Letter: Should city give Hal his $200 back?

Who knew? I looked at the January 11th Planning Commission (PC) Agenda prior to the meeting. There were two items on it; both had staff recommendations for postponement to a future PC meeting. It should have been a 15 minute meeting (Pledge of Allegiance, couple of light hearted jokes, attention to each item, and adjournment), leaving everyone time for a beer after the meeting before going home. I decided not to go. Little did I know.

Although I don’t condone the berating of our Planning Director by two of our PC Commissioners, where instead Robert’s Rules of Order, decorum in debate, should have prevailed, they exposed more than a few very important points. I commented on these at the January 25th PC meeting. I’d like to share those concerns with a broader audience.

First, the Planning Director works for the City Manager, who serves at the pleasure of the City Council. He does not work for the PC. He is there as a resource, and to help guide the PC; that’s it, period! In addition, the Chair of the PC is charged with maintaining order at the meetings; he did not. Our Planning Director did nothing knowingly wrong and civility and respect is a required component at all public meetings.
 
I was present at the City Council meeting a year ago when the Administrative CDP process was discussed. The purpose was clear to everyone. It was intended as a means of reducing the PC workload. That might include replacing a sidewalk in one’s front yard, or perhaps replacing a balcony, or building a dog house in one’s back yard. I don’t recall a $22 Million project, in the center of town, being part of the deal. I think it’s fair to say that the Administrative CDP process needs clarification and hopefully will get that attention shortly, as a result of this action. That’s a good thing.

The expression ‘perception is everything’ has a lot of validity here. Some have danced around it, but let’s discuss it here. The construction of a new middle school has been a rancorous issue for over a decade. Lines have been drawn, battles have been fought, and ill feelings have become further entrenched over time. Trust and goodwill have long since gone by the wayside. Ultimately, it’s our children who have suffered, and continue to be victimized by polarization within the community. The perception of the other guys simply being obstructions is entirely wrong. It has got to stop; now is a good time for that to occur.

Anyone interested should be well versed in the history of this issue, so I won’t get into it here. I am hopeful that everyone agrees our children deserve better than what they’ve gotten to date. At first blush, it would appear that the members of the PC mentioned above were playing the role of ‘obstructionists’. Their performance at the January 11th meeting certainly enhances that appearance. So, I can see that argument, but I don’t believe it to be true. It is my opinion that they felt they were being excluded from a process which, inherently, should have included them; and they were. There was every reason to feel ostracized. They just didn’t raise their objections in the right way; we all make mistakes.

At the last City Council (CC) meeting, January 16th, there was discussion on the CUSD project. That discussion was by both the public and the CC members. There were some contentious moments, and some things said that were uncalled for. Charges were made against Council members, accusing them of reneging on promises of transparency in government; on an issue that may be the most transparent in 20 years. Clearly this is a passionate issue, with a lot of emotion and distrust just under the surface. I chose to remain silent at that meeting. I felt I needed to learn more, so I listened. Everyone could feel the tension.

There was, at least, one voice of reason at that meeting. It was the voice of Council Member Jim Grady. He said two things that were right on point in my view, and both are of equal importance. First, he said ‘process’ should be followed. He’s right. He then went on to say that he wants this project to move forward now, with no delays. I agree with that, too. He indicated that process was not obstruction and any such perception was incorrect. His observation that "sometimes we have to go slower to go faster" was right on target in this case. There are some important distinctions.

I’d like to think that I know every facet of all the issues concerning this project. But, I can’t claim to be that sophisticated, although I do have far more than a basic understanding of the issues. What I do know, is that there is a process, and somehow it went astray.

We are fortunate to have a deep and broad base of talented people on our Coastside. We have 10 such individuals who were hand picked by our current City Council; seven Planning Commissioners and three members of our Architectural Review Committee (ARC). Process should clearly state that any significant project in HMB go before them for review, prior to approval. Why not get their valued input? Why bypass this educated, knowledgeable, incredibly hard working group of individuals that want nothing more than to help? That’s what they were appointed for!

Should any Agency be allowed to build a structure in the heart of our town without any input from our best resources?

We should not, and can not be inconsistent in the application of process. We should welcome the input of everyone, particularly those that clearly dedicate themselves to the betterment of our City. I would be very interested in all input, while at the same time offering no delays to the project. We can do both. It would start with a refund of the $200.00 for an appeal that should never have happened. Give all available data to the PC and the ARC, ASAP, put this topic on the next Agenda for each, call a Special Meeting (workshop) to put everyone together, and let’s move forward. Our children deserve it, and we can deliver.