Some new Public Notice improvements!

"Citizen participation in the planning process --a horrifying
prospect to some administrators -- has proved to be the most effective way to avoid mistakes (and unintended consequences)." - SUBURBAN NATION by Duany, Zyberk & Speck

Just prior to Councilman Resha's departure from council, his Planning and Public Works Committee with citizen input recommended public notice improvements to council and staff. Below are improvements staff made in response to citizen effort. Special thanks for staff's addition of Notice into our city website; and appreciation to councilmen Cole and Marchione for this information! Noteworthy items are highlighted in green. Do you have have any comments?

THE NEW PUBLIC NOTICE IMPROVEMENTS:

A. Sending Notice of Application to residents (renters) as well as owners
B. Re-send Notice of Application when process type changes
C. Create a process flow chart to include in Notice of Application
D. Improve legibility of vicinity maps
E. Encourage (not require) neighborhood meetings for Short Plats (until RCDG can be updated to require)
F. Improve legibility of site plans
G. Provide the tree preservation plan with the Notice of Application
H. Place tree preservation plans, site plans, vicinity maps and flow charts on Internet together with Notice of Application
I. Provide web links on mailed/posted notices to direct readers to the legal notices web page
J. Clarify comments due date to reflect acceptance of comments until decision or hearing date
K. Clarify in notices that e-mail is an acceptable form of comment
L. Increase comment period for Notice of Application to 21 days

Department of Planning and
Community Development
Ph: 425-556-2438
Fx: 425-556-2400

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples of PAST Public Notice deficiencies: 1) Perrigo Heights: White and Yellow Notice signs not placed on northern boundary 150 feet, vicinity/site maps unclear, Party of Record list absent for community meetings, mailing list incomplete. 2) Shaughnessey Heights: tree preservation map confusion, incomplete notice to all parties of record. 3) Tyler Creek: Citizens appealed the wrong permit owing to incoherent and confusing legalize on notice, tree preservation map not readily available, incomplete commenting owing to short comment period, not all citizens received notice. 4) Tent City 4: Citizens misunderstood commenting protocol so could not participate in the process.

Deterrents to a fully informed public and project review still exist. For example: 1) more reliable accounting of Parties of Record by staff. 2) when you see the large, white sign on a proposed project it usually means you are "too late" to appeal the plat. This sign needs to go up earlier...and on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LINKS:

Current listing of new land use notices:

http://www.ci.redmond.wa.us/cityservices/legalnotices.asp Citywide Legal notices

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview of Land use classifications

Overview of Review (permit)Classifications, Public Notice requirements, Decision-maker, Appeal body, Quasi-Judicial (q-j) restrictions... http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/redmond.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Notice requirements for each Review:

Detailed breakdown of each of the seven reviews, with examples of permits; and identification of Quasi-judicial (q-j) whereby the public input to city council is restricted.

Type 1 Reviews (permits) "plumbing" (eg. hot water heater), "tree removal", "temporary use" (Tent City), "clearing and grading", signs, street use, "electrical & building permits" (retaining walls) http://mrsc.org/mc/redmondcdg/cdg20F3030.html

Type II Reviews: "short plat" subdivision http://mrsc.org/mc/redmondcdg/cdg20F3035.html

Type III Reviews: q-j (public input restricted) "preliminary plat" subdivision (>9 lots); "shoreline variance" http://mrsc.org/mc/redmondcdg/cdg20F3040.html

Type IV Reviews q-j (public input restricted) "planned residential development" (PRD) - usually combined with subdivision. http://mrsc.org/mc/redmondcdg/cdg20F3045.html

Type V Reviews q j (public input restricted) "sensitive area exception" (e.g. steep slope sewer); annexation http://mrsc.org/mc/redmondcdg/cdg20F3050.html

Type VI Reviews "development guide" amendment; http://mrsc.org/mc/redmondcdg/cdg20F3055.html

Type VII Reviews "historic landmark" http://mrsc.org/mc/redmondcdg/cdg20F3060.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public notice signage and Critical area reporting requirements:

http://www.ci.redmond.wa.us/insidecityhall/permitting/devapps.asp#CriticalArea

The above Land Use link describes the yellow public notice sign and the large, white notice sign w/PRD information seen on proposed developments. SCROLL DOWN. Critical Area Ordinance reporting requirements are also listed. If you were to pull a project file that had wetlands and streams you should be able to find 5 documents required of developers to account for buffer averaging and other buffer mitigation calculations. If not, contact Cathy Beam, planner.