Subcommittee Policy on Commission Review of Development Proposals is Completely Inadequate

Councilmember Stephen Souza even cited lack of commission review as one of the reasons he was reluctant to support the Wildhorse Ranch proposal at the time it came to a vote in late July.  The developers and representatives for the development also expressed frustration at the existing policy.  This was particularly notable at the Finance and Budget Commission meeting the day before council would be asked to approve the development agreement along with the fiscal analysis.

Councilmember Souza along with Mayor Asmundson had a chance to remedy many of these complaints, but produce a policy that fails to offer any clarified council position as to when and under what circumstances commissions should weigh in on development projects.

In their background and analysis Councilmember Souza and Mayor Asmundson write:

“The boards and commissions provide recommendations and information to the City Council. Increasingly, commissions are involved in reviewing proposed development projects prior to those projects reaching the Planning Commission and/or the City Council levels. Many times, this involvement is both prudent and necessary, as a commission’s input in its area of expertise can provide invaluable information and suggestions about certain aspects of a project.”

On the other hand:

“Commission review of proposed development projects becomes more problematic, however, when one or more commissions take positions on overall development projects, or start to advocate for/oppose a particular project to the general public. This may pit one commission against another or against the Council and can be confusing to the public.”

They then suggest that “rather than leave it to the whims of a commission or developer” they have developed guidelines to be put into place for commission review of major development projects.

These five guidelines read as follow:

1. In general, when the City receives a development proposal, staff will determine if the proposal is consistent with policies set forth by the City Council and include that determination in its analysis to the decision-making body. If there are inconsistencies or if a proposal has outstanding characteristics in a certain area, staff will determine which commissions need to review the proposal and provide information to commissions on specific issues of concern.
2. The Planning Commission, Historic Resources Management Commission and Social Services Commission will review development proposals as outlined in the Zoning and Affordable Housing Ordinances (as they currently do).
3. Recommendations on policy matters, such as new ordinances, will generally be made by the Commission with the most explicit or direct policy purview, even if the policy affects private development.
4. Rather than make an endorsement for, or state opposition of a development proposal in its entirety, a commission should provide the pros and/or cons of a project relative to their specific area of expertise. (This does not apply to commissions that may have final authority on a proposal, such as the Planning Commission or Historic Resources Management Commission.)
5. Where appropriate and feasible, the Council encourages commissions to hold joint meetings with other commissions to receive presentations for development proposals.

While these guidelines are alright as they stand, they fail to address the two key criticisms that arose during the Measure P campaign.

First, there is no provision in there as to timeline.  The Planning Commission did not receive the project proposal until literally weeks before the council would take up the main issue.  Moreover, the Commission had not even received the EIR until literally a day or two before their meeting and yet they were asked to approve the EIR. 

Moreover, the Budget and Finance Commission was not given adequate time to review the project for the fiscal impact to the city. 

Any proposal establishing guidelines needed clear stipulations as to when a commission should receive the project in relation to other events.  This is most crucial in projects that are Measure J projects and thus have a defined and mandatory timeline for approval by the council itself.

Second, while the guideline includes an automatic review by the Planning Commission, Historic Resources Management Commission and Social Services Commission as already exists, there would seem to be several other commissions whose purview could be defined. 

There appears to be no reason whatsoever why the Budget and Finance Commission should not review the fiscal impact of every project before the city. 

There appear to be good reasons why the Senior Citizens commission ought to look at projects that impact the senior community.  There appears to be good reason for the Open Space Commission to look at projects that encroach on existing open space. 

Moreover, more specialized commissions such as the Bicycle Commission may weigh in on projects, most recently Willowbank and Chiles Ranch which have policy questions that impact bicycling.  The tree commission would probably review proposals that remove trees, Willowbank would be another example there.

The point is that guideline No.4 is correct, the “commission should provide the pros and/or cons of a project relative to their specific area of expertise,” however, the guidelines could reasonably anticipate situations that would necessitate such review and codify them into the guidelines, with some flexibility. 

Instead, it leaves this question solely up to the discretion of city staff.  The problem with that is that city staff has always had that discretion, so what does this new policy give us as to clarifying the role of commissions.

In short, this policy resolves with any satisfaction neither of the two most controversial aspects that brought forward the review.  It does not clarify a timeline for when review should occur nor does it specify conditions under which a commission would review the project.  From that perspective this policy guideline is relatively useless in helping address controversies that arose during the Measure P campaign. 

It is far from clear at all what issues this guideline was supposed to address.  It appears to me that it simply states current practices rather than clarifying and guiding the process.

—David M. Greenwald reporting