Staff Report - Joint Study Session/, •
•
DATE:
TO:
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEBRA FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
1
AS AA/ MEETING DATE: 10/29/01
JOINT TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNI COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
AGENDA REPORT
October 25, 2001
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: JOINT STUDY SESSION
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss topics and provide direction or input to staff.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the joint Town Council/Planning Commission study session is to discuss the progress
that has been made since the February 24, 2001Council/Commission retreat, to provide status
reports on several procedural changes that are in progress and to provide input or direction to staff
on these items. The meeting will be an informal process with the participants sitting around the
conference table in the Council Chambers. This will be the first time the Council, Commission and
staff has convened together since the February 24, 2001 retreat. The four main topics of discussion
are as follows:
•
Action Items from February 24, 2001 Retreat
August 24, 2001 Planning Commission Study Session
Architectural review process
Balancing and prioritizing competing policies when considering large projects and complex
plans
Action Items from February 2001 Retreat
The final report from retreat facilitator Shawn Spano, Public Dialogue Consortium, is attached for
background information (see Attachment 5). Attachment 1 is a matrix that summarizes the action
items that were developed through discussions at the retreat. Each topic includes accomplishments
towards completing the item and remaining tasks. Staff will highlight key accomplishments,and
process changes that have been made. The Council and Commission should discuss the action items
PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ r �'
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Reviewed by: e . Attorney Clerk Finance Community Development
Revised: 10/25/01 2:06 pm
Reformatted: 5/23/01
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: JOINT STUDY SESSION
October 25, 2001
and provide input on changes that have been implemented. Direction should also be provided to
staff on further work or study that may be needed and on the list of policy issues (Attachment 2).
Planning Commission Study Session
On August 29, 2001, the Planning Commission held a Study Session to discuss a variety of topics
and issues. The Town geotechnical consultant made a presentation on the geotechnical peer review
process and answered questions. The Commission then discussed tree removals, landscape plans,
architectural review, staff reports and meeting decorum and facilitation. The minutes of the study
session are Attachment 3 and the action items are included as Attachment 4. Staff will provide a
summary of significant topics that were covered. The Council and Commission can then discuss the
action items that developed from the study session and any other additional related interests or
issues.
Architectural review Process
On August 20, 2001, the Council approved the concept of using a professional design consultant or
architect to critique the architecture of new development based on the Town's adopted guidelines
and standards. Possible additional work includes special projects such as updating the Town's
design guidelines where appropriate, and assistance in the update of the checklist for the Town's
application packet. The Request for Proposal (RFP) was sent out between September 5 and 21,
2001. Seven proposals were received by the October 19, 2001 deadline. The next step in the process
is to interview the candidates. A report will be sent to the Council for the recommended consultant
and will provide rationale why that firm is the best suited to serve as the architectural consultant.
The consultant will present their approach and overview of expertise to the Council. The Council
will then decide whether or not to approve the contract at a subsequent meeting. This is a similar
process to that used to hire the parking consultant. The Council and Commission should provide
input to staff on important criteria or considerations to include in the consultant evaluation process.
Balancing and Prioritizing Competing Policies
There will be a number of policies that are applicable to large development projects or plans such
as the North 40 Specific Plan. When addressing issues, there may be seemingly conflicting
priorities. The Council and Commission should discuss the thought process that should occur in
reaching a decision on these types of significant projects/plans. Staff needs to better understand what
an approving body looks for in making a decision. This will help staff provide better analysis and
reports to assist the Council and Commission in their regulatory roles and decision making process.
CONCLUSION:
The joint study session presents an opportunity to evaluate progress in evolving the planning
processes since the February 2001 joint retreat, and to ensure continued communication and good
working relations between the Council, Commission and staff.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: JOINT STUDY SESSION
October 25, 2001
Attachments:
2- 3 • ( List of pending policy issues one page)
Planning Commission Stud
4. Plannin Co Study Session Minutes of August 29, 2001 (seven a
g mmission Action Items (two pages) g pages)
5 Final Report from PDC/Shawn Spano (20 pages)
1 • Action items matrix (two pages)
g )
BNL:SD:mdc
N:IDE V1S UZANNE1CounotIlReportsTY200I-02110-29StudySession. wpd
I
2pk Joint: Council/Commission meeting - February 24, 2001
Remaining Tasks
• continue to review and revise design
guidelines and standards (this task will
be done by the architectural consultant)
no further action required, although staff
will continue to refine reports in response to
comments and suggestions of PC & TC
• institute changes to DRC process and
amend Zoning Ordinance to correlate
with the changes if necessary
Create Policy Box • list of issues maintained by staff; two • continue to work on items on the list of
items have been reviewed by ASC and outstanding policy issues (on -going)
Address policy issues will be going to PC for recommendation, • take items to Council for interpretation
then to Council for adoption of policy or adoption of new or revised policy
Develop policy guidelines and • take confusing or unclear policies to (on -going)
expectations that are clear and consistent Council or specialty committee for
interpretation
Accomplishments
• hillside development standards update
• revising residential design standards
• staff is providing more analysis in reports
• rationale for recommendations is included
• project data sheets developed and in use
• alternate recommendations are provided
when appropriate
• planners clearly communicating Town
Codes and policies to developers
• planners meet with applicants prior to
submittal of applications to review plans
and provide input
• DRC Process Committee reviewing the
current development review process and
making changes to improve it
• DRC Committee revising application
packet to make it more user friendly
Z
0)
M
O
ifta
More specific set of guidelines, rules
Staff report improvements
Increase number of options available in
report recommendations
Communicate policy guidelines
throughout the organization and planning
process (provide better front-end guidance
to applicants)
Better communication between staff and
applicants
Attachment 1
z rt x .�o ntrt ncil/Cammissian eeting r. F,ebru ary 24 , 2001
Remaining Tasks
• develop policy disallowing submittal of
new information at Council level
• schedule regular meetings to address
current issues and concerns (on -going)
• draft schedule to Council for approval in
Fall 2001
• review appeal process and make
recommendations on changes
• selection process for architectural
consultant
• Council approval of consultant/contract
(tentative date Dec. 3, 2001)
• staff is continuing to refine the process
through pre -application meetings with
applicants and improving submittal
checklist (on -going)
• have regular study sessions to discuss
current issues and concerns and ways of
addressing them (on -going)
00
Z
0
W)
0
•
Accomplishments
• 50% fee for applications returned to PC
adopted by Council 1/16/01
• joint meeting July 2, 2001 for light rail and
Hwy. 17 improvements
• joint meeting October 29, 2001 to review
progress on action items and other issues
• staff developing schedule
• Council adopted resolution for $50 appeal
fee for director/DRC approved items
• report to Council Aug. 20, 2001
• RFP distributed Sept. 5-21, 2001; deadline
to submit proposals is Oct. 19, 2001
• avoid forwarding incomplete applications
to Commission
• DRC Committee developing application
checklist and user friendly packet
• staff reviewing applications to ensure they
are complete
• study session held on Aug. 29, 2001:
presentation by Town geotechnical
consultant, discussed issues/concerns
• discuss issues and problem solve
• weekly staff meetings
Action Item
Review procedure/policy about Council
receiving new information after PC action
Council and Commission should
communicate on a regular basis
Council member should attend PC
meetings on a rotating basis
Modify formal appeal process
Architectural review
Incomplete applications
Planning Commission study session
Development team building
,DEVISSUZANNE\Council\Study Se
Policy Issues
• Cellars/basements - when is floor area exempted from floor area calculations? Should
current regulations be changed?
