PC 01/11/78 - Laserfiche WebLink

Resolution No. 1607 was entered and adopted making the finding that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines; that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information con- tained in the EIR and that the project would have significant impacts on the environment and that those impacts are as identified on Page 38 of the EIR, plus traffic circulation. Roll Call Vote Resolution: Jamieson Seconded: Shepherd Ayes: Jamieson, Shepherd, Wood Noes: Doherty, Chairman Butler Absent: None Abstain: None The Public Hearing was opened on planned unit development review. Mr. Gene Pons, 2576 Raven Road, spoke. He stated that as a former twelve year resident of East Angela Street, he is well aware of the serious traffic problems there. As a former Planning Commissioner, he had some planning concerns. He is convinced the location is poor. He felt that if the development is approved, it should carry two access points, with one of them being off Pico Avenue. He then spoke for Dr. Biggs of 4616 Las Lomitas Drive, who felt that only one entrance would be undesirable. Mr. Pons felt it would be unwise to recommend approval of the PUD designation with- out a development plan. Next, Virginia Patton, 630 East Angela Street, spoke. She had concerns regarding the proposed monthly rate and the traffic problems. She felt that actions should not be taken for expediency sake, so that people end up with less than the best. Them, Charlotte Severin spoke again. She asked why no mention was made in the staff report and EIR that this property be placed in the HPD District. She wanted assurances that the development would, in fact, pro- vide housing for the elderly, and whether a word definition could be added to insure that the development would be a retirement center. Secretary Harris explained that staff had discussed the possibility of placing the land in the HPD District. The density of the project does look to be around 10~, and City Council will need to require the developer to submit a statement saying why he is asking for Planned Unit Development, instead of Hillside Planned Development. He noted that conditions attached to a PUD development can derive the same results as those attached to a HPD development. Mr. Levine, stated that Mrs. Severin's question regarding assurance of retirement center development is valid. It is possible to do this and have it bind on the location. Mrs. Severin went on to explain why she felt the location is poor for the reasons of steepness of the terrain, expensive bus service, uncertainties of approving a PUD unaccompanied by an approved development plan. She is in favor of persons deriving reasonable return for their investments, but felt that this property would best be served developed as "ranchettes." -5-