Loading...
Staff Report - Planning Commission ProcessCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: May 26, 2000 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: REMARKS: MEETING DATE: 5/31/00 CONSIDER INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROCESS AND A SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Attached is information received from Kelly, Marvin and Jessica Blough and Terry Szewczyk regarding the Planning Commission process. Also attached is a summary sheet submitted by Planning Commissioner Suzanne Muller of actions taken by the Planning Commission at meetings from February 9 - May 24, 2000. Attachments: 1. E-mail from Kelly Blough, (4 pages), received May 25, 2000. 2. E-mail from Terry Szewczyk , (3 pages), received April 27, 2000. 3. Summary sheet of Planning Commission actions (3 pages) from Suzanne Muller, received May 26, 2000. PLC:BL:mdc N:1DEVICNCLRPTSI5-31-00.CNL PREPARED BY: PAUL L. CURTIS Y DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reviewed by: Reformatted: 7/14/99 Attorney Revised: 5/26/00 1:14 pm Patsy -Garcia A letter to the Council From: "Slough, Kelly" <Kelly_Blough@NAI.com> To: "'sblanton@penwest.com'" <sblanton@penwest.com> Date: 5/25/00 4:07PM Subject: A letter to the Council Dear Mr. Mayor, am sending a copy of this letter in hard copy to all of the town council members, the Vice -Mayor, the town manager, and Chairwoman Laura Nachison of the Planning Commission. I hope that all of you will take the opportunity to read the letter and consider our suggestions to make the Planning Commission process more fair and efficient for the citizens of our town. «Los Gatos Town Council.doc» «Slough, Kelly.vcf» Page CC: "'joep@joep4Ig.com"' <joep@joe 41 com>, ,,, P 9� "''ancomm@ix.netcom.com <jancomm@ix.netcom.com>, 13cpa@best.com"' <I3cpa@best.com>, "'rattaway@therma.com"' <rattaway@therma.com>, "'manager@town.los-gatos.ca.us'" <manager@town.Ios-gatos.ca.us> Attachment 1 Patsy Garcia - Los Gatos Town Councii.dcYM -- May 25, 2000 Mayor Steve Blanton 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, California 95031 Dear Mayor Blanton, Given the heated public debate that has occurred over the last several months regarding the Planning Commission it may be unlikely that these comments will be heard among the noise. However it is essential that you, as elected officials, are aware that my family's experience and that of others that we have observed with the Planning Commission has shown that body to be at best inefficient, insensitive to applicants, and unduly subjective. At worst it is arbitrary, and unfair to the citizens of Los Gatos. This letter will not be a personal attack on Commissioners, most of whom are simply doing their job as appointees in the manner that they see fit. This will be a critique of the process with some very specific examples of how the process has failed us and families like us. But I do not intend simply to complain. At the end of this letter I include specific proposals on how to improve the planning process in a way that will attempt to mitigate such failures in the future. The process is inefficient. We were scheduled to appear at a Planning Commission hearing on our project (S-00-14) last evening, May 24. Our neighbors were notified of this date, my husband and I rescheduled travel arrangements and arranged for childcare so that we could be there. Several of our neighbors (all of whom support our project 100%) volunteered to appear on our behalf. In retrospect, I am thankful that I declined their generous offers of their time. Our case was not heard last night. The Commission ran out of time and "continued" half of its scheduled agenda items to July 12. We were item six on an agenda of eleven items, some of which had been continued previously due to lack of time in prior hearings. The Commission chose to move one applicant's case up on the agenda without notice to us or to the other affected citizens. (Incidentally, the case they chose to move up should not have even been on the Commission's agenda at all. Chairwoman Nachison herself said that it was a "neighborhood dispute" in which the Commission should not have a role.) We were required to request a hearing six weeks ago. They knew we were coming, as they knew about the other applicants. It is irresponsible to schedule 11 items on an agenda that can only accommodate four or five due to the time restrictions; Chairwoman Nachison herself said that each item takes approximately one hour. This is an ongoing Page 1 Patsy Garcia - Los Gatos Town Council.dr Page 2 problem. One of the other citizens last night was returning to the Commission because his case had been continued several weeks before. His previously scheduled hearing ran until 2:00 am before it was adjourned and his case was continued. The process is unfair. Items that are "continued" are forced to return not at the next Commission meeting, but at the next "available time slot." The next Commission meeting is in two weeks. We, and the other citizens who were continued last night, are not