City Council, October 24th - Zoning on Commercial, Deceptive Airport Estimates

You will recall the request from SCAN for a group of blocks along middle Commercial to be zoned MU-II instead of MU-III. 

The car dealerships south of McGilchrist had already been zoned MU-III in the Our Salem project. 

Automotive businesses on Commercial at Judson

Just north of it are two more blocks, nearly all of which are related to the dealership businesses, which were part of the longer extent SCAN had requested to be zoned MU-II. At the last Council meeting the owners and the Chamber objected, and Council obliged with a request to Staff for a carve-out.

At Council on Monday Staff now propose about one and two-thirds blocks for MU-III zoning.

Proposed MU-II with MU-III carve out
(base map pre-Our Salem)

MU-III carve out from MU-II proposal

Since blocks to the south with the car businesses had already been zoned MU-III, and the blocks in question are mainly parking lot already, this is not a very big change, seems likely to be an acceptable compromise, and not something to fuss over.

It remains to be seen if the MU-III concept is framed correctly to prompt redevelopment in the time horizon envisioned by Our Salem and the Climate Action Plan. The zone does not seem so very different from existing commercial zoning, and without a stroad-to-boulevard conversion on Commercial, mixed uses seem unlikely to be very attractive in any way that actually scales.

Previously at Council on the matter:

• In September
  
• Last meeting, October 10th
  

Funny Business at the Airport?

This is a little odd. There are new cost estimates for commercial air service.

Potentially misleading difference in estimates

But the City isn't really making clear that these numbers are for preliminary work wholly apart from any actual construction.

For context also, you may recall that the winning bid for the Civic Center Customer Service Center remodel in June came in $301,390 over budget. More recently, the bid just to demolish the UGM/Saffron buildings also came in over budget. Both of these required Council action for budget transfers to cover the cost escalation. And of course we have been talking here about cost escalation on road projects. Next week at SKATS they will approve a reduction in bundle of funded crosswalks here in Salem.

Next week at SKATS

There is every reason to be intensely skeptical on these airport numbers. Even though the October 10th values contain a 13% escalation, we are seeing increases much larger than that right now.

With the way the City is framing these design and permitting estimates, it could be that the City trying to low-ball and once the project is formalized and Council committed, they will rely on the sunk cost fallacy and ask for more and more funds.

Any airport expansion needs a GHG analysis

Finally, Staff and Council show no interest in any assessment of greenhouse gas pollution caused by airport expansion. Keeping the airport plans insulated and immune from any climate analysis is fundamentally dishonest.

Ripples from the Mushroom Plant Appeal

You will also recall the remand on the former Mushroom Plant. At the time it was interesting to speculate whether this would have here "broader implications for ways that arguments about livability and compatibility are often used to try to foil development." Here is one limited consequence in a proposal for a bundle of code amendments:

The proposed code amendment responds to an order issued by the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in East Park, LLC vs. City of Salem. Specifically, LUBA found that the City erred in denying a conditional use permit for a proposed multifamily development in the Retail Commercial (CR) zone because the criteria for such a permit is not clear and objective.... Currently, multifamily housing is only allowed in the CR zone - and Commercial General (CG) and Industrial Commercial (IC) - through a conditional use permit. LUBA determined that some of the criteria for a conditional use permit are not clear and objective....

This proposed code amendment rectifies the issue related to clear and objective standards identified by LUBA by removing the requirement for a conditional use permit for multifamily housing in the CR, CG, and IC zones. The amendment would instead allow multifamily housing outright in the CR, CG, and IC zones if that housing is located in a mixed-use building. (A mixed-use building must include a combination of residential and nonresidential uses.) Multifamily housing as a standalone use would not be allowed.

This looks like a narrow fix, and doesn't address the way some standards related to livability and compatibility may in more general ways not be clear and objective. Apparently the City will tackle those if and when LUBA says it is necessary, but not before.

(As a footnote, the Meyer Farm appeal looks like it has oral arguments scheduled for the afternoon of November 7th at LUBA by teleconference.) 

The bundle also has some climate action and parking reform in it:

The proposed code amendment implements several of the new State administrative rules that resulted from the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities (CFEC) rulemaking....this code amendment requires new multifamily and mixed-use buildings with at least five units to provide electrical vehicle charging capacity to 40 percent of the spaces that serve the buildings. In addition, the amendment eliminates minimum off-street parking requirements for any use within a half-mile of transit corridors that have 15-minute service as well as for a variety of other uses citywide, including affordable housing, residential care facilities, shelters for people experiencing homelessness, and dwelling units that are smaller than 750 square feet. In addition to these changes, the City is required by the new State rules to make other parking reforms, which involve different policy options. Staff anticipates bringing these options to the Council in the future.

And several other items of lesser interest here.

Council may refer the package to the Planning Commission for further deliberation or advance it and schedule a formal Public Hearing and subsequent Second Reading. There will be more to say later. (The Staff Report offers a third option of do nothing, but since these respond to LUBA and to new State rules, doing nothing is not at all a realistic option. It's funny that Staff includes that option.)

Bullets for the rest:

• The revised MUHTIP property tax abatement, with the Standards and Guidelines and with the ordinance and Second Reading for enactment. "If the project contains 50 or more units of housing, the applicant will provide at least 15 percent of the units at rents affordable to households at 80 percent of the average median income or less for the duration of the incentive." (See previous notes here and here.)
  
• An information item with the Planning Commission decision on the Kuebler Village development, and employing the MU-II and MU-III zoning. (See previous notes here.)
  
• An information item on approvals for the 71 apartment mixed use block on Wiltsey Road near the proposed South Salem Transit Center. (See previous note here.)

A little free and easy with the pics

And on a less important note about misleading City social media, the recent post about this Council meeting had a picture of a very nice Mondrian-style building mural. Was one in the works on new Veterans housing?! Had one snuck into Salem? Not at all. The picture has nothing to do with Salem and is just social media puffery. That's disappointing and not a good approach to governance and communication.