[Grovenet] A little more inconvenient truth . . .

[David Morelli]

On Jun 23, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Bonnie Combs wrote:

> David wrote;
>    Then I was heavily involved in
> research on the evidence for the hearing on the Rau annexation.
>
>   Bonnie says:  And you did a fine job, David.  This city could be  
> greatly improved with you on the Planning Commission or the City  
> Council.  Please think about it.
>   Bonnie
>


Bonnie,

I was on the Planning Commission, and there were serious complaints  
that I was not friendly enough to development.  Imagine that.

In the end, the job that I did in testimony will be measured by the  
outcome, not by the quality of the speaking, nor the technical merit  
of the evidence.  The hearing had a lot of technical issues and a few  
political ones.  The applicant continued to request that the merits  
of their design should influence the outcome of the hearings on the  
Comprehensive Plan Map designation and zoning.  That request is  
wrong.  The Comp Plan designation and zoning remain even if the plan  
goes away, so the Comp Plan designation should be based upon  
criterial that transcends the particular design.

Back when Albertson's wanted to build a store at the corner of  
Pacific Avenue and Highway 47 Bypass, they requested changes for the  
neighborhood south of 19th street.  It was approved because  
"Albertson's is a desirable use for that land".  The project is  
gone.  The neighborhood is decimated.  And the designation remains.   
It is the same for the Rau property.  If the city decides to make it  
High Density Residential and Medium Density Residential as requested,  
that becomes the designation.  If the developer decides to drop their  
special plan and build the maximum number of apartments they may.  No  
green spaces, no parks, no special amenities, or anything.  Just  
apartments and parking lots, because that is their legal right on  
land zoned High Density.  The city would have no recourse without  
creating a Measure 37 claim.

It is really interesting because the applicant is claiming that the  
land is suitable and appropriate for Apartments, even though they say  
that they don't want to build apartments.  They say the land is  
inappropriate for single family residential, even though they propose  
to build single family houses.  Why?  Because they want to increase  
the density beyond the limits provided by all single family  
residential zones.  The limits are based upon a variety of factors,  
including slope.  The comprehensive plan recognizes that, as slopes  
increase it is more difficult to crowd housing together in an  
acceptable fashion.  The Comp Plan even puts an upper limit of 20% on  
acceptable slopes.  The applicant wants the highest residential  
density in the city on a parcel that ranges between "often under  
water" to more than 20% slope.  Combining the site's issues with  
highest density  is a recipe for problems.

I see the issues as pretty clear cut.  Others may see it different.   
I guess that is why I haven't been elected Dictator.

David