Sierra Madre’s contentious Downtown Specific Plan – the emotionally-laden subject of discussion, rumors, news articles and possibly even the recent City Council election – had its first public airing-out in a joint study session Tuesday night at City Hall.
This is “the beginning of an important process,” said Mayor John Buchanan.
The meeting Tuesday began with the kind of drama that has characterized City Council meetings since the April election. Council Member Kurt Zimmerman announced that his fellow Council Member Don Watts would not be attending because an individual had filed a conflict of interest complaint about him with the Los Angeles County District Attorney and the California Political Fair Practices Commission.
At the June 13 City Council meeting, Sierra Madre resident Beth Buck had raised the issue of whether Watts, an architect who has been involved in city development projects, should recuse himself from discussions about the Downtown Specific Plan.
After the public comment period — during which one Sierra Madre resident said that she was “stunned and shocked and distressed” at the news about Watts, who she described as “a very fine man” — Al Zelinka of RBF, the consulting firm that drew up the draft document, gave a presentation so City Council, the Planning Commission and the public could begin to discuss and digest the complex plan.
The DSP was initiated in 2004 for several reasons, Zelinka said. One was because of a concern that the existing general plan was too open to guide inevitable development in Sierra Madre’s beloved downtown area.
Zelinka explained that the plan is supposed to “help you achieve the downtown you want.” He also said it must be consistent with the city’s general plan and with state and federal mandates.
While there are currently no development projects in the downtown area and no development applications pending, City Attorney Michael Colantuono said “the silence from the development community … is why we’re having this dialogue.” Colantuono said that developers are holding off and that if the city doesn’t establish guidelines soon, developers will start to apply within the existing code.
Council Member Kurt Zimmerman’s frustration with the plan was clear as he asked a number of specific questions about traffic, population, water, housing density and possible parking projects.
Council Member Enid Joffe and others asked RBF to draft clearer comparisons between possible development under current codes and possible development under the proposed DSP. If the DSP is supposed to mitigate negative development that could occur under existing codes, she said she wants to be able to tell if the plan is a better alternative or not.
People “need a reasonable reference point” in order to understand the best and worst case scenarios under the DSP, explained Planning Commissioner Bob Spears.
The term “build out” in the DSP is meant to describe the worst case scenario in which all the downtown properties develop to the maximum allotments of height and residential dwellings. Many of the questions Tuesday had to do with how likely it is for the downtown area to reach maximum build out.
Council Member and Planning Commissioners also asked about the procedures that will be in place to control unwanted development.
“[The DSP] is written for believers,” said Planning Commission Chair John Hutt, explaining that the DSP must have a better way to enforce its specific vision for the downtown area against developers looking to push the boundaries.
The group did appear to reach an informal consensus that the current maximum height limit of four stories is too much.
By the end of July, there will be another study session with a list of topics on the agenda, including density and height.
“This process is going to be a long one. We’re not near any conclusions yet,” said Mayor Buchanan at the close of Tuesday’s meeting.
“It’s a great start to reshaping this document and making this our document,” said Council Member Joe Mosca. There is a lot of work to do, Mosca added, but “we’re moving in a positive direction” toward creating a DSP that will “limit development downtown and comply with our zoning laws.”
Council Member Zimmerman did not wish to comment.
Last nights meeting was a great experience. The Study Session gave residents an excellent outline in which to use when reading the Draft of the DSP. It also provided for many excellent questions and concerns from our City Council, our Planning Commission and residents. The firm that created the Draft, RBF Consulting, did a good job in answering and explaining questions for the most part.
I would like to address two points that I observed at the meeting. The first topic was the announcement at the beginning of the meeting by Councilman Zimmerman that Councilman Watts had been informed of a complaint lodged against him with the Attorney General’s Office and the California Fair Political Practice Commision. If I recall correctly, he also stated that upon receiving an email from our City Attorney advising him to recuse himself for the night, Councilman Watts decided not to attend. While I admire Councilman Zimmerman for ’sticking up’ for his comrade, I agree that the question of his conflict of interest is a responsible question. I cannot believe that Councilman Watts is planning to make policy for personal gain, however, being the only person on the Council who has worked closely with developers in our city, the very small chance of a conflict (or perceived conflict) is reasonable. I fully expect the organization(s) that have received the complaint find in favor of Councilman Watts, and I also believe that moving past this issue as quickly as possible will be in the best interest of Sierra Madre.
My second observation has to do with Councilman Zimmerman. Would he everconsider approving anyversion of this DSP? I understand that he has never supported it, and has gained many residents that agree with him and voted for him. The meeting was a wonderful display of appropriate questions and concerns from many people, including councilman Zimmerman. I just can’t get over the thought in my head that he has made his mind up allready against any plan.
I would like to see Councilman Zimmerman continue to ask the ‘hard’ questions, stick to his guns about heights and density issues, and promote any of his other ideas so that the Council would end up with a plan that he can support. I expect the members of our City Council to be able to work with each other, despite differences of opinions, to promote the best for the City of Sierra Madre. On the other hand, if he will never support any version of this DSP process, I wish that he would provide an alternate plan to address future development.
Finally, I would really like to express my admiration of all those who made this meeting possible. I appreciate the hard work the process has taken up to now, and the time and effort of our City Council, City Staff, Planning Commission and residents.