Minor Code Amendment Process (MiCAP)
Return to page 1 or page 2 or page 3
Although these ratings and categorizations provide useful information, what's needed –
and was lacking to this point – is a variety of tools to enable citizens to efficiently and
effectively engage all or some subsets of the proposed amendments; to be able to
understand the impacts of the various amendments; and what the general outcome would
be of applying various selection and prioritization schemes.
To fill this void, the Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) had a subcommittee that
analyzed all 230 proposed amendments and produced a list of "Highly Recommended"
amendments (and a list of eight "Reject" amendments) that was endorsed by the full NLC.
These amendments accomplish one or more of the following:
• improve the effectiveness of neighborhood resident and neighborhood association
participation in land use approval and appeal processes
• provide substantial relief from the impacts of incompatible infill
• improve protection of natural resources.
Note the last two criteria are consistent with the Neighborhood Leaders Council motion
stating the NLC top priorities for the 2006-2007 Planning Division Work Plan.
Attempts to get MiCAP on the right track
In February 2007, concern over a variety of problems in the process led to a letter signed by
thirty leaders from sixteen neighborhood associations identifying problems with the
project and recommending specific steps to get the project back on track. In response, a
new description of the MiCAP process and tentative schedule was created and has been
posted on the City's Web site.
Unfortunately, the MiCAP project team didn't do a good job of providing adequate
information and assistance so ordinary citizens, who aren't land use code experts, can
efficiently and effectively understand the scope and impacts of proposed amendments.
This lack of action led representatives of the Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) to
unanimously approve a motion on March 27 stating that MiCAP "has not provided adequate
opportunities for citizens to become educated about and discuss potential amendments
and the process for selecting and prioritizing proposed amendments." The motion also
recommended prompt action by Planning staff to correct the problems before proceeding
with the next scheduled public meetings.
The NLC motion also recommended the Planning Commission prioritize amendments
that improve the effectiveness of public participation in land use processes, address the
negative impacts of incompatible infill, and/or protect natural resources.
The JWN Executive Board is continuing to work to assure the MiCAP project results in code
changes that will further the goals adopted by the JWN membership, particularly with
respect to protecting the character and stability of the neighborhood.
Continue to page 5.
Although these ratings and categorizations provide useful information, what's needed –
and was lacking to this point – is a variety of tools to enable citizens to efficiently and
effectively engage all or some subsets of the proposed amendments; to be able to
understand the impacts of the various amendments; and what the general outcome would
be of applying various selection and prioritization schemes.
To fill this void, the Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) had a subcommittee that
analyzed all 230 proposed amendments and produced a list of "Highly Recommended"
amendments (and a list of eight "Reject" amendments) that was endorsed by the full NLC.
These amendments accomplish one or more of the following:
• improve the effectiveness of neighborhood resident and neighborhood association
participation in land use approval and appeal processes
• provide substantial relief from the impacts of incompatible infill
• improve protection of natural resources.
Note the last two criteria are consistent with the Neighborhood Leaders Council motion
stating the NLC top priorities for the 2006-2007 Planning Division Work Plan.
Attempts to get MiCAP on the right track
In February 2007, concern over a variety of problems in the process led to a letter signed by
thirty leaders from sixteen neighborhood associations identifying problems with the
project and recommending specific steps to get the project back on track. In response, a
new description of the MiCAP process and tentative schedule was created and has been
posted on the City's Web site.
Unfortunately, the MiCAP project team didn't do a good job of providing adequate
information and assistance so ordinary citizens, who aren't land use code experts, can
efficiently and effectively understand the scope and impacts of proposed amendments.
This lack of action led representatives of the Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) to
unanimously approve a motion on March 27 stating that MiCAP "has not provided adequate
opportunities for citizens to become educated about and discuss potential amendments
and the process for selecting and prioritizing proposed amendments." The motion also
recommended prompt action by Planning staff to correct the problems before proceeding
with the next scheduled public meetings.
The NLC motion also recommended the Planning Commission prioritize amendments
that improve the effectiveness of public participation in land use processes, address the
negative impacts of incompatible infill, and/or protect natural resources.
The JWN Executive Board is continuing to work to assure the MiCAP project results in code
changes that will further the goals adopted by the JWN membership, particularly with
respect to protecting the character and stability of the neighborhood.
Continue to page 5.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |