GoLakeChelan's Chelan Real Estate Blog

I just talked about the Chelan Downtown Master Plan process, a process that is working well with superb public input.  I have also been involved in the Manson Sub Area Plan for about three years now.  The differences are stark!

First, there is a hearing and open house on the Manson Plan on Tuesday :   Open House starts at 6pm and the Hearing starts at 7pm on August 25, 2009 at the School Commons, 1000 Totem Pole Road, Manson.

The Chelan Downtown Master Plan has goals for protecting residential neighborhoods, housing redevelopment and diversity in other areas and thriving business development of a more year round economy.  The Manson Plan has those same goals, but nothing that allows any of them to happen.

Why?  The process was taken over by a group of activists.  The Manson SubArea Plan Draft is available here.  Below is the feedback I sent in for my public comment on what happened to the Manson process:

The Manson Sub-Area Plan draft, as crafted, is a very contradictory document.  Its Goals and Objectives contradict the land use and zoning presented in the document.  The reason the document came out that way is due to the process by which it has been developed over a painfully long period.  It has taken three years to develop a 39 page document with the efforts of probably 100 people over that time. 

 Yes, that’s incredible inefficiency.  But, the process could have gone much faster if not for the efforts of a group of people who took it upon themselves to work outside of the public process.  That group did their work in secret meetings and has, to this day, an unknown member list.

 Initially, the Manson Sub Area process started out great.  There were at least 5 workshops early in the process that had fantastic community participation, probably around 50 people present or more.  Many of the goals, objectives and basic premises of the plan were worked out in those early meetings and they reflect the desires of the overall Manson community.  Most of those are goals and objectives are still in the document today.

 After the UGA workshops, a small group of “no change” citizens did not like the way things were going.  They did not want what the overall community wanted.  They formed what they called the TRG, at the time a mostly anonymous group that we later learned consisted of at least Doug and Jama England, Larry Hibbard, Kirk Mathewson, Herb Sargo, Mary Murphy (although at times she denied being a member) and possibly others.

 That group then began a campaign that Saul Alinsky would be proud of.  Delay being a primary tactic, we are now almost three years later and still trying to get this plan out.  Those tactics were evident at even last Thursday’s meeting.

 When a motion was before the council to change a requested area’s zoning from UR1 to UR2, Larry Hibbard and Mary Murphy sensed that the motion might pass.  So, they both requested that the motion be tabled.  This is the very same tactic that was used to make a process that should have taken six months take three years.  The Manson Community Council allowed this to occur over the last three years but did not allow it on Thursday.

 During the UGA discussions, which took at least 18 months, interested citizens became frustrated with the lack of progress, decided the process was unproductive and quit attending.   The discussion on the UGA was tabled for over three months waiting for a proposal from the “TRG” that was initially promised by the “TRG” to be ready at the next meeting that was scheduled specifically to hear their input in 2 weeks.  Two weeks later, they weren’t ready.  Delay after delay meant it was not presented for 3 months.  Coincidentally, or not, by that time many other participants had fled the process and the anonymous “TRG” had as many people as they could muster attending.  Once the TRG felt they had the numbers, they ran the proposal through for a vote.  Hence the beginnings of a document where the specific land use and zoning contradicts the goals and objectives of the document.

 The “TRG” tactics have included secret meetings that are not open to the public.  Delays and tabling of motions are the tactics of choice by the TRG when they feel they don’t have the votes to stop something they oppose or change something to their view.  When they can stack the deck and have the votes, they attempt to ram their proposals through.

This is a complete perversion of the public process and should not have been allowed to occur.  This plan is fatally flawed from the tactics of this group and the inability of the Manson Community Council to effectively facilitate the process.

 Before going into detail of the issues in the plan, also note that at last Thursday’s meeting that Kirk Mathewson, Mary Murphy and Larry Hibbard all seemed to be aware of a letter coming to the council from Harold Pittman that had not yet been received.  They all claimed to know its contents as well.