scheduled to appear on that agenda, or the following one. Instead, we have been rescheduled for over 6 weeks away, which presents significant hardship in our case. When Chairwoman Nachison continued our case, she made a comment that as parents we should understand that it is important to follow through on what you say you are going to do. I would argue that the town, and the Commission, committed in writing to us and to our neighbors to hear our case on May 24. The Commission and the planning department did not follow through on its commitment to us. The process is insensitive to the citizens and families of Los Gatos who come before the Commission. Because the Commission did not consider our case at its appointed time, my family will lose the opportunity to rent the house next door during our construction. After all, our neighbors can't wait for this process forever. Our construction will be postponed until next Spring, rather than later this Summer, because the rainy season is likely to hit before contractors can complete the roof of the house. There are other, more personal impacts on our lives as well. Chairwoman Nachison took a break in the midst of the hearing to give us the opportunity to volunteer to come back in July. We declined, and I admit that I did so a little tearfully, for the reasons stated above. She responded, and I quote though this was off-the-record that "it's only a house." Only a house? Is it possible that the Commissioners truly don't understand the impact that their decisions and delays have on people's lives? Only a house? We are not developers buying and selling property for a profit. We are a family looking to make important decisions about where to live and making tradeoffs to accommodate a construction schedule that in itself may take up to a year, not including the planning process that has already taken nearly 5 months. The process is convoluted and subjective. We redesigned our project three times, incurring much delay and expense, to appease the Historic Committee. We watched several other citizens last night get sent back for redesign of their projects based on subjective and unspecific criticisms by neighbors and Commissioners. In one case, the Commission requested redesign of a project that did not require a variance, and that had been redesigned once already in response to neighbors' complaints. The neighbor in this case couldn't express what she didn't like about the house and couldn't recommend any changes. It is likely she will object again to any redesign. The Commission should have acted decisively and approved or denied the application. Sending a project back for PatsyGatcia - Los Gatos Town Council.d Page 3 redesign based on unspecific and subjective preferences of neighbors or Commissioners only results in additional cost to the homeowner and additional backlog to the planning process. In another case, one Commissioner voiced an unspecified concern with the roof pitch on an applicant's project. The applicant was instructed to redesign with a roof pitch that would result in a nine to fifteen inch lowering of the roof peak, though the original issue pending before the Commission was unrelated to the roof at all. This is one small example of the type of arbitrary and subjective minutia that takes up so much time on the Commission's agenda. Mayor Blanton, the process is broken. It is inefficient, and unfair. The citizens of our town deserve better. I am asking you to take action, not on our specific proposal, but on the process as it affects the applicants and citizens of our town. In fact. by writing this letter I may be guaranteeing that our project never receives planning approval. I am willing to take that risk to help guarantee that this issue is resolved. Here are some suggestions for how to bring predictability and simplicity to this process and to make it more fair and just for the citizens of Los Gatos. 1. Consideration of each case should be limited to 30 minutes. Based on our experience, this could be accomplished by the following: — Commissioners should be instructed to limit their questioning and comments to three minutes each, as the public is limited in its remarks. - The public is limited to a maximum of 5 minutes per side in arguments on the case. The public may provide unlimited written comment prior to the hearing for review by the Commissioners. 2. Commissioners should be strongly directed to give instructions to applicants based only on the authority they have. In other words, suggestions or directions on design style should be the exception, not the rule. If a specific change is required in order for the Commission to make a specific finding, then that change should be made a condition of approval for review by the DRC, not a redesign recommendation that must return to the Commission for re -hearing. 