Loading...
M09-01-16 Certififed Transcriptm TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEO RECORDING Transcribed By: #52266 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES BY: LISA GLANVILLE, CSR 9932 1083 Lincoln Avenue San Jose, CA 95125 Advantage UA�n Reporting w� `" lJ' 0181 i Services, LLC � •tt 1083 Lincoln Avenue, San Jose, California 95125, Telephone (408) 920 -0222, Fax,(44)+93C�t& I A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 3 Town Council: Mayor Barbara Spector Vice Mayor Marico Sayoc 4 Council Member Marcia Jensen Council Member Steve Leonardis 5 Council Member Rob Rennie 6 Principal Planner: Joel Paulson 7 Parks & Public Works Director: Matt Morley 8 Assistant Town Manager/ 9 CDD Director: Laurel Prevetti 10 Town Attorney: Robert Schultz 11 12 - -000 -- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING G 1 U ti 18 Advantage �A q Reporting Services, LLC 1� E E c 1C 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P R O C E E D I N G S: MAYOR SPECTOR: We are now on our public hearings, which is a continued public hearing. Agenda item four, which is Architecture and Site Application S13090, investing -- tent -- Vesting Tentative Map Application M13014 for property that is commonly or generally known as the North 40. Once again, let me go over some ground rules. This evening we will be beginning with staff report, if there's anything more that they would like to add to what's already been provided. Then the Council Members would have the opportunity to ask questions, if there are any questions, and then we will get to the discussion. For members of the audience, I would ask that -- I'm going to assume that there will be things you hear up here tonight that with which you agree and with which you do not agree. However, I would ask that you please do not make any audible sounds in response to what you hear. In other words, please be quiet. Now, having said that, going back to staff, does staff have any additional report? MS. PREVETTI: No, thank you. MAYOR SPECTOR: All right. Questions? I do have a question, some questions. And I know that at 3 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Y� p ,Advantages „ Izelaorting Il I O H 1 Services, LLC ` 1 some point in our staff report or reports we may have 2 received this information, but it may have been just 3 very recently, so can you please explain to the staff -- 4 to the Council what the -- what will happen if are no 5 successful motions made this evening. What happens as 6 of September 7th? 7 MR. SCHULTZ: So under the Permitting 8 Streamlining Act, we, through an extension agreement, 9 all parties agree the Applicant, and the Town agree that 10 September 7th was our deadline under the Permitting 11 Streamlining Act. 12 As of that date, under the Permit and 13 Streamlining Act, it has clauses within that that 14 describe what happens next. And the language describes 15 if a decision has not been made by that time, the 16 project is deemed approved. 17 It then goes on, there was an additional section 18 added after that language was added quite some time ago, 19 in 174, that said because there were due process 20 challenges, said that before it can be deemed approved, 21 the Applicant has to give the Town seven days notice of 22 its intent to hold a public hearing and then hold that 23 public hearing 60 days later. 24 So there's one interpretation that would mean 25 after September 7th, there's no time would be -- if no 4 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 010320 ! �, ►' Advantage ` ATq Reporting Services, LLLC ( W L E 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 decision was made, the Applicant could invoke the provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act. It would be an additional 60 days. A court in California, Mahone (phonetic), has stated that requirement is necessary under the circumstances put forth by the Permitting Streamlining Act. There is a Federal Court case, though, that has said that seven day requirement and the 60 additional days is only necessary when there has been no public hearings or public comment periods necessary. And that's a 2014 case, and so it's in direct conflict of what the state court said. So I take a very strong opinion that this Council should make a decision by September 7th. If it does not, the Applicant has the potential to go into court and have it declared deemed approved as it was submitted, according to that San Diego Federal Court case. And so you will be putting -- if you don't make a decision by September 7th, you will be putting basically whether this case would be -- whether the project would be approved in the court's hands instead of your own hands. I would make the argument in court that they still have to do that seven day notice and the 60 day notice period, but certainly there has been plenty of 5 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage Reporting 020821' Services, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17'. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 time for public input, public hearing periods that the Tower case talks about in San Diego that we may not prevail on that issue, and then it would be deemed approved by the court. Does that kind of explain it? There's a -- in legal terms you have two very conflicting court cases. A state court has said before it's deemed approved, the Applicant must give notice of intent to the Town and then give its own public notice within a 60 day period before it's deemed complete. So it almost give you one last bite of the apple to either approve or deny this. But the Federal court case said that's not necessary if you've already given the public the ability, through public hearings, through public testimony, then it's automatically deemed approved by that September 7th date. If that explains it well enough. MAYOR SPECTOR: Ms. Jensen. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Couple follow -up questions. You first said that the app -- it could be deemed approved under state law, then there's a seven day period for the Applicant to give notice and demand a public hearing within 60 days. So if the state law is the controlling law, is there another public hearing in 60 days, assuming the Applicant asks for that, or do we -- TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING [I* QQ I) Advantage Jc ,n Reporting • UIOO.L? ,,.K '�:� ' Services, LLC i� 1i 1: l: 1: 1� 1� 1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. 2 COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: So there is another 3 public hearing if we follow the law? 4 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. 5 COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Okay. And the state i law case that you're citing, is that Appellate Court, District Court? 3 MR. SCHULTZ: Appellate Court. Appellate ! Court. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Okay. MR. SCHULTZ: Fourth District. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Fourth District? Okay. And the -- are there -- MR. SCHULTZ: So the difference in the two cases were this. If you want -- the little nuance is in the state court case it was an application was filed. There was absolutely no public hearings ever scheduled, town /city just said we're not going to even schedule this case. It doesn't get scheduled at all. Applicant guess into court and says it's deemed approved. The court says no, you didn't even have an opportunity to be heard. You have to do this seven day intent and the 60 day notice period. So that's where the facts are a little bit different in that case than ours. We certainly have had 7 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING O O Advantage m Reporting .{Kt r Services, LLC I� r, 9 E f 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 public hearings through Planning Commission and through Council that have allowed the public to participate, and the court in Mahone said the reason why you have that 60 day period before it's deemed complete is to give notice to the public that this is going to happen. And actually, a public hearing, even if Council doesn't show up for that hearing, the Applicant can schedule it, and there would actually be a hearing for the public to speak. MAYOR SPECTOR: Ms. Jensen. MR. SCHULTZ: And then the difference in the San Diego case was where there was public hearings, there was all the notice given, the notice just didn't say it would be deemed complete if they didn't act by a certain date, and that's where the court said that was enough, you had due process, rights were given to the public, they were allowed to speak, so it was deemed complete by that ending deadline. And so that would be the argument that would be -- ended up in court if in fact you don't do it by September 7th. So my strong recommendation is you make a decision on this project instead of letting the court decide that issue on a technicality. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Two questions. MAYOR SPECTOR: Ms. Jensen. M TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING - -- Advantage �_A �n Reporting _�C,IJ' U L O g i Services, LLC 1501k L E i E C 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: The Mahone case that you're citing, the State court case, is that the only case that you found in California on this issue? MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: And the -- are there any cases, Federal cases, conflicting with the 9th Circuit case -- MR. SCHULTZ: No, not at this time. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: -- on the issue? Okay, thank you. MAYOR SPECTOR: Let me follow up on, I did not realize until just now that there was a Federal court case and a State court case, and they have -- they're somewhat inconsistent. If we do not make a decision by September 7th, . is there a possibility slash probability that the application may be deemed approved? MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. That would -- I mean, the Applicant would have two choices if you don't make -- have a -- make a decision by September 7th. They could take the Mahone path and write us a letter saying in seven days I'm going to give notice of a public hearing to have this deemed approved. Or they could take the Tower, American Tower case, and go right to court and say we already had public hearings, it's deemed 9 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage J% f Reporting 010s,25 • Sety ces, U i 1 1 approved, and if the court agreed with that argument, it 2 would be deemed approved, and there would be no more 3 hearings. 4 So it would be up to the Applicant which path 5 they would take. And our argument in court would be 6 that no, you still were required to give a seven day 7 notice and the intent. And that's assuming even after S if they gave the public hearing period of 60 days we 9 still wouldn't be able to reach a decision. 10 MAYOR SPECTOR: Ms. Jensen. 11 COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: One more. It sounds 12 like to me that either path is a court case. The Town 13 doesn't declare it approved, you go to court, you say 14 approve it, deem it approved, so even if we don't take 15 an action, there will be a.court action to decide 16 whether it's deemed approved or not in either of the 17 paths you just described. 18 MR. SCHULTZ: Well, the one -- if you never 19 reached a decision. The one decision, if in fact they 20 give a seven day notice and the 60 days before it's 21 deemed complete, and during that period you were 22 still -- then you were able to reach a decision, then 23 it's not deemed approved by the court. 24 MAYOR SPECTOR: Ms. Jensen. 25 COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Sorry. I'm having 10 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage IJ �l In Reporting Services,s,LLC' 1,1 c 1( 1] 1L 1� 14 1E 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 L trouble figuring out how we could have time to reach a ? decision in the 60 days after our time is up. 3 MR. SCHULTZ: You still do. It's like 1 another -- what they did is they had that in the shot i clock to allow for a last decision. So let's say on i September 7th we receive a letter from the Applicant stating that they're going to invoke the provisions and give no public notice of it's going to be deemed complete in 60 days and this Council during that period scheduled more hearings and made a decision before the 60 days ran out, then of course you'd be able to reach a decision. That's assuming you could -- if you can't reach one now, that's assuming you'd reach one in two weeks. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Sorry. Again. Presumably if the Council reached a decision that wasn't the same as approving it and the Applicant had said it's deemed approved, the court could say sorry, it's deemed approved in its original form. It's very nice you've reached a decision that's different. I'm just trying to figure this out -- MR. SCHULTZ: No. Not -- not if it was done -- if they take the American Tower case, yes, and after September 7th it's approved. If you take the Mahone case, it's not deemed approved till after that notice is 11 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01116 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage ��ri'/`y�' Reporting 0 10 S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 given and the 60 days runs. So it's a different time clock. MAYOR SPECTOR: All right. Let me ask a different question. Can you explain to us the ramifications of any vote that is a two -two vote with one abstention? MR. SCHULTZ: Then that's a no -- that's a no decision. That would be as if there's been no action taken at all by the Council, and then it goes into the that same decision as a motion that fails. MAYOR SPECTOR: No matter what it is. MR. SCHULTZ: Yeah. MAYOR SPECTOR: Okay. And then very recently, like I think today, maybe yesterday, we have received -- we, the ..Council, have received information from the Applicant and the public relating to a VTA bus in the area of the North 40. I know that we have -- the Council has received information with regard to VTA buses in Los Gatos, either eliminating them or reducing the -- reducing the times that they're used, and I was wondering if somebody from staff can fill me in on that. MR. MORLEY: Good evening. Matt Morley, Director of Parks and Public Works. In terms of busing, VTA is currently undergoing a study of their existing busing schedules and service levels and have -- over the 12 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 010828 11 .' i , Advantage. A Reporting Services, LLC II 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E:3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 next several months will, through a series of public meetings and hearings, will make a decision on what they want to do with the future of the bus service. Nothing has been determined at this time. They're looking at three models for the sake of discussion. One of them is an as -is model, where the service levels would remain constant. A second was a reduction that would essentially reduce the service in Los Gatos to one route. And the third is elimination of service to -- to the lightly used areas like Los Gatos which would result in no -- no bus service within the Town limits. MAYOR SPECTOR: Thank you. Ms. Sayoc. VICE MAYOR SAYOC: On that note, Mr. Morley, can you remind me., on option two, with the reduced bus service, was the 49 the service that goes down Los Gatos Boulevard, was that affected? MR. MORLEY: I think I need to emphasize these are scenarios that the VTA is using to discuss potential options, and through study they would determine actually what the service levels are. And, as I understand it, the concept would be to adjust the 48 and 49 and merge them together into one route that would provide some sort of a more limited service to Los Gatos. VICE MAYOR SAYOC: And a follow -up, if I may. 13 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage ` {.,,fi e e Tq or ing Services, LLC 1 When is that decision going to take place? i 2 MR. MORLEY: They're doing their public 3 outreach now, and we would anticipate a decision towards 4 the end of the calendar year, maybe into next year. 5 VICE MAYOR SAYOC: Okay. 6 MAYOR SPECTOR: Ms. Jensen. 7 COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Different subject 8 matter. And referring staff and the Council to the 9 letter we got from Remy Moose Manley, page nine, there's 10 an indication -- the issue is -- this also came up in 11 the letter from HCD, do the by right standards apply to 12 both residential and commercial? The letter I'm 13 referring to talks about mixed use. The Specific Plan 14 at Section 2.5.10A and B says, "Commercial portions of 15 the mixed use use commercial design guidelines, 16 residential use residential." So my question is well, 17 where -- when it's mixed use, like, for example, the 18 market hall with the senior on,top, I'm assuming that 19 the by right applies to that as mixed use. My question 20 is does it also apply to any stand -alone commercial that 21 is contained within a mixed use multi - family 22 development? 23 MR. SCHULTZ: You are correct. The 24 interpretation, I think most legal experts agree on that 25 the mixed use with the senior housing is part of the 14 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING i 010830 Advantage. STS Reporting Services, LLC ;, "IN W 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mixed use development. There's just a difference in opinion as to whether stand -alone buildings would be entitled to the density concessions and waivers, and certainly that's up to the Council to decide whether the stand -alone buildings that are completely commercial, whether they need to comply with the density bonus requirements or need to be outside of that requirement. Certainly, you know, there's an argument both ways, and I think that's what Remy Moose says, there's no specific case law on it or determination as to whether it's required or not. MAYOR SPECTOR: Mr. Rennie. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Thank you, Mayor Spector. So following up on that, I recall, either from Remy Moose or possibly from the policy manager from HCD, it said something about if the extra commercial is neighborhood serving, then it falls in with the whole plan, so my question is how do we define neighborhood serving? How would staff define neighborhood serving? MR. PAULSON: (Inaudible) we have the specific definition, and so I'll start. So it would be services and goods that are available for the either immediate neighborhood or greater neighborhood. But typically, you know, for the first phase as proposed, there will be 15 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage m Reporting 010831 �r,1 . Services, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 services that will be available and goods that will be available in the commercial and the mixed use commercial buildings that will -- that staff would conclude are in fact neighborhood serving. