Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity of GlendaleCity of Meridian City Clerk's Office (208) 888-4433 Fax (208) 888-4218 Memo To: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, Leslie Mathes, Keven Shreeve, and David Zaremba -Planning and Zoning Commission From: Sharon Smith cc: Will Berg Date: July 22, 2002 Re: City of Glendale -Article on Citizen Participation in the Public Hearing Process Please take a moment to read the attached article sent by Dave McKinnon. Thank you! • Page 1 Developers Engage in Citizen Participation Gary Fulk Abstract The City of Glendale, Arizona, has adopted an ordinance that creates a new citizen participation process for the day-to-day entitlement applications a city pla-u-ing department handles. The ordinance requires developers to engage in early citizen participation as a routine part of the public hearing process. "['his article explains how the ordinance works and discusses how it has funda-nentally changed the interactions between the public, developers, and professionals during the development approval process. Introduction Many communities are experiencing an increase in public interest in planning and land use decisions. [n response, planners are striving to improve citizen involvement in these decisions. There have been two big shortcomings in these new participation efforts. The first is an almost exclusive focus on the large plan or project. Nearly all new ideas in p--blic participation have come out of comprehensive plans, community visioning efforts, major transportation plans, large public works projects and the like. These big plans and projects certainly are i-nportant to residents of a community, but what about the day-to-day land development decisions? Re-ronittgs, subdivision plats, conditional use permits, and variances can have as -nuch- perhaps -nore--impact on the public as the Liig plans, yet the role of citizen participation in these decisions has changed little in decades. Second, when looking to improve citizen involvement, planners have concentrated on new and better tools a-ld techniques rather than new and better processes and procedures. Sending hearing notices to more people, making site posters bigger, and buying larger newspaper ads may get the word out to inure people, but does it improve the quality of citizen involvement'? New tools applied in the same old way don't yield better results. The City of Glendale has adopted a Citizen Participation Ordinance that addresses these shortcomings by creating a new citizen participation process for the day- to-day entitlement applications a city planning department handles. To begin to describe this new way of doing citizen participation, it's necessary to start by lu~~king at the sih-alion that created the need. What was the proble-tt we weee t-yi-ig to solve'? The problem Glendale is one of the cu-iunutlities surro-u-ding Phoenix and, like Phoenix, has been expcriencirn~ a significant rate of growth for several years. Kesidents have watched the v~-cant land around them till with houses, apartments, and businesses. They've seen teaffic increase and air quality decrease. Concern about the pace and quality of development has ~ -~own along witl- the co-nmunity. Residents were beginning to feel that they should have more say in the land use decisions lh~rt affected their lives. Many people were demanding to be involved in the decision process to an unprecedented degree. 't'hey started to complain that the: standard heaei-~><~ process was inadequate, insisting o-1 detailed information about projects and wanting to be -r-ore i-tvolveii in project planning and negotiation. Citizens became inure vocal and angry, frustrated over a Lack of meaningful involvement in the decision--naking process. There was a general lack of civility in public hearings, including personal attacks on applicants, planning co-nrnissio--ers, surd council members. At the same: time, developers were feeling besieged. Working in good faith with city staff, they assu-ned they had an acceptable project only to go to a public hearing to find residents up in arms over their proposals. Development applications were being routinely tabled so applicants could address residents' concerns. In early 1995, the city council began expressing concern about the increasingly hostile public hearing environment. The situation wasn't jest uncomfortable; the co-u-cil feared it would divide tl-e community. The planning staff was asked to do something about the problems. "I'he planners' first approach was to try and do a Lietter job of what we were t-lready doing. Rathee tha-i send public heaei--g -iotification letters to households within 300 feet of a project, we sent them to everyone within a quarter mile. [rtstead of a two-line newspaper ad, we wrote lort~{er, more descriptive notices of public hearings. We set up a meeting hotline, began posting meeting information on the Internet, and published newsletters. 'Chis improved things, but nut much. We also took a fresh look at the public-hearing process to see if something [und~unen4il was wrong. We found ple-ity. Problems with the hearing process The statutorily required hearing process for cities and counties in Ari-rona is very similar to the rest of tl-c United States: • The developer/applicant files an application for ~- change in land use. • Tl~-e local govcrnn-e-nt's staff reviews the application and prepares a report and/or reco-n-nendation. "fho hx;al guverrunent sets ~- public he<n-im~ date before tl-e appropriate review body. • "rhe local government notices the. hearing 13 days prior by putting an advertisement in the newspapee, sending .