CCMIN101513 - Laserfiche WebLink

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 (GMO). The city's growth management program is one element of an overall planning environment which sets the maximum number of annual building permits that may be issued for new residential development, for the primary purpose of establishing a predictable rate of growth throughout the community. Prior to last amendment of the GMO in October 2012, the annual unit allocation number was set by the City Council based on a growth management report, with numbers typically ranging from 1,000 to 3,500 units. In 2009, the GMO was specifically amended to allow the 350 unit allocation number in place at the time to be increased if necessary to meet the city's RHNA obligations. In October 2012, the GMO was amended again to tie the annual unit allocation number to the RHNA obligation. The formula set City Council Minutes Page 11 of 13 October 15,2013