Item 18 Staff Report Consider Amending the Table of Conditional Uses, Town Code Section 29.20.185, Findings and Decisions, Town Code Section 29.20.190, and Definitions, Town Code Section 29.10.020. It has been determined that this project could not have aCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: October 10, 2002
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN UNCIL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: 10/21/02
ITEM NO.
i
CONSIDER AMENDING THE T • OF CONDITIONAL USES, TOWN
CODE SECTION 29.20.185, FINDINGS AND DECISIONS, TOWN CODE
SECTION 29.20.190, AND DEFINITIONS, TOWN CODE SECTION
29.10.020. IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT COULD
NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT;
THEREFORE, THE PROJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (SECTION 15061 (b)(3)).
APPLICATION: A-02-1. APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open and hold the public hearing and receive public testimony;
2. Close the public hearing;
3. Accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and make a motion to approve the
Zoning Code Amendment (Attachment 2);
4. Make the required finding (Attachment 1);
5. Direct the Clerk to read the title of the ordinance;
6. Move to waive the reading of the ordinance;
7. Introduce the ordinance to effectuate the zoning code amendment.
BACKGROUND:
The General Plan Committee (GPC) has been working to carry out a variety of General Plan
Implementation Strategies as part of the General Plan Implementation Plan adopted by the Town
Council. Section L.I.5.1 of the General Plan states:
(Continued to Page 2)
PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager 9 �L Attorney Clerk Finance
Community Development Revised: 10/10/02 2:55 pm
Reformatted: 5/30/02
i
t
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
RE: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT A-02-1
October 10, 2002
Revise CUP Table: Study Conditional Use Permit Table to determine if any changes
(deletions or additions) need to be made to the list of uses. Considerations should include
factors such as size of building and/or f floor space occupied, traffic generation and whether
the use would dictate a "trademark" style of building.
Over the past several months Staff has worked with the General Plan Committee(GPC) to develop
recommendations for changes to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) table. These recommendations
are presented and discussed in the following section.
DISCUSSION:
The Conditional Use Permit Table (Section 29.20.185) identifies uses that may be allowed in the
various zoning districts by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) which are considered on a case -by -case
basis. The objectives of the proposed amendments are to make the table more user friendly. The
amendments will delete the requirement for a CUP for accessory living quarters. In addition, it was
determined that the requirement for a CUP for an accessory living quarters should be deleted because
it requires property owners to obtain a CUP for structures, such as cabanas, if they include provisions
for a toilet, sink, and shower. The GPC and Staff determined that structures of this nature could be
approved at a Staff level with a requirement for a Deed Restriction that the structure may not be
converted into a secondary dwelling unit. Finally, the amendments will add uses that were
determined to need clarification or review through the CUP process due to potential impacts that the
uses may create. The following uses are proposed to be added to the CUP table:
• vineyards/orchards;
• live/work units;
• radio and/or television broadcast studios;
• commercial and private stables and riding academies;
• aviaries and other wholesaling animal -raising facilities;
• antenna facilities operated by a public or private utility for transmitting and receiving cellular
telephone and other wireless communications;
• day care centers;
• temporary auto storage for automobile dealers; and
• formula retail businesses.
The issue of formula retail businesses has been a subject of discussion for some time, but these stores
are currently unregulated by the Town. The goal of the proposed requirement for these stores to
obtain a CUP is to regulate, but not prohibit these defined businesses. The GPC concluded that the
unique balance of uses in the Central Business District (CBD) is being threatened by the recent
influx of formula retail businesses. As a result, the GPC concluded that a CUP should be required
to locate any additional formula retail business within the CBD. The GPC recommended that if an
existing formula retail business in the CBD goes out of business, a new formula retail business may
be allowed anywhere in the CBD without a CUP. However, if any additional formula retail business
proposes to locate in the CBD, a CUP will be required. The GPC's recommendation would require
7
f
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
RE: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT A-02-1
October 10, 2002
a development credit system which would allow a new formula retail business to be located
anywhere in the CBD without a CUP if the proposed formula retail business was replacing an
existing formula retail business in the CBD. However, the Planning Commission recommends
requiring a CUP for all new formula retail businesses in the CBD. The Commission determined, and
Staff concurs, that this refinement to the ordinance developed by the GPC will be easier to
administer and provide greater discretion over new formula retail stores. The Town is not
prohibiting additional formula retail businesses in the CBD, but it is establishing a process to
consider requests on a case- by- case basis and allow for public input during the public hearing. The
CUP could be denied if the Commission makes any of the required findings for denial or it could be
approved with conditions that are designed to alleviate concerns. In areas of Town outside the CBD,
a CUP will be required for new formula retail businesses that exceed 6,000 square feet.
If the Council feels that the proposed amendments should be approved, Staff recommends the Town
Code be amended as follows (Shaded text indicates proposed changes):
Section 29.10.020. Definitions.
Formula retail business means a retail business which, along with one or more other business
locations, is required by contractual or other arrangement to maintain any of the following:
standardized merchandise, services, decor, uniforms, architecture, colors, signs or other similar
features.
Nursery school/ Day Care Center means a school for pre -elementary school age children which
provides controlled activities and instruction.
Section 29.20.185. Table of conditional uses.
Replace existing Conditional Use Permit Table with Conditional Use Permit Table attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 29.20.190. Findings and decisions.
(a) The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may grant a
conditional use permit when specifically authorized by the provisions of this chapter if it finds that:
(1) The proposed uses of the property are essential or desirable to the public convenience
or welfare;
(2) The proposed uses will not impair the integrity and character of the zone;
(3)
The proposed uses would not be detrimental to public health, safety or general
welfare; and
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
RE: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT A-02-1
October 10, 2002
(4) The proposed uses of the property are in harmony with the various elements or
objectives of the general plan and the purposes of this chapter.
(5)
A hazardous waste facility proposal is subject to the California Health and Safety
Code, Article 8.7, Section 25199--25199.14 and shall be consistent with the Santa
Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
(b) The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may deny
a conditional use permit for a formula retail business if the following findings are
made:
(1)
The proposed use of the property is not in harmony with specific provisions or
objectives of the general plan and the purposes of this chapter; and
(2) The proposed use will detract from the existing balance and diversity of businesses
in the commercial district in which the use is proposed to be located.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission considered this item on April 10, 2002. The Commission recommended
approval of the Zoning Code Amendment. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes for the
above referenced meeting date is included as Attachment 3. The Planning Commission decision to
recommend approval of the Zoning Code Amendment was based on the conclusion by the
Commission that the proposed amendments are internally consistent with the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
It has been determined that this project could not have a significant impact on the environment,
therefore, the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15061
(b)(3)), no further action is required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachments:
1. Required finding of consistency with the General Plan
2. Draft Ordinance (11 Pages), Sections 29.10.020, 29.20.185, and 29.20.190
3. Excerpt from the approved Planning Commission Minutes from their meeting on April 10, 2002
4. Desk Item to the Planning Commission, dated April 10, 2002 for the meeting of April 10, 2002
5. Report to the Planning Commission, dated April 4, 2002 for the meeting of April 10, 2002
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
RE: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT A-02-1
October 10, 2002
Distribution:
Greg Stowers, Stowers Associates Architects Inc., 15495 Los Gatos Blvd, Los Gatos, CA 95032
BNL:JP:
N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\A-02-1.wpd
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR:
Zoning Code Amendment A-02-1
Consider amending Town Code for the Table of Conditional Uses, Town Code Section
29.20.185, Findings and Decisions, Town Code Section 29.20.190, and Definitions, Town
Code Section 29.10.020. It has been determined that this project could not have a
significant impact on the environment, therefore, the project is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (Section 15061 (b)(3)).
APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos
FINDINGS
Required consistency with the Town's General Plan:
• That the proposed Zoning Code Amendments are internally consistent with the General
Plan and its Elements.
N:1DEV\FINDINGS W -02- I .wpd
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN CODE REGARDING
SECTIONS 29.10.020, 29.20.185, AND 29.20.190.
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Gatos has long been recognized as having a unique retail
environment with an unusual mix of retail businesses in terms of type, ownership and
appearance, that distinguishes it from other retail areas and has contributed to its long time
vibrancy and financial success.
WHEREAS, an increase in the existing number of formula businesses potentially
threatens the Town's unique retail environment in a number of ways, including, but not limited
to, the replacement of small, locally owned businesses that often feature unique physical
appearances and offer unusual or uncommon products or product lines. This can occur either by
the replacement of existing retail businesses with new formula retail businesses, or by retail
businesses with the capacity to overwhelm existing businesses. An over concentration of
formula retail business can result in a retail environment that is indistinguishable from those
located elsewhere in the region, the state and the nation.
WHEREAS, the Town's General Plan contains numerous goals, policies and
implementing strategies intended to preserve its unique retail environment. For example, the
land use designation CBD for the Central Business District (2.4.2) is described as "[encouraging]
a mixture of community -oriented commercial goods, services and lodging, that is unique in its
accommodation of small town style merchants and the maintenance of a small town feel and
character, " while descriptions of the Mixed Use, Neighborhood and Service Commercial
1
Attachment 2
districts emphasizes maintaining and servicing the needs of the small town residential scale and
natural environments of adjacent residential neighborhoods. Elsewhere, concerning the historic
downtown area, is a goal to maintain mixture of goods and services, identity, environment and
commercial viability (L.G.6.2) and a policy to "[e]ncourage the development and retention of
small businesses and locally -owned stores and ships that are consistent with small town character
and scale" (L.P.6.2).
WHEREAS, Council's intent in adopting this ordinance is to ensure the exercise of
greater control over the location of new formula retail businesses in the Town in order to meet
the goals, policies and implementing strategies of the Town's General Plan and avoid the
transition of the Town's unique retail environment into one that is homogenous with retail areas
in other communities.
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
Town Code Chapter 29 is amended to read as follows:
Section 29.10.020. Definitions.
Formula retail business means a retail business which, along with one or more other
business locations, is required by contractual or other arrangement to maintain any of the
following: standardized merchandise, services, decor, uniforms, architecture, colors, signs or
2
other similar features.
Nursery school/Day Care Center means a school for pre -elementary school age children
which provides controlled activities and instruction.
Section 29.20.185. Table of conditional uses.
Replace existing Conditional Use Permit Table with Conditional Use Permit Table
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 29.20.190. Findings and decisions.
(a) The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may grant a
conditional use permit when specifically authorized by the provisions of this chapter if it finds
that:
(1) The proposed uses of the property are essential or desirable to the public
convenience or welfare;
(2) The proposed uses will not impair the integrity and character of the zone;
3
(3) The proposed uses would not be detrimental to public health, safety or general
welfare; and
(4) The proposed uses of the property are in harmony with the various elements or
objectives of the general plan and the purposes of this chapter.
(5) A hazardous waste facility proposal is subject to the California Health and Safety
Code, Article 8.7, Section 25199--25199.14 and shall be consistent with the Santa
Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
(b) The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may deny a
conditional use permit for a formula retail business if the following findings are made:
(1) The proposed use of the property is not in harmony with specific provisions or
objectives of the general plan and the purposes of this chapter; and
(2) The proposed use will detract from the existing balance and diversity of
businesses in the commercial district in which the use is proposed to be located.
4
SECTION II
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos on , 2002, and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos
at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on effect 30 days after it is adopted.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
N:1DEV\ORDS\A-02-1. wpd
5
Conditional Use Permit Table
INDUSTRIAL
�
x
LM
X
X
X
COMMERCIAL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
iX
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
x
[-OFFICE
0
RESIDENTIAL
RMI-I
0
RD
U
TABLE OF CONDITIONAL USES
IIibh t,affic genc,uhn,s Commercial '
Banks
Savings and loan office
Drive -up window for
any business
a.)
L
C�
i..
