03 Staff Report - Town Council/Parking Authority Redevelopment Agency MinutesDRAFT Council/Agency Meeting 11/16/09
Item #
MINUTES OF THE TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING
AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NOVEMBER 2, 2009
The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on
Monday, November 2, 2009 at 7:00 P.M.
TOWN COUNCIL/PARKING AUTHORITY/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Mike Wasserman, Vice Mayor Diane McNutt,
Council Member Joe Pirzynski, Council Member Steve Rice,
Council Member Barbara Spector
Absent: None.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Hillbrook School Students
Boo Yuen, Student Council President, Emily Richardson, Student
Council Member, Morgan Brost, Student Council Member
Boo Yuen, Emily Richardson, and Morgan Brost, from Hillbrook School
Student Council led the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience was invited to
participate.
PRESENTATION
Commendation -Los Gatos High School New Millennium Foundation
• Mayor Mike Wasserman presented a commendation to the Los Gatos
High School New Millennium Foundation for their dedication and
support to Los Gatos High students.
• Mr. Bakken thanked the community for their support.
BOARDS/COMMISSION/COMMITTEES APPOINTMENTS
Council appointed applicants to the following Boards, Commissions, and
Committee:
• Architectural Standards Committee (1 vacancy, 0 applicants)
- Staff is recommending to sunset this Commission and will return to
Council with report.
• Arts and Culture Commission (3 vacancies, 2 applicants)
- George Havelka and Colleen Wilcox were appointed to the Arts
and Culture Commission.
- One Vacancy will be re-advertised.
• Building Board of Appeals (3 vacancies, 4 applicants)
- Tom Dodge, Adrienne McGrath, and David Zicovich were
appointed to the Building Board of Appeals.
• Community Services Commission (3 vacancies, 1 applicant)
- Barbara Cardillo was appointed to the Community Services
Commission.
- Two vacancies will be re-advertised.
• General Plan Committee (1 vacancy, 1 applicant)
- One vacancy will be re-advertised.
• Library Board (2 vacancies, 2 applicants)
- Deborah Behrman and Lyn Dougherty were appointed to the
Library Board.
• Parks Commission (1 vacancy, 1 applicant)
- One vacancy will be re-advertised.
• Personnel Board (1 vacancy, 0 applicants)
- One vacancy will be re-advertised.
• Rent Advisory Committee (2 vacancies, 2 applicants)
- Susan Fish was appointed to the Rent Advisory Committee as a
neutral member.
- The vacancy for a property owner/manager will be re-advertised.
• Transportation and Parking (1 vacancy, 0 applicants)
- One vacancy will be re-advertised.
• Planning Commission (2 vacancies, 4 applicants)
- John Bourgeois and Marcia Jensen were appointed to the
Planning Commission.
2
Board/Commission/Committee Appointments -Continued
Council consensus to delay the appointment to the Parks Commission to allow
all applicants the chance to interview.
Mr. Larson
• Commented that the Architectural Standards Committee did not have any
applicants and has not met in at least two years. Staff recommends rather
than re-noticing the vacancy that they review the history of the
Architecture and Standards Committee and bring forward a
recommendation to Council for elimination of the committee.
• Clarified that the Town does contract with a professional architect that
provides the review service needed for the community.
Mayor Mike Wasserman directed Jackie Rose, Clerk Administrator to re-
advertise all vacant positions on the Town's Boards, Commissions, and
Committees.
CLOSED SESSION
There was no Closed Session scheduled for this meeting.
TOWN COUNCIL
COUNCIL/TOWN MANAGER REPORTS
Council Matters
There were no Council Matters for this meeting.
Manager Matters
Mr. Larson
• Commented that the Union Pacific Railroad has repaired their tracks
which cross Winchester Boulevard and the Town has completed the
paving process to complete the project.
• Commented that the Town has started the repaving of Parking lot 6 on
Main Street to incorporate the expanded Town parking that the Council
had previously approved.
