Loading...
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