Item 7 Staff Report Approve Follow Up to Responses to the 1999-2000 Civil Grand Jury Final Report - an Inquiry into the Enforcement of Conditional Use Permits in the Town of Los GatosMEETING DATE:
ITEM NO.
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: September 7, 2001
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN OUNCIL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER
1/ /o(
SUBJECT: APPROVE FOLLOW UP TO RESPONSES TO THE 1999-2000 CIVIL
GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT - AN INQUIRY INTO THE
ENFORCEMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS IN THE TOWN OF
LOS GATOS
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve follow up to responses to the 1999-2000 civil Grand Jury final report - an inquiry into the
enforcement of conditional use permits in the Town of Los Gatos.
DISCUSSION:
Prompted by the complaints of a neighbor of the Los Gatos Auto Mall concerning violations of hours
of operation and noise, the 1999-2000 Civil Grand Jury issued a report with several
recommendations. The Town responded to the Grand Jury initial inquiry in November 2000. There
were three specific recommendations which the Town agreed to make follow-up efforts to resolve.
On July 25, 2001, the Town received a letter (Attachment 1) from the Grand Jury requesting
information on those follow up efforts. Those recommendations and the results are as follows:
PREPARED BY: Bud Lortzz
Director of Community Development
L
Chi
• '-a)
/Todd
Police
Reviewed by: QILAttorney Clerk Finance Community Development
Revised: 9/25/01 1: 3 8 pm
Reformatted: 5/30/01
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPROVE FOLLOW UP TO RESPONSES TO THE 1999-2000 CIVIL GRAND
JURY FINAL REPORT - AN INQUIRY INTO THE ENFORCEMENT OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS IN THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
September 7, 2001
1. Direct a study be made to upgrade the Police Department's computer system and record
keeping process.
Response: Since the original Grand Jury inquiry, the software vendor for the Police
Department's Records Management and Crime Analysis system has released revised or
upgraded versions to the software and has provided additional training to the Police
Department staff. We are pleased to report that we now have the capability to make inquiries
of specific types of calls for service rather than only being able to obtain address specific
histories. This capability now meets the recommendations of the Grand Jury.
2. Evaluate the procedures for transferring data from police records to Community
Development Department and determine if these procedures also satisfy future needs to
gather demographic or statistical data.
Response: The Town has assigned a full time limited duty police officer to the Community
Development Department to serve as a Code Enforcement Officer. This individual reports
directly to the Director of Community Development and is responsible for following up on
complaints and self initiating code compliance investigations. Information/complaints
received by the Police Department regarding potential Town Code violations is transferred
directly to the Community Development Department for immediate follow-up.
3. Develop a written citizen complaint procedure in the Community Development Department.
Response: This task has been completed as requested (see attachment 2).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Responding to the Grand Jury is not a project defined under CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachments:
1. Grand Jury letter dated July 25, 2001
2. Community Development Department Citizen Complaint Form
n
TOWN OF Los GATOS
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
(408) 354-6801
FAX: (408) 354-8431
Honorable Richard C. Turrone, Presiding Judge
Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
CIVIC CENTER
110 E. MAIN STREET
P.O. Box 949
Los GATos, CA 95031
RE: FOLLOW UP TO RESPONSES TO THE 1999-2000 CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL
REPORT - AN INQUIRY INTO THE ENFORCEMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMITS IN THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Dear Judge Turrone:
Please accept the following as the response of the Town of Los Gatos to the above Grand Jury
Report and follow up. This response was approved by the Town Council during its regular meeting
held on October 1, 2001.
1. Since the original Grand Jury inquiry, the software vendor for the Police Department's
Records Management and Crime Analysis system has released revised or upgraded versions
to the software and has provided additional training to the Police Department staff. We are
pleased to report that we now have the capability to make inquiries of specific types of calls
for service rather than only being able to obtain address specific histories. This capability
now meets the recommendations of the Grand Jury.
2. With respect to developing procedures to improve the transferring of data from the police to
the Community Development Department, the Town has assigned a full time limited duty
police officer to the Community Development Department to serve as a Code Enforcement
Officer. This individual reports directly to the Director of Community Development and is
responsible for following up on complaints and self initiating code compliance
investigations. Information/complaints received by the Police Department regarding
potential Town Code violations is transferred directly to the Community Development
Department for immediate follow-up.