• Commented that a portion of the parking lot will be closed for less than a
two week period for the construction time frame.
• Acknowledged the Police Chief and the Police Department for their
cooperation as good customers and stewards of public safety in our
community in their efforts regarding the Police Operations Building.
• Commended Parks and Public Works Department for their leadership and
dedication in constructing the facility.
3
Manager Matters -Continued
Chief Scott Seaman
• Presented Council with commemorative plaques from the ribbon cutting
event for the new Police Operations Building.
• Thanked Council and staff for their support.
CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Approve Council minutes of October 19, 2009 Study Session
2. Adopt ordinance amending Town Code Chapter 14, Article V, Sections
12.50.010 through 14.050.010 through and including 14.050.240
regarding Police alarms.. ORDINANCE 2182
3. Adopt resolution approving the operation of a retail wine
establishment with food, beer, and wine service on property zoned C-
1. APN 529-07-047. Conditional Use Permit U-09-007. Property
Location: 414-416 N. Santa Cruz Avenue. Property Owner: Jim Zanardi
Applicant: Michael Guerra/Joseph Cannistraci.
RESOLUTION 2009-114
4. Adopt resolution authorizing the Town Manager to execute the
agreement by and between the Town of Los Gatos and with Los
Gatos Music and Arts concerning the funding and administration of
the Music in the park Program for Fiscal Years 2011- 2014.
RESOLUTION 2009-115
5. PPW Job No. 09-01 -Civic Center HVAC Upgrades Project 411-821-
2103 Adopt a resolution accepting work of Therma Corporation and
authorizing the Town Manager to execute a Certificate of Acceptance
and Notice of Completion for recording by the Clerk Administrator.
RESOLUTION 2009-116
6. PPW Job No. 09-26 -Tree Trimming Project. Adopt resolution
approving plans and specification for the tree trimming project and
authorize staff to advertise the project for bid. RESOLUTION 2009-117
7. PPW Job No. 04-68 -Roberts Road Bridge Replacement Project 411-
818-0802. Adopt resolution approving plans and specification for the
Roberts Road Bridge Replacement project and authorize staff to
advertise the project for bid. RESOLUTION 2009-118
4
Consent Items -Continued
TOWN COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
8. Approve Council/Agency minutes of:
a. October 19, 2009
b. October 26, 2009 Special Meeting
Mr. Larson
• Commented that staff had distributed two Desk Items regarding the
Consent Calendar, one concerning Item #8a which stated that there was
an administrative change to Page 5 of the meeting minutes to clarify that
Council did not approve the application that was before Council at that
time. The other was regarding Item #4, the resolution of agreement with
Los Gatos Music and Arts which included modified language incorporating
Town representatives in the presentation of MIP Concerts including
participation in each concert's opening as explicit language.
• Commented that on Page 1 of the actual agreement, there was a
correction to a typographical error referring to the end of the term. It is
listed as June 30, 2014. September 30, 2014 was agreed upon as the end
of term, so that there would not be a turn over during the middle of a
performance season.
Mr. Davis pulled Consent Items #4 and #8a.
Mayor Mike Wasserman stated that Council would hear the pulled Consent
Items prior to Verbal Communications.
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Barbara Spector to approve
Consent Items #1-3, and #5-7.
Seconded by Council Member Joe Pirzynski.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
5
PULLED CONSENT ITEMS
Mr. Davis
Pulled Consent Item #4
• Expressed concerns about too much noise during the Music in the Park
events.
• Would like to see the volume of the events be regulated for the kids that
attend.
Pulled Consent Item #8a
• Expressed concerns that he was not acknowledged when requesting an
administrative correction to the minutes of October 19, 2009.
Mr. Knowles
• .Expressed concerns about the kids that sit against the speakers at the
Music in Park events.
• Commended Regina Falkner, Teri Hope, Valerie Hopkins, and
Marianne Hamilton for their support for the Music in the Park events and
the Los Gatos Music and Arts organization.
• Commented that Elke Groves and Joanne Talesfore have both agreed
to serve on the Board of Directors of Los Gatos Music and Arts and the
organization is reaching out to the community for support.
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Steve Rice to approve
Consent Items #4 and 8a with the correction to Page 5 of the
October 19, 2009 meeting Minutes as stated in the Desk
Item.
Seconded by Council Member Joe Pirzynski.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Reichwein
•. Commented against attending Mayor Mike Wasserman's invitation to a
dinner party to raise money for his campaign.
• Would like Mayor Mike Wasserman to work with the. youth that skate and
bike in Los Gatos.
• Expressed concerns about Mayor Mike Wasserman spending money to
stop the skatepark.
6
Verbal Communications -Continued
Mr. Davis
Commented that he welcomed "trick or treaters" at his daughter's home
and was approached by one of the moms who had recognized him. He
stated that it shows that his message is spreading.
Commented that he is pushing for a name for the mountain above-Los
Gatos and suggested that it be called Mt. Magnificent.
Commended the Parks and Public Works Department for a great job on
the striping of the streets and suggested that the crosswalks around the
schools be painted.
Mr. Davis received his first warning for disrupting the meeting.
Mr. Guardino
• Invited the community to participate in the Silicon Valley Turkey Trot which
will be held on Thanksgiving Day.
• Commented that there will be a 5k walk, a 10k run, and the Mayor's Cup
Challenge.
• Commented that Akeena Solar will be sponsoring the Mayor's Cup
Challenge and that Mr. Cinnamon would like to extend the invitation to
participate.
Mr. Cinnamon
• Commented that Akeena Solar would be sponsoring the Mayor's Cup
Challenge and invited the community to participate in the Turkey Trot
event this Thanksgiving.
Mr. Denevi
Thanked Council for meeting with him and encouraging his project.
Expressed concerns about a letter received from the Town stating that his
project has no merit. .
Commented that he was going to give five acres of the property free to the
Town if the Town was willing to participate in his project.
Mr. Greer and the Exploded Robots
• Commented that as a group project the Exploded Robots have chosen to
transport someone or something to a different spot safely. The Exploded
Robots have studied the intersection at Kennedy Road and Los Gatos
Boulevard and have determined that over 80 kids use that crosswalk to
get to and from school each day and about 20 cars run the red light each
morning.
• Commented that the intersection is not a safe route to school for the kids
and suggested that the Town add a crossing guard during school hours to
help make the intersection a safe route to school.
7
Verbal Communications -Continued
Mr. Larson
• Thanked the Exploded Robots for raising the issue of the unsafe
crosswalk and that the Town does have a relocation of that crosswalk with
new markings scheduled for the renovation of the Thrash House that the
Council has previously approved.
• Commented that he will ask the Police Chief and the Director of Parks and
Public Works to look into any interim improvements that might be possible
prior to the Thrash House project going forward.
Closed Verbal Communications
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. -Adopt resolution authorizing the continued use of Supplemental Local
Law Enforcement Services funds (SLESF) to provide funding for two
(2) full-time Police officers assigned as motorcycle traffic officers.
RESOLUTION 2009-119
Staff report made by Chief Scott Seaman, Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police
Department.
Open/Closed Public Comments
Motion: Motion by Council Member Joe Pirzynski to adopt
resolution authorizing the continued use of Supplemental
Local Law Enforcement Services funds (SLESF) to provide
funding for two (2) full-time Police officers assigned as
motorcycle traffic officers.
Seconded by Council Member Steve Rice.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
8
Public Hearings -Continued
10. Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
a. Adopt urgency ordinance extending the interim ordinance imposing a
moratorium on the approval, commencement, establishment or
operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. ORDINANCE 2183
b. Accept written report pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 on
the measures taken to date to alleviate the conditions that led to the
adoption of an Urgency Interim Ordinance imposing a moratorium on
the approval, commencement, establishment or operation of medical
marijuana dispensaries.
