HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1983-04-13Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia
Vice Mayor Mark N. Addiego
Council:
Ronald G. Acosta
Emanuele N. Damonte
Gus Nicolopulos
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA REVIEW
City Manager Birkelo requested:
- To hear Items 25 and 26 before
Item 24.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
22.
Staff Report 4/6/83 recommending
by Motion to approve the Tentative
Subdivision Map for a 10 unit
residential condominium with
related parking and landscaping
at 631/635 Baden Avenue in the ~
R-3 Restricted Multiple Family
Residential Zone District
(SA-82-77/Gui 11 ory).
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
Municipal Services Building
Community Room
April 13, 1983
148
ACTION TAKEN
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
7:00 p.m. Mayor Teglia presiding.
Council present: Acosta, Nicolopulos,
Addiego, Damonte and
Teglia.
Council absent: None.
Recited.
AGENDA REVIEW
So ordered.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No one chose to speak.
City Planner Gorny recommended that
the Council approve SA-82-77 and
Negative Declaration No. 373 subject
to the six conditions contained in
the Exhibits A through D and the nine
findings contained in the Staff Report.
Mayor Teglia expressed concern that
in the past designs had been approved
by Council and that when the projects
were completed it did not match the
drawings which had been approved.
Mr. Guillory identified himself as the
Developer and General Contractor for
the project and had agreed thatwhen
the project was completed it would be
the same as the designs submitted tonight.
M/S Acosta/Damonte - To approve the
Tentative Subdivision Map subject to
the Negative Declaration and the nine
findings in the Staff Report.
4/13/83
Page I
22.
23.
AGENDA
Staff Report - Continued.
Staff Report4/6/83 recommending
by Motion to approve the Tenta-
tive Subdivision Map for six
residential condominiums and
common area at 111 Chestnut
Avenue in the R-2 Duplex Zone
District (SA-83-78/Jurkota).
25. Adoption of a Resolution of
Commendation for Raymond Angel i
TATION FOR RAYMOND ANGELT 5D\iA
26.
Adoption of a Resolution of
Commendation for Lawrence
Col eman.
A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPREC-
IATION FOR LAWRENCE COLEMAN
RECESS:
RECALL TO ORDER:
24.
Public Hearing - General Plan
Amendment - GP-82-20 - Land Use,
Circulation and Transportation
Elements.
ACTION TAKEN
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
City Planner Gorny recommended that
the Council approve Tentative Subdivision
Map'SA-83-78 and Negative Declaration
No. 342 subject to the four conditions
contained in Exhibits A through F and
based on the nine findings in the Staff
Report. He stated that this was one
lot consisting of approximately ½ half
acre of land along the west side of
Chestnut Avenue which was zoned R-2
Residential Duplex.
Discussion followed on the drawings;
height of the additional single family
dwelling on Chestnut, etc.
M/S Addiego/Damonte - To approve the
Tentative Subdivision Map subject to
the Negative Declaration and the nine
findings in the Staff Report.
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
M/S Acosta/Damonte - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 46-83
Mayor Teglia read the Resolution aloud.
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
M/S Damonte/Addiego - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 47-83
Mayor Teglia read the Resolution aloud.
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
Mayor Teglia declared a recess at
7:21 p.m.
Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to
order at 7:28 p.m., all Council present.
4/13/83
Page 2
AGENDA
24. Public Hearing - Continued.
Staff Report 4/6/83 recommending:
1) Continue the Public Hearing
with a presentation from Staff;
2) Hear public testimony; 3)
Close the Public Hearing; 4),
Motion to continue to some
certain date.
ACTION TAKEN
150
Mayor Teglia requested that Council
limit this particular item for this
evening to 10:00 p.m. to allow time
for other business to be heard. She
also suggested that the public hearing
be continued to the second Wednesday
in May.
Consensus of Council - That the Agenda
be reviewed at lO:O0 p.m. and that the
public hearing be continued to 5/11/83
at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Services
Building.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela made mention of his March
21st memo regarding slight changes in
the wording to the policies relating
to outdoor advertising structures
specifically relating to Policies
37, 38, 1-8, 8-5, 9-10 and B-18. He
stated that the wording had been approved
by the Planning Commission on the
recommendation of the City Attorney to
clarify the intent. He stated that
this document had been sent out with
the Friday Status Report. He stated
that he had this evening passed out a
Staff Report with supplemental infor-
mation on cardrooms/card clubs related
to recommended policies in the General
Plan. He stated that he had also dis-
tributed newspaper articles on cardrooms
in Los Angeles County which had been
discussed at the Planning Commission
meeting; an article from the April issue
of Western Cities on cardrooms. He
stated that the three documents that
were to be considered tonight were:dated
December 1982, "A Draft of the Final
Environmental Impact Report" with a
technical appendix. He stated that the
main document is "The Land Use Circulation
and Transportation Element of the General
Plan", which includes a map entitled
A Land Use Diagram. He stated that the
draft and final EIR contain letters
received on the general plan proposal,
summary of public testimony; Planning
Commission meetings and other material.
He described in detail what the documents
contained and the policies.. He gave
an in-depth history of the preparation
of the General Plan and its growth
4/1 3/83
Page 3
AGENDA
24. Public Hearing - Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
orientation. He stated that with the
assistance of Dan Christians and Maureen
Morton to assist in the graphics portion
will discuss the General Plan process,
an overview of major population and
land use taking place in the community
and highlight the policies being recom-
mended. He stated that the City in
the General Plan had been divided into
ten planning areas and that there would
be discussion of land uses and trans-
portion in each of the areas as proposals.
He stated that the adoption of the Plan
will not change zoning or other regulations
and ordinances in the City; major
revision to the Zoning Ordinance, Title
20, must still take place and new
ordinances must still be adopted; densities;
more affordable housing in the community
and preserve historical structures. He
continued, setting aside land for manu-
factured housing and mobile parks for
low and moderate income people. He
stated that in terms of commercial growth
the Plan had specific policies for such
specialized uses as auto salvage yards,
cardrooms, adult entertainment, fast food
restaurants, billboards, 7-11 type stores
and. car/truck rental and sales operations.
