PC 11/01/78 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Doherty then asked Mr. Chandler if he had any documents from the City regarding the 1963 annexation. Mr. Chandler said he had with him a copy of the annexation agreement of March 4, 1963 and Exhibit "B" land use. The Commission reviewed these documents. In rebuttal, Bob Grove spoke again, he pointed out that there was an error in the staff report of June 7, 1978 on Page four, relating to traffic. He stated the realities of the traffic situation are very different from what they appear to be on paper. He argued that the Mission Park property owner might sue the City but that the Mission Park area and the resident property owners should be considered first. Mr. Chandler, counsel for the property owner referred to the original copy of the approved Planning Commission plans dated May 2, 1963, for the review of the Commission. He stated that with regard to the homeowners' concern about traffic, perhaps consideration might be given to putting in signals to alleviate the situation. He said they would have no objection to opening up Junipero to Sunol. Mr. Chandler added that no one has implied a lawsuit. He stated that his client is only asking to be dealt with in good faith. He stated that they entered into an agreement a long time ago and feel that if sewage capacity had been available previously, the development would already have been completed. He stated that the City Council and Planning Commission had approved the zoning many years ago and it should remain. The Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Geppert then asked for the staff to clarify their recommendation. Mr. Harris stated there is no strong recommendation for or against rezoning the two RM-1500 parcels. He said that RM-1500 and RM-4000 are both in conformance with the General Plan. He further stated that both RM-1500 parcels are served by appropriate streets and utilities. Therefore, there is no clear distinction as to which zoning district (RM-1500 or RM-4000) is more appropriate from a physical planning standpoint. He stated, however, that downzoning would effect the 75~-25~ residential ratio of the City and that the apartment inventory is not growing. He said that rental units may actually be declining due to condominium conversations and that there is a need for apartments in the City. With regard to the R-1-6500 parcel, Mr. Harris stated that it is probably appro- priate for office uses but that rezoning to the O (Office) District wouldn't be in conformance with the General Plan and therefore, prohibited. He recommended placing the property into the S (Study) District until a General Plan Amendment could be considered next April. Resolution No. 1696 was adopted making the recommendation to the City Council that the Negative Declaration be filed as this project would not have any significant effects on the environment. Roll Call Vote Motion: Geppert Seconded: Getty Ayes: Geppert, Getty and Acting Chairman Doherty Noes: None Abstain: Wilson Absent: Chairman Jamieson -7-