• Height of attic/storage space - when should it be included as floor area?
• Noise - should the Town supersede State criteria for noise levels
• Solar heating for pools - should it be a requirement?
• Measuring height from building pad: garage pad vs. finished floor of house or exterior
grade
• FAR exceptions - how much of an increase can be considered by staff?
• Metal halide lighting - should it be prohibited?
• Environmental health - when to hook-up to sewer (type of application and maximum
distance to sewer line)
• Frontage improvements - when required for residential development (should a new
threshold be created; trigger for requiring improvements based on scope of project?)
Land surveys - should topographic and/or boundary surveys be required for
development projects?
• Pathogen Tabs - what zones are they appropriate in? Dental Tabs limited.
• Nonconforming Structures - rebuilding of.
N:\DEV\SUZANNE\Council\Mist\Policy Issues.wpd
Attachment 2
n
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354-6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A SPECIAL STUDY SESSION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS, AUGUST 29, 2001 HELD IN THE TOWN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS,
CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 6:05 P.M. by Chair Jim Lyon.
ATTENDANCE
Planning Commission:
Members Present: Chair Jim Lyon, Vice -Chair Lee Quintana, Paul DuBois, Suzanne Muller,
Peggy Marcucci, Phil Micciche, Jeanne Drexel
Staff Present: Bud Lortz, Director of Community Development; Sandy Baily, Associate
Planner; Suzanne Davis -Associate Planner; Joel Paulson, Assistant Planner;
Steve Lynch, Assistant Planner; Jennifer Castillo, Assistant Planner; Orry
Korb, Town Attorney; Tim Boyer, Parks Superintendent
Others present: Ray Davis
Verbal Communications:
Ray Davis expressed concern at the apparent lack of advertisement of the meeting. The Tree
Ordinance is of interest to many people and the meeting should have been publicized better. He
encouraged televising Planning Commission meetings. He commented on the application at 285
Wooded View Drive, stating that the Commission did not provide adequate direction to the
applicant.
ITEM 1: Geotechnical Review
Bud Lortz introduced this item noting that the Town has hired a geotechnical consultant, Cotton,
Shires & Associates (CSA). CSA will be providing peer review services and will work on special
projects such as updating the Town's geologic hazards map.
Ted Sayre, Cotton, Shires & Associates, said that having a good, user friendly map is important. He
showed a map that was developed for the City of Saratoga that uses red for areas of high hazards,
yellow for areas of moderate hazards and green for areas that would be least impacted. He also
showed a map that was prepared for the Town of Los Altos Hills where the area was divided into
five categories, a through E. Zone A requires only a standard soils and foundation report. Zone C
(slide zone) requires a report that includes analysis from a geologist and a geotechnical engineer.
This illustrated the point that different criteria are used for individual properties depending on the
site characteristics and geology that is present. The Town needs to establish policies for acceptable
risk factor for new development that are enforced and that comply with the General Plan. CSA will
work from there.
Attachment 3
Planning Commission Study Session
August 29, 2001
Page 2 of 7
Lee Quintana asked what criteria will be used in the interim. Bud Lortz said that most homes int.
eh hillside will be referred to CSA. Other properties where fault traces or other geologic hazards are
present will also be reviewed. He noted that the State Department of Mines & Geology (DMG) is
preparing maps of special study zones, and that information obtained from CSA has been used by
DMG in developing the maps for the Los Gatos area.
Peggy Marcucci clarified that the process will be to have CSA advise the applicant on what type of
review is needed.
Suzanne Muller requested that a brief summary of geologic review results be included in the staff
report. This way the Commissioners don't need to get copies of a geotechnical report or have to read
and interpret it.
Phil Micciche asked how disagreement between two consultants is resolved. Ted Sayre said that
typically a project consultant will confer with CSA to get advice on what should be covered. Out
of hundreds ofreviews for single-family homes, two or three might be a problem. In this case a third
party geotechnical firm can be used to determine what the best way to proceed.
Jim Lyon asked how the geologic map is updated once it is established and how data is validated.
Ted Sayre said that the map can be modified as new data is collected. Fieldwork is done as needed,
and there is a lot of information that has been collected in the past five years so it is fairly recent and
accurate.
Jim Lyon asked about the quality of reports. Ted Sayre said it is a mixed bag. However, most
consultants can do quality work when required. Knowing that CSA will be reviewing their report,
many consultants will include more detail in a report. CSA doesn't design a project for an applicant,
but is available to confer with architects, engineers and geotechnical consultants to resolve issues.
Jim Lyon said that regarding establishment of acceptable risk, the General Plan Committee and Town
Council should be involved.
ITEM 2: Tree Preservation
Bud Lortz said that staff is in the process of hiring a consulting arborist to review arborist reports
submitted by applicants and to reduce Tim Boyer's workload.
Tim Boyer, Parks Superintendent, answered questions from the Commission.
Paul Du Bois expressed concern about reforestation practices. It is goos to continually plant new
trees. When a declining tree is removed, one or more replacement trees can be planted so that there
are younger trees becoming established that will off set trees being removed.
Planning Commission Study Session
August 29, 2001
Page 3 of 7
Phil Micciche said the tree list for public areas does not include all trees that are used in the Town.
He is concerned about the ordinance provision that allows up to a third of a tree to be pruned. This
can be enough to severely compromise a tree. He showed a photo demonstrating the impact to a tree
that has one-third of its canopy removed.
Orry Korb said that the Commission has the flexibility to interpret the ordinance. Findings are not
currently required for tree removal permits.
Tim Boyer said that the Town handles approximately 300 tree removal permits each year.
Jeanne Drexel likes the Tree ordinance the way it is. She supports using the consulting arborist to
review arborist reports submitted by applicants.
