Revising codes: Community Involvement

You learn something new every day.

At the monthly Neighborhood Chairs Meeting with the Mayor last Saturday, the chair of the Old Town Neighborhood said the Clear and Objective Housing Standards were already settled in Old Town, and the new standards did not apply to them.  They had already worked out codes that the neighborhood could live with if a developer decided to build there.  The new standards would apply to all [other] commercial areas in the city, and were very upsetting to the rest of the group that represented neighborhood associations from all over the city.

What did the Old Town neighborhood association do, and how did they do it?

The answer to this question came at last night's City Council Public Hearing on how to process permit requests for all developments that include housing (think Wizer's).  Senior City Planner Sara
Selden's presentation included information that the Old Town neighborhood has its own Design District Overlay that is part of the Community Development Code.  The Design District language is specific to that limited area and is already tightly written, so it is clear and objective.

Ok.  That makes sense.  The city wants cohesion within the city's three established Design Districts, and to enforce those visions, it approved codes that are specific to the districts that are tightly written, and clear, and objective.

Shouldn't the same rules apply to all Design Districts, including the Downtown Redevelopment Design District?

Figure 50.05.004-A: Downtown Redevelopment District 

There was no answer to this at the meeting, even though the discrepancy was questioned specifically as this was NEW information for citizens (and I assume for Council too) that needed explanation and follow-up.   The planners present were mum.  Had any of the Councilors or the Mayor asked the question, the planners would have had to answer.  NO ONE ASKED.  Either they were totally uninterested or they knew what was happening and wanted the downtown developed quickly, with as little interference from the citizens as possible, or didn't understand the implications of what was said.

There's more:
The other revelation to the Council and citizens was Sara Selden's description of how other cities in the region handle clear and objective housing standards.  We were told that clear and objective standards meant that there could be no opportunity for citizen input or appeal on a development because a developer would have met all the requirements of the "clear and objective" code.  The planning staff would interpret code and make code compliance decisions, then issue permits in a ministerial process.  If I misunderstood, others did too, because this was what we were told.

But that is not how the other cities were doing things.  They continue to have public reviews of developments through their Development Review Commissions, with citizen right to comment and appeal decisions.  Clear and objective isn't always so clear, so having the DRC and public point out code problems is part of the process.  It also shows where code should be improved.

What I learned last night:

For the three design districts in the city, especially the Downtown Redevelopment Design District (DRDD), the city is in compliance with state law already!

So why are we doing this?  
Why go through all the expense, planning time, and citizen anguish to fiddle with code for the downtown when it should only apply to Lake Grove and Kruse Way and maybe the Industrial areas when they are developed - Foothills and the SW Industrial zones.

My answers tomorrow.  

At the 1/20/15 City Council Meeting the Council was asked to select from 4 options for how applications for the clear and objective housing code path will be handled.  The Council approved Option #4 in a 4 to 3 vote:  Yes: Mayor Studebaker, Councilors Gudman, O'Neill, and Gustafson.  No: Bowerman, Buck and Manz.  Read the Staff Report on the meeting website (Item 6.4 on the Interactive Agenda), and watch the meeting video also posted on the main meeting page.


Note:  The Planning Commission did not approve of ministerial decision-making on commercial developments and passed the recommendation, to not cut citizens out of the process, on to the Council.