Loading...
02/22/1982City Council Minutes Monday, February 22, 1982 - 12:10 p.m. Page 2 to award and stating the nature and status of the City's appeal. Motion carried, Councilman Dunin voting no. B. HRC REQUEST FOR GRANT FROM COUNTY FOR HRC.STAFF PERSON Mayor Billig explained that she had received a memorandum from John Carsel, Chairperson of the Human Relatiox-6 Commission, requesting that the City Council support the HRC's request for a grant application to the County to fund an additional half -time staff person to serve a County -wide clientele through the HRC office. They were requesting early consideration by the Council as they had a deadline for submittal of their proposal to the County by this same date at 5:00 p.m. Mayor Billig asked the Council if they were willing to take this item up as an added item to the agenda or if they would feel more comfortable to continue this to a later date. Councilman Griffin felt that the proposal had several important policy issues that the Council should deal with, and he would not be prepared to do this today. Mayor Billig agreed and did not feel that staff nor Council had had an opportunity to review this. Councilwoman Dovey requested that this be continued to a future Council meeting and ask staff to research the legal ramifications and all documentation pertaining to the discussions by the HRC when this item is reviewed at a later date. Upon general consensus it was agreed that this item be continued to the next regular Council meeting (5 -0).. 1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Terry Sanville, Senior Planner, stated that in May of 1981 the Council had adopted an interim Growth Management Ordinance and directed staff to draft permanent regulations, and these regulations were before the Council today. The Council should schedule a public hearing to adopt them after they have reviewed them at this study session. Glen Matteson, Assistant Planner; reviewed the new growth management regulations and alternatives studied by staff. He explained that the interim ordinance now requires the Community Development Department to report residential building activity to the Council each quarter. If the cumulative number of dwellings authorized exceeds 50 percent of the year's limit, the Director is to assess the prospects for exceeding the annual limit and recommend criteria for allocating the remaining. poten- tial. The Council would them have to hold a public hearing before adopting any particular allocation scheme. Although the interim ordin- ance has no expiration date, it was not intended to be a long -term measure. Since the interim measure was adopted, residential development has proceeded quite steadily at about one -half the maximum annual rate of two percent during the 1980's. He then outlined the procedure to be used for the issuance of building permits. Each month the Planning staff would add up the number of dwellings authorized by building permits issued during the preceding 12 months. As long as this cumul- ative total did not exceed a predetermined number that would keep household and population growth within the general plan limits, building permits would be routinely issued. If this "moving" total did exceed ' the predetermined number, in the following month building permits otherwise ready for issuance would be held until the end of that month. The total for the previous 12 months would then be figured again. If the new total was below the predetermined "trigger" level for that month, all the permits held during that month would be available for issuance. If the new total exceeded the figure, the permits being held would be scored according-to predetermined criteria and only those with the highest scores would be available for issuance up to a maximum number of dwelling which, if maintained for several months, would bring the 12 -month total back within desired limits. Scores would be City Council Minutes Monday, February 22, 1982 - 12:10 p.m. Page 3 determined by the City Council. Actually, staff could prepare the recommended scores whenever it appeared likely the trigger number would be exceeded so projects would be ready for consideration by the Council and permits for qualifying projects would be delayed at most only a few weeks beyond plan- checking by the building division. In scoring, a point system would be used giving a higher number to those projects which provided the highest overall benefit to the community including factors for public facilities, affordable housing, on -site energy 1 conservation, infill /sequential development and location or access to public transportation. Councilman Settle questioned whether the total permits issued in a 12 -month period allowed for flexibility during those months when build- ing would be at a low due to weather conditions, high interest rates, etc. Glenn Matteson stated weather cycles would be taken into account by the one -year interval but business conditions might not be.. The Council could extend the one -year cycle to 18 months or two years which would allow more "carry over." The Council may want to avoid a situation as in the City of Petaluma where construction stayed far below the intended growth rate for a couple of years and then there was a tremendous upsurge. . George Thacher questioned whether staff would be able to tell an appli- cant, at the time he applied for a building permit, what the building permit issuance situation was. Glen Matteson explained that staff could come pretty close. Councilman Griffin stated he would like to see section 9901 and 9902, Findings and Purpose, tied together more closely with the findings being strengthed. Mayor Billig was concerned with finding 4110 which read, "While there is apparently unlimited long -term demand for housing due to migration, the resources to sustain population growth are limited. Some resources, such as water supply, may be insufficient to support maximum development potential within the present city limits." After brief discussion and upon general consensus, this finding was changed to read, "There are now basic resource deficiencies to support maximum development potential within the present city limits." Councilman Settle stated that.he would be supportive of a 18 -month "moving total" permit issuance, as opposed