Questioned whether the space occupied by the doorway has been deleted as retail
space.
P a g e 6
Public Hearing Item #10 – continued
Ms. Savage
- Commented that there are two operating agreements suggested as conditions.
- Commented that staff intended to indicate that change in ownership could
potentially change the usage back to retail.
- Commented that a "marketplace" is a new definition under the alcohol and
entertainment policy.
- Commented that staff considers preparation of food which is made to order as a
restaurant use.
- Commented that “retail” or “specialty retail” includes items that are pre-made.
- Commented that the Town Code does not have a “retail marketplace” definition,
and staff analyzed this project under the Town Code.
- Commented that the square footage provided is an estimate.
- Clarified that the door is included in the retail space calculation.
Mr. Romano and Ms. Rhorer
- Described the floor plan and square footage percentages dedicated to each type of
space usage: food preparation, general retail, wine retail, cafe seating, and general
circulation.
- Commented that they changed the name of the business from Pizza Simpatico
to Cento Nove.
- Commented that they removed the patio seating and reorganized the floor plan to
confine the seating area.
- Commented that they are amenable to an operating agreement so long as the
business may operate in kind, if transferred.
Council Comments
- Questioned the reasons for the proposed business hours.
- Questioned the need for the gate between the two businesses.
- Questioned how the applicant feels about a wall to separate the businesses.
- Questioned the number of seats and how it relates to the proposed business plan.
- Commented that the number of seats gives the feeling of a restaurant.
- Commented that the flexibility of four extra seats would need to be confined.
P a g e 7
Public Hearing Item #10 – continued
Ms. Rhorer
- Clarified that there is no need for the gate between the businesses.
- Commented that they removed seats and compressed the seating area.
Council Comments
- Commented that the businesses are different and should be separated by a wall.
Ms. Savage
- Commented that if the opening is closed between the businesses, then a separate
Conditional Use Permit would be required.
Council Comments
- Commented that the additional seats should not be added for special events.
- Commented that the retail use should be dominant and the restaur ant space should
be secondary.
- Commented that Council should require a brick wall, with a new conditional use
permit, and no delay in timing.
Ms. Rhorer
- Commented that an architect took measurements, so the percentages of retail
space in the applicant’s presentation are accurate.
Mr. Romano
- Commented that during the early hours, the focus will be retail; during midday, it will
be a hybrid between retail and restaurant; and in the evening, it will be a restaurant.
Ms. Propp
- Commented that Council could approve a separate conditional use permit and
provide the staff with clear direction; then the matter could be continued to a date
certain and that with appropriate public notice, the item could return for final Council
approval as a consent item.
- Commented that a Council Member or a member of the public could pull the item
from the consent calendar.
P a g e 8
Public Hearing Item #10 – continued
Open/Close Public Hearing
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Barbara Spector to make required
findings in Attachment 1.
Seconded by Council Member Steven Leonardis.
VOTE: Motion withdrawn by the maker of the motion and the
seconder.
Ms. Propp
- Commented that Council can make one global motion with many layers.
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Barbara Spector to adopt staff
recommendations with the following alterations:
- make the required findings (Attachment 1)
- approve a conditional use permit with a new name and number
- approve the resolution (Attachment 14), which would be modified
to contain a new conditional use permit number and delete U 11
006 for all references to these numbers.
- in the second Whereas of Attachment 14, change modification to
new conditional use permit number
- approve the conditions of approval shown in Exhibit A of
Attachment 14 with the following modifications:
- paragraph 5 require retail space, move to amend pursuant
to the desk item, second page paragraph 3
- paragraph 3, modified because the current 520 square feet
of retail space did not specify that it could not be solely wine;
whereas staff’s new retail space provision has a provision for
market items
- 31 seats is the maximum; no additional seats
-leave the community benefit in the amount of $2,500
- add as a condition of approval that the current opening
between the two adjacent uses will be closed with a wall.
- the matter should return to Council no later than second meeting
in October as a consent item
- applicant to pay a fee for the new conditional use permit in the
amount of $2,164.29
Seconded by Council Member McNutt.
P a g e 9
Public Hearing Item #10 – continued
MODIFICATIONS: Motion modified by Council Member Barbara Spector
Eliminate the $2,500 community benefit.