Q
c
Super drugstore
Department store
Shopping center
Motel
x
Restaurant including
those with outdoor
dining areas or takeout
food
Establishment selling
alcoholic beverages for
consumption on
remises
In conjunction
with a
restaurant
Without food
service (bar)
Establishment selling
alcoholic beverages for
consumption off -
premises (this provision
only applies to
establishments
commencing or
expanding off -premises
sales after April 23,
1981)
Convenience market J
n. Formula retail business
o. Formula retail business
greater than 6,000 s.f.
_
w
s
-
Exhibit A
a
Conditional Use Permit Table
x
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
x
X
X
%
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
U
X
X
X
X
X
x.
X
Y.
X
X
X
X
U
X
X
X
Y,
X
X
X
X
x
0
X
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
ca
x
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TABLE OF CONDITIONAL USES
Recreation
Commercial recreation
and amusement
establishment
a�
s
F-,
Outdoor entertainment
Swimming pool for
non -incidental use
Private sports
recreation club
Golf course
Community Services
Public building; police,
fire, community center,
library, art gallery,
museum
Club, lodge, hall,
fraternal organization
Church, monastery,
convent, and other
institutions for religious
observance
Mortuary,
columbarium,
mausoleum
Public transportation
and parking facilities
Park, plaza, playground
Nonprofit youth groups
rn
o
C4
a Public schools or
college not otherwise
specified
ed
cj
mi
4:
cC
.O
U
'O
ti
44
*a
N
M
Conditional Use Permit Table
TINDUSTRIAL7
2
u
1
1
x
x
x
x
x
COMMERCIAL
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
C-2
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
X
X
x
x
I
W
U
G%
f
0
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
ESIDENTIAL
x
Q
x
x
x
x
x
x
R-M
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x,
x
R
CG
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
U
X
x
x
e. Residential care X
facility -group home
TABLE OF CONDITIONAL USES
Schools (Continued)
Private school or
college not otherwise
specified; including a
new private school or
college to be located on
grounds or within
buildings formerly
occupied by a public
school
Nursery school / Day
care center, provided
that each shall be on a
site not less than
20,000 square feet in
area and in a building
not less than 2,000
s I uare feet in floor area
Small family day care
home
Large family day care
home
Vocational or trade
school
Business or
professional school or
college
Art, craft, music,
dancing school
y.
0
a
,..al
O
Convalescent hospital
Residential care
facility -small family
home
Residential care
facility -large family
home
_
.c
ti
b
6
w
ab
.i
ed
ci
b
v
Conditional Use Permit Table
F-INDUSTRIAL-1
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
U
41
O
U
CH
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
U
X
IX
IX
X
X
OFFICE
O
X
x
I
RESIDENTIAL
RMH
L
cG
IX
.X
iX
x
X
X
x
U
X
X
X
TABLE OF CONDITIONAL USES
Transmission Facilities / Utilities
v
C
1.) C ice,
=o0c
4 o
O
.
9an 7 O b ° YO cn
al
> C 4—) aai •,ate..
cd
cd
1...
"O -o
a'4i i
New vehicle sales and
rental
Used vehicle sales only
incidental to new
vehicle sales and rental
Vehicle tires and
accessories, sales,
servicing, recaping
Vehicle body repair
and painting
Vehicle repair and
service (garage)
Service station
Parking lots or storage
garages, not accessory
to another use
Car wash
Truck terminal
j. Alternating use of off-
street parking spaces
cC 1
o
p Fes.,
b
Q
co
4:
ail)
�
•—
Conditional Use Permit Table
TINDUSTRIAL-I
X
X
k
x
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
COMMERCIAL
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
iPC
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
>C
X
U
X
X
X
X
OFFICE
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
>C
RESIDENTIAL
Q
'
�
X
!x
x
X
x
X
x
x
X
x
,x
x
1x
x
TABLE OF CONDITIONAL USES
Automotive (Vehicle sales, service
and related activities) (Continued)
Recreational vehicle
and equipment storage
Yard
Temporary auto storage
for automobile dealers
One -family dwelling
Two-family dwelling
T
c
u bD
u N
y
O
c
,.
Apartment hotel
T
Mobile home park
Residential
condominium
Caretaker residence
Secondary dwelling
unit (Note: See Section
29.10.315)
j. Conversion of a mobile
home park to
condominium
_ ownership__
k. Live/work units
op
Veterinary hospital
(without kennel) I`
C
R7
U
'O
N
'+G.
,-.
bA
L
•-•
.O
C)
'O
v
v
Conditional Use Permit Table
INDUSTRIAL-1
X
X
X
X
X
X
LM
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
COMMERCIAL
X
X
X
X
X
U
X
X
X
X
J
X
X
OFFICE
U
X
z
gX
�d
x
R-M
X
X
X
X
X
X
.
U
c4
X
X
X
>{
X
X
TABLE OF CONDITIONAL USES
Agriculture and Animal Services
(Continued)
I Iors‘. �taLL
Commercial and
private stables and
ridin academies
Wineries that have
been legally and
continuously operating
for at least 50 years or
is operated in
conjunction with a
vineyard.
g. Aviaries and other
wholesaling animal
—raising facilities
h, Vineyards, orchards,
and agricultural or
farming activities
greater than 3,000 s.f.
Light Industrial
Large recycling
collection facilities
Large recycling
collection facilities
operated by a public
a enc
Equipment rental yard
Construction materials
yard
Bulk fuel storage and
sales
on
a
N
U
Q
Hazardous waste
management facility
Outdoor storage
b. Changing the activity
in a nonconforming
building
6
W
cd
6
'O
ai
f.
bq
�d
Conditional Use Permit Table
INDUSTRIAL
0
COMMERCIAL
0
U
V
0
0
X
Q
cC
2
0
ntn
U
rze
TABLE OF CONDITIONAL USES
Other (Continued)
sinesses or
0
0
N o
0
2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
BSA
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(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)
Page 81
unanimously.
LORTZ: No additional notice of this
particul- = blic hearing will be placed in t
newspaper or . ered. So anyone i ested in this
item should attend th- - -xt me- ' g at May 8th.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINT. Thank you. With that,
I think we'll call a s • recess of a
(End of Sid - - - I.)
(Begi. g of Side B-II.)
• - . LORTZ: They - what are we doing?
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay.
MR. LORTZ: For the Commission's pleasure,
what you have tonight is a couple of zoning ordinance
amendments.
Item 2 is a zoning ordinance amendment
Pr-4_IC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10. ?002 XMAX(21/21)
regarding an amendment relating to the conditional use
permit table, and the proposed ordinance amendment is
included in the Staff material.
This is an important item from the
standpoint of focusing on one primary area, and that's
formula retail businesses. The Town General Plan does
speak to this issue. It was brought up during the
development of the community's General Plan.
Community members spoke at length about concerns about
how many, if you want to call them chain stores or
Page 82
formula businesses that are coming into the Town,
primarily in the central business district, but also
in other areas of Town.
So the General Plan Committee for some time
has been working on a series of amendments to the
zoning ordinance to implement the General Plan
provisions that are set forth in the - in the Staff
Report. We're here to answer any questions, but
essentially what we've come up with is a definition of
a formula retail business. The Town Attorney has
improved upon that definition, and that is provided in
the desk item.
We certainly suggest that if the Commission
wants to forward this to the Council, and this is a
recommendation to the Town Council, that the
Commission would forward the definition that was
prepared by the Town Attorney. It's essentially
improving upon what the General Plan Committee came up
with, and I think clarifies an important point.
And then ultimately, how this would function
is the Planning Commission would look at projects in
the central business district for which a new formula
store is endeavoring to move into the downtown area
and review that project on a - review those projects
on a case by case basis based on their merits, based
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(6)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(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)
Page 83
on their consistency with specific sections of the
General Plan and particularly with regard to how the
mix of businesses within the central business district
relate to each other.
I think over the years we've found that
the - we have a wonderful central business district.
It is made up of a variety of different types of
uses. About eight years ago, we prohibited office
uses on the ground floor, and that was because there
was a significant movement where new office uses were
moving into the downtown, particularly right along our
pedestrian corridors, and essentially changing the
fabric of our downtown.
And so with that prohibition, I think we've
maintained the delicate balance between retail and
restaurants. We also have a pretty restrictive
ordinance in terms of allowing new restaurants in the
downtown. There's no prohibition on it, but it's -
they're discouraged unless there's some overwhelming
community benefit from them.
And now we're dealing with this issue of
chain stores, for lack of a better term, moving into
the, particularly the central business district and
changing the fabric of our - of our unique downtown.
So this ordinance does not prohibit chain
Page 84
stores from locating in the central business district,
but it does establish a review on a case by case
basis.
I'd be happy to answer any questions, and
I'm sure you have some.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA:
COMMISSIONER DUBOIS: I came into the
meeting with two concerns, one of them Mr. Korb has
resolved in his re -definitions, and I thank him for
that.
But the other concern still is there, and
that - I understand the intent is to protect the
downtown business district, but in doing so, it's
change - it's got a different standard than it does
for the outlying areas in terms of hearings.
In other words, if a - if you have a
conditional use permit approved for a particular piece
of property for a chain store, for example, is in
there, and they move out, and this is in the downtown
district, we do not have to have another hearing that
that can be re -occupied by that.
I'm bothered by that. I think it should be
the same standard town -wise and - because I would
like - I would like to have those hearings, and the
reason is I see there's a big difference between
Commissioner Dubois.
Attachment 3
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
- (408) 920-0222 Page 81 to Page 84
BSA
PUP"_IC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10. "002 XMAx(22/22)
(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)
Page 85
intensity of use. There's a difference between the
Baby Gap and Fry's, and that's a good example right
there. The Baby Gap doesn't generate, you know, a
certain amount of traffic. Fry's generates a
different amount of traffic, and I believe because
they're two different types of entities, they both
fall under the definition of chain store, that we
should be looking at all conditional use permits for
it.
And in the desk item that I contributed to
this thing tonight on page six, there's a comment that
says, I'm just going to quote on, it says, "Moreover
sprawling, monolithic structures place tremendous
burdens on the public infrastructure, especially the
roads, and are at odds with the compact walkable
neighborhoods many communities prefer.
That comment struck me that we're - you
know, we have to be concerned with the intensity of a
proposed business, and I think we - we have that tool
in this suggestion for Pollard Road and for everywhere
else but the downtown. So I think we need to
reconsider that part of it.
That's my comment.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Any other comments?
Commissioner Burke.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
m
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 86
COMMISSIONER BURKE: I just want a
clarification of what we're doing tonight. We are
obviously looking at the amended table of conditional
uses and also setting this - this formula store
ordinance, or whatever it is. Are we looking at any
other issues? I mean, are we addressing the
individual changes in - is that up for discussion
tonight, the individual -
MR. LORTZ: Any of the items that are before
you are open for discussion, any of the items on the
conditional use permit table. What -
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay.
MR. LORTZ: What I would not suggest that
the Commission get into is necessarily changing things
that are - that are not proposed to be changed.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay.
MR. LORTZ: For example, there is going to
be what we are calling an audit of the zoning
ordinance incorporated into the next series of
implementing strategies that we'll embark on within
the next fiscal year, so there'll be an opportunity to
take a look at the whole zoning ordinance in terms of
changes that might be appropriate.
But anything that you see in here, if you
wanted to talk about vineyards, for example, 'cause
(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)
Page 87
that is regulated now through the conditional use
permit table. One of the things we're doing is
putting an X in the conditional use permit table and
any vineyard in excess of 3,000 square feet would
require a conditional use permit.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: But stuff that's
currently not listed we should defer until we go over
the -
MR. LORTZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: - (inaudible). Okay.
Well, I did sit on the General Plan Committee when we
were discussing vineyards, but it was I think when
they finally came up with the new 3,000 square feet, 1
was not around at that point, and I'm just curious how
they ended up corning up with that number, 'cause to me
it does seem kind of small. I mean, I don't know how
many people are going to come in for a - I don't know
if that's going to be too small to cut off to generate
too much - how would I say it, business for this
committee - or this Commission.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible) -
requires a CUP if it's in excess of 3,000.
MR. LORTZ: That's right.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: You can have them
less than 3,000.
