CodeNext Process

Only City Council members and authorized staff are allowed to post on this message board.
Alison Alter
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:52 pm

CodeNext Process

Post by Alison Alter »

Dear Colleagues,

This morning at work session I proposed that we consider adding a fourth version of the draft code / maps to our CodeNext process. Since two of our colleagues were out of town on city business and we also adjusted the agenda timing for the CodeNext discussion, I wanted to take a moment to share my idea on the message board as well.

As currently envisioned, we have before us the first draft of the CodeNext text and maps, Version 1.0. This version will be followed by a 2nd draft to be written by staff and consultants over the summer and reviewed by the Planning Commissions this fall, referred to often as the Planning Commission Draft (Version 2.0). That draft is set to be followed by a third version, referred to as the Council Draft with first reading scheduled late in 2017.

Thanks to many in our community, our staff and consultants already have received a tremendous amount of feedback on Version 1.0. However, public comments on the Version 1.0 text are set to close on June 7 and the affordability / density bonus portion of the draft code is not yet released. Many in our community are feeling overwhelmed by the magnitude and pace of CodeNext and some have called to extend comments on Version 1.0.

What I propose is that we add an additional draft Version 3.0 between the Planning Commission Draft and the Council Draft. The Planning Commissions would thus provide comments on Version 2.0 and staff would then revise that and produce Version 3.0 which would return to the Planning Commissions for review. In this way the Planning Commissions would have an opportunity to vet the draft code TWICE before it comes to Council as Version 4.0.

If the public is aware that this additional vetting will take place, we will increase confidence in both the process and the final product of CodeNext. If our planning commissioners can count on this additional version, they can feel comfortable tackling the gigantic task before them. In this scenario our staff and the consultants can forward the iterative improvement process as designed. Ultimately, I believe such a process will facilitate the success of CodeNext and help us move more smoothly through Council’s three readings.

I hope this is a step we can seriously consider.

Regards,
Alison Alter
Council Member, District 10
Leslie Pool
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 3:22 pm

Re: CodeNext Process

Post by Leslie Pool »

Colleagues, I write to indicate my support for the version 3.0 proposal CM Alter is recommending. Giving the commissions a chance to review the amended draft is a smart idea as it will allow our appointees to confirm that their edits and recommendations have been included as intended. All changes coming from the citizen commission review process should be captured; any edits or recommendations that don't make it into draft 3 should have a Planning staff comment explaining reasons why they have not been included.

Regards,

Leslie
Leslie Pool
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member, District 7
Locked