Last week, I discussed the abnormal level of controversy over redevelopment in Kirkland and how the zoning process currently works.
It is time to step up, insist on changes in how the city works with developers and bring balance back to our city’s zoning approval process.
I am offering the following handful of practical ideas to help bring balance back to the process.
Affix a warning label
When the city announces proposed zoning changes, it typically couches them in neutral terms that fail to portray the potential impact of the changes that are being contemplated.
Instead, we need the equivalent of a “Surgeon General’s warning” on the zoning approval process. For example: “If this zoning change is approved, your community could see X many new condo units, causing Y in extra traffic times, Z additional taxes, new building heights X taller than the highest adjacent structure, view blockages, solar impacts, etc … ”
I’m not being facetious. Citizens must be informed of the consequences of their failure to participate in the process.
Use plain language
The potential impacts and workings of the process need to be conveyed in layman’s terms. Drawings are not enough. Highly technical written texts mostly aggravate an already-confusing muddle.
To be comprehensible to citizens, proposed zoning changes need to be conveyed in a form that is most meaningful to the average person. Technical issues need to be conveyed in plain, jargon-free language.
Create a citizen advocate position
This position would report directly to the mayor and act as an independent watchdog on the rezoning and planning approval processes, ensuring that adequate, plain language notices are given, looking for and eliminating technical jargon, making sure that resources are adequate and that all parties follow the rules.
Consider a ‘jury-advocacy’ model
In architectural competitions, a small group of judges (called a “jury”) are often used to evaluate and provide feedback on design proposals. The designer often stands before the jury accompanied by drawings, models, etc. and presents the proposal. The jury asks questions, challenges assumptions and provides critique to improve or change the design.
Given the power imbalance between developers and individual citizens, implementing a citizen advocacy model based on a jury concept could provide a basis to even the playing field. With volunteer members coming from a range of backgrounds from around the city, the jury would not have approval power, but would allow community concerns to be focused in a body with one foot in the community and the other in the design arts.
This “jury” would participate in public presentations, working sessions and the like as citizen advocates.
‘Show’ is better than ‘tell’
Physical and “real time” computer models need to be provided that clearly show the impact of zoning on specific blocks set in the neighborhoods they will impact.
With the advent of 3D scanning, 3D printing and a host of other readily available tools, this would be a relatively simple measure to implement, with the costs of producing these materials shared with developers who stand to benefit the most from the zoning changes they advocate.
By the way, developers have historically provided dramatically colored perspective drawings to supplement approval materials. They typically show one or two views of a proposed building, always from an advantageous position that emphasizes the best and minimizes (or hides) the worst aspects of the project.
In recent years, developers have raised the process of creating these “artist’s renderings” to, well, an art form, often showing proposed buildings populated with beautiful people and cars, and shown from perspectives that no human would ever see them from.
The problem with these renderings is that the developer controls what you see and from where you see it.
Conversely, 3D models created in physical or computer format cannot be so easily manipulated, which wrests control back from the developer and puts it back into the public realm where it can support a more honest evaluation of the impacts.
Don’t just inform, mobilize
Our elected officials must do more than inform communities of proposed changes. They need to mobilize and engage citizens so that awareness is maximized and the ability to organize is supported.
Current practice relies on postings in local newspapers, which are too easily missed or misconstrued as an ad (if they are even looking at a paper-based publication – which is becoming rarer by the day).
Mailings to property owners are also a common practice, but these omit renters, which form an increasing proportion of our citizenry.
The city holds community meetings already as part of this process but is not doing enough to mobilize citizens by informing them of what is at stake. The city needs to widen its effort to “catch” citizens, including positioning materials in transit centers, grocery stores, health clubs or anywhere citizens congregate.
In contrast to these traditional methods of public outreach, an abundance of resources now exist that are cheap or free. In that light, there is no excuse for any individual not to be within the reach of the city government that wants to engage and mobilize them as participants.
Hold on, we’re not ready yet
The public is not given enough time to respond. For citizens and communities to compete on a level basis with developers, they must be afforded more time to do what the developer has already done. Prepare.
“Prepare” in this context is affording enough time for citizens to coalesce into groups that collectively can participate on an equal footing with the developer.
While developers come to the table fully organized and resourced to move forward, citizens need time to understand the issues, coalesce and prepare.
While it’s true that individual citizens can and do come to hearings without extended notice, pitting an individual citizen, or even a group of uncoordinated citizens against a developer with deep pockets does not constitute representative government.
Finally, as I write this, the city is completing a third-party study focusing on accelerating the building approval process – something developers are pushing hard for but that would likely put another barrier in the way of citizens seeking to exert their will on the form of their community.
A call to action
Our challenge as a community is to preserve what we view as the fundamental character of our neighborhoods, while still encouraging development. Without active and forceful participation by its citizens, the city of Kirkland’s destiny will be determined not by its citizens, but by a small handful of developers and government officials.
Here’s a checklist of steps you can and should take:
1. Seek out existing community groups in your neighborhood. Join them and communicate your concerns.
2. Get familiar now with what the zoning code allows for development in your community.
3. Timing is everything. Learn what the city is planning for development in your neighborhood.
4. Finally, if you are concerned about the urbanization of our community, put the focus where it belongs: On your city council.
5. Show up at council hearings.
6. Take advantage of public comment opportunities.
7. Challenge council candidates to articulate their position on the city’s urbanization.
8. Vote.
When I moved to Kirkland in 1994, I was attracted to its walkable streets, intimately scaled downtown and independent small-scale shops. When I volunteered for the city’s Design Review Board a few years ago, it was because I highly valued these aspects of our city and viewed the board as a way for me to help my city maintain its unique identity.
The Kirkland of old still exists, but is gradually giving way to something very different. We should embrace that as a natural and potentially healthy process. But, in embracing that fact, it remains to us to determine (by our willingness to forcefully engage) whether “different” is also “better.”
Kirkland resident James Truhan is a chair of the city’s Design Review Board.
