Laserfiche WebLink
312 <br /> <br /> 5. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS <br /> Item 5a <br /> 1991 Growth Management Allocation <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 90:258) regarding the <br /> matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that Ms. Mohr and he were unanimous on all <br /> the items on the report and that he was presenting the <br /> recommendations to Council for consideration. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer noted that the report did not indicate that the <br /> City was waiving the $750 growth management fee on the affordable <br /> units for the Alameda County project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes indicated that it was assumed that the affordable <br /> housing units would be built in 1991 and that the growth <br /> management fees for those units would be waived. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that the reason why it was not included in <br /> the report was because that Council had already discussed and <br /> approved the waiver of all City fees at a prior Council meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler mentioned that the manner in which the allocations <br /> were put together was good and leaves some flexibility for 1992 <br /> and 1993. He indicated, however, that he would like to see a <br /> simpler and more straightforward system that would ensure that <br /> each development would pay for capital improvements related to the <br /> project. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr explained that in responding to the capital <br /> improvement needs of the City, the Subcommittee focused on what <br /> would benefit the project as well as the immediate neighborhood in <br /> order to minimize the impact on the applicants and maximize the <br /> benefit to the City. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler inquired if the capital improvements for each <br /> project were reviewed with the individual applicants or <br /> developers. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr replied that that was done by staff. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes commented that Mr. Butler's concern was valid and <br /> suggested that capital improvements could be made part of the <br /> project's conditions of approval. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that the Subcommittee encountered a problem <br /> with two of the projects for which conditions of approval had not <br /> been finalized. The Subcommittee had to anticipate what the <br /> conditions would be in relation to what growth management would <br /> logically address. <br /> <br /> - 2 - <br /> 6-25-90 <br /> <br /> <br />