- letter to all property owners within 300 feet of the property in the application, .u-d posting a notice of some sort on the property. • A public hcaeing is held by the review body, which ~~ ~~-~~ f3 dune, 2002 makes a recommendation or decision un the application. There arc three major problems inherent in this process. First, there's a huge timing problem. While a public lrearing is the cuhninatiun of several months of work toe the applicant, the resident heard about it for the first tune two weeks ago. Citi-r_cns are asked to go to a public rireeting to speak un a proposal they know little or -rotlring about. Su, while the applicant is ready for a decision, the citizens new to the: process are trying to find out what's going on and how this might affect them. Next is the structure of the hearing itself Hearings are designed to allow the decision-makers to hear everyone and make a decision. Hearings are not designed for dialogue, discussion, or negotiation. Questions and information gathering are discouraged. That's not usually too much of a problem for the applicant, who has had a-nple opportunity to work with the staff on the proposal. However, for citizens who just heard about a proposal that may adversely impact their neighborhood, hearings are just an opportunity to gripe and express frustration. Finally, the hearing is a decision point in the process. The citizen's first upporturrity to get involved in the discussion is at the time the decision is to be made. Again, what option dues a resident have when speaking on a proposal that is within minutes of being decided but to speak against it'? When this occurs, it's a very frustrating situation for the applicant who, if he knew of the neighborhood concerns earlier, may very well have been able to resolve them. Instead, the applicant is looking at a denial, a continuance, or at the very least, a nasty public hearing. We concluded that we really didn't have citizen participation at all. At best, we had citizen notification. All we were doing was notifying citizens that they had an opportunity to complain. "They weren't being given an opportunity to participate in a discussion and decision. Even if all parties wanted a productive discussion of the project and its impacts, they couldn't have one. The solution [t was clear the public lrearing process was nut only doing nothing to prevent battles between residents and developers, it was virtually requiring them. [f you wanted to desigrra hearing process that would make all participants angry and ensure that none of them felt like they were treated fairly, you couldn't du much better than the one we had. [tut what to do about it? We came up with five simple principles that needed to be the basis of any solution: • Require applicants to invite a dialogue about their projects early in the process. '['his would encourage the applicant arrd resident to talk with each other rather than .rt each other. Kesidents would get an opportunity to influence the project by talki-rg directly with the applicant. "Fhe applicant would get a chance to explain his project arrd sell neiglrlic~rhoods un it. Most important, it would be dune early, before the public hearing. "this would make the hearing what it was designed to be, a final statement of issues and positions before the decision-making body. • Require applicants to address issues and concerns. Applicants would not just listen to residents° concerns, but would respond to them and explain what they weee~ir were nut-going to do about them. • Establish this as standard procedure for any hearing application. As a standard part of the development review process, dais "true participation" would be routine arnd systematic. Residents, staff and elected officials, and commission and board members could count on it. It would be standard operating procedure, rather than something an applicant may or may nut volunteer to do. • Don't touch the hearing process itself. The public hearing was a legal requirement that had to stay in place with little ur no change. "Fhe city would continue to set and advertise public hearings as before. All legal requirements would continue to be met. No change would be made in an applicant's right to a hearing. This was not to be an attempt to give neighborhoods inappropriate decision-making power or to try and force consensus on issues. • Put it in the zoning and subdivision ordinances. "Fhis would make it "the law of the land." By actually putting it in the city ordinance rather than making it an administrative policy or procedure, it would be clear that this was the council's policy fur every public hearing. The Citizen Participation Ordinance [n September of 1997, the City of Glendale's Citizen Participation l~rdinance went into effect. The ordinance is quite simple, consisting of five parts. 1. A purpose statement that clearly outlines that the ordinance is there to facilitate communication and encourage a dialogue zany in the review process. "I'he ordinance is specific, in that it is not intended to produce complete consensus on all applications. 2. A description of the citizen participation process, requiring all applicants for any public hearing to accurnplish three basic steps. Prepare a Citizen Participation Plan: This includes a written description of the project, an assessment of who might be affected by the project, and a sh•ategy for how Hruse affected will be able to participate. City planners work with applicants to customize their participation plans to fit the specific needs of their projects. The type and scale of the request, the character of the surruundir><g aeea, and the level of potential controversy determine the strategy. A comprehensive handbook with guidelines on how to develop the plan is available to al,plicants to help them with the process. Implement Hre Plan: "fhc applicant mails lettce•s, holds meetiti<~s, calls properly ownees; whatever his plan raluiees. "I'he applicant listens to citizens' comments and ~";,"~, " Wit. June, 202 y ~.~~ concerns, answers questions, and determines the best solution for issues presented to him. Report What Happened: After applicants have implemented their plans, they prepare a final report sunu~utriring their effort, the issues and concerns raised, and what they have done about them (or not done as tlrc case may be). "Fhe report must be submitted before the Ircaring is advertised and goes to the decision-makers, along with the city staff's report. i. A list of the minimum information needed in a citizen participation plan and report. 