3. Develop a written citizen complaint procedure for Town Code violations. This task has been
completed as requested. See attachment 1.
We trust that this response satisfies the requirements of the Penal Code as well as the
recommendations of the Grand Jury.
Sincerely,
JOE PIRZYNSKI
Mayor
c: Richard Ruth, Foreperson
2000-2001 Civil Gand Jury
INCORPORATED AUGUST 10, 1887
GRAND JURY
SANTA
Los Gatos Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Members of the Town Council:
RECEIV hD
July 25, 2001
TOWN MANAGER
The 2000-2001 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its
Final Report, Evaluation of Responses to the 1999-2000 Civil Grand Jury Final
Report, for your information and response.
California Penal Code Section 933 (c) requires that a governing body of the
particular public agency or department which has been the subject of a Grand Jury final
report shall respond within 90 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the
findings and/or recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing
body. California Penal Code, Section 933.05 contains guidelines for responses to Grand
Jury findings and recommendations and is attached to this letter.
Your comments are due in the office of the Honorable Richard C. Turrone,
Presiding Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court, 191 North First Street, San Jose,
CA 95113, on or before October 25, 2001.
Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency
and the Office of the County Clerk.
Sincerely,
Richard Ruth
Foreperson
2000-2001 Civil Grand Jury
SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSS, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 299-3608 • FAX 298-0582
California Penal Code § 933.05, in relevant part:
933.05.
(a) For purposes of subdivision (c) of § 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding
person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the
response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include
an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (c) of § 933, as to each grand jufy recommendation, the
responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the
implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in
the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope
and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be
prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department
being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency
when applicable. This timeframc shall not exceed six months from the date of
publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefor...
2000-2001 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY "
EVALUATION OF RESPONSES TO THE 01 JUL 24 A:i 9: 43
1999-2000 CIVIL GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The 2000-2001 Santa Clara County Civil
Grand Jury reviewed the reports of the
1999-2000 Grand Jury and the official
written responses to the reports submit-
ted by the affected public officials or
entities. The 2000-2001 Grand Jury
prepared a compendium of the responses
to reports on Investigations, Reviews,
and Inquiries. The compendium evalu-
ates adequacy of the responses according
to the standards set forth in California
Penal Code, Section 933.05, governing
the manner in which affected public of-
ficials must respond to a Grand Jury Fi-
nal Report.
Penal Code, Section 933.05 (b) states in
relevant part that as to each Grand Jury
recommendation:
1. The recommendation has been im-
plemented, with a summary regarding
the implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet
been implemented, but will be imple-
mented in the future, with a timeframe
for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further
analysis, with an explanation and the
scope and parameters of an analysis or
study, and a timeframe for the matter to
be prepared for discussion by the officer
or head of the agency or department be-
ing investigated or reviewed, including
the governing body of the public agency
when applicable. This timeframe shall
not exceed six months from the date of
1
r-
publication of the Grand JiiryFinal Re-
port.
4. The recommendation will not be im-
plemented because it is not warranted or
is not reasonable, with an explanation
therefore.
FINDINGS
In Appendix A is a chart that details the
Grand Jury's evaluative review of the
responses to recommendations made in
Grand Jury Reports on Investigations,
Reviews, and Inquiries. In summary, of
the 52 recommendations made, 39 were
agreed to, two were said to require fur-
ther analysis, four were not responded
to, and seven elicited disagreement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Consistent with Penal Code, Section
933.05, additional responses are required
as follows:
1. The Response to the "Investigation
into Agency Compliance with a Court
Order Concerning Educational Needs of
Students in Court School," submitted on
behalf of the Santa Clara County Office
of Education and the Santa Clara County
Board of Education, was incomplete.
The County Office of Education and the
County Board of Education should pro-
vide a supplemental response that details
how they will implement Recommenda-
tion #2 requiring that responsible parties
will be informed of performance evalua-
tion consequences for delays in meeting
strategies. The response previously
v
submitted is vague and does not directly
reflect the Recommendation made.
2. The Response to "Investigation of
the Oversight Systems for Reviewing
Use -of -Force Cases in the San Jose Po-
lice Department," submitted by the San
Jose City Council, does not respond to
Recommendations #9-12. Responses to
these four Recommendations need to be
provided. Additionally, the City's re-
sponse to Recommendation #5, regard-
ing installation of video cameras in pa-
trol vehicles, was inadequate. The re-
sponse indicated that further analysis
needed to be performed and that the De-
partment was in the process of looking
for grant opportunities to fund a pilot
program. The response did not contain
an explanation of the scope, parameters
and timeline of the additional study as
required by the Penal Code. A response
conforming to the Penal Code require-
ments should be submitted by the City
Council.