Staff report made by Orry Korb, Town Attorney
Open Public Hearing
Mr. Adona
• Commented that the city's tax money would increase and that people
need to get their medicine without driving a long distance.
Closed Public Hearing
Mayor Mike Wasserman directed Jackie Rose, Clerk Administrator to read the
title of the ordinance.
MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Diane McNutt to waive the reading
of the ordinance.
Seconded by Council Member Joe Pirzynski.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Diane McNutt to adopt urgency
ordinance extending the interim ordinance imposing a
moratorium on the approval, commencement, establishment
or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries.
Seconded by Council Member Joe Pirzynski.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
9
.Public Hearing Item #10 -Continued
MOTION: Motion by Vice Mayor Diane McNutt to accept the written
report pursuant to Government Code Section 65858.
Seconded by Council Member Joe Pirzynski.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Mike Wasserman directed Jackie Rose, Clerk Administrator to publish
the ordinance.
11. Consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a
request to demolish a single family residence and subdivide a .93 acre
parcel into three lots on property zoned R-1 :8. No significant
environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project
and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APN 527-42-
008. Architecture and Site Application S-08-30; Subdivision
Application M-08-13; Negative Declaration ND-09-2.Property location:
15928 Union Avenue. Property owner: 217 O'Connor LLC. Applicant:
Tony Jeans, T.H.I.S. Design.
Staff report made by Suzanne Davis, Planner.
Council Comments
• Requested clarification and description of how the proposed application
fits into the application comparison list provided by staff.
• Questioned if the Architecture and Site approval would be heard at
Planning Commission.
• Questioned if the 30 feet of frontage shown on parcel two includes the
driveway onto the cul-de-sac.
• Requested clarification on the size of the proposed cul-de-sac and the
impacts a larger cul-de-sac may have on the proposed subdivision and
surrounding neighborhood.
• Questioned if the neighbors would prefer the larger cul-de-sac.
• Questioned if the larger cul-de-sac would reduce the size of the proposed
lots. .
10
Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued
Ms. Davis
• Commented that the proposed lot sizes after right-of-way dedications and
streets would be about 8,p00 square feet each.
• Commented that the subdivision shows a lot that appears to be a "flag lot."
It is not technically a "flag lot" because it has thirty feet of frontage on a
cul-de-sac.
• Commented that the lot configuration was submi#ted by the applicant to
provide a better buffer for the immediate residents to the north.
• Commented that the shared driveway is not a requirement, but has been
proposed by the applicant to reduce the amount of impervious coverage
and if Council prefers, they could have two separate driveways.
• Commented that lot depth is another element that staff considers and that
the applicant has met the minimum lot depth requirements as stated in the
staff report.
• Commented that staff looks at access to and from the subdivision and that
the minimum frontage for Union Avenue is 60 feet which is the reason the
property can not be split in a different manner along Union Avenue.
• Commented that the applicant can provide all utilities for the proposed
subdivision with a few easements that are currently in place for the
utilities.
• Commented that the tree removal impacts have been shown on the plans
and arborist review has been incorporated into the environmental review.
• Commented that replacement trees, fencing, lighting, and landscape will
be looked at during Architecture and Site Application.
• Clarified that the building envelope is within the proposed plans before
Council, but the design of the homes would be approved during the
Architecture and Site Application process.
• Clarified that the maximum height for the proposed project is 30 feet, but
staff will take. into consideration neighborhood compatibility and the size of
homes in the neighborhood.
• Clarified that the proposed property on Union Avenue will be required to
have an on-site turn-a-round.
• Clarified that the Architecture and Site review would be done with the
Development Review Committee. Given the history of this project, staff
may request that the project be heard at Planning Commission.
• Clarified that the driveway is included as part of the 30 feet of frontage on
parcel two.
