CCMIN100290 - Laserfiche WebLink

this time. She stated that staff has some concerns about a number of issues and would like Council to consider other issues that are presented by public. Staff would then incorporate these into a revised ordinance which Council would review and introduce. She requested Council to focus on the following points: (1) determine whether or not a fee should be established, and if so, at what level; (2) determine how that fee, if any, would be applied; and (3) clarify the resolution and ordinance. She explained that it was staff's intention to apply the planning review process rather than have the City Manager alone make the determination. She added that housing fees would not be charged for existing buildings that were destroyed or demolished and had to be rebuilt; neither would remodeling be covered by these fees. Ms. Acosta then pointed out that some issues presented by the public would require a policy decision: (1) whether to require or encourage low and moderate income housing by all projects or to have the possibility of a fee. The ordinance indicates that this would be a requirement as opposed to an encouragement with the possibility of an in-lieu fee; (2) whether or not commercial/ industrial buildings would be required solely to pay the fee or have the opportunity to provide housing instead; (3) whether there can be other kinds of incentives provided, which could be done on a case-to-case basis; and (4) whether the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the cost of construction would be used as the indicator for the escalator cost. She indicated that staff believes that the CPI would be a better gauge of determining the cost of money over time. Mr. Brandes inquired how the cost of construction is measured and if it includes the cost of land. Ms. Acosta replied that there are several indicators, some of which were determined by the Building Industry Association and engineering trades. Mr. Tarver inquired why the City had both a low-income and low/moderate-income fund. Ms. Acosta replied that Council had made a specific motion which staff understood to mean the creation of both funds. She added that it would be more appropriate to have only one fund and that it was staff's intention to bring the matter before the Council at another time. Ms. Mohr inquired if a change of use would be covered by the fee. Ms. Acosta replied that staff intends to address that issue in the ordinance. She added that in cases like this, the owner would 10-2-90 - 14 -