City Council would hand more authority to commission, deal with
fewer appeals
Gilroy – City leaders looking to reduce bureaucratic clutter and expenses are considering a plan that would grant the city’s planning commission greater authority over the fate of development projects.
The seven-member commission currently serves as a group of appointed advisors, reviewing the details of development proposals and passing on recommendations to council members for final review and decision. Developers and some city officials have criticized the current process as duplicating efforts and unnecessarily delaying permit approvals.
“We know that in most bigger cities, the planning commissions, generally speaking, are where matters are handled,” local developer Tim Filice said. “As the affairs of this city get more complex I totally expect they would defer more planning-type decisions to the planning commission. It’s in the natural order of evolution for this city as we approach 50,000. … Time is always the biggest factor. We applaud any efforts that the city might take to reduce the red tape.”
At their retreat later this month, council members will debate whether to allow planning commissioners to decide routine land-use matters such as planned unit developments (PUDs). The projects, which involve the subdivision of land into multiple lots for residential development, are among the most common type of development proposal to come before the commission and council. The proposed changes to the system would render the council an appeals authority on controversial decisions, while freeing it from duplicate efforts on most projects.
“I think it’s a good idea,” planning commission Chairman Dion Bracco said. “I think it will save a lot of time. Most of the time city staff presents (projects) to us and when it gets to the council they do the exact same things. It would really streamline the process.”
He predicted the change would trim at least a month off the approval time. A typical project takes six to eight months from the point of contact with the city, according to planning officials. Before reaching the planning commission for initial review, a project undergoes a staff review that lasts several months, sometimes years if it requires calling in environmental experts. Once a project is ready for the commission, city planners put together a project overview for every member, present the proposal and answer any questions. Commissioners also hear public comments as a part of the review. The same process, including duplication of materials and public hearings, is repeated at the council level.
“We’re sitting here in a budget crunch, and yet this is one area we’re just duplicating work.” said Councilman Russ Valiquette, one of many past and present council members who earned his political stripes through a stint on the commission. His experience has turned him into one of the strongest advocates for handing greater authority to the group.
“By law there are certain things that have to go the planning commission and to the city council,” he acknowledged. “But if there’s something that can be taken care of at the planning commission, let’s take care of it there.”
In turn, city leaders also are considering the creation of a zoning administrator position to allow the planning commission to shift some of its more routine responsibilities, such as granting variances – exceptions to the city’s zoning guidelines – and administering permits that restrict the time or way a property can be used.
Councilman Craig Gartman, who also spent a term on the planning commission, said he would oppose any changes that restricted the public’s ability to speak out.
“There’s a reason why we have the public meetings that we have – so that people have the opportunity to voice their concerns against a project or for a project,” Gartman said. “The public hearings are there for a reason and that is to make sure that things are done with pubic scrutiny. If all of a sudden we take away the ability of the public to be involved and hear about their community, I’m against that.”
City council and planning commissioners often agree on projects, although instances have occurred where the groups sharply differ. A recent Miller Avenue subdivision proposal drew the ire of residents and unanimous rejection from planning commissioners, only to be reduced in scale and approved a few weeks later by city council members.
Gartman, who switched his stance and voted against the project after hearing residents’ concerns, acknowledged that the proposed changes could help ensure that only “well-founded” objections reach city council. He said any change must protect council’s ability to weigh in on important matters such as the Miller Avenue proposal.
“It’s definitely something worth taking a look at,” he said. “There are people who don’t like change for the sake of change. Appeals can be abused. But sometimes there are legitimate reasons to go back and examine a decision.”
