HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/1982City 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.