 As just another side note, I wonder, did this group help write this letter?  Was Harold solicited?  Or did a council person share a discussion with a citizen with the TRG before sharing it with council?  Either way, it is suspicious and casts aspersions on the basis for Mr. Pittman’s letter.

 Terry Urness and Paul Doty are both local orchardists with substantial orchards within urban growth boundaries.  They don’t seem to have an issue with growing fruit in the UGA.  The only farming practice I am aware of that changes inside a UGA is burning is not allowed.  It is also my understanding that burning is probably not going to be allowed most anywhere shortly.  So, what’s the issue?

 Property taxes are the other potential issue.  However, an agricultural exemption is allowed for land that is intended to stay in agricultural production.  Keeping land in agricultural production, and not allowing flexibility to change it is one of the claimed goals of the TRG so they should be encouraging putting land in ag exemptions.  This whole discussion at Thursday’s meeting was ludicrous.  If a citizen has a concern, it should be submitted to the council and planning, not the TRG for editing before submittal!

 All that said, because of the perversion of the process, the Draft Sub-Area Plan is full of contradictions and is completely flawed.  It is so bad, the process needs to be completely redone.  Here are some of the issues:

 Draft Sub-Area Plan contradictions:

 Page 1, Second sentence:

  It is a guide for current and future growth to preserve surrounding agriculture and open space while focusing a variety of commercial, industrial and residential development within the urban growth area. 

 Of course, the plan doesn’t address outside the UGA, as was learned later in the process, so “surrounding agriculture” is not addressed in the plan.  The other thing not addressed is a “variety of commercial, industrial and residential development within the urban growth area.”

The “TRG” is opposed to a variety of commercial, industrial and residential development within the UGA.  They removed all areas in the plan that allow for any variety of commercial, industrial or residential development within the urban growth area.  For example, the Tourist Commercial zone is only in an area already nearly completely developed with a mini storage and r.v. park.  It is unlikely anything will be able to happen with that zoning in the next 20 years.  The same can be said for industrial where the only industrial zone is the Manson Growers.  Where is any variety in any of that since in reality nothing can be done?  Hotel/Motel owners requested that they be allowed to exceed 35’ heights to allow them to develop their properties in a way that might allow them to be profitable with the seasonal economy.  What better way than additional Hotels/Motels to create business in the downtown?  Why wouldn’t that be allowed?  The request was late enough in the process, after the community had quit attending that is was denied by the no growth TRG contingent who don’t want a thriving downtown Manson. There is NO AVAILABLE  LAND for any new development in either the tourist commercial or light industrial zone. 

Housing may be even worse.  While most urban areas are adopting plans that allow for townhomes, zero-lot lines, cottage housing and even manufactured housing parks within their UGA, the Manson draft plan reduces flexibility or eliminates them totally for any of these things and decreased the possibility of their inclusion from what exists today!  Zones like Rural Waterfront in the existing zoning are down zoned to UR1.  Rural Village zones are down zoned to UR1.  This is certainly not going to create a “variety” of residential development within the UGA.

 Still in that first paragraph:

  The goal of this plan is to provide for growth in a manner that supports the surrounding agriculture. Furthermore, the community hopes to encourage policies that provide for continued use of agricultural land, outside the Urban Growth Area.

 Again, the goal of the greater public was to allow and encourage growth inside the UGA and discourage it outside the UGA.  One of the premises of the TRG in their analysis to reduce the size of the UGA was to change the ratio of growth that is to occur outside the UGA to justify a smaller UGA.  That certainly isn’t what the vast majority of the public wanted to see.

 The draft plan should note the attendance of the various workshops, the Vision Workshop, the Alternatives Workshop, the Policy Workshop and the UGA workshops.  There were at least 5 times as many attendees present during the first seven meetings as have been present in the rewrite carried out by the TRG’s hijacking of the public process.

