PC 10/26/78 - Laserfiche WebLink

Bill Kratcho, a local resident, spoke stating he believes the residents find no problem with the development of the McManus property. He asked the staff if it is required that the developer dedicate five acres as park? Harvey Levine, City Attorney, responded stating there is a require- ment of dedication of park land. Doug Stuhr, 4849 Mohr Avenue, spoke stating the reason for circulation of the petition is the concern of residents about traffic. He also stated another concern of the residents is whether or not the five acres allotted is an adequate buffer. He feels it is important to determine the land use before rezoning or the property owners could be hurt. Jim Fitzhenry, 4702 Ross Gate (Mohr & Ross Gate), spoke. He stated that one of the things McManus is using is the fact that there has been no approach made by the City to purchase the property. Mr. Fitzhenry then suggested the Williamson Act be checked out by the City. Mari Ann Stuhr, 4849 Mohr Avenue, referred to the EIR, Page 9 and the fact that some of the land is fill from desilting project on Arroyo Mocho. She spoke about the concern of traffic count on Hopyard. She cited Johnson Industrial Drive during peak hours at being at level "E". Ms. Stuhr said that the EIR recommended one exit going onto Hopyard and that two more exits would generate an awful lot of traffic. Ms. Stuhr further stated that if McManus is to have the zoning changed, the City should consider the quality of homes it develops; the residents do not want any more traffic on Mohr Avenue; and, people are afraid to let children play in their own front yards. Resident Ed Bennington, 4979 Mohr Avenue, spoke on recommending refusal of the McManus request. Harry Luce, 4633 Ross Gate. He stated that the EIR data is outdated. James Gay, 4399 Mohr Avenue, spoke against the project in that there is too much traffic on Hopyard now between Val Vista and Alpha Beta Shopping Center. Gary Noster, 2802 Jones Gate (corner of Mohr and Jones Gate), stated he wants to know what is going to happen when parking problems develop with regard to the proposed development; to cars in the driveway, etc. (Turner's previous alternative). Harvey Levine reiterated that this meeting is to discuss the General Plan only and that California Law dictates that the General Plan needs to be changed before specific items can be considered under zoning and subdividion approvals. Mr. Doherty then explained the process used, i.e., General Plan, Rezoning, etc. Mr. Turner then spoke a rebuttal, stating he recognizes the hesitation of the residents to accept the statement made on their behalf. The Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Wilson stated he is opposed to the General Plan Amendment and commented that if the land is given up you will have lost forever a great sports facility. -9- _._._.____.______.___ _.__ ... _ ..___~w_. ....._ _ _... _._...,.._k_ . ..___,_...._. _ _.. _.._____ ._ _ _.._ _ _ , _._...., _ . __ ~. _ _ ._ ._