CCMIN121608 - Laserfiche WebLink

can be reconciled when looking at the state law requirement particularly with regard to second units, the U.S. Census Bureau definition, other state law definitions talking about independent living, as well as a letter in the public record from one of the PP petitioners and the testimony at the public hearing. The Council has several steps and options for implementing Measures PP and OQ. Based on operation of law; the policies adopted will now become part of the current General Plan and will be carried forward into the proposed General Plan. Option 1 would be to have those policies put into the General Plan and as projects come forward, they would be subject to the regular public review process that includes review under CEQA, but this could subject a project to an EIR or other type of analyses. Projects would all need to be consistent with the General Plan and current data and databases the city uses. With any normal public review project, this takes place after a process with the Planning Commission through noticed public hearing. Option 2 would be for the Council to direct staff to prepare administrative guidelines for the implementation of PP and QO. These would be developed by staff and they could help to provide property owners with some further guidance about their projects and properties and opportunities they might have. There would be time needed to develop such guidelines, but it could be used as a tool to clarify databases or other information that staff uses to prepare reports. However, she stressed that any type of guidelines or ordinances could not modify the provisions of PP and QO. Option 3 is to adopt a formal ordinance and potentially implement PP and QQ, and any ordinance going forward would be submitted to the City Council. Any ordinance would be subject to environmental review under CEQA and a formal ordinance provides more certainty to property owners. However, there would be a lot of time needed to develop it by going through the entire public process. And as new information becomes available through the public process, there might be a loss of the ability to quickly adopt and use that new information. Option 4 is to consider a public stakeholder's process to develop a hillside protection ordinance and guidelines, similar to the advisory provisions of QQ about this public stakeholder process. Council could direct staff to return with proposals about the membership of such a group, what areas to be covered would include, what the scope of the work would involve, but it would have to be clear that any type of process could not modify the provisions of PP or OO. This would allow greater public participation in the hillside development regulations, potentially provide greater certainty for property owners, but there would be an extended time needed for the process. Councilmember Sullivan referred to the rationale for the options, stating he read both measures, and it seems like Option 1 is the one that comes out from the vote. He did not see where Options 2, 3 and 4 were coming from either measure as something that needs to be done and asked for further clarification. Ms. Seto said neither measure requires further action; they are policies adopted by the voters and placed directly into the General Plan. Options are provided because there had been the discussion in Measure OO about having a public process. In staff's analysis, PP restrictions would potentially be an end product of a process, so staff still wanted to talk about this as one option. And, just as any type of development process, staff often hears that property owners are interested in more certainty, so guidelines for a formal ordinance could help provide that. However, neither measure would require above and beyond what is created in either measure. City Council Minutes Page 5 of 15 December 16, 2008