(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)
Page 88
COMMISSIONER BURKE: No, I understand that.
I just - I was not around when the final number of
3,000 -
MR. LORTZ: This threshold of 3,000 square
feet.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: 3,000. And I was just
wondering what the rationale behind that was, because
my opinion is that seems a little small.
MR. LORTZ: We looked at a number of
pictures of properties within the Town that were very
visible and had vineyards or ornamental landscaping
that covered a fair amount of the property, and based
on those pictures, and based on information that was
also provided about the working space necessary for a
small vineyard, the committee reached 3,000 square
feet as kind of the threshold that anything less than
that, the committee seemed comfortable with somebody
going in and creating a vineyard.
But, you know, this can be on sloping
property, so they were kind of cautious I would say,
and so it's very conservative number, but one that the
committee felt comfortable with.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Well, the table doesn't
seem to address, like you said, formal gardens. It
says farming and orchards and infill. I'm just
Page 85 to Page 88 (408) 920-0222 - ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA
(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)
Page 89
curious when you use that term, does the expanded
include that, or is it just what it says here in the
table?
MR. LORTZ: Just what it says here in the
table. The Hillside Standards will address the
ornamental landscaping as a separate standard.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay.
MR. LORTZ: But - but essentially what this
is doing is establishing a requirement that somebody
come into the Town and obtain a conditional use permit
that gives us the opportunity to take a look at the
grade of the property, the amount of grading required,
the amount of vegetation that would be lost, what type
of vegetation is lost, whether an environmental
assessment is necessary, public hearing, all of those
types of things, and I think the committee was looking
at it on a fairly conservative basis.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: And I guess I'll ask
the follow-up. Does it cost the same to apply for a
conditional use permit for a 3,000 square foot
vineyard as it does say for a cellular antenna?
MR. LORTZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: I'm putting up my
hand, and I get to call on myself. Yes. Mr. Lodz,
(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)
Page 90
if there are items on the conditional use table that a
Commissioner would particularly like to see addressed
during the update of the zoning code next year, is
there a mechanism that we can use to make sure it is?
MR. LORTZ: Certainly. Just contact me.
Well put it in. There's a policy box that we can put
things into, but in this particular case, if there's
any zoning ordinance amendment or a zoning provision
that you think needs to be looked at when we go
through this audit of the zoning ordinance, just let
me know, and we'll put it on a list.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. I have two
minor wordsmithing, organization things. On Item N,
the formula retail business, could we label formula
retail business in the central business district -
excuse me, in the C-2-1 and graded and 6,000 square
feet, too, so that it mimics the different types of -
that we used up in K, even though it's not the same
categories, but they're two things relating to the
same?
MR. LORTZ: I'm not exactly clear what you
were proposing to do.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. I'm proposing
to make n and o look like K.
MR. LORTZ: So you'd have essentially a
PI'"LIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1C1 2002 XMAX(23/23)
Page 91
(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)
heading -
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Yeah.
MR. LORTZ: - that talks about formula
retail businesses -
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Yeah. And then -
MR. LORTZ: We could do that. I don't know
that it necessarily adds anything, and it may kind of
complicate things -
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay.
MR. LORTZ: - because the category is the
title.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. Then the second
one is Number 6 in parenthesis, which is transmission
facilities, and I suggest saying utilities slash
transmission facilities, since the items under it
include more than just transmission facilities.
MR. LORTZ: So you're saying delete the word
transmission.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: You can leave it, just
put a slash utilities.
MR. LORTZ: Oh, I see. So it would be
transmission facilities slash utilities?
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Yeah.
A VOICE: (Inaudible.)
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Or - whatever.
(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)
I would also suggest
moving that to the next page so you have your heading
above.
MR. LORTZ: That will.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: The other question I
have is, Orry, your recommendation on the findings in
the desk item that you need to make finding two along
with finding one for the formula businesses, not all
the formula businesses require finding two if they're
not in the central business district or the C-2
district.
MR. KORB: That can be remedied by just
saying and for businesses located within the
whatever - whatever the designation is for the
downtown central business district, the second finding
would be required as well.
I do have a concern, though, that we must be
cognizant of the obligation to make factual findings
with regard to the granting or denial - I should say
with regard to denial, a CUP for any formula business
located anywhere within the town. It's - it's
actually significantly easier to meet that test in the
downtown area, because we have a reason for - or at
Page 92
A VOICE: (Inaudible.)
MR. LORTZ: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA:
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
-(408) 920-0222 Page 89 to Page 92
BSA
PI'SLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1r 1002
XMAX(24/24)
(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)
Page 93
least sensibly, according to the terms of these
ordinances, a reason for being concerned, which is
that there is a - a perceived balance in existence in
the downtown area that members of the community have
expressed a concern about being upset, as Mr. Lortz
referred to, and it is the actual investigation of any
individual application compared to what currently
exists or what exists at the time of that application
in the downtown area that determines whether you can
or cannot make a factual finding to grant or deny
that - a CUP to that particular business.
It is a concern to me from a legal
standpoint that without having a similar concern for
retail businesses located outside of the downtown
area, that you really don't have a basis for making a
distinction. Now, I did hear the comments regarding
large businesses or large, you know, warehouse type
businesses, and so on and so forth, which are in fact
issues that can be and have been in the past addressed
through other policies that are currently in
existence, including the architecture and site
application process, traffic and other - and other
issues, which gives you a more objective means of
determining whether a business that may result in a
major impact, whether it be a formula business or not,
(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)
Page 94
should be located anywhere outside of the central
business district.
But the central business district does raise
a unique problem, and it is because of that problem
that you have a way, or at least some means of
measuring the impact of any new proposed formula
business in that area. So you would avoid being
arbitrary in your decision making.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: So are you saying that
we should expand on the findings that we need to make
for those businesses outside the central business
district?
MR. LORTZ: The one thing we could do
possibly is to, rather than say central business
district under Item 2, is to say, the language might
read, 'The proposed use will detract from the existing
balance and diversity of businesses in the commercial
district in which the use is proposed to be located."
MR. KORB: That is one way of doing it,
though I do think that ultimately - I did review
the - and I think that's a good way of doing it I
should say, but I did look at the letter submitted by
the Chamber, and they did raise a legitimate question,
which is what is the current mix. And I do think
that - that to make a sort of a blanket statement,
(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)
Page 95
oh, there's a - currently a satisfactory mix of these
businesses, those types of businesses, without having
any data upon which to make that determination both
makes it very difficult for you to apply these rules,
but also leads to some question about whether you're
being arbitrary in your application of those rules and
in your initial determination that mix exists.
First, do I believe that it's possible to do
that kind of inventory and to make that determination
of the downtown area. The downtown area is in fact
unique in many respects, and it is - its current mix,
I think that we can all say through viscerally that
distinguishes that downtown from - our downtown from,
you know, any other retail area, you know, U.S.A., you
know, because it doesn't have the same concentration
of formula businesses that you may find in other
retail areas. So you can tell that you're in Los
Gatos as opposed to anyplace else.
But whether that same mix exists elsewhere
in the community, I seriously question, and I would
seriously question whether we would be able to make a
legitimate factual finding that the remainder of the
community like the Boulevard is unique in a similar
fashion.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Commissioner Dubois.
(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)
Page 96
COMMISSIONER DUBOIS: Isn't the point of
this, however, is to - isn't the point to maintaining
balance and the existing diversity of business is
partially to protect local business so that we don't
go a hundred percent, you know, out of, you know,
commercial store kind of stuff coming in and taking
over or what have you? And if that is in fact part of
the goal here, would we not be affecting business in
other parts outside the central business district by
allowing certain - would that be not throwing other
parts of Los Gatos out of balance? In other words,
the reverse of what we're saying in this document?
MR. KORB: Well, I can only speculate about
that. I just don't know. But I will say this,
whether you're trying to - protecting local business
is certainly an interest that is reflected in the
General Plan, and it is a legitimate concern for the
community. But protecting against formula businesses
is not necessarily protecting against local
businesses.
You have a number of businesses here that
you probably all identify as being local businesses,
but in fact they meet the definition of formula
businesses. The Coffee Roasting business is one.
Andalay's is another, for example, in the downtown.
Page 93 to Page 96
(408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA
(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)
plf^LIC HEARING -
Page 97
They're actually they're a food service, but they
are - I mean, just from a more generic sense, in
fact, formula businesses.
I've used the analogy with Mr. Lortz in the
past that he and I may both be local guys who want to
start hardware stores in Los Gatos. It just so
happens that he has two others located elsewhere in
the Santa Clara Valley, and I don't, but I intend to.
What's the difference between our businesses? And
we're both local guys who want to start a local
business.
So the real - I think, to me, the greatest
concern that I've heard thus far that I think
legitimizes an ordinance of this sort is the desire to
protect essentially a district that has a particular
appearance and vibrancy and resulting financial
success.
If it turned into nothing but chain stores,
well, it may be vibrant like Stevens Creek Mall is
vibrant, but nobody would know they're in Los Gatos
any more, and so that may be what distinguishes this
area from other areas. And it's not necessarily that
they're locally owned, it's that they're a type of
business that is unique in many respects.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: I have another
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10 ?002
Page 99
(1) in fact complements it.
(2) Because it may very well be that a chain
(3) could come in and say, you know, we're going to do -
(4) we're going to sell products the way - you know, the
(5) way one of your antique stores sells products, and
(6) we're going - you know, we're not going to have
(7) signage the way we do in other areas, and we're not
(8) going to have standardized design, and we're not going
(s) to be huge, and you may ultimately find that you're
(10) not able to distinguish that store from any other
(11) antique store that, you know, may exist in the
(12) downtown area, or design store that may exist in the
(13) downtown area.
(14) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Commissioner Drexel.
(1s) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: (Inaudible) I remember
(1s) when East Main Street wasn't much of a commercial hub
(17) before the Roasting Company went in there and how much
(1s) more vibrant it is now. I'm looking at the other side
(1s) of Lark, between Lark and Los Gatos Boulevard, and
(20) wondering (t we shouldn't at least keep in the back of
(21) our minds that if this isn't considered part of the -
(22) the downtown district, at some point maybe we should
(23) consider it or protect it so that it doesn't become -
(24) you know, end up with too many franchises and whatnot
(25) and lose its character, because it has Sweet Peas. It
(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)
Page 98
question. When we're talking about mix in reference
to formula stores, are we talking about the mix
between formula and non -formula or the type of stores
they actually are? You know, cookie store -
MR. KORB: The language -
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: - (inaudible) store.
MR. KORB: The language that I proposed
really includes all of those things. It includes and
allows you to consider those things because they all
come into play, including, you know, form of ownership
or type of ownership, because sometimes you do have
locally owned businesses that are small and unique.
And there are a number of examples in the downtown
area that you're not going to see in most malls, most
regional malls.
But that may not be the sole consideration.
They're unique for a number of different reasons, and
it could also be the size of the store, the products
that are sold, the manner in which the products are
sold, the appearance of the store. It could be a
number of different factors that make for a unique
business, and they're all things that you can consider
when determining whether a particular application
offends that perception of the downtown, you know, or
the area that we're talking about, in those terms, or
XMAX(25/25)
(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)
Page 100
has Tots of really cute - cute little stores.
Sure it has Safeway, which is great, but I'm
just wondering if the downtown district maybe should
be - we should think about it, anyway, enlarging the
area, the scope of this, so that we can include this
so it wouldn't be lost. We were lucky that East Main
Street wasn't lost in a way.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: I think that would be
in a sense covered under the second part, whereas, if
the formula store was greater than 6,000 square feet,
it would need to come in, because most formula stores
need more than 6,000 square feet. And restaurants
would automatically need a conditional use permit,
anyway, exclusive of this.
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: It's just whether or
not that mix thing would be part of the - of the
decision -making process.