In response to .a question about how much pruning is acceptable, Tim Boyer said they do a visual
inspection and advice a resident if they should stop pruning. It is difficult to assess whether one-
third of a tree has been removed. Removing less than one-third can be detrimental to some trees.
Bud Lortz said that once a conifer is topped it is ruined. The ordinance doesn't address this.
Lee Quintana questioned asked how property value is determined relative to trees. She also would
like to know where it is appropriate to plant redwoods. They are high water users and are often too
large for an area.
Tim Boyer said the size of the replacement tree is based on the size and species of the tree being
removed.
Peggy Marcucci said when an appeal is considered, she would like more information on the health
of a tree in question, and how serious a particular disease is. She also commented on safety issues;
it is sometimes difficult to determine if a tree is really unsafe.
Paul Du Bois asked if native trees are encouraged for replacements. Tim Boyer said that native trees
are required in the hillside. If an oak is removed, a replacement oak is required. For flat land areas,
they look at the neighborhood and require something that fits in, or a species from the list of Town
approved trees that is closest to the type of tree coming out.
Jim Lyon said that some trees are inappropriate for a particular site. Problems arise when a property
owner plants a tree and it eventually becomes too big for the site. He believes that heritage oaks
should be worked around for site development.
ITEM 3: Tree and Landscape Plans
Phil Micciche said that additional landscaping is often done after a project is completed. Bud Lortz
Planning Commission Study Session
August 29, 2001
Page 4 of 7
said that the Town does not regulate new landscaping unless it is a situation where a permit is
required for some element of the project. Other than the front yard, landscaping is not required for
single-family homes. Until recently, landscape plans were not required for hillside homes.
Suzanne Muller said that hardscape is part of a landscape plan, and impervious coverage can be a
problem.
Bud Lortz noted that for most hillside lots, any extensive landscape plan will trigger a grading
permit.
Lee Quintana asked if based on the ordinance, the Commission should not be requiring landscape
plans for hillside homes. Perhaps getting a hardscape and tree plan would suffice.
Peggy Marcucci would like to see the extent of proposed ornamental planting and turf.
Suzanne Muller exressed concerned about turf on hillside lots, impervious coverage and the extent
of ornamental planting. She also feels it is important to get landscape plans for Planned
Developments and commercial projects as it is part of the quality of the project.
Paul Du Bois said that irrigation plans should be included so that the amount of water usage and
what impact there will be on the natural environment can be determined. For example, it would not
be appropriate to have irrigation too close to oak trees.
Jim Lyon said that fencing is also important, as is the amount of rural area that is being impacted by
ornamental landscaping.
ITEM 4 Architectural Review
Bud Lortz said that the Council supports hiring a Town architect or architectural firm. Staff will be
sending the RFP to a wide variety of design professionals. The preference is to hire a firm with more
than one architect so a team approach can be used. The consultant will look at neighborhood
compatibility and will review Town standards and guidelines for effectiveness. The consultant will
meet with staff, the Commission and Council to discuss issues and concerns. Plans will also need
to measured against the Hillside Specific Plan, the General Plan and the Hillside Development
Standards. When an applicant will not work with staff and the Town architect, staff will recommend
denial when a project goes to the Planning Commission.
Peggy Marcucci and Suzanne Muller are supportive of this process.
Suzanne Muller expressed concerned about making the process too onerous for applicants.
Paul Du Bois said he prefers the team approach.
Planning Commission Study Session
August 29, 2001
Page 5 of 7
Jim Lyon asked how this will affect historic preservation. He pointed out that it is within the
Historic Preservation Committee's purview to look at neighborhood compatibility.
Jeanne Drexel said she is supportive of this process as the Commission isn't qualified to review
architecture.
ITEM 5 Plans submitted by Applicants
Bud Lortz offered to meet with Commissioners individually to review plans and how to read and
interpret them. It is important to get plans that are clear and legible.
Suzanne Muller said that often there are inconsistencies from one plans to another for redesigned
projects.
Paul Du Bois suggested having important project data on th cover sheet of plans. Lee Quintana liked
this idea. Applicants need to clearly indicate changes on revised plans.
Jim Lyon would like to have plate heights and dimensions on attics and crawl spaces on sections.
Elevations should be detailed and the exterior materials need to be called out.
ITEM 6 Plan Review Evolution Prior to Commission Review
Bud Lortz said that planners spend a lot of time at the counter assisting applicants.
Sandy Baily summarized the items that are requested from applicants and the DRC process.
Bud Lortz said that planners try to hit the issues that the Commission consistently requests or
expressed concern with.
Sandy Baily said that a staff committee is looking at the DRC process and how it can be improved.
One idea is to require a pre -application meeting prior to submittal of a formal application.
In response to a question from Jim Lyon, Bud Lortz explained that staff will advise the Commission
when an item should be referred back to staff or the DRC.
Jim Lyon would like to have a procedure for applicants who aren't complying with direction from
the Commission or staff/DRC.
ITEM 7 Content of Staff Reports
Bud Lortz said a checklist and project data forms will be coming the Commission's way. Reports
will focus more on issues.
Planning Commission Study Session
August 29, 2001
Page 6 of 7
Suzanne Muller said a brief history or background is helpful.
Lee Quintana would like to know if staff or the DRC provided comments to an applicant that they
haven't complied with. It would be helpful to the Commission to note how many times the DRC
considered a project.
Jim Lyon said that relevant history should be included. He likes the direction that reports are going.
He prefers reports to be to the point, and said that bullet points are a good way to summarize.
Lee Quintana said that CDAC comments should be addressed, and attached to the staff report.
Phil Micciche reads the comments from DRC to see what direction was provided to applicants and
finds it very helpful.
Peggy Marcucci would like to see more geotechnical information, and when an application is
returning, discussion on the changes that have been made.
Lee Quintana said it would be helpful to have a small map or exhibit for re -zones, General Plan
amendments and lot line adjustments.
ITEM 8 Planned Developments
Bud Lortz advised that if the Commission gets too specific with Planned Developments, flexibility
is lost when the application returns for architecture and site approval. If the Commission goes too
far with a PD, there is no point in going through the A & S process.
Jim Lyon said that when a PD is adopted, it needs to be noted that the final building footprints and
architecture will be deiced at A & S. Limitations on land use should be considered with a PD (for
example, not allowing any accessory buildings to be added). We may need to take a look at PD
ordinances and how they are written.
Lee Quintana commented that with a townhouse or condo project, setbacks often vary from unit to
unit or lot to lot. She suggested doing A &S with the PD or not getting into as much detail with the
PD.
ITEM 9 Meeting Decorum/Efficiency
Peggy Marcucci said additional information that will be provided such as landscape plans should
help reduce dialoguing with applicants.
