CC MIN 1972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

109 Lai Lai to accept conditions imposed under either 'IR " or , as Planning staff recommended , under " IP " ( Industrial Park) Zoning , He indicated that he recognized the possibility of referral back to Planning Commission , but since this would involve more public hearings , pointed out that needs are critical as to time . He expressed the belief Council has the authority to approve amended application to prezone to T'IP " . He referred to some arguments presented in Planning Commission hear- ings relating to traffic problems which ' opponents felt would increase , and to displacement of residents of the exist- ing units proposed to be removed . He felt the traffic problems originated with installation in 1966 of a stop signal on El Camino Real opposite Genco . It was felt the proposed expansion would provide means to alleviate the traffic situation . Further , he suggested that the answer to the traffic problem was redesign of the traffic signal . With respect to the dislocation of tenants in the dwelling units to be removed , he described the structures as aged and run down . Income from the rents did not meet the costs to the owner . He nded the property owner would cooperate with the tenants , con- sistent with the needs of his other tenants , who be indicated employed a substantial number of people , a large percentage being in minority groups . In response to question by Councilman Henderson , Mr . Costello advised that the property owner indicated he would give the tenants in the dwelling units the maximum amount of time to vacate . Mr , Roger Lalanne , 55 St . Elmo Way, San Francisco , advised he would prefer to proceed as quickly as possible , but was willing to do anything reasonable and consistent in terms of time needed . He indicated there would be at least 6o days and possibly as much as 90 days before tenants must vacate . He also indicated in response to question by Mayor Keckley that , while there are renderings made , there are no blueprints as yet for proposed development of the site . Councilman Leipzig commented on the apparent confusion relative to the zoning applied for , and the zoning recommended by Staff , feeling that an applicant should have the guidance of Staff as to the appropriate zoning when making an application . Mr . McClellan responded that in any given situation an applicant may apply for whatever zoning he feels best for his property . In this case , in the first review by Staff , it was noted the adjacent property was "IRT' and it seemed from a purely zoning standpoint , if it were to be expanded , it should be in "IR " also , to be consistent . However , on further review by Staff , it was felt that perhaps a more restrictive zone would be better because of incompatibility with adjacent residential areas . Following additional discussion pertaining to amending application from "IR " to "IP " Zoning , City Attorney indicated tiat in his opinion , change from "IR " to "IP " application would not be 8/7/72 Reg . Mtg .