01 MINUTES SPECIAL 06-26-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

would not need the funds because they would not need to build schools if development did not occur. She said the same thing happens in the City with mitigation fees. Development is therefore actually causing a reduction in quality of life due to an increase in traffic, water consumption, or energy consumption. Councilmember Sullivan referred to page 8 of the report under Conservation and Open Space. He said there has been a lot of talk about a potential unintended consequence of the initiative; that if there is an existing exemption for 10 units, anything can go as long as it is less than a 10- unit project. One issue is a conflicting existing General Plan policy that says if there is a slope over 25%, only 1 unit can be built. He questioned how the City is supposed to deal with General Plan policies of the past. Ms. Seto said that there would need to be some type of harmonizing ordinance to take place if the Initiative passes in November to clarify these types of issues. She said it would be the City's position that while this would not effectively liberalize the amount of development it could always have a property owner make that reasonable argument based on the language of the Initiative. This is why staff recommends some type of ordinance to harmonize these types of conflicts. On page 12, section 5.1 of the report, there are existing standards for hillside regulations in addition to the regulations put forward by the Initiative. Essentially, the City still would apply both sets of regulations and the more restrictive ones would control. City Attorney Roush said because of the potential conflict between General Plan policies, some attempt to harmonize those or to explain why the more restrictive policy is the better one to follow would be the City staff's recommendation, but even without that language, typically the more restrictive provision would be applied. Councilmember Sullivan questioned if it passes would all other policies be voided. Mr. Roush said the policies would not be void, but every time you look at a development plan, you have to make a finding that the development plan is consistent with the General Plan. There are potentially conflicting policies in the General Plan between Program 13-1 and this particular Initiative and a property owner could make an argument that there should be more units allowed by reason of the Initiative. But the City would still apply a typical PUD planning process, CEQA would apply, aesthetics and all planning staff actions would be in effect. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said that if the Initiative were to pass, it would become law and she clarified with the City Attorney that it would be a law as the General Plan is the legal framework against which the City measures planning applications and that the City must adhere to those policies. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she believed an Initiative which is passed becomes an ordinance. Mr. Roush explained an ordinance is adopted by the Council and codified and planning ordinances need to be consistent with the General Plan. Development plans must be consistent with the General Plan. If the Initiative is adopted, staff will attempt to harmonize those policies so as not to have a conflict that could not be reconciled. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said the General Plan can be amended, but if citizens put forth an Initiative and in two years, a loophole is found, the only way to rectify that is through a ballot, which is not the same as a Council amendment to the General Plan. Special Meeting Minutes 6 June 26, 2008