Loading...
Item 13 Staff Report Consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny an Application for Use and Occupy Approval for a Medical Office Use on Property Zoned C-2. Use and Occupancy, UO-98-0004. Property Location: 236 North Santa Cruz Avenue,n COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: February 24, 1999 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: REMARKS: MEETING DATE: 3/01/99 ITEM NO. / ADDENDUM CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR USE AND OCCUPANCY APPROVAL FOR A MEDICAL OFFICE USE ON PROPERTY ZONED C-2. USE AND OCCUPANCY, UO-98-0004. PROPERTY LOCATION: 236 NORTH SANTA CRUZ AVENUE, SUITE 112. PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM BACCHI. APPLICANT/APPELLANT: KIM DAVIS The attached continuance request letter from Dr. Kim Davis was received on February 22, 1999. This item has been continued to April 5, 1999. Attachments: 1. Continuance Request Letter from Dr. Kim Davis, received February 22, 1999. " Distribution: Kim Davis, 45 Euclid Ave., Los Gatos, CA 95030 William Bacchi, Los Gatos Eureka Building, 236 N. Santa Cruz Ave., Ste. 105, Los Gatos, CA 95030 N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\236NSC.ADD PREPARED BY: LEE E. BOWMAN PLANNING DIRECTOR Reviewed by: Attorney Finance Revised:2/24i99 9:21 am Reformatted: 10/23/95 FRO I : PHONE NO. : Aug. 02 1997 07:00AM P2 Los Gatos Optimal Health Dr. Kimberlee Davis Town of Los Gatos Office of the Town Clerk 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, California 95032 February 23, 1999 Dear Town Clerk: VM/pager 408.993.5003 Email kimdc-.ziplink.net TOWN OF LOS;�ATOS _ OFFICE OF TO,,'; CLE.,K I am scheduled for a Town Council appeal on Monday, March 1, 1999 regarding an appeal of Planning Commission decision about my office space at 236 N. Santa Cruz Avenue. Since the Planning Commission's decision I have been actively searching for new office space which will meet the towns parking requirement. Unfortunately, I have not yet located such office space. I request a continuance of my appeal process so that I may find new space and thus resolve this issue_ I request as much time as possible so that I may increase my chance of resolution. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely: Dr, Kim Davis 236 N. Santa Cruz Ave. Suite 112. Las Gatos, CA 95030 Office 408.354.5055 fax 4083543633 Town Council Minutes March 1, 1999 Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California HEARINGS LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT/RESOLUTION 1999-26 (12.09) Mayor Hutchins stated that this was the time and place duly noted for public hearing to consider authorizing the Town Manager to accept funds awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance for Local Law Enforcement Block Grant; use of Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Funds; adopting resolution authorizing the use of Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Funds to purchase a canine, train both the dog and handler, and for associated costs; increase revenue account 4030-60549 and track in project canine; and authorize amendment to Section 10 of the Police Officer Association Memorandum of Understanding. The following people spoke to this issue: Chief Todd, addressed the program and the benefits to the Town and its citizens. Kim Bidermann, 15757 Kavin Lane, member of CASA, spoke in favor of this proposal. No one else addressed this issue. Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mr. Pirzynski, to close the public hearing. Carried unanimously. Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mrs. Lubeck, that Council adopt Resolution 1999-26 entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AUTHORIZING THE USE OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO PURCHASE A CANINE, TRAIN BOTH THE DOG AND A HANDLER. AND FOR ASSOCIATED COSTS, and authorizing the Town Manager to accept funds awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance for Local Law Enforcement Block Grant; use of Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Funds; increase revenue account 4030-60549 and track in project canine; and authorize amendment to Section 10 of the Police Officer Association Memorandum of Understanding. Carried unanimously. SANTA CRUZ AVE N 236/MEDICAL OFFICE USE/APPEAL (13.09) Mayor Hutchins stated that this was the time and place duly noted for public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an application for use and occupancy approval for a medical office use on property zoned C-2. Use and Occupancy: UO-98-0004. Property Location: 236 North Santa Cruz Ave, Ste.112. Property Owner: William Bacchi. Applicant/Appellant: Kim Davis. Council consensus to continue this item to April 5, 1999. DOWNTOWN PARKING IMPROVEMENTS/SCHEDULE/HEIGHT CONSIDERATIONS (14.40) Mayor Hutchins stated that this was the time and place duly noted to consider approving future public meeting schedule, paid parking and height of structures for downtown parking. Council and staff considered issues of scheduling so as not to impact the holiday shopping season, and the methods of choosing an architect that could design a structure that would fit gracefully in its respective locale. TC:D11:MM030199 4 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: February 19, 1999 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: 3/01/99 ITEM NO. .% CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR USE AND OCCUPANCY APPROVAL FOR A MEDICAL OFFICE USE ON PROPERTY ZONED C-2. USE AND OCCUPANCY, UO-98-0004. PROPERTY LOCATION: 236 NORTH SANTA CRUZ AVENUE, SUITE 112. PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM BACCHI. APPLICANT/APPELLANT: KIM DAVIS RECOMMENDATION: 1. Hold the public hearing and receive public testimony. 2. Close the public hearing. 3. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal. 4. Refer to the Town Attorney for the preparation of the appropriate resolution. If the Town Council determines that the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed or modified: 1. The Council needs to find one or more of the following: (1) (2) (3) Where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or 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 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. If the predominant reason for modifying or reversing the decision of the Planning Commission is new information as defined in Subsection (2) above, it is the Town's policy that the application be returned to the Commission for review in light of the new information unless the new information has a minimal effect on the application. 2. Refer to the Town Attorney for the preparation of the appropriate resolution. PROJECT SUMMARY: According to the Town Code, the proposed medical office is an intensification of use that requires a higher parking requirement than professional office. The proposed space was previously used as a professional office. A parking study was performed by the Planning Department for the entire building and concluded that there are insufficient parking spaces for the proposed medical office use (Attachment 3). A Certificate of Use and Occupancy is required if a change of use is requested. A Business License is required to conduct business in Town. As a courtesy to new merchants, the Town attempts to coordinate these two re uirements. Upon discovery of the fact that a Business License had been PREPARED BY: LEE E. BOWMAN (IL PLANNING DIRECTOR Reviewed by: O- Attorney Finance Revised: 2/19/99 8:53 am Reformatted: 10/23/95 PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL RE: CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR USE AND OCCUPANCY APPROVAL FOR A MEDICAL OFFICE USE RE: 236 NORTH SANTA CRUZ AVENUE, SUITE 112 February 19, 1999 issued and that a Certificate of Use and Occupancy could not be approved for the medical office use, the Finance Department retracted the business license on August 25, 1998. After receiving the required information to conduct a parking analysis, on October 4, 1998, the Planning Department reviewed and denied the Certificate of Use and Occupancy application to convert a 437 square foot space from a professional office to a medical office due to lack of parking. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission considered the appeal on January 13, 1999 and denied it. APPEAL: The applicant has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission (Attachment 1) on the basis that: 1. The Commission did not have discretion to modify or address the appeal of Planning Director's decision to deny an application for Use and Occupancy approval for a medical office use . The proposed medical office use does not meet the Town Code. The Commission had no option but to deny the appeal. No variance was filed and staff is not aware of facts that would enable the Commission to make the statutory findings required to grant a variance. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: It has been determined that this project could not possible have a significant effect on the environment therefore, the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15061(b)(3)). FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachments: 1. Letter of Appeal, received January 25, 1999. 2. Planning Commission minutes of January 13, 1999. 