MR. KORB: I was going to suggest - I don't
want to discourage the Commission from considering the
extension of a CUP requirement for formula businesses
anywhere in the town, but I do want to remind you that
you have to have some kind of objective basis for
looking at those applications. So you can't just say
well, I just think the mix is fine. We would really
have to at some point have a - an inventory, and I
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC•
-(408) 920-0222 Page 97 to Page 100
BSA
PI'RLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1r ?002 XMAX(26/26)
Page 103
and retail. And we reached that symbiotic
relationship in that very careful mix, and the
Commission felt that it's sort of like the secondary
dwelling unit concept where, if someone moves out, we
put it up on the chalk board, and so there's a credit
that's available.
That means that a formula store could move
in anywhere within the central business district.
It's not locked to that site. But essentially we've
created the threshold.
Now, Commissioner Dubois had an interesting
kind of different perspective on it, and that is if
somebody moves out, formula store wants to move in
anywhere, they're going to get a conditional use
permit. So it's - we're talking about a little bit
different twist to things.
But I just wanted the Commission to talk a
little bit about those two different concepts.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Let me see if I
understand this. The one concept involves keeping the
numbers steady so the mix stays steady between formula
stores and non -formula stores, and when a formula
store moves out, it gets sort of put in a fund, and
another formula store can come and take that out.
That's at the point where I'm wondering even taking it
(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)
Page 101
think base this ordinance in anywhere that it's
applied in the town on the basis of a determination
that this mix that we have in fact looked at and
analyzed is appropriate.
I don't know whether you have that evidence
right now, but you may want it.
MR. LORTZ: Well, I can't give you the
evidence for every day over the next 20 years, 'cause
it's going to change every day. What we can give you
is evidence on the day that the public hearing is held
for a particular item that comes before you. Take for
example, Longs on Pollard Road Shopping Center,
remember the Rinconada Shopping Center, the evidence
that was provided by the retailers in that shopping
center said that they wanted Longs to move in because
it was a - it was an attractor that was necessary for
the synergy to happen that would be conducive to a
successful retail shopping center.
But that same argument may not be true out
on the Boulevard in a particular stretch of the
Boulevard. So when we have an application come before
you, we can provide you with the mix of businesses
within that district, or whatever it is, on the day of
the hearing, or as close to it as possible, as we get
closer to the hearing, and that will be evidence that
Page 102
can be provided to you just as we do a streetscape
plan for single family homes.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. Any thoughts
from the Commission? Are we willing to go forward
with this, or do we want to - okay.
Miss - oops. I will make a motion, but
before I do that, I want to ask Mr. Lortz a question
again. Would you repeat the language that you were
suggesting.
MR. LORTZ: Certainly. If I can find it.
The language I suggested was that - was
that - give me - give me just a second here.
The one thing, before you make the motion,
though, the Commission should probably discuss is
Commissioner Dubois' suggested comment, or the
comment
(1e) that he made regarding a use permit for all new
(17) formula stores in the central business district. Now,
(18) that's what I had heard you make that comment, and I
(19) just want to explain.
(20) The concept behind what we developed here
(21) was a pretty lengthy conversation that occurred
(22) at the General Plan Committee that's not converse to
(23) what Commissioner Dubois said, but a little bit
(24) different, and that was that the existing mix seems to
(25) work real well. It's just like the mix of restaurants
Page 104
out, should they still need to come for a conditional
use permit to make sure -
COMMISSIONER DUBOIS: (Inaudible.)
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: In the central
business -
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: In the central
business district, but not additional formulas. We
still keep it at a cap.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: It'd be a different
type of (inaudible).
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Yeah, I think that -
I think that makes sense. Unless anybody has a reason
why we shouldn't be looking at it that way.
MR. LORTZ: We can do that, and it's an
interesting twist to the discussion. I think it still
maintains the same concept, maybe takes it a little
further, but that's certainly something we can do.
Now, what will be interesting about the
central business district is we will, because of its
size, go out and do a survey if this ordinance is
adopted. And so we will have something to talk with
people about that want to locate here.
Little different in other outlying
commercial areas. We'll have to work with those
people and talk to them about this issue and then say
Page 101 to Page 104
(408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA
pI'RLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10. 2002 XMAX(27/27)
Page 107
MR. LORTZ: That's true. Yes, they could -
we could use up the credit of 27 retail outlets in the
same vein, if you want to look at them that way. Arid
Commissioner Dubois' proposal would eliminate that.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. Commissioner
Dubois, would you repeat your proposal so that I'm
absolutely clear on what it is.
A VOICE: (Inaudible.)
COMMISSIONER DUBOIS: That's correct, that
they all have to go through the CUP process.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: And you're not
limiting the numbers?
COMMISSIONER DUBOIS: No, no -
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: No, no. He's saying
that have a limit on the numbers.
COMMISSIONER DUBOIS: Yeah, they already
have a limit. But every one instead of just -
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Any replacement you
said.
COMMISSIONER DUBOIS: Every replacement has
to go through a CUP.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Every replacement has
to go through the CUP process and any new CUP, or are
we capping the number?
MR. LORTZ: No, I think what Commissioner
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(t2)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 105
that, you know, that's part of the survey process as
they come forward with their application.
But that's certainly a change that we can
incorporate if you so choose.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA:
Burke.
COMMISSIONER BURKE:
Okay. Commissioner
My only concern about
setting a, you know, a - what you call a limit or a
pool of formula stores is what if one wants to come
into a downtown that's like nothing we have down
there, and we're already at our max? I mean, it might
be something hey, we really - we don't have anything
like that in town.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible) CUP.
MR. LORTZ: The way this is written, then
you need a CUP.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Oh. Then you would -
Okay. Not that you could only get up to that - I
misunderstood where you were going.
MR. LORTZ: Exactly. So essentially we -
let's say we have 27 formula stores in the central
business district. 27 stores is a - are allowed, and
27 stores can come and go without a conditional use
permit. It's that 28th store that requires the
conditional use permit.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(t2)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 106
Does it create a lot more work for us? It
creates a little bit more work for us, but the central
business district is small enough to be able to wrap
our arms around and probably not run into this - this
issue. But, you know - let's say, for example,
Starbuck's. When Starbuck's wanted to move into the
central business district, don't think about them as a
restaurant, because they would have required a CUP
anyway, but that raised some significant concerns, and
comments that they received were not in the central
business district, try the Boulevard, and then voila,
that's where they are.
So the interesting thing about these two
concepts that we're discussing is, one, we have a
fixed number of formula stores that we've just sort of
accepted, as opposed to saying you know what, we're
going to take a look at every one of them. And - and
those are the two kind of options, and Staff is open
to either, either option.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: So we could have a
situation as a follow-up where we would have - and
I'm picking this as a really off the wall thing, but a
mix of 27 video and nail stores, but we wouldn't have
any CUP control over that just because they happen to
go in when the openings were available? Is -
(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)
(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)
Page 108
Dubois is just suggesting is that basically any new
formula - in the central business district gets a use
permit.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA:
the number?
MR. LORTZ: No. Case by case basis. And
there was never a cap in any of the discussion that
came out of the General Plan Committee.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. I guess I
misunderstood that. I thought that was the whole
idea.
MR. LORTZ: Any - any more, then there
is -
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible)
determination (inaudible).
COMMISSIONER DUBOIS: What they're saying
right now - what they're saying right now, what my
interpretation is, is that there's a balance that
they're happy with right now, and as this ordinance is
being proposed, if one of them moves out, then there's
a credit, and another one could come in and replace
that.
What I'm saying is I'm concerned about
what's going to come in and replace it, that we should
have a conditional use permit in the central business
And there's no cap on
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
.(408) 920-0222 Page 105 to Page 108
PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1n 2002
XMAX(28/28)
(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)
Page 109
district for every one that comes forward.
MR. KORB: If I may, Madam Chair, I just
want to point out, unless we see something otherwise,
the current version of the ordinance before you
tonight is really, I think it comports more with
Commissioner Dubois' view. It doesn't create a credit
system. It merely says currently that any new formula
business in the - any formula business in the
proposed central business district would require a CUP.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Even though the Staff
Report discussed it the other way, actually the
ordinance doesn't. Okay. And did you ever find your
language that you had proposed?
MR. LORTZ: Yes. Basically it would read -
and this is Section 29.20.9 - 190 B-2.
'The proposed use will detract from the
existing balance and diversity of businesses in the
commercial district in which the use is proposed to be
located."
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. Given that, I
think I will attempt a motion, which -
MR. LORTZ: We need a public hearing.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: We need a public
hearing. I keep forgetting about the public hearing.
Sorry about that.
(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)
Page 110
MR. LORTZ: You have a question.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Question.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: I have a question for
Orry. Mr. - Commissioner Dubois' proposal, where
every new formula business would require a CUP, I know
just enough land use law to be very dangerous. I
thought a CUP ran with the land. If the formula
business, say at where the Sharper Image decided to
leave, and it had a CUP, and Crate and Barrel wanted
to come in, and they were both considered formula
businesses, would that require a new CUP?
MR. KORB: No.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: No.
MR. KORB: No. That's - that's essentially
how that idea that Bud was talking about is
encapsulated, at least for an individual site.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay. I just wanted to
make sure that I understood that. So if one leaves
the site, another one can come back within a year,
unless we have a way to -
MR. KORB: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: - differentiate
between different types of formula businesses.
MR. LORTZ: There's a 100 - actually,
there's 180 days, isn't it?
(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)
Page 111
MR. KORB: I think it's 180 days.
MR. LORTZ: Yeah, it's 180 days lapse is the
use permit lapses.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay. And we're
looking at one definition of formula business, so no
matter what type of formula business it was, it could
go back in that location?
MR. KORB: Yes -
COMMISSIONER BURKE: All right.
MR. KORB: - but you do have to remember
that you do have the authority to condition a CUP,
obviously, because it's a conditional use permit, and
those conditions to the greatest extent reasonable,
attempt to define the business, the type of business
being operated.
So it's oftentimes very difficult for a
new business to move in and operate within the
confines of an existing CUP, at least under a more
specifically drafted set of conditions in the more
modern vein.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: We'II be counting on
you.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Yeah. 'Cause
otherwise it would seem like we might be better off
not having a CUP and just doing it under A and 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)
Page 112
'cause we could -
MR. LORTZ: You know, if we had 27 CUPs for
formula businesses, then the next one that comes in -
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Not going to get a
CUP.
MR. LORTZ: Well, it's just like the
restaurants downtown. It's going to have to be a very
compelling reason why we would want to allow it.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. I will now open
the public hearing. Mr. Davis.
RAY DAVIS: I knew - I knew you wouldn't
forget me. I can see the American flag getting
nervous over there.
George W, you know, continues to suggest the
citizens appear to better their local government. So
again I continue to input into the process, okay, at
George W's behest, if nothing else.
Looking at the - you know, as a student of
zoning ordinances, I'm just assuming that all these
proposed uses under a CUP would indicate that these -
there are no uses permitted in these various zones by
right. Am I correct in that? Now, that's something
that, in my opinion, you should be asking.
So I'm going to ask that question. Where
are the use - table of uses by right -
Page 109 to Page 112
(408) 920-0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
BSA PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2002 XMAX(29/29)
Page 115
That the Town Council find that the
ordinance amendments are consistent with the General
Plan, and that the Council adopt the draft ordinance
Exhibit A with the following changes:
The changes outlined in our desk item, and
modifying language as proposed by Mr. Lortz.
Okay. There also need to be some changes,
recommended changes made in the ordinance itself,
adding an "S" in the title on the last line after
section.
Eliminating "the" on the second to last line
of the first paragraph and substituting "its." And on
the last line of the -first paragraph, eliminating "of
the downtown area."
MR. LORTZ: The section that the Chair was
just amending was the whereas.
(End of Side B-II.)
(Beginning of Side A -III.)
A VOICE: - first recital.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA:
Page 113
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: They're in the zoning
district by zoning district.
RAY DAVIS: I assume there is no conflict
between this and uses by right. I mean, it's - the
Staff Report is silent, and it's - you need to know
that, in my opinion, okay.
