1983-007-Granting Appeal From Decision Of Planning CommissionRESOLUTION NO. 1983 -7
RESOLUTION GRANTING APPEAL FROM DECISION OF PLANNING C01`UISSI0N
(120 -140 South Santa Cruz Avenue - Toll House)
1. Robert E. Lee has appealed a decision of the Planning C=, ssion, as
follows: decision not to modify the following zoning approvals:
a. Environmental impact report EIR -73 -13 and 13A.
b. Conditional use permit application U -76 -1 and 1A.
c. Architecture and site application 5 -73 -134, 134A, 134B, and 134C; and
2. A public hearing was held by the Council on December 7, 1982;
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:
A. Findings,
1. The initial approval of conditional use permit U -76 -1B was made on the
basis of the following finding:
"The proposed uses of the property are in harmony with the various
elements and objectives of the General Plan and purposes of the
ordinance. "
2. On June 23, 1979, pursuant to the foregoing approval, the Town issued
the applicant building permit No. 8539, entitled "Hotel -Phase I: Construction of
New Footings,"
3. Between June 23, 1979 and approximately January, 1982, applicant per-
formed minimal work on the project, with the apparent intention of building only
as much as would be required to avoid a contention that the project had been
abandoned.
4. On May 18, 1982, the Town adopted a Downtown Specific Plan which contains
the following pertinent provisions:
a. Issue No. 10 under Land Use, page II -1:
"There is concern that there are too many bars and restaurants
in the CBD and that these are changing the image and character
of the downtoom , "
b. Policy No. 13 under Land Use, Page II -3:
"Because of the traffic and public safety problems, no new
bars and /or restaurants shall be approved unless they can
demonstrate that they do not impact either problem."
5. The Town has consistently applied the foregoing policy starting fron
the time even prior to adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan. Specifically, no
new uses involving the sale of either beer and wine or unlimited liquor licenses have
been approved in the downtown core since 1979.
6. The foregoing policies and actions were a reasonable response to a per-
ceived problem of public safety arising from the proliferation of bars and restaurants,
which created problems of public drunkenness, harassment of citizens, vandalism,
noise, and other alcohol - related problems.
7. Building permit No. 8539 was issued to applicant subject to the provisions
of Section 7.01.130(c) of the Town Code, which allows an applicant to build a project
in phases, but states that when a person who obtains a permit to build only part of a
building, he does so "only at his own risk and without assurance that the permit
for the entire building or structure will be granted."
8. In approximately May, 1982, at about the same time the Downtown Specific
Plan was adopted, applicant completed work under the Phase I permit and applied
for a Phase II permit to complete the hotel building.
9. Under Section 7.01.130(a) of the Town Code, the Building Official may
issue a building permit for a project only if it conforms to the requirements of
all laws and policies of the Town. Accordingly, before issuing the Phase II permit,
the Town undertook a review of the project to see if it was still in compliance
with the general plan as found in the original approval. This review lead to the
proceedings before the Planning Canni.ssion on October 27, 1982 to consider whether
the applicant's conditional use permit should be modified or revoked.
10. In view of the Planning Coanission's implied finding that the project
-2-
was still consistent with the general plan, the Town issued applicant a permit for
Phase II on October 28, 1982.
11. On November 5, 1982, appellant Robert E. Lee filed his appeal with the
Town, raising the issue as to whether the bar and restaurant contemplated in the
applicant's use were consistent with the general and specific plans.
12. On November 11, 1982, the Town advised the applicant of the aforesaid
appeal, and warned him that the Phase II permit issued on October 28, 1982 would
be considered to be illegally issued if the appeal fran the Planning Commission was
granted on December 7.
13. Based on the evidence presented on December 7, the Planning Ca.nission
did in fact err in failing to consider that the bar and restaurant in the project
are contrary to the policy quoted above, in that they further contribute to an
existing overabundance of liquor - serving establishments in the downtown core.
14. The evidence presented at the hearing does not demonstrate that the bar
and restaurant in the subject property will not impact either traffic or public
safety. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that they will to some extent
exacerbate both problems.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the bar and restaurant uses of the property are
no longer in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan
and the purposes of the zoning ordinance; and since such harmony was an implied
condition of the approval of May 24, 1978, allowing the restaurant and bar uses of
the project to continue without modification would constitute allowing the use for
which the zoning approval was granted to be exercised contrary to the terns or con-
ditions of such approval. Grounds for modification therefor exist under Section
5.30.130(2) of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. Decision.
Based on the foregoing findings, the Council hereby takes the following_
action:
WIN
1. The appeal of Robert E. Lee is hereby granted.
2. Conditional use pernit U -76 -1E is hereby modified as follows:
a. No alcoholic beverages shall be served on the premises.
b. The seating capacity of the restaurant shall be reduced by 357.
PASSED AND ADOPTED AT A REGULAR
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS THIS 3rd day of
by the following votes:
ATTEST:
MEETING OF THE. TOWN COUNCIL
January , 19 83
AYES: COUNCITEEvIBERS Terrence J. Daily, Thomas J. Ferrito
and Mayor Brent N. Ventura
NOES: 0OUNCILMEABE.RS Joanne Benjamin and Marlyn J. Rasmussen
ABSTAIN: COUNCIIME!gBERS None
ABSENT: COUNCIDUABERS None
SIGNED:
Clerk f t e Tcun of Los Ga
-4-