CCMIN120495 - Laserfiche WebLink

and you must say what you want. He reiterated the number and dams of upcoming meetings where citizens can give their input. There was a break at 8:52 p.m. The Special Meeting of the City Council was reconvened at 9:00 p.m. ~, MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC There were no speakers. 6. SEMI-ANNUAL REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT REALLOCATIONS (SR95: 369) Brian Swift presented the staff report. Mayor Tarver referred to Table 4, which indicated Presley was listed as a new application for eleven units. Isn't that the Laguna Oaks project? Mr. Swift indicated it was a typo and should say Laguna Oalcn. He asked for an explanation from the subcommittee about Table 4. If those eleven units for 1996 were to go into 1998 as proposed by staff, it would be closer to 750 units than the 781 indicated. He asked how the subcommittee came up with its maximums. Ms. Mohr did not think that project would be done within the number of years projected and the eleven units could be moved to the end. When the 800 units per year was proposed as pan of the revised plan, it was to clear up the backlog. If we go over by 17, she did not think that would be enough to disrupt public services and other allocations. She differed with Mr. Pico on this, since he felt it was important not to exceed the 800 unit limit. Some of the other juggling came about in trying to accommodate that. From her perspective, she felt Option 1 was the best way to get things cleared out, which is one of the purposes of the revised growth management plan. Mr. Pico indicated that in looking at the recommended maximums, he did not want to see the growth management allocations exceed the February 1995 allocations, which were already in excess of the 750 maximum for 1995/96/9'7. The General Plan committee is recommending less than 750 units per year, possibly 350. To adjust the Growth Management to go over 800 is totally unacceptable. He also thinks Council has substantial discretion in the near future with respect to the park fee and the Prudential]Spanos project which is a 462 unit project that is being proposed to replace the Robertson project, which already has growth management. His personal feeling is this is a brand new project on a different site and Council should require them to come in as a new application. That will provide 231 units for growth management in 1996 and 1997 and will allow significant flexibility to handle some of the new 12/04/95 -10-