CCMIN060679 - Laserfiche WebLink

5. Eliminate provision of the bicycle category. 6. Increase the points available under the "BART" and '~4arket" categories. 7. Reduce the advantage given to projects which score well under capital improvements. 8. Allow Council discretion as to the number of points major capital improve- ments as a part of the project shall receive rather than the present all-or- nothing mechanism. 9. Eliminate"'ditches" from the capital improvement section. 10. Allow phasing of projects: a) allow multi-year approval b) allow multi-year approval if build some number fewer than the maximum allowable per year. 11. Allow counting of features in already built portions of partially developed tracts in project evaluation (evaluate "whole project" each year). 12. Provide exemptions: a) tracts with minimum lot size of 20,000 sq. ft. or larger b) residential units as part of commercial development (in C-C zone) c) small apartment units d) apartment units in target areas (such as the CBD). 13. Reduce the number of units/developer to 50 a year. 14. Clarify the definitions of "developer" and residential developments which are subject to RAP. 15. Eliminate the "contribution" sections of the RAP. 16. Give points to a single-family residential subdivision at a rate of one point for each 1,000 sq. ft. that the subdtvision's minimum lot size is above 8,000 sq. ft., to a maximum of 12 points. Public Comment Mr. Ted Fairfield, 1811 Santa Rita Road, stated he would like to add one item to the suggested changes to RAP--allowing the filing of tentative maps before RAP approval. He stated this would ease the burden in filing tentative maps before RAP approval. He also suggested three alternative ways the City could still maintain control: (1) limit the number of lots in any tentative maps to two years' worth of RAP approval; (2) give RAP approval for a portion of a project but then allow tentative map approval for the entire project; or (3) make subsequent RAP approval a condition of approval of the tentative map. Mr. Fairfield stated he concurred with item 12a, as it would provide for an unmet level of housing in the City today, would not be large in number, and can't compete effectively in RAP. Mr. Fairfield stated he also concurred with item I1, as he felt a total project should be considered rather than a given seo~ment to be developed in one year. Mr. Fairfield stated he was opposed to item 7, as he felt it defeated the original concept and purpose of the Resi- dential Allocation ProMram. He also stated he was opposed to item 2, because it allowed one group today to decide what they thought was good design that might not be what another group at another time would consider as good design. 6/6/79