n Election Day, Palo Alto residents will be asked to
vote on a sleeper measure that has a few folks upset and stirring.
If passed, Measure J would change how the city's planning process
works in some cases. The measure's first part would take some "uncontroversial"
planning decisions away from the City Council and give that power
to the city's Planning Commission. Under the city's charter, the
commission has no decision-making power and can only advise the
council.
The measure would also allow the council to amend
or repeal parts of a 1962 Citizens Initiative that set up procedures
for Palo Alto's planning process. City officials say the initiative
has become outdated by newer state laws.
The measure,
however, doesn't spell out what decisions would be given to the
Planning Commission, or exactly how the 1962 initiative might be
changed. The council would hold public hearings to discuss possible
changes and would decide how to delegate the power.
WHO
SUPPORTS AND WHO DOESN'T
Supporters of the measure--city
council members and planning staff--say it would streamline the
city's planning process and prevent the council from wasting its
time on mundane matters that the Planning Commission could easily
decide. That change, along with amending or repealing the 1962 initiative,
would give the city more flexibility in making decisions, supporters
say.
Opponents--among them vocal residents--attack the
proposal for being vague and for not allowing the public to vote
directly on what decisions the Planning Commission would make and
how the 1962 initiative would be changed. And by giving decision-making
power to the commission--whose members are appointed by the council--the
city would be taking important decisions away from elected officials,
opponents say.
Supporters and critics disagree on nearly
every aspect of the measure. Here are some of the differences:
Streamlining:
Measure J would change the way some planning decisions are made.
Right now, projects go take two major directions: through the Planning
Commission up to the council, which makes the final decision; or
through the Architectural Review Board up to the planning director,
who makes a decision. The council also settles disputes between
the ARB and the planning director.
For
some issues, the measure would make the Planning Commission the
final stop, said Planning Director Ed Gawf. The commission may also
get involved in some of the ARB/planning director disputes, but
that's not certain yet, Gawf said.
City officials said
the measure would streamline the process by letting the commission
decide more mundane issues, such as conditional use permits, home
improvement exceptions, and lot-line issues. Right now, supporters
say, the process wastes time by requiring that the commission review
routine applications and then forward them to the council.
"We've
had situations where paint colors on commercial buildings are going
to the City Council," said City Attorney Ariel Calonne.
Opponents
said streamlining won't occur, since the city's staff already handles
some of the more routine applications. They said the measure might
actually lengthen the process by inserting the commission into decisions
it wasn't involved in before, adding another level of bureaucracy
if applicants can appeal to the council.
Accountability:
Opponents of the measure say it will give decision-making power
to a nonelected body and erode public accountability. They say that
even "uncontroversial" land-use issues can be important in shaping
how neighborhood look.
Supporters say that
most planning commissions in the state have some actual power anyway.
They add that the council will still be held accountable for making
big zoning decisions and for picking planning commissioners.
The 1962 Citizens Initiative:
Some of Measure J's critics were involved in getting the 1962
initiative enacted into law. In the early 1960s, a group of residents
fought the city in court to get the law on the books. The initiative
required the city to have a general plan and a set process for projects
to go through the system. Critics of the measure say the 1962 initiative
provided safeguards against unchecked development and allowed for
public input in the process.
"The measure is doing away with an initiative that provides
important protections to the public and giving the council a blank
check to repeal it," said Herb Borock, a Palo Alto resident who
opposes the measure. The city attorney said changing or repealing
the initiative isn't a big deal because newer state laws supersede
the initiative. When a discrepancy exists between city and state
law, the city has to follow the state law, Calonne said. Getting
outdated parts of the city law off the books will eliminate confusion
for the public, he said.
Approach:
Critics say this measure is a "backhanded" attempt by the city
to change a law that can be changed only by voters. Under state
law, initiatives put in place by citizens must be changed by a public
vote. Critics say this measure gets the public to vote, but then
hands the ultimate changes to the council.
The
city attorney said it doesn't make sense to have voters decide small
details about the planning process, because it would hamstring the
city if it had to consult the public on every rule change needed.
Including specific changes in the measure would mean writing small
planning details into the city charter, he said.
"It would
be like putting no-parking laws in the U.S. Constitution," Calonne
said.
Public information:
Supporters say Measure J hasn't sprung up suddenly, that the idea
emerged through the city's public, comprehensive planning process
that occurred about three years ago. During that process, a group
of citizens advising the city recommended giving some power to the
commission.
Critics say the city hasn't
done enough recently to educate the public about this measure and
expects the public to give the city power to alter the planning
process without knowing what those changes might be.
"If
the voters are going to be voting on something, they should be told
what it is they're voting on," said Emily Renzel, a former councilwoman
who opposes the measure.
Appeals:
The measure itself doesn't mention an appeals process, and right
now it's not clear what that process would be. City Attorney Calonne
said the council would later determine which Planning Commission
decisions could or couldn't be appealed. However, supporting arguments
submitted to the League of Women Voters' Voters Guide state the
following: "The right to appeal any decision to the City Council
is guaranteed."
Opponents point to this as an example of what they call the measure's
"vagueness."