11
Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued
Ms. Davis -Continued
• Clarified that staff recommended the smaller cul-de-sac because they felt
it was appropriate to serve the two lots off the cul-de-sac and it seems to
fit into the neighborhood with the other cul-de-sacs in the vicinity..
• Clarified that there would be no impacts with alarger cul-de-sac and. that
the applicant could still meet the required lot size.
• Commented that the house placement would be shifted to the west and
more into the view lines if the larger cul-de-sac was approved.
Open Public Hearing
Mr. Jeans, Applicant
• Clarified that the planter strips would be eliminated with the larger cul-de-
sac design.
• Commented that they have designed the lots to achieve the most views
for the neighbors and have spaced the homes to avoid privacy issues.
• Commented that one of the neighbors had expressed the desire to keep
his views and positioning the homes as they are in-the proposed
plans would achieve his request.
• Commented that the paved cul-de-sac would allow parking for the
proposed homes.
• Commented that a low profile home on the end of the cul-de-sac and a
single story home on Union Avenue would be appropriate.
• Commented that if they eliminate the shared driveway, the neighbors
would be looking at parked cars.
• Commented that there is a 50 foot separation from Mr. Mangano's home
and that a conventional subdivision would only require 16 feet.
• Commented about the concerns of a "flag lot" and stated that a low profile
home and 50 feet of separation would not create a "flag lot" on the site.
Mr. Matteoni
• Commented about the focus on the Sub-division Map Act for the basis of
denial and that there are no substantiating facts to deny the proposed
project.
• Clarified that there were no facts to back up the denial which was
based on the configuration of the site.
• Commented that the rectangle site does work with the proposed density
and exceeds the minimum lot size.
• Commented that the Subdivision Map Act does not talk to the compatibility
with the neighborhood except as to Sub Part B which states that the
Council would have to find that the design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is not consistent with the Town's General Plan.
12
Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued
Mr. Davis
• Expressed concerns about the public land use permitting process for the
Town.
• Commented that the Chairman from the Planning Commission should be
present during appeals to Council so that they can answer questions and
to explain discretionary actions of others.
• Commented that Mr. Jeans has a lack of respect for neighborhood
compatibility and stated that he had the same lack of respect when he
came forward with the Reservoir Road project.
Ms. Lynott
• Clarified that she has a small one room rental, not a large home for rent,
adjacent to the location of the proposed subdivision.
• Commented against the proposed project and would like the homes to be
more compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood.
• Expressed concerns that she would lose her views and see a huge wall
from two of her bedrooms windows.
• Suggested that the homes be single story to fit in with the neighborhood
and protect the view sheds for the adjacent homes.
Council Comments
• Requested clarification on single story verses two story and questioned if
Ms. Lynott was suggesting two lots for the proposed sub-division.
Ms. Lynott
• Commented that she would prefer two lots and that the configuration is
creating the problem, three lots are not compatible with the neighborhood.
• Expressed concerns about the utility poles and where -they would be
placed.
Mr. Esche
• Expressed concerns about the density of the proposed sub-division.
• Commented that the neighborhood is predominately ranch style homes
and single story.
• Would like the developers to develop the land with the current neighbors
in consideration.
Council Comments
• Questioned if Mr. Esche would prefer a two lot sub-division verses a three
lot sub-division.
13
Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued
Mr. Esche
• Commented that he prefers a two lot sub-division and that a two lot sub-
division would be more compatible with the neighborhood.
• Commented that the current neighborhood is a 1960's grid neighborhood
with ranch style single story homes.
Mr. Mangano
• Commented against the proposed sub-division and stated that the sub-
division does not fit into the Town's General Plan.
• Commented that the proposed sub-division does not fit into the current
neighborhood and it fails to benefit surrounding properties.
Council Comments
• Questioned if Mr. Mangano would prefer the smaller or the larger cul-de-
sac.
• Questioned if Mr. Mangano's view shed would be hindered by the fences
that would be built on the property.
Mr. Mangano
• Commented that he is in favor of the largest cul-de-sac possible which
would push the home farther from his home and allow more view sheds.
