Item 9 Staff Report Accept Report in the Form of Meeting Minutes from the Planning Commission Recommending Approval of Zoning Code Amendment for the Table of Conditional Uses, Town Code Section 29.20.185, Findings and Decisions, Town Code Section 29.20.19COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: May 28, 2002
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN OUNCIL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: 6/3/02
ITEM NO.
ACCEPT REPORT IN THE FORM OF MEETING MINUTES FROM THE
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING
CODE AMENDMENT 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. APPLICATION: A-02-1. APPLICANT: TOWN OF LOS GATOS.
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report in the form of meeting minutes from the Planning Commission recommending
approval of Zoning Code Amendment A-02-1 and schedule the Zoning Code Amendment for a
public hearing on June 17, 2002.
DISCUSSION:
On April 10, 2002, the Planning Commission made the decision to forward a Zoning Code
Amendment application, A-02-1, to the Town Council with a recommendation for approval.
Pursuant to Section 29.20.570 of the Town Code, the approved Planning Commission minutes are
being forwarded to the Town Council (Attachment 1). The public hearing regarding this matter is
tentatively scheduled for June 17, 2002.
No further Council action is required at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Accepting this report from the Planning Commission is not a project as defined by CEQA and no
PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by: Attorney Clerk Finance Community Development
Revised: 5/28/02 .3:53 pm
Reformatted: 5/23 %01
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
RE: ACCEPT REPORT ON 15047 LOS GATOS BOULEVARD
May 28, 2002
further action is required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
1. Excerpt from the approved Planning Commission Minutes from their meeting on April 10,
2002.
Distribution:
Stowers Associates Architects Inc., 15495 Los Gatos Boulevard, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Attn: Greg Stowers
BNL:JP:mdc
N:\DE VICNCLRPTS\A-02-1 Minutes.wpd
BSA
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
Page 81
u = imously.
MR. • RTZ: No additional notice of this
particular p •lic hearing will be placed in the
newspaper or • = vered. So anyone interes
item should attend - next meeting a
CHAIRWOMAN QUI A:
I think we'll call a short reces
(End of Side A -II.)
(Beginning of Si. - :-II.)
MR. LORTZ: hey - what are we doin
CHAIR • AN QUINTANA: Okay.
M •RTZ: For the Commission's pleasure,
t you have tonight is a couple of zoning ordinance
amendments.
Item 2 is a zoning ordinance amendment
in this
ay 8th.
ank you. With that,
f about -
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
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(1 1)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
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
)LIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, APRIL ?002 XMAX(21/21)
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
(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 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:
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
Attachment 1
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920-0222
Page 81 to Page 84
BSA P' LIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1 002 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)
(7)
(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, I
was not around at that point, and I'm just curious how
they ended up coming 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)
(t8)
(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
(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)
BSA 'BLIC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, APRIL
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. Lortz,
(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'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
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.
We'll 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:
(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)
2002
Page 91
XMAX (23/23)
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 1 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)
(5)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(1 0)
(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
Pt' IC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10 )02 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, l 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)
'lBLIC
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, APRII 1, 2002
Page 99
in fact complements it.
Because it may very well be that a chain
could come in and say, you know, we're going to do -
we're going to sell products the way - you know, the
way one of your antique stores sells products, and
we're going - you know, we're not going to have
signage the way we do in other areas, and we're not
going to have standardized design, and we're not going
to be huge, and you may ultimately find that you're
not able to distinguish that store from any other
antique store that, you know, may exist in the
downtown area, or design store that may exist in the
downtown area.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Commissioner Drexel.
COMMISSIONER DREXEL: (Inaudible) I remember
when East Main Street wasn't much of a commercial hub
before the Roasting Company went in there and how much
more vibrant it is now. I'm looking at the other side
of Lark, between Lark and Los Gatos Boulevard, and
wondering if we shouldn't at least keep in the back of
our minds that if this isn't considered part of the -
the downtown district, at some point maybe we should
consider it or protect it so that it doesn't become -
you know, end up with too many franchises and whatnot
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 mails.