Jim Lyon suggested that Commissioners comments on what they like about a project, and state any
concerns that they have and whether they can be addressed through conditions of approval. He also
Planning Commission Study Session
August 29, 2001
Page 7 of 7
suggested being more specific when asking an applicant to reduce bulk and mass or size of a
structure.
Orry Korb advised that this type of direction should be related to standard or code. For example,
its fine to suggest a specific size reduction when it is tied to neighborhood compatibility. He also
explained that applications should be returned to staff rather than the DRC.
Lee Quintana' noted that the Council wants an explanation from Commissioners when a vote is for
denial.
ITEM 10 Future Training/Workshops
Jim Lyon suggested Architecture 101 and an Orchids and Onions Tour
Phil Micciche suggested training on Conditional Use Permits
Lee Quintana would like to have training on environmental review and the CEQA process, how
height is determined (this could be a one on one training), and how to write defensible findings.
Jeanne Drexel provided copies of a wed -site her sone has developed to assist applicants with the
development review process. It may be able to be linked to the Town's web -site.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. by Chair Lyon.
Prepared by:
Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner
cc: Planning Commission
Debra J. Figone, Town Manager
Planning staff
:'.DEVLSUZANNE\PC\StudySessions\SS Minutes.wpd
Action Items
Planning Commission Study Session
August 29, 2001
Geotechnical Review
• Develop standards of care and policy on acceptable risk (review by GPC and TC).
• Revise ordinances as applicable to support geotechnical review process.
• Develop new geologic hazards map (Cotton, Shires & Associates).
• Staff Reports: Include summarization of geotechnical peer review including conclusions and
recommendations of Town Geologist and include any appropriate conditions of approval.
Tree removals
• Compete process of hiring consulting arborist.
Consulting arborist to review Tree Ordinance and make recommendations on any needed
revisions. Items of concern include provision allowing up to 1/3 of a tree to be pruned,
topping of trees, more detailed standards for diseased trees and safety issues.
• Develop standards for review of arborist reports.
Landscape & Tree Plans
• Require a conceptual landscape plan with new single-family hillside homes. Landscaping
includes outdoor lighting, fencing and hardscape.
Consider irrigation in transition areas between ornamental and natural landscape.
Architectural Review
• Continue with RFP and selection process for Town architect. Team approach is preferred.
• Once hired, Town architect to meet with staff, Commission and Council to discuss issues and
concerns.
• Check for inconsistencies between original and revised plans (scale and plan details such as
grading volumes and floor area).
• Bubble or otherwise indicate revisions on plans returning to the Commission so that changes
are easily understood.
Attachment 4
Planning Commission Study Session
August 29, 2001
Page 2 of 2
• Require clear, legible plans from applicants.
Architectural Review
Require plans to be complete before forwarding to Commission (elevations should be
detailed and exterior materials called out; plate heights, attic and crawl spaces should be
dimensioned on sections)
Staff Reports
Include relevant background information (can be obtained from applicant).
Include project data forms (applicant to complete) so report can focus on issues.
• For redesigns, include discussion on Planning Commission direction and whether the
applicant has met these items or not.
Include discussion on geotechnical and/or arborist review including conclusions and
recommendations, and any applicable conditions of approval.
• Keep reports to the point; use bullets where appropriate
• Include a map for proposed re -zones, General Plan amendments and lot line adjustments
identifying the area(s) being considered for changes.
N\DEV\SUZANNE\PC\StudySessions\PC Action Items.wpd
FINAL REPORT
On
TOWN COUNCIL and TOWN COLTCIL/PLAN
COMMISSION RETREATS
Submitted by
Shawn Spano,
Public Dialogue Consortium
to
Debra Figone,
Los Gatos Town Manager
February 26, 2001
ING
Attachment 5
Interview Questions
Los Gatos Council/Commission/Staff
1. What inspired you to become a Council member/Planning Commissioner?
2. How would you characterize the relationship between the Council and Planning
Commission?
3. What are the key issues underlying the Council/Commission relationship as
you've described it?
4. What is the single most important thing you would like to say to Council
members/Commissioners?
5. How do you think the Council members/Commissioners would respond to that?
6. What can be done to improve the problems and concerns you've identified?
7. What suggestions do you have for dealing with the power differences at the
Council/Commission retreat?
8. Is there anything else you would like to add?
Summary Themes
Council, Commission, Staff Interviews
Interviews conducted January 29 to February 16, 2001, by Shawn Spano, with (in
alphabetical order): Randy Attaway, Sandy Baily, Steve Blanton, Suzanne Davis, Sandy
Decker, Jeanne Drexel, Paul Dubois, Steve Glickman, Orry Korb, Steve Kowlaski, Jim
Lyon, Steve Lynch, Peggy Marcucci, Philip Micciche, Suzanne Muller, Len Pacheco,
Joel Paulson, Joe Pirzynski, Lee Quintana, and Chris Riordan.
Communication Climate/Managing Power Differences
Nobody should leave feeling angry, or wanting to hold a grudge.
Everyone needs to show respect for everyone else.
We should all come with the attitude of wanting to understand each other.
Concerns With the Planning Process
It is a long, cumbersome, and arduous process.
Applicants are unclear about rules and procedures. They are frustrated and
unhappy.
There is a perception that it's a misleading and capricious process.
Planning process is too subjective.
There is no consistency.
Council should set policy and not be so involved in the details.
Commission does not give enough direction and guidance to applicants, sending
them back through the process again and again.
Commission micro -manages the process; they go too far in making decisions for
applicants.
Its frustrating for the Commission when council turns back an application, and its
frustrating for the Council when the commission does not make a decision.
Planning staff is unclear about rules and procedures.
The community wants the commission to attend to details, but that's contradicted
by the Council who think they micro -manage. The Commission is in a tough
spot.
Turn over on the Commission is problematic. It makes it difficult to establish
good relationships with the Council.
Turn over on the Commission and planning staff creates a vacuum; there is a lack
of continuity and design expertise.
What should be done about the architecture and design function of the
commission.?
The intent of the gag order is right, but its also problematic. It precludes
meaningful dialogue between commission and applicant.
Applicants want to bypass the commission and go to the council because they
perceive they'll get an easier judgment.
Council sends mixed messages to commission and applicant.
Commission overrides and disregards technical reports and experts.
Commission receives applications too early, sometimes not complete.
Suggestions for Improving the Planning Process
Number one suggestion: More direction, clarity, and guidance is needed up front,
at the beginning of the process. Front load the process so more pre -work is done.
Ensure that people have a common set of agreements and expectations at the
beginning of the process. Rules and procedures are made clear and explicit at the
beginning of the process.
Council should check in with commission on regular basis to see if the planning
policies and rules are working.
