A Lesson in Patience

I would like a chance to set a few things straight on the proposed Jackson Hills project and the City Council’s actions. There are people who have said that the council “put the cart before the horse.” I’ve even heard the developers suggest that the City should have allowed them to work out a development agreement prior to certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). While hindsight shows that things might better have been “sequenced” differently, I offer an explanation of why things were done in the order they were done in and why the process moved forward in the way it did.

A project like Jackson Hills begins when a private property owner decides to sell property to a developer. The developer eventually scopes out the idea of a project and presents this to the staff at the city level as an application for a project. This is the bare beginning. The City gives the developer a list of requirements and begins an iterative process with the developer, city planning staff and planning commission. For a development of any significance, these requirements include preparation of an EIR.

During the time following the application--which can take years (in the case of JH the process started in 2003)--it is the City Council’s job to make sure the steps in the process are being followed. Council members are to remain as objective as possible so that when the project finally is presented for approval, a sound and objective decision can be made.

There are interim decisions in the process. These usually come to the Council from the Planning Commission in the form of recommendations. One of these interim decisions is certification of the final EIR. In the case of Jackson Hills, in order for the project to be approved, a zoning change on existing property inside the city limits, as well as annexation of some land outside of the city limits would also need to be approved. These interim decisions DO NOT approve the project.

Besides “conditions of approval” specified early in the project application process, there is another piece of the puzzle that is commonly included in the process. This is the negotiation of a development agreement that will specifically detail all additional requirements in order for the developer to gain approval. You might say that the EIR clearly shows the potential negatives of the project; the Development Agreement clearly spells out the required positives. These two documents together will hopefully allow for a balanced decision, one that would weigh the negative against the positive, so that the right choice might be made.

In September of 2007 the Planning Commission sent recommendations to the Council regarding two interim decisions on the Jackson Hills project. The Planning Commission’s process being slightly different than that of the council, these interim decisions were accompanied by a recommendation about the overall project. The Planning Commission recommended certification of the EIR – which in essence says the document adequately analyzed and described potential impacts and mitigations of the proposed project. The Planning also recommended that the council disapprove the project.

At the next City Council meeting, Staff presented two resolutions reflecting interim decisions: certification of the EIR and rezoning of land within the scope of the project. The decision regarding the approval of the project was postponed, pending negotiation of the Development Agreement – needed to complete the information package before the Council could vote on the project.

Here is the critical point in the process wherein opponents are charging the cart before the horse issue. Why not work through and prepare a development agreement before certifying the EIR or before approving a zoning change? And it is at this point that we come to a crucial difference between the workings of government and business. In business we might call the executive team together, argue things out and have knowledge of how members of the team feel about things without making and announcing public decisions. In government, as a council member – and in this case as the Mayor – I have no way to know where my fellow council members stand on specific items, such as the adequacy of the EIR. I learn about their thoughts and feelings when we meet publicly, receive information and public input, and discuss an issue.

In the case of the Jackson Hills project, I could not in good conscience recommend that staff, planning commission members and council engage in hours of negotiation and preparation of a Development Agreement without knowing if the council would even approve certification the EIR. In hindsight, I believe we should have delayed consideration of the zoning change, but both conditions were placed on the agenda, and knowing we can rescind zoning changes, we dealt with both at the same meeting. If the council voted to deny those two resolutions, there would be no need for the hours involved in working through a Development Agreement. Again, until the public meeting, we don’t know how the other council members will vote on an issue.

Opponents of the Jackson Hills project who decided to take the project to the public via the referendum process pulled the trigger a bit too soon. The subject of the recently dropped referenda was not approval or disapproval of the Jackson Hills development but measures to force the council to rescind certification of the EIR and the accompanying zoning amendment. Neither of these resolutions approved the Jackson Hills project.

Finally, when the developer appealed to the Council to retrench and regroup due to obvious resistance to their project and a general downturn in the housing market, we saw no reason to impose the cost of placing the issues on the ballot on the already thinly stretched City budget. Council’s legal means of avoiding the confusing and rather senseless referendum issues, was to rescind the previously adopted resolutions.

This is the logical sequence of things and while some in the public seems to feel that those individuals who in essence donate their time to serve on local planning commissions and city councils need a lesson in leadership – I would suggest that they need a lesson in patience.Take a little more time to ask questions and honestly seek to understand the process under which public servants are required to serve. In other words, if you want to learn about patience, try serving in public office. The wheels of government grind slowly, indeed. And public meeting requirements, while helping to ensure transparency, do not make for efficiency and often muddy the water.