Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 65 <br /> <br />Ms. Ekas reminded everyone that they had looked at this issue about eight years ago. <br />At that time it came up because there was an R-2 parcel for sale, being marketed and <br />studied. Staff researched this and realized better direction was needed. Staff did not <br />come back and confirm their interpretation at that time because nothing really moved <br />forward on that R-2 parcel. She noted there has been a relatively low rate of R-2 activity <br />in the past eight years. She noted it was important to study it now and further clarify <br />issues. <br /> <br />Commissioner Schmidt asked for information on why cities amend these zoning <br />ordinances. <br /> <br />Ms. Ekas noted the zoning ordinances in cities are amended for many reasons. She <br />reminded them they would be seeing some of the same need for clarification later in the <br />meeting when they discussed the Central Business Retail Zoning Ordinance. Changes <br />in cities throughout time make it necessary for these changes in order to stay current on <br />what works, what does not and what might work better in the future. At times the <br />language itself is confusing and needs reworking for clarity purposes, or there may be <br />new policy directions which must be considered. The changes in the General Plan also <br />result in zoning text amendments. All involved changes were in keeping with making <br />progress and changing the code language to suit the community's needs. <br />Commissioner Schmidt asked if they were in a position where they were interpreting the <br />code or merely codifying it for clarity purposes. <br /> <br />Ms. Ekas stated they were no longer in the position to be interpreting the code. The <br />importance lay in putting forth a very clear standard. She noted the Commission could <br />either leave things as they are, believing the standards were clear, or they could amend <br />some of the language to provide further clarity on anyone particular standard. Another <br />option existed which was to choose something completely different. Staff had studied <br />and offered up three scenarios for their consideration, however. <br /> <br />Mr. Aranda made an effort to clarify what the Commission was being asked at this <br />current session, which was two things, take action on the document and then make a <br />recommendation to the City Council. <br /> <br />Commissioner Schmidt asked Mr. Aranda to speak to some of the concerns expressed <br />by members of the public that some of these proposed actions mayor may not be legal. <br /> <br />Mr. Aranda stated what the Commission was doing legally at present was to Adopt the <br />Negative Declaration, if they so chose. With respect to the legalities of their actions or <br />any proposed Zoning Amendments, it was entirely within the Commission's purview to <br />make these recommendations to the City Council. It then became completely legal <br />within the powers of the City Council to adopt any ordinance they believe is going to be <br />implemented for the public welfare. This was one of the powers of the City Council <br />acting as a legislative body for the City. By taking Action, the Council would be taking <br />these amendments, proposed by Staff with feedback through the Commission, and <br />making them into law for the City. <br /> <br />Commissioner Schmidt noted after reading all the materials, hearing the Staff <br />presentation and public comments that the fact remained that the City and its <br />neighborhoods were growing. This lent to the need to amend Zoning Ordinance at some <br />point. Whatever the Commission so~decided, he felt it was important to note that the <br /> <br />Page 14 of 24 <br />