CCMIN120495 - Laserfiche WebLink

and the District has allocated those funds for school improvements. He supported Options 1 and 4. He urged Council to grant unconditional growth management to the developer for 1996. Mr. Tarver asked if it mattered to the School District whether the growth management was granted in 1998 or 1996 based on the terms of the contract with the developer. Mr. MacDonald indicated that until the developer has the right to get those permits, the developer does not have to pay the School District. Dan Hansford, 648 St. John Street, had questions on the St. Johns Place development. He referred to the conditions of approval of the project and the emergency access to the project. He believed Pleasanton Avenue was substandard and fu'e vehicle access would be limited because of parking on either side of the street. He objected to the work hours on the project, which are listed as 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. David Griffith thanked the Council for its efforts regarding the De1 Prado site. He believed the School Board made a serious mistake in selling that site. There are still 674 children who will have to car pool to neighborhood schools. Walnut Grove will remain at 900 students instead of 650. He objected to the performance of the School Board. One consolation is there is a good developer and the park will be re,shaped. The houses will be similar to other houses in the neighborhood, so this was not a total loss. Mr. Tarver stated this is a situation where the School District is selling a site to make some money and the City is giving the School District the opportunity to make room for undersized facilities. This is a double standard in terms of return for public properties. This is a big concern to him. He did not know what will happen at Walnut Grove, when you get lower class sizes and have to put more portables in. Ms. Mohr compared the growth management to having dominoes on a table. You can push them around and line up the spots in any combination. There will always be someone who didn't get it to add up the way he wanted and someone who wanted more. Ms. Michelotti wanted the double counting for custom homes removed from growth management allocations. She wanted a more realistic count, because she did not feel it was correct to say that Council had approved 817 units. Mr. Tarvet was concerned about Option 3, but would go along with it because it did not exceed the limits previously approved. He wants an asterisk on the option to indicate that no more than 750 permits will be issued. He wants an incentive to force people to obtain permits and build its projects. This reallocation process is not working because no one wants to get out of the queue. He wanted developers to be realistic and stop rolling over units. We will never get rid of the backlog. 12/04/95 -16-