• Commented that Mr. Jeans is providing distorted view sheds and that
he would lose views with the proposed project.
Mr. Schwarz
• Commented against the proposed project and that the findings in the Sub-
division Map Act do not support the project.
• Requested that Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision.
Council Comments
Questioned if Mr. Schwarz prefers a larger cul-de-sac verses the smaller
cul-de-sac.
Questioned what evidence Planning Commission provided stating that the
site could not support the three lots.
Questioned if Mr. Schwarz preferred the garage at the end of the cul-de-
sac.
14
Public Hearing Item #11 =Continued
Mr. Schwarz
• Commented that he prefers the larger cul-de-sac.
• Expressed concerns about the flag lot and that the lot violates the Sub-
Division Map Act and the Town's General Plan Policies.
• Commented that the Town's General Plan discourages this type of
corridor line project.
• Commented that the lot may meet the technical portion of the 30 foot
frontage, but it seems that it does not meet the spirit -and intent of that type
of cul-de-sac frontage for a proposed lot.
Ms. De Bella
Commented that she lives adjacent to the proposed project and feels that
there is not enough room to build three homes at the end. of Panorama
Way.
Expressed concerns about having shared driveways and cars parked
along the cul-de-sac.
Commented on supporting a two home subdivision at the location.
Mr. Mitchell
• Commented that the view from his home is the entire length of the
property.
• Commented that the Planning Commission's unanimous decision was
based on suitability of the subdivision, Subdivision Map Statutes, Section
644674, which refers to Section 66473.5, which states no local agency
shall approve a tentative map unless the legislative body finds that the
proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan.
• Commented that the General Plan of Los Gatos does contain numerous
references including, but not limited to, assuring that the type and intensity
of land use shall be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood,
promoting and protecting view sheds, and avoiding abrupt changes in
scale and density.
• Commented that the Los Gatos Town Code Section 29.21.060 under
conditions of approval, states the deciding body may enforce reasonable
requirements more stringent than the minimum zone requirements when
necessary or appropriate to make sure a development is compatible to
and harmonious with the particular neighborhood and the established use
therein.
• Commented that Panorama Way is the immediate neighborhood and the
other streets have no direct access, connect to or front Panorama Way.
• Commented that the homes on Leewood Court have a full length wall over
8 feet high which separates the homes and that neighborhood.
15
Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued
Ms. Hickey
• Commented that she supports the neighbors and that it is important to the
neighbors to keep the neighborhood compatible.
Mr. Buesing
• Expressed concerns about compatibility with the proposed project.
• Commented that the two story homes would be too high and would block
their views.
• Commented that single story homes would be more compatible with the
neighborhood.
• Commented about the drainage problems within the area and that a three
lot subdivision may have a greater impact.
Mr. Holmberg
• Commented against the proposed three lot subdivision.
Mr. Jeans, Applicant
• Commented that drainage issues would be dealt with during the
Architecture and Site process.
• Requested consideration for the project and commented that the Planning
Commission had requested that the applicant reduce the sub-division from
four lots to a three lot-sub-division.
• Commented that the Planning Commission had requested that the project
be sent for CEQA review.
• Commented that a cul-de-sac with the 37 foot sidewalk would be a good
addition to the neighborhood. -
Council Comments
• Questioned if it would be conceivable for the applicant to develop two lots
instead of three lots.
• Questioned the size of the homes on a proposed two lot sub-division.
• Questioned if Mr. Jeans has envisioned views and compatibility for a two
lot subdivision with larger homes.
• Requested clarification on the configuration of the homes and the
standard configuration of the current neighborhood.
• Questioned the option if the applicant did not do a shared driveway.
16
Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued
Mr. Jeans
• Commented that it would n.ot be economically feasible for the applicant to
move forward with two lots.
• Commented that the applicant feels that the three lot subdivision is very
viable and would create a compatible neighborhood.
