Loading...
25 Staff Report - Final Report From Public Dialogue ConsortiumCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: April 11, 2001 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL • FROM: TOWN MANAGE SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: 4/16/01 ITEM NO. CONSIDER FINAL REPORT FROM PUBLIC DIALOGUE CONSORTIUM ON THE TOWN COUNCIL & TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION RETREATS. RECOMMENDATION: Consider final report from Public Dialogue Consortium on the Town Council and Town Council/Planning Commission retreats. BACKGROUND: On February 10, 2001, the Town Council held a half day retreat to discuss its working relationships and to prepare for a subsequent retreat on February 24, 2001 that was attended by the Council, Planning Commission and planning staff. At the second retreat the group discussed the planning process and related issues. The retreats and preparatory interviews with the active participants were facilitated by Shawn Spano of the Public Dialogue Consortium (PDC). The retreats were open to the public and several individuals attended to observe the proceedings. Attachment 1 is the final report from PDC. DISCUSSION: Staff has already begun to make changes based on the discussions that took place at the February 24 retreat. Planners are working on providing better guidance to applicants early in the process, and staff reports will include more discussion on issues and concerns. Reports will also provide more analysis on General Plan consistency, and may provide more options if warranted by the project. Project data sheets are being developed so that applicants can provide basic information on the project for the staff reports, and the information will be consistent from project to project (see Attachment 2). The data sheets can be attached to reports and the discussion section in staff reports can be more focused on key issues that are important to the deciding body. PREPARED BY: BUD N. LORTZ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reviewed by: Attorney Revised: 4/11/01 11:47 am Reformatted: 7/14/99 PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: CONSIDER FINAL REPORT FROM PUBLIC DIALOGUE CONSORTIUM ON THE TOWN COUNCIL & TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION RETREATS April 12, 2001 There are a number of other ideas that arose from the retreat that can help facilitate the planning process. For example, staff will be compiling a list of policy issues identified by the Town Council, Planning Commission or staff as projects are evaluated. Staff will seek Council direction on policy issues on a frequent and regular basis. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be submitted to Council with a staff report. Policy issues to be discussed in coming months concern basements and cellars, alcoholic beverages, restaurants in the Downtown, outdoor dining, massage parlors, clarification of General Plan policies (e.g. size ofreplacement structures), and neighborhood versus overall community benefit and impacts. This is an important step as applications are sometimes held up when a policy issue develops. During the retreat, it was concluded that a superior method of facilitating communication between the Town Council and Planning Commission would be to conduct a periodic joint study session with both bodies to discuss policy issues. Joint meetings would be held on an as needed basis. It is recommended that the Mayor's meeting be discontinued since sessions with all members of both bodies in attendance provide a broader and richer discussion of planning issues. Another major idea brought up at the retreat relates to early architectural review through the appointment of architects to the Development Review Committee, an Architectural Review Board, or hiring a design professional to serve as the Town Architect. This concept will be one of the first items assigned to the contract planner being hired to coordinate the General Plan Implementation Program since "front-end guidance" is considered crucial to our efforts of improving the planning process. An analysis of the alternatives will be brought forward to the Council for consideration. Other action items that developed from the retreat are as follows: • Create a more specific set of guidelines and rules (staff note: the process to establish new hillside design guidelines has been started and other guidelines will be developed as part of the General Plan implementation that is just getting underway) Develop policy guidelines and expectations for the community that are clear and consistent Review procedure/policy regarding submittal of new information following a Planning Commission decision Focus groups of interested stakeholders will be formed to assist with development of new guidelines when appropriate In addition to the above, staff plans to have a planning team -building meeting and the Planning Commission will hold a study session to further discuss its role and how to address issues brought up at the February 24 retreat. Attachment 2 is a chart that summarizes the retreat issues, what action is needed, who is responsible and the timing on each item. PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: CONSIDER FINAL REPORT FROM PUBLIC DAILOGUE CONSORTIUM ON THE TOWN COUNCIL & TOWN COUNCIL/ CONCLUSION: The Town Council/Planning Commission retreat was a good step forward in creating a dialogue and understanding the roles and relationships of staff and the two approving bodies. As staff has reflected on the roles and desired outcomes expressed that day, we believe the proposed work plan (Attachment 2) will provide the focus needed to accomplish improvements that the Council, Commission and staff are looking for. On -going communication, feedback and refinements in the decision making process and clarifying roles and responsibilities of staff and the deciding body will be key. Council comments on the retreat report and the accompanying work plan is requested. Attachments: 1. Report from Shawn Spano, Public Dialogue Consortium, dated February 26, 2001 2. Retreat Issue Chart (two pages) BNL:SD:mdc N:\DEV\SUZANNE\Counci I\Reports\PDC-retreats.wpd FINAL REPORT On TOWN COUNCIL and TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION RETREATS Submitted by Shawn Spano, Public Dialogue Consortium to Debra Figone, Los Gatos Town Manager February 26, 2001 Attachment 1 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? 