Browse archives: 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995

Published on 05/26/1999 All articles from this issue

Urgency action sends wrong message

printer friendly version

Editorial

What happened to Doug and Sandi Farnham shouldn't happen to anyone.

The Farnhams were set to go ahead with plans for Mail Boxes Etc. at 171 Main St. in Los Altos. City staff had recommended approval of what they saw as a retail business.

However, four of five council members didn't see it that way. The council, on a 4-1 vote, with Kris Casto dissenting, took the unusual step of enacting an urgency ordinance that established a moratorium on mailing services.

Council members argued that the only way to stop what they said was a non-permitted business, posing a potential traffic problem, was to put a moratorium on mailing services, good for the duration of that April 27 meeting, until the city could schedule a May 11 public hearing on the issue.

We understand the council's concern about whether mailing services should be considered a permitted use. We can appreciate members' questions about whether such a business would tie up traffic with UPS trucks blocking traffic on Main Street.

But to stop this applicant so far along in the process is just not right. Staff and council apparently were operating under different sets of guidelines.

The Los Altos business community was understandably perturbed. Los Altos Village Association president Bob Hatch said the action "gives support to the claim that Los Altos is hostile to the business community." We don't think that's the case. Still, at its May 11 meeting, the council agreed that mailing services is not considered a permitted use and that the Farnhams would be opening the business at their own risk. That means the city reserves the right to shut the business down if the council's fears are realized.

True, this business was turned down three previous times by staff before the applicants successfully showed there was enough retail service to warrant approval. But, if the council saw this coming, could this applicant have been better advised before the item precipitated an urgency moratorium at the April 27 meeting? Also, could the business community get an earlier "heads up" regarding such controversial uses, so it, too, could offer input?

We agree with Councilman King Lear, who suggested, "Maybe we need guidelines out there that are clear, and not go in after the fact."

The Farnhams are still going ahead with their plans to open Mail Boxes Etc., despite the curves they encountered with the city's process.

Can anybody blame them?