CCMIN032012 - Laserfiche WebLink

as certain City ordinances and policies guide the review process, which involves feedback from staff, the public, the Planning Commission, and City Council. Mr. Bocian discussed the following potential objectives, as identified by the subcommittee: • Retention of the current development review process in a manner that is consistent with the recently adopted Housing Element; • Development of a new unit allocation structure, either based upon an equal distribution of RHNA units throughout the planning period or linked directly to actual population growth; • Development of a comprehensive program to address infrastructure constraints and update the growth management report on a biannual basis; • Continued reliance on the General Plan to enforce growth control measures; • Continued focus on residential growth, with consideration given to expanding these principles to commercial development if warranted; • Development of an allocation process, perhaps based on a point system tied to the overall impacts and amenities of a project. Mayor Hosterman noted there no speakers wishing to address this item. Councilmember Thorne said his primary concerns relate to the ability to introduce the concept of matching some sort of growth management effort to infrastructure when the state is clear in that infrastructure is not a defensible excuse for failing to meet RHNA. He echoed the Council's comments on the previous item and said unmitigated growth would affect more than just water; schools and social services are also a significant concern. Councilmember McGovern said she was looking to the Council for some sort of consensus. The subcommittee has and continues to wrestle with a number of points, but both agree that these are decisions for the entire Council to make. When the process began, she had envisioned using the growth management ordinance to regulate growth relative to the available infrastructure but it is becoming clear that state law makes this virtually impossible. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) talks about removing constraints, but there are a multitude of reasons why that is not possible. Councilmember Sullivan asked and Mr. Fialho confirmed that with the RHNA allocation, the City does have the ability to require that developers pay for the infrastructure needed to support their development. This can be accomplished through the payment of a fee that is justified or some kind of financing agreement that all parties enter into and include the construction of school sites, water and sewage infrastructure, and roads. Councilmember McGovern acknowledged this but could foresee a time when the geographic ability just does not exist or the mitigations sacrifice the quality of life and needs of the community. Mr. Fialho suggested that the Council could approach this in chunks, realizing that the Growth Management Ordinance is document that changes over time as legislative priorities and demands change. The Council could establish a strict growth management cap based on RHNA, divisible by the number of years granted. If the demand exceeds the annual cap, the Council then has the ability to determine, based on merit, which project moves forward first and which are delayed to subsequent years. He noted that with only about 18 months left in the five to six year RHNA cycle, the hard cap concept does not apply in the immediate future. For now, it would be appropriate to state up front that the Growth Management Ordinance applies to this current RHNA cycle only, which would force the issue to reopen with the next RHNA cycle and Housing Element update. Mayor Hosterman alternatively suggested that the Council could agree to set certain growth management parameters going into the future. If it is found that the benefits of a proposed project City Council Minutes Page 5 of 7 March 20, 2012