Strike “nachos” from the list of appetizers in paragraph 9 and add
a phrase to clarify that the items listed are not food for purposes of
defining a meal.
Require food service.
Change the name of business from “Pizza Simpatico” to “Cento
Nove” for all references.
Seconded by Council Member McNutt.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
The following comments were made after the motion and prior to the vote:
Council Comments
- Commented that a study session occurred and the discussion focused on
appropriate community benefits to mitigate traffic and eliminating community
benefits in the forms of items such as benches and banners that are not related to
traffic.
Ms. Propp
- Commented that Council can make one global motion with many layers.
- Commented that if Council recommends a new conditional use permit, then Council
could direct staff and the applicant to work together on logistics of noticing in a
newspaper with daily publication.
Pulled Consent Item #3
3. Requesting Town Council ratification of the November 1, 2010 approval of the
2007-2014 Housing Element
Wendie Rooney, Community Development Director, presented the staff report.
P a g e 10
Pulled Consent Item #3 – continued
Council Comments
- Expressed concern about specific language regarding the density of 20 units
minimum per acre with use by right without discretionary review and building
heights of at least three stories.
- Commented that it is not clear what latitude the Council has.
- Commented that in six overlay zones, conditional use permit discretionary review is
removed.
- Questioned what would happen if an application came in right now.
- Questioned whether there is an urgent deadline to adopt the proposed resolution.
Ms. Rooney
- Commented that the Town has many alternatives to consider various development
standards.
- Commented that 20 units per acre is identified because the state designates the
number of units per acre, based on the type of community; if the Town meets this
"default threshold," then extensive additional studies are not needed to support the
program.
- Commented that density is the only factor in which discretionary review is removed
because other standards are preserved within the Housing Element.
- Commented that environmental review would remain.
- Commented that the state may decertify the Town’s Housing Element, putting grant
funding for transportation and affordable housing in jeopardy.
Council Comments
- Questioned whether tonight is a deadline to adopt the resolution.
- Questioned why we have not put design standards into place before getting this
resolution.
- Questioned what would occur in terms of height and density requirements, if an
applicant came in after adoption of the resolution.
Ms. Rooney
- Commented that this is another implementation measure for the General Plan.
- Commented that the density would be 20 units per acre and at least three stories.
- Commented that there is still environmental review and architecture and site review
and that an application has to go through rigorous review before it is complete.
P a g e 11
Pulled Consent Item #3 – continued
Mr. Wu
- Expressed concerns about the proposed language
Mr. Allen
- Expressed concerns about the proposed language.
Ms. Quintana
- Expressed concerns about the proposed language.
Ms. Fok
- Expressed concerns about the proposed language.
Close Public Hearing
Council Comments
- Commented that the Housing Element was thoroughly studied, separate fr om the
General Plan.
- Commented that the item should be continued to a date uncertain to close the time
window to allow for the Town to develop criteria to allow for as much local control as
the state will allow.
MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Steve Rice to continue the item to a date
uncertain.
Seconded by Council Member Diane McNutt.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
Council Comments
- Requested clarification on state density bonus law.
- Questioned whether the proposed language is a reflection of the state imposing
tighter restrictions.
- Commented that if specific development standards are in place, then it would
mitigate the concerns regarding lack of control.
- Questioned how the Town’s density bonus works in conjunction with the state’s
required density bonus.
- Questioned whether each overlay zone could be analyzed individually.
P a g e 12
Pulled Consent Item #3 – continued
Ms. Rooney
- Commented that during every cycle, the state provides more restrictions and that
jurisdictions that are revising their Housing Elements are subject to these
restrictions.
- Commented that just recently the first project in the Town’s history requested a
state density bonus.
- Commented that the Town’s density bonus can be combined with the state’s density
bonus.
- Commented that staff will look at each overlay zone independently, but the
framework would be consistent across the board.
- Commented that a density bonus ordinance can get done sooner than the analysis
of overlay zones, which will take until mid-2012.
Ms. Propp
- Commented that until recently, no applicant has requested a state density bonus.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business for this meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Attest:
/s/Mazarin A. Vakharia
Clerk Administrator