01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Trustee Bowser asked, "As you look at these various categories with maximum monthly rents, what percentage are being utilized? Is there a waiting list for subsidized units?" Mr. Dolan responded, "Yes. We couldn't provide as many houses as people would desire. The State has a goal for us to meet, but our obligation is to provide the zoning for it and the percentage is dictated primarily by our below market ordinance." Trustee Arkin asked, "In regards to the EIR, is that one of the next steps to be done?" Mr. Dolan replied, "Because of the recent direction it would have been coming out in about 45 days, but we want to add some alternatives to it, so we will have to postpone that." Ms. Arkin added, "I wasn't sure if the school district responded to the EIR or not but we should have the opportunity to be able to do that." Mr. Dolan explained, "It hasn't been circulated yet, however, it's pretty normal with the EIR consultants to have a conversation with the school district staff confirming the student generation factors that we're using yours and not someone's else's, which is very typical." Trustee Arkin stated, "I've been trying to attend as many of the East Side Task Force Committee meetings as possible and have shared how the school district needs a school site out there but we don't have the money for it. I continue to advocating for that as school board member. Is there anything else the City can do to help advocate for us?" Mr. Fialho replied, "We have advocated for you and have had several discussions with the stakeholders regarding the District's position. There are different perspectives about what the needs are and how to accommodate them. Some of the community members know this including the developers and land owners. We've had several meetings with the Superintendent and the development community and city staff to try and find the right kind of scenario that fits your needs; a lot of that is driven by density. We had a range that we were shooting for with the old assumptions and the assumptions have appeared to change on us. Once we arrive to a place where the community is willing to embrace a certain vision for the East Side then we will be able to provide more clarity in terms of how to finance the school site or an option to solve your school situation, which may or may not include the school site on the East Side." Councilmember Kathy Narum asked Mr. Dolan to comment on the growth management ordinance and the fact that whatever happens on the East Side will be affected or under that ordinance, what that number is and how we got there. Mr. Dolan responded, "The growth management ordinance that the City Council recently adopted didn't pick a firm annual number which used to be operating with a 350 units per year. The number was derived based on what our RHNA assignment was. With our current low number (2,067) and the longer planning period that came out to 238 units per year. Anything not approved by July 1 2014 will need to get approval for growth management allocation. So everything on the East Side will be after July and I wouldn't expect to see any development application for at least five years or so or maybe three at the most quickest. There will be an annual limit. No matter what alternative we select it will be subject to that." Public Comments: Julie Testa commented on the following: Our campuses are seriously overcrowded and our facilities funding is seriously overstressed. Our community is still paying on the$155M on the school bonds which were passed in the community in the past. Actually it's more than this amount since we've adding with cash out refunding. The $15M that was estimated in the bill after the tenth elementary school was completed is now instead debt. Our developer fees are going to debt instead of growth mitigation. Our City Council has approved last week 1,200 units over our RHNA demands. There's no hope to mitigate the extreme overcrowding at the middle and high schools and isn't being discussed. In a recent conversation I had with a representative of the development community, they think it's perfectly reasonable that yet another bond is hoisted on our community to cover the burden of new growth for school mitigation instead of additional developer fees. Growth should pay for itself. Our community has paid its share again and again. Yet, again we continue to add additional housing units knowing there's no room in the schools and all of the developer fees funds were squandered. This expense will again be absorbed by this community" Joint City Council Page 8 of 11 March 17,2014 PUSD Board Minutes