3. Report to the Planning Commission from the Planning Director dated January 8, 1999 for the meeting of January 13, 1999. Distribution: Kim Davis, 45 Euclid Ave., Los Gatos, CA 95030 William Bacchi, Los Gatos Eureka Building, 236 N. Santa Cruz Ave., Ste. 105, Los Gatos, CA 95030 N:\DE V\GARY\COUNCIL\236NSC.APP ----' o FILING FEE REQUIR I Town of Los Gatos Office of the Town Clerks 110 E. Main St., Los Gatos, CA 95032 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISI I, the undersigned, do hereby appeal a decision of the Planning Commission as follows: DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: PROJECT/APPLICATION NO.: ADDRESS LOCATION: V ) 7 I cF G1 up— cig Z3( IL 4AN25S9 TOWN Of LOS GATOS 1' Pursuant to the Town Code, the Town Council may only grant an appeal of a Planning Commission decision in most matters if the Council finds that one of three (3) reasons exist for granting the appeal by a vote of at least three (3) Councilmembers. Therefore, please specify how one of those reasons exist in this appeal: 1. The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because ;OR 2. There is new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission decision, which is: (please attach the new information if possible); OR 3. The Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or address the following policy or issue that is 1,'ested in the Town Council: ^� %�77c."(,z,f /a-✓1. /L�L/t`i J I i V�i S CA:cc 5 L (Lv n L C �-1) &Rl CJ 4 C� t� Q� T G� r (A 'L'� i Cr� E` U-- - ^_ ^n C - 21— � C ( ; . :v ; j IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED TO ADDRESS ONE OF THE 3 REASONS FOR AN APPEAL, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHE=TS. IMPORTANT:. 1. Appeal must be filed within ten (10) calendar days of Planning Commission Decision accompanied by the required riling fee. Deadline is 5:00 p.m. on the 10th day following the decision [if the 10th day is a Saturday, Sunday, or Town holiday, then it may be filed on the workday immediately following the 10th day, usually a Monday.] 2. The Town Clerk will set the hearing within 56 days of the date of the Planning Commission Decision. Town Ord. No. 1967. 3. An appeal regarding a Change of Zone application or a subdivision map only must be filed within the time limit specified in the Zoning or Subdivision Code, as applicable, which is different from other,appeals. 4. Once filed, the appeal will be heard by the Town Council. 5. If the reason for granting an appeal is the receipt of new information, the application will usually be returned to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. _ PUNT NAME: 1 Iry �(/i J L 5 , t7L SIGNATURE: DATE: 'j S • 25. 1�9 • ADDRESS: L Z 1= GL✓! 1) /-h =1,'l1 PHONE: �� 3� 4' Sc 55 LCS DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: PAI DATE TO SEND PUBLICATION: DATE OF PUBLICATION: ' A -. OFFICE USE ONLY ricK /D . i r= <, g. r1 / ) t " -7 APPFORM_.PLN Rev. 10/ 17/ 96 TOWN OF LOS GATOS J VV3 ATTACHMENT 1 1 SANTA CRUZ AVENUE NORTH, 236 SUITE 112/UO-98-0004. (00.06) Appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny an application for Use and Occupancy approval for a medical office use on property zoned C-2. PROPERTY OWNER: William Bacchi. APPLICANT/APPELLANT: Kim Davis. The following people from the audience spoke regarding this matter. Kim Davis, 45 Euclid Avenue, gave an overview of the matter regarding her business license. Ms. Davis stated that she was given a business license in June when she opened her Chiropractic office in Town. She explained that she was then told about the parking requirements for a medical facility and her new office did not have the required amount of parking. Commissioner Morgan questioned the financial hardship mentioned in Ms. Davis appeal. 31 ATTACHMENT 2 Los Gatos Planning Commission Ms. Davis stated it was roughly $13,000.00 to move and equip the office. Commissioner Jensen clarified that it cost $13,000.00 to open the office as opposed to physically move anything. Ms. Davis stated that this amount represented her investment in opening the office. She explained that this was a mental tally or what she had spent on equipment. Commissioner Nachison clarified that Ms. Davis business license application had stated "health care office/massage therapy". Ms. Davis stated that the massage therapist has now left. Commissioner Nachison clarified that Ms. Davis's license was issued without comment. Ms. Nachison stated that the copy of the business license before the Commission tonight shows comments. Ms. Nachison questioned when Ms. Davis was notified regarding the parking. Ms. Davis stated it was late July or early August and she had no idea of the problem prior to this. Commissioner Morgan questioned moving to another location. Ms. Davis stated that it would cause a financial hardship because she is not overly burdened with excess cash after investing the $13,000 and there would be additional cost involved in advertising, stationary, and changing utilities. Chair Decker stated that this appeal is unusual due to two interdepartmental decisions and conflicting timing. Mr. Korb explained that the only option would be a Variance application but it may be difficult to make the required findings under the circumstances. Commissioner Nachison question jurisdiction over Use and Occupancy matters. Mr. Korb explained that the issue was whether they are entitled to occupy the space contrary to the Zoning Requirements. Mr. Korb explained that the use falls under the parking requirements relating to a medical office use and, the appellant operates