He gave an example of a policy: that
no new card club should be allowed in
the City and that the existing two card-
rooms should not be allowed to expand or
be relocated, etc. He spoke of the
plan for the preservation of open space,
commercial growth; revitalization of
the downtown business district being
continued; industrial growth; prohibiting
chemical and odor producing companies
from locating in the City in the future;
transportation and circulation, etc.
City Planner Dan Christians use~slides
to demonstrate historical population
during the last 60 years; existing land
uses; development standards; decrease
in family dwellings; major projects
approved within the last year; existing
vacant land; pocket areas; definitions
of low, medium and high density;' etc.
4/13/83
Page 4
AGENDA
24. Public Hearing - Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that the recommendation
from Staff was to continue the public
hearing to 5/11/83 and when Council felt
that all testimony had been heard Staff
would recommend that Council approve and
certify the EIR and adopt a Resolution
adopting the general language of the
circulation, transportation elements of
the General Plan. He suggested that
Council hear testimony and.requested
that all questions be held over until
all testimony had been received.
Councilman Acosta stated that there were
many policies and questioned how Staff
wanted the Council to approve them -
in blank form or each policy by itself.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that after testimony
had been received and each policy was
discussed and rational given for each
Staff would ratify or modify the policy
at Council's discretion.
Mayor Teglia stated that after the public
testimony was received Council would have
input before adopting and then there
would be a consensus on each policy
before adopting the package.
Councilman Acosta stated that the people
in attendance would speak on only certain
policies and the rest Council would make
the policies. He stated that the only
way the citizenry could understand the
General Plan was to go to the library
and review it in total because tonight
it had been presented as a thumbnail
sketch by excerpts.
Mayor Teglia proposed mailing the
proposed policies to each resident as the
leisure brochure was mailed out. She
stated that this document belonged to
the people of the City and that it
would determine the growth and develop-
ment of the City for the next ten years
and encouraged people to offer testimony.
Mr. Mike Callan, 82 Isabella, Atherton
read his 4/13/83 letter into the record
(herein attached and a permanent part
4/13/83
Page 5
153
The Honorable Mayor Cerri Teglia
and Distinguished Members of the City Council
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA. 94080
82 Isabella Avenue
Atherton, CA. 94025
April 13, 1983
Subject: Public Hearing General Plan Amendment - GP-82-20,
Proposed Changes to the Westborough,
West Park Planned Community
Dear Mayor Teglia and Council Members:
For the public record I wish to express great concern over the proposed general
plan changes as they affect my, M.C. Callan, lands in Westborough, and parti-
cularly the West Park Neighborhood. I see the changes as essentially ignoring
sound land use decisions made and implemented with the Westborough General
Plan adopted December 20, 1960, the West Park Planned Community Zoning Ordi-
nance adopted August 10, 1964, and the actual development of Westborough and
West Park. Furthermore, the changes are fundamentally inconsistent with
agreements made between the City and myself for development of West Park.
For these reasons I formally ask that the City Council make the changes
requested and explained below.
Request
I request that the City Council reject the proposed West Park General Plan
changes as described in the December 1982 plan recommended by the Planning
Commission, and direct that the proposed plan be modified as necessary and
appropriate to recognize the land use, housing, population, and other stan-
dards set in the West Park PC Ordinance 511. Further, I request that the
City Council reaffirm the neighborhood density concept set with the West Park
plan and current general plan. That concept is that land use density is based
on the principle of population per gross residential area; i.e. gross resi-
dential acres within the established neighborhood unit.
Background
Considerable developer and City effort was expended in the planning for and
development of the Westborough community. This effort provided for the
necessary services and facilities to meet the needs of a 18,000 to 20,000
population. Not only were adequate roads, sewers, storm drains, commercial
uses, housing, schools and other normal neighborhood and community facilities
and uses provided, but, also significant, park, recreation and open space
uses were included to enhance the quality of life. Every effort was made to
insure that a high quality neighborhood environment, incorporating innovative
planning principles, would be created with residents finding satisfaction
4/13/83
Page 6
The Honorable Mayor & Distinguished Members
of the City Council, City of South San Francisco
April 13, 1983
page two
within and outside of their homes. A significant element needed to achieve
this satisfaction was a diversity of residents both in terms of age and eco-
nomic characteristics. A variety of housing unit types were to be developed
· in order to accommodate this diversity.
PC Ordinance 511 contains the land use distributions and standards for West
Park development. Single family and multi-family units, open space, recrea-
tion, schools and commercial uses are called for to accommodate an ultimate
population of 3,000 persons.
When the PC zoning was adopted the Planning Commission made findings of fact
(see attached PC Reso. 1714) stating that the project was in conformance with
the City's General Plan and zoning. Further, these findings were based on the
attached Planning Officer's report of 4/27/64. These documents clearly show
the importance of the neighborhood planning concept as embodied in the General
Plan and zoning ordinance and carried out through the West Park plan. The
plan standards were set to achieve the desired neighborhood quality.
The actual development of West Park has proceeded basically according to the
adopted plan and PC zoning. The land was graded, improvements installed and
land dedicated for open space areas and public facilities. Commercial uses
have been established and approximately two-thirds of the planned residential
population housed. The remaining vacant residential land is designated for
multi-family housing units.
The West Park plan shows the presently vacant residential lands as accommo-
dating the highest densities in the West Park neighborhood. The densities
are important to achieving significant elements of the diversity of population
and housin~ called for in the West Park plan and PC ordinance. Current market
studies show a great demand for this form of higher density housing which
provides a variety of unit sizes, with particular attention to smaller, more
affordable units. Therefore, we firmly believe it is inappropriate to change
the plan for this area at the precise time development of the final stage is
appropriate and necessary to serve the needs of the planned community.
Conclusion
Based on the above, I again ask that the proposed General Plan amendment be
changed to preserve the plan embodied in the West Park Planned Community
Ordinance 511.
Thank you for your consideration and assistance.
Sincerely and respectfully submitted,
Michael C. Callan
cc.
