Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1983-06-22Mayor Mark N. Addiego Vice Mayor Emanuele N. Damonte Council: Ronald G. Acosta Gus Nicolopulos Roberta Cerri Teglia MINUTES CITY COUNCIL Municipal Services Building Community Room June 22, 1983 AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: AGENDA REVIEW Mayor Addiego City Manager Birkelo requested: - A Closed Session to discuss personnel matters. AGENDA 3. Continued discussion of the General Plan. ACTION TAKEN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 7:12 p.m. Mayor Addiego presiding. Council present: Nicolopulos, Teglia, Damonte, Acosta and Addiego. Council absent: None. AGENDA REVIEW Stated that Item No. 3 would be heard first and that Mr. Brown and Mr. Beals would be the first speakers. He stated that the meeting would be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. So ordered. AGENDA Bruce Corbridge, Esq., Chickering & Gregory, spoke in place of Timothy Brown and presented a letter with suggested language for Industrial Policies (that letter is attached and a permanent part of this record) and Policy 60 and 61. Discussion followed on the sign policy in the City; whether the City needed new signs; relocation of signs; that fact that only two signs have been erected in the last twenty years; calling for a ban on signs on E1 Camino Real and South Airport; suggest a softening of language: no signs can be condemned without being relocated or paying for the signs; non-conforming 6/22/83 Page I TELEPHONE (415) 393-9000 tELeCOPiER: (415) 398-71~6 TWX: 910-37~-7~87 CODE ADDRESS "CHICGREG" D. BRUCE CORBRIDGE (418) 393-9ae8 LAW OFFICES OF CHICKERING ~ GREGORY THREE EMBARCADERO CENTER TWENTY-THIRD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO 94III June 22, 1983 WASHINGTON, D. C. OFFICE 2501 M STREET, N. W. SUITE 560 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20037 TELEPHONE (202) 463-7456 TELECOPIER (ZOZ) 483-8Z33 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council c/o City Clerk City Hall 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California Re: General Plan Revision; Industrial Policies Dear Council Members: We represent American Can Company and have pre- viously written to you, on February 24, 1983, commenting on certain aspects of the proposed Land Use Element of the General Plan for South San Francisco as they affect the 20 acre parcel of land at East Grand Avenue and Littlefield Avenue which is owned by a subsidiary of our client~ A copy of that letter is attached~ This letter is intended to supplement that previous correspondence and request specific wording changes to the following: the first paragraph of the description of "Planned Industrial" (Page 30); proposed Industrial Policy No~ 60 (Page 32); and proposed Industrial Policy No~ 61 (Page 32)~ For the reasons set forth in our previous letter, these changes would permit, within Planned Industrial areas, flexibility for possible research and development usage, and flexibility on building coverage requirements for possible warehouse and distribution use~ The requested changes (underlined for emphasis) are: 1~ Reword the first paragraph of the Planned Industrial description (Page 30) as follows: "Planned Industrial: Includes industrial parks, light manufacturing, distribution, wholesale and warehouse uses, low-rise office buildings or offices which are in- cidental and necessary to the primary use, and including incidental retail sales and 6/22/83 Page 2 ChICkEriNG & GREGORY Mayor and City Council South San Francisco, CA -2- June 22, 1983 commercial service types of uses, but ex- cluding auto repair, junk yards and meat processing=" 2~ Reword Policy 60 (Page 32) as follows: "Policy 60: Building coverage on any in- dustrial site should not exceed fifty (50) percent except for warehousing and distri- bution uses with adequate off-street park- ing, in which case building coverage should not exceed seventy (70) percents" 3~ Reword Policy 61 (Page 32) as follows: "Policy 61: Except for warehousing and distribution uses, at least ten (10) per- cent of each industrial building site should be landscaped~" DBC:lm Enclosure Thank you for your consideration in this matter~ Very truly yours, D~ Bruce Corbridge 6/22/83 Page 3 The Boner&bls Hayer and Members of the City Coum:ll~_ c/o City Clerk 400 Grand Avenue South San Fcanclsco, California General Plan ~evision! Industrial Policies Dear Council ~e~berst ~e are wrltin~ to co~ent on certain a~pects o~ the proposed general plan for South San Francicco which affect a 20 acre parcel of land located, at East Gr~nd Avenue th~ American (:an Co~pany. The ~rop~rty ha~ been designated for 'Planned InduottiaI' u~es by the proposed Gene:al Plan. Vhe pzoperty wa~ fo~rly th~ ~lte et 8 ~o~al recovery facility. O~r client intends to place the pro~erty on the ~arket at ~o~e ti~e in the ~u:u£e. ~hlle the propezty u;ey tion u~e~, It may al~o be used by compantea engaging in te~eatch and developa~ent wo~k or high technology ~anufactu~- :lng,-which often require a relatively high proportion of office space. In. :elation to tr~ditional light tnd{]Ntria! or warehouse ~pace. ~e wl~h to comment on two as~ect~ of the pro~-~osed L~nd U~e Element of the General Plan a~ it affects ]anJ ~e~ignm~ed for--"P]a~ned-Induatrial" u~ez. First, the appareot limitation on office ~pace, and ~econd, the fifty percent coverage ratio. we under~t~.nd that the "Land Use ~lement Legend° fez the prol~)l'ed Genezal Plan fO~ "Planne~ In,lo,trial" u~:em provide~, "Planned lnd~.~trialt lnclu(le~ in6urt~ial parka, ltgbt manufactoring, distribution, wholesale and warehouse ~-e:,, limited office and co~ezclal zegvice type~ of uoe~ but excluding auto zepait, ~unk yard~, ~nd meat pzoce~sin9." 