a Chiropractic office which the Planning Department has determined is a medical office use. He explained that the determination is not based on whether the appellant is, in fact, a doctor, but if the use is similar to a medical type of use so that the parking requirements are applicable. Ms. Davis stated that she is at this office only 20 hours per week because she has another full 32 Los Gatos Planning Commission time position at the College so the practice is limited. Ms. Davis explained that she spends approximately 30 to 90 minutes with each client so the practice is not a "high turn over" situation. Ms. Davis reiterated that it is a very low key operation. Mr. Korb stated that there is no provision in the Code for part time versus full time. Chair Decker explained that the Town discourages Variances because they set precedence. Mr. Korb reminded the Commission that there was no Variance application before the Commission. Commissioner Nachison questioned procedure and stated that the Commission does not have the ability to give relief from the parking requirement without a Variance application. Ms. Nachison questioned denying the appeal without prejudice which would allow Ms. Davis to apply for a Variance and show that the use was not as intensive as a medical office. Mr. Korb explained that if the Commission denies the application they would not be making any determination with regard to the possibility of a Variance being granted if Ms. Davis were to apply for one. Bill Bacchi, 236 N. Santa Cruz Avenue explained that the Ordinance does not allow flexibility and the problem is with the Ordinance. Mr. Bacchi stated that he feels the situation is discriminatory because she has Doctor in front of her name. Mr. Bacchi feels Ms. Davis is being pulled through the process but does not fit in the process by any kind of analysis of the facts. Mr. Bacchi feels she does not fit what the intent of the Ordinance is. Mr. Bacchi reiterated that he thinks Ms. Davis is feeling a discriminatory law which doesn't apply to her. Mr. Bacchi stated that everyone is trying to help and that is appreciated. Commissioner Jensen stated that she sympathizes with the fact that Ms. Davis received a business license. However, being treated as a medical office, given that Ms. Davis is a Doctor, under the Ordinance this is the exact opposite of discrimination. Ms. Jensen explained that when the Town is dealing with parking and traffic generation the Town does not consider the individual facts but relies on specific studies and, those studies list parking spaces required for certain types of operations or particular use. Ms. Jensen stated that it is more fair to determine a category and what the average use is by surveys that we have in place and then make decisions as people fall into those categories, equally. Mr. Jensen feels it is fair to treat the appellant in the category she falls into and, she wishes the Town could help but she does not see that the Commission has the power to do that. Ms. Davis stated that she does not feel the intent has been discrimination but her subjective feeling is that there is no compliance in the Town regarding other practitioner and she feels she is being singled out. Ms. Davis reiterated that the regulation is not applied uniformally. 33 Los Gatos Planning Commission Mr. Lortz explained that there are a number of business downtown that don't have any on site parking so it appears that they do not meet the requirements. However, these properties have paid into the Parking Assessment District and therefore they do have parking. Commissioner Morgan question how long Ms. Davis would have to continue her operation if the Commission denies the appeal. Ms. Morgan questioned if there was a fee to apply for a Variance. Mr. Lortz explained that the Town has taken this matter very seriously because we do not like to put people in this situation. Mr. Lortz explained that the Town will give Ms. Davis a reasonable time to adhere to the Ordinance or come into compliance and Staff will work with her toward that end. However, the situation can not go on forever. Mr. Lortz stated that the fee for a Variance is in excess of $2,000.00. Ms. Davis asked for a restricted business license. Mr. Korb explained that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over business licenses. Motion by Commissioner Jensen, continued by Chair Decker to continue this meeting past 11:30 P.M. Carried unanimously. There was no one else in the audience to speak to this matter. Chair Decker closed the Public Hearing. Motion by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Chair Decker to deny 236 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite # 112/UO-98-0004 because of the lack of parking. Carried unanimously. Appeal rights recited by Mr. Lortz 34 REPORT TO: FROM: LOCATION: Date: January 8, 1999 For Agenda Of: Agenda Item: January 13, 1999 6 The Planning Commission Lee E. Bowman, Planning Director 236 N. Santa Cruz Avenue Suite #112 Certificate Of Use & Occupancy Application, UO-98-0004 Appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny an application for Use and Occupancy approval for a medical office use on property zoned C-2. PROPERTY OWNER: William Bacchi APPELLANT: Kim Davis DEEMED COMPLETE: October 6, 1998 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION BY: January 13, 1999 FINDINGS: None. ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: EXHIBITS: It has been determined that this project could not possible have a significant effect on the environment therefore, the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15061(b)(3)). A. Appeal letter received October 16, 1998 B. Letter of Justification (four pages) received October 15, 1998 C. Letter of Correction received January 7, 1999 RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Deny the application due to lack of parking. A. BACKGROUND: On August 8, 1998, the Finance Department issued a business license (#17444) to the applicant without the Planning Department's approval of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy. A Certificate of Use and Occupancy is required before a business license may be issued if a change of occupancy is requested. Upon discovery of this fact, the Finance Department retracted the business license on August 25, 1998. After receiving the required information to conduct a parking analysis, on September 22, 1998, the Planning Department reviewed and denied the Business License application to convert a 437 square foot space from a professional office to a medical office due to lack of parking. As a result, the applicant requested to appeal the Planning Department's action. Since there is no appeal process for a Business License application, the applicant submitted a Certificate of Use and Occupancy application (UO-98-0004). The Planning Department reviewed and denied the application on October 4, 1998. Town Code Section 29.20.065 states that a Certificate of Use and Occupancy is required: "Before any change of occupancy of land or buildings other than a change in residents of a dwelling or proprietors of a continuing business enterprise." ATTACHMENT 3 The Planning Commission - Page 2 236 N. Santa Cruz Ave #112 / UO-98-0004 January 13, 1999 B. APPELLANT COMMENTS: The appellant is represented by David G. Bicknell, Esq., who has submitted a letter (Exhibit B) providing a detailed description of his client's business and relevant facts. Mr. Bicknell's letter also outlines reasons for granting a variance to the Town's parking regulations. The appellant has not filed a variance. Staff is not aware of facts that would enable the Planning Commission to make the statutory findings required to grant a variance C. DISCUSSION: 1. Medical Office Use: According to Town Code Section 29.60.320, ground floor office uses are prohibited in the C-2 zone unless continuous office use has existed since June 17, 1991. Since the proposed space has been continuously used as an office, office activity (including medical office use) is allowed to continue provided that it meets the Town's parking requirements. The ground floor medical office proposed entails chiropractic and consulting services provided by one doctor. 2. Parking Requirements: The proposed medical office use at this space has a higher parking requirement than a professional office use (Town Code Section 29.10.150). Since the space was previously occupied by a professional office, a parking study was performed by the Planning Department for the entire building and concluded that there are insufficient parking spaces for the proposed medical office use. The chart below illustrates the breakdown of the parking allocation for the entire building in which the proposed use is located: Use Square Footage Parking Ratio space/sq.ft. Required Parking Retail 3,334 sq. ft. 1 / 300 11 spaces Office 20,578 sq. ft. 1 / 250 83 spaces Proposed Medical Office 437 sq. ft. 1 /250 OR 6 per Doctor (which ever is more restrictive) *6 spaces Total Floor Area = 24,349 Square Feet Parking Assessment Credits= 0 on site ; 95 purchased Total Parking Spaces Required 100 spaces Total Parking Spaces Available 95 spaces *The parking requirements for a medical office are as follows: One (1) parking for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area or six (6) spaces per doctor; whichever is more restrictive (Town Code Section 29.10.150(c8)). The parking requirement of six (6) spaces per doctor applies to this use since it is more restrictive. The Planning Commission - Page 3 236 N. Santa Cruz Ave #112 / UO-98-0004 January 13, 1999 A portion of Lot 2 was granted to the Town on an interim basis by three of the adjacent property owners. These areas were to revert to the respective property if the owners requested the reversion within the time period stipulated in the agreement. Two of the property owners requested the reversion. Subject property is one of those