Steve Pomerance

  A few days ago, I was watching the video of the Dec. 15 City Council meeting to find out what happened with the ordinance addressing on-line and other petitioning matters. I heard a number of council members complaining bitterly about “ad hominem” attacks, presumably related to comments made by citizens about the performance of the city attorney. As a former council member, I can understand their upsets. But what seems to be missing is any acknowledgement of the existence of some serious underlying problems. Just for example, relative to this ordinance, I had sent in some obvious corrections to the ordinance. It was missing the 180-day limit on signature gathering, and it continued the city’s self-created exemption from state requirements for petition formats, which leaves the city without complete legal standards. But nothing was fixed. This is far from the first time I’ve taken on mistakes that never should have happened. For example, in the recent election, the council p...

FAR “density transfer”, used at 1440 Pine and 311 Mapleton: Add underlined language to BRC 9-2-14 (c): (c) Modifications to Development Standards: The following development standards of B.R.C. 1981 may be modified under the site review process set forth in this section. However, land underneath a building or part of a building may not be counted in calculating the allowed floor area for another building or part of a building, and no building or part of a building may be built on land that has been counted in calculating the allowed floor area of another building or part of a building: Spot Zoning, used at 311 Mapleton: Add underlined language to BRC 9-2-19: (e) Criteria: The city's zoning is the result of a detailed and comprehensive appraisal of the city's present and future land use allocation needs. In order to establish and maintain sound, stable and desirable development within the city, rezoning of land is to be discouraged and allowed only under...

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...