Last night the Council discussed several significant items:
- We approved the employment contract for our new City Manager, Kris Lofthus. Mr. Lofthus comes to us from Suisun City where he currently serves as the Recreation, Parks, and Marina Director and prior to that as the Deputy City Manager. With over 28 years of municipal experience, I am excited to welcome Mr. Lofthus as our next City Manager.
Related, this was also the last Council meeting that our current Interim City Manager, Adam Politzer, will be attending in this capacity. I want to thank Adam for all he has done in the time that he was here. As a retiree, he is limited in the number of hours he can work. Because of this, and the nature of interim roles, typically the focus is only on things that can reasonably be accomplished during the allotted time. But in working with Adam, you wouldn't know this because of the vigor in which he approached the role.
I am appreciative of what Adam has been able to accomplish, especially reorganizing the staff at City Hall to be more efficient and effective. I am grateful for his leadership, guidance, and counsel.
- We heard an appeal of the Planning Commission's granting of a one year extension for the Oak Creek Canyon development project. Extensions for development projects may be granted upon finding of good cause. The Planning Commission heard the request from the developer and based on their judgment and staff's recommendation, the Planning Commission granted the extension. The rational was that site work was continuing, but due to continuing efforts to locate specific underground petroleum pipelines.
A nearby property owner appealed this extension, asserting among other things that the project violates the Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan, that the water detention basin size was inadequate to support potential future development on neighboring property, that the City has failed to comply with the State housing element law, and that certain provisions of the approvals have not been incorporated into the City's General Plan.
Before Council on appeal was the granting of the extension of the Development Permit, only. All other issues raised were not able to be appealed. As such, after discussion, the Council upheld the Planning Commission decision to grant an extension and denied the appeal on a vote of 4-1. Councilmember Cloven voted no. Cloven stated that when he voted in favor of the appeal for the Oliva project, he faced community dissatisfaction, and that he felt that if the City granted this extension, then it would set precedent for future extension requests.
This is of course, incorrect on the facts and the law. As a policymaking body and at times a semi-adjudicative body, the Council is charged with exercising its judgment based on the fact pattern presented. Different fact patterns call for different judgments. In fact, the standard of "good cause" is intended to convey the need for judgment on a case by case basis. Granting an extension for one project does not mean that extensions must be granted for all projects. This is a fallacy.
The standard for granting an appeal is showing of Good Cause, though the term "good cause" is not specifically defined in the City's municipal code. This is likely intentional as this term is used throughout statewide government code without a standard definition in order to give municipalities latitude in exercising judgment.
- We also received an update on discreet action items that can help further the City's strategic plan. Given the transition to a new City Manager, staff wanted to focus on certain short term items while continuing to plan for the larger efforts in the future.
