CCMIN060578 - Laserfiche WebLink

55~ Councilmember Butler stated he agreed with Mr. Murray's argument regarding Contribution to the Capital Improvement Fund. He also stated he felt the de- sign of th~s particular project was good. D. Frevola, Partner of FMP, stated he felt not enough points were given for ]~provements already made by this developer. He also felt the project provided missing links. Ron Archer, Engineer of this project, explained the drainage system of the project and stated he felt the pump storm drain system should not detract from the points allocated. He also stated he felt that additional traffic on Vine- yard Avenue caused by this project should not be a factor as the moving of the Garbage Dump to the new Transfer Station on Valley Avenue had alleviated traffic on Vineyard Avenue. Mr. Swift responded that Vineyard Avenue was still a high traffic situation and was the major consideration in the allocation of points in the "Other En- vironmental Considerations section. Councilmember Brandes stated that previous Council action had reduced the density of multiple zoned property on Vineyard Avenue because of heavy traffic on this street. 78-13 - Beratlis-Mission Park Chris Beratlis, 425 Main Street, stated he had no questions regarding the staff report. Mayor Mercer asked about the storm drainage problem referred to in the report. Mr. Swift stated this had been taken into consideration in allocating points. Councilmember Brandes inquired about the specific points given for missing links. Mr. Swift advised this was for completion of the roadway at the end of San Juan Way, which would improve this street from a public safety aspect. 78-14 -.The .Housing Group J. A. Chapman, Vice President of The Housing Group, presented background information regarding the 106 units as the minimum number of units the project would accept. He stated he had received a letter from the Planning Department dated }!ay 31, 1978, which he received on June 2, 1978, stating that no more than 80 units could be accepted for consideration by the City under the Resi- dential Allocation Program, and that June 1, 1978, was the deadline for changing an application. Mr. Chapman stated he had been unable to contact the owner of the property so could not change the number of units. He did reach the owner on June 2, and advised the City to reduce the total number of units from 106 to 62. Mr. Chapman was advised it was too late to change the application. Councilmember Brandes asked Mr. Chapman if he received a copy of the Resi- dential Allocation Program procedural information. Mr. Chapman stated that he had received a copy. Mr. Swift reiterated staff's efforts to allow Mr. Chapman to reduce his application before the deadline, which consisted of several phone calls and the letter. 3. 6/5/78