There is no political or technical activity which affects a city more than planning.  Planning and the resulting developments (i.e. buildings) affect a community in a multitude of ways.  There are fiscal effects (property and sales taxes are affected by our development choices); traffic, parking and other transportation effects; public safety effects; housing effects (including impacting home values); water and other environmental effects; and finally, effects on City programs targeting interest groups like seniors and youth.

Because of these varied effects, planners frequently talk of ensuring a project achieves the “highest and best use” of the parcel in question.

Fortunately, Seaside has a good General Plan and a couple fairly good specific area plans such as the West Broadway Urban Village, the Main Gate lifestyle center, the golf courses and hotel/condo plan, the Veterans Cemetery and now being considered by an advisory committee, the East Seaside area.  I am proud to have been involved in the development of a number of these plans, both as a planning commissioner and later as a concerned citizen.

Unfortunately, it seems some members of the Council and (to a lesser degree) some members of various City boards and commissions do not routinely follow the desires of the residents of Seaside.  This is evidenced by the application of varying degrees of creative “findings” to support development that is not consistent with the plans created based on community input.

One recent example is the City Center (Freemont and Broadway) which, while quite attractive, does not remotely follow the guidelines of the West Broadway Urban Village specific plan.*  A number of Council members argue that the plan was not officially adopted, but the direction of that plan was set by the planning commission over twelve years ago and for about a decade the vision has been remarkably consistent with what is now in final draft form.

* The WBUV specific plan calls for mixed use (commercial and residential), multi-story development.  The City Center is neither.

Proposed Solutions:

At minimum, the City Council, planning commission and board of architectural review should meet in a forum at least twice per year.  This will ensure there is bidirectional discussion and understanding of what the City is trying to achieve and the policies and procedures required to get there.  Currently, such forums happen only sporadically (maybe once per year) — which explains the lack of consistency in the approaches by the Council and boards and commissions.  [Realistically, to get every decision maker on the same page might require three or four annual meetings for the first few years.]

The City should also commit to training its Council members and commissioners.  While the City certainly sends such decision makers to seminars and conferences, there is not any consistency to the approach.

Council members and commissioners need a standardized training program and should be compelled to attend an annual retreat for the commission on which they serve to maintain service eligibility.

Much of this training is available at no or low cost and will reap benefits for years as the City would become a beacon for high quality developers looking for an oasis of planning and development fairness and consistency so seldom seen in California and elsewhere.

 

<< back to Seaside Issues