CCMIN030414 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Dolan said it varies significantly but thought ten to fifteen years was a reasonable average. Vice-Mayor Pentin pointed to several of the city's Specific Plan areas that are not yet complete — North Sycamore (22 years), Happy Valley (16 years), Vineyard Avenue Corridor (15 years) and Bernal (14 years). He said it is clear from these examples that the data contained within the plan remains relevant and tracks with development of the area over the years. Option 3, however, would require as much as 75% of the data to be refreshed. Councilmember Narum asked whether there are other priorities of greater importance to the city to which staff could redirect its attention if Option 3 were selected. Mr. Fialho said this project is a City Council Priority and resources have been allocated with that in mind. This does not mean that there are not other outstanding priorities that staff is unable address because resources have been dedicated here. Were this project to go away, staff could perhaps be redirected towards the Downtown Specific Plan update that has been on hold for several years or even the smaller Specific Plan and Economic Development Plan for the Johnson Drive area. Councilmember Brown clarified that the current General Plan runs from 2005 to 2025, which leaves considerable time within which to address the east side. She acknowledged that most of the cost of this project is being borne by the developers but noted that this does not account for the investment of time by city staff. She asked what the cost has been in terms of staff time to date and what the Council can expect it to be upon completion of the project. Mr. Dolan could not say specifically as most staff splits their time between long range planning such as this and more current planning like development review. He estimated that he and Ms. Stern allocate approximately 50% of their time to long range planning and another member of staff allocates approximately 20%, though not all long range planning efforts relate to this project. Councilmember Brown thought staffs estimation that 75% of the EIR could require revisiting if the process were stopped now was based on some fairly significant assumptions. Mr. Dolan explained that the data would simply be stale after eight years. Mayor Thorne requested clarification on how growth management applies to the east side. Specifically, he asked how staff determined an annual cap of 238 units when the city's RHNA obligation is zero. Mr. Fialho explained that growth management addresses both zoning and the annual allocation of permits, the latter of which serves as a new sort of housing cap. To ensure a metered and more reasonable growth for the city the Growth Management Ordinance divides the total RHNA assignment, not the outstanding obligation, for a planning period by the number of plan years. For this period this equals approximately 240 building permits per year. Assuming the city were to continue moving forward with the east side, it has to be mindful of how to properly allocate permits across this area as well as the rest of the city in order to make it financially feasible to construct. Councilmember Brown asked how the city would address a 350-unit project when only 240 permits are available per year. Mr. Fialho explained first that the current program does not take effect until July 2014. In order to accommodate the recent rezoning with only a year and a half remaining in the plan cycle, there was an acknowledgement that those projects which received approvals prior to July 2014 are eligible to move forward exempt from growth management. For those projects coming forward after July 2014 and exceeding the annual permit allocation, the ordinance allows for permits to be borrowed from future years and applied to the year in which it is being requested. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 12 March 4, 2014