CC-PC 09/09/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Discussion Topic 3a Councilman Brandes suggested that there would be no need for growth management exemptions if a certain percentage of housing units were allocated to multiple family over a given period of time. Mayor Mercer suggested that the market would not provide for lower income units unless a sufficient incentive was provided such as an exemption from growth management. Commissioner Innes noted that such an exemption is an incentive only if the growth limit were set below market rate. Councilmember Wood noted that there are very few remaining sites for low income housing. There was a consensus to retain the existing eight growth management exemptions. Discussion Topic 3b Mayor Mercer suggested that a waiver of low income and capital improvement fees would not make a significant reduction in the price of housing. Councilmember Butler suggested that granting a priority for long term agreements to projects which fulfill City goals and policies was a good idea. There was a consensus that fees should not be waived but priority should be given for long term agreements to projects which fulfill City policies, especially the provisions of low income housing. Discussion Topic 4 Councilmember Mohr suggested that sufficient sewer capacity could be reserved for the amount of residential development called for in the growth management program. Councilmember Brandes noted that ten year population benchmarks could also be used to anticipate and allocate sewer capacity. Mr. Butler proposed that sewer capacity should be allocated evenly between housing and industrial /commercial projects to meet both needs. Mr. Walker suggested that staff could propose specific sewer allocations at a future date based on the growth rates discussed this evening. There was a consensus to allocate a certain proportion of short term sewage capacity for residential development. 3