Editorial
Planning staff offers a word to the wise
David Pitzen of Pacific Diversified Company, says the town provided conflicting information when he sought to replace four cottages near a creek with four large houses. If he was expecting staff to tell him in clear, unambiguous language that the project would be approved or denied, he was in the wrong town.
Planning department staff in Los Gatos believes they should explain the rules, clarify the General Plan and suggest options. That's because the philosophy in Los Gatos is that staff should not circumvent the public process, particularly with infill projects, such as this one on Monroe Court.
But armed with the information offered, a developer should be able to have a fair idea of what he's up against. In fact, both the town and the water district warned the applicant that he would have a problem if he put the houses as close to the creek as he was proposing. He ignored the red flag.
It's likely there will be additional problems as well if the developer begins the planning process anew. That is the nature of infill projects.
Los Gatos gets more than its share of infill proposals because there's very little land left for development. By their nature, infill projects come with built-in obstacles.
Because a neighborhood--whether commercial or residential--already exists, there are sure to be concerns ranging from traffic to neighborhood compatibility.
Whenever someone wants to demolish four cottages and replace them with 4,000-square-foot homes, there are going to be issues, especially when a creek is involved.
Increasingly in the past few years, neighborhood compatibility has become a topic of concern--even a campaign issue.
While some neighbors are happy to see big new houses come into their neighborhood and inflate local real estate, others fear oversized homes will destroy local character. What's more, planners and other town officials can't ignore the fact that whenever a modest home or cottage is replaced with a big house, the town's affordable housing inventory is diminished.
In the case of the property on Monroe, there seems to be agreement that the cottages have become an eyesore and that an improvement would not be unwelcome.
The developer, however, cannot read too much into such comments. By denying the appeal without prejudice, the council gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt. The ruling means he can begin the process as soon as he wants rather than waiting a full year which would have been the case if his appeal had simply been denied.
This time around, he needs to go in with his eyes open. Staff isn't going to say yes or no; such decisions can't be made until the public has had an opportunity to comment. But when staff or local agencies, such as the water district, sound a note of caution, it should be taken as a word to the wise.
|
Los Gatos, California Since 1881