properties. There are six (6) parking spaces on Lot 2 that are partially located in the reversionary area. These spaces were part of the Assessment District. These spaces cannot be counted toward the subject property's on -site parking because the assess formula for the 1987 Parking Assessment District included a credit for participation in the previous Parking Assessment District (Parking District 2). Furthermore, they are not accessible without crossing Town -owned property. D. USE AND OCCUPANCY: As required by Town Code Section 29.20.065: "A certificate of use and occupancy is issued when inspection shows that the building, site and activity to be conducted there conform to law including this chapter and other Town ordinances, and to the requirements of any Town approval." E. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S ACTION: On October 4, 1998, the Planning Department denied the applicant's Certificate of Use and Occupancy application because it could not make the determination that the medical office use complies with Town regulations. F. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny the Certificate of Use and Occupancy (UO-98-0004). If the Commission decides to uphold the appeal, it must determine that the medical office use complies with all Town regulations. E. Bowman, Planning Director Prepared by: Gary Chao, Planning Technician LEB:GC:mdc cc: Kim Davis, 45 Euclid Ave., Los Gatos, CA 95030 David G. Bicknell, P.O. Box 536, Los Gatos, CA 95031-0536 William Bacchi, 236 N. Santa Cruz Ave., Los Gatos, CA 95030 N:IDEVIREPORTS1236SANTA.REP La ,,atos Optimal He <h Dr. Kimberlee Davis October 16, 1998 Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, California 95030 Dear Commissioners: VM/pager 408.993.5003 Email kimdc@ziplink.net RECEIVED OCT 16 1998 TOWN ©F 1. 8 GATOS PLANNING DEPARTMENT By The October 15, 1998 letter from David Bicknell, which I submitted to you yesterday, is a letter of justification for my appeal to you regarding my business license and certificate of use and occupancy application. I appeal to you based on the reasons stated in that letter. Thank you for your kind assistance in this matter. Kim Davis, D.C. EXHT A 236 N. Santa Cruz Ave., Suite 112, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Office 408.354.5055 Fax 408.354.3633 FROM .: PHONE NO. : Jun. 17 1997 12:59AM P2 Los Gatos Optimal Health Dr. Kimberiee Davis Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, California 95031 January 7, 1999 VM/payer 408.993.5003 Email kimdc@ziplink.ner Dear Commissioners: This is a correction to the report regarding my October 15, 1998 letter of justification for appeal for business license and certificate of use and occupancy. Massage therapist Melanie Kassen is no longer working in this office; 1 am alone in the office. Please consider this change as you read the letter and report. Thank you for your kind assistance in this matter. Sincerely: Kim Davis, D.C. EXHIB1T C RECEIVED JAN - 7 1999 2.36 N. Santa Cruz Ave., Suite 112, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Office 408,354.5055 Fax 409354.3633 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 Bicknell Law Offices PO SOX 536 LOS GATOS, CA 95031-0536 FIECEI VD October 15, 1998 OCT 15 1998 TOWN OFLOS GATOS DEPARTMENT Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 110E Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: Los Gatos Optimal Health Dear Commissioners: I represent Kimberlee Davis, a part time chiropractor and health consultant. This letter is written to request a variance for her business. The Los Gatos Zoning Regulations (Sec. 29.10.150) require that a medical or dental clinic or office provide one off street parking space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area or six (6) spaces per doctor, whichever is more restrictive. Dr. Davis currently leases 437 square feet of office space at 236 North Santa Cruz Avenue at Suite 112, Los Gatos, CA 95030. Under the terms of her lease she is given access to one off-street parking space. We believe a variance is warranted for several reasons: (1) The Town issued a business license to Los Gatos Optimal Health for its operation at this location and that firm incurred wore than S13,0:0 in reliance on that business license. Now the Town is seeking to revoke the license based on its zoning regulation; (2) We believe that in light of the means of operation of the business, Los Gatos Optimal Health meets the purposes of the off street parking regulations of Sec. 29.10.150; (3) It appears that the enforcement of the zoning regulation against Los Gatos Optimal Health would be discriminatory based on a quick survey of other medical and dental clinics and offices in the immediate vicinity; and, - 15951 LOS GATOS BOULEVARD, SUITE 1A LOS GATOS, CA 95032 PHONE: (408) 358-4900 FAX: (408) 356-2638 E-mail: dgbl@ix.netcom.com EXHIBIT B Planning Commission October 15, 1998 Page 2 (4) It would impose a severe hardship on Los Gatos