Also, you know, I see, for example, on
page 3, a convalescent hospital is allowed, but -
with a use permit in R-1, in the residential areas,
you know. I don't see that at all. I think this is
an opportunity to protect your property values for
your citizens and their residential areas, and you
have the duty, if I may suggest, to carry that out.
That's your primary responsibility. General Plan
Committee is just a bunch of people, some of - half
of them, or a third of them, don't even live in the
Town.
I mean, so when they make a recommendation
to you, you need to know that you're - I read the
list today, okay. You - you - it's your .
responsibility as a Planning Commission to act in the
best interest of the Town. The General Plan Committee
may or may not be. So I think you need to really
evaluate this other potential problem areas that I
have - I know from personal experience.
Page 114
Antenna facilities are allowed in every
district in the Town, except one, every one. And that
means up in the hillside, up on the mountainside, and
that's what they tried to do in Orinda. So here's an
opportunity to say hell, no, we won't go, by taking it
right out of the HR zone.
I mean, ladies and gentlemen, you need to
get tough on this sort of stuff, if I may suggest.
Same thing on daycare centers. You move a
daycare center into an existing neighborhood, and you
have a huge problem.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Thank you, Mr. Davis.
RAY DAVIS: So I think you need to put a
little gray matter into this before you send it on to
the Town Council. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: I'm going to close the
public hearing and turn it back to the Commission.
Staff want to rebut? No. I think Staff gave their
explanation in the beginning in terms of that.
I will make a motion, unless there's
somebody else dying to make it. Okay. I move that
the Council determine this project could not possibly
have a significant impact on the environment,
therefore, the project is not subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act.
(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)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(t9)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
And I guess as part of
my motion, I would also recommend to the Commission
that we look at the conditional use table and give our
suggestions for further changes to be considered
during the zoning code update to Bud. And I - I did
have a couple myself, which I would like to see
Yes, 'cause that is
actually in the motion - I mean, in the ordinance
itself. What - maybe I should just make clear that
what we're not including in the ordinance is what was
discussed in the Staff Report in terms of the credits,
but that actually was never part of the ordinance.
Okay.
I'll call for the question. All those in
favor?
Page 116
considered for revisions.
MR. KORB: Can I make a suggestion, Madam
Chair? Can you make your data as a separate motion -
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Sure.
MR. KORB: - and see if you have a
motion - a second to your motion regarding the
recommendation of this ordinance?
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: We'll do. I withdraw
the second part of that.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I'll second.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Any discussion?
Paul.
COMMISSIONER DUBOIS: Yeah, I have a
question. I'm not clear on the motion. Are we
including the discussion that I had asked for -
MR. KORB: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA:
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
-(408) 920-0222 Page 113 to Page 116
BSA
(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)
Page 117
(Ayes.)
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Carries unanimously.
And then I would just add that if the Commission has
any items on the conditional use table that they want
to see further addressed during the zoning code
update, to let Bud know.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Chairman.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: One of things on that I
think would also be helpful is controversial type
uses, especially in residential zones. It would be
really handy if in addition to having an X or a non-X
in the box, if we sat down and said hey, for these
five or six items it would be real nice to have a
policy. It's much easier to define a policy in the
abstract when it's not somebody's neighborhood and
it's not somebody's transmission tower, and they
wouldn't make that recommendation (inaudible).
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Are you suggesting
that each type of use have its own set of findings
that need to be made?
COMMISSIONER BURKE:
No, no. Pick a couple
that have been controversial and say, you know, what
would make this decision easier by defining the issues
in the abstract rather than in the specific. I mean,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
•
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
Page 118
it's easier to discuss them in the abstract.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. In the policy
books.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: Definitely.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. Moving on to
em 3 which is a public hearing to consider amending
S . ion 29.40.025 and 29.20.480 of the Town Code to
reg -te sport court fencing. And the applicant is
the To of Los Gatos. Staff, do you have any
additiona omments to make on this?
MR. LOR es
two - actually, a issue
and the fact that areas
the General Plan ing
No. Just clearly it addre
o issues. One is the c
t hillside - in hil :de
sp - ks to ligh ' gas be
prohibited.
This ordinance amendm; carries that
through, and the - anesse Tally what we're doing
with the tennis co fencing is • ving an opportunity
for neighborin• esidents to provi• - public input.
CHAIRWP AN QUINTANA: Be.. use noticing is
required .nder the administrative procedure?
M' ORTZ: Correct. Just like a seco d
st• addition.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Yeah. Any co ments
from the Commission? Would anybody like to ma a
PUBLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10 2002 XMAX(30/30)
Page 119
motion? Okay. I'm on a roll tonight. This is
against my policy of making all motions, guys.
A VOICE: (Inaudible.)
R. KORB: You have a public hearing.
C IRWOMAN QUINTANA: A public heari
sorry. r. Davis. I'm opening the public heari
RAY D VIS: (Inaudible.)
CHAIR •.'MAN QUINTANA: Yes.
RAY DAVI Well, I'd like to offer
comments. Nu •er one, the agenda r lks about
29.20.480 as a sp• court fencing. ut the agenda
unfortunately is not - •propriate, . ay. And it's a
violation of the Brown ct, oka . 'Cause we're
talking about administrat e • ocedure for minor
residential projects, not sp court issues, okay.
And the - the toughest t' ng gat I see
down here that Mr. Lo wants • set up a new second
story addition to sin e and two fa ' ily dwellings
administratively a • take it out of yo. purview. And
of course, that' huge bone of conte 'tion in this
town. Half th- •ublic hearings on remod s have to do
with the se••nd story addition on an exist' . single
family ho e in an existing neighborhood. Anthis
room f• s up with neighbors, okay. And come,
Mr. •rtz, shame on you. That's not the way to
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24
PI
You
You ha
notificati
administrat
secret, I don't
potential proble 's.
And so I - just tak • g that same
view and putting it to he rest, y
this is all about losing •.ntr. •
Commission and turning
about what this is, okay
Gatos? The rat
I mean, you have
within your po
your damage
int of
u know, it's all -
y the Planning
ver to the employees. All
at the future of Los
Page 120
You know, any well run community I've been
, you have the zoning administrator, not the
ning director, doing this sort of work, okay.
you have - and you have a proper proced . re.
e a process for public hearings and
for the neighborhood. To have
e procedure where Mr. Lortz .oes it in
ink so. I don't think so uge
p
t agenda wasn't even prop
- otherwise this room would
not just me. Thank you.
because
this roo
peop
s
race, : carrer-
ve appointme
w to put the brake
ontrol. And this is the
de los ratones?
t yourself
on this and do
ime to do it,
ly noticed. So
full of
b
am
AIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Thank you, r. Davis.
going to close the public hearing, and I'd lik: to
clarify that this agenda item is addressing only
sports courts, changes to the ordinance are restrict
Page 117 to Page 120
(408) 920-0222 - ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
Date: April 10, 2002
For Agenda Of:
Agenda Item:
DESK ITEM
REPORT TO: The Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Community Development
LOCATION: Zoning Code Amendment A-02-1
EXHIBITS:
REMARKS:
April 10, 2002
2
Public hearing to consider amending the table of conditional uses, Town
Code Section 29.20.185, findings and decisions, Town Code Section
29.20.190, and definitions, Town Code Section 29.10.020.
APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos
A. Previously Submitted
B. Letter from Jim Derryberry (2 Pages), received April 5, 2002
C. Memorandum from Orry Korb (2 Pages), Town Attorney, received
April 10, 2002
D. Information from Paul Dubois (5 Pages), Planning Commissioner,
received April 10, 2002
E. Revised Draft Ordinance (3 Pages), Sections 29.10.020, 29.20.185,
and 29.20.190
Exhibits B, C, and D were received after the report on this matter was finalized. Exhibit E shall
replace Exhibit A (Previously submitted), which incorporates changes recommended by the
Town Attorney. Staff will review this material with the Commission at the meeting.
Bud N. Lortz, Director of Community Development
Prepared by: Joel Paulson, Assistant Planner
BNL:JP:mdc
N:\DEVIREPORTSIA-02-1 Desk.wpd
Attachment 4
L)
0
G%;2S
a� -t — e 3 o a-rr ec,'f- -Ke._ C14-44.14 40-04- . -%►.io d ,-+.1_
7.1-r7r sc usr+-oti, . Z L( eJ e:_)i,_ y ._a-s tu-a
C & wm lo-e,r B orwa .s C a4471-Eiu 1 crr-u�.e o , /�
- Givt L- 7'� r kciv� r v L ` `t L� V ✓
` _
3/44-, 7-1 vz C rY, 7 r f n_ y rL:>( to e
y G� c a. -a -av- e.._ u. / a-47.
eee*- P-,-trcy 4C,1-rt--e Sk sect oz-OL
712r .—r,44-4-1At s z s r tin J Pc71
+c, —.. b La--. fvz l:vi.cz-,. t ; ce
Tke.At a-td2 J'wuz 2 I si i2 ^ be s avtce i
cic o/ 7 vn )4 Lc. €ek , -&-7
Crta_ d Cern )11;1-licit )/1,P--t4
kl aP aJlf 1' /!/Lon , S� c:4c..&57 rite
4 �4_ c-71 fsfct
C�� 4
c Li
Exhibit B
Interest in preserving the mix of businesses in Los Gatos came from the General Plan update process.
Citizens on the General Plan Task Force expressed some concerns about the influx of chain or fonnula stores
and the displacement of locally owned and operated mom & pop businesses. Most people acknowledge that
some formula stores are good for the local economy, attracting business to downtown, the boulevard and other
shopping areas. However, there is also strong interest in supporting unique, local businesses that are something
special for Los Gatos. The objective of the current proposal is to maintain a balance of formula stores and
unique, local businesses, essentially by "freezing" the current mix of stores.
The General Plan Committee is following up on the General Plan Update and wants the town to
implement this formula store policy with an amendment to the zoning ordinance. The initial public discussion
of this proposal will occur at the planning commission on April 10, 2002. Based on the public's response to the
proposed zoning ordinance amendment, the planning commission has several options. They may refer the item
back to the General Plan Committee and/or to staff with direction to make changes or they could send it to the
town council for their consideration as it is drafted.
Town staff will be conducting a door-to-door survey of existing businesses to document which ones are
formula stores and define the current mix. The database will be used to evaluate new businesses that file
permits for tenant improvements and for business licenses. If a new formula store comes to town and it would
change the mix, i.e., increase the number of formula stores, it would be subject to a conditional use permit.
Through the CUP process a proposed new formula store would be analyzed by criteria such as the
following: Is the use consistent with the General Plan and its policies? Wi11 the use detract from the balance and
diversity of existing businesses? Is the use essential or desirable for public convenience and welfare? If the
findings are positive, the CUP could be approved; and if not, the CUP could be denied. The town council
makes the Final decision.
Generally, that is how the proposed ordinance will work. I think some questions for the Chamber
Executive Board to consider are: Have member businesses expressed any concerns about the trend of chain
stores moving into Los Gatos? Do member businesses generally support the influx of formula stores on the
theory that they attract customers and help everyone? Does the Board have sufficient feedback from member
to take a position on the proposed ordinance?
My personal view: This is an opportunity to "listen to the community" and cautiously support the
formula store ordinance in the interest of keeping a healthy mix of businesses in Los Gatos. I think the
Chamber should ask the town staff: to do more outreach to the business community, to publish and distribute
the complete text of the ordinance, and to conduct informational meetings to explain how it would be
implemented. All these things should be done before the town council approves the ordinance.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 10, 2002
TO: Bud Lortz, Director of Community Development
FROM: Orry P. Korb, Town AttorneyO''
SUBJECT: Proposed Zoning Code Amendment A-02-1
As requested, I have reviewed the draft staff report concerning the above proposed amendment of
the zoning code. I have the following comments:
1. In section 29.10.020, I remain concerned about the unqualified use of the term
"standardized" which raises the possibility that the definition of a "formula business" can
inadvertently cover situations where, in a lease agreement, a landlord requires a tenant to
maintain certain architecture, colors, signs or other similar features. To remedy this, I
suggest adding: "... ,along with one or more other business locations, ..." between
"which" and "is required...." I also suggest deleting "and/or," which does not appear to
add anything to the definition and might cause some confusion. With the recommended
changes, the definition would read as follows:
Formula retail business means a retail business which, along with one or more
other business locations, is required by contractual or other arrangement to
maintain any of the following: standardized merchandise, services, decor,
uniforms, architecture, colors, signs or other similar features.
