November 02, 2005

Back to the table of Contents Page

Classifieds

Palo Alto Online

Out of sync?

by Jocelyn Dong

Frustration has been mounting between the Palo Alto City Council and the Planning and Transportation Commission over the council's lack of direction to the commission.

That much was apparent at a recent joint session of the two government bodies -- their first meeting in two years.

The commission reviews, analyzes and makes recommendations to the council on land-use and transportation issues, ranging from neighborhood traffic-calming projects to the development of major parcels, such as the former Rickey's Hyatt site. It also updates city regulatory documents -- for example, the zoning ordinance, which governs land-use in Palo Alto.

Over the past few years, a gulf has been widening between the commission's recommendations and the council's decisions, some officials have noted.

Last year, for example, the commission voted to keep five of seven street barriers installed as part of the controversial first Downtown North traffic-calming trial. The council ordered all but one removed.

Last fall, the commission decided to allow more "granny" units to be built in single-family neighborhoods, an idea the council turned down this year after much public outcry.

At times, the commission also has been left out of the loop.

To address growing concerns over the city's declining retail sales-tax base, the council convened an ad hoc committee that met for the past several years, concluding this spring. The planning commissioners didn't have a role in it, said Pat Burt, the commission chair.

Earlier this month, the council ruled that housing planned for certain research, office and manufacturing zones should be allowed by permit only -- a concept the commission hadn't weighed in on. The council also voted to eliminate housing from one of the city's zones without consulting the commission.

Burt said a sense of wasted time accounts for some of his colleagues' frustration.

"(We) don't want to spend six months struggling through details and find out five members of the council, for political or philosophical reasons, are opposed to the concept in any form," he said, referring to the granny-unit issue.

Likewise, the members want to feel their expertise is valued.

"There are times when for me it's personally disappointing, going through an issue in real depth and consideration, and it'll go before council and some council members' responses have depth and others go on a visceral response," Burt said.

Council member Bern Beecham, however, said the disparity between the commission's recommendations and council's decisions is no slight -- just par for the course.

"The council makes decisions in a political environment. We rely on the Planning and Transportation Commission to use their best judgment, to use their best logic on planning issues," he said. "It's 'give me your honest technical advice.'"

He wouldn't dream of expecting the commission to consider all the factors the council does when reviewing issues, he said. As one of two council members to have also served on the commission, though, Beecham said he understands the commissioners' frustration when the council disagrees with its line of thinking

As to why a gap between the boards' decisions exists, some officials think it boils down to the council not giving the commission enough guidance in a rapidly changing environment.

"We need to give the commission a new flag to march behind," Council member Jack Morton said. "The Planning and Transportation Commission has been marching behind a flag, and it's a flag only they fly."

Major shifts in the community -- such as the loss of retail revenues and encroachment of large housing developments on commercial space -- need to be factored into land-use decisions, he said. Morton, who is running for re-election, felt council members have been coming to grips with that reality, but that it was incumbent on them to alert the rest of the governmental boards.

"Somebody's got to say, 'Turn the ship around,'" he said.

If not, the council will work at cross-purposes with the advisory groups, he said.

Burt agreed.

What the commission needs from the council is "some form of conceptual pre-screen that would not prescribe an outcome, but give us a sense of significant concerns." he said. "It's a delicate balance. ... (But) with a clear understanding, the planning commission would hear it -- though not be bound by it -- and we would include it in our thinking."

Beecham, however, disagreed that more communication is necessary. He values the separation between the two bodies, saying conflicting opinions produce "robust" outcomes. The last thing he wants are "yes" people, he said: "Why tell them how to advise me?"

Planning Commission Vice Chair Karen Holman, another council candidate, agreed the two groups have differing responsibilities. The role of the commission is to fully vet the issues, she said, while the council's is to make policy.

"I do my absolute best to make the best recommendation on the best information I can get on the critical issues at hand. ... The City Council can do with it what they will," she said. "I'm fine with that."

In addition to the issue of communication, other factors have contributed to a sense that the two groups' decisions are out of step with one another, officials said. Those circumstances go beyond either board's control.

In the time it takes for a commission recommendation to get to the council -- months, in a number of cases -- some planning issues, such as housing, become hot buttons with the public, both Burt and Morton noted. Other times, members of the community don't voice their concerns at planning-commission meetings, then show up to speak to the council, thus precluding the commissioners' vetting of those points.

What can be done? To improve the working relationship between the two groups, a joint study session has been scheduled for December, at which time the members will review the city's strategy for attracting retail to town.

Morton hoped another joint session could be held in the new year, after the new council is seated.

Holman would like to see the meeting last half a day rather than one hour, as the October council-commission session did.

Despite the frustrations that were aired, Burt said he felt relations between the two groups would improve in the future.

"We're moving in a positive direction," he said.

Senior Staff Writer Jocelyn Dong can be reached at jdong@paweekly.com.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.