Laserfiche WebLink
353 <br /> <br /> Mr. Ross Blackburn, developer, stated he has 42 lots on Vineyard Avenue <br /> that have been held up by the Vineyard Avenue moratorium while other larger <br /> multi-unit projects received growth management allocations. He did not feel <br />C) it is fair to cut off the smaller projects after allowing 80% of the larger <br />(Z)L') units to build to see the impact of this type and quantity of housing. <br />(Y] Councilmember Brandes stated he did not feel there should be any growth <br />~ management allocation this year; Council needs to evaluate what has already <br />¢:212 been approved and built. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Councilmember Brandes that there be no growth management <br /> for negotiation this year. <br /> <br /> The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Butler stated the growth management policy and system in the <br /> past always tried to anticipate phasing in large developments over several <br /> -- years and accommodating small builders; Council has phased in large builders <br /> but does not now have room for small class of developers of between 4-12 <br /> units. At this point they cannot proceed without growth management approval. <br /> He would like to see some consideration taken for smaller projects that have <br /> been waiting for sometime because of the Vineyard Avenue moratorium. He sug- <br /> gested setting a target allocation for an additional 75-100 units for this <br /> year in addition to the long term agreements. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Wilson stated there needs to be a set-aside for the School <br /> District that goes with the possible land swap between the City and the School <br /> District. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer stated that at the time the land swap discussions between the <br /> City and School District relative to trading the City's 13 acres near the <br /> sewage treatment plant for the 7.6 acre upper sports field at Pleasanton <br /> Elementary School were held it was determined that growth management alloca- <br /> tions would be attached to the 13 acres. He advised this would make it <br /> feasible for the School District to development to property or to be able to <br /> sell it. He stated the School District needs financial assistance and he felt <br /> the City is in a position to help, and this is one way that it can be done and <br /> also benefit the City. It was his recommendation to establish some number of <br /> units for the School District land trade, then ask the Growth Management Com- <br /> mittee to come back with a recommendation as to allocate the remaining units <br /> among the small developers. <br /> <br /> Mr. Walker advised there are a total of 162 units remaining to be <br /> allocated. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Mohr stated that as a member of the Growth Management Com- <br /> mittee they have had their first interviews with the small developers. One of <br /> the things she became increasingly aware of was that some of these applicants <br /> have been held up by the Vineyard Avenue moratorium for several years. They <br /> have not been able to compete for the growth management allocations and the <br /> larger projects have taken up the bulk of the growth management allocations <br /> leaving little reserve for smaller projects. If the Committee does not have <br /> an allowance for smaller projects then they are not dealing in good faith with <br /> these developers. She felt Council should clean the slate, then when people <br /> come to the Council they would know where they stand. She questioned the num- <br /> ber of units for the School District. She stated as a member of the Growth <br /> <br /> 11 5-17-88 <br /> <br /> <br />