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: If I could follow -up. So in the economic analysis, it talk -- it kind of gives a list of what those are supposed to be. What they call it, comparison retail. It was -- oh, I have it -- I listed it here somewhere off the top of my head. It's, you know, hair salon and bicycle shop and things like that. So the ones that are listed, are those all considered neighborhood serving? MR. PAULSON: I don't have the list in front of me, but yes, I would' -- you know, hair salon, retail, cafes, those would all be neighborhood serving. Coffee shops. And I think Ms. Prevetti has some additional information. MS. PREVETTI: Yeah, I think one way to look at it is what -- what would be regional serving and what would be a regional draw type of retail. And those are the larger shopping centers, the larger stores that would essentially draw from the region, so South San Jose, Campbell, Saratoga, et cetera, as opposed to the people who live within a closer proximity to the development. 16 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING t Advantage Aq Reporting Services, LLC h] W W f c 1( 1] 1� 1� 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 L COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Is it staff's opinion ? that there's any of those kind of stores proposed here? 3 MS. PREVETTI: Well, I think it's a fair argument that Los Gatos is a regional destination, that i people come here because they like our small town charm, and I would imagine that the downtown would continue to be attractive, and if there's new opportunities for shopping and eating, that that would also likely to be attractive. But the majority of the users would likely be Los Gatos residents. I think we heard testimony from our public that this portion of our town is looking for opportunities for dining that perhaps they don't have much choice right now. So there seems to be some demand for some additional uses. And certainly general merchandise, where you could buy the pair of socks or this sort of thing, was clearly shown in multiple studies of the economics that that is an area where the town -- where we're losing sales. People go outside of town to find those types of shopping necessities. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Okay, thank you. MAYOR SPECTOR: Let me follow up from Mr. Rennie. Remind me, other than the market hall, is there somewhere in these materials where the specific 17 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING /� Advantage ,1,' ,� Ni porting 010833 Services, LLC;.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 211 22 23 24 25 NJ 010` 1 commercial uses are listed? MR. PAULSON: There is not. MAYOR SPECTOR: So there's just square footage. MR. PAULSON: There is just square footages, and there's permitted uses that are allowed in the Specific Plan, and so they would be required to accommodate those. MAYOR SPECTOR: All right. Thank you. Ms. Sayoc. VICE MAYOR SAYOC: Question on that. If you can remind me, with the stand -alone commercial buildings, are there being -- are there concessions that are attached to those? MR. PAULSON: The Applicant is requesting the same height concession for those buildings, so if the Council, as was stated previously, does not believe that those are appropriate for the three stand -alone commercial buildings, then the Applicant would be required to modify those to comply with that height requirement. VICE MAYOR SAYOC: Okay. So if you could -- I'm looking at the building key plan, 1.0. So all the buildings that are in area A and area B, are you saying are asking for height con -- is it the height? 18 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING s "2 Advantage �_A Tn Reporting Services, LLC L E 7 6 C 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PAULSON: So the entire project is asking for the height determination from finish grade not proposed, or finished as is required in the Specific Plan, and so specifically the two -- the retail and restaurant building out fronting Los Gatos Boulevard. VICE MAYOR SAYOC: Uh -huh. MR. PAULSON: And then the building on the sheet you're looking at, right under area C, those three comprise the stand -alone commercial buildings. VICE MAYOR SAYOC: And if I may switch subjects. Also I want to inquire about something that came in today. It is a letter from Angelia Dorner, it came in at 7:47, about just the various responses to the density bonus. And the specific question I had is we discussed at length about date of application and when my next question now is maximum allowable residential density at the date of application, and so if I'm interpreting her letter correctly, if you're applying in 2013, we had no Specific Plan, therefore we had no maximum density. If you're applying in 2015, then it's a whole set of different numbers. So could you just give me some clarification on where you and Mr. Schultz stand on this letter. MR. PAULSON: Well, I'll start on one. And so the maximum density was set ultimately in the housing TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 010835 W Advantage �Ac �(1 Reporting Services, LLC 1 element, but again, that was -- would be in 2015. And 2 so the maximum number wasn't set and was ultimately 3 modified. So, Mr. Schultz, if you have any additional 4 input. 5 MR. SCHULTZ: But for the -- for that 6 Government Code section you don't look at what the 7 maximum density for -- if you're looking -- are we 8 looking at the replacement issue? And so it's still the 9 date of the application is what you look at it. At the 10 time the application's filed it didn't need to be a 11 Specific Plan. Although our general plan said no 12 applications will be processed until a Specific Plan is 13 done, it still didn't prevent an application from being 14 filed on that property. 15 So the Applicant takes the position that as 16 early as 2013 and 14, their proposal was requesting 17 density bonuses and BMP program for this project and, 18 therefore, it's exempt from it. You certainly can take 19 the position that no, because it wasn't finalized till 20 2015, and that's when the actual density bonus letter 21 came in, that it has to comply with that section. 22 And if you agree with the second part of that 23 argument, then you've reached the statement -- then you 24 have to go through replacement process and determine 25 whether they've met that replacement requirement. 20 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING f. 010836 Advantage `,ATS Reporting Services, LLC. 1 ` L W I'%� E i E C 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAYOR SPECTOR: Following up on that, what -- I understand what the community members say, and I understand what the Applicant is saying. What is the Town's position? MR. SCHULTZ: The Town's position is that it's met the -- its application was in place before the 2015 date, and even if you don't agree with that assumption, it still meets the replacement requirements because it's providing 49 of the lower income units. MAYOR SPECTOR: Mr. Rennie and then Ms. Jensen. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Just a quick one again on that. So what did the letter from HCD say about that item? MR. SCHULTZ: The HCD did not address that issue. Remy Moose did and did agree with my analysis and the Applicant's analysis. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Okay, thank you. MAYOR SPECTOR: Ms. Jensen. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: So a couple follow up. The Rennie Moose letter concluded that the application was filed in 2013, and even if it wasn't, that the replacement units were there and they're fine. The age restriction doesn't -- MR. SCHULTZ: Correct. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: -- negate that. And is 21 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING AdvantagenAv}ting 010 8 3 Aervices, LLc i 1 the Town -- does the Town take that position? 2 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. 3 COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: The follow up layer 4 that I want to put on that is if an application is filed 5 in 2013, and I think -- I forget who is it was, 6 Mr. Paulson or Mr. Schultz, was saying the General Plan 7 was controlling at that time with respect to the Town B was going to do a Specific Plan, the General Plan also 9 had in place an EIR that was setting maximum residential 10 units and commercial square footage based upon the EIR. 11 Are - -'can those be interpreted as the maximum 12 densities? 13 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, I think that could be 14 another document that you could rely on for the maximum 15 densities. 16 COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Okay, thank you. 17 MAYOR SPECTOR: Other questions? Mr. Rennie. lg COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: If I could just follow 19 up again on my question. So what I see in the letter, 20 and maybe they don't have enough information, but the 21 letter from HCD, they say based -- so under the state 22 density bonus law, it says based on the department's 23 understanding, a development application meets the 24 eligibility criteria under GC Section 659115B and C. Do 25 we say that, you know, that's just a guess, 'cause they 22 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING i- 010 &3S Advantage �-Acpq Reporting Services, LLC e c E E c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 haven't looked at our application close enough? That's on page -- bottom of page two of attachment 36. MS. PREVETTI: Yeah, they did not do an exhaustive evaluation of the application, since it's a very large document. They were answering the key questions primarily regarding the housing element. They chose to also comment on the density bonus, because they were -- they understood that that was also in play, but that was really not the primary task for them. MR. SCHULTZ: I think in that paragraph they're more analyzing the issue of the very low versus the senior and whether this project has to. go under senior as a -- and only get 20 percent density bonus instead of the low, very low income and get 35 percent. That was the issue I think they're dealing with primarily in that paragraph and not the whole replacement issue is my reading of it, but I could be wrong. MAYOR SPECTOR: All right. Thank you, Council. Mr. Rennie, more questions? Go ahead. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: I'll change slightly. In the staff report you talked about -- you said the application gets a RENA (phonetic) credit for 49 very . low, one moderate and 270 above moderate, but I think you mean 237, because they're only applying 237. So if I add all those up, I think I get 287. So does all 287 23 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING K n 1 a p� t tage J Tq, ,Apprting O Services, LLC i 1 go towards the six -- and I believe the number was 619 2 that -- a RENA allocation 619? And the reason I ask 3 this is I saw somewhere in the Housing Accountability 4 Act that once we reach the 619, before, you know, the 5 deadline of 2023, or whatever it is, we then can start 6 denying by right developments. 7 So is 287 the credit we get towards it even 8 though only 237 was part of our original allocation? 9 MR. PAULSON: We will get credit for the entire 10 320 units that are proposed. And so 50 -- the 49 very 11 low, one moderate and then the 270, which is the 12 remainder, will go in the above moderate, which is the 13 market rate units. So those will go into those 14 categories for credit. 15 The by right, I don't have that in front of me 16 as to whether or not we can deny them once we hit that 17 threshold. 18 MR. SCHULTZ: The by right would be hit once 19 you get the 13.5 acres at 20, plus the density bonus. 20 So I think that's the three -- 340 -- 364. 21 COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Yeah, I was actually 22 thinking in terms of our other projects that we have 23 designated that would end up by right projects, but if 24 we manage to build enough when those come forward, then 25 they wouldn't be by right. 24 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING IL 0108110 s Advantage Aq Reporting Services, LLLC FE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCHULTZ: This was the only property that we did the by right on in our housing element. The other ones are AHAS (phonetic) properties. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Okay, thank you. MAYOR SPECTOR: Other questions? Seeing none, good questions Council. Now_it's time for discussion, motion. Mr. Leonardis. COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: I'll ask a question of staff. I asked this a couple weeks ago, about the Samaritan Hospital potential expansion. Did we get any information back from the letter we submitted to them reasons and concerns about the impacts of traffic, and did we get any information back from them whether they would be doing anything to mitigate traffic along the corridor, Los Gatos Boulevard between Lark Avenue and I guess it would be Samaritan Drive? MR. MORLEY: , We will receive -- or the City of San Jose will post responses to the EIR questions on their website on September 14th. MS. PREVETTI: We've actually received the -- some of the information -- I guess actually that was for Dell. Yeah, I'm sorry, I was confused. So San Jose has not yet responded to the comments that we've provided, however, Campbell has completed responses to comments, and the Town did submit comments on the Dell Avenue, and 25 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage !R"rtin9 �° U O Services, LLC i 1 that information will be provided in detail to the i 2 Council tomorrow. 3 MAYOR SPECTOR: Mr. Leonardis. 4 COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: Thank you, Mayor 5 Spector. My primary concern at this time is the part of 6 Los Gatos Boulevard between Lark Avenue and Samaritan 7 Drive. It already backs up quite badly under ordinary 8 conditions. If we're going to add more capacity, if the 9 hospital will add more capacity, I'm wondering how that 10 would be addressed, especially from their point of view, 11 and if there would be any monetary contributions or 12 attempts to I guess take the right of way to add a third 13 lane along that stretch going northbound. 14 MR. MORLEY: So with the San Jose EIR 15 information, San Jose will look at all of the impacts 16 that the traffic makes on -- on both the Town streets 17 and the City -- City of San Jose streets, as well as 18 freeways and intersections and on ramps. All of it 19 combined much like the Town did for the North 40. San 20 Jose has some options when they have receive -- when 21 they have that information in front of them. 22 One of them is to mitigate the impacts if 23 they're able to identify a solution. The other is to 24 determine that if there's not a way to mitigate the 25 impacts, then they would make a finding of overriding 26 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 01084? Advantage Aq Reporting Services, LLC W 1C 11 12 1? 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 consideration. That's the information that we'll get finally on September 14th from San Jose and what their intended direction is on the stretches of roadway. Typically they wouldn't allocate dollars. They would rather require the developer to do improvements, for example, at the intersection of Samaritan and Los Gatos Boulevard to accommodate the vehicle traffic. That doesn't necessarily address the stretch between Lark and Samaritan. Traffic generally looks at the intersections as the congestion point, the point where all that traffic comes to a confluence and creates the backup. That's where the mitigation measures typically occur. We would not anticipate an allocation of dollars that could be used to procure right of way outside of waiting for those properties along Los Gatos Boulevard to develop where that could be a requirement of the developments. MAYOR SPECTOR: Ms. Sayoc. VICE MAYOR SAYOC: Two questions on that. The first is does Good Sam as an entity make comments to these various projects and the traffic studies associated with it, or do they rely on San Jose to make those analyses and those thoughts? And the reason why I ask it is just because of 27 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING O10S43 S ;x or I Services, LLC i 1 the number of comments we've received on capacity of our 2 streets to take patients to Good Sam in a timely manner. 3 Is that -- does Good Sam ever weigh in on what they 4 consider is appropriate traffic around their facility? 5 MS. PREVETTI: Well, similar to the North 40, 6 there's an applicant for the Samaritan projects, and 7 they are making a proposal to add a significant amount 8 of square footage and replace existing buildings, but 9 the burden of completing an EIR that's compliant with 10 state law runs with the City of San Jose. 11 It would be -- the applicant would have the 12 opportunity to say I'm including various mitigations in 13 my project. They could voluntarily offer that, or they 14 could suggest that certain mitigations are not feasible 15 or viable, and then the City would either have to offer_ 16 alternate mitigation or deem the impact to be 17 significant unavoidable with no impacts. 18 It would be unusual for an applicant to comment 19 on a document for their own project, but it could be 20 done. But there's also other hospital interests, as you 21 know, in that area, and one would expect that the other 22 medical uses would certainly be commenting and making 23 their opinions known on the document. That would be 24 expected. 25 MAYOR SPECTOR: Miss Sayoc. 28 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 0198 : 4 Advantage �ATn Reporting Services,`vLLO K F "'s 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2. 1 VICE MAYOR SAYOC: And I recall when we -- a 2 long time ago the Planning Commission had looked at a 3 medical building on that corner of Los Gatos Boulevard, 4 and I think it's -- where the -- where the Starbuck's. 5 is, and that's a funky intersection, because it's owned 6 by San Jose I think, by Los Gatos, and I think CalTrans 7 had some say in it, so in a project, whether it's Good 8 Sam or North 40, with changes occurring, who pays for 9 the improvements at that intersection? 0 MS. PREVETTI: It really depends upon which 1 project is creating the impact. So if the project is on 2 the Los Gatos side, and we're the first ones out, then 3 it would be the obligation of that first project to 4 mitigate its impact. 