ITYOF AGENDA ITEM ANDERSON I April 19 2011, City Council To: Through: From: Date: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Dana Shigley, City Manager Telephone 378-6646 Juanita Barnett, City Clerk Telephone 378-6646 April 19, 2011 I SUBJECT City Council Workshop - Interview Planning Commission Candidates I RECOMMENDATION Interview Planning Commission applicants. IFISCAL IMPACT None. I BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Anderson Municipal Code §2.48.025 and §2.48.020 reads, in part: "Each councilmember, upon first entering office or beginning a new term of office, shall be eligible to nominate an individual to be a planning commissioner ... " ITEM W.S.l PAGEl 4/19/2011
Transcript
ITYOF AGENDA ITEMANDERSON IApril 19 2011, City Council Meetin~
To:
Through:
From:
Date:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Dana Shigley, City Manager Telephone 378-6646
Juanita Barnett, City Clerk Telephone 378-6646
April 19, 2011
ISUBJECT
City Council Workshop - Interview Planning Commission Candidates
I RECOMMENDATION
Interview Planning Commission applicants.
IFISCAL IMPACT
None.
I BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Anderson Municipal Code §2.48.025 and §2.48.020 reads, in part:
"Each councilmember, upon first entering office or beginning a new term of office, shall be eligible to nominate an individual to be a planning commissioner ..."
ITEM W.S.l PAGEl 4/19/2011
I
II Each member [of the Planning Commission] shall serve a term of office which is concurrent with the term, at the time ofappointment, of the councilmember who was initially eligible to nominate him or her."
In accordance with Anderson Municipal Code §2.48.020 and §2.48.025, on March 1, 2011, the City Council set a time on February 1, 2011, to interview candidates to serve on the Planning Commission prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting. However, at that time there was only one applicant to fill two vacancies. At that time, the Council directed staff to review the residency requirement for Planning Commissioners and bring a recommendation back to Council. On March 1, 2011, the Council introduced Ordinance No. 769 amending the Anderson Municipal Code to allow one seat on the Planning Commission to be "filled by owners, officers, or employees of a business located in the City, provided that such member has been an owner, officer, or employee of such business for at least one (1) year immediately prior to his or her appointment" and on March 15, 2011 the Council conducted the second reading of the Ordinance which became effective on April 15, 2011.
There is currently one vacancy on the Planning Commission. At its meeting of March 1, 2011, the Council directed staff to advertise for the remaining vacant seat on the Council. Applications were accepted through April 15, 2011, and reviewed by staff.
The City Clerk's office received six applications for filling this vacancy on the Planning Commission. Four of the applicants either live, are employed, or own a business within the city limits. They are: Ellen Cote, Janaye Hinsley, Dan LaBorie, and Stan Neutze. In addition, Larry Mower owns rental property within the City and Cory Cox has been an active volunteer of the Anderson Fire Protection District for the past two years. Copies of the applications are attached as "Attachment 1".
After the interviews, at the Council meeting of May 3, 2011, Councilmember John Day will have the opportunity to nominate a person from among those interviewed on April 19th to serve on the Planning Commission. Upon approval of the City Council, the nominee of Councilmember Day will have a term on the Planning Commission which runs concurrently with Councilmember Day's.
RECOMMENDED INTERVIEW PROCESS
Staff recommends that the interviews be conducted via a somewhat informal, assessment type process.
Staff would like to emphasize that there are not necessarily "right" or "wrong" answers to the types of broad discussion topics that are proposed. Rather, the discussion is designed to reveal how the candidate evaluates and processes information, how individual decisions are reached and articulated, and how the candidate might work in a group decision-making environment. Staff believes that this process should reveal just how well qualified the applicant is, and how they would contribute as a productive, value-added member if appointed to the Anderson Planning Commission.
The City Manager strongly recommends that Council not ask questions about any pending planning applications and that the applicant not express opinions on pending projects.
ITEM W.S. 1 PAGE 2 4/19/2011
I
At the outset, it is recommended that the candidates each be given five minutes to introduce himself or herself and state their interest and qualifications in serving on the Planning Commission. Subsequently, the Council may ask the candidates to respond to one or both of the hypothetical scenarios attached as "Attachment 2." As the Council evaluates the candidate's responses, suggested areas of consideration include:
1. The importance of a thorough reading of staff reports, and of active listening skills in understanding different viewpoints on planning matters.