2. In 29.20.190(b), I wonder whether you have any idea what provision(s) of the General
Plan would apply here. My concern is that the General Plan can always be read to deny
everything, whether that reading is reasonable or not. I would strongly suggest that the
this finding must be based on specific provisions of the General Plan. I also suggest that
this finding not be exclusive but must be made in conjunction with the second finding.
This will likely be redundant, but will better ensure that there are real facts behind the
denial. I would delete the second "existing," which is redundant. Lastly, I would delete
the proposed third finding, which adds nothing.
3. I strongly suggest that the ordinance adopting these changes contain a strong statement of
purpose in a recital which need not be added to the Code. I suggest something like:
Exhibit C
Bud Lortz
April 10, 2002
Page 2
WHEREAS, the downtown area of the Town of Los Gatos has long been
recognized as a unique retail environment with an unusual mix of businesses in
terms of type, ownership and appearance, that distinguishes it from other retail
areas and that contributes to the long time vibrancy and financial success of the
downtown area.
WHEREAS, any increase in the existing number of formula business in the
downtown area threatens to upset this mix of businesses and, in turn, the
continuing vibrancy and success of this unique retail environment.
4. What, other than a definition, is being done about nurseries and/or day care centers?
Please do not hesitate to ask if you have any questions or concerns about these comments.
AA.tt .Jtc J\
,.n�a<aa+Rd
Resources
For examples of
taws mentioned in
this article, see
the Main Streets
section of the
New Rules website at
www. newrules.
orglbiz/mainstreets/
index.html.
The Buck Starts -
Thousands of communities have lost local businesses to the clout of national
chain stores. But other towns have learned how to protect their homegrown
economies. By Stacy Mitchell
IN 1092, WARR ACRES, A TOWN OF 10,000 LOCATED ABOUT
25 miles from downtown Oklahoma City, experi-
enced what thousands of other communities have:
Wal-Mart constructed
a 120,000-square-foot
store on the outskirts
of town.
Just seven years
later, Wal-Mart has
decided to abandon
Warr Acres in favor of
opening a 200,000
square foot super -
center closer to
Oklahoma City. Warr
Acres stands to lose
$500,000 in taxes annu-
ally, nearly 8 percent of
the town's budget.
This is the second
time Wal-Mart has
dealt a blow to Warr
Acres. When the giant
retailer came to town
in 1992, several local
businesses, including
the town's grocery
store, were forced to
close their doors.
The loss of local
merchants and growing
dependence on absentee -owned corporate retailers is
a predicament Warr Acres shares with most of the
nation. Large national corporations now dominate
Stacy Mitchell is a researcher with The New Rules Project of
the lib -mute fo,' Local Self -Reliance. She is the author of
The Horne Town Advantage: Keeping Retail Locally
Owned forthcoming from ILSR.
much of the retail and service sector, while inde-
pendent, locally owned businesses are struggling,
and often failing, to survive.
The level of retail con-
solidation is staggering.
Wal-Mart alone, with
3,400 outlets and $139
L I+ -
Profits from local enterprises circulate within the
local economy, and independent retailers rely on
other local businesses for services such as banking
and printing. Local merchants have a vested inter-
est in the health and welfare of their communities.
billion in sales last year,
now commands 6 per-
cent of all retail spend-
ing. Borders Books and
Barnes & Noble are
driving out indepen-
dent booksellers,
whose market share
has declined from 58
percent in 1972 to just
17 percent today. While
many communities have
lost their neighborhood
hardware stores, the two
giants of this business,
Home Depot and
Lowe's, now account for
one -quarter of all hard-
ware sales. Thousands of
community pharmacies
have closed their doors,
while Walgreen, CVS,
and Rite Aid have
expanded to a combined
total of 9,000 stores and $37 billion in annual revenue.
Proponents of chain store expansion insist that
corporate retailers have brought a host of benefits to
consumers including wider selection, greater conve-
nience, and above all, lower prices. Chain stores do
achieve certain efficiencies in distribution and man-
agement, but while these efficiencies translate into
lower prices initially, in the long term consumers may
find that they got less than what they bargained for.
4 THE NEW RULES Summer 1999
Exhibit D
-and Stops Here
Chain stores tend to price low when entering a new
market and, unlike their smaller competitors, can
afford to operate at a loss for many months. In some
cases chains will price entire lines below acquisition
costs, as Wal-Mart has done with its pharmacy depart-
ment, in order to gain market share. Once rivals have
been eliminated, prices tend to rise. In Virginia, for
instance, researchers found that prices on specific
items ar several Wa1-Mart stores varied by as much as
25 percent depending on the level of local competition.
While a large-scale
retailer will initially
provide a small com-
munity with a big boost
in terms of selection and
convenience —some-
times doubling a town's
total retail space —
retail spending is a rela-
tively fixed pie. Gains
at one location will be
offset by losses at exist-
ing businesses. A town
of 10,000 might support
50 to 60 small mer-
chants, providing eco-
nomic diversity and sta-
bility. When a large cor-
porate retailer moves
in, the host community
as well as several small-
er towns in the vicinity
often lose their main
street merchants alto-
gether, leaving many of
the region's residents
with little option but to
drive long distances for
even the most basic of daily necessities. As Warr Acres
has discovered, this dependency carries risks. While
local merchants will do their best to weather economic
hard times, absentee owners are far more mobile and
will abandon a community if profit margins do not
meet their expectations.
Public officials often court corporate chains on the
basis of new jobs and higher tax revenues. These gains,
however, will invariably be offset by job and tax losses at
other retailers, producing only marginal improvement or
even a net decline in some cases. The public costs of devel-
opment —expanding roads and providing services such
as water and sewer —combined with declines in property
values and sales taxes in existing retail centers may actu-
ally exceed the tax revenue generated by the new retailer.
Locally owned businesses provide economic and
qualitative benefits to the community unmatched by
corporate retailers. Profits from local enterprises flow
not to distant corporate headquarters but circulate with-
in the local economy,
and unlike their corpo-
rate counterparts, inde-
pendent retailers rely on
Public officials court chains on the basis of new
jobs and higher tax revenues. But the public costs
of development and declines in property values and
sales taxes in existing retail centers may actually
exceed the tax revenue generated by the chain.
other local businesses
for services such as
banking and printing.
Local merchants are
rooted in the places they
serve and have a vested
interest in the health
and welfare of our cities
and towns. They give
more to local causes
than their big competi-
tors. While chain stores
prefer uniform, single -
purpose shopping cen-
ters, often on the edge
of town, local retailers
form the pillars of our
neighborhoods and city
centers, providing a
sense of place and dis-
tinct local identity.
Losing community to
the designs of corporate
retailers is far from an
inevitable process. A number of towns have organized
against an invading retailer, turning once quiet planning
board meetings into centers of noisy democracy. But
even when communities do put up a fight, they lose these
David and Goliath battles as often as they win them.
Rather than reacting to corporate expansion as it
comes our way, communities can sustain their
homegrown retail and service businesses by design-
ing rules that put community first. -�
Resources
Cape Cod Commission
3225 Main Street,
Barnstable. MA 02630:
telephone 508-362-
3828: website
www.capecod
commission.org.
Vermont
Environmental Board
National Life Records
Center Bldg
Drawer 20
Montpelier VT 05620:
telephone
802-828.3309.
.vebsrte www slate..;!
:s/envboa rc;
Summer 1999 THE NEW RULES 5
Resources
For information
and strategies for
communities trying
to halt corporate retail
development, contact
Al Norman, Sprawl -
Busters. 21 Grinnell
Street. Greenfield,
MA 01301: telephone
413-772-6289; website
www.sprawl • busters.com
For information
on rewteliztng Main
Street, contact
the National Trust's
Main Street Center
1785 Massacnusetts Ave
NW Washington, DC
20036: telephone
202-588 6219; website
www.mainst.org
For information
on organizing a
cor' mundy-wide
coalition of rndepen-
denr businesses,
contac: JeffMilchen
Boulder noependent
Bus.' ossAlhance
PO Box 532 Boulder, CO
60366: telephone
303.402 '575. website
www bc.;ioeriba.org
The authority of communities to nurture and
defend local businesses is substantial. Courts consis-
tently grant local governments considerable leeway to
exercise their authority to preserve the physical and
commercial character of the community. Increasing
numbers of communities are using this authority to
fashion regulations and ordinances that encourage a
more rooted economy. The rules they are adopting
tend to fall into five major categories.
Limiting Size
Bigness, absentee ownership, and concentration of
retail power tend to go
hand -in -hand. More
than half of all new
retail space in the U.S.
in recent years has come
in the form of super-
stores or "big boxes."
These massive retail
outlets range from
90,000 to 250,000 square
feet, two to five times
the size of a football
field and 20 to 50 times
the size of a typical
downtown retailer. New
stores of this magnitude
almost certainly lead to
significant sales losses
and potential failures at
dozens of existing busi-
nesses. Moreover, these
sprawling, monolithic
structures place tremen-
dous burdens on public
infrastructure —
especially roads —and
are at odds with the
compact, walkable
neighborhoods that many communities prefer.
A number of cities and towns have responded to
this problem by capping the size of new retail devel-
opments. Skaneateles, New York, for instance, limits
retail development to no mote than 45,000 square feet
and shopping center sites to no more than 15 acres.
Westford, Massachusetts, enacted a zoning ordinance
banning retail stores larger than 60,000 square feet
and requiring a special review and permitting process
for stores between 30,000 and 60,000 square feet.
The weakness of municipal zoning restrictions in
the age of the automobile is that large-scale retailers
denied approval in one community may well find
acceptance in an adjacent town. These retailers are
large enough to affect an entire region's economy, and
The authority of communities to nurture and defend
local businesses is substantial. Increasing numbers
of communities are using this authority to fashion
regulations and ordinances that encourage a more
rooted economy.
the town that declined the development may find itself
not only lacking the new tax revenue generated by the
retailer but with a shrinking local economy as well.
Regional cooperation offers a solution to this prob-
lem. A handful of regions have taken this approach,
creating joint planning agencies charged with review-
ing applications for developments that exceed a certain
size. The Cape Cod Commission, established by Cape
Cod voters in 1990, has the authority to approve or
reject proposals for new construction larger than
10,000 square feet and changes of use for commercial
sites that exceed 40,000 square feet.
Assessing
Community Impact
The Cape Cod
Commission's review
process involves a pub-
lic hearing and focuses
on the project's impact
on the environment,
traffic, community
character, and local
economy. Applicants
bear the burden of prov-
ing that the project's
benefits outweigh
its detriments.
Cape Cod's regional
policy plan, which
provides guidelines for
reviewing development
applications, states
that the Commission
"should take into
account any negative
impacts that the project
would have on the
Cape Cod economy
and should encourage
businesses that are locally -owned and that employ Cape
Cod residents." Armed with strong land use rules, Cape
Cod residents have given a number of corporate retail-
ers the cold shoulder, including Wal-Mart and Sam's
Club in 1993, Costco in 1994, and Home Depot in 1997.
Vermont pioneered this approach on a statewide
level in 1970 with Act 250 that requires developments of
regional impact to obtain a land use permit from one of
the state's district environmental commissions. District
decisions may be appealed to the state environmental
board and ultimately the Vermont Supreme Court.
In most cases, commercial developments require
Act 250 review when they encompass ten or more acres
of land. Approval depends on meeting several condi-
tions that focus on the project's environmental and
6 THE NEW RULES Summer 1999
economic impacts. Act 250, for instance, discourages
sprawl and scattered growth and specifies that devel-
opments must not exhaust a town's ability to accom-
modate growth or place unreasonable fiscal burdens
on the ability of local governments to provide services.
