MEMORANDUM
January 19, 2006
TO: Tom Arnold, Engineering Services
FROM: Robert Beaumier, Assistant
City Attorney
SUBJECT: Design Review Commission; Bernard
Street Project
________________________________________________________________________
Question: Certain improvements to rehabilitate/restore Bernard Street are
planned, with funding from the 2004 street bond levy (“Bernard Project”).
This Project has been reviewed by the Parks Department and City Arborist
under the City Street Tree ordinance, as well as the Citizen’s Street Advisory
Committee, (CSAC) a mayor-appointed citizen’s group established to review
expenditures of 2004 street bond money. However, the City also has a “Design
Review Committee” (DRC) established under ch. 4.13 SMC. The DRC jurisdiction
and authority to review construction projects is set by ordinance. The 2004
Street Bond money has been identified as for the primary purpose of funding
basic street rehabilitation and repair projects, consistent with voter intent
and CSAC’s understanding. The Bernard Street Project is being submitted to
DRC as an information item. DRC authority is advisory only. Given this background,
does formal DRC authority extend to the Bernard Street project?
Answer: No. While some ordinance language concerning DRC authority
is stated in broader terms, I believe a literal interpretation of that
language in isolation from the context given is not most consistent with
the overall intent of ch. 4.13 SMC.
Discussion: Ch. 4.13 SMC establishes the DRC. That chapter has 2 provisions.
SMC 4.13.010 is the “General” provision, which explains that the DRC is established
to ensure community input into the design of public buildings and structures
and to ensure their design reflects community standards; ensure design input
into the building design and site planning for projects subject to design
review under the Spokane Municipal Code; ensure innovative and creative development
and site planning; permit design flexibility from the standards of the zoning
code through the use of the Planned Unit Development mechanism; and facilitate
the development of a more compact environment compatible with existing development
in a manner that implements the City's Comprehensive Plan. SMC 4.13.010 A.
None of these stated purposes appears to be triggered by the Bernard Street
project.
The other section, SMC 4.13.020, provides for DRC “Authority”. This is granted
in general terms to conduct hearings, prepare a record and make written recommendations
or decisions regarding the design elements of: all public projects
or structures; shoreline permit applications, planned unit development applications,
skywalk applications involving request for exception(s) to design standards,
downtown sidewalk encroachments by private use, items as required in a neighborhood
design or specific plan, some items in the CBD (central business district
zone), and other items on request of the plan commission or hearings examiner.
While the language “all public projects” in SMC 4.13.020, if read literally,
would encompass the Bernard Street Project, here I believe that the project
as described does not implicate design elements as essentially contemplated
by SMC 4.13.020. The focus of ch. 4.13 SMC is on design items, not rehabilitation
or repair of existing public streets. Further illumination of this concept
is seen in analysis of Comprehensive Plan language below. Even the removal
and replanting of 24 trees arises here as a street/sidewalk maintenance issue.
This is clearly shown in the power point presentation to City Council depicting
sidewalk damage from tree roots and the need to repair the damage. The tree
removal is also consistent with SMC 12.02.0202, which declares trees growing
in a sidewalk or street which obstruct or impair full and free use by the
public are nuisances. Some of the trees are in impaired condition. Dead or
dying trees likewise present hazards to users of the street and sidewalk.
Considering all these features, the 2004 Street Bond money is available exactly
for projects like the Bernard Street Project. See section 2, Street Bond
Ordinance, which provides that levy funds should be used for repairs and
improvements to certain streets within the City, including but not limited
to major arterials, public safety corridors, and residential streets.
Comprehensive plan
Per your suggestion, I also looked at Section 4.6 of the comprehensive plan,
concerning street standards. That section (p. 57) provides that it describes
physical standards for street improvement projects, to be used for
…new streets, for reconstruction of rural roads into urban streets as urbanization
occurs, primarily for deficiencies related to capacity, safety, and land
[sic] widths, and for other street construction projects that involve major
redesign of the street itself. Transportation preservation projects (projects
involving the resurfacing, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of the street
pavement, sidwalks, or bridges) are exempt from these standards.
The standards are to guide street design. The exact review process will depend
to some extent on the nature of the project (p. 57). The Design Review Committee
role is mentioned on p. 58 in connection with exceptions to the adminstrative
level review with respect to deviations from the standards. General considerations
on p. 58 note that the standards apply to new construction, and also reconstruction
of arterials “as required by the city” and “as outlined in the current capital
improvement program”. The Standards “are not intended to apply to the resurfacing,
restoration, or rehabilitation of existing arterials.” (p. 58).
CONCLUSION.
Neither the language in the Comp Plan nor Ch. 4.13 SMC appear to implicate
formal DRC review of the Bernard Street Project.
____________________________
Robert Beaumier