Response to Councilor Herman

by Rick Bowers
September 17, 2021

A PDF version of this letter is available here. Note… the PDF does contain the full email chain (only the response to Councilor Herman).

Joan Herman, City Councilor
City of Astoria
1095 Duane St.
Astoria, OR 97103

Thanks for sharing your perspective (below):

I’m guessing you won’t be surprised, but I see this differently for multiple reasons. My emotional response… I’m depressingly sad that the best we can do as a community is collectively point to the Development Code and say “bummer” and metaphorical wring our hands in response to the people who are sleeping on the street….

Acknowledging that I’m far from being an attorney, I think there is also a legal perspective:

• Statewide Planning Goal 10 states “Plans should be developed in a manner that insures the provision of appropriate types and amounts of land within urban growth boundaries. Such land should be necessary and suitable for housing that meets the housing needs of households of all income levels [emphasis added].”[1]
• Astoria’s Comprehensive Plan, CP.027 says “The City of Astoria Comprehensive Plan Background Reports are hereby adopted as the factual basis of the Comprehensive Plan as required by ORS Chapter 197.” Oregon Statewide Planning 10 is in the list. This is also affirmed within the Development Code at 1.210.
• Astoria’s Comprehensive Plan, CP.005.4 says “All City ordinances, policies and actions must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Where there is a conflict between the Plan and ordinances and other City policies, the Plan shall prevail. The comprehensive Plan is intended to be consistent with itself and coordinated with other plans [emphasis added].”

Summarizing the legal perspective: City ordinances, policies actions must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which includes appropriate land for meeting the housing needs of households of all income levels. In this situation, a large building to support low-income residents, the city ordinance (regarding parking spaces) was in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is SUPPOSED to prevail! At a minimum this situation should spark a discussion!

You said “a goal does not change code.” True… changing the code is your job. Did city staff bring this to your attention (that we had the potential opportunity of housing eight or more low-income people that seems to be in alignment with a City Council goal)? We seem to both agree that parking in itself likely should not have been a roadblock to this project. So we let the Development Code, for which you are responsible, stand in our way. And as stated previously, the Comprehensive Code takes precedence over the Development Code anyway. This is why our business as usual approach has influenced our dubious distinction of continuing to be the county with the highest rate of homelessness in the state.

You said “department heads communicate goals to staff.” However, you did not address my question regarding a process of accountability.

The following is the same closing from my prior email. I’m including it again because to me it is such a powerful reminder for all of us to think creatively for how we can support the disadvantaged in our community. The American Planning Association, a national organization that certifies planners, has a code of ethics that states “We shall seek social justice by working to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of the disadvantaged and to promote racial and economic integration. We shall urge the alteration of policies, institutions, and decisions that oppose such needs [emphasis added].”[2]

Rick Bowers
PO Box 1406
357 Commercial Street
Astoria, OR 97103
(916) 622-4501
bowers@speak-peace.com

 

[1] See https://www.oregon.gov/lcd/OP/Pages/Goal-10.aspx.

[2] See https://www.planning.org/ethics/ethicscode/.

——– Forwarded Message ——–
Subject: Re: One more thought
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 15:20:56 +0000
From: Joan Herman <JHerman@astoria.or.us>
To: Rick Bowers <rick@speak-peace.com>

Hi, Rick.

I can certainly understand why you would not want to purchase a property not knowing if you would even be able to use it as you intended. I also would doubt the need for 12 parking spaces for a building housing individuals without their own homes. I ran your question by Brett, who told me that department heads communicate goals to staff. However, if city code requires a certain number of parking spaces, a goal does not change code. As you noted, you were treated fairly.

JoanA

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Rick Bowers <rick@speak-peace.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 6:32:54 PM
To: Joan Herman <JHerman@astoria.or.us>
Cc: Roger Rocka <RRocka@astoria.or.us>; Tita Montero <tmontero@cityofseaside.us>; Derrick DePledge <ddepledge@dailyastorian.com>; Rick Bowers <rick@speak-peace.com>
Subject: One more thought

*****EXTERNAL SENDER*****

September 14, 2021

Joan Herman, City Councilor
City of Astoria
1095 Duane St.
Astoria, OR 97103

I was thinking recently about some of the feedback you received at your prior listening session — a couple of folks expressed frustration with working with Astoria’s Planning Department. The following is in a very real sense ancient history but it highlights why I was sympathetic to their feedback.

In late 2019 Nelle & I were looking to purchase and donate to a 501(c)(3) a building for group housing. We toured a building near Safeway that from the assessor’s office has 6 bedrooms… we counted 8 bedrooms in our tour. Apparently in its history it had been used as a boarding house. In some sense that’s what we wanted to recreate (e.g. for folks moving out of Helping Hands that cannot find or afford market rate housing). We checked in with the Planning Department — shared our thinking — and were told we would need 12 off-street parking spots! I suppose property like that exists in town but none that I’ve encountered. A possible variance was discussed but it didn’t sound promising and the last thing we wanted to do was buy a house and then not be able to use it for our intended purpose. We moved on and ended up purchasing a 3-bedroom house on Bond Street for pretty much the same purchase price. Lately I’ve been thinking of those five additional people that could have been housed with those additional bedrooms this upcoming winter. What happened to the house near Safeway? It sits empty after being snatched up by an individual from southern California.

So what does this have to do with the Planning Department? They just explained the rules…. Which leads me to another short story….

In January of 2019 I met with Brett Estes to let him know we were exploring locations for a drop-in center in Astoria. I was armed with some knowledge from the success of creating a tiny home village in Clackamas County. The Clackamas project manager said the key to their success was the county commissioners encouraged county staff, and others, to figure out paths forward instead of creating roadblocks of “we can’t do that because of….” I asked for that kind of support from Brett. He said in Astoria city staff support everyone with moving projects forward. On the surface that may sound fair. However, the Astoria City Council goals for 2019-2021 included “Support work and recommendations of the Homelessness Solutions taskforce (HOST) as well as other community efforts to address homelessness.” What’s the point of mentioning “community efforts” if there isn’t some sort of added effort, added support, by city staff?

Back to the 8-bedroom house requiring 12 off-street parking spots – given the city’s goal I would have expected SOME sort of encouragement and support working through the parking issue. The planner simply said we could file a variance… basically giving us a form. While that’s certainly treating everyone equally it didn’t occur as very supportive. What good is having a goal including “Support… community efforts to address homelessness” if that simply means handing me a form?

My question… given the new City Council goals I’m wondering how they are communicated throughout the city staff and the process for accountability?

I should point out the American Planning Association, a national organization that certifies planners, has a code of ethics that states “We shall seek social justice by working to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of the disadvantaged and to promote racial and economic integration. We shall urge the alteration of policies, institutions, and decisions that oppose such needs [emphasis added].”[1]

Rick Bowers
PO Box 1406
357 Commercial Street
Astoria, OR 97103
(916) 622-4501
bowers@speak-peace.com

[1] See https://www.planning.org/ethics/ethicscode/.