Director of Community Development
City Clerk
City Attorney
Joseph Gughemetti
Tom Vlasic
4/13/83
Page 7
RESOLUTION NO 1714 -_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RECOMWENDING APPROVAL TO THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY OF WEST PARK
AS REQUESTED IN THE AMENDMENT PETITION OF CAESAR-
CALLAN DBA WESTBOROUGH HOMES, TO REZONE 106.9 ACRES
OF LAND (NEIGHBORROOD 18, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL
PLAN) FROM AN UNCLASSIFIED DISTRICT TO A PLANNED
CO~L%[UNITY DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission having received an
amendment petition from Caesar-Callan dba Westborough Homes to rezone
106.9 acres (Neighborhood 18, South San Francisco General Plan) from
an Unclassified District to a Planned Community District known as
West Park and,
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission having duly advertised and
noticed the public hearing as required by Zoning Ordinance No. 353,
and as amended, particularly by Ordinance No. 490, did hold a public
hearing on April 27, 1964 and
IHtEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the following maps
nd diagrams:
Vicinity and land use map of West Park Planned Community
Wilsey, Ham & Blair - April 16, 1964
4-unit apartment, portion of West Park Planned Community
Robert Fisher & Anthony Gazzardo, 1964
We~t Park Landscaped Development Plan - Garden Patio Homes
Anthony M. Gazzardo
4-unit apartment portion of West Park Planned Community
Robert FiSher & Anthony Gazzardo
4-unit portion of West Park Planned Community showing
section through landscaped court and typical street scape
Robert Fisher & Anthony Gazzardo
Rendering of 4-unit apartment, portion of West Park
Planned Community
Shopping area by John Graham & Co.
Rendering of street section of garden patio homes
Edward H. Fickett
Rendering street - garden patio homes
Edward H. Fickett 4/13/83
Page 8
-.-. ;-,.-, -..,,_- '
Three street elevations showing typical garden patio homes
Edward H. Fickett
Rendering Garden Patio home entrance
Edward H. Fickett
Rendering of entrance of garden patio homes
Edward H. Fickett
West Park Planned Community - 3 sheets
Wilsey, Ham & Blair, April 13, 1964
The adopted Ge~eral Plan of the City of South San Francisco
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application,
the General Development Plan, General Development Schedule, and
General Development Statement as on file in the Planning Office and
found them to comply with the requirements as set forth in Sections
4.24, (a) (b) and (c) of Ordinance No. 490 and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found the purposes of
· dinance No. 490, Sec. 4.21 and the General Conditions and Regulation
Ordinance No. 490 Sec. 4.23 and General Procedure of Ordinance No.
490, Sec. 4.22 having been complied with and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings as
required by Sec. ~.6 of the Zoning Ordinance and that copies of the
proposed %?est Park Planned Community was transmitted to the department
heads of the city and other agencies and their reports having been
received and reviewed and on file in the Planning Office and,
I~tEREAS, the Planning Commission found the following facts,
according to Sec. 4.25 (b) of Ordinance No. 490 to be true:
1. That the application of Caesar-Callan Homes, on file in the
Planning Office, to rezone 106 acres of land designated on the
City of:South San Francisco's General Plan as Neighborhood 18,
and the'General Development Plan and General Development Schedule
complies in form and content with the requirements as set forth
in Ordinance No. 490, Section 4.2.
2. That the density prescribed for the district in the adopted
General Plan of South San Francisco is 2,300 to 2,800 people for 4/13/83
100 acres and the density proposed for West Park Planned CommunityPage 9.
~
'is 3,029 p =~le for 106.9 acres of lan does comply to the
density proposed for the district in the adopted General Plan.
!57
3. That the proposed program for the establishment of main-
tenance districts for the "Common Areas" and detailed plans
for planting to be done by the applicants at the time Planned
Unit Sections are constructed will be enforceable and adequate.
4. That the public improvements and utilities proposed are to
the standards of the city.
5. That the sites proposed for an elementary school and city park
is acceptable to the South San Francisco School District, and the
park site acceptable to the Recreation and Parks Director, and
these sites are adequate to meet the needs of the anticipated
population.
6. That the streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitably
located, conform to the circulation system as shown in the
adopted General Plan of the city, and are adequate to carry the
anticipated traffic thereon.
7. That the proposed 6.5 acre neighborhood commercial area
proposed conforms to the commercial area designated for this
neighborhood in the adopted General Plan and is needed to
provide adequate commercial facilities as proposed.
8. That the West Park Planned Community development will not
generate traffic in excess of the capacity of streets in the
adjacent areas and the public improvements are designed to
handle the anticipated population. That the area shown by the
State Division of Highways for widening Skyline Boulevard has
been indicated and no development has been shown in this proposed
Right of Way.
9. That the development consisting of a neighborhood commercial
area, single family homes with common greens, fourplex apartmen
areas with common areas, garden apartments, neighborhood park
and elemengary school will constitute an environment of sustained
desirability and stability and will be in harmony with adjacent
developments, both the established single family homes and pro-
posed surrounding developments of the vacant lands.
10. That the developers of West Park long established in San
Mateo County are capable of and do intend submitting specific
unit development plans for the first unit within one year after
the establishment of the Planned Community District and are
capable of and do intend completing said unit within 2 years
after approval thereof.
11. That the construction of public and private improvements in
the who~e district will be completed within 5 years after the
establishment of the Planned Community District.
12. That the uses and development proposed does conform to the
adopted General Plan of the City, and particularly Neighborhood 18,
of said plan. 4/13/83
Pa.qe 10
13. That the height, space between structures and the open areas
are within the limits as set forth in Sec. 4.23(f) and 4.23(g) of
Ordinance No. 490.
--3--
14. That adequate offstreet parking has been provided in that
in the apartment zones provision has been made for one covered
parking space plus an additional one half parking space, and
the single family homes have provided two covered parking
spaces, plus two additional spaces on pads or driveways, plus
additional parking bays.