4. A description of the minimum required notice area. Applicants must work with tlrc planning staff to determine the notice area. 5. "Finning provisions for both the plan and report. Applicants can start their plans before they apply, but not before meeting with a plaruler. "Fhe public hearing cannot be set until a report is received. After these sups are completed, the applicant goes through the normal public hearing process, citizen participation report in tow. Below is the actual text, taken from the city's zoning ordinance: City of Glendale Citizen Participation Plan Requirements Every application, which requires a public hearing, shall include a citizen participation plan that must be implemented prior to the first public hearing. The purpose of the citizen participation plan is to: Ensure that applicants pursue early and effective citizen participation in conjunction with their applications, giving them the opportunity to understand and try to mitigate any real or perceived impacts their application may have on the community; Ensure that the citizens and property owners of Glendale have an adequate opportunity to learn about applications that may affect them and to work with applicants to resolve concerns at an early stage of the process; and Facilitate ongoing cornrnunication between the applicant, interested citizens, and property owners, city staff, and elected officials throughout the application review process. The citizen participation plan is not intended to produce complete consensus on all applications, but to encourage applicants to be good neighbors and to allow for informed decision-making. At a minimum, the citizen participation plan shall include the following information: • Which residents, property owners, interested parties, political jurisdictions, and public agencies ntay be affected by the application. How those interested in and potentially affected by an application will be notified that an application has been made. • How those interested and poten- Bally affected parties will be informed of the substance of the change, amendment, or devclopnrent proposed by the application. • How those affected or otherwise interested will be provided an opportunity to discuss the applicant's proposal with the applicant and express any concerns, issues, or problems they may have with the proposal in advance of the public hearing. • The applicant's schedule fur completion of the citizen participation plan. • Eiow the applicant will keep the planning deparhneut informed on the StatnS Of hlS Clhlen parlLClpatlotr c;ttOCIS. • The Level of citizen interest and area of involvement will vary depending on the nature of the application and the location of the site. The target area for early notification will be determined by the applicant after consultation with the planning department. At a minimum, the target area shall include the following: • Property owners within the public hearing notice area required by other sections of this ordinance; • The head of any homeowners' association or registered neighborhood within the public notice area required by other sections of this ordinance; and • Other interested parties who have requested that they be placed on the interested parties notification list maintained by the planning department. • "Fhese requirements apply in addition to jury notice provisions required elsewhere in this ordinance. 'Fhe applicant nrxy submit a citizen participation plan and begin irnplemerrtation prior to formal application at his discretion. This shall not occur until after the required pre- application meeting and consultation with the planning department staff. 'T'his section applies only whe~r a citizen participation plan is required by this ordinance. The applicant shall provide a written report on the results of his citize~r participation effort prior to the notice of public hearing. This report will be attached to the planning deparhnent's public hearing report. At a minimum, the citizen participation report shall include the following information: • Details of techniques the applicant used to involve the public, i~lchrdi~lq dates and locations of all meetings where citizens were invited to discuss the applicant's proposal; • Content, dates mailed, and munbers of mailings, including letters, meeting notices, newsletters and other publications; • Where residents, property owners, and interested parties receiving notices, newsletters, or other written materials are located; and • "Fhe number of people that participated in the process. • A summary of concerns, issues, and problems expressed dru•ing the process, i~rchrding: • 'Fhe substance of Cha concerns, issues, and problems; • How the applicant has addressed or intends to address concerns, issues, and problems expressed during the process; and Concerns, issues. and problems the applicant is unwilling or unable. to address and why. ~i~A ~Att' ~~~ ~t 10 tune, 2002 How the ordinance is administered Major responsibility for the program has been assigned to a planning department staff member, who works with planners, applicants, and elected officials to make the process trot as smoothly as possible. A major function of this staff member is to be the liaison with the city council office, arranging project briefings and answering questions front council constituents. "I'he applicant can start at any time during the application review process, even before the application is made. Planners work to make this process as "-ton- regulatory" as possible, taking a cooperative approach and working extensively with applicants. "fhe ordinance sets up a process and basic information tkte applicant must provide. It does not, however, specify participation techniques. There is no requirement for a neighborhood meeting, for example. Applicants and their assigned staff planners work out the techniques required based on the type of application, past experience with other applications of the same type, knowledge of neighborhood issues, and other factors. This allows the ordinance to be applied to all kinds of hearing applications, from major planned developments covering thousands of acres of vacant land to a setback variance for a room addition o-t a house. Does it work? After a year and a half, we can -nake so-ne initial assessments about the ordinance's