3. The Response to "Review of the
Santa Clara County Children's Shelter,"
submitted by the Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors, indicates that
Recommendation #3, regarding devel-
opment of an efficient Management In-
formation System database to track pro-
gress and trends of children at the Shel-
2
ter, is agreed to, but has not been imple-
mented. The Penal Code requirement
that a timeline for implementation be set
was not met. An appropriate response
conforming to the Penal Code require-
ments should be submitted by the Board
of Supervisors.
4. The Response to the "Inquiry into
Alleged Violations of the City of San
Jose Code of Ethics," submitted by the
San Jose City Council, indicates that the
Administration will develop a plan and
program for implementation to enhance
and improve existing orientation pro-
grams within six months. The refer-
enced plan and program should be sub-
mitted by the City Council to the Grand
Jury.
5. Following up on its Response to "In-
quiry into the Enforcement of Condi-
tional Use Permits in the Town of Los
Gatos," the Los Gatos Town Council
should submit the following to the Grand
Jury: (1) the results of the study into up-
grading the Police Department's com-
puter system and record -keeping proc-
ess; (2) the results of the evaluation of
procedures for transferring data from
police records to the Community Devel-
opment Department; and (3) the newly
developed written citizen complaint
procedure.
APPENDIX A
Evaluation of Responses to the 1999-2000 Civil Grand Jury Final Report
REPORT
# OF
RECOM-
MENDA-
TIONS
RESPONSE
REQUIRED FROM
RESPONSE (1999-
2000)
RESPONSE AGREE -
DISAGREED W/ RECOM-
RESPONSE
ISSUES
DUE
RE
CEIVED
MENDATIONS
INVESTIGATIONS
Compliance w/ Order
Educational Needs
Students in Court
Schools
16
Co. Bd. Of Edu.
Co. Bd. Of Sups.
SCC Off. Of. Edu.
Probation Dept.
Mental Health
Dept.
Social Service Ag.
10/5
10/5
10/5
10/5
9/25
9/25
Agreed to All
Response to #2
vague
SC Valley Water Dist.
Equal Opp. / Non-
Discrim Program
4
SCVWD Bd. Of
Dir.10/5
9/28
Agreed to All
Pages out of
Sync
Use -of -Force —
SJPD
18
SJ City Council
SJ Police Chief
(Independent Po-
lice Auditor)
Co. Bd. Of Sups.
Medical Exam-
iner/Coroner
10/5
10/5
10/5
10/5
10/5
9/25
9/25
9/25
10/5
10/5
Implemented #1, 2, 7, 13
Further Analysis #5
Disagree #3, 4, 6, 8, 14, 15
Agree #16
Partially Agree #17
Requires Further Analysis
City did not
respond to #9,
10, 11, 12
REVIEWS
SCC Audited
Financial Reports
2 (Monte
Sereno)
1 (all other
jurisdic-
lions)
Monte Sereno City
Council
*
10/5
10/5
10/5
10/5
11/28
8/23
(Cup.)
8/28
(L.A.H.)
10/2
(SC)
10/2
(S'vale)
Qualified Agreement w/ #1
Agreed to #2
Monte Sereno
states it did not
receive notice
of the Grand
Jury Report.
SCC Children's
Shelter
3
Co. Bd. Of Sups.
Dir. Of Social
Serv.
Dir. Of SCV
Health & Hospital
Sys.
10/5
10/5
10/5
10/5
1. Agreed & implemented
1. Agreed &partially im
plemented
2. Agreed, but not irnple-
mented
#3 no timeline
given to indi-
cate compli-
ance w/ rec-
ommendation
3
APPENDIX A (continued)
REPORT
# OF
RECOM-
MENDA-
TIONS
RESPONSE
REQUIRED FROM
RESPONSE (1999-
2000)
RESPONSE AGREE-
DISAGREED W/ RECOM-
MENDATIONS
RESPONSE
ISSUES
DUE
RE-
CEIVED
INQUIRIES
Morgan Hill Comm.
Development Dept.