2. The need to make discretionary judgments while following state laws and local requirements which individual commissioners may not agree with.
3. The importance of ethical, fair, impartial, and fact-based decision-making which relies on strong, sustainable findings.
4. The articulation of a long-term vision for Anderson's built environment. 5. The costs and benefits of actively engaging in redevelopment activities. 6. The recognition that some Planning Commission decisions may be appealed by
either the applicants or project opponents to the City Council, and that the City Council may reach a different decision than that reached by the Planning Commission.
7. The importance of making oneself an informed Commissioner by committing to attending periodic training, seminars, and workshops.
8. The relative importance of environmental versus economic development concerns.
Signature _---"~=--=:.....::,.~--,--~a.p-c--!-'--',L~J)---\..o;t;~-- Date ---iJ..-;..c:o.---fr~D=------!:l~Q-!..(I-/_
t-
r..
2:-'
~..
1983 to 1985 Sabbatical
1981 to 1983 Printing/Coordinator: Mountain View/Los Altos Union High School District: Mountain View,CA.
Duties include: Receiving orders Processing same (recording, prlclng, assigning to appropriate work area) Support services such as; Necessary artwork, stripping when complex, bindery work, presswork when the workload warrants it Maintaining equipment, purchasing materials and supplies, Maintaining inventory levels, Interfacing with Administrators, Teachers and coordinators, processing necessary paperwork, Initiating systems & records, Supervising and training personnel. Shop includes 1 typesetter, 2 pressmen, occasional student help in bindery.
Equipment includes: AM1250LW, AM2650, AM1870 w/second head (presses) Bruning 2300 (electrostatic) platemaker AM1485 plate burner Ordina Collator/stitcher w/folder & stitcher Bostitch saddle stitcher, Shrink wrap machine, O&M table top folder, AM Headline, IBM Electronic Selectric Composer, IBM Electric Stand alone Composer, Numbering machine, Vertical Process Camera, PMT equipment and layout equipment. I
1980 to 1981 Co-publisher: Hayfork Community News Hayfork, CA. 96041
Duties include: Ad Sales, Ad development, Article writing, (includes research) Public relations, Typesetting copy, Maintaining and procuring supplies, Interfacing with printers, Maintaining records, Receiving money and paying bills.
1974 to 1980: Proprietor: Commercial Job Shop: Eastside Print Shop/Sunrise Press 370 Laurelwood Road, Santa Clara, CA. 95054.
Duties include:_ . ,Consultation, Design Development, Art to camera ready layout, Photo, (including special effects) Masking, Platemaking, Offset Printing, Bindery Services, Delivery, Estimating, Billing, Collecting, Maintaining Records Maintaining Equipment.
1971 to 1974 Short Term Commitments: Supervisor 9 man shop Rosicrucian Order San Jose, CA. Press Operator Fairchild Mountain View Coordinator Delwoods San Jose, CA. All inclusive A&E Print Cupertino, CA. Fill in Manager Quantum Science Palo Alto,CA.
1965 to 1971 / 1965 to 1967 School Bus Driver/ 79 passenger Crown 1967 to 1971; Print Shop Manager: East Side Union High School District 12660 North Capital Avenue, San Jose, CA. 95127
Duties include: Receiving, processing and scheduling requests, Operating AM26S0 offset press, AM80S electrostatic platemaker, Norfin, 100 set collator, Automatic staplers, . Cutter, related equipment. Train and supervise student personnel, Order and maintain inventory and supplies, Some layout, Maintain equipment, Maintain records.
1963 Move from Massachusetts to California
.",. 1954 to 1963: Proprietor: Day Care Center: Little Deers Day Nursery: 128 Sargent Street, Cherry Valley, MA.
:~.
3
I served as secretary to the AARP chapter 210, then forming in Los Banos, California. The following year, I served as President for that chapter AARP. I served as representative of that chapter on the Board of The Area Agency of Aging.
In 1984 I established and ran a small gift store at the intersection of hwys.. 152 and 33. I closed it in 1989 due to my husband's health. His condition had deteriorated to near incapacity.
