The normally ho-hum annual report to the Mill Valley City Council from the outgoing chair of the Planning Commission took a stark turn Monday night as David Rand called into question City Hall's view of the commission and said the two entities are engaged in a “turf war” on issues with “different visions” for Mill Valley.
In his verbal report before the council Monday night, Rand, whose three-year term on the commission began in March 2010, said that since he joined the board there has been a “basic philosophical disconnect [that] speaks volumes about the issues we have.” He said there have been “significant lapses in communication” between city staff and the commission. Rand's presentation was representative of his own opinions, and not clearned with any other commissioner.
“The problem is best summed up by the introduction that I received on the day I was sworn in,” Rand said. “We were told then, quite bluntly, that staff leadership did not believe in the usefulness of the Planning Commission in Mill Valley and did not see a need for it.”
City Council members reacted with surprise and concern, but had minimal disucssion on the issue.
“You’ve thrown down a pretty serious gauntlet,” Vice Mayor Shawn Marshall said after Rand’s presentation. “I think we need to pay attention to it. I think a lot of this should be taken up offline.”
Mayor Andy Berman said the Council has asked for an investigation into the allegations.
"Our silence then or now should not be interpreted as validating the statements made or the manner in which they were shared," Berman said in an email. "Until that investigation is completed, I really can not comment further."
In his presentation, Rand expressed the need to formalize a requirement for a study session for all new construction so that projects don’t go straight into the design review process with applicants creating expensive and detailed plans that contain basic problems.
“Understandably, owners of projects that are not approved on the basis of such fundamental issues are very upset at the wasted cost of preparing complete drawings before the underlying conceptual sketches are reviewed,” Rand said.
When an applicant chooses to forgo a study session and goes straight to the design review, the problem is compounded by the fact that Planning Department staff frequently recommend approval of the project, according to Rand. The project applicants are often then "surprised by the commission's lack of enthusiasm," he said.
“I have requested that staff refrain from setting forth a recommendation that the commission approve design review,” Rand said. “It has been my experience that the visions that those on the commission have for the development of Mill Valley very frequently differ from those of staff on those subject matters that go into design review.”
Rand cited "one very large project" that "is still pending," likely the controversial Blithedale Terrace proposal to build 20 residential units on land at the base of Kite Hill along East Blithedale Ave. near Camino Alto. That project has languished in recent months before the Planning Commission formally holds a hearing on the project's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and its overall merits.
Planning Director Mike Moore said part of the Planning Department’s job is to schedule projects that it feels should be approved for the Planning Commission’s agenda.
“Our recommendation is only one component of the complete public hearing process,” Moore said. “Part of our responsibility as staff is to be able to make a recommendation. And that’s exactly what it is. It’s a recommendation.”
Moore said he was surprised by Rand’s presentation, and wasn’t previously aware of his concerns.
“My department and I have to have a close working relationship with the Planning Commission and have good communication to make sure we’re on the same page on a lot of these issues,” Moore said. “If that communication is not the way it should be, obviously that’s important and something we need to get resolved.”
The City Council also briefly revisited Rand’s presentation toward the end of its meeting.
"I think we need to follow up on the planning commission presention," said Councilmember Garry Lion. "I don't know quite how to do that but I think people ought to put thier heads together and in a tactful way figure out how real and deep the problem is."
Here's what else is happening on Mill Valley Patch
- Marin’s Redwood Trust to Open New Facility in Colorado, Create 550 Jobs
- Police Blotter: Washing Machines Robbed, Groceries Swiped and Driver Flipped the Bird
- PHOTOS: Grateful Dead Legends Phil Lesh and Bob Weir Delight Marin Crowd
- Mill Valley’s Cheapest Homes: 799 Miller Avenue
- Norovirus Outbreak Over at Redwoods, Facility Preparing for Flu
- Attorney Attempts to Relocate Max Wade's Trial Out of County
- Coyote Coffee Kiosk Opens in Tam Valley
- 'Daily Show' Shouts Out 'Marin County Kumbaya Patrol'
For local news like this wherever you go, follow us! And don't forget to sign up for our daily e-newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox.
"Like" us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter | Sign up for the daily Mill Valley Patch newsletter | Start a blog
David please stick to your guns and don't let the City Hall types either marginalize or ignore you. You are speaking for many of your fellow Mill Valleyians. Thank you.
Predictably, council member Shawn Marshall's immediate reaction is to sweep it under the rug and only discuss it behind closed doors, pretty much ensuring that nothing will change, instead of airing this out in a public and transparent process. For the council members to say that they were unaware or taken by surprise is unfortunately equally disingenuous since community advocates, including myself, have been writing them letters and speaking put about this at public meetings, for years. That said, it's time for us all to work together to right this situation, which has been one of the major causes of a great deal of animosity for a long time. I hope the City Council and the City Manager will take this very seriously and right the ship as quickly as possible.
David, please stick to your guns and don't let the City Hall types either marginalize or ignore you. You are speaking for many of your fellow Mill Valleyians. Thank you."
Part of the disconnect is that when staff recommends approval, what they mean is "based on our (possibly incomplete) review, this project meets minimum technical standards". Planning staff sees their function as purely technical, so making project approval recommendations is out of scope. Planning staff (including the prior administration) recommended approval of half a dozen versions of the La Goma project, including 20 units in two stories over first-floor parking, and a design that included bedrooms without windows in some units. Staff's repeated approval recommendations framed an uphill battle for community members who wanted the project scaled to a reasonable size. Perhaps what staff could do is, instead of recommending projects for approval, indicate the following: 1. This project meets minimum technical standards (then define the standards/guidelines applied) 2. This project requires the following variances (list each requested variance) 3. These variances can be allowed under the following circumstances and concessions (for each, justify why it should be granted) 4. We need Planning Commission's guidance on the following issues This still leaves a big gap when it comes to evaluating projects based upon community values. And that is where the Planning Commission, comprised of community members, and backed by clear values stated in the General Plan, needs strong sway.
It is time for the citizens of Mill Valley to demand that the Planning Director act as a responsible arbiter of the code and remove "business development" from his roles and responsibilities.
The problem is with the commissioners, not the staff. Let the people build and improve their properties! More NIMBY comments on another development controversy...
The Planning Commission is charged with enforcing the municipal code and interpreting the City's Design Guidelines. Both of those reviews are required for a project to be approved. And in that regard the present Planning Commission is the best we've had that I know of in my 20 years of attending meetings. This issue about the Planning Department "recommending" projects has been going on for more than ten years. And David Rand is correct is stating that it's become too difficult to continue to ignore. The Planning Department has increasingly ventured too far afield of the Municipal Code and the Design Guidelines. They have "recommended" Subway in violation of the General Plan. They have recommended the Richardson development and the past La Goma developments even with their code, fire and health safey issues. And recently they recommended a new home on Walnut even though it required variance requests, which the PD completely ignored in violation to the code. David is right. This needs to be fixed.