1
Morgan Hill City
Council
10/5
10/2
Partially Agreed
Violation of SJ Code
of Ethics
1
SJ City Council
10/5
9/25
Agreed
Plan &
Program for
implementa-
tion promised
by March
Downtown SJ City
Hall Relocation Cost
1
SJ City Council
10/5
9/25
Disagreed
Appeal
Pending
Los Gatos
Conditional Use Per-
mit
5
Los Gatos Town
Council
10/5
11/28
Agreed to All
The 6 mo.
Study and
evaluations
should be
reported on.
Palo Alto —
Prop. 218
1
Palo Alto City
Council
10/5
11/28
Agreed
Operation of Family
Support Division
None
No One
*
9/6
(D.A.)
10/5
(Co. Bd.
Of Sups)
Agreed
Berryessa Un. Sch.
Dist. Political Reform
Act Violations
None
No One
N/A
N/A
N/A
Milpitas Un. Sch.
Dist. Repair Practices
None
No One
N/A
N/A
4
PASSED and ADOPTED by the Santa
Clara County Civil Grand Jury this 14th
day of June, 2001.
Richard Ruth
Foreperson
Emily J. gate
Foreperson Pro Tem
Mary (
Secreta
NA-ar
ey) Benson Jl
5
Town Council Minutes
Redevelopment Agency
GARDEN HILL DRIVE 220/RESIDENTIAL HOME/LOT SUBDIVISION (18.15)
Mayor Pirzynski announced that this was the time and place so noted for public hearing to consider an
appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying a two lot subdivision and the construction of a new
single family residence on property zoned R-1:8. No significant environmental impacts have been identified
as a result of this project and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. Subdivision Application M-01-7.
Architecture and Site Application S-01-46. Negative Declaration ND-01-0008. Property Location: 220
Garden Hill Drive. Property Owner: Terry Schillinger. Applicant/Appellant: Leslie A. G. Dill.
The following people from the audience addressed this issue:
Leslie Dill, 110 N. Santa Cruz Ave., architect for the project, asked for the opportunity to redesign the
project to meet the concerns of the neighbors and the Town. She asked to be remanded back to the
Planning Commission to design a project that would be compatible with the neighborhood. The second
story and lack of a garage were noted as main concerns of the neighborhood. She felt sure that she
could design an adequate and smaller home for this lot which would meet the Town's moderate cost
housing needs.
Carmen Smith, 157 Holly Hill Way, opposes this proposal.
Renee Bankston, 231 Nob Hill Way, opposed to this proposal, asked that the proposed site be left as
open space.
Weldan Bankston, 231 Nob Hill Way, opposed to building on this lot explaining the lack of space for
a home and the safety issues involved with living under a large electrical tower.
Ray Davis, resident, noted that there was no soil report for building on this sloping lot and that building
under a power line should be prohibited without requesting a radiation report.
Jeff Atwood, 206 Garden Hill Drive, asked for denial of application and preservation of character and
consistency of the existing neighborhood..
Randall Pufahl, 235 Arroyo Grande Way, spoke of the small lot and huge tower. He also noted the
petition of 22 neighbors who oppose this project.
Arnold Monaco, 239 Arroyo Grande Way, opposed the project and asked Council to uphold the
Planning Commission's decision.
Gil Decker, 45 Glen Ridge, noted that three of the Council Members had served as Planning
Commissions and are qualified to understand the land use issues that are discussed by the Commission
and to make a competent and educated decision.
No one else from the audience addressed this issue.
Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mr. Glickman, to close the public hearing. Carried
unanimously.
Motion by Mr. Pirzynski, seconded by Mr. Attaway, to uphold the Planning Commission's decision
and deny the appeal. Carried by 3 ayes. Mr. Blanton and Mr. Glickman voted no, asking that the
applicant be remanded to the Planning Commission for redesign, giving the applicant the right and
opportunity to try to design a home that will fit and work compatibly on the lot.
GRAND JURY REPORT/ENFORCEMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (07.28)
Ray Davis, resident, spoke of enforcing the town's conditional use permits, and specified lack of
compliance at Peppertree School.
Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mr. Attaway, that Council approve follow up to responses to the
1999-2000 Civil Grand Jury final report - an inquiry into the enforcement of conditional use permits
in the Town of Los Gatos. Carried unanimously.
6
October 1, 2001
Los Gatos, California
TC:D 13:MM I00101