CCMIN052008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Cook-Kallio questioned if this was consistent with State law and City Attorney Roush said there is not necessarily a state definition; that what the City has tried to do is to look at whether the unit really impacts the City's infrastructure and the Council has concluded that assisted living facilities does not have a significant impact on infrastructure the same way a single family home or multi-unit development would have. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said if there was a senior facility for people 55 years or older, with no automobiles or children, the impact would be almost nothing and the increase in the business community might be significant, and City Attorney Roush said there might be an argument for that. Mr. Iserson said other impacts include operational characteristics, such as employees, taxes or fees paid, and zoning goes into the equation. Councilmember McGovern said one of the reasons the Initiative puts the housing cap in there is because people believe that people 55 and older, if they live in a residence with a kitchen and bath, it is a housing unit, and they should be counted without exceptions. There has also been discussion that affordable housing should not be counted toward the cap as well as others. She thinks there should be a definition for this. Regarding a second unit having a separate address, water meter and billing for sewer, she confirmed with Mr. Iserson that those are not counted toward the cap because State law precludes this. She therefore asked to have a distinction made for second units in order to further understand this better. She also suggested that additional definitions be added to the General Plan to clarify certain areas. Mayor Hosterman invited public comment on the item. Lance Smith, Corporate Counsel of Greenbriar Homes, requested the Council not adopt the Initiative as presented tonight; follow recommendation C of the staff report to study the fiscal and legal effect of the Initiative as permitted by Election Code 9212, to present the Initiative to the voters after such study has been done. He also urged the City to establish a process to create City-initiated ridgeline protection regulations to augment the existing policies discussed tonight through a separate ballot measure. He presented a letter of the factual, practical and legal concerns they have with the current initiative and asked for it to be entered into the record. He said the Initiative lacks key terms, there are broad interpretations which could result in severe development restrictions where no exist in today's developments, believe their proposed development could be negatively impacted by the Initiative, and intent language that falls below the line is not the controlling language but the language above, which amends the General Plan. He believes a careful review period will corroborate a number of their concerns, asked the Council not to adopt the Initiative, but to present it to voters after the 30-day review, and asked for aCity-initiated Initiative or ordinance be developed which addresses questions raised tonight. Brad Brownlow, Cox, Castle and Nicholson, Counsel of Greenbriar Homes, is pleased that discussion started on Proposition 98 which crystallizes their primary concern-that often voter initiatives have a scope that are far broader than the rhetoric of the proponents might have the voters believe and it is necessary and appropriate for the Council to order a study on the report so they can get a full understanding of operative terms, ambiguities which might characterize those terms so voters are fully informed. He felt the full scope of the Initiative is much broader than restricting development of single family home sites. He requested that the public and Council testimony given on Item 20 be incorporated into the record for Item 21. He said exemptions only applies to legal parcels as of January 1, 2007, such legal parcels may be subdivided into 10 or fewer parcels for a housing development, but when reading the precise language, it does not exempt that. It exempts housing developments for 10 or fewer housing units on a single property that was a legal parcel as of January 7~", and it does not permit one to City Council Minutes 13 May 20, 2008