5 If later, say, on the San Jose side, where 6 Stanford is located, they were going to be doing 7 something different, that would also impact that same B intersection, then they are then responsible for the new 9 increment of impact that their project is -- is J creating. So it is -- and in this area with so much L interest happening, it's -- we're essentially working ? our way through these issues as we come forward. With 3 the project that's before you, we have an Applicant 1 who's proposing to do some of the offsite improvements i up front to the extent that they can, and then 29 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage A (P� _!"porting IL 0198 2 5 Services, LLC 1 additional improvements would have to happen later. 2 Whether or not San Jose does outside of its 3 jurisdiction improvements is something that I -- we 4 can't comment on 'cause we don't know what those impacts 5 are and what the required mitigation will be yet. 6 MAYOR SPECTOR: Ms. Sayoc. 7 VICE MAYOR SAYOC: And so for a future phase 8 three, four, five, whatever it is on the northern 9 district, and we look at Burton Road, would the uses 10 allowable on those parcels be impacted by what the 11 traffic climate at that time of application will be? 12 MR. MORLEY: Yes. The requirements are that 13 there's a TIA with each future phase of the project. 14 VICE MAYOR SAYOC: And so it would do the 15 analysis of whether the proposed uses of more commercial 16 versus residential versus a hotel, would be conducted, 17 and that would show what would be at least the least 18 impact for traffic with those -- with that Northern 19 section, right? 20 MR. MORLEY: It would analyze any proposed 21 project with the existing -- the traffic conditions at 22 those time -- at that time and any other projects that 23 were in the queue, much like it's been done for the 24 North 40 project or other projects. 25 VICE MAYOR SAYOC: Okay. Thanks. 30 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING i - U1U8�6 Advantage A 1J Reporting Services, LLC 10 19 i� l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAYOR SPECTOR: Questions? Discussion? Ms. Jensen. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Well, since no one's going to do it, I will start out. I'm going to go slow, because I'm going cite sections as I go through, so -- as the Mayor did on August 16th, I'd ask the Council and staff to pay attention to the sections that I'm going to cite. I'm going -- this is going to end up being a motion. For purposes of my motion, I am taking the evaluation that's contained in the HCD letter of August 25th, from Paul McDougal regarding California Government Code Section 65583C1 and 655A3H and I, which indicates that, quote, "While design review.is allowed under the statute, by right, decision - making.must follow development standards that are fixed, predictable, clear, quantifiable, written, warrant little to no judgment and should be applied in a manner that affirmatively facilitates development," close quote. I recognize that that is a letter regarding housing elements and housing law, however, my question to Mr. Schultz was regarding mixed use and whether that applied to the commercial as well. Mr. Paulson identified neighborhood serving retail as part of a mixed use development that would qualify, so I'm going 31 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage s,s. _ Reporting �7 / Services,FLLLC 1 use that standard. 2 And my -- I'm going to organize this by the 3 numbered bullet points I've numbered in the Vision 4 Statement in order that we can follow it. 5 First of all, the general principles that are 6 identified in chapter two are that the land use 7 development standards form a comprehensive set of 8 policies that will work in concert to steer future 9 development, and that the overall goal -- this is 2.3, 10 paragraph two -- for the three districts to work 11 together as a self- sufficient neighborhood while 12 offering support services and entertainment for the 13 local area. 14 I also found Section 6.4.2, and I've got it f 15 written down somewhere, but I'm not going- to.refer to 16 it, but essentially it's an administrative section of 17 the Specific Plan which indicates that the plan policies 18 and guidelines work in concert with the zoning 19 ordinances of the Town, however, when there is a 20 conflict, the Specific Plan takes precedence. And 21 that's at Section 6.4.2, and that goes back to the 22 Mayor's discussion with her first motion on our last 23 meeting with respect to our architecture and site, yes, 24 it does apply, but according to 6.4.2, if there's a 25 conflict, the Specific Plan is the ruling document. 32 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 010848 Advantage 4n Reporting Services, LLC e4s E E c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So the bullet one of Vision Statement, the North 40 will look and feel like Los Gatos. This is, of course, the most controversial. Section 2.7.3 of the Specific Plan says, that the Specific Plan area should accommodate a mix of residential product types and sizes to create the character of an authentic neighborhood rather than a typical development project. The Mayor pointed out in her motion last time that Los Gatos is eclectic, it's a blend of different things, that's reflected in this Specific Plan. The application proposes different types of residences, garden cluster row homes, live work lofts, affordable senior, apartments, and those are contained at -- well, they comply with Table 2.2 of our Specific Plan. With respect to commercial design guidelines, the look and feel of Los Gatos, Section 3.2.4 A says, quote, "These guidelines are not intended to accomplish or dictate a specific style." Section 3.2.4, paren B, quote, "Proposals for new commercial structures should be developed within the context of Los Gatos heritage and historic and agricultural heritage of the site." That particular section is accompanied by a picture of a barn. That barn is -- looks to be constructed with a metal roof. It has concrete at the bottom. It's got a 33 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 010349tutage QS.. ZteF,rtmg Services, LLC 1 side of windows, and that's illustrative of what the 2 Specific Plan is asking for. 3 You look at the application that we have before 4 us, that's consistent with the architecture that's 5 called out in the Specific Plan, therefore, I believe 6 that it's compatible. 7 Section 3.4, neighborhood identity, which was 8 also cited by the Mayor in her motion on August 16th, 9 indicates, quote, "The Specific Plan area is a unique 10 site within the Town. With its own identity, the 11 Specific Plan area should be treated with a unique image 12 or brand appropriate to its history and relationship to 13 the Los Gatos community. Branding elements include 14 building materials and forms, trees and landscape 15 - treatments." 16 So this application has given us a variety of 17 architectural treatments that have conformed to the 18 heritage of the land. It's consistent with the pictures 19 that are illustrated in our Specific Plan. It includes 20 planting of approximately 1,800 trees, 540 of which are 21 orchard trees, and that's reflected on the application 22 sheets 2.2, 4.1 and 4.3. 23 As to the bullet two of the Vision Statement, 24 "The North 40 will embrace hillside views, trees and 25 open space." So with respect to hillside views, again 34 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING s 010SA Advantage A s, q Reporting Services, LLLC L 4 E E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 that's controversial, however, the application does comply with all of the height limitations set in the Specific Plan. It does, as I said, plant 1,800 trees. And with respect to the open'space, Section 2.5 requires, quote, "A minimum of 30 percent open space." This application gives us 39 percent. The open space Section 2.5.4A included both green open space and hardscape. It -- Section C, 2.4 -- 2.5.4C, the 34 percent -- 30 percent open space requirement shall include a variety of green and plaza spaces, with a minimum of 20 percent being green open space. The application provides 23 percent. Finally, Section 2.5.4D, requires 20 percent of the 30 percent open space shall be publicly accessible. The application before us has 85 percent of that space publicly accessible. Bullet three of the Vision Statement, the North 40 will address the Town's residential and /or commercial unmet needs. Section 3.3, residential design guidelines of the Specific Plan indicates, quote, "Residential products should be designed to meet the unmet needs of the community and provide a mix of market rate and affordable housing in a multi - family setting." The application sheets 1.0, 1.0(A), include proposed residential of market rate, garden clusters, 35 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING ;t Advantage n Reporting 0I0S51 �li' Services, LLC i 1 condominiums, row homes, live work lofts, apartments, 2 and also senior affordable units. There is a table that(" 3 was referred to, I believe by the Mayor, with respect to 4 unmet needs identifying Gen Y and baby boomers. Those 5 were examples of the types of housing that could be 6 supplied. They were not required housing, and they were 7 not attempting to define what the unmet needs were. 8 Section -- I don't have it down, but with 9 respect to retail tenant space size, and hopefully staff 10 can help me out here, the Specific Plan -- again, I'm 11 quoting -- allows for a mix of retail sizes. The 12 commercial is to serve the unmet needs for the new and 13 surrounding businesses and residential neighborhoods 14 subject to the following conditions: A, every 15 application shall include a table that identifies the 16 sizes of each retail space proposed. That's been 17 submitted, Sheet 1.OA. 18 B, the maximum individual commercial retail 19 tenant size is 50,000 square feet. The application does 20 not propose anything.over 50,000 square feet. In fact, 21 the largest commercial space that's proposed is the 22 market hall at a net square footage of 22,700 square 23 feet, which also contains affordable housing. 24 I wanted to go with respect to -- I'm not sure 25 if it's here -- the economics, which were the subject of 36 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 0l0g5, ? Adva,tage J , Reporting Services,LLC W 9 G E 8 0 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mayor Spector's motion on August 15th. Section 2.4.2 requires that new commercial square footage must present the proposal to the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee. That was done in this case both in October of 2015, with a final decision on November 11th of 2015. The minutes for the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee indicate that it was examined and that no further -- and I have it -- I'm going to look for it. Bear with me a minute. I want to get it right for the record. No additional analysis needs to be provided unless there are changes to the proposed commercial elements that the current analysis does not cover. That was the minutes from the CDAC. So on the motion of August 16th there were several deficiencies or -- argued for deficiencies in the plan, that's Attachment 17, Exhibit F, which were, number one, that the opinion -- the central opinion was that the North 40 did not have a leasing advantage. The Specific Plan does not require that element to be contained in the economic setting. The application did not express what the 26,000 square feet of commercial will be other than market hall. Again, the Specific Plan 2.4.2 does not require Number three, the study did not address Town's 37 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage Reporting .. 010853 Services, LLC i 1 identified and commercial leakages. Again, the Specific 2 Plan does not require that, however, it was included in 3 the economic study that was contained with our EIR. 4 That the -- number four, the motion from 5 August 16th is that the study did not address, quote, 6 "the need for 10,000 square feet or above commercial 7 units," unquote. There is no identified need for that. 8 That was discussed at one of the Council 9 meetings when the Specific Plan was approved. The 10 motion to include that failed on a three to two vote, as 11 did a table that included -- or was going to include the 12 number of commercial units by square footage, X 13 percentage of -- at a certain square footage. Again, 14 that was not included in the Specific Plan, failed on i 15 the motion to approve the Specific Plan. 16 Mission statement bullet number four, the 17 North 40 will minimize or mitigate impacts on Town 18 infrastructure, schools and other community services. 19 Section 4.1, Policy C2, traffic, requires that minimize 20 traffic impacts through site design, multimodal 21 opportunities, land uses, the intensity of development, 22 access and street and intersection improvements. 23 The application complies with the mitigation 24 measures identified in the EIR. Provides infrastructure 25 improvements that are called out in the Specific Plan, 38 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 010854 J Advantage �_A , Reporting Services, LLC F E C 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and, again, I'm going to point to the tentative map roadway improvement plan sheets 1.23 and 1.24 submitted by the Applicant. Policy C5, bicycle planning, integrate bicycle facilities, amenities throughout the site, including multimodal paths physically separated from vehicle roadways. Again, the tentative map sheet 1.3, sheet 1.5 submitted with the application complies with that. 4.6 of our Specific Plan section, intersection improvements, calls for intersection improvements of Los Gatos Boulevard, Samaritan and Burton, plus a new left turn lane on Lark and Los Gatos Boulevard and a new lane on Lark to northbound 17. All of those are provided in the application, and they're called out at sheets 1.23 and 1.24. Section 4.10 of the Specific Plan calls for traffic demand management plan. That, as I understand it, comes with a final map if that is -- if this application is ever approved. Nonetheless, there are requirements called out in the EIR, which the Applicant has indicated they are going to be following. Section 4.13, Specific Plan areas circulation improvements. Again, sheets 1.23 and 1.24 of the application meet those. The second part of the bullet four of the 39 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage 1, T Reporting Services, LLC 1 Vision Statement has to do with schools. Section 5.2, 2 policy 18, of the Specific Plan says we need to address 3 school needs. It says developers are encouraged to 4 collaborate with school districts to address school 5 needs. 6 Here with the application, and prior to the 7 application, there's an agreement with the Los Gatos 8 Union School District to contribute or find two point -- 9 two acres for a school site and /or contribute $23,500 10 per market rate unit built to the schools. 11 With respect to other community services, the 12 Applicant has worked with I know the bicycle and 13 pedestrian event -- advisory committee and with other 14 transportation agencies with the Town to meet other Town r 15 needs. 16 So I think I've called out most of the things 17 that I think are objective standards, but I'll also -- 18 there was an objective standards matrix that I'm not 19 relying on for this motion for those of you that think I 20 might be, but there is one, and I want to cite it for 21 the record, that was submitted by the Applicant for our 22 last meeting. I don't see an exhibit sign on it, but 23 it's titled, "Objective Standards Matrix." And again, 24 I'm not relying on this for my motion, I'm relying on my 25 research of the Specific Plan and my looking at what 40 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage Aq Reporting Services, LLC y C E 8 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fits or doesn't fit. So I think that I've gone through and cited how I believe that the application meets the requirements of the Specific Plan. So my motion is to approve the application as submitted, and with that motion approve the resolution that was provided to the Council in our staff report from our last meeting, which is Attachment 23, with all of the findings and requirements that are included with that resolution. That was it. MAYOR SPECTOR: That's it, all right. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Mr. Rennie. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: May I ask a question of staff before I make a decision on that? MAYOR SPECTOR: Yes. And let me be -- _thank you for doing that. Just for everybody, if you have a question of some Council Member who has spoken, you can raise the issue, you can raise the question, but everything will go through the chair as opposed to talking directly to one another. Thank you for asking. You're on with staff. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: So my question really is more for staff, actually. So I would like to ask Ms. Jensen or ask staff to ask Ms. Jensen for some changes, but my question is -- and I believe it came 41 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage Reporting Services, LLC 1 from the letter from the policy manager at HCD that said 2 conditions cannot be imposed unless required by 3 objective standards and policies. 4 So, you know, in the last meeting we had, I had 5 seven or eight items that I thought would make the 6 project better. Does that statement mean that we're not 7 allowed to ask for changes such as I asked for last 8 time, and what is the range of changes we can ask for? 9 MS. PREVETTI: No. It's been our determination 10 that the Council can ask for changes, because you have 11 the discretion to essentially make sure that the 12 application meets the Specific Plan, and the types of 13 modifications that were suggested on August 16th do not 14 materially reduce the housing units or affect the 15 ability of the project to deliver the affordable housing 16 component. It was really more around landscaping and 17 architectural skin of the buildings and that sort of 18 thing. So those are changes that are -- that would be 19 consistent with state law. 20 COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Okay. Thank you. So 21 let me ask the Mayor a process question. So I have 22 seven items I'd like to ask Ms. Jensen to include. Can 23 I ask her directly, or how do I do that? 24 MAYOR SPECTOR: Let's do it this way. Why 25 don't -- we don't have a second to the motion, so we're 42 TRANSCRIPTI.ON 9 /01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 1` ^r rt Advantage AJ Reporting Servicess,LLC eols 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not discussing the motion, but putting that aside, why don't you raise the seven issues and that if you -- if they were included in the motion, you would second the motion, and then we'll just see what happens. Ms. Jensen-may or may not choose to respond, so why don't you tell us what those seven items are. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Okay. Thank you, Mayor. So I'm -- the seven items that I have that I think will make the project fit better in Los Gatos are -- and they're basically the ones that I listed last time, but the Applicant responded with most of what those would have looked like. So number one was they -- number one is a change in the tree planting map, which they -- is now in Attachment 33, Exhibit G, page 90 and that's, you know, a change in whichever Evergreen trees are planted, and the idea there was to protect views down the streets with a few shorter trees, and then also not plant trees that are too tall to block the views of the hillside, while still blocking the view of the project from 17. So that was number one. And then number two was to plant the trees as soon as possible where the possibility of damage during construction was reduced, so that is important. And number three was there was a change -- you TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage O1O859 Services, LLC 43 U i 1 know, I thought market hall architecture could be 2 improved, softened up a little bit, and they submitted L 3 some changes, Exhibit F in the same attachment, 32, page 4 87. I thought those were better than what we have. I'm 5 not really married to those changes, suggestion. 6 Number four was the two units on Los Gatos 7 Boulevard, everything on Los Gatos Boulevard is 8 commercial, and we have two houses, or housing units 9 that look very housing unit like. They submitted a 10 change in the architecture that make -- I thought made 11 them fit better with the architecture on Los Gatos 12 Boulevard, and those were Exhibit B, again of attachment 13 32, page 73. They were titled, "Potential Alternative 14 Los Gatos Boulevard Front Elevation." 15 Number five was the -- they submitted another. 16 optional row house elevation, which I had suggested 17 before replace elevation A, which is kind of disbursed 18 about. The idea being their new elevation, which is in 19 Exhibit D, attachment 32, page 81, it's titled, 20 "Conceptual Row House Traditional Elevation," so it's 21 traditional more like Los Gatos, and it in the plan is 22 placed around it, so it would be part of this blending 23 and weaving their kind of new architecture with Los 24 Gatos' existing architecture was the idea there. I 25 thought that was a good change. 44 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage A �n Reporting 01060 4, K`J' Services, LLC E S 1C 11 lc l� 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Item number six was the ten units that I requested that would be more senior or handicap friendly that were single floor, single bedrooms that were added to the condominium clusters. They submitted new plans in Exhibit E, attachment 32. I didn't write the page number, because my iPad kept dying when I tried to look at that one, but it was titled, "Alternate Floor Plans for,Condominium Cluster," and it's plan four that was changed. So this would given the more senior friendly kinds of units. And then number seven, on Lark Avenue they submitted, again in Exhibit C, attachment 32, page 79, it was alternate conceptual Lark Avenue -- I guess they called it, "Conceptual Lark Avenue Traditional Elevations. ". Again, the idea being it looked -- they looked a little bit more like what's in the rest of Los Gatos, but the architecture actually kind of blended what came next. I, again, like those to try to get a neighborhood that blended with the rest of Los Gatos. So those are my seven items. If the maker of the motion would consider adding a majority of those, I'd be willing to second. MAYOR SPECTOR: All right. We have a motion. It doesn't have a second yet, so we won't be discussing it, but we have suggestions which will lead to a second. 45 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 010861 tags ` . - Services, LLC i 1 Ms. Jensen. 2 COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: I will happily accept 3 item one, the tree planting plan change, Exhibit G. 4 Item two, plant trees as soon as possible. Item six, 5 adding a senior units, Exhibit E, attachment 32. I will 6 reluctantly accept the suggested change to the 7 architecture of the market hall, Exhibit F, Exhibit 32. 8 A change to the architecture on the two units on Los 9 Gatos Boulevard, which is Exhibit B, attachment 32. I 10 will very reluctantly accept, unless Mr. Rennie wants to 11 reconsider change to the row home architecture in 12 Exhibit D, which is showing a white Mediterranean, which 13" I think is not called out anywhere in the Specific Plan 14 and is not illustrated anywhere in the Specific Plan and 15 does not match the architectural heritage of the site, 16 however, I'm not going to give up a second by insisting 17 on that. And the same with the frontages on Lark 18 Avenue, Exhibit C of attachment 32. 19 MAYOR SPECTOR: On that last one, you are 20 accepting it into your motion? 21 COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: I'm accepting -- I said 22 with the degree of enthusiasm which I would accept it, 23 the last two with not a high degree of enthusiasm, and 24 was suggesting to Mr. Rennie that he might give up 25 Exhibit D, row home changes architecture, because I 46 TRANSCRIPTION 9 /01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage _ATn Reporting 010$62 }}: P ri `v t Services, i•i.f!. IQ c 1( 1] l� l� 14 1E lE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 L don't see that type of architecture or style called out ? anywhere in the Specific Plan. However, I will not give 3 up a second to stand on that. ! MAYOR SPECTOR: All right. We have a motion. i Do we have a second? Mr. Rennie. i COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: So I miss -- so I'm not quite sure I -- COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: I accept them, Mr. Rennie. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: All right. I'll second it for discussion. MAYOR SPECTOR: Well, no, are you accepting them -- it is in discussion. Are you second - COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: I will second it, yes. MAYOR SPECTOR: All right. We have a motion and a second. Now, discussion. Mr. Leonardis. COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: Thank you, Mayor Spector. I have some questions for staff, which consist of what are the options this evening voting, for instance, if the Council chooses to go with the Planning Commission recommendation, what does that mean? If the Council agrees to vote the motion which is presented on the floor through, what does that mean? If the Council chooses to vote with modification, does that mean that 47 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 0 0 5 6 aa. ant e Uq , ePuY ling 3 Services, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it gets through without the Specific Plan being reopened up, which was a concern of the application? Can you cover the myriad of options that are available to the Council and what are the ramifications? Those are just three examples, but I'm sure there are many more. MS. PREVETTI: There are -- there are certainly many more. You mentioned the Planning Commission recommendation, so if the Council were to use the Planning Commission recommendation as a basis for its . action to deny the application, staff would be available to work with you to identify more specifically particular elements of the Specific Plan in terms of sections or page numbers that provide additional jurisdiction and then, likewise, sections and page numbers of the plan sheet that would provide the facts to substantiate that it's not in compliance with the Specific Plan. So the Planning Commission did an admirable job, but if -- for final action we would work with you to put additional facts onto the record. The second question was with respect to the current motion. The current motion works within the confines of our existing Specific Plan. That motion as it is is certainly ready for acceptance with a minor modification that we did update the findings and the 48 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 010864 Advantage LA q Reporting Services, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 affirmative findings that would need to be made for the Vesting Tentative Map in an exhibit, attachment 38, which we distributed late today. So that would be our only technical modification on that one. And the Council certainly has additional motions at its disposal. You might choose to deny based on other facts or parameters in addition to or different than the Planning Commission. And again, staff are here to work with you on that. You could accept the application as is with no modifications. So, again, there's -- you've got -- you do have some room to work within, and we're here to work with you. At this point we do not have a motion on the floor, nor have we heard one in the last few days regarding modifications to the Specific Plan, so that's -- that is certainly within your purview. You could direct future changes, but this application, if I could just politely remind you, needs to be evaluated against the existing adopted plan. MAYOR SPECTOR: Mr. Leohardis. COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: Thank you, Mayor Spector. So when the Applicant spoke last time, they said if we reopened the Specific Plan or something to that effect, that would effectively really not be a viable option, because it would essentially kill the EE TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING O 0 O c tags UALPnlJ' . Reporting a U Services, LLC i 1 whole project; is that correct? So if -- I know there 2 were Council Members who spoke last time that were 3 considering modifications to the Specific Plan, and if 4 that were the case, I guess what are the repercussions 5 and what are the repercussions if the Council were to 6 adopt the Planning Commission's findings in the staff 7 report? Would that essentially kill the whole project? 8 Or would that go back somewhere for re- evaluation and 9 then come back in another couple months? I mean, I'm 10 just wondering the whole myriad of options, because I've 11 heard so much from the community over the last five and 12 half years, and I want to know what is really available 13 to us this evening. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: So I'll give it a stab first and 15 see if I can answer your question. So the Applicant 16 currently has an application pending and a Vested 17 Tentative Map and so you must, by law, evaluate that 18 application and the Vested Tentative Map based on the 19 laws that were in effect when it was filed, and that's 20 your current Specific Plan. 21 So if Council was not to make a decision and 22 try to change. the Specific Plan, you couldn't do it. 23 You have to evaluate under its current one. 24 If you were to adopt the recommendations by the 25 Planning Comission, the project is denied, and the 50 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING U. 01,0866 Advantage ��� q Reporting Service�3,J'T.LC E C 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Applicant has a choice of filing a new application to try to meet the recommendations of the Planning 3 Commission or yours, or they have the availability to file litigation stating that they met the requirements of the Specific Plan, and you did not have the authority to deny their application. So that's where it would -- it would head either into litigation or into a new application. COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: Thank you. MAYOR SPECTOR: Further discussion? All right. Hearing none and seeing none, I'm going to call the question. We have a motion, I don't think anybody -- well, I shouldn't say that. Does anybody want the motion re- stated? I don't think so. Mr. Leonardis. COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: I have more questions for perhaps Ms. Prevetti. So she mentioned that if the Council were to adopt the Specific Plan, that we could go through and we wanted to modify, they would help guide us through some process of modifications in the table? Is that one of the earlier things that you said, or was that based on the acceptance of the Planning Commission findings, and then you would try to help us alleviate those findings in order to approve the project? How -- can you explain it one more time. 1'21 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage %�iS� rR"rting 010867 Servic °ess,, LLC i 1 MS. PREVETTI: Okay, thank you. So if the 2 Council, if this motion is defeated and a new motion 3 comes forward that essentially says Planning Commission 4 identified certain parameters -- and we can find that 5 page for you -- and you just said we want that as the 6 motion, so it's on the floor to deny the application for 7 the reasons the Planning Commission stated, we would 8 work with you to identify some additional sections of 9 the Specific Plan that help support the recommendation 10 of denial, and then, as appropriate, identify locations 11 within the plan sets that provide evidence that the 12 application is deficient in those particular areas. 13 So we would try to work with you if you want a 14 recommendation of denial to make sure that you have a 15 record that -- that substantiates the findings that are 16 necessary to deny a Vesting Tentative Map and to deny 17 the A and S. So we would -- so if that's the choice 18 that the Council would like, we can -- we would work 19 with you. 20 You know, again, it's great if the deciding 21 body can identify those sections themselves, but we're 22. here as a team to assist you. 23 MAYOR SPECTOR: Mr. Leonardis. 24 COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: Thank you for the 25 clarification on that. And I'm not anticipating a vote 52 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING a.' 010868 Advantage A Reporting Services, LLC W E E c 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Epal 24 25 one way or the other, but I am interested in what you're saying. Is this something that we would do right here live this evening? MS. PREVETTI: Yeah, I think we are -- the clock is ticking, so we're ready to work with you. We might find that once you -- if a motion is on the floor that needs some additional research, we might respectfully ask the Mayor for a short break, so that way we could identify some additional sections, and then bring that back after the break. So we might need a little bit of time. We may not be able to put our hands on everything right in -- at the moment, but we would do our best to make sure this is a productive meeting this evening. COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: Thank you. MAYOR SPECTOR: Further discussion? Ms. Sayoc. VICE MAYOR SAYOC: Question of staff. And again, if you can remind me, the Vesting Tentative Map, attached to that is the layout and the number of.units within each parcel once it's laid out? MR. PAULSON: So the Vesting Tentative Map lays out lots, and then they further can be subdivided into condominium lots, which would be the footprints specifically of those buildings, and so that would move forward given its current configuration as proposed. 53 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Q 019"T age l '^ Reporting Services, LLC 1 VICE MAYOR SAYOC: And that decision has to be 2 made by September 7th. So, for example, there was a it 3 discussion about changing the architecture of building 4 24 and 25. If I just believe that building 24 and 25 5 should be commercial, that's a vesting tentative issue, 6 not necessarily an architectural? Okay. Okay, 7 thanks. 8 MAYOR SPECTOR: Mr. Rennie. 9 COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Thank you Mayor 10 Spector. So let me follow up on building 24 and 25, 11 because I believe I had a discussion earlier with the 12 Town Attorney that we may be able to ditch 24 and 25 13 with -- and approve the rest of it with the chance that 14 the -- there wouldn't be a lawsuit, because they would 15 get a -- be getting most of it, so if Councilwoman Sayoc 0 16 really didn't want those two buildings, there's a 17 possible route that direction? 18 MR. SCHULTZ: So certainly you're able to look 19 at the Vested Tentative Map and make determinations that 20 it's not in compliance with the Specific Plan, and you 21 could approve the Vested Tentative Map by removing 22 certain buildings, certain lots from the Vested 23 Tentative Map because they didn't meet the Specific Plan 24 requirements. Whether that would ultimately rely on -- 25 still result in a lawsuit, I don't know, the -- what the 54 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 910 s,a Advantage ll� �" /J Reporting Services, LLC N 1 L 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 implications that has with the Applicant or whether they believe we didn't have the right to do that because it did meet the Specific Plan requirements. But certainly, again, as the Town Manager mentioned, if that's the route Council wants to take, we can help with findings if there's any changes to the Vested Tentative Map that you'd like to look at. MAYOR SPECTOR: Further questions? All right. Then before we go to the motion, I will be voting against the motion. And rather than go through each paragraph and page of the Specific Plan, my opposition will be based upon and incorporate by reference my motions of last time, the one relating to residential and the one relating to economic and all of the paragraphs and sections referred to in those motions. I also will incorporate into my opposition the recommendation of the Planning Commission and all the bases therefor. And lastly, I'm going to incorporate the totality of the record on the basis that people always talk about objective versus subjective as -- and whenever they do that, they're normally talking about objective is what they think it is, and if they don't like it, then it's subjective. But objective is can be based and is based on all of the facts in the record. And so I am incorporating those into my opposition to fig TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage RVorting 010871 Services, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Owl! this motion. Further discussion? Hearing none, we have a motion on the floor to adopt the -- to accept -- actually, approve the application. All in favor? (Ayes.) MAYOR SPECTOR: Opposed. No. (Nos.) MAYOR SPECTOR: Let's do it by a show of hands. All in favor? Opposed? Motion fails three -two, Ms. Jensen and Mr. Rennie voting for the motion. So we're still here, and we're looking for another motion and discussion. Mr. Rennie. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Thank you, Mayor Spector. If I could just make some general comments i versus another motion. So, you know, I've met with several members of the community since our last meeting that kept encouraging me to remember my campaign tag line, which was I'm an engineer, not a politician, so what that means to me is I -- you know, and to them is that they want me to keep analyzing facts and come up with decisions based on facts, and I -- again, talking to members of the community, I continue to find a lot of misunderstanding in the community, so I wanted to add some facts hopefully, or more understanding, in just one 56 TRANSCRIPTION 9 /01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage Aq Reporting Services, LLC *S 7 9 c E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 comment here. You know, some people were confused about affordability. We had some discussions about the units costing 900,000 to 1.1 million, and some people thought that's what the senior affordable units costed. So I just -- I wanted to 'try to help people understand affordability. So the units that are built market rate, the 237 that have been proposed market rate, they're not affordable units by the term, "affordable," which means income restricted affordable. They are more affordable than -- you know, the reason that they're required to be built at 20 units per acre is so that they will cost less, and they'll be more affordable. You might think of them as workforce affordable housing. They're certainly more affordable than the two, three, four million dollar houses we build in Los Gatos. So those units are not affordable with the income restricted and my quotations on them, they're more affordable workforce housing. Then the income restricted also senior restr there was ever in were, and they're Applicant has proposed real affordable units. Those are the ones that are icted, and those units, I don't think our discussion what the price of those meant to be rental units for extremely 57 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage Repo+fns .. 010 O / 3 Services, LLC i 1 low and very low is my understanding, and there's 2 actually a table that you can get that tells you in 3 Santa Clara County what is extremely low, what is very 4 low income to qualify for those. So again, just adding 5 a little information. 6 If you're one person, extremely low means you 7 earn 23,450, two persons 26,800, very low is 39,100 and 8 two people very low is 44,000. The price of those 9 units, my understanding, is they're -- they vary between 10 600 and $900 a month for rent. 11 So when I calculate it with the affordability 12 levels, that's really saying these people pay about 27 13 percent of their income for rent, which I think is not 14 that .unusual. I think a lot of us pay more than that 15 percentage. 16 So that's my affordability lesson. Thank 17 you. 18 MAYOR SPECTOR: Thank you. Discussion, motion? 19 Mr. Leonardis. 20 COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: Thank you, Mayor 21 Spector. If somebody has to dive on a hand grenade, I 22 guess it will be me. 23 So I've been up here almost six years on the 24 Council, and I think I've been dealing with this for 25 about five and a half years, and up until today, in my 58 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 0108 "r4 a Advantage ` 4q Reporting Services, LLLC r ^� 7 L 4 E E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mind, it's been a volley back and forth, which way do you go with this particular property, and it's been a very difficult decision for all of us on Council. There's many good attributes of the project on both sides of the equation, but for me, if I consider all the information that I have, all the letters, all the testimony, all the documentation you see in front of me, all the public comments, thank you for everybody doing this, the presentation, all the meetings, the staff, the North 40 advisory committee, everything going back five and half years, it is, for me, a decision that it's been very difficult to arrive at this conclusion. I mean, I did not draw a conclusion until this evening at this meeting. I mean, I was reading.stuff on the dais this evening, but if I were to move forward this evening with a motion, which I may, it would be to uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation. And the reason for that, again, is just because when I'm thinking of this, I'm not thinking of the latest information proposed, I'm thinking of all of the information, all the information of the last five and a half years. Very difficult. I've changed my mind so many times back and forth, and is this good or is this bad and everything else, but I'm looking at this in terms of the complete record and what is best for Los 59 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage�� Reporting Services, LLC i 1 Gatos in the long run, and I am teetering towards the 2 Planning Commission's recommendation this evening. 3 MAYOR SPECTOR: Discussion? Ms. Sayoc. ¢ VICE MAYOR SAYOC: So this is not a motion as 5 well. It's just a continuation of Council Member 6 Leonardis' comments, because one thing, over the past, I 7 guess, five and a half years, but more so over the past 8 two weeks, we've heard a lot of comments. And so in 9 trying to filter out the noise, one thing that I need to 10 clarify over and over again, the last five and a half 11 years was work on a Specific Plan, and that's where I 12 keep coming down. It was work on a Specific Plan that 13 we all worked on for 40 acres, and the -- what's before 14 us is an application for 20. f 15 Now, what has been said, yes, there are very 16 positive attributes, but I think what's interesting -- 17 and I'm going to give credit where credit is due, the 18 Applicant team has been completely open to sharing their 19 application from the get -go. 20 So -- and there are people that took advantage 21 of that and did the research and did the homework, they 22 analyzed it, they scrutinized, they made comments, and 23 their comments were incorporated, but where I'm 24 struggling right now is that this is the first time I'm 25 looking at this in a public venue, and there are 60 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage �A q Reporting Services, LLC 111� e C I E S 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 comments, for example layout, that I don't think make sense. I've talked about 24, 25, but I also look at section buildings 18 through 27. To me, if I'm looking strictly at a layout and had an opportunity to weigh in, that, to me, seems like a commercial area instead of having residential sandwiched between existing commercial areas. These are the types of discussions I wish we had an opportunity to have. And the way the structure is set up, it's frustrating, we don't have the ability to have this discussion where we would have in a normal application where we could look at it, Planning Commission makes recommendations, it could come back and then the process continues and ultimately it's refined to a project we all agree with. That is where I'm stuck with. It's not who's in the bad, who's in the good, but it's a process of can I accept a project that I personally see flaws, and I can go into the reasons with the Specific Plan, and I think that we can actually do better. And so I always bring that distinction. This is the first time in a public venue we're seeing an application, and the application that we have before us is different from the analysis that we did for a 61 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage ,, Iiorting OlOS 7 �S Services, LLC 1 Specific Plan. And so that's the disconnect that I'm 2 having tonight, as well as the disconnect that I've had 3 over the past couple of nights. 4 MAYOR SPECTOR: Mr. Rennie. 5 COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: That reminds me of a 6 question I had for staff. I never quite understood why 7 we can't, like a normal application, remand this back to 8 Planning Commission with changes we want to see. That's 9 sort of what's.frustrating, I think. Most projects 10 we -- I mean, this is a big project, and most projects 11 we see things a lot of times we'd like changed, and we 12 say well, change these few things, please go work with 13 Planning Commission, why can't we do that here? 14 MS. PREVETTI: Primarily because the 15 application was deemed complete in the spring, and so 16 that then sets off the Permit Streamlining Act 17 deadlines, and the Applicant worked with the Town to 18 extend those deadlines, and now we're at that point of 19 deadline of September 7th. 20 So there is no time to remand it back to 21 Planning Commission for additional modifications, their 22 consideration and then your consideration. 23 We completely appreciate how frustrating this 24 must be for all of you, and I think there's some lessons 25 learned and some process improvements that we can talk 62 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING U O g Advantage IC. �� � � IJ' Reporting Services, LLC W r� t E t 8 9 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about at future goal setting sessions perhaps, but these are -- we're working with the rules that we have with us at this present time, and I would just say to the concerns about certain components of the project, there are motion possibilities if the Council is interested that might extract some of the areas from the Vesting Tentative Map that, again, staff would be available to work with the Council on if that is something you're interested in pursuing in a way that would still maintain the 20 units per acre and the by right and all the other requirements that we have. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Thank you. MAYOR SPECTOR: Thank you. I'm going to follow up with -- from what the Vice Mayor was saying. And I'm frustrated. I know that I'm the one who made the motion at the last meeting to deny this, and I know that I went through the Specific Plan in making that motion. And I also used that as the basis for opposing the motion to approve this evening. That being said, it's not because I want to say no, no, no, no, no to everything, it's because I agree it is frustrating after,. what, having done planning . decisions in Los Gatos for 20 years, you really -- what you really want to do when you're making these planning decisions is see where things can fit in better with the MW TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage tll' Reporting Services, LLC i 1 Town, see where they can fit in better with our 2 architecture and site and our general plan and our 3 ordinances and then make recommendations, send it back 4 to the Planning Commission, have the Planning Commission 5 and the community weigh in on it and then bring it back 6 to the Council. 7 That's what I would like for this on an ideal 8 level. I would also like -- we've learned a lot. I 9 would also like for the Specific Plan itself, for the 10 Council to send it back to the Planning Commission, the 11 community and the Council. But we're not there. Where 12 we are is we're here tonight. It's September 1st, and 13 September 7th is fast approaching. And that is the -- 14 those are the parameters that we are working -- within rS 15 which we are working. 16 Motion? Discussion? Ms. Jensen. 17 COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Just a cite for the 18 record to the Specific Plan. Sorry, being -- 6.2, 19 Section 6.2, phasing. This is in response to the Vice 20 Mayor's comments and some comments that we received from 21 members of the public. I'm going to preface it by 22 saying that the Specific Plan, I think part of the 23 problem is -- with people's concept is the Specific Plan 24 is a zone, so just as though -- just as I would zone the 25 Almond Grove residential, parts of University 64 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage Aq forting Services, LLC W i t c E 7 8 0 J 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 commercial, and things will get built over time, that's what happens with the Specific Plan. A plan development, everything gets built at once, we tinker with it, then we make a -- do an ordinance. And I think we're struggling with the difference between a plan development and what's essentially a zone. So going back to Section 6.2, phasing, I want to read -- just going to read it for the record. "It is anticipated that the Specific Plan will be implemented over time and in more than one phase. Each phase shall stand alone and shall not be dependant on improvements required in future phases." So we can look at 20 acres. We should look at 20 acres. MAYOR SPECTOR: With regard to the Specific Plan and the planned development, yes, they are different, but it is not necessarily the Specific Plan that is driving us to making a decision this evening and driving us to September 7th. We are having to deal with -- we on the Council are having to deal with several state mandates, state mandates such as the vesting map, the Vesting Tentative Map, such as RENA, such as by right. And so even though I can appreciate that there is indeed a difference 65 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage Jn^ Reporting 010- �lJ' Services, LLC i 1 between a planned development and a specific plan, I 2 don't see the Specific Plan as the engine that is 3 driving us to September 7th. 4 And Council, I'm still looking for a motion. 5 Mr. Rennie. 6 COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Thank you. I'm not -- 7 not going to make a motion, but I'll make some more 8 comments to help other Council Members understand what 9 I'm thinking. 10 There was some suggestion about using the 11 Planning Commission's reasons for denial, and I -- and I 12 thought through those, and some of them I kind of 13 disagree with pretty strongly, and others I'm a little 14 more on the fence. So I wanted to maybe mention why I 15 don't support some of them in case you want to make 16 motions that direction. 17 You know, the first one was that one of 18 their -- the items listed was the economic report not 19 being good enough or something to that effect. I fail 20 to see how the economic report really is an issue; in 21 other words, it's not really a reason I can support. I 22 mean, there was a 22 -page report that was done that 23 breaks -- breaks in, you know, this -phase one proposal 24 into several commercial -- or into three categories and 25 analyzing those against downtown and, you know, I'm very 66 TRANSCRIPTION 9 /01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage 4n Reporting Services, LLC W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 much in favor of protecting downtown -- downtown core business, but I find it kind of silly to think this small amount of commercial is going to have a significant effect on downtown, and kind of using the report to help me in the commercial even exist in the as produce, fish, with Trader Joe's on the Boulevard, significantly froi how that third of think through that, a third of what is is specialty retail fads, which don't downtown core; you know, things such meat, so forth, we're really competing and Whole Foods that are already out. and the report says those pull from -- n outside the area. So I fail to see it has any effect on the downtown. The -- another third of it calls for a white tablecloth restaurant, a cafe and maybe some sort of brew pub or bar and grill. You know, I've heard many people say well, you know, us on the north end of town don't have any -- much choice for restaurants near our houses. You've got Viva on the Boulevard and Aldo's if you're more on the west side with -- certainly for that white table -- white tablecloth type restaurant, so adding another restaurant doesn't seem like it's going to be that big a deal. The report calls out, you know, that there's 62 restaurants in the downtown area, not necessarily white tablecloth, versus these three that we're talking about [:I1 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage;... " Reporting p �S L O l U 3 8 3 Services, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21' 22 23 M, 25 adding. It points out that there's 10,000 workers within one mile of this area, and it also points out 010884 that workers tend to put convenience on where they would go to eat versus driving all the way into the downtown. So it's likely we would be capturing a lot more people going to Campbell or other places than stealing from the downtown on those -- on the restaurants portion of it. It also points out that, you know, for the -- what's in the residential area nearby, they expect just the increase alone in the next five years of what's spent on food and beverage to be 90 million dollars. It seems to me these three restaurants can get some of that without stealing much from downtown again. Then that leaves the third part of it, which is neighborhood -- what they called comparison retail, or what's really, you know, our Specific Plan calls for neighborhood commercial. You know, those were things -- this was my list I couldn't find earlier. You know, they were neighbor -- they're supposed to be neighborhood serving, such as bicycle shop, bookstore, jewelry, gym, bank, hair salon, so forth, and the -- and in the -- you know, when we added this requirement for. the economic report to the Specific Plan, if I remember correctly, we, the Council added that, and at the time I I thought the intent was really targeting the next 400,000 68 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage A Reporting Services, LLC 7 I L 4 E E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 commercial that you end up in the Northern District. That's where we really are worried about what might affect downtown and need to be much more careful about what's placed. So again, the -- the Specific Plan calls for neighborhood commercial, so we need some commercial there, and only a third of what they're planning is neighborhood -- is a dangerous neighborhood -- it's not even dangerous, but it's, you know, this kind of comparison commercial, and without it I think we wouldn't -- wouldn't actually be following the Specific Plan. So my thoughts on why I can't support that reason for denial. MAYOR SPECTOR: Thank you. Further discussion? Mr. Leonardis. COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: Somebody has to talk, I guess it could be me. So some of the many concerns that was raised by the public where you have these three zones, and I think Council -- at least some of my votes were predicated on the fact that this is