CCMIN100306 - Laserfiche WebLink

of them being the density. He added he feels the issue of density in the amenity that was voted on in 1997 is open to interpretation and could be argued either way. He said the amenity is not what he is concerned about, it is the density. His preference would be that this project be developed at the mid-point density which is 20 units. If it is developed over that mid-point there is a reasonable argument that there should be an amenity. He indicated the other issue with regard to the density is a public policy question, what are the needs for housing in the community. Is there a need for more large-lot multi-million dollar homes? There is a significant need in this community for affordable housing and there is a housing cap - the more units that are built of this type will result in fewer left to fill a real need for the community. He believes there is nothing positive for the community as a whole by approving a project over the mid-point density that the General Plan indicates. He further stated that access is an issue. He believes it is important to look at alternatives to traffic circulation and Ponderosa was not at all open to discussing those issues with him. He added Cameron Avenue and the safety issues are of real concern. He believes Ponderosa did a good job of working with the neighborhood on this project as a whole. The people who are not supportive of the project are most greatly impacted by the project. He believes there needs to be more mediation on this project with the neighborhood stating he does not want to vote against this project, but would like to see this be a project that the entire neighborhood could support. Council member Thorne commented there is a lot of concern regarding traffic and speed on Cameron Avenue. It seems to him that most of the input that was given is not regarding this project, but is mainly about the traffic on Cameron. His other concern is that he does not want to get into a situation where Ponderosa walks away from this project. He indicated they are getting close to their option deadlines with the owners and he would like to see the problems solved and to get the project approved. If that means mediation, he would rather do that than having another developer take over this project. Councilmember Brozosky indicated the main concerns are the existing conditions of the road, traffic and speeds in that area. Whether this development happens or not, those problems still exist. Perhaps these issues can be handled at the tentative map stage rather than going to mediation. He believes the actual project itself and the density fits in with the General Plan. He suggested if five lots are removed from this project, it would not look any different. He proposed moving forward with the project that is before Council and deal with road and traffic/sidewalk issues at the tentative map stage. He indicated he supports project. Councilmember McGovern clarified the condition for parking on the north side of Cameron Avenue. She noted when she reviewed this project and the former developments in the area she can't believe sidewalks weren't put in at that time. She added she would not support this project without a sidewalk. She believes Council needs to correct a problem that was created in the past which created a terrible safety situation for the children in the area. She does not believe you should have people walking in the street. So, she believes the number one amenity Ponderosa is offering the community is a safer way for kids. She clarified with staff that they would be working with Ponderosa and the community in the approval process to find additional traffic calming measures for the tentative map approval and asked for that to be a part of the conditions. She noted the other issue she would like to see addressed before the tentative map is the design of crosswalk at Martin Avenue. City Council Minutes 15 October 3, 2006