« Speaking of Art | Main | Skateboards Banned in Neighbor's Garage »
March 14, 2007
Luvaas Again
 |
| Jon Luvaas can't catch a break on the
Planning Commission. Back during the Enloe expansion debate he made some
unfortunate comments about the life expectancy of the elderly and the
need to take extreme steps to extend those lives. When taken in context
what he said was pretty logical. It was the kind of thing that a managed
care behemoth might put in its quarterly report. It didn't play well on local
TV as a sound bite. The City Council decided to do nothing to punish the
Planning Commissioner, assuming it was just a glitch. Luvaas has been instrumental lately in holding a number of "extra-city" gatherings to discuss local issues that meets weekly (some have referred to the group as "Common Ground"). The names of the people attending these meetings would be widely known by people that follow local issues, including at least one developer. One of the stated purposes of the meetings is to reduce political polarity around local issues. From what I've heard the discussions have been on the new-agey side of things, but generally positive opinions come from those that have attended. Recently Mayor Holcombe had to apply the brakes to the Planning Commission which was beginning to delve into policy issues. The City Council normally creates policy, and the commissions apply it. A gentle correction may not have been enough. |
| Luvass recently sent this email to a member of Planning
Staff... Hi Karen, I do have the EIR (draft and final), so won't need a new one. And I have a suggestion. I mentioned to Bob Summerville that I'd prefer that our upcoming review of this project be considered a conceptual review rather than a time for project approval, since it's a huge and sensitive project, has been very long since we first looked at this, and we have a new commission. I'd very much prefer that it not be considered even a conceptual "approval" at this stage, but only an opportunity for feedback, because there's a fairly good chance we'll send it back for significant design work. Who knows, but I don't want anyone's expectations of quick action to be disappointed. Going a bit further, I'd consider it best for staff not to make a recommendation on this project, but simply to give an analysis of the project and our options. Jon From today's E-R story the concerns of Councilors Wahl and Bertagna are pretty clear. They think Luvaas is stepping outside of his authority as a Planning Commissioner. They would like to see him removed from the Planning Commission because of this. Luvaas states that the email was only a suggestion, but in reading it it's pretty clear that he is also asking staff not to give a recommendation (that's not part of his "suggestion" and he recognizes that he's going "a bit further" in this request). He makes assumptions about Planning Commission decisions prior to the public forum. Both of these instances seem to undermine a fair public process for the land owner. All of this relates to a development that's been in the works for a decade or so. I've been told the Planning Commission has seen this development, but not this new Planning Commission (new since the last election). If the standard is that a newly seated commission needs to review all developments from scratch, then every two years anything being built will be restarted. Talk about "no growth". |
| Summary: Jon Luvass
seems to have overstepped his role as a Planning Commissioner in directing
city staff not to provide a recommendation
on this plan. It doesn't rise to the level of removing him from his seat.
The Mayor should
issue
a more
direct
correction than the last one (which appears to have been ignored). The conservative Councilors seem to have overstepped their role as a 5-2 minority. They will likely be portrayed as in the palm of the developer once again. Even though they are standing on principle here, this is bad politics. This could have been handled without throwing the "removal" hand grenade, which will be a dud unless more information comes forward. Luvaas should spend a little more time with his "Common Ground" meetings. He should invite Pete Giampaoli of Epick Homes (whose development process he's trying to restart). I suspect Giampaoli will have something to say about depolarizing the community and treating people in a fair manner. He might even have his lawyer say it for him. |
Posted by Lon at March 14, 2007 09:38 AM
Comments
Lon--
I certainly agree that Bertagna and Wahl are not acting tactically, strategically, or even rationally. Whatever Luvaas is presumed to have done, it does appear that his email is likely (if not calculated) to save Epick time and money rather than obstruct progress on the project.
I certainly don't see any prejudice in Luvaas' observation that the project "probably" will be sent back; I think it betrays an all too accurate assessment of how broken the current process is. As someone who's always seen local politics primarily as a "sporting proposition", I'd say it's not bias so much as good handicapping.
As far as "overstepping", there may be something to that, although I'm not prepared to entertain a theory of malicious motivation. Luvaas has been around long enough to have informal relationships with staff, and be comfortable expressing his opinions.
There's always been informal communication between commissioners and staff, and opinions are just that. Staff seem to understand that direction comes explicitly from the council, and that advisory observations from commission members or chairs are subject to council authority.
I think this is the celebrated mountain/molehill perplex, and I'm surprised that Bertagna and Wahl have evidently forgotten how to count noses...
Posted by: Alan Chamberlain at March 14, 2007 01:39 PM
Alan,
I can't see any indication of malice on Luvaas' part, I hope I didn't imply that there was. I also wouldn't expect the existing Planning Commission to do much to save any developer money (maybe time, not money).
I think a lot of work was done behind the scenes to get Holcombe to reign in the Planning Commission recently. There was good reason for that… they were starting to act like they were the City Council. The call to remove Luvaas may be tied to those concerns, but it goes too far.
If I had placed removal of Luvaas on the City Council agenda I would remove or modify the item. It would be much more appropriate for the Council’s Internal Affairs Committee to review the Planning Commission’s purpose, and formalize the Mayor’s recent request to the commission.
Calling for Luvaas’ removal over-politicizes a real problem that the Planning Commission may have been headed in the wrong direction. Since Holcombe took steps to remedy that situation the conservative council members would be well advised to pull back from this and work with the entire council to solve this problem.
All that being said, the property owner may have felt that the project was headed towards approval. The out-of-public decision making that the email could represent might be seen differently to those familiar with the entire project.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at March 14, 2007 02:41 PM