15. That the developer does intend to subdivide lots for sale
to individual owners, therefore, a Tentative and Final Map will
be required pursuant to the Government Code and the City's
Subdivision Ordinance.
158
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning. Commission of
the City of South San Francisco does hereby recommend to the City
Council of the City of South San Francisco that the request of Caesar-
Callan dba Westborough Homes to rezone 106.9 acres of land (Neighborhood
18 of the adopted General Plan) and to be designated as West Park
Planned Community, be rezoned from an Unclassified District to ~
Planned Community District.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was regularly
introduced and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South
an Francisco at a regular meeting held April 27, 1964 by the
iollowing vote:
ROLL CALL:
Ayes,
Noes,
Absent,
Commissioners Wells, Raffaelli, Martinez, McGovern,
Gardner, Steinkamp
" None
ATTEST': ~
~nita Robertson, Secretary
Planning Commission
City of South San Francisco
4/13/83
-4- Page 11
Planning O~ cer's Report
~le~ting of ~pril 27, 1964
Caesar-Callan Inc.
Amendment Petition
Neighborhood 18 - West Park
159
is being an amendment petition of Caesar-Callan Inc. to rezone
proximately 106 acres at Skyline Blvd north of Westborough Blvd
Known as Neighborhood 18, from an unclassified district to a planned
community, district, your attention is called to Exhibit "A",
Part 3 of the South San Francisco General Plan, being the General Plan
Diagram showing Neighborhood 18 bounded by Westborough Expressway and
Skyline Freeway, a medium density neighborhood. This is the first
zoning the Commission has considered for a complete planned community.
according to Ordinance No. 490 as amending Ord. 353. The Co~ission
'and Council studied this ordinance for several years before adopting
it to alow for this type of zoning and should carefully weigh and
consider the provisions within this ordinance. The purposes of the
planned community district are to:
(a)
establish appropriate zoning regulations for large
tracts of land which are under unified ownership
or developmental control, to permit the long term
development of such tracts with a variety of uses
while insuring that:
(1)
the development will be consistent with the
adopted general plan of the city.
I will point out to the Commission at this time that this
,elopment will be consistent with the adopted general plan of
~ city and call to the Commission's attention Exhibit "A,
h~.ng part 3 of the general plan and the map designated as West Park
planned community submitted the 16th of April, 1964 by Wilsey, Ham
Blair for Westborough Homes.
I will point out to the Commission that the West Park master
plan inciates a five acre commercial site located at the intersection
of Oakmont Drive a~d Westborough Blvd. The general plan diagram
indicates a neighborhood shopping center at the intersection of
Westborough Blvd and Skyline Blvd
After much discussion as to the location of the proposed
neighborhood center, it was felt that the loction of the proposed
center at Oakmont and Westborough was more desirable for'a neighborheod
shopping center due to the fact it will serve the people of Neighborhoods
17, 18 and 19 at Oakmont and Westb~rough more efficiently than a
neighborhood shopping center designed close to the freeway. Access
will be better as shown on the West Park map. The West Park map shows
a variety of dwelling uses, consisting of multiple family, in units of
four and other multiple family in larger units; single family dwellings
with the rQw house concept. Also shown on the diagram 'is a 2½ acre park
and an elementary school site. You will note that the park site, school
site and the shopping center site are not located exactly as shown on
t~ ...... general plan diagram. However, the general plan diagram was
p pared to show a general location only and with the design of the
c, ~lete planned community it was felt that the residences within the
planned community can be served more adequately by a slight modification
in the commercial, park and school sites. 4/13/83
CEnTrAL RECO~OS page 12
FILE NO: ..... .~]~..~...~..
Planning Office~ s Report
~EST PARK
Page 2
Meeting of Apr~ 27, 1964
To continue with the purpose of the planned community:
(2)
the tract will be planned and development executed
a manner to provide an environment of stable quality
and desirable character within the tract.
I would like to point out to the Commission at this time that
all areas are planned to utilize the land to its fullest extent by
proper design of buildings on the slopes as well as proper land-
scaping designs to be used in common by both the apartment dwellers
and common greens for the single family units.
To continue with the purpose of the planned community:
(3)
the development when completed will be compatible with
present and probably future uses in the surrounding areas
as a whole.
This development will be separated from the single family units
already existing on the south of Westborough Blvd by the boulevard
itself, and it is contimplated by the developer that the area to the
east designated on our general plan as Neighborhood 17 will also be
developed as a planned community. To the west this area borders
Skyline Blvd. with the City of Paclfica across Skyline Blvd
developed as single family residences with a shopping center. To
the north of this development are the land of Suburban Realty in
t~ City of Daly City.
Continuing the purposes of the planned community:
(b)
Provide reasonable assurance to the developer that
specific sectional unit plans prepared in accordance
with an approved general development plan will be
acceptable to the City.
The Commissicm will have an opportunity under the use permit
procedure established in the planned community zoning to review more
precisely the exact location of the buildings on the lot. However,
the important decision this evening will be the desirability of
various types of dwelling units, the areas reserved'for green spaces,
the general circulation plan and neighborhood cohesiveness of the
overall plan as submitted. This area contains 106.9 acres. The
ordinance requires 60 acres or more to permit the development of a
complete neighborhood or community. TheFe are 3 dwelling types
shown in the Test Park development, with necessary local shopping
facilities. As noted, the five acre neighborhood shopping site,
with offstreet parking. The developers are showing, in the multiple
family units, one covered space and one half uncovered parking space
with some .~uest pmrking. The single family residential area shows
two covered: parking spaces, two uncovered parking spaces and guest
Parking at the end of the cul de sac and end of the common green.
T ~ parking can be reviewed in more detail when the use permit for
t planned unit sections are submitted to the Planning Commission.
160
4/13/83
Page 13
Planning Office( ~ Report
B'EST PARK
Meeting Of Apr:~ 27, 1964 Page 3 161
A planned community district should show parks, playgrounds,
s~hools and other community facilities. The park in question here is
~- ~½ acre park that has not been resolved as to the method of
¢ iication to the city. By the time the planned unit section of the
¢_linance is before the Planning Commission the method of dedication
of this park should be determined and it is hoped that at that time
a general plan of Neighborhood 17 will be prepared so the city can
deteriine whether this 2½ acre park site should be part of the 15
acres of the annexation agreement of the lands of Westborough; or whether
the subdivider should dedicate this additional 2½ acre park site;
or whether the city should purchase this park site. However, an
area for a 7½ acre school site has been tentatively approved by the
South San Francisco Unified School District, and since the school
district is a separate governmental agency the site to be obtained
will be by negotiations with the school district and the developer.
The important thing here is that the school site is reserved.
The area characteristics of a planned community district shall be
bounded by major thoroughfares or other physical features or by
political boundaries to comprise a unit which requires development-
in accordance with a comprehensive plan and shall be free from
features forming barriers to community or neighborhood cohesiveness.
I have pointed out on the general plan diagram this area is bounded
by a major street, an expressway, a future freeway and by Daly City
city limits. The ownership and control of this land is under Caesar-
Callan Homes Inc. The disposal of any land in the district shall be
a--roved as prescribed in the general development plan and general
d elopment statement. The developer states that the land is to be
s divided and sold as individual parcels with common greens to be
maintained through an easement district as yet not established.
Subsequent to the disposal of any lands in this planned community,
a tentative and final subdivision map will have to be filed and
approved in accordance with the general map of West Park planned
community established by zoning of the City of South San Francisco.
The densities established are medium density of approximately 25
people per gross community acre and the building coverage limit of
35%. The gross density recommended for the neighborhood unit by
the general plan would be 2,924 people or approximately a total
population of 3,000 people. Density can be figured more exactly
when the planned unit use permits are filed and we can figure the
density on the number of bedrooms and size of dwelling units to be
built. The appli~tion petition of the developer has been filed
and the legal description checked by the Engineering Department
and found to be in order. The general development plan shows the
topography and grading plan. The City Council has approved a
preliminary grading plan which will fit with the proposed planned
community development. The approximate location and extent of
proposed use of the land by types of uses and the proposed
population density has been shown and the location of major thorough-
fares and usher public streets have been shown. The amount of take
necessary for the future Skyline Freeway is shown as a green belt
al md the entire area and it will be noted.that no building sites
hi ~ been designated on the proposed Skyline Freeway take line.
4/13/8~
Page
Planning Offic 's Report
WEST PARK
The applicant has submitted a general development statement as
---equired by the ordinance. Also a schedule which becomes part of
:his development.plan in which the developer states that site
.mprovements and structures will be completed within 2 to 2} years,
with actuat construction starting within one year. As part of the
application, ! submit a letter of transmittal from Westborough Homes
Inc. signed by Michael C. Callan and Joseph C. Caesar, dated April 13,
1964 and a letter and general development statement submitted by
R. T. Calhoun for Westborough Homes Inc. from Wilsey, Ham & Blair dated
April 13, 1964.
Meeting of Aprl(l 27, 1964 Page
Sec. 4.25 (a)
l>ublic Hearings: The Planning Commission shall notice
and hold public hearings as required by Sec. 6.6 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
This has been done by receipt of a verified petition from the
property owners with a $50.00 fee, publishing one notice in the
Enterprise-Journal 10 days prior to this meeting and posting three
public notices along the streets upon which the property abuts 10
days prior to this public hearing.
The Planning Commission may approve the plan and schedule and
recommend the same to the City Council upon finding and determining
that the following facts be true according to Ordinance No. 490,
Sec. 4.25:
The Application, General Development Plan and General Development
Schedule in form and content comply with Sec. 4.2 et. seq.
The documents as filed and upon checking the plans as submitted
the general development schedule inform and content comply with
Sec. 4.25.
The density proposed for the district conforms to the density
prescribed b~ the adopted General Plan of the City.
The density prescribed for in this plan and the general plan is
medium density - 23 to 28 people per gross community acre. The
general development plan prescribes approximately 3,000 people
which can be computed more accurately as the planned unit sections
are filed, and we know the number of bedrooms for each dwelling
unit that will be constructed.
An enforceable adequate program for construction and installation,
and method of maintaining landscaped open areas has been proposed.
The developers have proposed an easement district to maintain the
common green areas and all landscaped open areas. The details
of thi~ will be submitted along with the planned unit sections
and is ~urrently being worked on by the developerst attorney
and the City Attorney.
Adequate public improvenents and utilities are proposed and they
are to the standards of the City.
Refer to the report from the Director of Public Works and the
developers statement indicating the improvemts and utilities
are to be installed to the standards of the city.
4/13/83
Page i5
~.~Ela nni..ng Officer .Report
ST PARK '~'
Meeting of Apri~ 27, 1964
Page 5
163
The sites proposed for public facilities, such as schools, play-
grounds and parks, are adequate to serve the anticipated population
and are acceptable to the public authorities havllng jurisdiction
thereof. ~)~
The 7½ ~cre school site which is under the jurisdiction of the
South San Francisco Unified School District has been submitted
to the'Board of Trustees of the school district and to their repre-
sentatives, and with the changes as made on the new map submitted,
and I hereby submit a copy of this map to Mr. Davis representing
the school district, showing a reduction in the number of homes
that will be bordering the school grounds. The school district
requested that some studies be made to move the school site
closer to Westborough Blvd. This would be difficult to do and
maintain the character of the community as planned. The 2½ acre
park site as submitted.is satisfactory to the Director of Parks
and Recreation. However a determination must be made as to
whether this 2½ acre park site is to be dedicated to the city
under the terms of tho annexation agreement; whether it is to
bo dedicated to the city by the developer in addition to the
15 acres as provided in tho annexation agreement, or whethr the
city will purchase tho site for a park. However, the location
of tho park site adjacent to tho school site is acceptable to every-
one concerned.
The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitably located and
adequate to carry the anticipated traffic thereon.
The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitably located to
carry the anticipated traffic and would refer the Commission to
the report from the Director of Public Works and request the
Director of Public Works to review his report with the Commission
after this presentation.
Any proposed commercial development is needed at the proposed
location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type
proposed.
Please refer to Part 3 of the Map Plan Diagram that indicates a
general location of a neighborhood shopping center in Nei~hbor-
hood 18 at the corner of Westborough Blvd and Skyline Freeway.
Since Skyline is to be developed as a freeway and there is
a neighborhood shopping center across Skyline Blvd serving the
subdivision on the other side of the freeway, it was felt that
a shopping center to serve neighborhoods 17, 18 & 19 could be
more conveniently located on Westborough Blvd at 0akmontDrive.
Oakmont Drive will serve the complete westerly area of Westborough
community, and by the very nature of a neighborhood shopping center
would be better located on major streets serving the neighborhood
rather Shah on a freeway.
The development will not generate traffic which will be in excess
of the capacity of streets in adjacent areas, or place an overload
on other .public improvements and facilities.
4/13/83
Page 16
Planning O~ ~er's Report Meeting of~ ~ril 27, 1964 Page 6
This development will not generate traffic in excess of the
capacity of streets in the adjacent areas because of the easy
access to Westborough Blvd, Skyline Freeway and Junipero Serra
Freeway, as well as the ~ajor collector street, Oakmont Drive.
The other public improvements and facilities will be installed
to the recommendation of the ~overnmental agencies involved
and since this is an entirely new area, it will be installed
to handle the anticipated population.
The proposed development will constitute an environment of sus-
tained'desirability and stability and will be in harmony with
the character of the surrounding area.
This is the major consideration that the Planning Commission
will have to make on this planned con~unity in that the proposed
developm®nt will constitute an environment of sustained desirability
and stability. To our knowledge' this is one of the first planned
community units to be developed giving a variety of dwelling units,
providing for school and park facilities, and in such a ~anner
as to create a compact community unit. There have been major'changes
in the design of streets, parking, some yard areas being common
areas, arrangement of walkways on the rear of lots rather than
along the sidewalk in the single family units. The desirability of
this type of development has been discussed many times by the
Planning Commission in the past few years in studying and adopting
the planned community ordinance. This type of planning has been
proposed by many people as being an answer to serving the needs
of the increased population in the Bay Area as well as correcting
some of the obvious disadvantages ofthe present subdivisions in
the North County area. We cannot point to a single type of
development and state to you that this'has worked in another area
and will work in South San Francisco. We can only say to you that
this development provides many amenities, good design, good layout
and landscaping design. In the opinion of the Planning Officer
an environment of sustained desirability and stability will be
created. IC is also felt that this will bein harmony with the
surrounding area. However, the character of the surrounding area
has been established as single family residences on 50 x 100 lots.
This plan will be in harmony in that it will provide a variety
within the complete Westborough community to provide the people
an opportunity to have a choice in the type of dwelling unit in
which they choose to live.
10.
The proponents of the Planned Community development intend and
are capable of submitting specific unit development plans for the
first unit of development within one year after establishment of
the Planned Community District and of completing construction of
said unit within two years after approval thereof.
The general development schedule for West Park as submitted by the
developers state that site and Erading improvements will'begin
within 30 to 60 days and will be completed by January, 1966 and
their current projections indicate that approximately 2 to 2½
years will be required for marketing of the total project.
4/13/83
Page 17
(
Planning Ofi,cer's Report
WEST PARK
Meeting of(;ril 27, 1964
Page 7
It is then reasonable for the Planning Commission to expect a
planned unit application to be submitted within the next few
months and completion of the first planned unit within a year.
Construction of the public and private improvements in the whole
district will be completed within five years after establishment
of the Planned Co,unity District except that the Plannlng
Commission may consider the nature and size of the district as a
basis for providing time for completion up to ten years.
1'65
Refer to Item No. 10 in which reference is made to the general
development schedule and states the anticipated improvements
will be completed by January 1966 and the total project completed
within 2½ years.
12. The uses and development proposed conform with the adopted General
Plan of the City.
The General Plan as adopted by the City of South San Francisco
shows West Park as Neighborhood 18 indicating one small neighbor-
hood shopping center and a medium density residential development
with one school and one neighborhood park site within the area.
The density as proposed by the developers indicates it will fit
with the.density as proposed by the General Plan of South San
Francisco. However, a more precise density can be figured when
sectional unit plans are submitted showing the number of bedrooms
to be constructed in each dwelling unit.
Height, space between structures and open areas are within the
limits of the following schedule:
(a) As set forth in Section 4.23 (f)
(b) As set forth tn Section 4.23 (g)
The proposed plans as submitted will conform within limits of
schedules as pet forth in Sec. 4.23(f) and (g) and will be re-
checked upon the filing of the planned unit sections.
14.
Adequate offstreet parking has been provided of not less than one
and one-half spaces per dwelling unit except that the Planning
Commission may in its discretion increase this requirement to
two parking spaces per dwelling unit and in either instance
further require dthat one space be a garage and the additional
space or part thereof be in an open parking area.
Adequate offstreet parking has been provided according to the terms
of this ordinance. In the four plex area there is to be One
covered space and more than an additional one-half space pro-
vtded in parking bays surrounding the four plex development.
The single family units on row houses provide two covered spaces
and two uncovered spaces for each dwelling unit as well as an
additional one-half space per each dwelling unit in parking bays.
4/13/83
Page 18
.Planning Of~ :er's Report
WEST PARK
~leeting of( ,ril 27, 1964
Page 8
15. Whether a subdivision plat and proceeding should be required
pursuant to the Government Code and City*s Subdivision Ordinance.
A subdivision plan will be required pursuant to the government
code and cities subdivision ordinance, as it is proposed by the
developer that private ownership of a majority of dwelling units
are proposed. It is noted here that the planned co,ununity
approval contains approval of streets indicated to be 26' wide
in the cul de sac areas to serve the single family row house type
dwelling units. Our subdivision ordinance required no less tha~
30' streets. It is. recommended the 26t street be accepted for
the planned community and upon the filing of the subdivision plan
under the terms of the subdivision ordinance of South San Francisco
that the developers request an exception be made to this subdivision
ordinance requirement.
Anita Robertson
Planning Officer
4/13/83
Page 19
AGENDA
24. Public Hearing - Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
167
of this record) that requested "...
Council reject the proposed West Park
General Plan changes as described in
the December 1982 plan recommended 'by
the Planning Commission, and direct
that the proposed plan be modified as'
necessary and appropriate to recognize
the land use, housing, population,
and other standards set in the West
Park PC Ordinance 511. Further, I
request that the City Council reaffirm
the neighborhood density concept set
with the West Park plan and current
general plan. That concept is that
land use density is based on the
principle of population per gross resi-
dential area; i.e. gross residential
acres within the established neighbor-
hood unit..."
Mr. Tom Valasca, Planner, presented
testimony in support of Mr. Callan's
request wherein he cited Ordinance
No. 511 and the 1962 General Plan as
being in support of the West Park
Planned Community. He stated that
Mr. Callan was having difficulty in
working through the Planning Commission
in the matter of consistency with
the existing Zoning Ordinance and
General Plan. He stated that in
reviewing all of the City's documents
it was his contention that no inconsis-
tency existed. He spoke at length of
density as it exists now versus density
as it is being changed in the proposed
General Plan and the impact it would
have on Mr. Callan's property. He
spoke of the report from City Planner
Anita Robinson, which was included in
the letter Mr. Callan presented, stated
clearly that this was one of the first
opportunities that the City had to
apply the concept for a PC district.
He stated that in all of the documents,
including Resolution No. 1714 from
the Planning Commission, clearly show
that a neighborhood concept clearly
exists. He stated that Mr. Callan was
trying to process an application before
the Planning Commission and could not
move ahead because of this question of
consistency. The response from the
4/13/83
Page 20
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
24.
Public Hearing - Continued.
City Attorney on the density issues was
such that it is a policy matter and it
was felt that it was best for the City
Council to address that policy and tell
Mr. Callan whether the two documents were
consistent today.
Joseph Gughemetti, Esq., spoke of the
history of Westborough which Mr. Callan
had created consistent with the area on a
contractual agreement with the City. He
stated that Mr. Callan had donated the
Water District and the park and fire sta-
tion and abided by the contract for over
20 years. He stated that now the rules
were being changed on density and that he
had written a letter to the City Attorney
in April of 1982 asking for an explana-
tion if Mr. Callan was wrong and that the
dedications were wrong; and that the
City could change the density origi-
nally created. He spoke in detail of the
original units to the area and what the
Planning Commission was planning to lower
in density and stated that this was not
fair to Mr. Callan who had acted in good
faith.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that it was a Staff
determination based on a site basis; that
Staff does not look at population or den-
sity by population - which changes. He
stated that the argument that was being
made was that Mr. Callan had the right to
build this project at 40 or 50 units per
acre.
Discussion followed on the City's having
a contractual agreement since 1961 and
whether that contract was null and void;
whether the City Attorney received the
letters and documents in question; the
dedications made by Mr. Callan; the fact
that the documents referred to where ori-
ginal City documents of the project;
whether Ordinance No. 511 was consistent
with the General Plan; the issue being
what density was allowed by the General
Plan; whether the existing General Plan
was being considered or the proposed
General Plan for the project; the
question of gross acreage; streets being
4/13/83
Page 21
AGENDA
24. Public Hearing - Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
donated as gross acreage; whether common
greens were considered in net acreage;
whether plans had to be submitted within
one year after the adoption of Ordinance
No. 511; how Staff could make a deter-
mination without seeing all of the
documents on file with the Clerk; that
the Staff should give the Council input
as to whether there is or there is not
a valid contract here; whether the City
has the right to review what took place
20 years ago and make determinations
and findings; whether a site plan or
a use permit type of plan was submitted
with one year of the passage of
Ordinance No. 511, etc.
Mr. Valasca stated that Mr. Callan would
like to have Council make the finding
that there is consistency with the
General Plan and allow Mr. Callan to
move ahead and have the project evaluated
before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Callan further explained the 106
acres on the map; heavy density; twelve
units to the acre, etc.
Councilman Acosta questioned whether
Mr. Callan was saying that his project
was being subjected to the new General
Plan rather than the existing General
Plan by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Callan stated that his proposal was
for twelve units to the acre.
Mayor Teglia stated that she wanted all
of the maps and plans~ a legal opinion
for the Council to consider.
Mrs. Marguerite Skinner, 800 Southwood,
spoke of the people who had moved into
this City, the suburbs, to raise their
children and did not appreciate plans
for the City to become commercialized
with the closing of schools.
Mrs. Lucille Creamer, 529 Eucalyptus,
spoke of the land use element, Policy
No. 28, the reuse of surplus school
sites and stated that it should be
consistent with the land use provision.
She stated that the vacant Parkway
4/13/83
Page 22
AGENDA
24. Public Hearing - Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
170
Junior High School should be developed
only with low density or be a clustered
residential development.
Discussion followed on the different
types of density, i.e., R-1 and RPD;
low density being from 1 to 8 units;
changing medium and medium high density
to one designation - medium density.
Mrs. Creamer stated that she had a
petition from over one hundred residents
of the Park Avenue Heights which stated,
"The vacant Parkway Junior High School
site should be developed only with
low density, single-family detached or
cluster residential development."
She stated that the petition requests
that the City Council retain and adopt
the Policy 3-6 as a permanent part
of the Master Plan, and by so doing,
will make it known that the concerns
and wishes of the people they serve
have been heard.
Xenophon Tragoutsis, Esq., spoke of
Policy 1-10 and asked that the policy
be modified to reflect some flexibility
for fast food restaurants and have
decisions be made on a one to one basis
rather than with a hard fast rule. He
stated that control would always be
with the City through use permits for
fast food restaurants with drive through
windows.
Nancy A. Butterfield, Esq., stated that
she represented PhiliP and Elaine Bill
who own approximately 20 acres of land
located on the northeast side of Sign
Hill. She expressed concern over Policies
67 and 68 which stated that a substantial
portion of the north side of Sign Hill
should be preserved as public or private
open space and that the amount of devel-
opment allowed on the north side of
Sign Hill should be limited, and
excessive grading should not be per-
mitted. She stated that her clients oppose
any regulation which would prohibit them
from making reasonable economic use of
their land by developing it for resident-
ial purposes. (The letter is attached
and a permanent part'of this record.)
4/13/83
Page 23
IICHAEL J. FLYNN
'AUL A. STEWART
JOHN C. BREWER
DAVID J. LONICH
NANCY A. BUTTERFIELD
BARBARA D. GILMAN
FLYNN & STEWART
A'I-rORNEYS AT LAW
660 MARKET STREET, SUITE :)06
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TELEPHONE (415) 42 ! -'~800
April 5, 1983
City Council
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California 94080
171
Of' COUNSEL
F. RICHARD LOSEY
CHARLES M. THOMPSON
Re: Comments of Philip Bill and Elaine Bill Regarding the Proposed Land
Use Element
Dear Members of the City Council:
This firm represents Philip Bill and Elaine Bill, owners of approximately 20
acres of land located on the northeast side of Sign Hill. Policy 67 of the
December 1982 Proposed General Plan provides that a substantial portion of the north
side of Sign Hill should be preserved as public or private open space. Policy 68
provides that the amount of development allowed on the north side of Sign Hill should
be limited, and excessive grading should not be permitted.
Our clients want to be able to develop this land for residential purposes in
a manner compatible with the site and the neighborhood. Owners of neighboring land
have been allowed to develop their property. Our clients believe that any new land use
element and general plan adopted by the City of South San Francisco should allow
them to make economically beneficial use of their property by developing it for
residential purposes. Our clients oppose any regulation which would prohibit them
from making reasonable economic use of their land. Our clients' concern was
expressed to the Planning Commission at its meeting on January 27, 1983.
We request that, in your deliberations on the proposed land use element and
general plan, you consider our clients' desire to reasonably develop their land, and that
you also consider the broader public need for additional housing which could be created
there. Please make this letter a part of the record of your hearings. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Paul A. Stewart
PAS:seh
ce: Philip Bill & Elaine Bill
~113183
Page 24
AGENDA
24. Public Hearing - Continued~.
172
ACTION TAKEN
Dan Modena, Esq., 421 Grand Avenue,
stated that he represented A1 Pasco,
owner of Welte's Cardroom, and expressed
concern over Policy No. 49 which did
not allow any new cardrooms or the
expansion of old ones, He stated that
in prior meetings with the Commission
Staff had been directed to make recom-
mendations for areas that the existing
cardrooms could be relocated. He
stated that he had personally been
bombarded from articles from the Los
Angeles papers to the effect that
in relation to cardrooms the following
words were used, "cheaters, professional
cheaters." He stated that his client
had been in business for 50 years in
this City with a fine reputation. He
stated that he was irate because in
walking into the meeting room tonight
he had been handed the same. articles
about the criminal element in cardrooms
and involved in crime activity. He
stated that the Planning Staff had not
complied with the Planning Commission
request for areas of relocation. He
stated that a stiff ordinance should
be drawn up and that his client would
abide by the rules. He stated that
his client wanted the same benefit
that other businesses had, that of
passing the business on or selling it.
James C. Tevini, Esq., representing
Joe Pasco of Five Brothers, stated
that his client had taken part in the
improvement of the facade of his building
with the understanding that the business
would be recognized as preexisting -
now it was learned that the business
would be phased out in ten years. He
stated that the arguments for phasing
the business out were based on a
political storm in Los Angeles where
the businesses are out of hand and
disturbing the residential districts.
He stated that the existing problems
were inherit to the Los Angeles and
San Diego areas and did not exist here.
He spoke of a proposed bill relating
to the regulation of gaming clubs
"This bill would provide that gaming
clubs shall not be permitted within a
county or municipality without prior
4/13/83
Page 25
AGENDA
24. Public Hearing - Continued.
RECESS:
RECALL TO ORDER:
ITEMS FROM STAFF
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
GOOD AND WELFARE
ACTION TAKEN
173
approval by a majority of the voters
in the affected jurisdiction.
Councilman Acosta stated that local
cardrooms were controlled by the
police checks on employees with felony
records. He stated that the allegations
were against Los Angeles cardrooms and
not against South San Francisco.
Mayor Teglia stated that in fairness
the Council would have to get down .to
the issues of the operations and the
potential for expansion.
Mayor Teglia declared a recess at
9:12 p.m.
Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to
order at 9:30 p.m., all Council present.
Discussion followed on whether the
cardrooms should be allowed to relocate
or expand.
Leslie A. Williams, Esq., stated that
his client owned 26 acres of land on
Sign Hill on the north slope and was
concerned over Policy No. 67 for the
preservation of the area for public
or private open space. He spoke of
the retention of the land as open space
and that grading must be kept to a
minimum; Policy No. 68 stating that
the amount of development should be
kept to a minimum without excessive
grading; felt that the language should
be changed to read that a substantial
portion of Sign Hill shall be preserved
because the other policies mitigate
against private use. He stated that
with all the restrictions his client
could only use ten percent of his
property while the remainder of his
property would be open space.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
GOOD AND WELFARE
No one chose to speak.
4/13/83
Page 26
A6ENDA
ACTION TAKEN
CLOSED SESSION
27.
Request for a Closed Session for
the purpose of the discussion
of personnel matters, labor
relations and litigation.
RECALL TO ORDER:
ADJOURNMENT:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
City
City of South San Francisco
Council adjourned to a Closed Session
at 10:40 p,m, for the discussion of
the noticed items.
The meeting was recalled to'order at
11:25 p.m., all Council present, no
action taken.
M/S Addiego/Nicolopulos - That the
meeting be adjourned.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:26 p.m.
APPROVED:
a Cerri Teglia, ~ay~
city of South San Franci(Kco
The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to
dispose of an item. Oral communications, arguments, and comments are recorded
on tape. The tape and documents related to the items are on file in the Office
of the City Clerk and available for inspection, review and copying.
4/13/83
Page 27