Laserfiche WebLink
would be no impact. She had difficulty looking at a loss of funds to the school district when they <br />would not need the funds because they would not need to build schools if development did not <br />occur. She said the same thing happens in the City with mitigation fees. Development is <br />therefore actually causing a reduction in quality of life due to an increase in traffic, water <br />consumption, or energy consumption. <br />Councilmember Sullivan referred to page 8 of the report under Conservation and Open Space. <br />He said there has been a lot of talk about a potential unintended consequence of the initiative; <br />that if there is an existing exemption for 10 units, anything can go as long as it is less than a 10- <br />unit project. One issue is a conflicting existing General Plan policy that says if there is a slope <br />over 25%, only 1 unit can be built. He questioned how the City is supposed to deal with <br />General Plan policies of the past. <br />Ms. Seto said that there would need to be some type of harmonizing ordinance to take place if <br />the Initiative passes in November to clarify these types of issues. She said it would be the City's <br />position that while this would not effectively liberalize the amount of development it could always <br />have a property owner make that reasonable argument based on the language of the Initiative. <br />This is why staff recommends some type of ordinance to harmonize these types of conflicts. On <br />page 12, section 5.1 of the report, there are existing standards for hillside regulations in addition <br />to the regulations put forward by the Initiative. Essentially, the City still would apply both sets of <br />regulations and the more restrictive ones would control. <br />City Attorney Roush said because of the potential conflict between General Plan policies, some <br />attempt to harmonize those or to explain why the more restrictive policy is the better one to <br />follow would be the City staff's recommendation, but even without that language, typically the <br />more restrictive provision would be applied. <br />Councilmember Sullivan questioned if it passes would all other policies be voided. <br />Mr. Roush said the policies would not be void, but every time you look at a development plan, <br />you have to make a finding that the development plan is consistent with the General Plan. There <br />are potentially conflicting policies in the General Plan between Program 13-1 and this particular <br />Initiative and a property owner could make an argument that there should be more units allowed <br />by reason of the Initiative. But the City would still apply a typical PUD planning process, CEQA <br />would apply, aesthetics and all planning staff actions would be in effect. <br />Councilmember Cook-Kallio said that if the Initiative were to pass, it would become law and she <br />clarified with the City Attorney that it would be a law as the General Plan is the legal framework <br />against which the City measures planning applications and that the City must adhere to those <br />policies. <br />Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she believed an Initiative which is passed becomes an <br />ordinance. <br />Mr. Roush explained an ordinance is adopted by the Council and codified and planning <br />ordinances need to be consistent with the General Plan. Development plans must be consistent <br />with the General Plan. If the Initiative is adopted, staff will attempt to harmonize those policies <br />so as not to have a conflict that could not be reconciled. <br />Special Meeting Minutes 5 June 26, 2008 <br />