Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Blank thanked staff for providing the radius of notification. He <br />reported that he had done some research about the legislative process in California <br />and stated that when a law is passed, there is usually a legal section that creates <br />enabling rules and regulations surrounding that law. He noted that this occurred <br />with Proposition 65, Proposition 13, Proposition 8, and others, and the same thing <br />happens if it is passed by a vote of the people or the legislature. He expressed <br />concerned that this has not happened with Measures PP and QQ and that he had <br />not received any guidance from the City’s legal staff of the City’s recommendation <br />for the implementation of Measures PP and QQ. He inquired what the City planners <br />will be guided by, what will occur at the counter, what applicants could expect, and <br />what the relief valve would be if the writers disagreed with how Measures PP <br />and QQ are administered, as their remedy is to go to court. <br />Commissioner Blank also expressed concerned about the non-existence of the <br />entire Measures PP and QQ discussion, and staff’s recommendation does not <br />contain any reference to Measures PP and QQ. He noted that whether the <br />Commission approves or disapproves the project, he did not believe it was <br />appropriate for the Planning Commission to be deciding on a case-by-case basis <br />whether or not Measures PP and QQ apply or not, as there has been no guidance <br />from the City Attorney on the administrative process.He stated that he believed <br />Measures PP and QQ are irrelevant to the process of deciding on whether the <br />Commission will approve or not approve the application because there is no <br />directive on the City’s implementation of Measures PP and QQ. <br />Ms. Seto noted that on December 16, 2008, after both Measures PP and QQ had <br />passed, City staff went to the City Council with options on how to implement the two <br />measures, some of which included issues which Commissioner Blank raised <br />regarding regulations, guidelines, or an implementing ordinance. She indicated that <br />the Council decided that the approach it wanted to take was that this would be <br />implemented on a case-by-case application, based upon language added to the <br />General Plan by both Measures PP and QQ. <br />Ms. Seto noted that there have been other City measures that have been similar to <br />this type of approach, such as the Pleasanton Ridge Lands Ordinance and some <br />Initiatives and Measures. She stated that as a project moves through the Planning <br />Commission and City Council processes, various decision-makers can look at the <br />language of both measures, apply them in much the same way as the policies and <br />programs of the existing General Plan are applied, and determine whether projects <br />are consistent or not consistent with those policies and programs. <br />Commissioner Blank noted that this was not contained in the recommendations of <br />the staff report and that he felt Measures PP and QQ were such potential “lightening <br />rods” that people will point out consistencies or inconsistencies in their <br />administration. He added that from a planning perspective, he felt it did not make for <br />good planning. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 11, 2009 Page 3 of 9 <br /> <br />