6/22/83 Pa§e 4 Council ~embera -2- February 24, 1983 preted to limit the proportion of ogfice space to ten or twenty p~rcent of the area of buildings constructed on land designed aa "Planned lndugtrlal". ~he propo=tion of o[fice space in bulldinG~ constructe~ for research and development u~e~ is o~ten much higher, eonetimea as much as ~i[ty percen ~! the area of the bGllding, l~ the General Plan in fact ~tll licit the pro~rtion of office ~pace-as it see~ to, research and development-typ~ uses and other light indus~gial u~en ~lGht be excluded from the Planned Inaustgial area, ~e urge you to avoid aucb a result by ~akin9 it clea~ that auch uze~ would bo permltte~, Pror~ed Indu~trial Policies Nos. 59 and 60 ~ay al~o unfairly impact lndumtrial p~operty. We understand that th~ provide: Buildin~ covera.ge--on--an¥ in~,~.tr-tal lot should not exceed rt[t7 (5o) percent. At lea~t ten (!~)) percent of each building mite ~hou}d be land~c-~ed. ~e ~ugGest that these coverage ~atio~ may not be appropriate in all ca~e~. ~ agree that-sufficient off-~tree~ parking- ~paces ~hott!d be provided in light of a but]ding'~ u~ Policy 61), but st{Gg~st that for w~rehousing an$ dtstribI;tion umeg, a coverage ratio of more than ~ifty percent with than ten percent oi the lot land,caped may be quite approprl&te. ~e urge you to ~ake it clear-that the coverage and land~capin9 will be flexible ~o that you will not arbitrarily exclude deaireable p~oJect~ which might otherwise be aoceptable.. Thank you fcr your considcration. Very t~uly CC = ~r. Louis Dell'Angola Director of Community Development Robert J. ~ylan, E~q. Amert. c&n Can Company 6/22/83 Page 5 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Continued discussion of the General Plan. 1. Discussion to resolve the question of West Park 1 and 2 (Callan). signs; amortization schedule to remove signs, etc. Mr. Ron Beals spoke of the policies that dealt with off-site signs and the call for elimination of the signs and asked that the Council look favorably upon the need for outdoor advertising. He spoke in detail of the history of signs and billboards and stated that this was the oldest form of communications that was used world-wide. He spoke of Policy 37 and 38 which stated that all outside advertising should be removed - which he felt did not leave room for argument nor did the policy that no new advertising signs should be allowed. Councilwoman Teglia questioned whether no new signs being permitted in the City would be defensible in Court. City Attorney Rogers stated that he had recommended some softening language to address that subject because of the problems most cities were having in trying to defend the policy of no new signs. Discussion followed on the wordage being absolete and locking the City out from acting in the future; legal standing on non-conforming signs, etc. Director of Community Development Dell'Angela stated that Staff had looked at Mr. Callan's contention that under the 1966 General Plan and Ordinance No. 511, that there are certain rights to build the 186 units on Carter Drive and was consistent with the General Plan. He stated that Mr. Callan sold 23.5 acres of the West Park area to the State in 1969 for over a million dollrs and sold the right to build a fixed number of units allocated to this area by the General Plan and Ordinance 511. He spoke in great detail of the project and concluded by saying that in his opinion there was no basis for a finding of General Plan consistency with either Mr. Callan's current 132 unit project or his con- templated 186 unit project. 6/22/83 Page 6 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 1. Discussion to resolve the question of West Park i and 2 (Callan). RECESS: RECALL TO ORDER: e Consideration of an Alternate Urgency Ordinance "Prohibiting Uses Which May Conflict with Zoning Proposals Related to General Plan Amendments." Mr. Tom Vlasic, Planner, stated that when Council reviewed Mr. Callan's letter of 6/22/83 and other information it would find that there was a consistency to allow a use permit for 186 units. He spoke in detail of gross residential acres; that a density reduction is not needed to safely house people in the area; Mr. Callan's improvements and dedications; environmental issues; the plans that had been presented for West Park; determining permitted density on a site by site basis; the CUP process; that all public and private improvements necessary to support individual develop- ment units were made during the time period; that considerable geological study was done in the early '6Os; that a moral obligation exists for the City and Mr. Callan to live up to existing commitments. Discussion followed on the validity of the maps that had been exhibited; dedi- cated lands; configuration of the property; density; review of the former Planner's findings on the project; number of units to the acre; the fact that the Ordinance stated gross acreage; the Council giving an advisory vote to the Planning Commission that that body hear the proposal for the 186 unit develop- ment, etc. M/S Acosta/Nicolopulos - That Council allow Mr. Callan to present his 186 unit development to the Planning Commission as being in conformance with the existing General Plan. Carried by majority roll call vote, Teglia and Addiego voted no. Mayor Addiego declared a recess at 10:35 p.m. Mayor Addiego recalled the meeting to order at 10:39 p.m., all Council present. Consensus of Council - That this item be heard at the adjourned meeting of 6/23/83. 6/22/83 Page 7 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN GOOD AND WELFARE CLOSED SESSION RECALL TO ORDER: ADJOURNMENT: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ~attaya ~ City of South San Francisc6~ Councilman Acosta stated that he would be on vacation from 6/24/83to 7/8/83 and would not be in attendance at the 7/6/83 regular meeting. GOOD AND WELFARE No one chose to speak. Council adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:47 p.m. for the discussion of a per- sonnel matter. The meeting was recalled to order at 11:12 p.m., all Council present, no action taken. M/S Acosta/Damonte - That the meeting be adjourned to Thursday, 6/23/83, at 3:30 p.m., in the City Council Conference Room, City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco. Carried by unanimous voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at 11:13 p.m. APPROVED: Mark N. Addiego, City of South San Francisco 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 Offfice of the City Clerk and available for inspection, review and copying. 6/22/83 Page 8