06-04-1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

rentals to the renters who would be occupying the apartments and having the benefit of living in an~R 1 residential neigh- borhood. Mr. Carl Schwarz, 702 Mabury Street, President of Mabury Homeowners Association, spoke on behalf of the appellants, and referred to the Staff Report, Final Environmental Impact Report and the seven "Alternative Mitigation Measures" listed therein. He offered to withdraw the appeal in return for the applicant agreeing to the seven measures plus the elimination of two-story apartment buildings in excess of 20 feet in height within 150 feet of the R 1 zoned property as conditions attached to the variance. The Mayor received a negative response to this proposal from the applicants. Mrs. Thomas F. Kearney, 901 North Mirasol Street, speaking on behalf of the appellants, stated that the applicant had filed a Tentative Tract Map # 785, approved by City Council on January 26, 1972, which changed 14th Street to make it 15th Street, resulting in additional area for apartment development; that originally only 1,750 units were contemplated in the total project; that now 2,094 units, with a population of 4,200 people, are proposed, which would represent ten times the population presently residing in the 159 single family homes immediately involved; that the proposed development would bring increased traffic into the neighborhood which was already increasing due to the construction of a new tennis center and hospital; that the Variance Application should be denied and the park buffer should continue to allow the R 1 area some integrity. Mr. Schwarz spoke again stating that Council should be wary of Environmental Impact Reports contracted by the developer in that the company preparing the report would quite naturally favor the contracting company; that the contracting for Environ- mental Impact Reports should be done by the Planning Department of the City. There were no other proponents of the appeal. Mr. John Murphy, Attorney at Law, of the firm of Rutan & Tucker, 401 Civic Center Drive West, spoke against the appeal stating that a considerable amount of work, man hours, and money had gone into the proposal; that most of the men involved were in the audience and would be glad to answer questions, however, due to the considerable amount of material which had been presented to Council, they would not speak individually; that many of the comments made by the proponents had related to the whole Park Center; that the applicants were not asking for approval of the Master Environmental Report as it applied to all of Park Center, but only with respect to the particular project set out in the Variance Application which would be comprised of 290 units; that there was not a ten-fold increase in population; that the fact there might be increased traffic from a tennis court did not relate to their application; that his client would stand by the accuracy of the information con- tained in the Environmental Impact Report; that the R 1 buffer zone had not been intended to remain forever restricted to R 1 development, but had rather been established as a control device by which Council could evaluate methods of interfacing R 4 and R 1 properties; that it was never intended to be a park land; that with regard to Mr. Bricken's remarks regarding "trading off" in the "Redwoods" development, his clients had worked long and hard with staff trading off many items CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 198 JUNE 4, 1973