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