Council needs to find ways to legitimize, support, and empower the Commission.
Council members should attend commission meetings on a rotating basis.
Develop specific rules to take the subjectivity out of the process.
Planning staff should take a more pro -active, leadership role. The process will go
faster and be more efficient.
Modify formal appeal process to give council more options.
More communication and information by staff to applicants is needed early in the
process.
Give staff more decision -making responsibility early in the process.
Commission should review and examine their charge and purpose.
Planning policy needs to be more specific, but not too specific.
Council can go back over past decisions to see where they can take a strong stand,
to see policy areas where they are in agreement.
Roles and Relationships
The Council wants the Planning Commission to run smoothly. Its not a bad
relationship.
Council and commission have a professional and respectful relationship. The
breakdown occurs in understanding their roles in the appeal process.
Commission needs to know what council wants, and both groups need to know
the others' perspective and views.
Council is the ultimate arbitrator and sets the policy. Commission should simply
follow along and enact want the Council wants.
The ideal situation is where the council and commission understand each other so
well that they don't even need to meet.
The Council does not understand, appreciate, or support the Commission.
Council does not give enough direction to commission, they only dictate.
Suggestion for Improving Relationships
There needs to be better communication between the groups (Commission, staff,
Council, applicant), more openness.
Create opportunities for staff, commission, and council to interact informally.
There needs to be a consistent feedback loop between the groups to ensure that
process is working.
Relational Metaphors
Council is POLITICAL body, Commission is NOT POLITICAL
Council and Commission are NOT ON THE SAME PAGE
Council and Commission are HUSBAND and WIFE
Council is PARENT, Commission is CHILD
Council and Commission are STRANGERS
Council and Commission have SCHIZOPHRENIC relationship
Council is the APPELLATE COURT, Commission is the TRIAL COURT
Council is SUPREME COURT, Commission is APPELLATE COURT
Council and commission should be a TEAM (working toward common goal)
Los Gatos Town Council Retreat
February 10, 2001
Objectives: To help the Council:
• Understand their differences, similarities, and working relationships
• Prepare for the Council/Commission retreat
Guiding principles of the PDC:
• Respect the wisdom that is in the room
• Lead from a perspective of wonder and curiosity
• Create a climate of respect and appreciation
• Focus on opportunities rather than problems
• Balance structure with openness to new ideas
• Support creativity
• Remember that people support what they make
Agenda
Public Input
Setting the Context
• Previewing objectives and the agenda; ground rules for good communication;
questions and clarifications.
Introduction Activity
• Timeline: Identifying points of involvement and engagement.
Case Study Analysis
• Participants are given a multi -part case study scenario. At each point in the
scenario, council members write down their individual responses and the factors
that influenced their decision. Responses are then shared with the large group
and recorded.
Break
Preparing for the Council/Commission Retreat
• Based on the case study analysis, the Council will identify issues, concerns, and
opportunities to explore at the Council/Commission retreat on the 24`h.
Implications and Recommendations
• Working together, the participants will identify similarities, differences, and
tension points in how the council responds to issues, and the implications these
have on the internal and external relationships.
Questions Developed for Case Study Analysis
Los Gatos Town Council Retreat
February 10, 2001
1 What is the most significant issue to you? What in your experience led you to see
this issue as most important?
2. Who do you see as the major stakeholders?
3. What do you see as the most significant public issues? Which of these issues do
you give the most weight to?
4. What in you opinion are the major conflicts and contradictions?
5. What additional information do you need to go forward?
6. What questions would you ask:
• Staff?
• Applicant?
• Planning commission?
• Other commissions?
• Other Council members?
1. How do you interpret the tension between property rights and open space
preservation?
2. How do you make sense of impacts versus benefits?
3. When do you know when the process is complete? How do you know when its
time to decide and move on?
Summary Notes
Los Gatos Town Council Retreat
February 10, 2001
1. The retreat started at 12:30 with verbal communications from the public.
2. Mayor Joe Pirzynski outlined the goals and objectives of the retreat.
3. Shawn Spano, Public Dialogue Consortium, introduced the Council team building
exercise.
• Council members created a diagram depicting their individual careers in public
service by highlighting the time periods they felt most engaged and involved.
• Each council member reported the results of their diagram to the large group.
1. Spano introduced the land use case study activity, developed by Bud Lortz and
Orry Korb, and facilitated a discussion with the council on the following questions
(responses indicated):
What is the most significant issue to you? What in your experience led you to see
this issue as most important?
• Size and number of homes
• Protection of hillside
• Community benefit
• Number of units versus acreage and environmental impacts
• Current use and impact relative to the General Plan
Who do you see as the major stakeholders?
• Whole town (2)
• Town of Los Gatos, plus property owners, then neighbors
• Entire community, plus neighbors and General Plan implementers
What do you see as the most significant public issues? Which of these issues do
you give the most weight to?
• Retention of open space via hillside
• Reduction of open space to develop residential property and the environmental
impact
• Precedent, and the overall impacts
• Land use, town character, and impacts
• Property rights, environmental impacts
What in your opinion are the major conflicts and contradictions?
• Owner goal versus impacts
• What is the nature of the conflicting vote within the Planning Commission
• Neighborhood is in conflict
• Planning commission vote
• Historic preservation versus environmental impact
• Size of parcel versus number of units
• Neighborhood is in conflict
• Open space versus housing
• General Plan versus regulations
• Property rights versus community
1. Council members identified the following outcomes and objectives for the
Council/Planning Commission retreat:
• Planning Commission (PC) knows that Council's decisions are not personal
• The retreat is conducted in a professional and cordial manner
• PC expresses desire to be in line with council
• PC feels appreciated
• PC indicates own areas of confusion and where the planning process breaks
down
• PC feels part of a team with council
• PC and council recognize their differences
• The development of an ongoing method for dialogue between the PC and
Council
• The development of broad standards that the PC and Council agree to (in line
with General Plan)
• The planning process is improved to function more smoothly
• The PC and council work together as a team, in a non -adversarial way
• PC and council have mutual respect for each other
Adjourned at 3:45 pm
Agenda and Outline
Los Gatos Town Council and Planning Commission Retreat
February 24, 2001
Time: 8:30 am - 9:00 am (Continental Breakfast)
9:00 am - 3:30 pm (Retreat)
Facilitator: Shawn Spano, Public Dialogue Consortium (PDC)
Objectives: To help participants:
• Understand the roles and relationships of staff, Commission, and Council in the
planning process.
• Develop strategies for improving the planning process.
Setting the Context
• Previewing objectives and the agenda; ground rules for good communication;
questions and clarifications; large group introductions (your name, position, and
one thing that you think makes Los Gatos an interesting place to work and live);
council review of February 10`h retreat and expectations for this retreat.
