Laserfiche WebLink
Page 7 of 9 <br />Staff recommends the following process be adopted: <br /> <br />• Staff and the City’s environmental consultant would conduct an environmental <br />review to determine the appropriate “exchange rate” between the various <br />development allocations. This exchange rate would be calculated so that no <br />greater impact than what was identified in the EIR take place. Particular attention <br />must be paid to the transportation section and traffic conditions identified in the <br />EIR. A full analysis would be completed to examine all potential environmental <br />impacts. <br /> <br />• Once the environmental review is complete, staff would bring forward an <br />amendment to the Maximum Allowable Development text that would allow <br />flexibility between development categories. The associated General Plan text <br />change would also be considered at the same time. It is expected that staff will <br />recommend that some limitation be placed on adjustments, so that one category <br />of development wouldn’t completely exhaust another category’s allocation. <br />Furthermore, staff would further recommend that a portion of the adjusted <br />allocation be reserved for smaller expansions. <br /> <br />• The text would also be amended to state that any development requesting <br />flexibility would need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The current <br />plan allows some projects to be approved by the Zoning Administrator. All <br />Planning Commission decisions are appealable to the City Council. <br />Furthermore, the City Council can also “call a project up” for Council review when <br />requested by two or more Council Members. <br /> <br />• The General Plan and DTPP text changes would require Planning Commission <br />and City Council review and approval. It is expected that this review would occur <br />in early 2015. <br /> <br />• Projects that are currently under review that do not qualify under current <br />Maximum Allowable Development limitations but do fit within the adjusted <br />allocations, would only be able to obtain a building permit after the Council <br />adopts the necessary General Plan and Precise Plan amendments. Projects that <br />do not fit within the current or adjusted MAD would be required to propose a <br />separate General Plan and DTPP amendment, as well as conduct a separate <br />environmental review (see alternative 1 below). <br /> <br />Short Term Maximum Allowable Development Modification Alternatives: <br /> <br />There are three potential alternatives to the recommendation above: <br /> <br />1. The first alternative would be to allow each developer (that has a project in <br />excess of the MAD limitations) to proceed with separate environmental review, <br />General Plan amendment and DTPP amendment. While this alternative is <br />feasible, it would create a more lengthy process for a majority of the projects in <br />9.C. - Page 7