Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 12 <br /> <br />initiative passes and the new general plan includes changes that would <br />require two-thirds voter approval. In such an event, staff is looking into a <br />two-step approval process. In the first step, a high quality, comprehensive <br />general plan that does not involve any changes requiring a two-thirds vote <br />would be proposed along with certification of the associated EIR. The <br />public process would include development of land use alternatives which <br />will be studied as alternatives in the EIR. In the event that City Council <br />would wish to pursue alternatives that include lands affected by the <br />charter amendment, a second step in the process would be considered. <br />For the second step, only the amendments that require a two-thirds voter <br />approval would be brought to a vote. Thus, if those changes were not <br />approved, a general plan would remain in place. <br /> <br />This is one of several options that staff has considered for processing the <br />New General Plan. It is presented here by planning staff in our continued <br />effort to provide transparency into the public process of developing a New <br />General Plan. It should be noted that the two step process would require <br />additional scope of work and therefore would add costs and time to the <br />new general plan process. The second step is not a simple change to the <br />new general map. It would require incorporation of language throughout <br />the document to insure integration and internal consistency. Knowing this <br />now, staff is also considering alternate formats for the document to ensure <br />that it can be amended when appropriate in as simple a manner as <br />possible. <br /> <br />17. What implications does the initiative have with respect to any state <br />law requirement for Redwood City to either approve or disapprove a <br />project? <br /> <br />.. <br />Response: The Permit Streamlining Act applies to certain land use decisions and <br />requires a City to a follow standardized process with respect to those <br />decisions. Failure of a City to approve or disapprove a project within <br />those time limits may result in the project being deemed approved. <br />However, legislative acts (general plan or rezoning amendments) and <br />non-legislative and adjudicatory acts requiring legislative changes would <br />not be subject to the Permit Streamlining Act. <br /> <br />In addition, under CEQA, if a project is subject to an EIR, a decision on <br />the project must be made within 180 days from EIR certification. If a <br />negative declaration is issued or the activity is exempt from CEQA, there <br />is a 60 days period for approval/disapproval. <br /> <br />SECTION V: Costs Associated With the Initiative <br /> <br />18. Who is responsible for defending and paying the costs for any <br />lawsuit challenging the validity of a successful Charter initiative? <br /> <br />Response: If a third party brought a lawsuit challenging the initiative, the City would <br />be named as a defendant and the City would incur significant litigation <br />costs, which could easily amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. <br />12 <br />