Steering committee approves consultant work to translate climate plan into zoning language, with conditions

Andrew Erickson, vice chair of the Climate Action Plan Steering Committee, opened the discussion of agenda item 25-1420 and presented a consultant proposal intended to translate portions of the city’s climate action plan into draft zoning language. The committee voted unanimously to approve the proposal, with conditions that the committee participate in community interviews and that the final contract provide a clearer breakdown of the model-ordinance review and implementation-focused deliverables.

Tim Ackland, planning department staff, explained the rationale for the work and the scope gap it is intended to fill: “Our current existing zoning code is written largely in the eighties. It is very outdated, and hard to use,” Ackland said, adding that outdated phrasing and punctuation in Chapter 115 make the code difficult for staff to enforce and for the public to interpret. He said the proposed consultants would help craft ordinance language that can be integrated into the ongoing Chapter 115 update.

Committee members raised practical questions about topics likely to require new or clarified code language. Ackland identified electric-vehicle charging stations and related design standards — including whether freestanding chargers are treated as a primary use and how advertising screens should be regulated — plus riparian setbacks and green-space requirements as recurring issues. Natalie Hennigan, a steering committee member, pressed for emphasis on implementation: she said the community-interview component of the proposal could be especially valuable for learning how other cities moved model ordinances from draft to adoption.

The proposal’s cost was discussed: Andrew Erickson said the Bolton and Mank proposal totals $24,855, and Ackland noted $20,000 is available in this year’s planning operating budget under contracted services and would otherwise revert to the general fund if unused. Committee members asked for more detail about task-level deliverables, including why $10,500 was allocated to the model-ordinance review, and requested that committee members participate in interviews and review the final product’s table of contents.

Dorothy moved to approve the consultant proposal and Steph seconded. The motion was amended to require committee participation in the community-interview step, to require a more detailed breakdown of the model-ordinance review (task 2), and to emphasize implementation in the final products. The committee approved the amended motion unanimously.

Next steps recorded in the meeting: the committee will work with staff to develop specific interview questions for consultants and expects the consultant team to attend the January meeting to discuss the scope and deliverables.