Laserfiche WebLink
168 <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer explained how many units were to be built within <br /> the next five years. Two hundred units would most likely not be <br /> built in one year. It would be an optimistic guess that the <br /> project would be started in 1993, occupying some in 1994, but most <br /> in 1995. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mohr referred to the percentage of housing stock and asked <br /> if the City would be falling back into the 75%- 25% ratio or will <br /> the City even get farther out of line with the high density <br /> percentage. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that it would most likely stay at the level <br /> it is. The San Francisco property could change this ratio one way <br /> or the other. The General Plan provides for a minimum of 25%. <br /> There is no prohibition under the current General Plan to go <br /> higher. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if the new General Plan Review Committee will <br /> be expected to address this. She asked if the City could <br /> accommodate this type of housing in the Hacienda Business Park. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift answered yes. The Committee will also be reviewing <br /> all other housing element and land use policies. He explained that <br /> the housing for Hacienda Business Park is "for-sale housing" <br /> therefore it would build out at a slower rate. He believed that <br /> the bulk of the units in the Park would not be built until 1995-96. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr concluded by reiterating her points made in previous <br /> discussion. She was confident the sewer capacity is available and <br /> that new schools would be built as needed. Ms. Mohr supported thee <br /> Committee recommendations. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr referred to the Ruby Hill project (850 units) which <br /> points out that there will be on occasion single large projects <br /> that the City needs to accommodate by phasing. She anticipated <br /> Hacienda Business Park or the San Francisco Property would could be <br /> one of those projects. She believed that long term agreements give <br /> Council the opportunity to review these projects comprehensively. <br /> Ms. Mohr further indicated that phasing is essential not only for <br /> the developer to deliver a good product, but for staff and Council <br /> to plan the growth and revenue that is generated and that <br /> infrastructure is built in a timely fashion. Ms. Mohr felt that <br /> the General Plan Review Committee may put a percentage limit on how <br /> much of any given year could be tied up in long term agreements. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked if staff would reconsider its recommendations <br /> in the 7/7/92 staff report, because that would answer whether or <br /> not staff would support Ms. Mohr's motion or what was in the staff <br /> report. <br /> <br /> 8/4/92 10 <br /> <br /> <br />