 Page 3, Affordable Housing:

 Participants noted that families working in Manson have difficulty affording housing in Manson. The area’s summer-season resort attractiveness has driven land prices upward. Some workshop participants desired the UGA to provide greater supplies of land to help drive land costs downward, helping to reduce base housing prices.

The thought of the overall Manson community was to make land available without views of Lake Chelan that would hopefully be lower priced for both single family and multi-family development.  What happened?  At the risk of repeating myself, the process was rewritten by a small group of hijackers to the process who are not representative of the overall community.

 Page 4, Paragraph 3:

 The majority of meeting participants preferred Alternative 3 – increasing the total land area of the UGA by 2.01 square miles. The committee’s hope was that a UGA of this size would help provide enough land for future industrial development while easing market pressures that drive land costs for housing upward.

This was a very clear majority that preferred Alternative 3.  This was also the point at which a small group became very vocal and the “TRG” was formed.  I admit they were a very squeaky wheel, and long winded, bringing the process to a screaming, boring halt.   I can only surmise why this group insisted on being an anonymous group.  For one, it allowed them to puff up their feathers and sound like something more than they were.  For another, it allowed them to keep their names off something that might irritate their neighbors.  Further, it allowed them to hold their meetings in secret, away from public input or scrutiny. The “TRG” is not a legal entity.  There was never a list of members submitted to the committee.  “Group” is a word that is so vague as to have no meaning. 

 I’m not sure when the following sentence was added to the plan, but it was recently and would be to rationalize what happened to allow the rewrite of the public desires subsequent to the forming of the TRG:

While this appeared to capture the community’s general preference, discussions following the preparation and presentation of an initial draft plan revealed that additional policies, land-use designations and UGA boundaries deserved a closer look.

 That sentence is patently false.  The truth is delay tactics were utilized by the TRG until the public quit participating.  Remember, these 39 pages have been in development for THREE years!

  Page 4, Additional Deliberation:

 Following the delivery of the first draft plan and subsequent input from the community, the comprehensive plan committee held meetings during the months of August and December of 2008 for the purpose of evaluating and refining the plan’s UGA and policy framework. Much of this input, and impetus for further evaluation, came from a newly formed set of participants known as The Resident Group (TRG) and a County re-analysis of population projections based on the adopted County Comprehensive Plan.

During the Committee’s August meeting, the majority of the discussion focused on issues regarding the Manson UGA boundary. After receiving and considering public comments on this topic, a motion was made and passed to revise the draft plan UGA boundary to conform with the sewer service boundary.

 First, notice that we went from January 2008 for the last UGA workshop to August 2008.  This was the period of killing public participation by the TRG so they could have the numbers to push their agenda and, unwittingly, allowed by the Manson Community Council.

 As I stated at the last meeting, the TRG is not in any way identifiable.  It never signed into a meeting.  It is not a legal entity.  It never shared a member roster.  It never shared a meeting calendar.

 Ten years from now, there will be no way for anybody to have any idea what this paragraph refers to or what the TRG really was.  If you must define it here, call it “a small group of citizens who utilized the tactics of delay, filibuster and deception (deceiving in that it puffed itself up to be more that it was, held secret meetings and would not share its membership) to hijack the public process.” 

 Also remember, Commissioner Hawkins attended the August meeting and was pushing for completion of the plan while he was in office.  The motion on the UGA boundary was made without any maps being available to show what the “sewer service boundary” was.  There was confusion at even the next several meetings as to what was actually said or adopted.  Basically, the vote was a farce that was clung to tenaciously by the TRG.  It turns out, it may have been justified by the revised population numbers, but the process of the definition was still flawed and did not respect public input.

 There were several more meetings between September and February 24^th where the results of the August and September meetings were debated.  This pretty much killed off participation from most of the rest of the public who had productive things to do with their time and were not privy to the tactics being used against them.