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
(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)
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 lots 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
Pl'— IC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10 '02 xMAx(26/26)
(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
(1) can be provided to you just as we do a streetscape
(2) plan for single family homes.
(3) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. Any thoughts
(4) from the Commission? Are we willing to go forward
(5) with this, or do we want to - okay.
(6) Miss - oops. I will make a motion, but
(7) before I do that, I want to ask Mr. Lortz a question
(a) again. Would you repeat the language that you were
(9) suggesting.
(10) MR. LORTZ: Certainly. If I can find it.
(11) The language I suggested was that - was
(12) that - give me - give me just a second here.
(13) The one thing, before you make the motion,
(14) though, the Commission should probably discuss is
(15) Commissioner Dubois' suggested comment, or the
comment
(16) 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
(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 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)
(a)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
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:
type of (inaudible).
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA:
It'd be a different
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 JBLIC HEARING -
(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 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.
CHARWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. Commissioner
Burke.
COMMISSIONER BURKE: 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.
WEDNESDAY, APRII , 2002
Page 107
(1) MR. LORTZ: That's true. Yes, they could -
(2) we could use up the credit of 27 retail outlets in the
(3) same vein, if you want to look at them that way. And
(4) Commissioner Dubois' proposal would eliminate that.
(s) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Okay. Commissioner
(6) Dubois, would you repeat your proposal so that I'm
(7) absolutely clear on what it is.
(8) A VOICE: (Inaudible.)
(9) COMMISSIONER DUBOIS: That's correct, that
(10) they all have to go through the CUP process.
(11) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: And you're not
(12) limiting the numbers?
(13) COMMISSIONER DUBOIS: No, no -
(14) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: No, no. He's saying
(15) that have a limit on the numbers.
(16) COMMISSIONER DUBOIS: Yeah, they already
(17) have a limit. But every one instead of just -
(18) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Any replacement you
(19) said.
(2o) COMMISSIONER DUBOIS: Every replacement has
(21) to go through a CUP.
(22) CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Every replacement has
(23) to go through the CUP process and any new CUP, or are
(24) we capping the number?
(25) MR. LORTZ: No, I think what Commissioner
(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 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 -
XMAX(27/27)
(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 106
BSA Pl' IC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10 02 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)
(16)
(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)
MR. KORB:
MR. LORTZ:
Page 111
I think it's 180 days.
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
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(79)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
BLIC
HEARING
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 hospftal 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
fist 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.
- WEDNESDAY, APRIL , 2002
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:
(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 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.
( 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)
(6)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
XMAX(29/29)
And I guess as part of
my motion, 1 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
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(1 7)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
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 fdr -
MR. KORB: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: 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?
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
(408) 920-0222 Page 113 to Page 116
BSA
PI .IC HEARING - WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1t 102
XMAX(30,30)
(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)
(5)
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
ublic hearin• to consid r amendin
11 . 1
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(77)
(23)
(24)
ection 29.40.025 and 29.20.480 of the Town Code to
the
additio
MR. LO
two - actual
and the fact tha
the General Plan
prohibited.
This ordinance amend.
through, and the - and
with the tennis cou
for neighboring r
CHAIRWO
required
MR
st
ulate sport court fencing. And the applicant is
wn of Los Gatos. Staff, do you have any
comments to make on this?
TZ: No. Just clearly it address
two issues. One is the fen• issue
he hillside - in hills).- areas
s.-eaks to lightin• -s being
•
arries that
ntially what we're doing
ncing i •iving an opportunity
)dents to pro '•e public input.
AN QUINTANA: B= ause noticing is
der the administrative pro : dure?
ORTZ: Correct. Just like a sec• d
addition.
CHAIRWOMAN QUINTANA: Yeah. Any c ments
from the Commission? Would anybody like to m e a
(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 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 Iks 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, notsp. court issues, okay.