what you're going to get. This is what Mr. Rennie's comments made me think of this. You had a future promise of commercial, perhaps a hotel and some other things, but right now what we have is kind of 69 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage ° #S r Repoitiag UlOg85 S Services, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 • 010886 a housing development, and we have uncertainty moving forward what will actually go in these other spots. If all this was being voted in tonight, all three zones, and all three zones had an actual plan like we see up on the wall here, that could be much more palatable for the public and their comments, because there was many concerns brought forth in the public about that, you're really just votin4 for one zone and what happens in the future we don't know. I know that there is an overall Specific Plan, but as Mr. Rennie alluded to, that could possibly change in the future, depending on things. We're not really voting through the actual buildings that are going to be there or the actual businesses that will be there, the types of business uses that will be there at this time. So that makes the decision difficult this evening. What we are really voting for is a whole lot of housing, some senior housing on top of a market, so it's difficult to see the future, and I don't like that uncertainty. MAYOR SPECTOR: Mr. Leonardis. COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: Thank you, Mayor Spector. He who panics first loses least I always say. So questions for staff. What is again the significance of September 7th? I mean, we had Council 70 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage .Amn Reporting Servicelss,`vLLc 19 4 E 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 people up here mention that if this were a normal process like what we normally do, which is a process we understand, the public understands, where it volleys back and forth between Council and Planning Commission until we come up with a result that satisfies the public, obviously that takes more time and it gets beyond September 7th. Why could not an approach like that be used as opposed to some ideas that were put forth from perhaps the Applicant or the public where there could be lawsuits and things which I find very unproductive and time consuming? MR. SCHULTZ: So I began the topic with the Permitting Streamlining Act and the Vested Tentative Map, the Subdivision Map Act that has specific sections that have time lines for,the exact reason of not allowing public agencies to continue to delay an Applicant's project and never reach a decision. In this case -- in general, it's usually 60 days and can be for another 90 days, so, in general, that's kind of the 150 days is what we use, and that's what we got on this project. In other projects, once it's deemed complete within 30, days we can get it to Planning Commission in 30 days, in to you in 30 days, and that's 60 days, and we can still meet that 150 days, so you really don't usually hear about it very often. 71 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING L; " O C Q Advantage J �' Reporting U J O Services, LLO 1 We meet the 150 day requirement. 2 In this case we had that kind of -- when it did 3 come to you, that need for the study session, and so we 4 needed that extra 90 days when there could have been, if 5 the decision was made in I think that was May, to return 6 it back to -- if you made recommendations and returned 7 it back to Planning Commission, there would have been 8 enough time with this extension to make a decision maybe 9 within the 150 days, but we did the study session 10 instead of -- instead of making that. 11 So that's where we are. We're at the 150 days. 12 If you do not make a decision by September 7th, then the 13 Applicant has the ability to seek a decision by the 14 courts that this project is deemed approved. And that's 15 the ramifications if he did. He doesn't have to do 16 that. He could agree to waive the Permit Streamlining 17 Act, and if your recommendation was for - to send it 18 back to Planning Commission, he could possibly agree 19 with that decision, or he could challenge it in court. 20 So it's going to be the Applicant's decision, 21 not ours, as to whether there's any more extensions. In 22 fact, the Code specifically says you can't enter into 23 another extension agreement beyond the 90 days. 24 So it really would fall within the Applicant's 25 hands as to what they wanted to do after September 7th. 72 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING U 0 0 0 0 Advantage _A q Reporting ° Services,. LLC 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: Thank you. MAYOR SPECTOR: Ms. Jensen. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Just a follow up on that question. You said at the end, and I want to make sure it's on the record, I had understood that the reason we were in this position was that the Applicant and the Town had waived time up to the maNimum possible allowable under the law and that there is no now option to waive any further time. So your statement was -- MR. SCHULTZ: Correct. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: -- contradictory. Which one is it? MR. SCHULTZ: Well, so after September 7th, the Applicant has to do something to have his project deemed approved. He can't just come into court and say I want building permits. So he will need to go into court if you do nothing and for the court to say the project is deemed approved. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Right. So that's not a waiver of time. MR. SCHULTZ: No. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: That is either, number one, that you gave us, seven day notice, 60. day public hearing, or the Federal model -- MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. 73 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage l p'S ^. Reporting Services, LLC 1 COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: -- deem it approved 2 court, thank you very much, I'm done, because you've had 3 a lot of public hearings, but there's not an option for 4 the Applicant to waive time again. That's what you 5 said -- 6 MR. SCHULTZ: Not by -- 7 COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: -- they could waive 8 that. 9 MR. SCHULTZ: -- an extension agreement. 10 COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Okay. 11 MR. SCHULTZ: Not by an agreement. 12 COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: So they cannot. The 13 second part of that question is oftentimes under the law 14 the time waiver is if I start something by the deadline 15 it doesn't matter how far I go past the deadline as long 16 as I started it by the deadline. So I'm going to just 17 liken it, just because I know what it is, and for the 18 record, if a defendant demands a speedy trial, he has a 19 right to have a trial within a certain time, so let's 20 say this trial -- his speedy trial date is 21 September 7th. As long as I start the trial on or 22 before September 7th, the trial can keep on going after 23 that with no problem, but what I understand to be here 24 is that the deadline is.not a starting point, but an end 25 point by which we must make a decision. We cannot start 74 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING l Advantage �—A q Reporting Services, LLC I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1' 1 1, 21 2: 2: 2: 2� 2' 1 it before the time and keep going, we have to be done. 2 MR. SCHULTZ: That is -- that is correct, 3 although there is a court case for when a denial was 4 made and then in a subsequent meeting the findings and 5 resolution came at the next meeting, which was after the 6 September 7th date.' And the court held so long as the 7 Council made the -- the final decision by the deadline, B here September 7th, although the resolution and findings 9 came after September 7th, that was okay. But you have 9 to make a decision by September 7th. The situation 1 where you said where a trial begins and it goes further, 2 no, that's not the situation here. 3 MAYOR SPECTOR: Miss Jensen. I COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Just one more thing to i clarify for the record." What you're describing as a i findings and resolution that occur after the meeting, 7 I'm going to interpret to be administrative and 3 ministerial action that is following a decision made, 3 not further deliberation, correct? MR. SCHULTZ: Absolutely correct. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Okay. MAYOR SPECTOR: Back to Council. Mr. Rennie. t COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Thank you. I'll ask another question since we're quiet, and it's a little bit maybe off subject, but it's one of the questions I 75 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 010891 Advantage, Reporting Services, S C I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 P�cl 24 25 had I didn't ask earlier that, again, as I was trying to think through everything that I had -- and this is a question for staff obviously. In -- and I was going back, and I was reading I think staff report from August 9th, and in there it said -- it talks about the consulting architect saying the project design incorporates the character of the neighborhood that has evolved over a much longer time frame and proving high quality design with detail and diversity. What I was trying to understand is what does that really mean, the character of a neighborhood that has evolved over a much longer time frame? One of the U1089? things I've been talking about is changing architecture and so forth, so I was trying to understand whether I'm on the right track or not when I was reading this. MS. ZARNOWITZ: Thank you. Sally Zarnowitz for -- I'm planning manager. I think the intent of that language is to say that the project is designed in a way that it looks like it has evolved over time. So more organic, if you will, versus looking like it was built . all at one time. So -- and that's to address, again, the -- excuse me, the existing development of the Town. The Town has developed over time. The idea of the architecture and the intent of it and the judgment by the consulting architect is that the new development 76 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage A Reporting Services, LLC 1 E "1 E c 1C 11 1L 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 matches that kind of pattern. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: If I could follow up. MAYOR SPECTOR: Mr. Rennie. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: So if you can answer how does that -- how does the current architecture make it look like that? What have they done? I know you're not the consulting architect and you may not be able to answer the question, but I'll ask it anyway. MS. ZARNOWITZ: No, it's a good question. I think it has to do with, again, the different housing types and how they are different scales and sizes. The materials evolve. It has to do somewhat with that -- the details of the design itself and the differentiation and the different kinds of massing. That's part of it. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Okay, thank you. MS. ZARNOWITZ: I suppose the other part, also, probably has to do with the layout of the site itself and how it -- you know, the pedestrian friendly part of the layout and how that relates to, you know, again those housing types and the architectural -- different architectural styles. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: I think what you're saying is you look across the map, it's not the same size building, it's different size buildings placed in different places, and that's what makes it seem more 77 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage , Ueporting O l O S 9 3 Services, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 22 2-- 24 2E 01.9894 organic, I guess. MS. ZARNOWITZ: Correct, yeah. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Okay, thank you. MAYOR SPECTOR: Back to Council. I think that some of us who have tried motions and got shot down are a little gun shy. Hint. Mr. Rennie. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Thank you, Mayor. Since we're quiet, I'll ask another question, if nobody minds. I was trying to understand, how many units are available to be built, let's assume this project gets built. How many are available to be built in the Northern District? There was some comment somewhere about there are 16 or 19 units already. Are those in the Northern District, so we have to subtract those out? Would those be bulldozed under? So -- and if we had the density bonus, what's the number that could still be built in the Northern District? MR. PAULSON: The maximum on the remainder of the site, which is a portion of the Transition District and the Northern District, would be 44 if someone took advantage, full advantage of the 35 percent density bonus. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Okay. If I could -- is it okay for a follow -up question related? So one of the 78 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage �_A" q Reporting Services, LLC L E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 concerns I always had was we didn't -- in the Northern District you have to build over commercial. So there's -- and these are all part of our housing element that has to be built at 20 units per acre. Unfortunately we didn't allow more units than are in our housing element, so they have to be built at 20 units per acre wherever they're built, but I was wondering so a density bonus -- under density bonus they could actually get taller, you know, the problem being, you know, with the 35 foot height you can't get many floors above commercial to get at that 20 units per acre, but I'm wondering if they came with some number of affordable units, they could then ask for height in order to get that density built, and how many affordable units would they need to do to get that? MR. PAULSON: Well, that's a -- the first part of your question is yes, they could request an exception to the height for -- through state density bonus. And the maximum 35 percent is based on a number of factors, and it depends on the level of affordability and then the percentage. So, for instance, I think if you have very low income, you have to provide a minimum of 11 percent of the units have to be very low, and there's other scales. I don't have the table in front of me, but that's 79 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage Reporting o SServices, C 1 generally what the application proposed for you this 2 evening is utilizing is the -- they're more than -- a 3 clearly more than 11 percent of the units are affordable 4 very low income, and so they're able to request the 35 5 percent density bonus. 6 COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Yeah, so what I'm 7 trying to understand is what is the real viability of 8 getting units into the Northern District? And that's 9 why I asked that question. 10 So if you had a building, you'd have to have 11 11 percent in that building being affordable, and then you 12 could add others and get the height that you asked for a 13 height variation because of the bonus, that's right? 14 MR. PAULSON: Correct. 15 COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Could you do most of 16 those in one building and have it work for more than one 17 building? 18 MR. PAULSON: Depends on the application, but 19 if it was all part of one application package, then I 20 believe that would be feasible. 21 COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Okay, thank you. 22 MAYOR SPECTOR: I seem to have a lack of 23 motions here, and so in order to inspire people, it's 24 now 7:53. We're going to take a seven - minute break, and 25 we'll be back here at 8:00 o'clock with lots of ideas. 80 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING } J O10SIG Advantage Aq Reporting Services, LLC 7 E 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) MAYOR SPECTOR: Council and staff, please take your seats. We'll get started again. All right. The meeting is back in session, and we are looking for discussion or a motion from Council. Well, we can have a motion to adjourn. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Move to adjourn. MAYOR SPECTOR: I'm going second that. I'm going to ask the Town attorney, can we make that motion? MR. SCHULTZ: You certainly can any time. I can't stop a motion to adjourn. MAYOR SPECTOR: And -- MR. SCHULTZ: I would like it to a date certain that we would adjourn to, which is right now scheduled for your September 6 meeting. MAYOR SPECTOR: And so with that, with those parameters, we -- no, not yet. So we have a motion. We don't have a second yet, unless I seconded it. Okay. We have a second. And so what we need, though, is a date certain. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Move to adjourn to September 6th. MAYOR SPECTOR: I'm going to second that. We have discussion? Vice Mayor. VICE MAYOR SAYOC: Okay. I'm not going to MR TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage '� ], �S° "" Reporting 0^ j O S 9 1 7 Services, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 049 .. 01098 support it. I am going to throw out a motion hesitantly, but will do so -- MAYOR SPECTOR: Hold on. We have a motion on the floor to continue this to September 6th. Further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? (Ayes.) MAYOR SPECTOR: Opposed? No. (Nos.) MAYOR SPECTOR: Fails four -one. Ms. Sayoc. VICE MAYOR SAYOC: Okay. I will attempt at a motion. I move to deny the application. And the reasons for denial are the residential component of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the planning -- to the Town Council. And the reason, as I have stated in the past, is I -- there are significant issues that I have with the layout, the units, the residential units are comprised of that. I think if we had an opportunity to move the layout, I think we could spread a little bit of the residential units out, and I think we would have a better comprehensive site plan that we can approve. And I gave the example, for example, units 17 through 24 in the -= I'm looking at the building key plan 1.0, and it's all the residential units that's surrounded by South A Street, as well -- in the Lark ................ ._ ...... 