01 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

homes get shifted from hill side single family homes to smaller single family homes or multi- family units, the impact is somewhere between a minimum of $69,000 to $183,000 per year, depending on the assumptions. Ms. Wagner said staff also looked at one-time development fees. The fiscal impact is a wash for a single family home regardless of the square footage because the development fees are the same regardless of the size. If all the units were multi-family units, the City would receive less in fees, an impact of $2.8 million. Therefore, the range on the impact from development fees is somewhere from 0 (assuming 100% of the homes where single family detached) to as much as $2.8 million. The larger numbers of course are the other agencies and the majority of this is the school district. For cash flow purposes, the school district assumes in its budget 120 homes / year at 3500 square feet. The District is not depending, in its cash flow model, to receive more funds based on a larger single family home. They would still have a loss of revenues as a result of the shift, but it would be less than shown here. In summary, when discussing the two policies of the proposed Initiative with regard to the hillside aspect, it would reduce the number of housing units developed in the hill area by approximately 119-224 units. Those units would be transferred to other areas of the City. There are questions about how it would apply to various types of development particularly in regard to the issue of hillside roads and how the language of the Initiative would apply there. Regarding the housing unit definition, how that would apply and be interpreted to assisted living units and extended stay hotels would have financial impacts on the City and other agencies. Ms. Seto then continued. Regarding the Council wanting staff to return with discussion about complementary and competing ballot options, there are several options that are discussed in the staff report, including one where the Council could proceed with what staff would call a complementary ballot Initiative—a City-sponsored measure for November. The Council could put a measure on the November ballot to ask the community to ratify the idea of a task force, potentially composed of stakeholders of interested parties, to draft an ordinance that would implement the citizens Initiative if that Initiative were to pass. This would address some of the questions that are posed in the report in terms of how to apply it when specific projects come forward. The Council could also consider a competing ballot matter for the November ballot. One option could be to ask the voters in November to re-affirm the City's existing General Plan policies and regulations and how the City currently handles hillside development based on its ordinances and policies for ridgelines, growth control, and those matters. As a competing measure, if this measure were to receive more votes in November than the citizens Initiative and even if that Initiative were to receive more than 50% of the vote, then the competing measure would control and the other Initiative would not go into effect. Mother option for a competing ballot measure could include posing to the voters whether they would want to establish a task force to develop new policies and regulations for hillside development, grading, and growth control to address some of these issues that have been a concern for the community. As a competing measure, if it were to receive more votes than the citizens Initiative, that would control. Or, the fourth option could be to receive the report and take no further action in terms of considering any matter for the November ballot. Special Meeting Minutes 4 June 26, 2008