Describing the Planning Process From Different Perspectives: Iteration 1
• Participants are given a brief description of a hypothetical project proposed by
an applicant. The group (staff, Commission, or Council) responsible for the
project at each stage in the process discuss their role, their approach, sticking
points, issues, etc.
• Format: Staff, who will go first since they are the first group to interface with
applicant, will be seated in a circle in the middle of the room with the other
participants observing. Spano will facilitate the discussion; other PDC
personnel will record. After staff, the commission moves into the center circle,
followed by council. At the conclusion of each segment the entire group
participates by asking questions and providing comments.
• Sample questions from facilitator: How do you see your role at this stage in the
process? What are your responsibilities? How should this stage of the process
work ideally? What do you perceive are the potential "sticking points"? What
do you need to know and what needs to be done in order for you to move the
project to the next stage? What issues do you see as being significant?
Break
Describing the Planning Process: Iteration 2
• Participants discuss the process after council closes the public hearing for the
hypothetical project. The options for council are; uphold the Commission's
decision, overturn the Commission's decision, or remand the project to the
Commission.
• Same format as above with different groups moving in and out of center circle.
• Facilitator asks similar questions, plus others such as: How do you interpret
appeals? How is support for your actions demonstrated or not demonstrated by
other groups? When does the process end? How do you know its over?
Lunch
Clarifying Roles and Relationships
• Participants review and summarize what they heard in the morning session, and
identify areas of similarity and difference both within and between groups.
• Format: Facilitated discussion in large group with Planning Commission and
council members; staff observes).
Developing Strategies for Improvement
• Participants brainstorm potential strategies for resolving problems that were
identified in the planning process. Note: participants will be identifying
possible strategies, not deciding among strategies.
• Format: Facilitated discussion in large group with Planning Commission and
council members; staff observes).
Issue Identification or Next Steps
• Issue identification. Participants brainstorm specific issues that they are facing
or expect to face in the future, and perhaps prioritize them by level of
importance.
• Format: Facilitated discussion in large group (Planning Commission and
Council members; staff observes).
Summary Notes
Los Gatos Town Council and Planning Commission Retreat
February 24, 2001
1. Verbal Communication: The retreat started at 9:05 with verbal communications from
the public.
2. Welcome and Introduction: Mayor Joe Pirzynski welcomed participants; Shawn
Spano, Public Dialogue Consortium, outlined goals and objectives of the retreat.
3. Center Circle Activity —Staff: Bud Lortz, newly appointed Director of Community
Development, introduced an example of a single family hillside home project for the
activity.
Key issues identified by staff:
• Height and mass
• Neighborhood Compatibility
• Siting of house
• Grading impact
• Architectural style
• Written policy concerning design guidelines
• Secure about making judgments, but there is also a subjective element
• Difference between major issues (height, mass, scale) and peripheral issues
(elevation,s screening)
How staff interacts with applicant:
• They give advice
• They are neutral; do not advocate one way or the other
• Part of their job is to be directive
• They alert applicant to issues, concerns, major problems
How secure is staff in predicting what happens next in the process:
• They are surprised sometimes
• Other times their decisions and judgments are affirmed ("it's a beautiful thing")
• Some projects are intentionally sent to planning commission without full review
under the assumption that PC will return to staff with issues identified
What has to happen to move the project to the next level:
• Input from DRC/project needs to be deemed complete
• Information and technical reports are compiled
• Do everything to bring every issue to the surface
• Recommendation is made
How staff deals with input from neighbors:
• Find out what the neighbor(s) can live with
• Function as mediator between PC and applicant and between neighbors and
applicant
What does staff want the PC and Council to know:
• They make recommendations to the best of their ability
• They would like PC and Council to be as specific as possible when they request
redesign or deny an application (e.g. give a range of square footage the house
should conform to)
• They think that applicants need more specific guidelines
• They recommend a continual updating and monitoring of policy (will help ensure
more consistency)
Questions and comments from outside observers:
• There needs to be a mechanism for ongoing communication
• There is a need for more specific guidelines
• Policy is a moving target so staff has to make judgment calls
• How much weight should staff give to neighbor complaints?
• The work of staff is appreciated by PC and Council
• Planning Director reviews all projects
• Architectural review can help and hinder the planning process
• PC and Council admire willingness of staff to admit mistakes
• Staff feels empowered to make requests if they have the information
• Staff wants to be able to act more proactively
• Suggested that staff identify common policy questions that emerge on a regular
basis. Bring these to the attention of the PC and Council (policy question box)
• Every project is subjective, so a team approach is needed to ensure common
understandings
• Council is concerned when staff sends an incomplete project to PC knowing it
will come back. Staff should feel empowered.
• Important to work on consistency; knowing the policies will increase
understanding and consistency
• Would staff find developmental training classes in design and historical
preservation useful?
• Staff has to balance the number of applicants and timeliness
• PC may not have all the information, which is why they ask for additional reports
• Is staff sensitive to PC issues and concerns?
• Council wants staff to be empowered to take risks and think outside the box
• Staff need criteria for making decisions
• Staff neutrality is important
• Staff reports are invaluable to PC. PC needs to know the sensitive issues
• Staff is responsible for providing information to the applicant
• Does staff need more information from DRC?
• Objective information
• When report is complete
• Story poles are also helpful
How the PC deals with the public hearing process (neighbor complaints):
• Determine how proactive the applicant has been in talking with neighbors
• Determine the credibility of the information given
• There is frustration with the formal process (too limiting). Some, but not all,
commissioners would like opportunity to talk informally with applicant (an
adjudication process)
• Ask questions based on information obtained from staff beforehand
How PC and planning staff are staff different:
• PC doesn't have the same risk about losing or maintaining their job
• PC upholds the General Plan
• PC has more leeway than staff
• PC can ask for more information
• PC can make difficult but right decision for community
• PC deals with more subjective issues
• PC makes decisions; they are accountable
• PC seeks to instill ownership of community
• PC is a public conduit
What factors do commissioners consider most in making decisions:
• Whether the PC can make the findings
• Credibility of the conditions
• Credibility of applicant
• Ability to remove subjectivity
• Long-term projects (appealed several times) are especially difficult
• Sometimes feel caught in the "tunnel vision" of specific projects, and missing the
overall, long-term impacts
• Recognizing past mistakes makes it easier to send a project back
• The precedent that the project might establish
• Determining how much information is too much, too little
How secure is PC in predicting what happens at next level:
• Surprised
• Confused
• Curious
• Frustrated
• PC wants clarification of policy
• Include number of options available in making recommendation
Questions and comments from outside observers:
• Concerned that PC views process as too adversarial. Is PC not being polite?
