A level playing field

It’s easy to let likes and dislikes dictate how we make choices, and when it’s merely personal, that’s no big thing. When personal likes and dislikes drive decision-making by public bodies, however, it is a problem, and it is precisely for this reason Sonoma’s General Plan and Development Code were created.

Both the General Plan and Development Code are the product of a democratic process which reached its ultimate conclusion at the City Council. Adopted by a majority vote of our local, elected representatives, these documents form a virtual “Constitution and Bill of Rights” when it comes to land use planning. They comprise the goals, objectives, policies and implementation measures which dictate the ways in which parcels of land may or may not be used. The language of the General Plan is focused on “vision and intent” while the language of the Development Code is focused on “rules and regulations.” Together, these documents represent the collective aspirations of the community as expressed through its elected leaders.

When the process is followed correctly, the General Plan and Development Code serve to “level the playing field” by making the evaluation of varying applications by the Planning Commission more objective, orderly and consistent. Through the application of the meaning, intent and regulatory specifics outlined in these documents, matters of personal likes and dislikes are subordinated to the application of the rules, which is exactly how it should be. The evaluative process must necessarily be limited to the specifics of the application and its conformance with our city’s guiding documents.

Thus whether an applicant lives locally is irrelevant, as is the applicants age, race, or place of national origin. Similarly, the personal likes and dislikes of the Planning Commission members are irrelevant, as is each member’s age, race or place of national origin. Applications should not be evaluated on whether or not the applicant is a popular “nice guy” or a total stranger. And commissioners opinions about what each likes and dislikes are also not a sound basis for evaluation. Both the public and developers often make the mistake of losing sight of these realities.

While it is impossible to eliminate human feeling and some level of subjectivity from human affairs, the task of Planning Commission members is to set aside personal preferences and evaluate an application as objectively as possible. The guide to that objective process is provided by the General Plan and Development Code.

Contrary to much public perception, the Planning Commission does not set policy; that is the prerogative of the elected City Council only. Accordingly, the appointed Planning Commission members are called up to exercise an extraordinary level of restraint and discipline, and to set aside personal likes and dislikes. We think it’s the hardest job of all in City Government, and we thank this group of volunteers for their efforts and dedication.

SUN Editorial Board