82 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage �_ATJ Reporting Services, LLLC K 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 District, I think it's Lark District Two. I look at that layout, and I look at existing commercial property on Los Gatos Boulevard. I look at Los Gatos Boulevard, and I look at this anomaly of residential that does not make sense to me. And so if I look at the Specific Plan, I'm looking at the site access that -- on page 4 -2. I'm looking at commercial design guidelines that talk about site plan development on page 3 -2. And to go back to this idea that the ability to spread residential units gives better design, the fact of the matter is, and I'm going to stress this, because people say I'm not stressing facts, the fact of the matter is the 270 was allocated for inner housing element for all 40 sites. That is a fact. Fact number two, 13.5 was not designated in this Southern District, so the Lark District, this Transition District, and the Northern District. That's a fact. That was purposely done, so I can only speak for myself, because it provides discretion to the Planning Commission, as well as the deciding body of the Town Council.- That is how our land use processes work in Los Gatos. When there's ambiguity, we have decision body that makes these determinations. They do it for look a TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage c :Reporting O l O S 99 Services, LL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and feel, they do it for site layout. They do it for scale, mass neighborhood harmony. I don't think we should be looking at this project any differently. And that goes to the underlying premise of my motion is that I'm looking at how we can apply the Specific Plan uniformly on all projects that will come in in the future. This may be the only one, but I hesitate to award a project with the majority of the housing allocation that could disproportionately hurt chances of a better site design in the future. So that is my motion. Let's see if I get a second. MAYOR SPECTOR: All right. We have a motion to deny with explanation. Do we have a second? Mr. Leonardis. COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: I'll second the motion. MAYOR SPECTOR: you keep going, but you Mr. Rennie. COUNCIL MEMBER Was anything sited that deny at least the law? in the law have we mana without violating state All right. I thought I heard haven't. Further discussion? RENNIE: So question for staff. works as an objectable reason to You know, in other words, what Ied to hit that allows us to deny law basically? 84 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING w Advantage UACP� Reporting ?' Services, LLC '°1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCHULTZ: I'm certainly not going to make that determination as the Town Attorney on whether her emotion (sic) meets the objective standards of the Specific Plan or does not. That's not my decision as Town Attorney to overrule the Town Council's majority decision. We will come back if this is the motion, and that's the end of it and there's no more added to it, we would come back with those specific findings so -- for adoption on September 6th so that we have more time to make certain that everything is captured not only on that or other amendments. MAYOR SPECTOR: All right. Ms. Jensen. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: I will not be supporting the motion, and I'm going to go back and site to the record why. The motion was first made, or I think the primary basis of the motion is that it is to deny based upon the Planning Commission motion regarding the residential component. If I look at the record of the Planning Commission meeting on this, the -- there is a first motion that failed, however, it was incorporated into the second motion that succeeded. And there -- it was -- there was a comment by Commissioner -- or Chairperson Badame should say, that was the only thing that had to do with residential, which was that the W TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage 1:y'q Reporting °' 01 0"T ces, LLC �I 21 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a 01090' intensity of the project is out of character with the Town, and scaling it back with the intensity could have the effect of providing more open space. Now I'll go back to our last meeting on this where we were advised that by state law that Los Gatos cannot force the developer in this. situation to provide more open space, because we declared in our general plan and elsewhere that the Town has adequate open space, so we cannot exact open space from an applicant. It also says greater building articulation, possibly reduced building height, possibly reduced building footprint, quite possibly greater affordability and unmet housing needs the Specific Plan. To me, those are changes to The Specific Plan indicates heights, which this meets. It also indicates architectural and residential commercial design. So anything that matched that would be a change to the Specific Plan, and this application must be assessed under the existing Specific Plan. We cannot change the Specific Plan from the dais. We must assess it based on the plan that we have in place. The motion that actually passed in the Planning Commission included what Mayor Spector basically included in her August 16th second motion that failed regarding the insufficiencies or the stated TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage 4q Reporting Services, LLC ro 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Plcl Q,I P&I insufficiencies that the Applicant (inaudible) report, which I don't think are relevant to this motion, but that included, again with respect to housing, Chairperson Badame commented that the intensity of the housing should be related to the square footage glossary of the Specific Plan. That is only provided by way of example. It is not a requirement of the Specific Plan. And in fact, most of these units meet that. Commissioner Hanssen added that she believed that there -- she wanted some more -- she didn't think that.the senior needs cited were met by this, and she cited Appendix C. Appendix C that was discussed earlier talks about housing types. It gives examples of Gen Y and baby boomers. It does not require specific numbers or affordability levels of housing. Commissioner Kane added that he did not like the design of I think it -was units 24 and 25, and that was included in the motion. So on that basis -- and again, I'm going to go back to the Mayor indicated what she believes an objective standard is. I actually went and looked up objective and subjective just for the heck of it. An objective standard is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. A subjective assessment is influenced by it TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage J �n Reporting O 1 O J O Services, LLC 1 personal feelings, tastes or opinions, and so, to me, 2 that would be architecture, what looks good, what / 3 doesn't look good, whether it's an unmet need, whether 4 it's not an unmet need, but not something that is 5 objectively quantifiable by an exhibit or a piece of 6 evidence. 7 So, for example, if the Specific Plan requires 8 30 percent open space and the application says 39 9 percent, objectively they have met the standard. If the 10 Specific Plan says look and feel, they provide something 11 that I can go and cite to in the record which I think . 12 says look and feel, another Council Person or the Mayor 13 can point to something in the record that she thinks 14 indicates it's not, well, then, that's perhaps 15 subjective. 16 The Vice Mayor indicated she has significant 17 issues with the layout and cited Section 4.2. That has 18 to do with site access, so I'm not sure how that matches 19 with her desire to spread housing. And she cites 3.2, 20 which is commercial design guidelines. That only has to 21 do with commercial units on Los Gatos Boulevard. We did 22 not require in the Specific Plan where commercial 23 buildings should be placed, only had a limitation on -- 24 that they would meet unmet needs, that they would not be 25 over 50,000 square feet, and that an economic study be 88 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING io� 010,304 Advantage � q Reporting Services, LLC c 1( 1] 1L 1� 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 submitted to the conceptual device -- Development Advisory Committee. So I don't think that is a basis for denial. The 13.5 acres of default density are spread throughout the 13.5 acres, however, the number of housing units that are supplied here meets the requirements of the housing laws in the state, meets our housing element, and there -- and is a by right, so we cannot now assess, just like we can't I said the phasing in 6.2, and I'm not saying that the Mayor said well, it's -- the -- I forget what you said. The application driven by, you know, the Specific Plan is why we can't delay it. The Specific Plan specifically says that it anticipates applications over time. So we are not going to get with the 14 or 15 property -- different property owners a unified plan. In fact, in the billion years that I've been working on a Specific Plan for this property, or this area I should say, the difficulty was getting the property owners to come together and agree on something they would do. That's why we would never get anywhere, because the property owners did not come to the table, did not agree, so the reason we did it this way is to have some kind of comprehensive plan that would steer development, which I cited earlier in my N TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage 'Reporting . Services, LLC- 1 motion to approve. 2 So we are not going to get an application 3 dropped on all of them unless somehow somebody buys all 4 the property, which hasn't happened. Somebody gives up 5 rights, or somebody compromises their ability to develop. 6 their property, but we don't require that all at once, 7 and in fact, that default density for the state density 8 bonus in the housing has been met by this application, 9 so I don't think that we can go back in any way without, 10 what the Vice Mayor is suggesting, denying this and 11 having it go, I assume, to the court, but this 12 application must be evaluated based on this Specific 13 Plan, not a desired Specific Plan, not a different 14 Specific Plan, this Specific Plan. 15 So by denying it, we face -- and my decision, 16 as I said earlier, is not based upon the possibility of 17 litigation, but we face litigation from Applicant, from 18 property owners, from housing interests, from not profit 19 housing interests, whoever it might be, and we've got 20 umpty ump legal opinions on both sides of it as to how 21 that plays out, but it shouldn't be ignored, and so I 22 cannot support that -- this motion. 23 MAYOR SPECTOR: Mr. Rennie. 24 COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Thank you, Mayor. 25 Could I ask staff to repeat the motion. I got a little 90 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage AC 1n Reporting U U ill �C,IJ' Services, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lost in all this. MS. PREVETTI: Certainly we'll try. MR. PAULSON: So I'll go ahead and start, and Ms. Prevetti is a much better note taker than I, I will admit. So the motion was to deny based on the residential component of the Planning Commission motion, that there are significant issues with the layout that the units should be spread out for a better site design, and that there's specific concerns with units, I believe, 17 through 24 were referenced, I think, maybe that's 18 through 25, but I could be wrong, that -site access 4.2, which was mentioned by Council Woman Jensen, was referenced, page 3 -2 of the Specific Plan, and then 13 and a half acres was not designated in the Specific Plan for just the area in the proposed first phase, but to be spread out, and that the intent is to make sure that we're able to apply uniformly across the entire area when applications are brought forward. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Thank you. MAYOR SPECTOR: All right. Ms. Sayoc; is that accurate? VICE MAYOR SAYOC: Yes. Although the -- in terms of buildings, it was building 18 through 27, all those surrounded by South A Street, Los Gatos Boulevard 91 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage`! 11 1. Reporting Services, LLC 1 and Lark. 2 MAYOR SPECTOR: And is that your understanding, i° 3 Mr. Leonardis? 4 COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: Yes. 5 MAYOR SPECTOR: All right. I'm going to be 6 supporting the motion. And for the reasons stated by 7 the maker of the motion, but I also want to adopt for my 8 support the recommendations and the bases for the 9 recommendation of the Planning Commission, I want to. 10 actually include as my support of the motion the 11 Specific Plan itself, and in that regard I am 12 incorporating into my support of this motion the two 13 motions that I made at our last meeting, including all 14 of the bases for those motions. r 15 I want to also say that I looked-up the word 16 "objective," also. And I guess that's what people like 17 Ms. Jensen and I do. And objective is based on facts, 18 not feelings. It can be based on what we see, on our 19 experiences and our senses, based on mandates of the 20 Specific Plan as factually applied to this application. 21 So in addition to the entire record that we 22 have before us, and it is quite a record, probably 23 the -- it is the largest I've ever seen on my 24 experience -- experience on the Council or on a Planning 25 Commission. I'm going to base it on, you know, the 92 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage UACpn Reporting Services, LLC II'Mll� L E i 8 a J 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 almost 40 years that I have looked and walked and run and driven and been driven around the Town of Los Gatos. I'm going the base it on, you know, what I have seen and -- that's enough for now. Ms. Sayoc. VICE MAYOR SAYOC: This whole discussion on objective versus subjective, one thing that is objective is numerical. And one thing that I do want to clarify, in the Planning Commission discussion when there was talk of reducing square footage for residential, it was not only intensity, but I want to point out that inner housing element, which is a part of the reason why we're looking at all this by right, in there not only did we commit to 270, but we did commit to 156 very low, 84 low and 30 moderate. Now, I understand that that is something that the Town plans for, but also if you're looking at HCD's comments, that it welcomes the opportunity to assist identifying strategies for meeting the Town's housing goals, including encouraging additional affordability and housing types. I want to put two facts. One, you reduce the square footage, you reduce the price. The second fact is it has been stated on the record that if you put houses on the northern side in a different school district, it immediately reduces the price. Again, promote affordability. Those are two 93 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage ,Reporting V 10 J 1) a Services, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ""I .. 010919 numerical standards that I would like included. MAYOR SPECTOR: Thank you. And Mr. Leonardis, t is that okay with you? COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: Yes. MAYOR SPECTOR: All right. Again, I am continuing to support the motion, and the totality of the record that I also want to include is the fact that I've been working on the Specific Plan since 2004, on this specific Specific Plan since 2010, including the fact that over the years I was the person who chaired the North 40 Specific Plan Advisory Committee, and that as a result of this application, what we are getting are 49 senior units, good; over the market place, not so good, and the rest of the units are right now priced today 900,000 to one point, what, five or six million dollars with people having to earn hundreds -- hundred and -- I think they said 130 to $250,000 if they have a 20 percent down payment. So we're having these challenges with the Specific Plan, with the application, and then we look to what we get where I think everybody on this Council, and maybe even who I've heard in the community, would really like to have true low income housing. Further discussion? Mr. Leonardis. COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDI$: Thank you, Mayor 94 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage j q Reporting Services, LLC 1( 1] 1e 1° 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Spector. I'm glad that you brought forth that point. I -- we've all received a piece of correspondence reminding us how we all voted in the series of motions that we went through when we voted -- when the Specific Plan was adopted last summer. And as I was voting for motions like number of housing units, it is my understanding at the time that they would be incorporated into the three districts, that's why I voted the way I voted on that motion. I was under the belief that there would be affordable housing for not just 55 and older, but for all age groups. It's kind of ironic, because we're always trying to help with senior housing, which is a great thing, but by doing that, in putting all of the affordable units in the senior housing project, it causes almost like a discrimination against those who are not seniors, and that's not in accordance with what I think our BMP ordinance says in Los Gatos, and I think we need to pay attention to that going forward. That was a great concern of mine. The other piece of correspondence that highlighted that was from Ms. Marlene Rodman, and she mentioned there was a school teacher who was considering moving out of the District because she couldn't afford to live here. And she's a wonderful teacher, and she's 95 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING r Advantage l�'� Reporting. U Services, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 15 2C 2] 22 2; 24 2.` probably not 55 years old and probably cannot occupy one of those senior units. I think of those kinds of cases,' and I think well, what are we trying to do here. I'm not against market rate housing, but for it to be positioned in a way where all of the senior housing allows for -- or all the below market rate housing allows for seniors only, and all.of the other houses market rate housing that was problematic for me as well. So I wanted to look at possibly spreading it across the other zones, and that kind of is in line with my comments earlier in the evening, what is going to go in those other zones. We don't know yet apparently, and can we get affordable housing for everybody, as Ms. Sayoc stated so eloquently, in all those different price categories in accordance to our housing element. MAYOR SPECTOR: Ms. Jensen. