Laserfiche WebLink
285 <br /> will have little impact on congested intersections in town. Staff has indi- <br /> cated major benefits if thes projects are approved; one in particular - the <br /> Blackburn project/Teixeira property. It would provide a road out of the Ama- <br /> dot Savings and Loan project to Vineyard Avenue; construction is expected to <br /> start within the month. This road which is most important would handle all of <br /> the construction traffic in the Amador S&L project off of Vineyard Avenue <br /> rather than have it run through Vintage Hills project. It is important for <br /> the homeowners who are living there now and who will be living in the Amador <br /> Savings and Loan project. It will take traffic off Madeira, Touriga and Tawny <br /> Drive. Construction of this road this summer would greatly help in the area, <br /> by 1990 it will be two years too late. He urged Council to put into perspec- <br /> ~--- tive the benefits of approval of these small projects; they far outweigh all <br /> if any negative aspects. He encouraged Council to allow these few projects to <br /> move ahead. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer stated that one of the questions is should the 314 units of <br /> apartments be considered lower income projects and exempt. The staff report <br /> says this is a policy decision; he feels it is a decision that the Council has <br /> voted on before. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Butler stated he does not feel it has anything to do with <br /> growth management allocation or the small projects, he would like to see Coun- <br />0 cil decide that issue first rather than after what happens later. The choice <br />C)(D that follows, if Council did not intend for those to be low income projects <br />{v) and included as exemptions then there is a door open to approve projects this <br /> year. He would like to focus first on what Council intended when those proj- <br /> ~ ects were approved before getting into the argument of whether or not to ap- <br /> prove any more projects. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Wilson stated those projects do have some low income units. <br /> Councilmember Butler stated that is his position. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer stated it passed on a 3/2 vote and the three Councilmembers <br /> who voted for it have to determine whether that was their intent, if they were <br /> low income. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Butler stated it was his intent that those two projects <br /> qualify for low income exempted projects. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Mohr concurred; the projects met the exempt standards that <br /> were in existence at the time and they were approved as such. Council subse- <br /> quently asked for even more from them which they granted but that did not <br /> change, in her mind, the fact that they were originally approved as exempt <br /> projects. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Brandes stated he voted against the exemption; the rationale <br /> on the 3/2 vote was that Council had already brought this project so far down <br /> line that it was unfair to change the rules at that time to allow them to go <br /> through. He did not feel the project should be exempt. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer stated if it is the consensus of the three Councilmembers who <br /> voted to exempt the projects as low income projects then according to the <br /> staff report 488 units of the 650 have been approved and there would be a <br /> range of 0-162 units left to allocate from those applications. <br /> <br /> - 18- 5-3-88 <br /> <br /> <br />