I enter retirement with markedly mixed feelings. I enjoyed
my work-- the creative processes, the colleagues who were often good friends,
who were sometimes challenging, but never dull. I watch these groups take on
new work, and feel something akin to standing on the dock, watching my
crewmates pilot our ship back out to sea… without me. Yet I look forward to new
challenges, spending time on projects that never quite made it to the top of
the list.
Lest you think I’ve been lucky enough to leave the workaday
world for the land of Winnebagos, I’ll set you
straight. I haven’t quit my day job; it’s evenings and weekends that will now
see new attention. This June was my last of 72 months with the Petaluma
Recreation, Music and Parks Commission, and an almost equal number with the
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee. We addressed a surprisingly wide
range of issues, from regulating drumming at Putnam Plaza to relocating the
National Little League diamonds. Some of our decisions could be carried out by
the Parks Department, but most of them, especially those involving the spending
of money, went to the City Council for their approval (or rejection.)
So what good does all this Commissioning do? Why not simply
let City staff make the recommendations, and the City Council make the
decisions. Why add this extra layer? Why create more opportunities for
disagreement and conflict? These same questions could be, and apparently are
being asked about other Petaluma advisory bodies, especially the Planning
Commission. The developments that led Planning Commissioner Stephanie McAlister
to give up her seat go to the very heart of the matter. On four occasions, big developers
of large projects (Magnolia, Lomas, South Gate, and
Chelsea) bypassed the normal Planning Commission reviews, apparently to avoid
the delay and the scrutiny that accompanies those reviews.
Yes, delay can cost money, but it can also save money. A
careful review from a broader range of experience eyes can expose hidden costs
that will have to be borne by the public, or even the developer.
Sure, conflict can be unpleasant, but properly managed, it
generates the heat and light to synthesize and illuminate new and better ways.
Having advisory Commissioners that disagree with Council members is a good
thing. If everyone thought alike, we’d run the risk of getting uniformly bad
decisions, a tyranny of the ignorant. I’d say at least one of the Council
members might rather have been swayed by a “disagreeable” advisory body before
the first garbage contract vote than moved by the public outcry after that
vote.
By now, the Council was supposed to have voted on whether to
accept Ms. McAlister’s resignation or her withdrawal of the resignation.
Regardless of that outcome, the Council ought to make the two process changes
she sought: 1) Disallow a developer from short-circuiting the Planning
Commission's review process by calling for an up-or-down vote at any time; and
2) Require city staff to forward all the PC's recommendations and information
to the Council whether the PC supports or opposed the project.
Here’s my parting advice. To developers: take time up front
to become familiar with the plans and regulations that govern the City. These
were created for good reason. Work early with these advisory bodies; their
members will be glad to help you shape your proposals so they are better
aligned with City plans when they are dropped in the hopper, so they will move
more smoothly and rapidly to approval.
To those volunteers who advise, regulate, and govern: step
out of your shoes from time to time, and look objectively of what you are bringing
to the process. There *can* be too much review, thickets of redundant and low
value-added activities. It’s great to have a hobby, but not one that hobbles
genuine progress. In the final balance, however, I’d prefer we ask more, rather
than less, from those who projects could have concrete and long-term impacts,
both negative and positive, on our human and natural community. (A good example
is requiring all subdivisions on the edge of town to donate easements for the
Petaluma Rim Trail.)