The City Council has on their special agenda for Monday morning an item entitled “Proposed Updates to Entitlement Review Processes.” The item would appear to streamline the processing to expand the list of projects that may be approved via the administrative review process.
There are four listed streamlined uses that this would apply to. First, co-location of new antennas/equipment on existing cellular towers not within 500 feet of residential districts. Second, Final Planned Developments for new commercial buildings or additions. Third, Revised Final Planned Developments for commercial or residential projects for discreet additions or changes (not wholesale changes) to residential subdivisions. And fourth, new homes or additions resulting in six or more bedrooms (continue to require specific findings). Furthermore, it would direct staff to initiate processing the necessary code amendment to eliminate the requirement for a CUP (conditional use permit) for structures over two stories in the Central Commercial (CC) zoning district.
On the other hand, given some of the recent problems with such cellular towers, it might behoove the council and city staff not to take further steps to expedite projects of this sort.
According to the staff report, “Recently, several non-controversial applications have been presented to the Planning Commission for review and action. Many of these have had little to no public comment or substantial changes or objections from the Planning Commission.”
Of note is this item.
“CUP’s for Cellular Antenna co-locations on Existing Towers. Most have little or no public comment and are approved unanimously. The February 24, 2010 meeting is a recent example. This was a one item meeting for a co-location of a new antenna on an existing cell tower and lasted a total of 25 minutes. While the meeting was short, it was necessary as a CUP is required by the zoning ordinance. Moreover, new FCC regulations require the City to make a decision on antenna co-locations within 90 days. At this hearing the Planning Commission cited several similar projects that had come before them and suggested that staff investigate alternative processing approaches. As the current telecommunication ordinance requires that antennas be located at least 500 feet from residential uses, co-locations on existing towers typically have little or no concerns from neighbors. Furthermore, the telecommunications ordinance encourages co-location as a means of minimizing the need for additional towers in the community.”
The staff report goes on to argue, “For certain projects, such as new residential subdivisions, fundamental policy changes, land use changes, and General Plan changes, public hearings are an appropriate review mechanism. However, public hearings can also entail considerable time and effort, especially in light of community expectations for detailed reports and presentation of project analyses. The default requirement for public hearings on projects may be onerous for certain types of applications that are otherwise benign in nature and command little to no public or commission comment. Moreover, the public hearing requirement can have negative impacts on economic development efforts.”
This analysis is particularly concerning in light of what happened last fall with regards to NewPath. Would the city have deemed that project to be non-controversial? Certainly few members of the public would have come forward on that until they saw what was happening in their neighborhoods.
Furthermore, the idea that “the public hearing requirement can have negative impacts on economic development efforts” would seem to go against the Davis way of doing business. The public wants input.
I agree in concept with the idea of streamlining processes and certainly of saving staff time. But how much can we trust these processes on their own.
The staff report further argues, “For example, discussions are currently underway with several potential businesses in the biotech and engineering fields that are considering Davis as a possible location for new office/R&D development. A key concern of these businesses is the ability to secure land and entitlements in an expeditious and cost effective manner. The sites being evaluated by these firms would all require Planning Commission public hearing for Final PD and Design Review. In most cases this procedural step places Davis at a competitive disadvantage to other communities which do not require public hearing for approval of such facilities.”
On the other hand, if the city were to waive this requirement, there might be times when the public revolts against a given proposal because staff priorities and view of non-controversial is not in sync with community standards.
The NewPath project again might not exactly be excluded under the rules set forth here, but you never know. It quickly became obvious that the city needed to have public input in that process which apparently was not required. Moreover, the city manager acknowledged that this was not the Davis way of doing things.
The bottom line here is that what may seem a good idea from an efficiency standpoint might become a recipe for additional trouble down the line if the staff administratively approves what might be a controversial project.
The staff report concludes, “Staff believes that greater efficiencies can be achieved in our development review processes. With proper safeguards it can be accomplished without compromising community input or effective review.”
The same kind of safeguards that allowed the NewPath project to be dealt with prior to the construction of the towers? Does anyone really have faith that staff can make these kinds of determinations and figure out what will be controversial and what will not be? They certainly did not anticipate the uproar with regards to the NewPath project, so what gives anyone a belief that they can properly anticipate here?
In short, I agree with the idea of attempting to expedite the process and save staff time. Unfortunately, staff has not shown themselves at times to be good judges of what should have a public hearing and what should not. That alone should give people pause. Without the vigilance of community members and not staff, the NewPath project would have gone forward with their intrusions onto private property. Nothing the staff did prevented that until the public gained notice, not through the actions of staff, but rather through the actions of other citizens. I just think this is asking for trouble.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Greeter efficiency” sounds like a euphemism for not wanting to deal with public input. As has been discussed on these pages before, Davis has a bloated planning staff with relatively little to do given the limited amount of development these days. These staff are on salary so they get paid whether the hearings go forward or not so the savings seems to be in the effort level of our already very well-paid staff, who would prefer not to deal with the voting public.
Public hearings are a pain and they require staff to listen to the views of residents who they don’t agree with. That’s why we have them. Democracy is inherently inefficient, but I have absolutely no faith that our staff will play the role of benevolent dictator well–they have proven over and over again in the past that their interests are not always aligned with Davis’ citizens. THe “capture theory” argues that gov’t regulatory agencies tend to be taken over by the very folks they are supposed to regulate and that appears to be the case in Davis. An open public hearing process can help alleviate some of the problem.
I am all in favor of economic development that helps the City of Davis especially if it generates taxes that we need, but a reasonable public hearing process and sound staff reports should suffice to ensure that the greater public good is served.
Our staff will just have to work a little bit harder.
Is the staff here Katherine Hess?
Ken Hiatt and Mike Webb.
