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 ZĞĨĞƌ to Priority^ĞƚƚŝŶŐ
ŽƌƚŽƵĚŐĞƚ 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 inĂ
DepĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ work plan?
܆ Yes ܆ No
/ƐƚŚŝƐƚime Đritical orĂŶ Ğmergency?
܆ Yes ܆ No
tŝůůƚŚŝƐƌequire substantialƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐ͕
staffing͕ 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 Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Rules Date 11/02/22 C.2 Michael Brilliot 535-7831
Yes in God’s Back Yard (YIGBY)
Mayor Sam LiccardoVice Mayor Chappie JonesCouncilmember Dev Davis ✔
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔✔
5 /s/ Lee Wilcox 11/1/2022
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.).
Citywide Planning Division staff are currently working on the Affordable Housing on Assembly Use Sites Policy (YIGBY), a policy framework to allow affordable housing to be constructed as a secondary use in conjunction with existing assembly uses. This item is on the FY 2022-2023 City Initiatives Roadmap. The scope of the “City-Initiated General Plan Amendment for Public/Quasi-Public Land Use Designation: Defining Permanent Supportive Housing” is more simplistic and requires less staff time than the scope of the YIGBY Policy. Therefore, by shifting from YIGBY to the new policy work, additional staff capacity would be created to work on other policy/ordinance items. In addition, the new policy work item, in conjunction with recent state laws that allow school districts to construct teacher housing on its land, would provide opportunities for redevelopment of school district land with residential uses. Therefore, the new policy work item eliminates the need for the Yes on School Land (YOSL) policy that is currently in the Citywide Planning’s work program.