CC MIN 1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

424 Mayor Leipzig declared open at 7:34 p.m. the subfect public hearing. City Clerk Hildebrand reported the Affidavit of Publication of Notite of Hearing is on file in her office. Richard E. 6ardella, attorney representing the appellant, Harrington- ' Ku akoff Deve opment Company, distributed a letter indicating that the appeal releting to the Planning Commission action on rezoning application No. Z77-05 in connection Nith EIR 77-38 is be9ng with- �� drawn and requested Council to proceed with the appeal in the re- zoning matter only. Mr. Gardella called attention to the P,lanning Department reports and Minutes of the Planning Commission concerning the sub�ect appeal. Mr. Gardella proposed a madification of the ' rezoning application which he stated was within the framework of , the init�al proposal. � Walter Harrington, 57 Almendral Avenue, Atherton. representing the developer, distributed information concerning description of the proposed modified use of the sub�ect property. Slides were shown and Mr. Harrington suggested the modified proposal would result in less intense use of the property than allowed by the General Plan. He advised the modified proposal known as "Alternate 1B" is for: 1) 12 dwellings on some 5� acres to be zoned RH-20; 2) a cluster � development to be zoned R-1-10; and 3) an area to be zoned either , PO-40 or CA. Mr. Harrington advised further that the fornierly pro- posed residential care facility had been deleted; that more native flora could be preserved�and that traffic would be decreased. . Mr. Harrington also showed slides of comparative statistics of "Alternate 16" with other proposals relating to traffic.�economlc base and sewage disposal. He provided copies of the statistics to ' Council. Mr. Harrington also stated that his company would attempt to obtain access to Farm Hill Boulevard. Discussion followed and Mr. Gardella, Mr. Harrington and City Attorney Schricker comnented and replied to questions concerning the fact that the Planning Comnission has not had the opportunity to review the � modified proposal; whether the modifications respond to Commission findings in denying the application; the extent to which Council may make zoning changes within a zoning district; the differences be- tween the modified and the initial proposal; the matters addressed by the environmental impact report; and the requirement Lhat Council review facts presented to the Planning Comnission and the�decisions made,by the Corromssion. _ ` At the suggestion of Mr. Schricker, the findings of the Planning Com- mission were read. Mr. Schricker stated for the record that the appellant has withdrawn his appeal relating'to the environmental im- pact report (EIR) and that the EIR must be considered b;y Council in making its decision ' � (Council recessed from 8:30 to 8:40 p.m.) '�-- - D�scussion continued concerning details of the modified proposal and alternatives available to Council in considering it. ' Mr. Gardella stated for the record that his client would De satisfied with a 35-foot height limit in a CA (Central Administrative) District Reg.Mtg. -2- ' 10/24/77 " � ' - __ . . ,. ._,... ..........,....,�..........,,,��, ,:.,,.....�.., �,,...�,.....,...,., �,��,,,:,..,�,.�,�. ,.,«.. <,.-� ..,, . ,