CCMIN062608SP - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Hosterman arrived at 7:00 p.m. and questioned whether there was Council support for a clarifying measure to identify major ridge lines and elevations, that would specifically exclude facilities such as roads, trails, and water tanks, and affirming the General Plan language that currently protects the hillsides, similar to Measure F which applies to the Pleasanton Ridge, with the goal to aggressively move forward with developing an ordinance in the next 6-12 months. Ms. Seto said there would be challenges with identifying major ridge lines, elevations, and how the Initiative would apply, because if the proposal tried to go too far with too much definition, it might call into question the need to comply with CEQA. But if the measure only clarifies, staff might be able to bring that kind of language forward on July 15th. Councilmember Sullivan spoke regarding the fiscal analysis, stating he wanted to put impacts regarding hillside policy into perspective and compare them to something else to see the real impact. He referred to page 2 of the Report, said the reduction in net revenue per year is $68,000-$183,000, and confirmed with Ms. Wagner that if you compare the impact to net revenue ,the impact range is from 2%-6% of the annual budget. When compared to the gross annual budget, it's about a 0.1% at maximum. Therefore, the reduction in revenue is fairly insignificant in comparison to the budget. Councilmember Sullivan questioned the one-time development fees, and confirmed with the staff that the City fees of $3 million in losses were over a 20-year span, which amounts to $150,000 per year or a 0.1% of annual gross revenue. Councilmember Sullivan referred to school fees and confirmed that the school district's cash flow model, which is how they estimate what facilities they need to build, estimated that the City would build only 1,123 more units. They based their fees on a 3,500 square foot house. In looking at the impact of the hillside policy, if 224 units come off the hills and are built in the flats at 3,500 square feet, there is zero impact to the school district's cash flow model. He said what is at stake on the housing cap side are the 396 assisted living units out at CLC. If you take away these 396 assisted living units, there is still no impact on the school districts model because they have only counted on 1123 units being built and the City has 2,000 left under the cap. Neither policy has an impact on the school district's ability to build the facilities they say they need at build out. Ms. Wagner said the only exception was going back to the hillside homes. If those shifted units were all multi-family, it would have an impact because they are 900 square feet and the school district is estimating 3,500 square feet. There is a $6 million swing in their impact fees. Shifting to all multi-family homes would have an impact, as they are 900 square feet whereas the school district has been estimating 3,500 square feet. Regarding whether it impacts the model, if the units built are multi-family, they would be getting approximately 1/3 of the fees even if they estimated only 1123 units being built. Therefore, shifting to multi-family would have an impact on them. Councilmember Sullivan questioned this and thought it would be helpful to clarify those issues beyond what is in the report. City Manager Fialho agreed that the fees collected will be based on what ultimately gets built; staff had to make some assumptions. Councilmember McGovern said as a former school board member she thought that school impact fees were to deal with the impact of growth, meaning that if there was no growth there Special Meeting Minutes 5 June 26, 2008