I spent 1 % years in Hailey, Idaho soon thereafter, when my husband suffered a heart attack while we were visiting my son and his family who were living there.
We returned to California in December of 1991 and settled in Anderson. I chose to be close to my son who had also returned to California. I appreciated his proximity because he could help me in times of need to help with his father. His father, at that time was no longer able to care for himself.
My husband; his father passed on July 15,1993.
I joined a Toastmasters club to learn public speaking. I served as secretary for that club for 1 year.
I undertook to teach AARP 55 alive classes. I completed all requirements and conducted the requisite three classes under the supervision of Harry McGuire. One of those classes was here in Anderson.
I applied to serve as a tutor under the RSVP (Retired Senior Volunteer Program) in 2001.. I tutored thru the transfer of the program to Shasta College and two additional years with the college which was housed in the "downtown mall at the time. I served on the advisory board of RSVP from 2003 thru 2006.
---
"'" I VI nllUt::nvVI~
FEB 22 2011
CITY MANAGER
Return completed application to: City ofAnderson COMMISSION AND City Clerk's Office
1887 Howard StreetCOMMITTEE APPLICATION Anderson, CA 96007
Phone: 378-6646 Fax: 378-6648
This is a public document under California Government Code §§ 6250-6270 (The Public Records Act)
(Please Print)
Personal Information
Name CO{~ CoX Home Address \9/J:1.0 t\\\\ '5-\re.e-t AQ6e£'Jo\l! LA C\GOO7
Home Telephone No. (p 30) :3 b5 -'BCf ~ 3 Business Telephone No.
An applicant has requested approval of a tentative subdivision map for a singlefamily residential development that is consistent with the R-l zoning designation for the property. The proposed design of the 200-lot subdivision provides for maximizing the number of lots (almost all of which are 6,000 square foot lots), with long, straight streets. All things being equal, the proposal does not appear to be in conflict with any City requirements and all minimum development standards can be met.
During the public hearing, an adjoining property owner makes a persuasive argument that the design of the subdivision with its long, straight streets is unimaginative and that the layout creates the potential for some 111otorists to drive at speeds that are too fast for a residential subdivision. The adjoining property owner asks that the subdivision be redesigned in a way that would change the street pattern such that the effect would be to significantly reduce the number of lots that the developer otherwise wants to develop.
Assuming the proposal meets the minimum standards for this type of development, how lnight the Planning Comlnission address the neighboring property owner's concerns in making its decision? Should subdivisions be approved that maximize the number of lots, or should d1e Planning Commission insist that subdivision design meet more than lninimum requirements?
Scenario 2
An applicant has entered into an option to purchase a property and has requested approval of a conditional use permit to operate a new agricultural equipment sales business in an M-l manufacturing zone. The applicant has extensive experience as a highly successful manager of just such a business in an adjoining county, but has never himself owned his own business before. In addition to his property acquisition and normal business start-up costs, the shell metal building he wishes to occupy is not completed, and will require several thousand dollars worth of improvements to achieve occupancy under the Uniform Building Code. Finally, the parking area around the shell building is unpaved, but it does have an existing gravel base.
The general plan requires that all parking areas be paved as a measure to reduce the amount of particulate matter in the air. In addition, the City'S general plan policies are designed to encourage orderly development and to strive for uniform site development standards. Other new businesses in the area were required to pave their parking lots. Accordingly, staff recommends that the applicant be required to pave the parking area as a condition of approval.
During the public hearing, the applicant makes a convincing argument that the business is at the limit of its borrowing capacity due to the property acquisition cost, the usual costs of starting up a new business, and the costs of completing the building. The added cost of complying with the recommended paved parking area condition would mean that the total project start-up cost would exceed the new company's pre-approved borrowing capacity. The applicant argues that if the Commission imposes the staff-recommended condition, the business will be forced to look to start-up elsewhere, and the City would miss out on a substantial sales tax revenue stream the City would otherwise receive. The applicant is certain the business will be successful if the recommended condition is deleted by the Commission.
Assuming the proposal othelwise meets the lninimum standards for the type of development, how should the Planning Commission respond? Should lower development standards (paving of parking areas) be weighed against potential benefits (increased sales tax revenues)?
