Laserfiche WebLink
<br />specifically directed at density of "nelv housing development" and protecting all <br />neig,hborhoods. <br /> <br />The proscriptive ("'\X/hile maintaining'" e.g., not ",vhile considering") clause, <br />\vhich directs the City to maintai,n neighborhood character and livability, obviously <br />must be interpreted as a constraint on other actions, or there \\fould be no purpose <br />in including the clause. <br /> <br />The proposed amendments \vill help protect an established neighborhood by <br />limiting infill (not net1>')de\'cloprnentand thus\vouldcomply fully vvith this policy, <br />if that ,vere required. <br /> <br />o. Policy 7 directs. the City to "Provide for a gre.ater variet)lofhousing types." This <br />policy does not contain any language restricting other types of a~tions. <br /> <br />o Po'licy 8 directs the City to "Promote the construction of affordable housing" This <br />policy is essentially aspirational, not proscriptive, and does not contain any <br />language restricting other types of actions.. <br /> <br />o Pollc)" 10 directs the City to "Encourage'the creation of transportation-efficient <br />land use pattern ..." This policyisaspirational, not proscriptive, and does not <br />contain any language restricting other types of actions. <br /> <br />E,ven irrespective of their not being approval criteria, the cited policies present no <br />conflict \\lith the proposed amendments. <br /> <br />FOigood reason, Council did not make Gro\vth Management polic,ies part of the <br />approval criteria to be applied to each individual land use, action.. Council has taken a' <br />broader vie,vvvith the,se policies and intends they be used to Hguide" an interre,lateo.set <br />of actions consistent\vith the polices.. An excellent example is Council's initiation of <br />the interrelated "Opportunity Siting" and ~'Infin Compatibilit)l Standards" progranlS. <br /> <br />Approval criteria <br /> <br />f\1r. Hinkley 'also submitted testimony that the proposed aUlendments do not comply <br />\vith adopted approval criteria. <br /> <br />Staff has correctly found the,unendments do. meet approval criteria. <br /> <br />We \vol-dd add to staffs findings that the amendrnents to the J/F\\l RP also address the <br />folJovving t\\/O items in approval criteria Ee 9.8424(2): <br /> <br />(c)lvetv or amended comnlunitypolicies. <br /> <br />Counc,iI~s September 11,2006 motion explicitly directs the policy for this area <br />be.amended, and thereby is essentially establishing ane\v policy. <br /> <br />In additjon,ofl, July 20, 2005, ,City Council adopted a Inution thatexpHcitly <br />replaced the prior "blanket zoning" policy \vith opportunity siting. f~rom the <br />tnoti on: <br /> <br />.. . Instead o.f blanket zoning that perfnils multiple U11its on alli\1{lZD <br />residential parcels; de ns it)} is obta.ined V); selective lJrojectsdevelopecl <br />c()mf}atib~J! at ver.:v high tiensities. 111ls maintains the cfu::tracter and <br />.fabric ({,(the e.\~isting neighborhood lvhileprovidinga variety oj'housing <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />III... 27 <br />