Commission Impossible

Doesn't a tie vote actually mean that they took no action? Under the Subdivision Map Act they have a set time to take action on a completed application, approve or deny, otherwise it is approved by default. At least for the type of project you describe.

The developer will win the lawsuit. Merz, Luvaas and Minasian do not care if the City gets sued and cannot win. Making lawsuits a part of the development process is a big win for the no-growthers. Both Merz and Luvass have sued the City in the past to stop development projects. Unless the developers are well-healed the delay tactics can kill projects and the obstructions are working that angle.

It will be interesting to watch the council liberals fit a muzzle on the planning commission for their pet developer New Urban Development’s projects.

It will be interesting to see what form of hand slapping our Current Mayor Andy Holcomb comes up with next. The two “free get out of jail cards” that have already been adminstered (1. Training seminar 2. letter to Planning Commsion, and maybe even#3 the Luvaas incident, all due to lack of concern on what their authority actually is) came from similar circumstances where Planning Commission has already decided they have a clean slate to create policy and ordinances, obvioulsy did not do the trick.
Whats next? If these were the steps taken in any other job, the next one would be termination and their bosses would be held responsible.

Pypr,

I'm not sure what the 3-3 result of the vote means for this particular decision (in relation to the Map Act), but what you suggested is probably accurate.

The vote to approve the project failed 3-3. I think there was also a vote to bring the map back for changes to protect trees not protected under Chico's tree ordinance that failed 3-3.

So you're right, no action was taken on a plan that met all of the legal requirements for approval.

I suspect that New Urban Builders will have an easier go of things in some areas of their developments than other builders. New Urbanism as a philosophy is being adopted by the national environmental movement, and some of our liberal councilors seem enthralled by the concept. This won't prevent the 0-growth crowd from trying to stop their projects, but as you said it will make the Planning Commission and Council more interesting to watch.

I'm under the impression that New Urban Builders believes in New Urbanism as the right way to grow. But even if it was just a "marketing" position, it would show them to be paying attention to what the customer wants. In the case of local builders, the customer is no longer the home-buyer, it is now the Planning Commission and City Council.

Knowing what your customer wants is the most important information a business can have.

Lon

Jason,

The liberal councilors knew exactly who they were putting on the Planning Commission. After winning the election that was a choice they earned. After the "training session" and "letter from the Mayor" I was under the impression that not all of the liberal councilors were comfortable with the activist role some of the commissioners (particularly the new ones) were taking.

I was under the impression that the call to remove Luvaas over his email had two effects. First, it poisoned the well when it came to seeking constructive changes in Planning Commission operation. Second, it removed forever the possibility of the liberal councilors replacing a Planning Commissioner for behavior.

In today's environment I don't expect anything in the way of public corrections to the Planning Commission's operations. However, external forces like the Grand Jury report, additional legal action, or requests for change coming from city staff, could create change. That assumes that the Planning Commission isn't acting as an authorized proxy for the City Council when being obstructionist.

Lon

“The Planning Commission has set itself above Council and code.”

For a very long time it has not been about compliance with the regulations (law, general plan, City Code) but rather the wants and desires of a few… The resulting hearings can probably be best described as being arbitrary and capricious.

I think that is about the worst thing that you could say about a judicial proceeding, or in this case a quasi-judicial proceeding.

“In the case of local builders, the customer is no longer the home-buyer, it is now the Planning Commission and City Council.”

What do you call it when the government substantially controls the design of and the supply of a given product? Particularly when it is done not with light-of-day, up-front, honest rules and regulations but by bureaucratic whim and fiat?

“I suspect that New Urban Builders will have an easier go of things in some areas of their developments than other builders. New Urbanism as a philosophy is being adopted by the national environmental movement, and some of our liberal councilors seem enthralled by the concept.”

True. The concepts seem to be in alignment with the activist’s desires. …. Yet, many will find reasons to oppose it rather than actually build it... And then the same folks will be crying about the lack of affordable housing. And will want to spend millions of our tax dollars subsidizing the next affordable housing "project".

Mark,

There do seem to be some capricious elements to comments coming out of the Planning Commission.

Merz' previous comments about the "good ol' boy network being dead" was hyper-dramatic, unprofessional, and an example of the disdain he seems to hold for business owners that build homes.

Minasian's more recent comments about not wanting to wait for a City Council policy to protect what she wants to protect was exactly counter to the request the Planning Commission received from Mayor Holcombe.

I guess this shouldn't be unexpected based on the tone of the last election. But it is becoming more disappointing that the winners of the last election didn't draw from a more diligent and reasonable crowd of applicants.

Lon

"Merz' previous comments about the "good ol' boy network being dead..."

Actually he was wrong, as was Tom Nickell's recent comment about backroom deals. I beleive that both have been going on, and are now at an all time high. But it is with the environmentalist extremists and the zero economic growth advocates who oppose virtually everything. The same folks who would have opposed the creation of their own home, the streets on which they drive, and the places where they work and shop.

With the city budget deficit now a reality instead of a "politcal view" as some council candidates viewed it in '06, and a recent tax revenue analysis showing a drop in revenue for the first time in 12 years, a new tax revenue generator known as "Wal-Mart" at the north end of town doesn't look so bad after all.

When the alternative for councilors who oppose the retail center is laying off police, fire, and city staff, we may find some reversals of opinion.

Anthony,

Would you care to wager over whether a second Wal-Mart is preferred over some form of local tax increase?

Lon

Well that's a bet I'll probably lose. It's a bit easier politically to raise taxes if your are a Democrat. But you're on. Six pack of Celebration Ale?

While we are going for sucker bets, care to wager on Global Warming ?

Anthony,

I'll wager another 6 pack of Celebration Ale that when China surpasses the U.S. as a producer of green house gas later this year nobody will complain about it.

Lon

I'd better buy a 12 pack then