CCMIN121879 - Laserfiche WebLink

He stated that each of the 16 applications should be discussed in these areas. Councilmember Mercer requested that staff provide additional information on each of the 16 applications in the six areas mentioned above, for Council review, at least one week before any meeting with the developers, and that the developers also be given a copy of the report. He suggested that two Council meetings be scheduled to meet with the developers individually with a decision being made at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. After discussion, Council concurred with the scheduling of two meeting to inter- view each developer on an individual basis to discuss. his project, with a questions and answer time for both sides. Council also determined to allow public testimony at the present meeting from each developer who desired to testify on behalf of his project or to state concerns that staff might respond to in the upcoming report * It was also determined that Council would not ask any questions or make any comment to any developer who chose to speak at this meeting. After further discussion, Council scheduled the following meetings to meet with developers to discuss their projects: January 11, 1980, 7:30 P.M., Fairgrounds Cafeteria, andJanuary 15, 1980, 7:30 P.M., Fairgrounds Cafeteria, with a decision on RAPallocations to be made at the Regular City Council meeting of January 22, 1980. Mayor Brandes instructed staff to provide each developer with the appropriate staff report, time and date of their individual meeting with the Council. Mayor Brandes declared the public hearing open and requested that developers speak in the order that projects are listed in the staff report. 79-01 - Wilso~..~. 4473 (Amberwood)(t2 unit~.~ B-2 project) 79-01 - Wilson~ Tr. 4473 (Amberwood)(3 year phased project) Mr. Ted Fairfield, representing DeWitt Wilson, commended staff on their report regarding this matter. Mr. Fairfield asked for a clarification on in-kind points; if an item appears as a condition of approval does it also qualify for points? Mr. Brown advised that it would not receive any points if it was a condition of approval. Mr. Fairfield advised that Mr. Wilson had owned the subject property for 11 years and has had tentative map approval for a long time. He stated he differed with the staff report on the following item: (1) he felt McHenry Gate is a linkage. He further stated it was ironic that a project which ranked second highest could not be approved as a phased project due to the requirements of the RAP selection process, and he wished that this could be changed in the final selection. 79-02 - Mission Pk.. Inv.~ PUD-77-10 (Mission Hill) (1 or.3 year phased project) Mr. Ted Fairfield, representing Mission Park Investors, stated he felt this pro- ject should receive additional consideration in the following five areas: (1) Dolores Drive is a classic example of a missing link; (2) doing good things out of a tract which are required should be given in-kind consideration; (3) if other projects get credit for such things as a water line which serves other than the project, then that argument could be made here but no credit is given for it; (4) developer's willing- ness for a phased project with less than 50 units in the first phase should get some credit for reducing first year demands; and (5) this project has been waiting since 1963 for development and has yet to be developed and this should be considered. 79-03 - Wilson~ PUD-79-4 (Junipero Dr.) Mr. Ted Fairfield, representing DeWitt Wilson, stated that the PUD was approved last year for a total of 40 lots and that 31 had received RAP approval. He stated it was difficult to get sufficient points for the remaining 9 lots to qualify for RAP and he felt that credit should be given to a remaining few lots that would com- plete a development. He further stated that the "Design" points should be 10, 11, or 12 points. 2. 12/18/79