 With the public participation removed, the “TRG” was rolling!  In the February 24^th to July 9^th meeting, the plan was rewritten.  Densities were reduced at all opportunities.  The UGA boundary was retracted wherever possible.  Residential zones were reduced in intensity and flexibility.  Planned developments were made more difficult (the TRG would like to have killed them altogether).  There are no allowances for mobile home parks or other affordable types of housing like cottage housing or zero lot line.  Commercial and industrial zones were made dysfunctional so that no additional commercial or industrial uses were possible.  In fact, the most successful businesses in Manson, the Building Supply and Red Apple Market might not be allowed under this plan.  Certainly nothing new like that would be allowed. 

All the while, the City of Chelan has been putting more flexibility in their planning.  They are undertaking neighborhood plans as well as zoning that allows for flexible housing as per their housing manual.  Subdivisions have also become more flexible.  Of course, the TRG and MCC seem to believe they exist in a vacuum.  If they truly want a thriving Manson, they need to be at least close to as attractive to businesses that might make Manson thrive as their nearest competition, Chelan.

 Let’s look at that a moment.  Chelan has better demographics.  Chelan welcomes businesses and has a business association and mainstreet program, available commercial/warehouse/.industrial land and flexible housing and subdivision standards.  Chelan also has available, undeveloped land in the UGA in a variety of tract sizes and zones.  Hmmm, tough choice.

 Of course, while this might not be the kind of hope and change the Manson community was hoping for, it appears to be just what the non-representative TRG was hoping for.

 Page 5, Vision

 the provision for sustainable economic growth.”

 This part of the vision has been Sub-Area Plan was completely removed in its land use and zoning policies.  There is no “provision for sustainable economic growth.”

 Page 5, Land Use

Focus growth in the UGA

 This plan does nothing to accomplish this goal.  In fact, the lack of flexibility, down zoning and limited land area in the UGA will cause additional pressure outside the UGA.

 Promote mixed uses in the commercial designations

 Mixed uses are allowed in some commercial designations, but not promoted.  The tools that would promote them have been removed or crippled.  Use flexibility is not allowed in planned developments or cluster developments!

 Respect property rights.

 This process shows the least respect for property rights of any process I’ve been involved in with either Chelan County or the City of Chelan.  Since the TRG became involved, there has been no respect for property rights if those rights are to allow people the freedom to pursue reasonable development of their properties.  There has been no hesitation in making current uses non-conforming including a mobile home park, boat storage and repair and mini storage along highway 150.  Of course, a far less visually attractive business, Manson Growers, is still a conforming use as it has TRG members as part of its management.  Landowners’ desires to develop their properties for motel/hotel usage have been ignored, even when they have that right currently.  Owners wishing to develop their property for higher density residential housing have been ignored.  Usually there is far more sensitivity to property rights than has been shown by this process.  Each of these owners made the mistake to address the process individually thinking this was a process that desired to meet its stated goals.  The TRG rewrite of the public will was to remove as many property rights as possible.

 Like the process in Wenatchee where their comprehensive plan was updated, citizens and land owners aren’t aware of what is happening to their property.  If they were involved at all in the early part of the process, they believed that the plan was not about down zoning and reducing their ability to develop but making for more opportunity over the next 20 years.

 Retain farming

• Permit flexibility to keep or convert orchards
• Minimize conflict between agricultural operations and adjoining uses
• Permit small hobby farms
• Allow smaller acreage agricultural uses
• Ease rules and barriers that make farming more difficult

All of these things are currently allowed except the last.  No rules or barriers were identified that make farming more difficult, other than nature, the Department of Ecology, markets and taxes.  All of those are outside the purview of this process regardless.

 Page 6, Housing:

• Do not allow gated communities
• Provide affordable housing
• Provide a variety of housing types

 None of which are addressed by the TRG’s version of what is important as existing in the Draft Sub Area Plan.  As far as I can tell, there are no restrictions on gated communities and there is no allowance for affordable housing or a variety of housing types in the zoning and land use.