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Two comments and a question through the Mayor for the maker of the motion. The first is, since we're including things on the record, the median price in Santa Clara County for a single family home is about $965,000, I think, something like that. Median means some are above, some are below, but 965,000. Earlier in the year it was a million. Some of you may have read that the way that San 96 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage. �-AcPq Reporting Services, LLC E c 1C 11 12 13 14 i 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Francisco has dealt -- well, actually, it's a bill that's gone through the Assembly. It started in San Francisco with Mark Leno, who's the assemblyman from San Francisco, which it's gone through the Assembly and the Senate, may become law in the State of California, that affordable housing for teachers can be placed on school property without discretion from local jurisdictions on the nature and type of. that housing. So there's one way to address teacher housing. That's out there. The other -- the question that I was going -- and then since the Mayor is indicating her history, I've been working on this since who knows when, as a member of the General Plan Committee, the original Specific Plan that was rejected by the Council in 1999, then again on the General Plan on the North 40 Advisory Committee, on the Housing Element Advisory Committee, on the Conditional Conceptual Development Advisory Committee, on the Planning Commission and on the Town Council forever. My question for Ms. Sayoc through the Mayor is the Mayor included in her support for the motion specifically the Planning Commission part of the motion that was tied to the economics and cited her motions from August 16th, which also is tied to economics. I heard Ms. Sayoc make her motion based upon the Kw TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage Reporting 0109�� S Services, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ,. 010R� residential component of the Planning Commission only. And so I want to find out if that was intended. MAYOR SPECTOR: And I will ask Ms. Sayoc if Ms. Sayoc chooses to respond, but what I was delineating were the bases for my support of Ms. Sayoc's motion. Ms. Sayoc. VICE MAYOR SAYOC: My motion incorporates only the residential components, so . . . COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: And if I may. MAYOR SPECTOR: Ms. Jensen. COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: And if I may incorporate to my opposition to the motion all of the record and cites to the Specific Plan that I made in my original motion for approval. MAYOR SPECTOR: Further discussion? Mr. Rennie. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Thank you, Mayor Spector. I know that I've heard actually both the lawyers on the Council say they should -- we're not supposed to be making decisions based on lawsuits, and I know I'm not a lawyer and much less experienced, and but I do worry a lot about the lawsuit. I've thought about denying it, and then, you know, we going through what could end up being a two, three million dollar lawsuit, and I feel like I'm being irresponsible to knowingly go 98 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage jqq Reporting Services, LLC I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 r � that way. You know, from my understanding of where we're supposed to be making decisions are, again, on what is -- you know, we kept talking about what's objective versus what's subjective. When I look at the letter from, again, the policy manager from HCD, they say that this by right design -- it says, "Design review is allowed under the statute by right. Decision - making must follow development standards that are objective, fixed, predictable, clear, quantifiable, written and warrant little to no judgment and should be applied in a manner that affirmatively facilitates development." I don't find objectable objective reasons for deny answer. So that, to me, means we're definitely in a lawsuit that we don't have very many legs to stand on. There's a bill now on -- there's a bill now on the Governor's desk to sign, AB2584, which even strengthens this Housing Accountability Act further that allows -- it makes it easier for anybody to sue, the developer doesn't have to sue. It can be any housing advocacy group, building associations, renter's association, apartment association. You know, so, to me, it seems like we definitely have a lawsuit. So that worries me. I feel irresponsible to take us that way. .. TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage" .Reporting Services, LLC 1 Then if I back up and say well, okay, let's -- 2 let's objectively think about whether I agree with the 3 motion or not, and what I'm hearing is, you know, we 4 specifically said we didn't -- I think the motion was 5 specifically they didn't like the way it's laid out, but 6 1 also heard what we really want to do, and I think we 7 should deny a project based on what we really want. 8 What I heard was we want to the move houses 9 into the Northern District, and I heard the mention of 10 them getting cheaper moving over the school district 11 line and, again, my -- you know, I talk about values 12 last time, and protecting the schools is high on my 13 value list. And I know that the superintendent, a body, 14 has told us in the past that houses that get moved over ri 15 the line, those students will petition to come into her 16 district, she'll say sorry, I'm full, and then she'll 17 get overruled every time. 18 So, to me, that means these students move into 19 the district, are -- they will go to her district 20 anyway, so she's got to pay for them, but now she 21 doesn't get the extra money that the developer has 22 agreed to pay 23,000 per market rate unit, she doesn't 23 get the property tax, because now they're actually 24 sitting in another school district, even though the kids 25 are coming into ours, and they don't get the regular 100 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING 010916 Advantage An. Reporting Serviees, LLC J 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SB50 portion of the pay out. So, to me, that seems like it's hurting our school district, so I generally am very worried about that -- that whole idea of moving units over the line because of the effect it would have on the school district. And I know if they brought that project, SB50 prevents me from actually saying, denying a project where they're over the line, but SB50 doesn't prevent me from saying I -- doesn't prevent me from going against denial of a project basically. You know, and when I read through the Specific Plan policies, they talk about -- it really talks about the housing is supposed to be in the Lark District, and we put, you know, this -- basically this application puts the housing in the Lark District. If I can quote a couple of these items in 2.32, titled, "The Transition District in the Specific Plan," it says, "The Transition District is a buffer between primarily residential Lark District and active retail entertainment of the.Northern District." And then -- and 2.3, titled, "Northern District," it says, "It's best suited for day to evening entertainment that offers shopping and restaurants." And then in 2.4, it talks about permitted land 101 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING n Advantage `} ,n Reburting 010917 KlJ' Services, LLC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 uses. Again, it talks about the Transition District being a buffer between the primary -- primarily residential uses in the southern portion of the Specific Plan and entertainment restaurant and shopping uses envisioned in the northern portion of it. So it doesn't. sound to me like the reason we're denying it and the result we want fits within the Specific Plan. So I'm not apt to support this motion. Thank you. MAYOR SPECTOR: Thank you for the discussion. Ms. Sayoc. VICE MAYOR SAYOC: Couple things I want to clarify. The reason -- the reason why I point to the layout 18 through 27 is an example of how if you were not limited to 20, in my opinion, you could have a better layout. I gave the -- I gave the commercial aspect of looking at Los Gatos. Boulevard. For the site access, I'm looking at 4.2, and it's saying that there could also be a fourth access point off of Los Gatos Boulevard. And I know there's a lot of traffic engineering aspects that still have to be looked at, but if you place a whole bunch of housing there, then you immediately cut off whatever access you have. We heard significant issues about traffic. It just seems like if you provide another access point, does that help alleviate it. These are the types of TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING M! J� � Advantage A T`J q Reporting U1O ' Services, LLC I 2 q 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 questions I wish we had the opportunity to go back and forth on. Unfortunately we don't. But these are the types of things that I'm looking at as I look at the layout. And yes, you know what, if you keep Area E, you still keep primarily a lot of the residential in the Lark District, but you also have a design that, in my mind, is more in keeping of what the seamless weaving of Los Gatos is. Los Gatos Boulevard is commercial. You have residential behind it. You will have -- you will still be able to provide 20 units per acre on that portion, but all of a sudden you have a little bit more creativity to look at what economic opportunities you can do along Los Gatos Boulevard. You have another opportunity to look at a traffic option, and you have another opportunity just to look at a layout that is something that at least the Planning Commission and the Council could say that is something that we believe is what satisfies our vision of the Specific Plan. Now, you know, one of the things we've said in the past, everybody has an opinion, and I don't fault -- the five of us clearly have different ideas of what meets the Specific Plan. It's not based on longevity, it's not based on who studied more. In the end the decision that's made will -- I will respect it. We each 103 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING /f yvpntagel' / 'Reporting Services, LLC II have our five individual decisions, and I know that 2 whatever decision is made within a couple of seconds, we, 3 each individually are doing it because we truly believe 4 whether or not this project satisfies the Specific Plan 5 that we adopted last year. 6 MAYOR SPECTOR: Further discussion? 7 Ms. Jensen. 8 COUNCIL MEMBER JENSEN: Just two comments for 9 the record. Sorry. The first is that if the site 10 access were changed to include another site, and again 11 I'm just doing this for the record, that could 12 potentially require a new EIR, which would subject the 13 Town to costs for that, studies for that, time for that, 14 lawsuits for that. Perhaps it's legally acceptable, 15 perhaps it's not, but that's a consequence that I want 16 to put on the record. 17 The other one is just with respect to the 18 housing and if we move it, and that assumes that the 19 Town Council can cause a property owner, which we know 20 very well he can't do, based on our experience, the 21 Planning Commission here, causing property owner to come 22 to us with exactly what we want in exactly the way we 23 want it at exactly the time we want. So we say we would 24 like to move the housing to the Northern District. That 25 assumes that the people that own the property on the 104 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage J s, q Reporting Services, LLC F E c 1C 11 1L 1? 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 IPA;] 24 25 Northern District are to come in and say great, we're going to build, you know, X amount of houses exactly the way you want on that. That is -- that's, I think, not a good assumption. So we -- we have to bear in mind that there are applicants that come forward that own the property that make an application just like somebody who in the Almond Grove has a vacant lot would come forward to make an application to build their house. We don't tell that person in advance we want ten affordable units there, and they say fine, great, we're coming in with that. So we have to keep in mind that we cannot mandate ultimately what the application is. And so with respect to the state law on housing, we. have to evaluate are we putting a detriment to development of housing, are we turning down housing that meets what's in our housing element. We have to evaluate.that. So I just want to have that be considered and be on the record. MAYOR SPECTOR: Mr. Rennie. COUNCIL MEMBER RENNIE: Thank you, Mayor Spector. I just wanted to add one thing. From -- you know, my position hasn't really changed from the last meeting where I talked about, again, I think that, you know, this in not going to pass a lawsuit, which means 105 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage l'In Reporting U 10 y� l Servieess,` LC 1 we end up with an approval of what's there, and in the 2 past I've, you know, not voted for a straight approval, 3 because I think there's changes that we can make to make 4 this a better project that fit within -- you know, it's 5 got to fit within a certain box, and those are the kinds. 6 of things that I was trying to do, and I thought we 7 could even take a risk by take -- you know, denying the 8 two houses on Los Gatos Boulevard, and the developer may 9 not find it worth the lawsuit to go that direction, but 10 so, again, my real problem with this is I'm -- I -- and 11 I could be wrong, but I'm quite sure that we're going to 12 end up with exactly what's approved without any chance 13 to change it. So, you know, that's another one of my 14 concerns on voting for this motion. f 15 MAYOR SPECTOR: Thank you. Further discussion? 16 Mr. Leonardis. 17 COUNCIL MEMBER LEONARDIS: Thank you, Mayor 18 Spector. Again, you know, the Specific Plan was adopted 19 last summer. Since that time we had significant 20 community feedback. I mean, the story poles went up. 21 The public had their chance to weigh in. Things don't 22 always come out the other end exactly as they go in. I 23 realized at that point.I voted no on the Specific Plan, 24 that was kind of a leverage point for us. 25 I felt if we spent a little bit more time at 106 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING I 010922 Advantage ATn Reporting - Services, LLC. J L E i E S 1C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that point in time there could have been perhaps some of these issues ironed out, and this would not be so painful up here. By the way, I do want do, you know, thank the Council this evening, because we do have a diversity of opinions, and I respect every one of us up here for their opinions and what they believe. But I think what the community is looking for, we ought to look out for the community first. They want the best result for their community. And I know that sounds kind of counter argument to development by right and lawsuit this and all those kinds of things, but I don't see why we can't all work together and come up with a result that works for everybody. I mean, why do we have to talk about lawsuits? Why is it one extreme or the other? Yes, we've been through a process, yes, the process has taken a long time, but what's with spending a little bit more time in getting it right so people are happy, because no matter what, if the public.does not support what you're doing, is shoving it down their throat the right thing? You know, is shoving it down the Council's throat the right thing? I don't think that's the best way to go about things. Now, I know this developer has been very 107 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING A&antage Reporting 01093 �S Services, LLC I generous and very open and very process oriented. and 2 very, you know, accommodating to requests and things, 3 but the bottom line is this, it still, to me, didn't 4 meet all the needs that the public has brought forth. 5 It didn't meet the needs of our own below market price 6 program, in my opinion. It leaves several unanswered 7 questions about what will happen on the future phases 8 for me. 9 I'm not comfortable with the road going 10 northbound on Los Gatos Boulevard between Lark and 11 Samaritan Drive. I don't like the fact that at Charter 12 Oaks it's a very dangerous intersection. There should 13 be a keep clear put there. There's a lot of little 14 things. Not too stoked for the market hall concept. 15 Maybe that could be a Trader Joe's or something. 16 But these are things that, perhaps with more 17 vetting, a little more vetting, we can find some 18 compromises and make this a positive experience for 19 everybody as opposed -- or at least more people, get the 20 support of more of the public, probably not please 21 everybody, as opposed to the Council being pushed up 22 against the wall and having this project go down hard I 23 should say. 24 MAYOR SPECTOR: Well, I agree with a lot of 25 what Mr. Leonardis said. I do think this could work 108 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage A q Reporting Services, LLC J. i I 1 L 4 !: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 out. I agree that the developers have been gracious over all of these years, but for the reasons that I previously stated and re- iterated, this is not the project tonight as it stands. Further discussion? Seeing none, I'm going to. do this by show of hands, since every time I do it by voice I have to change it. So we have Ms. Sayoc's motion to deny. All in favor, raise your hand. Mr. Leonardis, Miss Sayoc, Mayor. Opposed? Miss Jensen, Mr. Rennie. The motion passes three -two. Before I adjourn the meeting, we will be getting, I understand, a resolution, or resolutions, I don't know, on September 6th? A VOICE: That is correct. MAYOR SPECTOR: All right. Anything else you need, Ms. Prevetti? MS. PREVETTI: No, thank you. MAYOR SPECTOR: All right. Meeting's adjourned. (End of Hearing.) �* 109 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage l " Reporting UI09?5 S Services, LLC 1 2 3 I, LISA GLANVILLE, C.S.R. #9932, a Certified 4 Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of California, 5 do hereby certify: 6 That the preceding Video Transcription was 7 taken down by me in shorthand to the best of my ability 8 and thereafter reduced to computerized transcription 9 under my direction and supervision, and I hereby certify 10 the foregoing transcript is a full, true and correct 11 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken. 12 I further certify that I am neither counsel 13 for nor related to any party to said action nor 14 interested in the outcome of this action. 15 Witness my hand this day of 16 September, 2016. 17 18 -- — ---------------- 19 NVILLE CS - o. 9932 20 State of California 21 22 23 24 25 TRANSCRIPTION 9/01/16 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Advantage s, �l q Reporting S e VJJr v i��\ c_ e s , L L C