• Clarified that the homes would be larger in design with a two lot
subdivision.
• Clarified that the homes would be larger and deeper and neighbors like
Ms. Lynott and Mr. Mangano would lose their view sheds.
• Commented that when you put a cul-de-sac at the end of the
neighborhood you can not keep the same compatibility of grid lots like the
lots on Panorama Way.
• Commented that the applicant has done nothing but consider views for the
neighbors and that the cul-de-sac at the end of the street is a
recommendation from staff.
• Clarified that he would have to shift the home to accommodate single .
driveways and stated that the neighbors at the end of the cul-de-sac would
not have as nice of a view.
Closed Public Hearing
Council Discussions
• Questioned if staff could clarify the parking with the reduced version of the
cul-de-sac.
• Questioned why staff feels that the third lot is not considered a "flag lot."
• Commented that the appeal is based on the. Planning Commission having
erred.
• Clarified that to determine if the Planning Commission had erred you must
look to the Subdivision Map Act, Sub Section "C" and "D" which the
Planning Commission used. The Planning Commission determined that
the site was not physically suitable for the type of development and that
the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the
development.
• Commented that the Planning Commission looked at facts that included
the shared driveway, the inconsistent lot configurations, the potential for
inconsistent house configurations, and the neighborhood incompatibility,
all of which is evidence that relates to the Subdivision Map Act.
• Commented that the third parcel does look like a "flag lot."
• Expressed concerns about three lots verses two lots for the proposed
project.
• Expressed concerns about a three lot subdivision off Panorama Way and
the height issues with a two .lot subdivision.
• Expressed concerns about the Planning Commission recommending a
three lot subdivision at previous meetings then denying the application.
17
Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued
Council Discussions -Continued
• Requested clarification on the recommendations and interpretations
before Council.
• Commented that the testimony heard from the neighbors, the staff reports
that Council has read, and the mitigated negative declaration, are not
specific enough to validate a real finding.
• Commented that the immediate neighborhood is Panorama Way and
Union Avenue.
• Requested clarification whether or not Council could amend the decision
to fill in what the Planning Commission had done or should it go back to
the Planning Commission.
• Commented that a two lot sub-division with single story homes could be
an option.
• Commented that a larger single story home would protect the view sheds
of the surrounding neighbors.
• Expressed concerns about the application comparisons for sub-divisions
and Architecture and Site Applications.
• Commented that there is a clear distinction in neighborhoods within the
surrounding area.
• Questioned if the specific areas of the General Plan, Town Code, and
Government Code are applicable to the sub-division.
• Commented that the Sub-Division Map Act facts need to be applied to the
proposed project.
• Would like to define what constitutes a neighborhood for the Union
Avenue area.
• Questioned if there would be an issue if the proposed lot configurations
were rectangular like the surrounding neighborhood.
• Commented that because of the shapes of the lots, the applicants may be
forcing two story structures.
Ms. Davis
• Clarified that the paved width is the same with either the large or small
version of a cul-de-sac. The smaller cul-de-sac would have less
parking and landscaping would be provided with either version.
• Clarified that the third lot has the appearance of a "flag lot," but meets
the 30 foot frontage requirements for a parcel fronting on a cul-de-sac.
18
Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued
Mr. Korb
• Clarified that Council has the authority to uphold, reverse or amend the
decision of the Planning Commission, but Council must make a finding in
order to deny and refer to facts that support the finding.
• Commented that if Council feels that the Planning Commission's decision
was in any way deficient, then Council has the right to make their own
decision and make their own findings.
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Barbara Spector to deny the
appeal on the basis that the Planning Commission did not
err. The Planning Commission did not err because under
Subdivision Map Act "B" that the design or improvement of
the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the
applicable General and Specific Plans and the reason for
that is under the General Plan, Section L.P. 3.5 statement
that the land use shall be consistent with that of the
immediate neighborhood and Section C.D. P. 1.5 policy to
avoid abrupt changes in scale and density. Additionally,
Subdivision Map Act Section "C" the site is not physically
suitable both for the type of development and that the site is
not physically suitable for the proposed density of the
development based on facts relating to the inconsistency of
the lot configuration which would lead to inconsistency in
house configuration which was also supported by
neighborhood compatibility mentioned in Subdivision Map
Act "B".
