19 Staff Report - Amending Town Code SectionsTOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: January 30, 1995
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LARRY E. ANDERSON, TOWN ATTORNEY
SUBJECT:
COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 46/IS -
ITEM NO.
Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Sections 29.20.295 and 29.20.300 of the
Town Code to Revise the Standard of Review to be used by the Town Council on
Appeals of Planning Commission Determinations
RECOMMENDATION:
a. Direct the Clerk to read the title.
b. Waive the reading.
c. Introduce Ordinance Amending Sections 29.20.295 and 29.20.300 of the Town Code to Revise the
Standard of Review to be used by the Town Council on Appeals of Planning Commission
Determinations.
BACKGROUND:
The Council has expressed continuing concern about the current standard for review of appeals of Planning
Commission decisions, because it requires a finding of error or abuse of discretion. Often, the Council only
decides to adjust a condition or finds that the Commission did not have discretion that the Council holds
to approve an application. The Council reviewed a draft proposal at its January 7, 1995, Workshop and
requested a draft ordinance be presented.
The proposed ordinance (Attachment 1) would retain a high standard review by spelling out two additional
reasons for modification of the Commission's decision, and would explicitly require the appellant to bear the
burden of proving that one of the three reasons for modification has been demonstrated.
PREPARED BY: LARRY E. ANDERSON, TOWN ATTORNEY
LEA:Imb 1/30/95 12:15 pm
N:\ATY\COMMNREV.CNL File #
Attachments: 1.
Proposed Ordinance Amending Sections 29.20.295 and 29.20.300 of the Town
Code to Revise the Standard of Review to be used by the Town Council on
Appeals of Planning Commission Determinations
Distribution: Planning Commission
Reviewed by: J..,,Manager Clerk v Finance Treasurer
COUNCIL ACTION/ACTION DIRECTED TO:
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
ORDINANCE TO REVISE STANDARD OF REVIEW
January 30, 1995
The proposed ordinance (Attachment 1) would retain a high standard review by spelling out two additional
reasons for modification of the Commission's decision, and would explicitly require the appellant to bear the
burden of proving that one of the three reasons for modification has been demonstrated.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Is not a project as defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
None expected. The Town does not charge for costs of an appeal of a Planning Commission decision.
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING
SECTIONS 29.20.295 AND 29.20.300 OF THE TOWN CODE TO REVISE THE
STANDARD OF REVIEW TO BE USED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL ON APPEALS
OF PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATIONS
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
Section 29.20.295 is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 29.20.295. Council hearing.
When hearing the appeal, the Council shall consider the record and such
additional evidence as may be offered by anyone and may affirm, modify or reverse, in
whole or in part, the determination appealed from, or make and substitute such other
determination as is warranted, or may remand to the Planning Commission for further
review and determination. The appellant bears the burden of proof before the Council
in proving that one or more of the reasons specified in Section 29.20.300 exist on the
appeal for reversing or modifying the Commission determination. The standards of this
chapter governing the discretion of the reviewing body shall apply with equal effect to
actions of the Council.
SECTION II
Section 29.20.300 is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 29.20.300. Decision.
(a) Any decision of the Council modifying, in whole or in part, the order,
requirement, decision, determination, interpretation, or ruling appealed from, or making
and substituting another decision or determination, requires the concurrence of a
majority of the membership of the Council.
(b) If the Council decides to modify or reverse the decision of the Planning
Commission on any appeal, the resolution shall specify one or more of the following:
1
(1) Where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning
Commission; or
(2) The new information that was submitted to the Council during the appeal
process that was not readily and reasonably available for submission to the
Commission; or
(3) An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to
modify or address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or
decision.
(c) The decision of the Council upon the appeal will be expressed by a written
resolution. The Council will forthwith transmit copies of the resolution to the original
applicant, the appellant, and the Planning Commission.
SECTION III
This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Los Gatos on and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance
of the Town of Los Gatos at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos on . This ordinance takes effect thirty (30) days after it is adopted.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
Al l'EST:
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
N:\ATY\COMMREVW.ORD
2
February 6, 1995
Los Gatos, California
DOWNTOWN BEAUTIFICATION CONT.
Darrin Watson continued:
courts have found insurance requirements place and unfair burden on the fringe newspapers
which the 1st amendment was intended to protect;) page 4, Sec.23.70.025. that the ID marker
with pertinent information regarding the party responsible for the maintenance of the rack and
that the Town's permit be separately displayed; page 5, Sec. 23.70.030(a) that the 4 foot height
limit be changed to 54" so as to leave room for installation mounts for the average newsracks;
page 5, Sec.23.70.030(c) asked that this section be reconsidered stating the difficulty of
maintenance or upgrading the equipment; page 8, Sec.23.70.040(a)(3)f. asked that news racks
be given constitutional rights over benches. (Town Attorney noted that benches also have
constitutional rights;) page 9, Sec.23.70.040(b) that this section be removed because of
unfettered discretion of the Planning Director. (Town Attorney stated consistency of the
ordinance, and that this section did not affect unfettered discretion.)
Keith Kawashima, 245 Almendra, speaking for Los Gatos Weekly Times and Metro Publishing,
spoke of the newspapers and the cost of permanent racks. Noted that bolting down all racks is
expensive and restrictive and that the company needs to maintain flexibility with mobile
equipment to accommodate active locations and stay within their limited budget.
Barbra Toren, 15443 Orangeblossom, representing the Downtown Association, explained the
bench program and the work done on the newspaper racks and trash receptacles. She also noted
the trash receptacles and the need to maintain beauty and charm for the downtown area and
asked that all aspects of the plan be considered together.
Joe Hargett, spoke of the benches and clarified some aspects of the cost and purchase of the
benches by those wanting to contribute to the program.
Shirley Henderson, spoke enthusiastically of the project and how well it is progressing.
No one else from the audience addressed this issue.
Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Blanton, to continue this item to February 21, 1995
for the Downtown Association to work further with the Newspapers and their rack designs so
that the whole Downtown Beautification Program can be adopted at one time. Carried
unanimously.
APPEALS OF PLANNING COMMISSION/STANDARD OF REVIEW (19.47)
Mrs. Benjamin noted that she did not want to see applicants trying to circumvent the actions of
the Planning Commission. She preferred to see language in the ordinance which would not allow
this to happen.
Council Consensus that this item return to Council February 21, 1995 for some wording which
will address the concern of applicant circumventing Planning Commission decision.
TC: D7: MM020695 8