Optimal Health to move its business again. The facts surrounding the establishment of the business at 236 North Santa Cruz are relevant to the issues here. The Town issued Los Gatos Optimal Health a business license at the time it began operations at its current location. My client did not attempt to hide the nature of its business at the time that it applied for its license. My client entered into a one-year lease which does not expire until May 31, 1999. She then expended more than $13,000 to establish her business at that location, all in reliance on the business license issued to her for operation at that location. However, her operation is not a full-time business. She is a part-time consultant and chiropractor. She sees one patient at a time and frankly has only enough space to see one patient at a time. She shares the space with a massage therapist but they do not see clients during the same hours and that therapist also only sees one client at a time. Neither of them employs any support staff 1. The Town issued a business license to Los Gatos Optimal Health for its operation at this location and that firm incurred more than $13,000 in reliance on that business license. Now the Town is seeking to revoke the license based on its zoning regulation. My clients' business is a part-time pursuit. She is a professor at Palmer Chiropractic University during the hours she is not working in her own business. Therefore, the overhead for the business must be small in order for the business to be profitable. However, she invested a great deal of time and money establishing the business at its current location in reliance on the business license issued to her by the Town of Los Gatos. She would never have established her business at that location had she been advised of the parking restrictions. In fact, she could not afford to do business in the downtown area at all if she is required to meet the regulation's requirements. In_ establishing her business at that location, she incurred more than $13.000 in costs, costs she would not have incurred had the Town advised her that she would have to meet the requirements of this regulation. If the Town wants to impose added restrictions on the business license to fit her situation, she is willing to work with the Town to formulate those restrictions. However, she believes that it is patently unfair for the Town to issue the license, for her to spend $13,000 on moving costs in reliance on the Town's issuance of that license and for the Town now to come back and seek to revoke the license after it made the mistake of issuing it in the first place. 2. We believe that in light of the means of operation of the business, Los Gatos Optimal Health meets the purposes of the off street parking regulations of Sec. 29.10.150. Section 29.10.150(a) says: "Intent. The regulations contained in this section are intended to insure the provision of a sufficient number of off-street parking spaces privately and publicly owned and operated to satisfy the needs generated by permissible uses." 7. Planning Commission October 15, 1998 Page 3 We believe that, considering the nature of her business and that of the massage therapist that shares her space, the purposes of that regulation are fulfilled. One off-street parking space is sufficient to satisfy the needs of my client's permissible use. First, there are many hours during the business week when neither Dr. Davis nor the massage therapist that shares the space with her are doing business. Second, the suite is equipped to see only one patient at a time and each patient's appointment is normally 30-90 minutes in duration. There is a small reception room and one treatment room in the suite. My client is willing to agree to a restriction on her business license that she and her sub -tenant will never see more than one patient at a time. The ordinance was intended to assure that the normal medical/dental office provides adequate off street parking to support a normal practice. It is directed to the usual medical office that employs one or more full-time physicians who see from six to ten patients during any given hour. Those physicians normally employ several support staff people to assist them in their businesses My client and her sub -tenant never see more than two patients during an hour. In addition, their practices involve less than full-time hours even when you combine the hours they both devote to their practices. In addition, they do not employ any support staff personnel. 