 Page 6, Transportation:

• Make Manson more pedestrian friendly
• Connect walking routes to schools
• Reduce traffic hazards
• Promote pedestrian circulation
• Enhance the SR 150 corridor
• Enhance community entries
• Provide alternative truck routes

 None of which are addressed.  I take “enhance” as to allow or encourage positive change.  These things just aren’t on the TRG agenda, although they were important to the greater Manson community.

 Page 7, Economic Development and Tourism:

• Retain families

 The plan makes housing for families less affordable, not more.  Subdivisions like McLallen Lane and flexible housing to address family needs are not allowed in places that they are allowed today.  Think dense single family, apartments, mobile homes, zero lot line and cottage housing as family oriented housing.  Planned developments that allow for flexibility also allow creation of more affordable housing.  The current plan favors expensive, retirement housing over families.  Also, it is difficult to retain families when children have to move out of the area to work.  Unless your children’s goal is to become agricultural workers, there are no land uses or area allowed for other enterprises. 

• Promote small business

 This plan only protects existing business, but does not promote any new business.  Look at all the uses allowed under light industrial that there are no places for any of them to happen in Manson!  The only ones allowed are those that are already filling the only land with this zoning, agricultural packing and processing.  Contractor Storage yards, Farm Equipment Sales & Storage, Manufacturing, Assembly & Fabrication of artisan goods, Mini Storage, Research Facilities, Transportation & Shipping Terminals, Warehousing and Retail Trade serving Industrial Uses are effectively banned under this plan with no actual land allowed for them.  Tourist commercial has a similar issue, with Recreation/Tourist Uses, Guest Inn 4 – 6 rooms, Animal Boarding Facilities, Recreational Vehicle Park/Campground major and minor and even vacation rentals all effectively banned in Manson.  Tell me how this supports small business?  All of these things are currently allowed.

• Retain farming

This plan is neutral on farming, for the most part.  By changing the ratio of development slated to develop outside the UGA, the “TRG” actually hurts the retention of commercial agricultural land surrounding Manson.

• Provide livable wages

 Here’s where the current plan is at its worst.  Business parks that would allow small software companies or artisan manufacturing are not allowed.  Manson has 75% of its children qualifying for reduced price lunches at school and I see the TRG’s attitude as let them eat cake, we don’t want to allow business development of high paying industries around here.  Providing livable wages was a primary desire of the community when the community was broadly represented.

• Enhance image of “village on the lake” (including all four lakes)

 The “Village by the Bay” is a concept that has been around for 15 years although it is not clearly defined still today.  My understanding is that it was originally promoted by one of our local architects.  Look at the development in Manson in the last 15 years and let’s see how it is working.  We now have that very high percentage of children qualifying for reduced price lunches, a very low average wage compared to other parts of the state or even the City of Chelan, a dying downtown.  How’s that “Village by the Bay” (whatever it really means) really working?

• Collaborate with the Port of Chelan County

 The projects I am aware of being looked at by the Port would not be allowed under this plan.

• Facilitate year-round activity

 Please, tell me anything this plan does to facilitate year-round activity.  This was EXTREMELY important when we had a larger share of the community represented.  This one is a casualty of the killing off of public participation and the no change sentiments of the TRG.

 Page 8, Land Use

 From here, the document has been almost completely rewritten from the original vision and goals.  Corrections were and should have been made to account for revision of population numbers.  However corrections should not have been made to the original vision and goals.  That is where the TRG’s hijack of the process and the MCC’s allowance of that to occur took it astray.

This document reflects the most rabid anti-change factions meeting behind closed doors, not the public opinion.

 While the idea of concentric circles with the most density in the center, surrounded by layers of decreasing intensity is a great concept.  Topography, infrastructure and physical constraints like Lake Chelan, are all factors that contribute to an outcome where that circular development is not only impractical but impossible.  That concept doesn’t exist in real life where these other factors stretch and change that concept into something practical.  Real towns have commercial and high density residential development that extends along their highest volume transportation and infrastructure corridors. 

