In a series of public hearings that went on for more than two
hours, City Council members denied appeals by three developers on
their project evaluations by the Planning Commission.
In a series of public hearings that went on for more than two hours, City Council members denied appeals by three developers on their project evaluations by the Planning Commission.
The evaluations determine which projects receive Measure P home-building allocations.
Measure P is the voter-approved residential growth-control ordinance mandating that the city will not grow larger than 38,800 by 2010. Developers compete to earn points that, in turn, can lead to building permits – or housing starts.
Projects must have a total score of at least 179.5 points out of a possible 190 to receive an allocation.
Three appeals were considered by the council: Barrett-Odishoo, Edmundson Avenue-Pinn Brothers and East Dunne Avenue-Dempsey.
Because the three appeals were denied, it was not necessary for the Planning Commission to reassess building allotments.
“We distributed, in the competition for allotments for fiscal year 2004/05, 182 allotments or dwelling units that could be built,” said City Planning Manager Jim Rowe. “If the voters extend Measure P and approve the amendments, it will bump up the total allocations from 182 to approximately 230, an increase of 48.”
The council made it clear that some portion of that, if there are more to distribute, should be considered for the two of the projects.
Rowe said the Barrett-Odishoo project and the East Dunne Avenue-Dempsey project were the likely next in line, because of their scores. He said the Edmundson Avenue-Pinn Brothers project was farther behind.
Councilwoman Hedy Chang and Councilman Steve Tate excused themselves from the hearings during the meeting because they own property within 500 feet of the proposed developments.
“My concern is that I think all three of the projects are good projects,” Mayor Dennis Kennedy said during the meeting. “They provide our community with affordable housing.”
One of the appeals centered around trees within the development. Janet Dempsey, owner of the property on East Dunne Ave. who hopes to receive a Measure P allocation, said the Planning Commission scored her project unfairly in the natural and environmental section.
Measure P requires that developers save trees in the project in order to get the two full points available in that section. Dempsey said she was told by a city staff person that the “orchard product” trees her project, located on 9.5 acres on E. Dunne Avenue west of San Benecio Way, removed – 10 out of 18 total trees – that were “considered weeds” by the city because there is a city ordinance which recognizes “significant trees,” such as oaks and redwoods.
Councilmen Greg Sellers and Larry Carr said this item needed some clarification.
“I don’t think the Planning Commission ever made a distinction,” Sellers said. “A tree is a tree is a tree. I don’t necessarily agree, but this is the process at this time.”
Carr said perhaps this could be remedied in the future.
“Do we interpret this literally?” he asked. “I think we’ve found a few areas we need to make some distinctions in for future evaluations.”
Dempsey’s appeal was denied.
Another detail that stretched out a hearing was the issue of adjoining versus detached driveways in the Barrett Ave. project, located on 17 acres on the southside of Barrett Ave. west of San Ramone Dr.
Alexander Henson, representing Odishoo, the appealing party, said the there were three minor problems with the project that caused it to lose one point. He described the score as “arbitrary and capricious.”
The driveway issue is that, out of the 36 units in the property, approximately 30 percent are adjoining. This includes housing units that are attached. Developer Vince Burgos said he went through “great lengths in design” to avoid this, and said he thought the project should have been recognized instead of penalized for the small amount of driveways that are next to each other.
Kennedy said he is concerned about the allocation and scoring process.
“Council needs to insure that a fair and equitable process was used,” he said. “We do have the option to override the Planning Commission.”
Sellers said the council may need to look at it, however, “the process today is the process today.”
The fact that the Barrett-Odishoo project included low-income housing was also considered by council members.
“I am concerned because this project includes affordable housing, which is something we need in this community,” Carr said.
The project is on the south side of Barrett Avenue and St. James Place, near the future Butterfield Blvd. extension.
The appeal was denied on a 2-1 vote, with Kennedy voting against denial.
The third appeal heard by council on July 16 was the West Edmundson project appealed by the Pinn brothers. The project is located on W. Edmundson Ave. across from Community Park.
John Dossetti, local real estate broker, spoke in favor of this appeal.
“If this isn’t common sense, I don’t know what is,” he said. “If there is any project in this town that needs to be done, this is it.”
Dossetti described the area as “blighted,” and said that its location, across the street from new development and less than 500 feet from the Vineyard Town Center, makes it essential that the project go forward.
The appeal was denied.
