In Defense of Small-Town Character

By Sandy Decker

The fragile historical framework of Los Gatos is under attack. The small-town character, which brings so many people here to live, is under pressure to change. The booming economy has created wealthy people who want to move to the most desirable community in Silicon Valley and build their "castle on the hill." People come to Los Gatos and purchase homes from the limited supply of small-scale houses or on the hillsides. Some assume that there are few or no limitations to tear-downs, size of rebuild, design parameters, etc. In fact there are significant limitations established by town ordinance.

Outside pressures raise property values and serve as incentive to take advantage of the current market and maximize returns. Often, new owners start through the permit process and only then realize the limitations; some feel put upon and vilify the community process. The "point men" in the process are the planning staff of the town. They are bound by town ordinances and building codes to review permit requests based on these ordinances. In many cases the applicants must submit the permit requests to the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission, like the planning staff, is charged with looking at land use as it relates to town ordinances. These include the General Plan, specific plans, zoning ordinances and established design guidelines. The General Plan is a document created by and for the community, and it is the expression of what the citizens want the town to be. The Planning Commission, through a public hearing process, reviews and then acts on applications in conformance with these town planning documents.

If denied, the applicant has the right to appeal to the Town Council. The Planning Commission also plays a role, again in a public open process, in studying and recommending changes in these documents to the council which has the sole authority to put any changes into effect.

State law recognizes the importance of community in land use decisions and empowers communities to determine their own destiny. Land use law derives from police powers, and the courts have consistently upheld the rights of communities to protect themselves from unwanted development.

As a commissioner for almost six years and chairwoman for two of those years, I can say that all of the commissioners work very hard to be fully prepared to review the applications that come before them. We know the facts and figures; we view the property; we research the ordinances, codes and regulations; and we read the staff reports and recommendations very carefully. We also listen carefully to the testimony given at the public hearings. In carrying out all of these duties, we strive to be fair to the applicant and the community.

However, when personal integrity is questioned or when false allegations are made or erroneous data is circulated purporting to be facts, I believe it is proper to set the record straight.

Dennis Omanoff, an applicant with a project pending before the Planning Commission, is circulating a petition that makes allegations about my home renovation of three years ago. While Mr. Omanoff has every right to circulate a petition, I do not believe that he should attack me personally by making allegations that are untrue.

It appears that Mr. Omanoff is angry that the Planning Commission decided not to approve his application as submitted. According to the documents submitted to the commission, Mr. Omanoff's application was for a 10,267 square-foot house/cabana on a 1.63 acre steeply sloping hillside lot above town. Rather than outright disapproval, the commission sent it back to the Development Review Committee with guidance on changes, to address commission concerns. Apparently, Mr. Omanoff has singled me out as the "bad guy" and is attempting to defame my integrity.

In the cover letter he is circulating with his petition protesting "discretionary power" of the Planning Commission, Mr. Omanoff implies that special treatment was given to me and that I have exceeded the floor-to-area ratio (FAR) in the renovation of our house at 45 Glen Ridge. Neither statement is true.

My husband and I decided at the outset that we would not submit a permit for our renovation if it even remotely stood a chance of requiring waivers of codes, regulations, design guidelines, General Plan or if the project would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. I spent a year researching town records and Arts and Crafts-style architecture because we wanted to preserve the historical integrity and appearance of the house, including saving as much of overall structure as we possibly could. We complied with all these rules and guidelines.

By keeping the architectural style of the house just as it was when originally built, we also kept the scale and mass consistent with the neighborhood, which consists almost entirely of historical homes of similar scale. I felt a very personal sense of obligation to the public trust as a commissioner to be in total and complete compliance with the town process. And we were.

Mr. Omanoff contends that there was a "loophole" concerning my accessory living unit that allowed me to expand beyond the allowed FAR. The following are the facts:

* I am relocating an existing legal nonconforming secondary unit which is permitted by town code with the required approvals; in no way is it a loophole or a reason for increasing square footage. The secondary unit will be 574 square feet.

* I am replacing an existing derelict garage structure that has only three walls, not "adding garages."

* My plans were completely reviewed and revised by planning staff to meet all town requirements including the FAR. The allowable square footage on our site is 4,702; with the addition it will be 4,651square feet.

I find it deplorable that Mr. Omanoff could not let his petition stand on its own merits, but felt it necessary to plant false allegations.

Mr. Omanoff is scheduled to come back to the commission with a resubmittal on Feb. 23. His actions now require me--to avoid any hint of personal feelings in any decision I might make as a commissioner--to recuse myself from participating in further review of his application. I encourage all concerned citizens to attend that evening, in Council Chambers, and judge for yourself the quality of the process and present your own views of Mr. Omanoff's application.

As a 30-year resident of Los Gatos, I am saddened that this tactic is used as a way to communicate dissatisfaction with a process set in place by the citizenry and its elected and appointed representatives to preserve and protect our wonderful community.

---

Sandy Decker is a Los Gatos Planning Commissioner.

---

Police Report

Planning Commissioner Sandy Decker responds to Dennis Omanoff

Prince Charles Pipe Band performs at Celtic concert

Picture From the Past

Sports Briefs

Wildcats in running for basketball

LG girls win back-to-back soccer matches

Wildcats top pack at wrestling finals

Youth soccer tryouts set