It what was to be a major change in the nature of citizen input and participation into the planning process, when the city staff on Tuesday night proposed an alternative entitlement review process, ostensibly to streamline the process.
Council modified the suggested changes, approving a substitute motion crafted by Councilmember Rochelle Swanson who moved that “the planning commission begin their work plan with help of staff and review our zoning code with an eye to increase public participation and reduce staff time, whether that be by looking at administrative review or a different kind of process.”
Councilmember Swanson responded, “It would include it, but it wouldn’t assume it.”
That was good enough for Councilmember Greenwald who had made her own substitute motion which would have kept “intact our system of CUPs and Public Hearings and that we ask the planning commission to work on the “Granny Flat” ministerial approval to make it perhaps somewhat more permissive in terms of square footage.”
That substitute motion died for a lack of a second. However, Rochelle Swanson stepped in with her own substitute, which decelerated the changes.
The original staff report sought “feedback on the merits of modifying certain application review procedures.”
It would also “Direct staff to initiate processing the necessary code amendments to expand the list of projects that may be approved via the administrative review process to include” four different classes of projects.
The four classes of projects would include:
a. Co-location of new antennas/equipment on existing cellular towers not within 500 feet of residential districts.
b. Final Planned Developments for new commercial buildings or additions.
c. Revised Final Planned Developments for commercial or residential projects for discrete additions (not wholesale changes to residential subdivisions).
d. New homes or additions resulting in six or more bedrooms (continue to require specific findings).
Finally, it would “Direct staff to undertake necessary research and code amendments to implement an expanded “ministerial” second unit program, including exploration of a “pre-packaged second unit” as described in this report.”
The staff, of course, is arguing that they are focusing on smaller and non-controversial applications that have been presented to the Planning Commission for review and action. They write, “Many of these have had little to no public comment or substantial changes or objections from the Planning Commission.”
The problem is partly in the city’s ability to determine which projects might raise concerns and the city does not have a particularly good track record here.
Writes staff, “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.”
They continue, “However, public hearings can also entail considerable time and effort, especially in light of community expectations for detailed reports and presentation of project analyses.”
They see this requirement as “onerous” for certain types of applications. And they add that, moreover, “the public hearing requirement can have negative impacts on economic development efforts.”
In place of the current process they proposed “zoning administrator public hearings,” which would “hold a noticed public hearing and take action on smaller and non-controversial applications, while more complex applications are taken directly to the Planning Commission.”
They also recommended an administrative review with the option for Planning Commission hearings. In this case, staff would review the proposed project for consistency with city policies and regulations. It would notify the neighborhood or have a meeting when necessary.
They would prepare “an “Intent to Approve” letter including project description, project plans, findings, ten-day public comment period, ten-day appeal period, and recommended conditions.” They would mail the intent-to-approve letter to those who reside or live within 500 feet, and then there would be a final action letter if there were no comments received or appeal filed.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald was concerned that the greater efficiencies would short-circuit public discussion and the public review process.
In her extended remarks she argued that approving the staff recommendation would mark “a major departure from the Davis tradition of citizen input into planning decisions.”
“It is citizen input that has made Davis what we are today,” she added. She said there is no doubt that this would decrease citizen input and control.
Councilmember Greenwald pointed out, “Staff has not had a perfect record in the past in anticipating public concern, far from it.”
She also pointed out that there was a recent example of this problem. “It is ironic that this issue has come before us on the very night that staff allowed a building to be built six feet higher than citizens thought had been agreed to. And [staff] stood here before us saying that neighbors were satisfied with changes, when neighbors came up and said no we’re not satisfied with the changes.”
“This is with the public hearing process in place,” she added. “I would hate to see what would happen without a public hearing process in place.”
“With all due respect, why should we trust staff to decide whether a project should go to the planning department?” she said.
Councilmember Greenwald also raised the point that the public never knows about these projects prior to them coming to the Planning Commission.
This is an interesting issue because one of the critical weaknesses that this city has is in its public outreach. And now city staff was recommending a process that would further weaken it.
In an ideal world, where staff properly anticipates complaints, this is a reasonable proposal to streamline the process and save staff time. In reality, the city is often caught off guard when the public objects late in the process and the council often makes comments that this is not a new issue, but the citizens are not paying the same sort of attention as those making the policies.
The citizens have busy lives and are mostly not concerned about city governance until it impacts their lives. At that point, they need a public outlet. The city needs to respect that process. Democracy is rarely convenient, but always needs openness and transparency to work properly.
Councilmember Swanson’s compromise presents us with a reasonable chance to look at the crucial issues of staff time and alternative processes, while keeping public participation in mind. This is a good start. The staff recommendation was too sweeping and akin to the efforts to gut the commissions, without looking first at more modest changes that would achieve the same purposes.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, Could you come up with a better title for this? It took me awhile to figure out what this article was about. “Entitlement” process? I thought I would be reading about the average teenagers’ Christmas present list.
dmg: “The staff recommendation was too sweeping and akin to the efforts to gut the commissions, without looking first at more modest changes that would achieve the same purposes.”
As per usual, city staff is looking to its own convenience, not to what is best for the city. This repeatedly happens – city staff hoping at some point to lessen its workload/responsibilities and ease its burdens by cutting down on public participation. I encourage the City Council to stand fast and not allow any decrease in public participation…
Good summary, David. I think Ryan made a good point as well. We tend to forgot that most people are not familiar with planning jargon.
A good point – I didn’t even think twice about it.