Seconded by Council Member Steve Rice.
19
Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued
Council Discussions
• Clarification from the Maker of the Motion that she is upholding the
Planning Commission decision on the basis that their decision was
validated by the actual findings that they made.
• Maker of the Motion stated that she is upholding and amending the
Planning Commission's because they had facts before them that-would
apply to the Subdivision Map Act and Council had facts put before us
which applied to the Subdivision Map Act and the challenge that the
Planning Commission had was their failure to designate when they made
their motion which facts that they were using under the Subdivision Map
Act.
• Expressed concerns about applying the findings to the motion.
• Expressed concerns that during the previous Planning Commission
meetings they had made statements about the fact that they were
determining that a four home subdivision which was proposed by the
applicant was too much and a two home subdivision which was proposed
by the neighborhood was not sufficient for the applicant and somehow the
proposed project turned into a three unit compromise and then to process
this for a series of months and come to a decision that the project was
denied on the basis that it was not substantiated in the motion and to
say that it is not compatible or consistent and feels that it is to vague.
• Expressed concerns that the end lot gets saddled with a cul-de-sac and
that in order to get three lots on the subdivision one lot becomes a "flag
lot" which is not appropriate.
• Commented that Panorama Way is the neighborhood and does not feel
that the lots are consistent with the immediate neighborhood and it does
not feel right to have three lots.
Mr. Korb
• Clarified that based on the required findings in the Town Code for
reversing or amending a decision of the Planning Commission you
must make a finding of error or new information or an issue or policy
and it sounds as though the Maker of the Motion does find an error
and that error would be: 1) failure to articulate clearly what constitutes
the neighborhood for consideration and the facts that support that
determination, and 2) the additional grounds under the Subdivision
Map Act, Sub Section "B" and the policies that relate to those grounds.
• Requested clarification from the Maker of the Motion if the motion
does include a denial of the Architecture and Site Application.
20
Public Hearing Item #11 -Continued
The Maker of the Motion and the Seconder of the Motion agreed that the
motion did include a denial of the Architecture and Site Application.
VOTE: Motion passed 3/2. Vice Mayor Diane McNutt and
Council Member Joe Pirzynski voted no.
OTHER BUSINESS
12. Update on Disposal Program for unwanted prescription medications
("Take-Back Program")
Staff report made by Chief Scott Seaman, Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police
Department.
Council Comments
• Commented that the medicine drop-off program makes sense and
questioned if there could be a day set aside that could be considered as
a drop off day.
• Questioned if the Household Hazardous Waste Program could partner
with the Town, West Valley Sanitation District, and West Valley
Recycling several times a year to designate a drop off location for
unwanted medicine.
• Questioned if the Town could post current drop off locations on the
website to educate the community on these locations.
• Questioned if Chief Seaman would be willing to take the lead to raise
awareness in the community.
Chief Seaman
Commented that the option of a shared program would be possible, but
the Police Department would still have to apply for the certification from
Drug Enforcement to handle medications in that way.
Commented that the Police Department may have the opportunity to
partner with other cities that do not currently have a program in place.
21
Other Business Item #12 -Continued
Open Public Comments
Mr. Davis
• Commented that the whole idea of the program is to serve the public.
• Commented that this is a great public interest program for the Police
Department.
• Expressed concerns that a pharmacy should be taking in used drugs.
Closed Public Comments
MOTION: Motion by Council Member Steve Rice to accept the
update on Disposal Program for unwanted prescription
medications ("Take-Back Program.")
Seconded by Council Member Barbara Spector.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Attest:
Jackie D. Rose, Clerk
Administrator
22