• Concerned that staff see their decisions as impacting their job security
• What is the level of responsibility to applicant?
• Power and politeness issues impact relationship between town and residents
• PC approaches applicants differently (individual residents vs professional
developers)
• PC believes tone of the project is set by applicant
• PC does not perceive process as adversarial
• Council and mayor have power to set tone
• Good rules and structure can remove problems
• Self -censorship is important; attending to what you say and how you act
• Is PC too hyper vigilant to make the best decision?
• Reports should be more explicit and specific in explaining why a particular
decision was reached
• Use front end alignment on all projects
• Council can make decisions based on new information, not available to PC
• PC needs to have new information in making decisions
• PC should settle 95% of the issues on project before sending to next level
• Do public site walks as a way to improve process
• Make sure denials are in record
• Make application more difficult at the front end
• PC should raise policy issues
• Council needs support to not move forward until all the information is collected
• The number of public hearings in one meeting should be better managed (late
night hours). Policy in place for scheduling follow up meetings.
1. Center Circle Activity —Council. Bud Lortz introduced the next phase of the single
family home project example to the Council.
How council reacts to receiving official packet of materials on the project:
• Consider and honor what staff and PC has put together
• Council has more information than staff and PC (sometimes new information is
presented)
• Council has to deal with lobbying efforts from developers and residents
• Most important piece of information is PC decision
• Staff reports are valuable
• The need to separate planning and policy considerations
• The need for a set of standards for making decisions
How Council approaches the applicant at hearing:
• Looking for new information; not a recitation of the report
• Ask questions for clarification
• Use the General Plan as a guide; vehicle for consistency
What Council looks for in appeals:
• New information that deals with the issues under question
• Repeat issues may mean a lack of consistent policy
• The Council needs opportunity to discuss broader policy issues, in addition to
dealing with specific projects
6. Action Item Summary: Jean Sidwell, PDC facilitator, summarized action items from
the center circle activity:
• Front end alignment (a more specific set of guidelines, rules, and expectations are
made clear at the very beginning of the process)
• Recommendations and reports are more specific in outlining the reasons
underlying a given decision
• Develop policy guidelines and expectations for the planning community that are
clear and consistent
• Communicate policy guidelines throughout the organization and planning process
(policy question box)
• Critically review procedure/policy giving council access to new information after
PC decision
• Increase the number of options available when making recommendations
• Have a Hawaiian shirt day at town hall (item put on flip chart after meeting
closed)
1. Policy Issues: Participants identified a list of policy issues that might be considered
in future:
• Alcohol Policy
• Restaurants in the Downtown
• Outside dining
• Massage parlors
• Basements and cellars
• Clarify policy in General Plan
• Clarification of neighborhood vs overall community benefits and impacts
Next steps: Staff will collect, summarize, and analyze notes, and give results to retreat
participants through appropriate channels and networks for further review and analysis.
Diagram of the Planning Process
Planning Staff Phase:
> Look for red flags/compatibility - deal with subjectivity
> Interact with applicant - give recommendations and advice
a Interface with DRC
o Possibly deal with neighbor or community objections (neutrality not
advocacy)
> Decision -making time: Recommend, Redesign, Deny
> Send to Planning Commission
o Transfer of information is challenging —time constraints; consistency issues
o Specific suggestions from Commission would be useful
Planning Commission Phase:
➢ Read staff report
o Look for inconsistencies
❑ Does it uphold the general plan?
❑ Is it in the public's interest?
> Site visit --as necessary; when possible
> Commission meeting: question and answer with applicant
o Ask questions that reveal thoughts and concerns
o Ask questions that elicit applicant's motivations
o Try to be positioned in a neutral way
> Decision -making time
Town Council Phase:
> The lobbying has already begun before receipt of document (need to evaluate
lobbying efforts against the input from staff and Commission)
> Town council meeting
❑ Is applicant addressing concerns?
o Looking for touchstone to guide decision
o Look for underlying clues in PC decision
o Need to interpret what is "right" for the community
o Need to determine what is in the Town's best interest vs the individual
applicant's interest
N:1DEV\SUZANNE\MISCIPDCFinalreport.wpd
Facilitator's Guide
Los Gatos Town Council and Planning Commission Retreat
February 24, 2001
Context setting
• Describe the history behind event (coordinating team, Feb 10, planning for
today)
• Introductions (name, position, and one sentence: something about yourself, Los
Gatos, something you like, or something your concerned about ... )
• Review objectives: understanding and developing strategies; not voting or
deciding —makes this a unique event; a "retreat," not a planning or council
meeting; and ...
• Understanding depends on open communication —speaking passionately and
listening openly.
Iteration- 1
➢ Staff (begin with them interfacing with the applicant downstairs at Town Hall)
➢ Commission (begin with them at home, reviewing materials before commission
meeting)
➢ Council( begin with them reading staff support; end with them closing public
hearing)
• How do you see your role at this stage in the process?
• What are your responsibilities?
• How should this stage of the process work ideally?
• What do you perceive are the potential "sticking points"?
• Who in the public do you interact with, and how do you interact?
• What issues are you especially attentive to? What are the red flags?
• What do you need to know and what needs to be done in order for you to move
the project to the next stage?
• When is this stage over? What is sent forward?
Iteration 2
• How do you interpret appeals? What's going though your mind?
• How difficult is it in your position to say "no" to applicants?
• How is support for your actions demonstrated or not demonstrated by other
groups?
• When does the process end?
• How do you know its over?
Other issues (framed as policy interpretation)
• Alcohol Policy
• Downtown restaurants
• Single family homes
• Architecture review board
Other questions (from Feb 10 case study)
• When is the process is complete?
• Impacts vs. benefits?
• Property rights vs. open space preservation
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
CALIFORNIA
TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
JOINT STUDY SESSION
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PROCESS
October 29, 2001/Minutes
TOWN COUNCIL
The Town Council/Parking Authority/Redevelopment Agency of the Town of Los Gatos met in the
Town Council Chambers, at 110 East Main Street, at 7:05 p.m., Monday, October 29, 2001, in study
session.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers: Randy Attaway, Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker,
Steve Glickman and Mayor/Chairman Joe Pirzynski.
Planning Commission: Paul Dubois, Lee Quintana, Suzanne Muller, Phil Micciche,
Peggy Marcucci, and Jeanne Drexel
Staff: Debra Figone, Orry Korb, Larry Todd, Bud Lortz, Sandy Bally, Suzanne Davis,
Joel Paulson, Steve Lynch and Jennifer Castillo.
TOWN COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
Mayor Pirzynski announced the Study Session and noted that it was time to open the meeting for public
speaking.
