I had the misfortune [last week] to attend a meeting of the Saratoga Planning Commission. I must say, if the national elections this month didn't destroy one's faith in government, attending a planning commission meeting will certainly do the job!

In short: I was appalled by the entire process of the planning commission. While I am sure the commissioners feel that they are dedicated and dutiful, it appears to this observer that the members of the committee were, frankly, sadly uninformed and wholly unequipped to do their jobs.

I sat in utter amazement for close to four hours as the chairman of the committee, Mohammed Garakani, had to repeatedly ask what the function of the planning commission was, what its jurisdiction was, what issues it was empowered to rule on and other basic questions regarding the function of the planning commission. I would have thought that the commissioners would know beforehand what they were there to do, and what they were allowed to do and not do. I would also have expected them to have reviewed the applications they were to consider and to have paid attention on the site visits they made. It was abundantly clear that they did none of these things.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of the meeting was watching the capricious and seemingly random way in which the commission wields its power.

The first application considered was from a man who wanted to replace his existing two-story house with a new two-story house on Seagull Way. He had the enthusiastic support of his neighbors, and had diligently worked with the city to conform to all applicable codes and regulations. The neighborhood was, by all reports, a mix of one- and two-story homes (even though the commissioners couldn't remember that fact from their site visit only the previous day), but the commissioners agreed that approving this two-story home would somehow change the character of the neighborhood, though they provided no basis for this conclusion.

The commission denied his request uttering comments such as "I prefer Craftsman style to Mediterranean style" and "I don't particularly like that color of roofing tile." When confronted, the commissioners denied voicing "opinions" and claimed to be dealing only with "code issues" when this was clearly not the case. The chairman of the commission, Mr. Garakani, finally had to ask the community development director for some proper wording so that they could deny the application based on "code issues"—none of which existed—rather than their opinions, which were clearly the overriding factors.

Following this application, the commission took up the Dorcich Orchard project. Seeming to forget all their concerns about changing the character of an existing neighborhood, and ignoring the objections of neighbors—just as they had ignored the support of neighbors in the previous case—the commissioners approved placing four two-story houses on the Dorcich Orchard property, in a neighborhood of predominantly one-story houses, and recommended placing two other one-and-a-half story houses on the property.

The commissioners ignored the objections of neighbors, made no issues out of the "bulk and mass" of the proposed houses, and seemed to completely ignore how the new housing subdivision on the property would affect the existing neighborhood. All of the same issues that the commissioners claimed to have concerns over in the first project were present in the Dorcich project, yet they appeared to pay no attention to them this time. They ignored neighbors' objections. They ignored issues of changing the character of a neighborhood. They ignored all input from those who spoke, just as they had on the Seagull Way proposal.

I have read, and re-read, both the Commission Profile and Mission Statement as published, but nowhere in either of those statements can I find any justification for what the planning commission did on these two projects. I would hope that the city council would review both the conduct and the makeup of the planning commission.

The majority of the current members—at least those present on Nov. 9—seem ill-suited for the job and unwilling or unable to do the work which they are meant to do. They do seem willing to be interior and exterior designers, architectural and landscape critics, and seem more than willing to make arbitrary decisions based on nothing more than opinions and conjecture rather than facts.

While this condemnation of the city planning commission may sound harsh, believe me, I have toned it down considerably. With the exception of the most egregious violator, the chairman Mr. Garakani, I have not referred to any of the other commissioners by name. Again, I believe that the commissioners may very well believe that they are fulfilling the mission and purpose of the planning commission in good faith.

I would encourage all of them to read the Commission Profile and Mission Statement again and re-evaluate their positions. As I said, the Saratoga City Planning Commission seems to act capriciously and without regard to facts or the input of the surrounding community. They appeared—at least during this session—to rely solely on their own tastes and opinions and have little, if any, use for facts. I sincerely hope that the city council will investigate this commission and its members to see if they are capable of fulfilling their intended purpose.

David G. Simmons

McFarland Avenue

The website for the Los Gatos­Saratoga chapter of Soroptimist International was incorrect in the Nov. 10 cover story about Pfc. Jesse Brucker. For more information on the local Sopoptimists, visit www.soroptimistspr.org, click on District II, and select Los Gatos­Saratoga. Interested parties can also call president Heather Durham at the Durham Group at 408.971.7558.