Why all this talk about public participation in the Downtown Specific Plan process?

Perhaps you’ve noticed that whenever the the public discourse of the DSP gets going, there’s mention of just how much public participation there’s been. Immediately people in the audience start looking at each other, a little stunned. Ever wonder why?

Perhaps you were part of the meetings called Downtown 101. Although billed as a charette, they were in fact nothing of the kind.

A charette occurs when a group of design experts meets with the community in an intensive series of meetings of stakeholders which becomes the basis for a realistic development vision for future design.[1]

To say that Downtown 101 was a legitimate charette is like saying that the DSP was a grass-roots effort. That’s not true and we all know it.

If you doubt it, go to the Planning Counter some morning and see if you can see the planning staff wearing their green polo shirts embroidered with “Sierra Madre DSP.” Seeing such a thing might make you think that they were promoting a product. They are. This is why the DSP process is not based on a charette, but is an attempt to sell a product—a specific plan that will streamline development of a character never seen before in Sierra Madre, and not really all that welcome by its residents.

In California, the urban planning process is described as the constitution for future development. It is more than just a garden-variety ordinance, it is intended to guide and limit future development and is therefore supposed to be reflective of the community will. In order to reflect the community will, the public participation provisions of the general plan process require maximum public participation.

Here for example is a statement of the public policy of the State of California for purposes of planning:

The Legislature recognizes the importance of public participation at every level of the planning process. It is therefore the policy of the state and the intent of the Legislature that each state, regional, and local agency concerned in the planning process involve the public through public hearings, informativemeetings, publicity and other means available to them, and that at such hearings and other public forums, the public be afforded the opportunity to respond to clearly defined alternative objectives, policies, and actions. [Government Code, section 65033.]

This certainly does not describe what happened here in Sierra Madre. But, there’s more. If a proposed plan would affect the intensity or permitted uses of a specific area, notice must be given, not only by publication, but also by mailing to all owners within 300 feet of the affected area.[2] This is basically the same notification required of a specific planning commission decision, not the same notice required for the adoption of a general ordinance. Here the “charette” process was really a sales pitch in disguise. Meant to make it appear that the public had been involved in the determination of DSP provisions, it was in fact to the contrary. Many who participated in this process were allowed the “opportunity to comment” but their comments were never reflected in the proposal.[3]

Instead of coming together to develop a publicly-supported vision of a vibrant, alive downtown area, the City simply sponsored a sell-job that was intended to convince the participants that what they had in mind was an important and necessary part of the City’s vision for the future. Too bad it doesn’t represent the residents’ vision for their future.

The importance of this charette process is that it can be trotted out when people object to the plan as being something from the City’s back pocket, by “demonstrating” that this was a result of consultation with the public; that it was a distillation of public comment. In this way, the public participation has been used as the City’s shield against claims of unilateralism, and as a sword against criticism of the process.

When I hear about the purported public participation, I just remember the planning staff in their green DSP polo shirts at the public counter.

[1] A full discussion of the planning process and the role of the charette is found at CharetteCenter.net.
[2] Government Code, sections 65353 and 65091 (general plan) and section 65453 (specific plan)
[3] Of course, the City continues to try to claim that there is no proposal yet. In this way, the City hopes to avoid the appearance that there is a specific specific plan. The CEQA process puts the lie to this effort: How can you perform environmental review on a project and alternatives without articulating what it is?

Avoiding Political Suicide -

Watch your council members when the petitions are submitted.

With the activity of people circulating the 2-30-13 petitions, it may seem inevitable that it will be on the municipal ballot in the next general election. Because they wish to avoid the expense of a special election, the proponents of the initiative have declined to seek a special election. In any event, the initiative will go before the City Council when the signatures have been certified.

Meanwhile, there is a great deal of concern about what happens in the meantime.

In reality, there shouldn’t be a long wait before this initiative ordinance is adopted by the City. This may seem counterintuitive, but the initiative process for cities provides for a quick, easy solution—the legislative body (the City Council) may respond to the certified petition by adopting it themselves.

Here’s how the initiative petition process works in general. The details of this procedure are found at Elections Code, sections 9200, et seq. The process begins when a Notice of Intent to Circulate an Initiative Petition is filed with the City’s elections official, in this case the City Clerk. This filing includes a statement of reasons for the initiative. A request that a ballot title and summary be prepared is also filed with the elections official. In response to this request, the City Attorney is required to prepare a ballot title and neutral summary of the initiative’s provisions, which becomes part of the petition. The ballot title, ballot summary, and initiative language are published. After publication has been established by affidavit, the circulation of the petition begins. It must be completed within 180 days after receipt of the title and summary.

After submittal of the signed petitions, the elections official has to verify that the signatures are valid signatures of registered voters. Usually, despite the efforts of the petition’s circulators, there are some that are not valid, or are duplicates, etc. After discarding those signatures, if there are 10% of the registered voters who have signed the petition, it is eligible to go on the ballot.[1]

This is where the City Council can intervene and prevent delay and extended controversy. Under section 9215 of the Elections Code, the City Council can respond to submission of the certified petitions by adopting the ordinance then and there or within 10 days. If the City Council adopts the ordinance in response to the petition, it will have the same effect as if it had been adopted by the vote of the people--it cannot be amended or repealed except by a vote of the people. [Elections Code, section 9217]

So, it’s back to the City Council. A statesman-like Council member who might otherwise be disinclined to support this measure, could certainly do this community a big favor by putting this discussion to a swift and merciful end and vote in to adopt the ordinance upon presentation of the certification by the elections official.

Based on the public statements by the Council, we can anticipate that Councilmembers Watts and Zimmerman will vote to adopt the ordinance upon presentation. That leaves the other three Councilmembers—Joffe, Buchanan and Mosca. Will any of these members realize the impact of their vote if they refuse to adopt the ordinance and force it to a vote of the people? It is entirely possible that there will be more signatures submitted in favor of the ordinance than voted for at least two of these council members. In a town energized by activism and frustrated by the officials’ response to their efforts, who can say what the result would be?

A council member, however, wishing to avoid political suicide, should carefully consider how to vote on the issue when it comes before the Council when the petition is certified.

[1] If the petition had a request for a special election and is signed by 15% of the voters, a special election must be held. That doesn’t really matter here, because there is no request for a special election in the petition itself. However, it may be interesting to note that 2-30-13 could be subject to a special election if it’s proponents had requested one.