VERBAL COMMUNICATION
Farewell to Los Gatos:
Mr. Davis, resident, announced that he would be moving to Aptos soon and that he would visit the
Council and Planning meetings when he believes his input would be needed.
CLOSED SESSION
Town Attorney, Orry Korb, announced that a Closed Session had been held prior to this study session
and that a report would be given at the next regular Council Meeting.
The following items were discussed during this study session.
ACTION ITEMS FROM FEBRUARY 24, 2001:
The Council and Commission discussed the action items that were developed at the February 24, 2001
Council/Commission Retreat and provided input on changes that have been implemented and future work or
study that is desired.
Council Attendance at Commission Meetings:
• Town Council attendance at Planning Commission meetings is not necessary since there are now verbatim
minutes.
Staff Report Improvements:
• There were no additional suggestions. Previous recommendations have been implemented. Staff will
continue to look at ways to improve staff reports.
N:\CLK\Council Minutes12001\SS102901.wpd
Town Council Minutes
Redevelopment Agency
Study Session
October 29, 2001
Los Gatos, California
Development Review Committee Process:
• Staff is revising the application packet to make it more user friendly.
• Project data sheets have been added to provide basic data and allow for more analysis.
Policy Box Issues:
• History is an important consideration in considering changes to existing policies.
• Conversion of storage space to habitable floor area is a concern (added to list).
• Density of affordable housing was added to the list.
• Council would like to be able to add issues that arise during consideration of development projects to the
"box" for future discussion.
• Council should periodically review issues to provide confirmation on policies that should be evaluated and
to prioritize items.
New Information to Town Council:
• Zero tolerance policy; when new information is submitted the Council will return the application to the
Commission.
• The 50% remand fee discourages applicants from submitting new information.
• Council to consider adoption of a written policy.
• Consider adjustment of the fee schedule to encourage applicants not to submit new information to the
Council (example, adopt a lower remand fee for an applicant that reconsiders an appeal and returns to the
Commission to work out issues).
• Re -open the public hearing at Commission meetings to allow applicant input on design issues.
Council/Commission Communication:
• A joint meeting will be held in April 2002 (annual retreat).
• Consider additional ways of enhancing regular communication.
Appeal Process:
• Review appeal fees/survey other cities (new action item).
• Outline information needed from appellants (new action item).
• Address frivolous appeals (new action item).
• Draft an appeal policy for Council consideration (action item from February 2001 retreat).
Incomplete Applications:
• Forward with recommendation for denial if applicant does not submit required information and/or make
requested plan revisions.
• Amend Town Code to allow Director of CD to make recommendations (new action item)
• Differentiate between non-compliance vs. not submitting required or requested information.
• Continue applications when requested items are not provided.
• Consider imposing a monetary penalty for applications pending due to applicant inactivity (new action item).
• Provide written correspondence to applicant outlining deficiencies (in place; staff is working on providing
more detail and clearer direction to applicants).
Planning Commission Study Sessions:
• Study Sessions are a less formal process that allow the group to fully discuss issues.
N:\CLK\Council Minutes12001\SS102901.wpd
2
f
Town Council Minutes
Redevelopment Agency
Study Session
October 29, 2001
Los Gatos, California
• Geotechnical review was helpful and was good training for the Commission.
• Study sessions are very useful for large projects, particularly at early or conceptual stage (the Sobrato project
at 14300 Winchester is an example of where early study session would have been useful).
• Policy issues warrant a joint study session (e.g. Mobile Home Park conversion)
• Study sessions can help reduce subjectivity in the decision making process.
• The Commission is working on being more specific when directing applicants on desired plan changes.
AUGUST 24TH PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION:
The Council and Commission discussed the recent Planning Commission Study Session and action items that
developed from this meeting.
• Update Geologic Hazards Map (General Plan implementing strategy).
• Consider a Sustainability Policy (new action item).
• Tree Ordinance update should address:
1. Revisit 3:1 tree replacement requirements.
2. Appropriate species should be used for specific location.
3. Address health and safety issues.
4. When there is no space for replacement tree(s), plant elsewhere or pay in -lieu fee.
5. Revisit pruning policy.
6. Enforcement and penalties for illegal pruning or removal.
7. Removal of vegetation during construction.
8. Clearing of consecutive 1,000 sf. areas loophole.
9. Clearing large areas for vineyard or orchard.
Planned Developments:
• PD's are conceptual; avoid requiring too much architectural detail as it limits flexibility at the Architecture
& Site stage.
• Consider allowing Planned Development and Architecture & Site Applications to be processed concurrently
when appropriate.
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee:
• Committee comments should not be addressed by Commission when considering a project at a public hearing
as the CDAC is not a decision making body.
• Clarify the role of the committee (new action item).
• Revisit the format and the forum of meetings (new action item).
• CDAC should point out relevant policies and standards to the applicant.
Meeting Decorum and Efficiency:
• There is a concern that reducing the size of hillside homes is "automatic" on the part of the Commission.
N:\CLK\Council Minutes\2001\SS 102901.wpd
3
Town Council Minutes
Redevelopment Agency
Study Session
October 29, 2001
Los Gatos, California
Reductions in size should be related to neighborhood compatibility, sustainability issues, site constraints, etc.
• Certain style of home tends to be bulky and massive and don't blend well with the hillside.
• Important to provide rationale for reduction in size or density based on policies, ordinances, specific plan,
design guidelines, etc.
Architectural Review Process:
• Assessment center/evaluation of architectural consultant candidates is in progress.
• Transition period; run a parallel process for approx. three months following selection of the architectural
consultant to allow the consultant to gain insight on relevant and important issues from Commission
• Review process, evaluate and make adjustments as we go along.
• Recommend denial when applicant is uncooperative.
• Contract should include provisions for oversight by the Director of Community Development and periodic
review and evaluation of the consultant's performance.
• Neighborhood compatibility is an important consdieration when reviewing architecture.
BALANCING AND PRIORITIZING ISSUES OR CONFLICTING POLICIES/GOALS:
The Council and Commission discussed policies applicable to large development projects or plan areas such as
the North 40 where there may be seemingly conflicting priorities.
• The Council indicated that the Commission is forwarding relevant policy issues.
• Decisions will be made on a case -by -case basis.
• Review policies as appropriate (e.g. traffic).
• Community benefit can off -set impacts of a project.
• Link project to relevant data such as the jobs -housing balance.
• Council needs to discuss and provide direction on policies in question.
• Regional and state regulations play a role.
ADJOURNMENT
The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
N:\CLK\Council Minutes12001\SS102901.wpd
ATTEST:
Bud Lortz
Community Development Director
Deputy Town Clerk
4
•
1