This appears to be the first real test of Krovoza’s and Swanson’s “backbone” in resisting this staff recommendation. Emlen clearly is trying to get his proposal approved now while Saylor is still on the Council and the new members are still getting their Council “sea legs”. The recent past has amply demonstrated that our city manager and city staff need more vigilant oversight by our Council reps and voters, NOT LESS.
The first time I saw this item on the CONSENT CALENDAR, the hair on the back of my neck stood on end. This is a clear attempt to make an end run around process…
It seems quite odd that the example (“…a one item meeting for a co-location of a new antenna on an existing cell tower and lasted a total of 25 minutes.”) was a project that required such review while the NewPath project (with staff issuing 37 permits for installation of cellular phone towers–many with new poles in new locations throughout the city–required just a lower-staff-level sign-off. How can this be?
Given the recent history of the staff that makes the call (Community Development) and the lack of staff oversight and project knowledge from the city manager, I’d say the timing is really bad for moving this proposal along.
“The NewPath project again might not exactly be excluded under the rules set forth here, but you never know”
Either it would be or it wouldn’t be, right?
My understanding is NewPath was a new tower. My read of this post is that it is only regarding new antennas on old, i.e. “already existing” towers.
This is a revenue source for the city, isn’t it? Charging rent for antenna placement (at least for city towers). I don’t think it is a big deal. The tower is usually the visual blight, not the antennas. Adding new antennas is usually not even noticed. The tower construction is the issue, and that is not the proposal at hand.
For what it is worth, I believe any member of the public can already add a big TV antenna to their home. No reason city staff couldn’t make a decision about antennas as well (on pre-existing towers).
Civil, why would the NewPath project be affected under the proposed policy? It seems like it didn’t have any review outside of the Community Development staff under the current rules, and it had several new towers. Maybe that type of more-major project will get referred to the receptionist under a more liberal process.
Maybe I’m mistaken in assuming NewPath didn’t have Planning Commission review and public comment. Is it possible it went through the same process as the example (adding a new antenna on an existing cell tower) and nobody in the process was paying attention? But, the NewPath project had SEVERAL new antennas being added to existing towers in addition to the several new towers. But you’re right: “Either it would be or it wouldn’t be.” Who knows….
Absolutely massive changes are being proposed on the agenda of our customarily token, pro-forma morning council meeting signaling the beginning of the August break.
These changes will turn Davis from a carefully planned community to community planning determined by developer profit maximization.
I am very concerned about the effects of the wholesale abolishment of conditional use permits in the commercial core for buildings over two stories high.
Davis doesn’t have a riverfront, we don’t have a lake, we don’t have hills, and we don’t have oceans or a view. ALL we have is the character of our downtown.
It is the cottage restaurants with the outdoor seating that draw the crowds from the region. It is the variation of the buildings that line our streets, and the nooks and crannies and human scale that the smaller, older buildings create. Endless rows of new three and four story stucco buildings won’t have that appeal.
The conditional use permit allows the city to CONTROL how we densify. This is key to retaining our character.
In Berkeley, the most successful commercial centers moved out from the area of the taller downtown buildings to the human-scaled areas of one and two story buildings in Elmwood, Rockridge, Solano Avenue and 4th Street.
In Vancouver, B.C., the city of gleaming new high-rises, the commercial corridors were carefully planned to preserve the funky one and two story older buildings. This preservation of older, lower buildings both give the commercial corridor a comfortable, human scale, but it also keeps rents affordable for merchants.
If you want to raise merchant rents and drive out most of the non-chain real retail, the quickest way to do so is to allow wholesale intensification by right, which will result in commercial gentrification.
Davis did not develop one of the best small town downtowns by chance. It was because we retained planning control. And we are on the verge of losing it.
I’m sorry Sue, I don’t think downtown Davis is much of a draw, and is attractive only in the since that it looks old (although there is much of it that is not well kept or attractive at all). Who calls Davis “one of the best small town downtowns?” We are not a regional draw. There is very little to draw the regional population to downtown Davis. The restaurant base is limited at best, and there are very few merchants downtown that offer something that draws folks from outside Davis. Cities like San Luis Obispo have much nicer and more successful downtowns than Davis. If we want downtown Davis to become a draw for the region and for merchants to survive, then changes are needed. Better parking, better access for customers and visibility for merchants will drive higher foot traffic and sales per square foot and .
And for the record, rents for local or chain merchants will not increase until their sales begin to increase and/or demand for space increases relative to supply.
I don’t have a view about Sue’s contention that “we” are losing control of the process. I just think that whoever has had control doesn’t have much to show for all the control that they have wielded.
I, for one, will be at this August meeting and encourage EVERYONE to do the same. Krovoza and Swanson MUST be made aware that this is a fundamental issue for those who elected them and their decision will be critical in building voter trust in our Council majority that has been tragically absent in recent years.
Sue Greenwald: “Absolutely massive changes are being proposed on the agenda of our customarily token, pro-forma morning council meeting signaling the beginning of the August break.”
I noticed the issues of the city attorney and sister cities is also on the CONSENT CALENDAR. What gives here – is every controversial issue now going to be placed on the Consent Calendar?
“Absolutely massive changes are being proposed on the agenda of our customarily token, pro-forma morning council meeting signaling the beginning of the August break.”
Whatever the merits of this staff recommendation, the perception of the timing and manner of it being offered will be unmistakable, i.e.to try and get this measure approved while the electorate is busy at their day-jobs or on vacation. Krovoza and Swanson campaigned to get the Davis voter MORE involved, not LESS. Unless they vote to table this for a possible fall agenda, I’m afraid that the trust that the voters have placed in these new Council reps will be seriously eroded. I urge everyone to email them about the folly of following staff’s recommendation on this upcoming August consent calander item.