CORRESPONDENCE_WSA_SACReD Coalition Proposed Changes

Home Browse Search

accommodation of such projects in loco/ /and use policy. Accordingly, the city is on solid ground in offering this minor procedural exemption for such projects. 5) In Section 2-153(a), add to list of covered projects "Development projects involving the acquisition of residential property by the City or the applicant or the removal of any existing residential rental unit from the market" Reason: A//owing odeguate, ear/y space for pub/ic input into projects that may remove residential units is critically important. This importance is also recognized in state redevelopment and eminent domain /aw. 6) In Section 2-153(e), omit the provision allowing for adjustment of meeting times based on what is convenient for the "meeting attendees." Reason: the guidelines around meeting times are to maximize the accessibility of meetings for all segments of the population. This provision, as written, could allow meetings to take place at hours that do not meet that goal- 7) Add a new Section 2-153(i) requiring the City to (a) consider the public input and any written public comment received within 10 days of the meeting as part of the administrative site plan review comments and (b) identify input or comments received from the public that it includes in its plan review comments. Reason: Under the staff report's proposed approach, the City's p/an review comments provide the critical vehicle for consideration of public input. /n the absence of the provisions suggested here, there is nothing to ensure that the City even takes public input into account in formulating its plan review comments. 8) Amend Section 2-152 to add a provision requiring the applicant to include an attachment to any application for discretionary approval explaining how the applicant incorporated public input or comments in its project plans. Reason: As noted, under the staff report's proposed approach, the plan check comments, and the developer's response thereto, are the central means by which public input may be considered. The provisions suggested here provide on exceedingly modest means of allowing the public to know whether and how their input has been considered- This approach is consistent with the principle of not creating additional delay in the approval process. 9) Amend Section 2-153(b) to add a provision requiring the applicant to hold a second community meeting prior to submission of the application for discretionary approval at which it will review the public input and comment it has received and discuss ways in which it has incorporated such comments into its plans. Reason: this offers the pub/ic an opportunity to see, and the deve/open to showcase, all of the ways in which the developer has responded to community input in a setting that is more collegial, less circumscribed and less high stakes than a City hearing on the applicant's land use entitlements. This meeting, at a time of the applicant's choosing, should not delay the development application process in any substantial way. RFP 1) Clarify that RFP ranking results must be made available on the City's website immediately following the decision to ensure transparency in the RFP process. Clarify that score sheets and other materials must be made available for public inspection after the conclusion of contract negotiations. Reason: as drafted, the staff report ordinance uses permissive language that gives the City complete discretion not to make these important materials available.