How things went down at the Planning Commission begs some question and what exactly is City Council supposed to do when a project shows up on their agenda in this state?
The Planning Commission's purpose is to work with staff to sort through the details and put forward a solid recommendation. When that process holds, Council can focus on the final consideration, yes/no and/or minor tweaks. When it doesn't? That whole review burden shifts to the council, which is a significant cost of staff resources, council time, and public trust.
From my viewpoint, Council has a few directions they could go:
Go through the entire packet, sift through public comment, have everyone show up again with fresh letters in hand like it's Groundhog Day, and deny the project.
Approve it, and tack on conditions whether that’s changes to size, location, access, environmental concerns, butterfly farm... whatever. But this puts a heavy burden on staff, on the spot, (so to speak) to guide what’s actually possible within those revisions. And would the applicant be there too?
Or, as they’ve done before when things needed more work, send it back to Planning Commission for a full review and complete recommendation.
That third option might be the cleanest. Because forwarding projects that aren't really ready is, frankly, a waste of time for Council, for staff, and for the public. That’s not just inefficient, it’s avoidable.
I don’t think anyone’s trying to get it wrong. Planning Commission is a tough, often thankless job, and I have a lot of respect for all the individuals serving. Each one brings something different to discussion. But if we want to improve how this system works, we’ve got to make sure all parts of it are functioning together. Sometimes that means the commission needs to take the time to wrestle with the tough parts. We see it all the time with multiple meetings (just not this one).
In the end, Council should be handed something that’s fully baked and ready to go, not something that still needs figuring out.
I feel the need to go back and listen to Keith’s instruction prior to public comment. It’s possible he gave adequate instruction, but after two hours, they’d forgotten it.
But it seems to me some of the issues would’ve been resolved had Keith said “there are multiple issues to consider here (the list of CUP items, the zoning change, EIR vs MND, a new zoning designation, the street improvements being triggered etc. Let’s consider them one at a time.” And I don’t recall that he ever did that.
How things went down at the Planning Commission begs some question and what exactly is City Council supposed to do when a project shows up on their agenda in this state?
The Planning Commission's purpose is to work with staff to sort through the details and put forward a solid recommendation. When that process holds, Council can focus on the final consideration, yes/no and/or minor tweaks. When it doesn't? That whole review burden shifts to the council, which is a significant cost of staff resources, council time, and public trust.
From my viewpoint, Council has a few directions they could go:
Go through the entire packet, sift through public comment, have everyone show up again with fresh letters in hand like it's Groundhog Day, and deny the project.
Approve it, and tack on conditions whether that’s changes to size, location, access, environmental concerns, butterfly farm... whatever. But this puts a heavy burden on staff, on the spot, (so to speak) to guide what’s actually possible within those revisions. And would the applicant be there too?
Or, as they’ve done before when things needed more work, send it back to Planning Commission for a full review and complete recommendation.
That third option might be the cleanest. Because forwarding projects that aren't really ready is, frankly, a waste of time for Council, for staff, and for the public. That’s not just inefficient, it’s avoidable.
I don’t think anyone’s trying to get it wrong. Planning Commission is a tough, often thankless job, and I have a lot of respect for all the individuals serving. Each one brings something different to discussion. But if we want to improve how this system works, we’ve got to make sure all parts of it are functioning together. Sometimes that means the commission needs to take the time to wrestle with the tough parts. We see it all the time with multiple meetings (just not this one).
In the end, Council should be handed something that’s fully baked and ready to go, not something that still needs figuring out.
I feel the need to go back and listen to Keith’s instruction prior to public comment. It’s possible he gave adequate instruction, but after two hours, they’d forgotten it.
But it seems to me some of the issues would’ve been resolved had Keith said “there are multiple issues to consider here (the list of CUP items, the zoning change, EIR vs MND, a new zoning designation, the street improvements being triggered etc. Let’s consider them one at a time.” And I don’t recall that he ever did that.
Apologies folks! The comment button was broken when the article was emailed. It’s fixed now.
From the OK of this project I get the feeling that city is swayed by potential income down the road.
The change in zoning for the developer pretty much says it all.