 The reason is simple, busy streets are unattractive for residential but are what make for successful commercial properties.  If the property is not commercial, it is made high density residential, like UR3.  Large lot single family developments are not built along highways as this plan attempts to mandate.  Legislation that tries to repeal laws of economics won’t work.

The Manson core hasn’t been working for the last 15 years, basically since the ill defined “Village by the Bay” concept.  Two of the three successful businesses have located on the outer fringes of it in large, non-pedestrian oriented facilities.  The third successful business is selling vehicles and using intense downtown property and parking for storage yards, service and other non-pedestrian friendly uses.  This plan, if it allowed these businesses at all, and I could argue it doesn’t, has no land available for them if they were to expand. 

 There is no affordable housing encouraged.  There is no year round economy encouraged in this plan.  There are highly desirable uses banned in Manson by only zoning them in already built out areas! 

Page 23, Land Use:

 Goal LU-2: Support a vital commercial downtown in Manson.

Policies  

LU-2.A Establish mixed-uses in the commercial designations, promoting a variety housing types, community parks, and small street-level retail with offices and/or residential uses on upper floors.

LU-2.B Create a town center concept that reinforces its identity as the “village by the bay.”

LU-2.C Consider strategies to revitalize the commercial designations and reinforce its position as the local center for services, social, and cultural activities.

LU-2.D Regulate building height and bulk to permit viable residential use above ground floor retail while still preserving views from the hillsides above the commercial districts.

Goal LU-3: Create enjoyable and safe neighborhoods that support a variety of housing types and income levels.

Goal LU-5: Provide for adequate land dedicated to employment and production of goods.

Policy

LU-5.A Support commercial activity use where appropriate and where impacts to surrounding properties can be avoided, managed, or mitigated so long as such use and location is compatible with neighboring uses, view retention goals and other aesthetics, and the community’s rural character.

 Need I say it?  None of these goals are met!  Unless you consider our current situation as “adequate” there is nothing in this plan to address these goals.  While we may have adequate land for residential development, we have removed flexibility to make housing more affordable for anything but wealthy retirees.  There is no strategy to revitalize anything downtown.  The strategy is to constrain it and watch Chelan continue to develop and Manson continue to die.  A contractor can’t even have a storage yard in Manson!

 I personally had a land use and zoning item into the process that was supposed to be discussed and acted upon.  It wasn’t heard until 18 months later, after delaying the topic for over 20 meetings before it was finally addressed.  This isn’t how a public process is supposed to be carried out.  Items are supposed to be put on an agenda and action taken.  If a topic is tabled, it should not be for over a year!

 Page 25, Economic Development:

Goal ED-1: Improve Manson’s business diversity and year around economy.

Policies

ED-1.A Encourage economically-beneficial businesses that enhance year-round natural resource industry.

 Wow, aren’t doing that in the Sub Area Plan are we?  I’d go into the reasons, but I would be repeating myself.  Suffice it to say these were very important goals to the broader community that have gotten lost in the “TRG” rewrite of the hijacked process.

 What should happen now:

 This draft is fatally flawed, legally and in its result.  It is flawed by a process that was allowed to be literally overtaken by a small group of no-change activists that were allowed to work outside of the public process to get their way.  The concessions that were made to the “TRG,” while started in the name of getting all the public input, actually allowed this activist group to hijack the entire process with of 24 months of delay, back room meetings and obfuscation.  The “TRG” delayed and waited patiently until they were able to wear down any opposition and force their agenda through a piece at a time when the votes were available, regardless of what was on the agenda for the meeting.

 When it looked like they did not have the votes to get their way on an issue, they went for delay, requested tabling the issue or requested a delay to get more data. Unfortunately, by the time that Community Development became the moderators of the process, the public had already lost confidence in it and no longer attended.

 The plan needs to be redone, with a process that is done openly, in full public view.  Contributors to the process need to be willing to be named and only conduct business in the public meetings.

Tags: General Interest, Lake Chelan Land Use, Manson Local // 1 Comment »