to the recommended 12- month, to compensate for the economic and weather cycles throughout that period of time. Councilman Dunin was concerned that the growth management ordinance should be used as a growth management tool and not as a growth restrict- ing ordinance. He found certain language in the ordinance that tended to support the restrictions as opposed to using it as.a tool. No consensus could be reached on the 12 -month vs. 18 -month "moving total" and Council elected to leave this in as 12 -month until the next study session•, when it would to be discussed. Regarding section 9903.4 - Group Quarters and Transient Lodging - Mayor Bi1lig questioned the frequency of motel rooms being used as full -time dwelling units. Glen Matteson stated the Council should decide if it wants to regulate housekeeping facilities, standard motel units without kitchens, or-both. Councilman Dunin did not feel there were enough motels to justify this type of ratio difference and would be adamantly opposed to doing anything on these lines. City Council Minutes Monday, February 22, 1982 12:10 p.m. Page 4 Council consensus was to exclude transient lodging. Upon general consensus, a wording change was made to.section 9903.6•- Status of Construction Projects Not Pursued - second sentence to read, Ifni Any numerical score originally assigned to the project shall continue in effect, accept as provided in section 9903.7." (5 -0) The Council then.went through section 9904, Scoring Standards, and made the following changes: 1) "Condition of project" was changed to Project Features; 2) Affordability /housing goals maximum points possible was , raised from six to eight; Number of points - 8 for "Project provides public or assisted housing, where occupancy is restricted to low- wealth occupants or those requiring special living accommodations "; and 6 instead of 5 for "The sale price, or month occupancy.cost considering special financing arrangements, or rent will be affordable for moderate- - wealth households..." 3) On -site energy changed to "resource conserva- tion," maximum points possible, 4; and to include water - saving features; 4) Infill /sequential development, maximum points possible, 4, first item raised from 3 to 4 points to read, "The project is within the developed area of the city as it existed upon adoption of these regulations." All other numbers in this category remaining the same. Council requested staff to give examples of project features, especially Public facilities /amenities. (5 -0) There was discussion as to whether location should.be a part of the point system as most applicants don't have the choice to determine where they want their project to be. If they luck out and it's close to the bus route, then that was an accident and they shouldn't be given points for this. Mayor Billig suggested using the word "contribution" instead of "loca- tion" for this category. She felt a strong statement should be included reflecting the city's concern for transportation and support of the bus ' system. Councilman Dunin agreed. Upon general consensus, Location /public transportation was made a part of Infill /sequential development. Glen Matteson stated the scoring system was intended to allow those projects which best meet the city's goals to proceed with the least delay, whether or not developers could choose certain features, like location, all projects would be acceptable. Upon general consensus, section 9905, Time Limit For Council Action, was amended that the Council will score these projects within 45 days, not 30 days. (5 -0) After brief discussion and upon general consensus, section 9907.2, City Council, was reworded as follows: "The Council's determination on projects scores shall be final. It shall not be necessary to hold,a public hearing for the Council to establish scores for projects." Councilman Dunin requested that staff strike two statements made in their staff report which reads, "Limiting the issuance of building permits for residents should be a last resort. In managing its growth, the City should emphasize ": 1) the first two statements be removed discouraging expansion of growth- inducing government facilities and 2) avoid over allocation of land for industrial activities and those commercial activities such as tourism which would stimulate growth. Mayor Billig and Councilman Settle agreed to having this removed from the staff report. This would not have any affect upon the ordinance. Mayor Billig posed the question as to whether the Council would wish to key the city's growth with that of the state and suggested that they City Council Minutes Monday, February 22, 1982 - 12:10 p.m. Page 5 hold on this question until the final draft comes back to Council for consideration. Paul Lanspery, Administrative Officer, explained that at the next study session staff would be bringing back some real projects with scores, and this would allow the Council to see how the scoring procedure . would actually work. ' 2:30 p.m. City Council adjourned to Closed Session Matters. 2:50 p.m. City Council reconvened, all C There being no further business to come before the Billig adjourned the meeting at 2:50 p.m. me 7 APPROVED BY.COUNCIL: 4/6/82 to discuss Litigation Duncilmembers present. City Council, Mayor Z4- C- a Voges, C' y Clerk M I N U T E S REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO. TUESDAY, MARCH 2; 1982-- 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS,-CITY HALL, 990.PALM STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RnT.T. CAT.T. Councilmembers Present: GlennaDeane Dovey, Ron Dunin, Robert Griffin, Allen. Settle and Mayor Melanie C. Billig Absent: None City Staff Present: Paul Lanspery, City Administrative Officer.; George Thacher, City Attorney; Pamela Voges, City Clerk; Geoff Grote, Acting Community Development Director; Ann Mckibbin, Personnel Director; Roger Neuman, Police Chief; Dave Romero, Public Services Director; Terry Sanville, Senior Planner; Ken Bruce, Senior Planner C O N S E N T I T E M S 1 C -1 CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY On motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Councilman Dunin, claims against the city for the month of February 1982 be approved and ordered paid subject to the approval of the CAO. Motion carried, all ayes.