Public reaction to draft chapters 1 and 2 more positive than negative; ZCC members focus on details

ZCC Regular Session 

Consultants summarized the results of recent civic engagement meetings and directed ZCC attention to specific topics related to the draft provisions and administrative procedures of the new code (Module 1). The public was asked to react to 11 proposed changes and provide feedback on whether or not those changes improve the code and meet stakeholder goals for predictability, quality, neighborhood character, etc. ZCC members must now hash out the details based on all submitted comments and prepare a list of changes for the final draft.

The community outreach workshops and online survey direct attention to the following key changes in the draft code:

• Who can testify at the ZBA
• Conditional uses
• Relationship to adopted plans
• Replacement of discontinued uses in nonconforming properties
• Project review
• Administrative decisions
• Dimensional variances
• Minor amendments to plans of development
• Use variances
• Conforming adjustments to nonconforming properties
• Public notice requirements

While reaction was described as more positive than negative overall, respondents still expressed concern about proposed new language and procedures. Changes related to public notice, project review, and use variances generated the most feedback. Overall, the public recognizes that improvements are needed, but is keenly aware that proposals to change and streamline the code will likely limit opportunities for neighborhood involvement. Many want assurance that a concrete role for the public will be clearly laid out in the new code, but details about public participation have been left out of the Module 1 draft while the ZCC reviews stakeholder input on the issue.

The ZCC work plan and civic engagement committees met to identify topics for more detailed discussion based on the results of the survey, community meetings, and all submitted comments from commission members and interested parties. The ZCC revisited five issues – the relationship of adopted plans, referrals from L&I to the ZBA, public notice, who can testify at public hearings, and project review.

Commission members were asked to confirm how the code should distinguish between formally “adopted” comprehensive plans and “accepted” neighborhood plans. Reaction to this issue indicated that the public is uncomfortable with the proposed distinction. The ZCC acknowledged that much effort can go into developing neighborhood plans, but that the city must address a broader range of interests that individual neighborhoods often overlook. The commission reiterated that the adopted comprehensive plan and amendments to that plan will serve as policy guidance for discretionary decisions, while accepted plans will be used to inform city agencies, although they are not bound by its contents. Consultants will refine and add language to clarify this issue.

Response to proposed language that allows L&I to send projects that meet certain size and location criteria to the ZBA resulted in a recommendation that the new procedure be dropped from the code. The intention was to provide an opportunity for public input on developments with significant neighborhood impacts, even if by-right. The ZCC and other stakeholders, however, deemed it confusing.

Discussions related to public notice focused on how to expand current requirements. The intention of the new code is to improve public access to information, not cut it back. Consultants will revise and clarify the language in this section of the code to ensure citizens perceive the notification changes as a gain.

The ZCC directed consultants to clarify the language related to who can testify at public hearings as well. But members cautioned that although anyone will be allowed to testify, the code must make clear that that testimony alone does not give them standing to appeal later on. In addition, the code should not give the impression that anyone can speak for anyone else – if an aggrieved party does not testify, he or she will not have standing at the appeal. And new language needs to explain what types of corporations must have attorneys testify on their behalf.

Finally, the issue of project review was addressed. Based on feedback to date, consultants plan to clarify how size triggers are measured, determine if size triggers should be reduced, identify when in the process referrals to a project review committee are made, connect accepted neighborhood plans to the project review process, and give neighborhoods a way to request a review. This section is likely to change further, however, as the results to the Common Ground workshops are evaluated and discussed.

See also Public reacts to key changes in the draft zoning code and ZCC responds favorably to principles for involving the public in project review.

Download a copy of  Module 1 – Administration and Procedures.
View the PowerPoint presentation on Module 1 discussion topics.
To take survey on Module 1, visit www.zoningmatters.org . 
The results of public outreach related to Module 1 are summarized here.