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`" 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 10th 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 (Th i\ 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? 1. Center Circle Activity -Planning Commission. Bud Lortz introduced the next phase of the single family home project example to the PC. Key issues identified by the PC: • Site, grading, harmony, then details • Overall impact/long term impact • Compatibility with neighborhood • Land use • Visibility • Traffic • View • Trees • Mass/scale • Consistency with public safety • Look for issues identified in the staff report • Look for issues identified in the environmental impact report • Review everything and ask questions in order to determine issues and concerns How PC approaches public meeting/question & answer with applicant: • With a list of preconceived questions • Questions are sometimes asked with the intent of educating other commissioners and the applicant • Ask questions about water and fire access -public services • Ask about density impact • Ask about zoning change What is the PC's attitude and posture toward applicant: • Neutral • Team partnership • Try to understand their motivations What factors go into making a decision on the project: • What's in the packet of materials and the staff recommendation • Are compatibility concerns adequately addressed • Whether its necessary to gather additional information • Whether the "to be determined" items are answered What in the staff report is most helpful: • Background information • Conflicts • Charts and graphs • Facts and figures • Difficult when report is not readable (copying problems, etc.) • When issues are highlighted fl • 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 PIan • 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 fl I 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 (Th 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 ❑ Interface with DRC ❑ 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 o Does it uphold the general plan? o 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 o Is applicant addressing concerns? ❑ Looking for touchstone to guide decision ❑ 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:1DE\ASUZANNEIMISC\Final report.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 111 Council - Commission Retreat Action items co c E On -going and in progress: hillside design guidelines underway, policy for replacements SFR's has been drafted In progress: staff is providing more discussion/rationale for recommendations On -going: policies needing interpretation to ASC, Commission and/or Council as applicable; customer focus groups will be used where applicable On -going: planning staff meets weekly and discusses pending applications and related issues, planners advise applicants of applicable policies and guidelines Quarterly beginning in June 2001 0 0 N CCS LL In progress: staff provides more than one option for action when appropriate see item 5 above Summer 2001 Summer 2001 Responsible Body/Dept. 0) C_ C C CO CL 0) C_ C C CU d Planning Town Council 0) C C C C6 0_ Planning Town Council Planning Planning Commission Town Council Planning Planning Commission Town Council Town Council Planning Commission Planning Town Council Action Needed/Response Revise existing guidelines and create new hillside guidelines More explanation on why a recommendation is being made Take confusing or unclear policies to Council or specialty Committee for interpretation Planners should explain any applicable policies and guidelines to applicants Take confusing or unclear policies to Council for interpretation Draft appeal policy for PC/Council consideration Provide options to approving body when a recommendation is not clear cut Take confusing or unclear policies to Council for interpretation Have joint meets on a regular basis Draft schedule for Council approval CD U) U) 1. More specific set of guidelines, rules 2. Report recommendations and discussion of issues to be more specific 3. Develop policy guidelines and expectations that are clear and consistent 4. Communicate policy guidelines throughout the organization and planning process 5. Policy question box 6. Review procedure/policy giving Council access to new information following PC decision 7. Increase the number of options available in recommendations 8. Address policy issues 9. Council & Commission should communicate on a regular basis 10. Council members should attend Commission meetings on rotating basis Attachment 2 Council - Commission Retreat Action items Timing Fall 2001 On -going: staff advises applicants in advance of application submittal whenever possible 0 0 N CO In progress: staff is striving to ensure applications are complete and that all necessary information is submitted before scheduling an item for public hearing Summer 2001 Summer 2001 Responsible Body/Dept. Planning Town Council 0) C C C CO d Planning Planning Commission Town Council 0) C C C CO EL Planning Planning Commission 0) C C CO 0_ Action Needed/Response Review appeal process and make recommendations on changes Advise applicants of policies, guidelines and planning process expectations and requirements Consider various forms of architectural review and determine if a change in process is appropriate Avoid forwarding incomplete applications to Commission Discuss issues and concerns and problem solve Discuss issues and concerns and problem solve 0 M N N 11. Modify formal appeal process 12. Better communication between staff and applicants 13. Architectural review 14. Incomplete applications 15. Planning Commission study session 16. Planning Team Building CV 0 CV EL Town Council Minutes April 16, 2001 Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California HEARINGS CONTINUED MARCHMONT DRIVE/HILLBROOK SCHOOL/CONT. Motion by Mr. Glickman, seconded by Mr. Blanton, to move approval of the application and adoption of the CUP with the following amendments: A cap of 165 outbound parent vehicles; Item 10) No lease or rental shall be permitted to third parties of campus facilities and striking the term "of the gymnasium;" Item 6) All night time activities are not to exceed ten events a year and shall conclude by 9 p.m. with all vehicles off the property by 9:30 p.m. and all activities which draw audience to the gymnasium taking place after school hours; Item 13) Radar signs to be deferred until Town has the opportunity to observe the traffic pattern; Item 11) Unannounced traffic count inspections will occur twice a year in March and October to observe compliance of the not to exceed 165 outbound parent vehicles; Condition 5 of Architecture and Site Approval) to set the hours of construction at 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, with the full construction plan on file with the Town. Carried by a vote of 3 ayes. Mrs. Decker and Mr. Pirzynski voted no indicating that the outbound vehicle count could have been reduced further to 150. PUBLIC DIALOGUE CONSORTIUM/COUNCIL & PLANNING RETREAT (25.28) Mayor Pirzynski announced that this was the time and place so noted to consider final report from Public Dialogue Consortium on the Town Council and Town Council/Planning Commission retreats. Ray Davis, resident, spoke against the current land use process and asked for consistency in following the General Plan. Council Comments: That Council should set specific dates to meet with the Planning Commission in study sessions so that the meetings address issues and concerns before they become problems. That Council have consistent monthly meetings with the Commission to keep a progressive dialog going. Council requested periodic updates of how the measures in the summary were moving along. COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPERS/LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LOS GATOS CREEK VILLAGE/MILES AVENUE 71 (26.15) Mayor/Chairman Pirzynski announced that this was the time and place so noted to consider: a. Accepting report of Seifel Consulting Incorporated "due diligence analysis of funding request for Los Gatos Creek Village" b. Making a finding that Los Gatos Creek Village provides a significant community benefit by meeting current needs for affordable housing, and exempt Los Gatos Creek Village from the traffic impact mitigation fee c. Providing conceptual approval of a loan of $233,800 to Community Developers - Local Development Corporation from Redevelopment Agency housing set -aside funds TC:D13:MM041601 10 TOWN OF LOS GATOS CALIFORNIA TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT AGENDA February 24, 2001/Minutes TOWN COUNCIL The Town Council/Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos met at the Los Gatos Lodge/El Gato Room, 50 Los Gatos -Saratoga Road, at 9:00 a.m., Saturday, February 24, 2001, in retreat session. ROLL CALL Present: Council: Randy Attaway, Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker, Steve Glickman and Mayor/Chairman Joe Pirzynski. Planning Commission: Jeanne Drexel, Paul Dubois, James Lyon, Peggy Marcucci, and Suzanne Muller. Staff: Town Manager, Debra Figone; Town Attorney, Orry Korb, Community Development Director, Bud Lortz; Sandy Baily, Suzanne Davis, Joel Paulson, Steve Kowalski, and Steven Lynch. RETREAT SESSION FOR TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION Council, Planning Commission and staff addressed, discussed and reviewed the following items which appeared on the posted agenda: 1. Verbal Communications 2. Retreat Context 3. Discussion of Land Use Decision Making Process • Land Use Scenarios • Discussion of Roles & Relationship • Discussion of Strategies 4. Issues Identification 5. Concluding Observations ADJOURNMENT Mayor Pirzynski adjourned this session at 3:30 p.m. Carried unanimously. ATTEST: Debra J. Figone Town Manager and Deputy Town Clerk MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE TOWN MANAGER To: From: Subject: Date: Mayor and Town Council Planning Commission Community Development Staff Debra J. Figone, Town Manager Town Council and Planning Commission Retreat February 22, 2001 The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit to you the agenda and outline for Saturday's retreat. This retreat represents the next significant milestone in the Town's effort to ensure an effective planning process for the community. The first step was taken on February 10' at the Town Council retreat. All participants involved in Saturday's retreat are key stakeholders and contributors to the planning process. This is your retreat. We have developed a framework and format that will hopefully achieve the objectives and interests we believe we have heard from you in preparing for this day. Please review the retreat outline before we begin at 9:00 a.m. so you have a feel for the day's activities and how they will be facilitated. A significant amount of thought and preparation have occurred in order to make this retreat as productive as possible. I would like to thank you all for your personal and collective commitment to making the planning process as effective as it can be. The community is indeed fortunate to have such dedication at work on their behalf. I would particularly like to thank Bud Lortz, Orry Korb, and Marilyn Cosden for their outstanding contributions in making both the Town Council and the Town Council/Planning Commission retreats a reality. DJF:pg MGR185 A:\memos\retreat.wpd Attachments: I. Agenda ► Retreat Outline TOWN COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT AGENDA LOS GATOS LODGE 50 LOS GATOS-SARATOGA ROAD EL GATO ROOM FEBRUARY 24 (SATURDAY), 2001 9:00 A.M. - 3:30 P.M. 1) Verbal Communications (Three Minute Time Limit) 2) Retreat Context 3) Discussion of Land Use Decision Making Process — Land Use Scenarios — Discussion of Roles & Relationship — Discussion of Strategies 4) Issues Identification 5) Concluding Observations 6) 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 §35.102-35.104] MGR 183 A:\tcagendas\2-24SS.wpd Los Gatos Town Council and Planning Commission Retreat February 24, 2001 Retreat Outline 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`" retreat and expectations for this retreat. Describing the Planing 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 Planing 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. n f • 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).