Planning Commission Proposal

By Stephen Finn

Our present Planning Commission is dysfunctional. It should be doing planning, not architectural review.

Purpose of a Planning Commission. California's Government Code 65100 outlines the functions of the planning agency: to prepare, periodically review, and revise as necessary, the General Plan; and to review the capital improvement program and local public works projects to assure that they meet the intent of the General Plan.

We agree that this is the appropriate function of the Planning Commission.

Self-designated Architectural Review Board. The Planning Commission has incorrectly assumed the role of a self-appointed architectural review board by its detailed review of architectural features of new homes and remodels. This dysfunction of the Planning Commission was first brought to the attention of the Council in 1990 by Mayor Bill Siegel. Mayor Siegel proposed that the Council assume approval of site development review for new homes, major remodels, and conditional development permits for at least six months. His concerns were the same as ours are today - that the Planning Commission is unclear about Council policy. The situation is much worse today with half of the homes that meet town ordinances being rejected and sent back by the Planning Commission for major redesign and most of the other half having unwanted conditions imposed at the whims of planning commissioners, none of whom have any architectural qualifications. This unfair process must be fixed. If the majority of residents vote for an Architectural Review Board, we will support it; and we will appoint members with professional expertise and architectural backgrounds.

Streamline the permit approval process. We staunchly support the Los Altos Hills development ordinances, some of the most restrictive on the peninsula. These development restrictions have been designed to protect the town's rural character and country feeling - an environment that we all cherish. Last year our excellent town staff reviewed 43 applications (3.6 per month) for new homes or remodels to assure that development plans met our ordinances and policies. Even though very few residents ever request a variance and the majority of residents meet with their neighbors to address any concerns, they still encounter enormous difficulties at the planning commission.

Our solution is for the City Council, the elected governmental body that is directly accountable to you, to assume full responsibility of reviewing site development permits. All homes that have staff approval and have no neighborhood concerns should be routine approvals at a Council public hearing. All difficult lots with special considerations and necessary additional restrictions are already heard by the Council, with neighbors notified and all of their concerns heard. There is simply no reason to have an extra layer of approval by the Planning Commission.

"Whose interests are served by the proposal to do away with our Planning Commission?" asked Planning Commissioner and candidate Dot Schreiner in her recent mailer. There is no proposal to do away with the Planning Commission. However, all interests are served. The Planning Commission will be freed up to do its intended job of planning, not architectural reviews. Presently, the Town has hired an outside consultant to update the General Plan. Schreiner also implies that neighbors will lose their voice on development in their neighborhoods. This is simply not true. As they are now, neighbors will continue to be notified to attend public hearings at the Council, where they will have an opportunity to give their opinion. She also implies that the Council does not have the time because of outside commitments. The Council clearly has the time. We have cancelled several meetings this year for lack of business including our meeting on October 7. We believe that residents and council business should be top priority, not outside county agency meetings.

We will listen to you and we will work for you.