CCMIN020315 - Laserfiche WebLink

ability to award Growth Management. The amendment would still require a Growth Management Agreement even for a single-family home and either the Council or public could appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision. Staff acknowledges that the Council may have a desire to restrict the number of units that could be approved annually by the Zoning Administrator and recommends something in the range of 10 to 15 units. • Staff identified 3 possible methods to ensure that the GMO does not constrain the development of affordable housing. • Set aside a certain number of units on an annual basis (suggested 50-100) to be reserved for affordable housing units. While the carryover of unused units is not currently the Council's practice, these units could be reallocated to future years if desired. This option potentially still reflects a constraint and may create the impression of a limit to the number of affordable housing units, which would not be the case. It would also restrict the number of market rate units that would be available in a particular year. • Set aside the full RHNA allocation of affordable units, which is 1,107 in the current planning cycle. This method restricts the market somewhat, results in somewhat of a double accounting method, again creates a certain impression of restricting the opportunities for market rate units, and does not necessarily reflect the amount of affordable development historically seen throughout the community. • • Add a provision obligating the City Council to issue Growth Management allocations for an approved affordable housing development, even if it would require the city to borrow from the next RHNA period. This option does not obligate the Council to approve a project, only to grant Growth Management in the event that it does approve an affordable housing project. Staff feels that this option fully addresses the concerns expressed by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), does not generate any sort of perceived market restriction and does not create any type of impression that the Council will approve any particular number of affordable units in a given year. Staff is recommending so minor language amendments to improve consistency throughout the document as well as to clarify that the City Council has the authority to amend the ordinance, including the annual unit allocation number, as it sees appropriate. Mayor Thorne explained that during the last campaign he promised the public that he would not approve any more development than is required by law, which staff is now saying the law would require him to do. Mr. Bocian agreed that the proposed amendment, which meets the demands of HCD, would in fact obligate the Council to borrow from future RHNA cycles for approved affordable housing projects. He noted that first the Council must approve such a development for this to even come into play. He also thought that savvy developers in the affordable housing market, such as the city has worked with in the past, would be reluctant to place the City Council in that type of position. Community Development Director Dolan also noted that what staff has proposed is a "borrowing" rather than an "addition," which he did not think would violate the principle of the Mayor's promise. He also emphasized Mr. Bocian's point regarding the savvy developer, conceding that could theoretically encounter this situation but also that it would be highly unlikely. Mr. Bocian added that the Council could also elect to approve the PUD alone and direct staff to return with the Growth Management Agreement for approval the following year. City Council Minutes Page 3 of 8 February 3,2015