Council Policy Prioritization: Early Consideration Response Form DKƉƉƌŽǀĂů͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺĂƚĞͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
Department Rules Date Item Department Rep. Name/Ext. Council Member Sponsorship Policy/Ordinance Subject Staff Recommendation܆ GREEN Adopt based on tradeoffs outlined on next page
܆ YELLOW Send to Priority
Setting Process
܆ RED Recommend Council not
adopt nominated idea
܆ NEEDS CLARIFICATION OR
MORE TIME TO EVALUATE
Staff Evaluation
/ƐƚŚŝƐĂligned with City Roadmap?
܆ Yes ܆ No
/ƐƚŚŝƐĂlready underway inĂDepĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ work plan?
܆ Yes ܆ No
/ƐƚŚŝƐƚime Đritical orĂŶ Ğmergency?
܆ Yes ܆ No
tŝůůƚŚŝƐƌequire substantialƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕staffing͕ budget͕ŽƌƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĐƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ? ܆ Yes ܆ No
Criterion to Determine Scale of Project ComplexityProject complexity is determined by scoring the project in each of the 3 criterions below and then summing the score. a. Low Complexity is a sum of 6 or less.b. Medium Complexity is a sum of 7 – 9.c. High Complexity is a sum of 10 or greater.
Total Score =
Scoring Criterion
Low Complexity Medium Complexity High Complexity
Estimated Duration 6 – 9 months ܆ =1 9 - 18 months ܆ =2 More than 18 months ܆ =3 Organizational Complexity(Internal)
Can Easily be Absorbed into Existing Work Plan
܆ =1 Planned Work (Future) ܆ =2 Work Not Currently Proposed ܆ =3 Have staff with required skillset/knowledge
܆ =1 Have staff with required skillset/
requires moderate research
܆ =2 Do not have staff with required
skillsetͬrequires significant research
3 =܆
Less than or equal 2 staff required
܆ =1 3 - 4 staff required ܆ =2 More than 5 staff required ܆ =3 (External) 1 Additional
Department
܆ =1 2 Other DepartmentƐ Involved ܆ =2 3 or more DepĂƌƚŵĞŶƚs Involved ܆ =3 DEPT.
Required ܆ Airport ܆ Auditor ܆ CMO ܆ OED/CA ܆ ESD ܆ Fire ܆ HR ܆ IT ܆ PRNS ܆ Police ܆ Retirement ܆ Attorney ܆ Clerk ܆ CMO – Budget ܆ Community Energy ܆ Finance ܆ Housing ܆ IPA ܆ Library ܆ PBCE ܆ PW ܆ DOT ܆CMOʹ ŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ ܆ DKʹ PBCE Rules Date 2/2/2022 G.2
Chris BurtonSpecial Use Permit Requirements
Mayor LiccardoCouncilmember Peralez
✔
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
8 Lee Wilcox 2/1/2022
AnalysisExplain the rationale for staff recommendation, including any mitigating factors that need to be considered (recent legislative action, significant work plan changes, etc.). Please address the following as well. GREEN LIGHT: The Administration can implement this Nominated Idea under its current work plan. Item should be sent to Council to add to Department work plan. ;ϭͿ,ŽǁǁŝůůƚŚĞ/ĚĞĂďĞĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚĞĚ͍;ϮͿ If adopted͕ what isŝƚƐ impactĂŶĚͬŽƌtradeoff toƚŚĞ City Roadmap or ƚŽĂDepĂƌtŵĞŶƚ work plan͕ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĐƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ? ;ϯͿWhat is the minimum viable scope to moveƚŚĞ/ĚĞĂ forward and reduceŝƚƐ complexity? YELLOW LIGHT: The Administration recommends Council send this Nominated Idea to the Priority Setting Process due to (describe cost implications, workload impacts, or other factors). RED LIGHT: The Administration recommends Council not adopt this Nominated Idea due to (describe reason implementation would be difficult if not impossible – conflict with other laws, etc.).
Staff understands the vital role that food distribution operations play in meeting our residents’ food needs and recognize that COVID has exacerbated the need for food assistance. Both recommendations contained in the Memorandum submitted by Mayor Liccardo and Councilmember Peralez provide a path to helping retain these types of supportive uses, but also have different considerations and workload implications. Suspending the land use regulations for food distribution services through the COVID-19 local state of emergency order (as proposed in Recommendation 1) would only provide a temporary reprieve and would create uncertainty for users based on the duration of the ongoing emergency. The need for community support organizations like Lighthouse Ministries will extend well beyond the duration of the local state of emergency.
Analysis (Continued)
Should the order end or be terminated, these uses would become out of compliance with the municipal code and subject to enforcement. In addition, during the suspension, staff would have limited ability to resolve incompatibilities with surrounding uses and neighborhoods. These would be limited to significant health and safety considerations. Staff believes that working closely with these types of users to address any concerns through the appropriate process will result in a more beneficial and sustainable outcome for both the applicant and the surrounding neighborhood. PBCE has not accounted for this regulatory amendment in its workload assumptions for this fiscal year, therefore adding this as an additional near-term work item would impact the delivery of other existing Council Priorities. Staff believes that pursuing Recommendation 2 will provide the intended pathway and support for food distribution operators to serve our community without the uncertainty and additional workload implications of pursuing Recommendation 1. Identifying funding through the budget process that could offset the permitting fees for these specific uses will give staff the flexibility to work closely with operators like Lighthouse Ministries to ensure that their services are not having adverse affects on surrounding neighborhoods while maintaining a positive cost recovery rate for Development Services staff.