3. It appears that the enforcement of the zoning regulation against Los Gatos Optimal Health would be discriminatory based on a quick survey of other medical and dental clinics and offices in the immediate vicinity. My client conducted a quick survey of the medical and dental offices in the immediate vicinity surrounding her office and located two practices that appear to lack the off-street parking required by the regulation. Dr. Vandenberg, O.D. operates his business from a store front on North Santa Cruz Avenue. It appears that Dr. Vandenberg's office provides no off-street parking. At Hands On for Health, four massage therapists share a house located at University and Bachman. A second business by the name Network Chiropractor also does business at that location. One chiropractor works in that business. Under the regulation, Hands On for Health and Network Chiropractor should provide thirty off street parking spaces. They do not. We believe that the Town should be even-handed in its treatment of my client's situation, especially in light of the fact that it issued a business license to my client for its operation. We believe that, under the circumstances, my client should be permitted to continue her business at the current level of operations. 4. It would impose a severe hardship on Los Gatos Optimal Health to move its business again. My client has a lease with her landlord for one year. Under the terms of that lease she would have to pay another eight months rent at $1,311 per month ($10,488)or break the lease and possibly incur legal costs to defend a legal action by her landlord. It cost her more than $13,000 to move last time and she anticipates that it would cost her at least that much to move her operation again. A cost of nearly $25,000 would, quite simply, put her out of business and result c Planning Commission October 15, 1998 Page 4 in her incurring substantial long-term debt. We appeal to the commissioners for relief from a very bad situation. My client thought she was doing everything she could to comply with the Los Gatos requirements for operating her business at that location. The Town issued her a business license. The Town now seeks to revoke that license based on a regulation that was directed at businesses which are distinctly different from hers. We appeal to the commissioners' sense of fairness to issue a variance and permit her to complete the term of her lease with a restricted business license. Please call if you have any questions. Very Truly Yours, David G. Bicknell cc: Dr. Kimberlee Davis Town Council Minutes March 1, 1999 Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California HEARINGS LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT/RESOLUTION 1999-26 (12.09) Mayor Hutchins stated that this was the time and place duly noted for public hearing to consider authorizing the Town Manager to accept funds awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance for Local Law Enforcement Block Grant; use of Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Funds; adopting resolution authorizing the use of Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Funds to purchase a canine, train both the dog and handler, and for associated costs; increase revenue account 4030-60549 and track in project canine; and authorize amendment to Section 10 of the Police Officer Association Memorandum of Understanding. The following people spoke to this issue: Chief Todd, addressed the program and the benefits to the Town and its citizens. Kim Bidermann, 15757 Kavin Lane, member of CASA, spoke in favor of this proposal. No one else addressed this issue. Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mr. Pirzynski, to close the public hearing. Carried unanimously. Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mrs. Lubeck, that Council adopt Resolution 1999-26 entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AUTHORIZING THE USE OF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO PURCHASE A CANINE. TRAIN BOTH THE DOG AND A HANDLER. AND FOR ASSOCIATED COSTS, and authorizing the Town Manager to accept funds awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance for Local Law Enforcement Block Grant; use of Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Funds; increase revenue account 4030-60549 and track in project canine; and authorize amendment to Section 10 of the Police Officer Association Memorandum of Understanding. Carried unanimously. SANTA CRUZ AVE N 236/MEDICAL OFFICE USE/APPEAL (13.09) Mayor Hutchins stated that this was the time and place duly noted for public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an application for use and occupancy approval for a medical office use on property zoned C-2. Use and Occupancy: UO-98-0004. Property Location: 236 North Santa Cruz Ave, Ste.112. Property Owner: William Bacchi. Applicant/Appellant: Kim Davis. Council consensus to continue this item to April 5, 1999. DOWNTOWN PARKING IMPROVEMENTS/SCHEDULE/HEIGHT CONSIDERATIONS (14.40) Mayor Hutchins stated that this was the time and place duly noted to consider approving future public meeting schedule, paid parking and height of structures for downtown parking. Council and staff considered issues of scheduling so as not to impact the holiday shopping season, and the methods of choosing an architect that could design a structure that would fit gracefully in its respective locale. TC:D11:MM030199 4