And the - the toughest tat I see
down here that Mr. Lo • set up a new second
story addition to sin ' ily dwellings
r purview. And
tion in this
• • s have to do
exist) single
An, this
administratively a
of course, that'
town. Half th
with the se
family ho
room fi
Mr.
ng
wants
e and two fa
take it out of yo
huge bone of cont
ublic hearings on remo
nd story addition on an
e in an existing neighborhood.
up with neighbors, okay. And come,
rtz, shame on you. That's not the way to g
lam
Page 120
You know, any well run community I've been
, you have the zoning administrator, not the
nning director, doing this sort of work, okay.
you have - and you have a proper procedu
ve a process for public hearings and
n for the neighborhood. To have an
've procedure where Mr. Lortz d
think so. I don't think so. H
p
Yo
You h-
notificat
administr-
secret, I do
potential prob
And so l - just to
view and putting it •
this is all about losin•
Commission and turni
about what this is, okay.
Gatos? The rat race, la c
I mean, you have an ap
within your power to
your damage contr
because the age
this room - of
s.
ing that sam
the rest, y
control
it ov
a
oint
the bra
I. And this is t
da wasn't even pr
rwise this room woul
ge
s it in
e poin
•f
ou . ow, it's all -
by e Planning
to the employees. All
the future of Los
de los ratones?
nt yourself
Ps on this and do
e time to do it,
erly noticed. So
e full of
•
•-
•
people, not ' st me. Thank you.
CHAIR OMAN QUINTANA: Thank yo Mr. Davis.
I'm goi • to close the public hearing, and I'd 'ke to
clari hat this agenda item is addressing only
sp• " courts, changes to the ordinance are restri ed
Page 117 to Page 120
(408) 920-0222
ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC
Town Council Minutes June 3, 2002
Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California
HEARINGS CONTINUED
CALLE MARGUERITA 300/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/CONT. (19.15)
Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Glickman, to accept the Mitigation Monitoring Plan,
Attachment 3 of the Staff report. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mrs. Decker voted no.
Motion by Mr. Gickman, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council finds: That the proposed General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change are internally consistent with the General Plan and its Elements;
That the in -fill project requires findings of Community Benefit; That the infill project contributes to
the further development of the surrounding neighborhood, improves circulation, contributes to
neighborhood unity, eliminates a blighted area and does not detract from the existing quality of life;
That this in -fill project is designed in context with the neighborhood and surrounding zoning with
respect to the existing scale and character of the surrounding structures; provides comparable lot
sizes and open space; considers garage placement, setbacks, density, provide adequate circulation
and on -street parking, blends rather than competes with the established character of the area; That
the applicant demonstrates the benefit of a Planned Development through excellence in design; That
approval of the project demonstrates a strong community benefit; That these elements are in fact
present; That it is consistent with the General Plan as it adds to the overall housing stock; and that
the Community Benefits were adequately outlined in the staff report. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes.
Mrs. Decker voted no.
The Town Clerk read the Title of the Proposed Ordinance.
Motion by Mr. Gickman, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council waive the reading of the Proposed
Ordinance. Carried unanimously.
Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mr. Glickman, that Council introduce the Ordinance entitled,
ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
EFFECTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1:8 TO RM:5-12:PD AT 300 CALLE
MARGUERITA (NE CORNER OF CALLE MARGUERITA & WEDGEWOOD AVENUE.)
Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mrs. Decker voted no.
CODE COMPLIANCE/QUARTERLY REPORT (06.38)
Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mr. Blanton, to accept and file informational report from
the Code Compliance Officer for January through March 2002 regarding abatement of code
violations. Carried unanimously.
TABLE OF CONDITIONAL USES/ZONING CODE AMENDMENT (09.38)
Ray Davis, resident, asked that telecommunications towers be addressed through use permits and be
allowed in commercial areas only until residential use is established in ordinance.
Motion by Mrs. Decker, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council accept report in the form of meeting
minutes from the Planning Commission recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendment A-02-1
and schedule the Zoning Code Amendment for a public hearing on June 17, 2002. Carried
unanimously.
TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES/FERRIS AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD (11.41)
Ray Davis, resident, noted that Mr. Pirzynski lives within %2 mile of the Montessori School on Ferris
and should not vote on this item.
Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mr. Glickman, that Council accept report on the permanent
installation of traffic calming devices for the Ferris Avenue neighborhood. Carried unanimously.
TC:D 13:MM060302 6