Laserfiche WebLink
164 <br /> <br /> There being no testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public <br /> hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that he did not agree with the sub- <br /> committee's recommendations. He did agree with the staff <br /> recommendation's listed in the 7/7/92 staff report. He then read <br /> excerpts from the staff report: "...staff does not feel that the <br /> City's growth policies are best implemented by finding ways through <br /> phasing to approve all of them..." and "all or most project <br /> severely limits the Council's flexibility to accommodate future low <br /> income desirable projects in the 1993-94 and staff expects both low <br /> income and other desirable projects to be eligible for approval in <br /> that time frame" and "staff believes general plan policies are best <br /> implemented by approving projects at a rate below the maximum <br /> amount, in selecting those projects which has best benefit to the <br /> community by virtue of accommodating parks and other significant <br /> infrastructure benefits...". Mr. Tarver explained that the General <br /> Plan currently called for 0-650 units per year being allocated. <br /> What is suggested is 1,079 units being allocated over a seven year <br /> period. He did not believe that the sub-committee of the <br /> Residential Review Committee that drafted the last General Plan <br /> envisioned Council allocating significant numbers in future years. <br /> This Council is looking at approximately 2000 units in future years <br /> being approved. The Residential Review Committee was trying to say <br /> that the Council on an annual basis should look at a "state of the <br /> City" which is why there is a Growth Management Report. This <br /> report determines what is appropriate for the City. By projecting <br /> 2,000 units into future years, the benefit is lost. Mr. Tarver <br /> then referred to Mayor Mercer's and Councilmember Butler's report. <br /> He disagreed with the figure of 270 units average per year and <br /> pointed out that the back logged units were not being accounted <br /> for. He then explained that he did not believe that Zone 7 would <br /> be able to meet the City's water needs for these projected projects <br /> because of the water rationing taking place at this time. He <br /> reiterated points in the staff report which explained the water, <br /> sewer, park, and school needs. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Tarver to approve Option 4 of the 7/7/92 <br /> staff report, to defer until after project selection for 1993, the <br /> establishment of goals for the 1994, and future years allocations. <br /> <br /> The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer explained how he and Mr. Butler came up with the <br /> proposed numbers. He stated that back logged projects could be <br /> eliminated and moved to future years. He explained that many of <br /> the projects were reduced and there were a lot of projects that are <br /> included in the list that will never be built. Mayor Mercer stated <br /> that the City had recently raised the fees for the developers. He <br /> then indicated that the School District needed additional monies to <br /> cover its needs therefore, the developer fees were raised $1.58 per <br /> square foot for "School Mitigation Fee". The School District did <br /> <br /> 8/4/92 6 <br /> <br /> <br />