Act 250 has limited the number of large-scale
retailers in Vermont. The state was the last U.S. fron-
tier for Wal-Mart, which opened its first store there in
1995. The state now has four Wal-Marts, but as a
result of Act 250 review, three of these stores are about
half the size of a typical Wal-Mart and are located in
existing buildings, one of which is in a downtown.
Demanding Diversity
Local retail businesses
reflect the diversity of
our local cultures and
enhance our sense of
place and community
identity. As these
retailers are displaced
by national chains,
America's towns are
becoming marked by a
stark uniformity. Retail
landscapes are often
indistinguishable from
place to place.
Thanks to a cre-
ative local ordinance,
this is not the case in
Bainbridge Island,
Washington. "We
struggle with how we
can legally keep our
island from becoming
Anyplace, USA,"
remarked Mayor Alice
Tawresey in 1989, fol-
lowing the town's
adoption of a zoning
ordinance banning
formula restaurants. The law defines a formula
restaurant as a food service establishment that is
required by contract to have standardized menus,
food preparation techniques. and decor and is virtual-
ly identical to restaurants in other locations. In short,
the rule prohibits chain restaurants.
In the mid-1980s, Carmel, California, became the
first town to adopt a formula restaurant ban. Since then
several communities have followed Carmel's lead. One
of those towns, Solvang, California, also considered
banning formula retail establishments. At the time the
town decided that such a ban was not necessary to pro-
tect its local merchants and ultimately dropped the
The Cape Cod Commission has the authority to approve
or reject proposals for new construction larger than
10.000 square feet and changes of use for commercial
sites that exceed 40.000 square feet. Armed with strong
land use rules. Cape Cod residents have given a number
of corporate retailers the cold shoulder.
proposal. To date no community has enacted such an
ordinance, but the language Solvang considered pro-
vides a useful model for others to follow. A formula
retail business was defined as "a single -source, high
traffic retailer operated directly by, or under contract
with, a manufacturer of the merchandise offered for
sale therein, and required to adopt standardized layout,
decor, uniforms, or similar standardized features." �+
Favoring Community -Serving Retail
Large-scale retailers draw customers from a wide area,
inundating neighborhoods with traffic and pollution and
often diminishing the
quality of life and prop-
erty values of area resi-
dents. An invasion of
national retailers draw-
ing from a regional
market may also drive
up commercial rents,
making survival diffi-
cult for neighborhood-
% oriented businesses that
supply basic daily goods.
Enacting a town -
serving zoning ordi-
nance, as Palm Beach,
Florida, has done, pro-
vides a solution to this
problem. This island
community requires
retail and service busi-
nesses in its main com-
mercial district to be
smaller than 2,000
square feet and to pri-
marily serve those liv-
ing and working on
the island. Businesses
larger than 2,000
square feet may apply
for a special permit
provided that they can satisfy the town council that
not less than 50 percent of their anticipated customers
reside or work in Palm Beach. The ordinance was
upheld in a 1991 court case in which the judge deter-
mined that the law served legitimate public interests
and reflected the community's desire to "limit dis-
placement of businesses serving the Worth Avenue
neighborhood by larger, regional establishments."
Favoring Local Ownership
Zoning rules provide citizens with powerful tools for
shaping the retail character of their communities and
encouraging a locally rooted economy. Zoning, -�
Resources
For the complete
1997 opinion o/ the
Vermont Supreme Court
upholding the
Environmental Board's
decision to reject
a proposed Wal-Mart
store under Act 250
review, see
www. newru fes.org/
cgi•bin/access/ruled
biz/court/walmart. htm I
Summer 1999 THE NEW RULES 7
Resources
To view the Irish
government's tempo-
rary ban on large
retail developments,
see www.newrules.
org/cgi-bin/access/
rules/biz/nonus/
i ndex. ht ml.
however, cannot be used to ban developments on the
basis of ownership; that is, communities cannot legal-
ly exclude absentee -owned retail stores. As mentioned
before, however, they can use "local ownership" as one
of the criteria used to decide whether to grant a permit
to a new business.
Communities may also have the authority to
impose special taxes on absentee -owned stores. Such
taxes were once fairly common.
The first wave of U.S. chain store expansion
occurred following World War I when the market
share of chain stores shot up from 9 percent of all
retail sales in 1926 to
more than 25 percent
in 1933. This trend
met with vigorous
opposition. Unlike the
narrow focus on effi-
ciency and consumer
welfare that domi-
nates current debates
about corporate retail-
ers, Americans in the
1930s were primarily
concerned with com-
munity. Many were
convinced that absen-
tee ownership would
drain local economies
and undermine democ-
racy by concentrating
economic power.
More than half the
states responded by
enacting chain store
taxes designed to curb
the growth of corpo-
rate retailers. Most
of these laws were
challenged in the
courts, but in 22 states they survived.
Chain store taxes usually took the form of a
graduated license or occupation tax that increased
according to the number of outlets operated by a
chain. Some were fairly mild at $25 to $30 per store
per year. Other states were more aggressive. Texas,
for instance, assessed $750 per store for systems
with more than 50 outlets. This was fairly substan-
tial considering that the average annual net profit
As local retailers are displaced by national chains.
America's towns are becoming marked by a stark uni-
formity. Retail landscapes are often indistinguishable
from place to place. Thanks to a creative local ordinance.
this is not the case in Bainbridge Island. Washington.
for grocery stores was $1,694 in 1929 and $950 in
1935. Iowa collected both a per -store tax of $155
for chains with more than 50 units and a gross -
receipts tax of 10 percent on income exceeding $1
million. Most states counted only those outlets
within their borders. The exception —Louisiana —
based its tax on the number of stores the chain
operated nationally.
The anti -chain store movement began to fade
by the late 1930s, in large part due to a massive
campaign mounted by corporate retailers who
argued that the community -building aspects of
local retailers were
merely secondary
functions. Their pri-
mary purpose was to
benefit consumers
through selection and
low prices, and here,
they argued, the
chains were enor-
mously successful.
No new chain store
taxes were enacted
after 1941, and over
the years all of the
existing state taxes
were repealed.
The decline of inde-
pendent retailers is
by no means
inevitable. Indeed,
the displacement of
these businesses by
national chains has
been aided in no
small way by public
policy. Land use
rules have all too
often ignored the
needs of communities and undermined the stabili-
ty of existing retail centers. Development incen-
tives frequently favor national corporations over
local merchants.
Increasing numbers of communities are begin-
ning to use policy to nurture rather than harm
homegrown businesses. These new rules put com-
munity first, intent on restoring the vitality of local
economies and resurrecting main street. [l]
F.Y.I. Last year the Irisn government issued a directive that temporarily bans new retail developments of more than 32.000
square feet until a study is completed on the implications of large-scale retail developments on local business. This year the
Norwegian governmen! announced a similar five-year ban on large shopping centers outside city centers to help revive ailing
downtowns and reauce automobile pollution.
8 THE NEW RULES Summer 1999
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN CODE REGARDING
SECTION 29.10.020, 29.20.185, AND 29.20.190.
WHEREAS, the downtown area of the Town of Los Gatos has long been recognized as a
unique retail environment with an unusual mix of businesses in terms of type, ownership and
appearance, that distinguishes it from other retail areas and that contributes to the long time
vibrancy and financial success of the downtown area.
WHEREAS, any increase in the existing number of formula business in the downtown
area threatens to upset this mix of businesses and, in turn, the continuing vibrancy and success of
this unique retail environment.
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
Town Code Chapter 29 is amended to read as follows:
Section 29.10.020. Definitions.
Formula retail business means a retail business which, along with one Or More other
business locations, is required by contractual or other arrangement to maintain any of the
following: standardized merchandise, services, decor, uniforms, architecture, colors, signs or
other similar features.
Nursery school /Day Care Center means a school for pre -elementary school age children
which provides controlled activities and instruction.
Section 29.20.185. Table of conditional uses.
Revised table is attached as Exhibit A.
Section 29.20.190. Findings and decisions.
(a) The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may grant a
conditional use permit when specifically authorized by the provisions of this chapter if it finds
that:
1
Exhibit E
(1) The proposed uses of the property are essential or desirable to the public
convenience or welfare;
(2) The proposed uses will not impair the integrity and character of the zone;
(3)
The proposed uses would not be detrimental to public health, safety or general
welfare; and
(4) The proposed uses of the property are in harmony with the various elements or
objectives of the general plan and the purposes of this chapter.
(5)
A hazardous waste facility proposal is subject to the California Health and Safety
Code, Article 8.7, Section 25199--25199.14 and shall be consistent with the Santa
Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
(b) The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may deny a
conditional use permit for a formula retail business if the following findings are made:
(1) The proposed use of the property is not in harmony with specific provisions or
objectives of the general plan and the purposes of this chapter; and
(2) The proposed use will detract from the existing balance and diversity of
businesses in the Central Business District.
2
SECTION II
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos on , 2002, and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos
at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on effect 30 days after it is adopted.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
N:\DEV\ORDS\A-02-1.wpd
3
REPORT TO:
FROM:
LOCATION:
FINDINGS:
ACTION:
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT:
EXHIBITS:
Date: April 4, 2002
For Agenda Of: April 10, 2002
Agenda Item: 2
The Planning Commission
Director of Community Development
Zoning Code Amendment A-02-1
Public hearing to consider amending the table of conditional uses, Town
Code Section 29.20.185, findings and decisions, Town Code Section
29.20.190, and definitions, Town Code Section 29.10.020.
APPLICANT: Town of Los Gatos
The Planning Commission must make a finding that the amendment is
consistent with the General Plan if the recommendation is for adoption.
Recommendation to the Town Council.
It has been determined that this project could not possibly have a
significant impact on the environment, therefore, the project is not subject
to the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15061 (b)(3)).
A. Draft Ordinance, Sections 29.10.020, 29.20.185, and 29.20.190
RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY: Recommend amendment of Town Code Sections 29.10.020, 29.20.185,
and 29.20.190 to the Town Council for adoption.
A. BACKGROUND:
The General Plan Committee (GPC) has been working on ways to carry out a variety of General
Plan Implementation Strategies as part of the General Plan Implementation Plan that was adopted
by the Town Council. Section L.I.5.1 of the General Plan states:
Revise CUP Table: Study Conditional Use Permit Table to determine if any changes
(deletions or additions) need to be made to the list of uses. Considerations should include
factors such as size of building and/or floor space occupied, traffic generation and whether
the use would dictate a "trademark" style of building.
Staff worked with the General Plan Committee to develop recommendations for changes to the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) table.
B. DISCUSSION:
The Conditional Use Permit Table identifies uses that may be allowed in the various zoning
districts by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and are considered on a case -by -case basis. The
proposed amendments will make the table more user friendly, but more importantly will delete
Attachment 5
The Planning Commission - Page 2
Zoning Ordinance Amendment A-02-1
April 10, 2002
accessory living quarters, and will add vineyards/orchards, live/work units, radio and/or
television broadcast studios, commercial and private stables and riding academies, aviaries and
other wholesaling animal -raising facilities, antenna facilities operated by a public or private
utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone and other wireless communications, day
care centers, temporary auto storage for automobile dealers, and formula retail businesses.
The issue of formula retail businesses has been a subject of discussion for some time, but these
stores are currently unregulated by the Town. The goal of the proposed changes is to regulate,
but not prohibit these types of businesses. The GPC concluded that the unique balance of uses in
the Central Business District (CBD) is being threatened by the recent influx of formula retail
businesses. As a result a CUP will be required to locate any additional formula retail businesses
within the CBD. If an existing formula retail business in the CBD goes out of business, a new
formula retail business may be allowed anywhere in the CBD without a CUP. However, if any
additional formula retail business proposes to locate in the CBD, a CUP will be required. In this
way the Town is not prohibiting additional formula retail businesses in the CBD, but it allows for
the use to be considered by the Planning Commission on a case by case basis and a public
hearing will be held to allow for public input. The CUP could be denied if the Commission is
unable to make the required findings or it could be approved with conditions that are designed to
alleviate concerns. In the other areas of Town, a CUP will be required for new formula retail
businesses that exceed 6,000 square feet.