3. Citizens should be given timely notification of neighbor's complaints so that they can attempt to address them prior to the public hearing. Once the applicant has in good faith attempted to meet with neighbors and redesign in response to specific concerns voiced, they should not be asked to repeat the process. Both parties should be given the opportunity to make their case before the Commission hearing, and the Commission should decide at that time whether to approve or disapprove a plan. A public hearing is not the appropriate time for the Commission to suggest the redesign of homes in an attempt to mitigate neighborhood disputes. Doing so 3. Patsy Gatcia - Los Gatos Town Council.di Page 4 needlessly prolongs a process that some neighbors — who will never be satisfied by redesigns — would prefer to prolong forever. 4. Commissioners should be required to act (meaning vote) on petitions within a specified time after the petition is filed. Sixty days should be more than sufficient time for all the parties to. be heard, for paperwork and designs to be reviewed, and for Commissioners to come to a decision. 5. If a hearing extends beyond the planned time, applicants who are continued should be granted an out of cycle hearing within 2 weeks. If this means that the Commission has to meet earlier than 7:30, or every week to accommodate "left-overs" that is preferable to staying until after midnight, or to overloading future agendas with the backlog. I recognize that the Commissioners are volunteers and that they also have personal lives and time commitments. But they hold public office and exercising their duties in a manner that is fair and sensitive to the applicants is part of their responsibility as policymakers in our community. Our project may be only a house for the Planning Commission. But it is our home and our neighborhood and a very important part of our lives. If Commissioners don't understand that then I would suggest that families like ours may be more dedicated to preservation of our neighborhoods and way of life in this town than the Commission is. Mr. Mayor, I urge you to take action. This unfair and inefficient process needs to be fixed for the benefit of our town and its citizens. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kelly, Marvin and Jessica Blough 233 Belmont Avenue Los Gatos 354-7183 cc: Vice -Mayor Joe Pirzynski Council Member Jan Hutchins Council Member Linda Lubeck Council Member Randy Attaway Town Manager Dave Knapp Chairwoman Laura Nachison Page 1 Blough, Kelly Kellyfilough@NALcorn ( Preferred Internet ) Version 2.1 Name Family: Blough First: Kelly Middle: Prefix: Suffix: Formatted Name Slough, Kelly Electronic Mail Address ( Preferred Internet j Kelly_BloughaNAI com Last Revision 20000317T221357Z ............. • ..... • Patsy Garcia - Planning Commission Mee' s Page 1 From: Terry Szewczyk <szewczykt@tscivileng.com> To: <rattaway@therma.com>, <sblanton©penwest.com>, <JanComm@is.netcom.com>, <L3CPA@BEST.com>, <joep@joep41g.com>, <manager@town.los-gatos.ca.us> Date: 4/27/00 5:OOPM Subject: Planning Commission Meetings Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers & Mr. Knapp: I have some concerns about the conduct & content of Planning Commission meetings, the last one in particular being 5-26-00. 1) The current backlog of meetings is not owner friendly. My client Mr. Kolling has spent 4 months diligently pursuing A&S for a new residence on Forrester Road. This is not inconsistent with other communities. What is a problem, however, is to be continued to June 14 due to minor issues that might have been conditionally approved subject to further staff review. This is 6 weeks of downtime on issues that we will resolve in 5 working days. More specifically, the suggestions of the commission were generally as follows: a) reduce impervious coverage ---solution : the commission simply needed to say "by 10%" & allow the planning staff to do so administratively on the approved site plan b) confirm the relative position of the neighbors' driveway so as to avoid traffic conflicts ---solution : delegate the resolution to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer c) prepare a landscape plan ---solution : this was not a requirement of staff since the project was deemed complete without such a plan, I suspect that the commissioner that requested this did not see the wooded character of the site, while I realize there is discretion here, this too could have been delegated to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development The meeting backlog will not disappear until the commission delegates authority to the Town's very capable staff. Alternatively the commission should meet weekly for a period of time. 2) The commission's attention to architectural detail borders on an obsession with minutia. The discussion of authentic brick fireplaces, wood windows, too tall chimneys & stucco finishes is not appropriately the purview of a land use commission but instead that of an architectural review board. To say that imposition of requirements for these details creates "neighborhood compatibility" is a stretch . The guidelines set forth for the review of hillside residences correctly focuses on the bulk, mass, siting & compatibility of a new proposed residence & not architectural detailing. Save that for historical districts & commercial buildings. 