DISCUSSION

On June 5, 2007, by a 9-0 vote approved the following:
Substitute motion to direct the Planning staff to: (1) initiate the process to revise SEADIP ordinance that would include a comprehensive community outreach process; (2) in the course of the community outreach process, report to the City Council on an informal basis with “to-for-from” memoranda and in study sessions at “key milestones”; (3) obtain input of the Planning Commission at study sessions and key milestones; and (4) report back to City Council within 60 days with an outline of a process to amend SEADIP with attention to: (a) community outreach; (b) presentation of key milestones; and (c) check-in milestones for the Planning Commission.(Carried 9-0)  Yes: B. Lowenthal, S. Lowenthal, DeLong, O’Donnell, Schipske, Andrews, Reyes Uranga, Gabelich, and Lerch.
 

At the request of the Councilmembers, staff indicated that every effort would be made to have the outline available for the July 10th wetlands study session.
 

THE PROCESS:
 

I do not recall receiving the “outline” on this process nor do I recall that staff has ever discussed with the City Council “an outline of a process” nor did they ever take steps to have this “process” vetted by the Council.
 

Instead, staff designed a questionnaire and initiated a series of public meetings (that were only scheduled at the request of neighborhood associations) and went out to the City on what constituted a “visioning” of what should be developed in this area as evidenced by the Development Services website statement:
Through a series of neighborhood meetings and a public workshop, the SEADIP update will provide all residents and stakeholders with the opportunity to create a shared vision. With an up to date specific plan, development expectation and related community benefits are predetermined ensuring future development implements the community’s vision for the area. The initial public outreach will be focused on issue identification, vision and alternatives.
The problems with this “process” are many; the most serious of which was the problem that in several council districts there are few if any “neighborhood associations” which could request a “neighborhood meeting.” Consequently, the number of “neighborhood meetings” held was minimal.
I held two meetings on SEADIP in the 5^th Council District: 1) attended by 30 members of my Lakes, Ponds, and Wetlands Task Force; and 2) attended by 120 residents at the Emerson Parkside Academy. At both meetings, many participants were very upset about the questionnaire and the presentation that was made by staff.
 

THE QUESTIONNAIRE
A four-page questionnaire was handed out at the meetings and was available on-line. It is not clear who approved the questions that were asked, as the initial questionnaire was heavily slanted towards questions regarding commercial and retail development of the area without any explanation or background on the wetlands areas that lie within the SEADIP. At subsequent meetings, additional questions were added to the questionnaire resulting in initial responders not being asked the same questions.
 

Consequently, a total of only 54 people filled out a questionnaire – which are posted on line by Development Services. It should be noted that approximately 90% of the responses indicated concern about changing SEADIP and/or the need to address the problems related to the wetlands.
 

Additionally, staff announced during the meetings that the results of the questionnaires would be taken first to the Planning Commission, which I believe runs counter to the Council’s stated concerns that it be involved in approving the process.
 

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS
 

Since the meetings have been held, I have had a meeting with the “new team” that is proposing to redevelop Seaport Marina, within the SEADIP. The “team” expressed its desire to “set a vision” for that area. However, not one member of the “team” knew about the above referenced meeting, the questionnaire or the responses. They also did not seem to be aware of SEADIP nor plans by the City to update it. This potential sets a collision course between these developers and the citizens that participated in the recent “visioning” meetings.
 

RECOMMENDATION
 

We need a “re-do.”
 

I think we can look at what happened (or did not happen) as instructive as to what needs to be done to improve the outreach process and take it from there.
 

A “process” needs to be brought to the City Council for approval that includes: how outreach is conducted (beyond voluntary requests from neighborhood associations), how stakeholders will be informed of this outreach, what materials are being used (including slide presentations and questionnaires), how the information will be communicated and utilized by staff, City Council and Planning Commission, etc.
 

The “process” also must include the subsequent steps in amending SEADIP: what actions are necessary for amendments, the timeline for amending SEADIP, etc.
 

Finally, a public calendar needs to be published that shows all the milestone dates on the above process as approved by the City Council.