01 - Laserfiche WebLink

city. She said it is important to recognize that the EIR includes a base or benchmark plan, which is then bookended by a minimum and maximum level of development and a number of things in between. She said she views the ER as a guide for final build out of the city and the Council and public will then have to identify policies that determine how and when this occurs. She said she could support Alternative 1A but would like to eliminate Alternative 5A, which seems unnecessary given the preferred plan and Alternative 5B. MOTION: It was m/s by Narum/Brown to approve the staff recommendation, with the addition of an Alternative 1A as described and elimination of Alternative 5A. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio asked if, assuming her premise that features can be moved from one alternative to another once analyzed in the EIR, an Alternative 1A is necessary. She said her question did not stem from a lack of support, but rather a concern that adding different iterations of the same components would increase the overall cost without yielding any new information. City Manager Fialho explained that once started, it is difficult to go back and add features to the EIR. He advised that while it may cost a bit more to study additional options, the advantage of comparing and contrasting those to others would prompt him to advocate for Alternative 1A. He also advocated for retaining Alternative 5A because the distinction between Alternatives 5A and 5B involve more than unit mix. One disperses high density development whereas the other centralizes it in a particular location. Notwithstanding Councilmember Narum's motion, he would be more comfortable not dropping a land use option and adding Alternative 1A. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio offered a substitute motion to that effect. Councilmember Narum noted that Alternative 6 groups high density units in a similar manner to Alternative 5A. Nonetheless, she accepted the Vice-Mayor's amendment. MOTION: It was m/s by Narum/Brown to approve the staff recommendation, with the addition of an Alternative 1A as described. Councilmember Pentin said he came tonight to vote on the process that will define the lowest level of development that is financially feasible, not the specific size of the project or number of homes. He stated his support for the amended motion. Mayor Thorne concurred with the objective, as stated by Councilmember Pentin, and voiced his support for the motion as well. He said that while he agrees with many of the comments shared tonight and via email, neither the Council nor public have enough information to make any decisions at this time. Councilmember Narum asked if the financial feasibility analysis is a part of the EIR. Mr. Dolan said "no," but it would track similarly alongside the EIR. MOTION: It was m/s by Narum/Brown to approve the staff recommendation, with the addition of an Alternative 1A as described. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Brown, Cook-Kallio, Narum, Pentin, Mayor Thorne Noes: None Absent: None 12. Determination of Growth Management Program Annual Unit Allocation Assistant City Manager Bocian presented the staff report, stating that the item pertains primarily to setting the annual unit allocation number as set forth in the city's Growth Management Ordinance City Council Minutes Page 11 of 14 October 15, 2013