I’ve
previously written about the selection of new Planning Commissioners in
Petaluma. First about a frequent but
incorrect assumption regarding pro-growth versus anti-growth and then
about how conflict of interest standards affect the
applicant pool. I have one more
observation to share.
During the
June selection of four new commissioners, an acquaintance spoke with someone in
the city about the pool of applicants.
My acquaintance expressed concern that there were too few land-use
professionals, such as architects, engineers, landscape architects, and land
planners, among the applicants.
The city figure
told my acquaintance that the professional skills of Planning Commissioners weren’t
important. He stated that developers are
motivated to have projects approved as quickly as possible and therefore begin
the process by submitting their best proposal.
One assumes
that his logic was that, with the best development concept already on the
table, there was little opportunity for a Planning Commission to add value,
making the skills of the Planning Commissioners irrelevant.
Which gives
us two assertions to consider, that developers begin with their best proposals
and that Planning Commissions don’t need land-use professionals. Let’s look at the two separately.
For much of
my professional career, I’ve worked closely with developers. I have respect for many and some remain friends. From that history, I know that developers, no
matter how motivated they may be to secure expeditious approvals, rarely put forth
their best proposal to begin the entitlement process. Indeed, I find it laughable that someone
might suggest that they do.
There are at
least two reasons why developers don’t start with their best proposal. For many projects, they’re trying to optimize
project finances. Also, they frequently don’t
know what a city would consider the best project.
Looking more deeply into a typical entitlement process, these are key factors:
++ Although many developers truly try
to do the right thing for a community, all are eventually driven by their
bottom lines. Voluntarily adding project
elements, especially those that don’t affect marketability, would reduce access
to financing and may eventually push the developer out of business.
If the developer knew exactly what a
city would eventually demand, it might make sense for them to jump ahead to the
finish line, but that level of prescience is rare.
++ If it became known that a city, as
represented by its Planning Commission, was assuming that the first submittal
was the best and final offer, the quality of submittals would quickly
decline. A land entitlement process is a
negotiation. In any negotiation, the
absence of assertiveness by one party will quickly cause the other party to
offer less. It’s human nature.
Imagine arriving at a poker game and
advising the table that you intended neither to bluff nor to assume that anyone
else would be bluffing. I would hope
that you enjoy the company of the other card players because you’ll be paying
to spend the evening with them.
++ A developer can’t read the mind of
a community. In any set of land
development rules, such as general plans, zoning codes, specific plans, etc.,
there are interpretations to be made and balances to be judged between
competing objectives. Even the best -intentioned
developer may not intuit the design decisions that will best meet the city’s
wishes.
An important role of a planning
commission, and of other participants such as city planners, is to inform the
developer of community preferences and to push the development team to modify the
site design to maximize community benefits even if the changes sometimes make
the project less profitable.
If an
entitlement process doesn’t begin with the developer’s best offer, what does
that mean regarding the role of land-use professionals on bodies such as
planning commissions?
In my years
as a practicing engineer, I’ve participated in hundreds of meetings with
Planning Commissions, City Councils, planning staffs, and other
regulators. In those meetings, I’ve
heard thousands of questions asked and suggestions offered.
The great
majority of those questions were requests for clarifications or the identification
of development options of which the development team was already aware but had chosen
not to pursue for defensible reasons.
But ten
percent of the questions were the reason that Planning Commissions exist. They were the questions that conveyed
information about the deep-seated desires of the community that couldn’t have
been gleaned from the city documents.
They were the questions that triggered adjustments which better integrated
the project with the community.
It was land-use
professionals who most often asked those key questions, because a design
background is often required to understand that tradeoffs in land use and to
recognize opportunities to improve the project.
So yes, it’s
important to have qualified land-development professionals on a planning
commission. They needn’t, and indeed shouldn’t,
be the entire commission. A
well-constructed planning commission should have citizens from many walks of
life, as long as all are familiar with the governing documents and the
processes of land development. But land-development
professionals offer insights and experiences that are often crucial to the
function of a planning commission.
And anyone
who suggests differently is deluded.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment