Jeb Bladine: If city council can’t consider safety, who can?

The last time I testified before McMinnville City Council related to a proposed hotel project that would have replaced three Third Street buildings, including two owned by our family. The project included full-need underground parking and solutions to a problematic, 40-year-old gasoline spill, but it was denied because its physical “massing” was considered excessive in a protected downtown historic district.

Tuesday will be a return trip to the council for me, having joined an appeal opposing development of a 72-unit affordable housing apartment complex on Second Street. This project plan represents a huge loss of downtown parking and poses significant safety risks in the downtown’s most congested and dangerous traffic area.

It should be a spirited hearing in light of state laws that appear to require “mandatory adjustments” to local planning code regulations. At least, that’s what city staff and the McMinnville Planning Commission believe.

The planning commission voted unanimously to approve demolition of the historic Methodist Church building and its replacement with a four-story apartment complex. That followed receipt of these directives from city staff:

Whatchamacolumn

Jeb Bladine is president and publisher of the News-Register.

> See his column

“Nothing in state law or the local waiver standards allow for any cumulative evaluation of the effects that multiple waivers would have on the overall design or the downtown district. The SB 1537 waiver authorization elevates the need for housing above district-preservation objectives set forth in design standards. This is a choice that the state has made and the City has an obligation to adhere to these requirements.”

Sounds pretty final. However, those statements remain opinions, not facts. Here’s a flip side:

The state law does not demand denial of any “cumulative evaluation” of multiple waivers. It does not state that the need for housing in Oregon must be elevated above whatever protections exist for a community’s core historic identity. It does not demand disregard of all local regulations outside the list of mandatory adjustments.

Most of all, the law explicitly exempts issues of “safety” from being subject to those adjustments.
Appointed planning commissioners tend to follow staff advice. They were told that state law did not allow them to evaluate the collective impact of waivers on the historic downtown district. They didn’t ask or answer this question:

After parking, open space, façade materials, façade articulation, window area, balconies/porches and building mass limits are all adjusted, does the resulting project satisfy the unadjusted historic district standards? No, according to opponents of the development.

City Council members are elected by the citizens. If they cannot consider “cumulative impact,” who can? If they cannot question whether the law places housing needs above decades of historic district preservation objectives and forbids cumulative consideration, who will?

As for safety, the past two weeks included a rollover vehicle accident at Second and Evans streets, and a slam-bang crash at Second and Ford streets — common occurrences along that congested street with its inadequate visibility and distracted drivers searching for parking spaces.

We need affordable housing. But not on this scale, at this location, to the detriment of public safety.

Jeb Bladine can be reached at jbladine@newsregister.com or 503-687-1223.