If the Planning Commission feels that the proposed amendments should be approved, the
Commission should forward the following Town Code amendments to the Town Council:
Section 29.10.020. Definitions.
Formula retail business means a retail business which is required by contractual or
other arrangement to maintain any of the following: standardized merchandise and/or
services, decor, uniforms, architecture, colors, signs or other similar features.
Nursery school /Day Care Center means a school for pre -elementary school age
children which provides controlled activities and instruction.
Section 29.20.185. Table of conditional uses.
Please refer to Exhibit A for the proposed Conditional Use Permit Table.
The Planning Commission - Page 3
Zoning Ordinance Amendment A-02-1
April 10, 2002
Section 29.20.190. Findings and decisions.
(a) The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may grant a
conditional use permit when specifically authorized by the provisions of this chapter if it finds
that:
(1) The proposed uses of the property are essential or desirable to the public convenience
or welfare;
(2) The proposed uses will not impair the integrity and character of the zone;
(3) The proposed uses would not be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare;
and
(4) The proposed uses of the property are in harmony with the various elements or
objectives of the general plan and the purposes of this chapter.
(5) A hazardous waste facility proposal is subject to the California Health and Safety
Code, Article 8.7, Section 25199--25199.14 and shall be consistent with the Santa
Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
(b) The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may deny a
conditional use permit for a formula retail business if any of the following findings are made:
(1) The proposed use is not consistent with the General Plan; or
(2) The proposed use will detract from the existing balance and diversity of existing
businesses in the Central Business District; or
(3)
The proposed use is not essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare.
C. RECOMMENDATION:
Consider the proposed ordinance amendments and forward a recommendation to the the Town
Council or return the proposed amendments to the GPC with suggested changes.
If the Planning Commission determines that the Town Council should approve the proposed
ordinance amendments, the Commission should recommend the following:
a. That Council determine this project could not possibly have a significant impact on the
environment, therefore, the project is not subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act (Section 15061 (b)(3));
b. That the Town Council find that the Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the
General Plan; and
The Planning Commission - Page 4
Zoning Ordinance Amendment A-02-1
April 10, 2002
c. That the Council adopt the Draft Ordinance (Exhibit A) amending the Town Code.
Ny
Bud N. Lortz, Diector ofmmunity Development
Prepared by: Joel Paulson, Assistant Planner
BNL:JP:
N:1DE VIREPORTSIA-02-1.wpd
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN CODE REGARDING
SECTION 29.10.020, 29.20.185, AND 29.20.190.
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
Town Code Chapter 29 is amended to read as follows:
Section 29.10.020. Definitions.
Formula retail business means a retail business which is required by contractual or other
arrangement to maintain any of the following: standardized merchandise and/or services, decor,
uniforms, architecture, colors, signs or other similar features.
Nursery school /Day Care Center means a school for pre -elementary school age children
which provides controlled activities and instruction.
Section 29.20.185. Table of conditional uses.
Revised table is attached as Exhibit A.
1
Exhibit A
Section 29.20.190. Findings and decisions.
(a) The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may grant a
conditional use permit when specifically authorized by the provisions of this chapter if it finds
that:
(1) The proposed uses of the property are essential or desirable to the public
convenience or welfare;
(2) The proposed uses will not impair the integrity and character of the zone;
(3) The proposed uses would not be detrimental to public health, safety or general
welfare; and
(4) The proposed uses of the property are in harmony with the various elements or
(5)
objectives of the general plan and the purposes of this chapter.
A hazardous waste facility proposal is subject to the California Health and Safety
Code, Article 8.7, Section 25199--25199.14 and shall be consistent with the Santa
Clara County Hazardous Waste Management Plan.
2
(b) The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may deny a
conditional use permit for formula retail business if any of the following findings are made:
(1) The proposed use is not consistent with the General Plan; or
(2) The proposed use will detract from the existing balance and diversity of existing
businesses in the Central Business District; or
(3)
The proposed use is not essential or desirable to, the public convenience or
welfare.
3
SECTION II
This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos on , 2002, and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos
at a meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on effect 30 days after it is adopted.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
N:\DEV\ORDS\A-02-1.wpd
4
Conditional Use Permit Table
u
„'
X
.
'IAL INDU
LM
x
x
CH
X
X
X
XXXXXXX
x
x
x
X
N
J
X
X
X
:::::
x
X
X
X
XO
Q
�j
XXX
x
x
X
X
k. Establishment selling
alcoholic beverages for
consumption on
premises
Exhibit A
Conditional Use Permit Table
J
x
i
X
X
x
Q
H
U
2
2
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
v]
x z
1-
u
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
U
Cil
U
I
x
x
X
x
x
X
X
X
x
x
X
X
U
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
W
U
w
w
0
0
x
TABLE OF CONDITIONAL USES I RC I 11R j R-1 I RD R-M R-1D RMH
o
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
Q
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
a
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
T
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
u
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
TABLE Of CONDITIONAL USES
Recreation
Commercial recreation
and amusement
establishment
Theater
Outdoor entertainment
Swimming pool for
non -incidental use
Private sports
recreation club
f. Golf course
Community Services
Public building; police,
fire, community center,
library, art gallery,
museum
Club, lodge, hall,
fraternal organization
Church, monastery,
convent, and other
institutions for religious
observance
Mortuary,
columbarium,
mausoleum
Public transportation
and parking facilities
Park, plaza, playground
Nonprofit youth groups
4
a
0
.a
U
C/J
Public schools or
college not otherwise
specified
cd
p:
d
'C
6
r
p
1
't7
ti
v-:
to
e3
N
en
4'
Conditional Use Permit Table
Ems'
X
X
X
X
x
z
X
X
::::
X
X
X
X
U
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
U
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
U
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
w
U
r,
w
O.
O
X X
x
X
X
X
X
Q
a
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
R-I I RD
X
x
X
X
X
x
X
x
(6) I Transmission Facilities
X
X
X
X
Private school or
college not otherwise
specified; including a
new private school or
college to be located on
grounds or within
buildings formerly
occupied by a public
school
Nursery school / Day
care center, provided
that each shall be on a
site not less than
20,000 square feet in
area and in a building
not Tess than 2,000
s • uare feet in floor area
Small family day care
home
Large family day care
home
Vocational or trade
school
Business or
professional school or
college
Art, craft, music,
dancing school
Health Services
Hospital
b. Convalescent hospital
c. Residential care
facility -small family
home
d. Residential care
facility -large family
home
e. Residential care
facility -group home
I ABLE OF CONDITIONAL USES
ti
•C; .
6
W
on
i
f
Conditional Use Permit Table
�
r
�
X
TRIAL
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
�X
IX`
X
X
X
X
X
X
VIMERCI,
x
X
X
W.
t17,
L.L.
0
o
X
X
Q
X
X
zp
x 2
°
x
x
X
R-1
x
X
X
a
k. Recreational vehicle
and equipment storage
yard
X
X
X
z
Public utility service
yard, station,
transmission lines,
storage tank, drainage
Vi wuuuuuna2lvu
facilities.
b. Antenna facilities
operated by a public or
Private utility for
transmitting and.
receiving cellular
telephone and other
wireless
communications
c. Radio and/or broadcast
studios
Automotive (Vehicle sales, service
and related activities)
New vehicle sales and
rental
Used vehicle sales only
incidental to new
vehicle sales and rental
Vehicle tires and
accessories, sales,
servicing, recaping
Vehicle body repair
and painting
Vehicle repair and
service (garage)
Service station
Parking lots or storage
garages, not accessory
to another use
Car wash
Truck terminal
Alternating use of off-
street parking spaces
ONAL USES
cd
-
w
to
_
.—
ca
o
U
w
n
O
w
cc
F—
Conditional Use Permit Table
'
f
'
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
INDUS'
x
x
x
x
x
x
:::x
U
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
w
U
w
w
0
X
TABLE OF CONDITIONAL USES I RC f HR I R-1 I RD R-M R-ID RMH
*
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
*
x
x
x
x
x
*
x
x
x
x
x
1. ITemporary auto storage
for automobile dealers
Residential Uses
w
C
O
"I'wo-family dwelling
Multiple -family
dwelling
Boardinghouse
Apartment hotel
O
Mobile home park
Residential •
condominium
Caretaker residence
Secondary dwelling
unit
Conversion ofa mobile
home park to
condominium
ownership
Live/work units
Agriculture and Animal Services
Botanical nursery
Dairying
Veterinary hospital
(without kennel)
6
ej
1I01S ;taI3k
Commercial and
private stables and
ridingacademies
ro
-c
U
'O
e)
.s
RJ
4
U
T3
ai
Conditional Use Permit Table
x
X
X
X
X:
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x !X
x
x
c. 24 hour businesses or
businesses open
between the hours of
2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Wineries that have
been legally and
continuously operating
for at least 50 years or
is operated in
conjunction with a
vineyard.
Aviaries and other
wholesaling animal
—raising facilities
Vineyards, orchards,
and agricultural or
farming activities
greater than 3,000 s.f.
Light Industrial
a. Large recycling
collection facilities
Large recycling
collection facilities
operated by a public
agency
Equipment rental yard
Construction materials
yard
Bulk fuel storage and
sales
Dry cleaning plants
g. Hazardous waste
man Bement facility
Other
Outdoor storage
Changing the activity
in a nonconforming
building
nq
.d
ri
6 I
ai
4:
id
.6
o
C
i
Town Council Minutes October 21, 2002
Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California
HEARINGS CONTINUED
TABLE OF CONDITIONAL USES, SEC.29.20.185/FINDINGS & DECISIONS, SEC.29.20.190 (18.37)
DEFINITIONS, SEC. 29.10.020/ZONE CODE AMENDMENTS/ORDINANCE INTRODUCTION
Mayor Attaway stated that this was the time and place duly noted for public hearing to consider
amending: "Table of Conditional Uses," Town Code Section 29.20.185; "Findings and Decisions,"
Town Code Section 29.20.190; and "Definitions," Town Code Section 29.10.020. It has been
determined that this project could not have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, the
project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15061 (b)(3)).
Application: A-02-1. Applicant: Town of Los Gatos.
The following people from the audience addressed this issue:
Ray Davis raised the issue of the moratorium on permits for cellular antennae and requested
Council's support.on initiating a strong policy.
Jim Derryberry spoke for the Chamber of Commerce regarding definition of formula stores. He
noted the diversity in the downtown and how this definition will affect existing businesses. He asked
that the Chamber be in partnership with the Town to help support this diversity.
Donn Byrne, addressed the fact that the limits placed on use of one's property places very decided
economic limits on the property owner.
No one else from the audience addressed this issue.
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mrs. Decker, to close the public hearing. Carried
unanimously.
Mr. Glickman requested that Item C, Section 4, on Page 3, concerning Nursery School and Day
Care, be deleted, and that Item H, Section 9, on Page 6, concerning Vinyards and Orchards also be
removed from requiring a CUP. There was no Council consensus for this request.
Motion by Mrs. Decker, seconded by Mr. Pirzynski, to accept the Planning Commission's
recommendation and approve the Zoning Code Amendment reflected as Attachment 2 of the report.
Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. Glickman voted no.
Mrs Decker made the required findings as reflected in Attachment 1 of the report.
The Town Clerk read the Title of the Proposed Ordinance.
Motion by Mrs. Decker, seconded by Mr.Pirzynski, that Council waive the reading of the Proposed
Ordinance. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. Glickman voted no.
Motion by Mrs. Decker, seconded by Mr. Pirzynski, that Council introduce Proposed Ordinance
entitled, ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN CODE REGARDING SECTIONS 29.10.020, 29.20.185, AND
29.20.190. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. Glickman voted no.
N:\CLK\Council Minutes'2002\M 10-21-02.wpd
5