11/12/64 - Laserfiche WebLink

of the attending activities may be classified as heavy industrial from time to time. They recognize that there is a residential area nearby, and they feel the "I" District zoning would give them more flexibility than I-P zoning. Also, the type of research may change in the future, and the I-P zone is more restrictive. Upan inquiry by Chairman Landon regarding wluat under I-P zoning would they find ob- jectionable that would be met by "I" requirements, Mr. Oliver stated that I-P may be associated in the minds of people as relating to warehousing or assembly, not firing up furnaces and melting down aluminum, for instance. Mr. False listed the specific areas of "I" and I-P requirements which were pertin- ent to this discussion and in which there would be no great difference or problem, including height regulation, landscape approval, performance standards end under- ground utilities. The Bay Area Air Pollution Control District recognizes that generation of eke is especially detrimental because of the topographical features of this area. Sections 14.600 and 14.700 of Ord. No. 309 present the most import- ant distinction wherein the City would have greater control under I-P zoning. Mr. Pales then read the purpose of both the "I" and I-P Districts. Chairman Landon stated that the Commission hsd earlier recommended I-P zoning for the subject area, but possibly the I-P requirements of the Zoning Ordinance could be broadened to increase flexibility. Mr. Fales stated that as far as creation of a nuisance ie concerned, the performance standards are rigid enough for protection. Mr. Peck described in more detail some of Kaiser and Aluminum and Chemical's thinking on the subject, stating their operations would include metallurgy, refractory, a metals division and chemicals operation. Mr. Falea asked Mr. Peck to give an example of what nuisance factors a homeowner across the street might find objection- able. Mr. Peck replied there will be a little smoke, duet and noise, and some of the structures will not be designed for esthetic value and will be visible. Mr. Oliver stated the pilot plants will probably be ire or Lesa permanent. Mr. Landon stated that the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1960 when there was no industry here. Now, however, the City may benefit from information from the point of view of Kaiser Alumicwan and Chemical Corp. Mr. Fales said that City Engineer Alan Campbell had suggested I-P zoning along Sunol Blvd. to a certain designated depth, and the remainder designated "I" zoning. Mr. Oliver said it would be appreciated if the matter of zoning would be clarified eo that plena could be accelerated. Mr. Fales stated a recommendation should be made by the Planning Commission to the City Council by December 1. Chaizman Landon and repreaentativea of Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. agreed that the latter would consider the matter further and would get in touch with the staff, whereupon a study session will be scheduled late: The next item on the agenda was a preliminary review, General Development Plan, Schulte-Blackwell Co. Mr. Falea stated a combination annexation-utilities services agreement is in the process of negotiation with Schulte-Blackwell Co. under Council instruction. This company ie the owner of approximately 110 acres within the area of Annexation No. 24, which is being contested in the coasts. Because the City is unable to complete the annexation at this time, and because this firm wishes to commence development of the subject property, an agreement is proposed which would be operable either after annexation of the property or in the event development takes place while the property is still within the jureidiction of Alameda County. Mr. Ted Fairfield and Mr. Bud Schulte were present in the audience end discussed plane for the physical development of the subject property. Mr. Fairfield said that 366 dwelling unite plus a high school are proposed. However, the high school will be moved from where it is shown on the General Plan. They will submit a plan to the City with intended use, but will submit a plan to the County for residential use only. Alameda County has no Planned Unit Development, as e;uh. The nearest designation they have is a R-1-B-5-62 zoning. T:iarc in propcaed.a s•3nimum of 6200 aq. ft lots, with others from 6,300 to 10,000 an,.ft. or greater. There is a proposed density of 4.07 lots per acre. With re3;nrd to the high school, Dr. HaskeT ie concerned with the width-depth ratio, and, therefore, further changes may be made. Application for rezoning is being made to the County. Hopefully, it will be recorded in the name of the County, but with an agreement with the City regarding utilities. The Alameda Countyrouosed annexe.*.ion-utilitiestagreement withghielte said he has gone through the p attorney, and it is acceptable. Fie explained there will be a community recreation facility set up under a corporation. Mr. Fairfield said he hoped the City will have a representative at discussions at the County level. Mz. Falea said the County has indicated full cooperation with the City. Mr. Falea stated that this seems to be a workable situation, even though rather unusual. When it becomes a referral from the County, then the CityPlnnning Commi,acion may take official action