Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2005

Home

Numbers do have a place in the evalua- tion, even though ~hey are not enough by themselves. Their purpose is less to serve as a basis for drawing conclusions than as an indicator ora need for analysis and to look deeper for causal relationships. For example, in certain cases a dearth of variance requests related to a particular provision may suggest its validity. On the other hand, a weakness in the code may result in easy compliance. This must be weighed against the code provision's purpose and intent. A large volume of vari- ance requests and approvals may suggest that the provision is not working or not practi- cal. 8uc this, too, can be misleading unless each case is reviewed c~refully in terms of context, outside influences, and peculiar cir- cumstances, Sometimes variations, especially in a flexible code format focused on results and performance, are necessary and do not prevent conformance with the code's intent. What may on [he surface be read as a need to amend may prove to be merely the need for minor modifications. The basic approach to a qualitative evalua- tion ora code can be summed up in two words: ooservation and inquiry, This approach heavily weigh.~ direct observation on the part of the evatuator, interviews with code users, and careful reviews of docu- ments, ~pprova(sl findings, and decisions: The evaluator may observe significant strfdes in the direction of achieving the pur- pose and goals of the code by noting the quality of submissions, understanding the attitude of applicants and decision makers, and cataloguing the physicai resu4ts of applying the new regulation. For example, we realized that the design focus of our new code had raised the bar with respect to the quality of initial project submissions com- pared to those submitted t~nder the previous ordinance. The turn-of-the-century Lyell building' in the illus,:ration above had been used for commercia[ purposes over the years, but the character of the building had been diminished by facade treatments that complied with the code but were less than appealing. The latest renovation illustrates compliance with the code's design criteria in an as-of-right rehabilitation and reuse. Clearly, both in terms of the quality of the submission and the redevelopment itself, the bar had been raised. No doubt, the public's extensive involve- ment in drafting the code and significant edu- cation efforts contributed to this. However, such examples have shown that applicants understand what the code is trying co achfeve. Rather than having to "force feed" the new des[§n re§ulations, as some critics had warned, there was a clear reflection of a higher level of awareness with respect to urban design. Applications incorporated the guidelines and standards before the initial review and comment by staff. This was an observable pattern in many submissions and was a basic indicator of a general level of acceptance, not resistance. This measure of success would be difficult to verify through a purely quantitative approach. A completed proiect can show the stroh§th of a re§uiation or uncover its weak- ness, and can shed light on how well a theory works in real-world situations. Case studies that focus on readily observable results are particularly useful in'this type of analysis. Observing the code's processes as they affect these cases can also yield important information. This is real-time, day-to-day observation. It is not just a matter of expedi- ency, but of the quality and depth of review in relation to the particular type of application presented. How fluid is the process? Does it facilitate or is it cumbersome? Does it provide for adequate and timely public participation.7 Is it comprehensi~)e; equitable, and fair? Does it provide the decision makers what they need to assess projects and make determinations in an expeditious yet thorough manner? Is the process properly synchronized with the pur- pose of the regulation? What adiustments need to be made? tn addition to direct observation, the interview is a very important part of a quali- tative code evaluation. All of the players involved in various applications can be 222 ZONING PRACTICE 7.05 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION