PC 02/08/78 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Bill Hirst, attorney, representing the applicant, spoke. They did not agree with staff's interpretation on traffic. The driveway leading to Stanley Boulevard from the site is a full 32 feet wide. The encroachment permit granted to Mr. Madden by Alameda County would not allow egress left on Stanley. A drawing was then presented by the proponent denoting the private driveway entrance design. He did not agree with staff's recom- mendation that first phase development create no more than 10~ greater traffic than the existing use on the site. Mr. Hirst termed the condition confiscatory and would not allow proper utilization of the C-S zoning on the site. He asked for 30~ increase in traffic in the first phase development. He felt that a mitigated negative declaration would resolve any traffic concerns of staff. Commissioner Doherty asked who would do a traffic study and upon learning it would be undertaken by the proponent, indicated it would not be accept- able to him. City Attorney Levine then stated that the City could require an outside consultant to undertake the study. Next, Earl Augusta, 3963 Stanley Boulevard, spoke. He criticized staff for misplacing his petition of 26 signatures calling for an environmental impact report for this project. He then stated that the handwritten copy of the negative declaration was extremely difficult to read. He felt the report was inadequate as prepared. On the subject of the prezoning, he thought it improper to prezone the land without any definite development plan and indication of the types of uses. He recommended that the property be put either into a Study District or the A (Agricultural) District. Sandy Sinclair, resident on Stanley Boulevard, then spoke. She discussed the traffic problems that continue to plague the Stanley Boulevard area. She concluded her statements by stating she felt the application was pre- mature. Mr. Bill Hirst stated that the County did not require an environmental impact report and prepared a negative declaration. The County approved the encroachment permit for the driveway design and imposed the conditions with respect to the turning radius. Some discussion then took place regarding tax and traffic problems con- fronting the property owners on Stanley Boulevard. The Public Hearing was closed on the negative declaration review. Commissioner Shepherd stated the reason he voted for annexation of the property to the City was to provide the City with better land use controls of the site. He sympathized with the neighbors. Commissioner Doherty remarked that he had a problem with traffic control and was uncertain that the condition discussed in the staff report could solve this issue. Commissioner Jamieson agreed with Commissioner Doherty. He did not feel the negative declaration completely satisfied him as far as the impact of this project on the area. Chairman Butler stated that the question of traffic would depend on miti- gating measures and development of the property. He thought that some consideration should be given to a PUD zoning district. -3- __._.._ __. __ ____._.,~_. _..._.. _ ....... ... _..__ .._.-__...T__._. _ . _ .. _ ....__. _ ._...._ _~ ~ _. ., ......, . _ _. _,,_._ ,... _ .. _...._ _ _... _ _. __ .