Community members involved in planning for San Diego have expressed concerns about an advisory committee with a large representation of builders and developers. They claim the committee’s meetings were not adequately publicized. -db
San Diego Uptown News
February 20, 2010
By David Harvey
Leo Wilson, Reynaldo Pisano and James Feinberg from the city’s Community Planners Committee – made up of chairpeople from the 43 community planning groups charged with advising the city on land use and development – told LU&H they were concerned about Development Services’ Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which devised the incentive report.
TAC is weighted with building industry representatives and other development-friendly members, they said, and TAC’s meetings are inadequately noticed.
“Development Services is not a special interest group. They shouldn’t just be listening to [TAC],” Wilson said. “I think the fact that they’re just hearing one voice says they’re not doing their job right.”
District 3 Councilmember Todd Gloria chairs LU&H, which includes Councilmembers Sherri Lightner, Kevin Faulconer and Tony Young. Gloria asked the committee to hear the Development Services presentation, emphasizing that it was intended to be a discussion item – though the LU&H agenda makes no distinction between action and discussion items – and that no action would be taken.
Director of Development Services Kelly Broughton told LU&H that the community planners were likely referring to an earlier draft of the report and that those items had either been reworded to reflect greater cooperation between Development Services and the planning groups or had been removed completely. The incentives proposal is still in the early stages, he said.
“I couldn’t understand why the community planners’ representatives that were there were upset,” Broughton said. “I think some of them have been around long enough to know that what we do in government is not very stealthy. [The public process is] long and drawn out and we like to get input.”
Broughton said his department developed the incentives in-house with TAC’s sustainability subcommittee, but the full TAC board softened the community review process items at their Jan. 13 meeting, resulting in the revised report. Any proposals affecting the planning groups would have been brought to them later in the process, he said.
The disputed items – which were later removed – included a timeframe for community planning groups, which, if not met, would cause the group to forfeit all appeal rights; new subcommittees that would have the power to make recommendations without the full planning group; a rule that a planning group’s denial must include a detailed list of changes that would earn the group’s support; and creation of a mayor-appointed planning group for projects outside the regular planning group process.
“I understand the skepticism of the planning groups,” Gloria said. “I think the misunderstanding at the meeting is that there was never any intention for community planning input, which is definitely not the case. We are very early in the conversation.”
John Ziebarth, a TAC member representing the American Institute of Architects, agreed. “[TAC is] trying to look to see if there are ways to help Development Services run more efficiently, and maybe there are ways the community groups could also work more efficiently,” he said. “We wanted to address the fact that these incentives are not intended to circumvent community planning groups.”
Regardless, Wilson said if TAC can influence city policy that directly affects how planning groups operate, he wants further transparency about who is on the board and their interests.
“I’m seeing a lot of people in the development industry get together and make recommendations and … if you’re a builder and you’re going to get a direct financial interest from that policy, should they be making a recommendation without a disclosure of ‘Hey, this is going to benefit my company’?” Wilson said.
LU&H first convened a TAC in February 1997 to make recommendations on affordable housing projects. Currently, TAC is tasked with advising LU&H on improvements to the development review process “using communication, technology and best business practices to reduce processing times and better serve the customers and citizens of San Diego,” according to the organization’s newest bylaws, adopted May 19, 2009. The bylaws state that committee members must be customers of the city’s Development Services Department and no limits exist on how many people can sit on the committee.
TAC Chair Kathleen Riser explained that any organization could request representation on the committee, whose members ratify applicants by a simple majority vote. She acknowledged there is no representation on TAC from the community planning groups.
“We have talked over the years about creating a stronger tie to the community planning groups,” Riser said. “I guess we just never carried that discussion any further. If they were to ask for a seat, I would be willing to recognize them.”
In addition to Ziebarth’s seat for the American Institute of Architects, TAC includes representatives from the American Council of Engineering Companies, the American Society of Landscape Architects, Associated General Contractors, BIOCOM, the Building Industry Association, the Business Improvement District Council, the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association and the San Diego Economic Development Corporation. Advocates for accessibility and sustainable energy are also members.
At TAC’s Feb. 10 meeting, Scott Molloy, who participated heavily in discussing both the incentive items and another agenda item brought forth by the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, asked for membership on behalf of the San Diego Association of Realtors. TAC will consider his candidacy in March.
Riser maintains there is no conflict of interest among members, and that as an advisory group TAC is not responsible for filing conflict of interest statements.
“We don’t spend any city money,” Riser said.
Community planning groups, which the City Council established in 1976, are also advisory and therefore not required to file economic interest statements. However, unlike TAC they are elected by members from their respective districts (voting eligibility requires attendance at one meeting), not board members.
Both TAC and community planning groups have sections in their bylaws that direct members with a conflict of interest on an item to abstain from voting on it.
In addition to the structure of TAC’s membership, Wilson also questioned at LU&H if TAC is complying with the Brown Act, a 2003 state law calling for 72-hour public noticing of meetings and for those meetings to be held in publicly accessible venues.
An archived Development Services page on the city’s Web site shows TAC has been posting agendas under the “News and Updates” header since before the city attorney’s office directed the organization to comply with the Brown Act.
Riser said all TAC meetings are now held at the Development Services Center, 1222 First St., a public facility. However, some 2007 agendas say the accessibility subcommittee met at the Building Industry Association’s private offices at 9201 Spectrum Center Blvd.
Wilson said those meetings might have been a violation of the Brown Act. He also cited TAC with improper publication of agendas because no discussion of community planning groups was noticed along with the sustainable incentive program.
Although agendas for TAC and its various subcommittees are posted online (sandiego.gov/development-services/news), there is no link to the organization’s bylaws, no explanation of its purpose or membership and no posted meeting minutes. TAC’s bylaws state that an annual report be issued on behalf of TAC by “staff,” which Riser identified as Development Services. Though chairman, she said she has not seen such a report in several years.
While not a violation of the Brown Act, the lack of published information about the group is “making everybody uneasy,” Wilson said of his fellow community planners. Without dialogue and transparency, he said, the conflict in city development and the rift between community planners and developers will continue to grow.
Gloria indicated his staff is exploring any needed changes.
“We know [TAC’s] role has evolved from commenting mostly on how to make the Development Services Department more efficient in the way that it operates, to providing technical opinions or advise on matters of policy,” Gloria said. “If that triggers any additional need for compliance with things like the Brown Act or the Statement of Economic Disclosure, then we need to make sure we’re in compliance with that. The city attorney hasn’t notified us of any deficiencies, but we are asking those questions.”
Regardless, Gloria said both planning groups and TAC have their place.
“To solicit input from community members is why you have community planning groups. I believe you have a technical advisory committee because you want members with technical ability and a technical skill set to provide advice to city staff and decision makers on what an industry perspective may be,” he said.
Several members of TAC and community planning groups interviewed for this story said that broader representation on advisory committees would be good for the city and may be the only way to avoid confrontation politics.
“The biggest problem that has faced the city and community planning groups and developers: the level of trust between all the different parties,” said TAC member Ziebarth, who said he has worked with both developers and community planning groups in San Diego for nearly 20 years. “Everybody is suspicious of everybody else’s motives. But if we all work together, we can get a better product.”
Wilson said that cooperative system is what he and his fellow planning volunteers are seeking.
“The idea of getting the community planning people and the development people together on a board early in the process is something that I think would be really good for this city. That’s something we don’t have,” Wilson said. “The [fighting] at Land Use and Housing is going to continue to take place unless we start a dialogue.”