3) Freedom of speech versus the greater good for the community in expediting the meeting. The violent outbursts of a certain individual were beyond mere disrespect at yesterday's meeting. Does the Town need an officer to standby as a bailiff at planning commission meetings? Laura Nachison runs a good meeting & does not deserve to be confronted in a shouting match. The City of San Jose had a problem similar to this with 2 individuals & eventually moved the oral communications to a spot in the meeting that was less disruptive. How they forced these individuals to batch their comments into one appearance at the podium is a mystery to me. I could explore this with San Jose staff if that might help. Office of the APR 2 7, 2000 -OWN MANACEF TOWN MANAGER Received:...__....,,, To: I ) Action Due information tI Copy To:..,.,....� OtY Attachment 2 Patsy -Garcia - Planning Commission Mee' s In summary, please don't make the mistake of thinking these are problems unique to the Town. There are 15 other communities in the immediate vicinity that deal with the same issues. In my humble opinion this is the best combination of council, staff & commissioners that Los Gatos has seen in many years. Keep up the good work. Sincerely, Terry Szewczyk - 2.9.00 thru 5.24.00 0 G z� W-0 he x x xx x xx F- 0 o c~i a as xxxx xx x xx g C } 4,1 'vc- c%) ••zr cfl • O. n 0 Zzz)-zzz>-• >- ZZ> ZZ>>->- m` cc t � O x x d xx x x xx x W N Z0. a o 2 U x x X x X x X '5 > 0 = o E E d 3 °' UQ c c Z w° o o 0 00 Zc!) JU N N H a U_ J a -0 aE a �� d O c 0cc V c a3 °- `° >- 0 N N CY HZ XX XX X XX X XX Ul E O 1 co 0 = coo 0. a U 'p E • ro v, �o ca is a 3 p L1 tC_. a�iTs 3 �O > > 0 NN �.O v p N • g Z Y y L Z en hi co 0 .ccV .c. (5caa) . .cc- o0)>_ .cczCI : oU �.. (A Cr) Cn C� J o c a O m to r �o� orcn c �cr) ��� �Uno t t� pUc�Z N N O r)�ooOQOcn� .N N O -O p a) a) O a) 0 0'o rnooro ornco 0 0 �oo�n o 0 cbo c) a Q in in co in in co to o c) in a c co ch rr ,-a),-.-r a_a_Q >Mc7r �ciQ .--cov.r - r C) co N co C N N f'17 cow Attachment 3 2.9.00 thru 5.24.00 a: a 2 5 co (3 Z 1- w w 2 Z 0 N 5 2 0 U Z Z N J co as E. d G �,x x 0) a) a) zala w12 0) QO• C xX xx x x x x x I— Z� O o F Q. O a. as x x x xx x c� Q� v c•. = i RY NCOCY) co •:1-d•CDCO A y ZZ}}} Z›-Z Z ZZ }}}1->- 1 O X x X X X X O 0) w co Z Q O 2U XXX X X X XU rs c UX = n X as Zr x D - D cn c'E,_;D D 00 U U C7)0>.00 U Q U J a. 13 a. E Q% O d wcc } y N H Z x x x x x x X X X co E O0 o o Nco c0 Y co cY c a) DO E �O a °� if, a E 0 «S cv ,n co 0 3 m = Ln L a) v� 0 -6� a) -2 LP c co CO > CIS v- J >+ 0 - > v J j co a_c < � > ai E. • c �� o -a2-- Q3 ,_Q a) c-»r -o-0_Q c`O— • cti rn E cocom.O. co V a) o o �m a)Q w o• m(j•8 c c E c a� "Sco• cn a`�i c c .o • c 30��°) wm� �ccEac`a o)C'3 cocnc •°-�t�� NC c o N �O O o 7 • Z U 2•to a) cv N O •O.O�• a)0�UQ •�•�•2 COo0' cco O p p O �N Oo)CO ��Q �r. -Cow 0-0-Q .-MTN a)in O �< pp,-Ch.-T Y.- C� LLELQ N� Project Description .) d N N N W C t) cf - 2.9.00 thru 5.24.00 CC a 2 N Z H W w Z 0 cn 0 0 Z Z M Z am as x 0 zd W 'a QccX x x H 00 H � as x X x x g a� 7 0 r. COL. Y Lf) o A N >- Z} ZZZ z >- d x X w 0 N Z Q. 2 X X X X c ce c L a d + 0 0 s c• �i 00 0a) >aa)) H a U J _ a. -a aE a% 00 us I-z X X XXx Project Description 0 Francis Oaks N 16035 LG-Almaden (Pepper Tree) Steven Blanton, Mayor Joe Pirrynski, Vice Mayor Randy Attaway, Council Member Jan Hutchins, Council Member Linda Lubeck, Council Member *AilfENDED ................. TOWN OF LOS GATOS JOINT TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA 110 EAST MAIN STREET COUNCIL CHAMBERS (DOWNSTAIRS) WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 2000 6:00-7:00 P.M. THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS STRONGLY ENCOURAGES YOUR ACTIVE PARTICIPATION AND WELCOMES YOUR VIEWS IN THE CONDUCT OF THE PUBLIC'S BUSINESS. YOU ARE WELCOME TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM AS IT COMES UP. YOU ARE ALSO WELCOME TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM OF TOWN CONCERN NOT ON THE AGENDA DURING THE "VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS" PERIOD. IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO AN ITEM LISTED UNDER "CONSENT ITEMS", PLEASE ASK THE MAYOR TO REMOVE THAT ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. PLEASE FILL OUT "SPEAKER'S FORM" LOCATED ON THE BACKS OF THE BENCHES OR ON THE PODIUM . JOINT TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION ► Number of Planning Commission members ► Length of Planning Commission meetings - Design review - Process *PRESENTATION Car Iendatio Saady Decker, Planni g Co misstoner VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (Three -minute time limit) ADJOURNMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, IF YOU NEED SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT PATSY GARCIA AT (408) 354-6832. NOTIFICATION 48 HOURS BEFORE THE MEETING WILL ENABLE THE TOWN TO MAKE REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO THIS MEETING [28 CFR §35.102-35.1041 MGR161 A:\tcagenda\5-31ss.wpd