impact: • The process is more civil. We've seen significant changes in the interactions between developers and the public. People are talking to each other, not at each other. Having to present and defend their own projects to citizens has made developers more respectful of their neighbors, and some are actually enjoying the process, seeing this as an opportunity to influence future customers. Even in those projects where there is still significant disagreement at the public hearing, the discussions tend to be calmer and focused on problems rather than on personalities. Residents feel as if they're part of a dialogue; developers, even those who don't prevail, have told us they were treated fairly. • Citizens go to public hearings better prepared. Having more information about the project early in the process allows citizens who speak at public hearings to better make their case. People also seem less nervous about speaking in public when they're prepared. • Decision-makers are better informed. The members oC the planning commission and the city council have been very pleased wit(t the citizen participation reports they get with each application. They get valuable information on discussions that have cxcurred prior to the public hearing and what the developer has done to accommodate neighborhoods. • Citizen participation procedures are standardi"red. Planners still have to judge what techniques are appropriate for a particular application and what appropriate notice areas are, but they don't have to try to talk an applicant into working with a neighborhood. • Public hearings have been calmer. [n the past l8 months there has been only orte of the knockdown drag-out hearings that were becoming quite frequent in the years before the ordinance. Problems with the ordinance There have been some problems, of course. In addition to the usual kinks and stumbles any new program has, we've encountered a few fundamental issues that keep coming up. Many applicants arc leery of the process the first time they encounter it. For many, public participation is something they've never been directly responsible lot, and they assume the plan and implementation process will be beyond them. Some are afraid they're being set up, or that a neighborhood vote will be taken. Once art applicant has gone through the process though, the most common reaction is something like "[s that all there is to it?" A lot of this can be attributed to the newness and uniqueness of the ordinance. Applicants who have done more than one participation process have found it easier eacl~t time. Most applicants are concerned that the citizen participation process will add time to the usual hearing process. Since the participation process is done concurrently with other application review, and can even begirt before filing an application, there is no reason it has to add to the total processing time. What appears to be happening is that more time is taken to get to a hearing, but the hearings go more smoothly, with fewer tabliugs, continuances and .the like. Getting some developers to take this seriously has been a challenge. The best predictor of success in the process seems to be the attitude of the applicant. Applicants Hurt accept the process and are sincere about following the staff suggestions artd review comments do well. Those that tight the idea of participation have an uphill battle. Conclusion Many communities are finding they need to improve their public participation and hearing processes. As more citizens and elected officials look for alternatives to the routine hearing process, Glendale's approach can be useful. [t's simple, the ideas in the ordinance are easily transferable, and it works. Copyright 1999 by Author, All rights reserved Gary Fulk, AICP, is the Planning Manager for the City of Glendale, Arizona. He has worked as a public sector planner for Arizona for Z l years and has extensive experience in managing planning projects and the citizen participation prcx;ess. He has been the lead planner vn projects that have won awards for citizen participation. Crary is the author of Glendale's Citizen Ordiance. He has written articles and delivered several presenatations on public participation in the development process. Ke has been a participant in many seminars and conferences discussing public participation, including national conferences of the American Planning Association and the International Association tier ftrblic Participation. ^ June, 2002 11 ~-~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Thursday, August 29, 2002, at 4:00 P.M. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: David Zaremba Jerry Centers Leslie Mathes Keven Shreeve Chairman Keith Borup 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: 4. Discussion of MDC Urban Renewal Plan: 5. Tabled from July 18, 2002: Planning and Zoning In House Laundry List -Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance Amendments: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting Agenda -August 29, 2002 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. MAYOR Robert D. Corrie CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Tammy deWeerd William L. M. Nary Cherie McCandless Keith Bird r r ~ ~~ ~. CITY OF l~~'~I_~' - ~\ erl~l~n + ~ ~ ~; IDAHO / j i ~ F ~hT Y // °~ - V siNCe 1,1903 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 288-2499 • Fax 238-2501 PARKS & RECREATION (208 838-3579 • Fax 898-S~OI PUBLIC WORKS (203)393-5500 •Fax 887-1297 BUILD[NG DEPARTMENT (208) 587-2211 • Fax 387-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING (203) 831-5533 • Fax 385-6354 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a Special Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Thursday, August 29, 2002 at 4:00 P.M. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission will discuss possible ordinance and City Code revisions for the City of Meridian. The public is welcome to attend. DATED this 23`~ day of August, 2002. ``~u n u t t, I r,,,, = SEAL O ,,~~ ~ov~rr~ ~ \` ~,,. WILLIAM G. BERG, J CIT CLERK 33 EAST IDAHO • MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 Human Resources Fax (208) 288- 1193