HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1984-03-03Mayor Mark N. Addiego
Vice Mayor Richard A. Haffey
Counci 1:
Emanuele N. Damonte
Gus Nicolopulos
Roberta Cerri Teglia
MINUTES
City Council
Municipal Services Building
Community Room
March 3, 1984
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the
State of California, that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a
Special Meeting on Saturday, the 3rd day of March, 1984, at 9:30 a.m., in the Municipal
Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting:
9:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m., Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South
San Francisco - Public Hearing with public testimony General Plan Amendment
- GP-82-20 - Land Use, Circulation and Transportation Elements. The
meeting will be recessed at 11:30 a.m., and will reconvene at 1:00 p.m., in
the City Council Conference Room, City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue, South San
Francisco.
II.
1:00 p.m. - City Council Conference Room, City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue,
South San Francisco - Continued Public Hearing and Council consideration of
the policies of the General Plan.
III.
Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of personnel matters, labor
relations and litigation·
~Ma..rk(N~ Add~e~o, Mayor /y/
City of South San Franciscd~
Dated: February 24, 1984
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
9:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m., Municipal
Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive,
South San Francisco - Public
Hearing with public testimony
General Plan Amendment - GP-82-20 -
ACTION TAKEN
SPECIAL MEETING
9:50 a.m. Mayor Addiego presiding.
Council present:
Council absent:
Nicolopulos, Teglia,
Haffey, Damonte and
Addiego.
None.
Recited.
3/3/84
Page i
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
I. 9:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. - Continued.
Land Use, Circulation and Trans-
portation Elements. The meeting
will be recessed at 11:30 a.m., and
will reconvene at 1:00 p.m., in the
City Council Conference Room, City
Hall, 400 Grand Avenue, South San
Francisco.
Mayor Addiego stated that this was the
4th in a series of meetings in regard to
the upcoming, updated General Plan. He
opened the Public Hearing and stated that
this was the opportunity for people
involved in the community to come forth
and make comment on the various policies
before Council in reference to the
General Plan. He stated that there would
be public testimony for two hours, then a
lunch break and the meeting would be
reconvened at 1:00 p.m., at the City Hall
Conference Room due to the Community Room
being scheduled for another function. He
stated that at City Hall Council would
assess the situation by accepting further
testimony and go on to review of the
individual policies. He stated that each
speaker should identify what policy he
was interested in and make his points;
sit down and then Staff will respond and
Council will weigh the testimony.
Mr. Raymond DeNardi, 453 Alhambra Road,
stated that he wanted to discuss the
General Plan as it related to the .46
acres on the southwest corner of Alida
and Ponderosa. He stated that on May 4,
1983, the Council approved Resolution
2322 which amended the old General Plan
from low density residential to medium
residential which is 15 units per acre.
He continued, that the proposed General
Plan now before Council was prepared
prior to Resolution No. 2322 being passed
and that the proposed General Plan pre-
sently showed the southwest corner of
Alida to be zoned low density. He stated
that based on Council's prior actions,
and all of the testimony he had put forth
was still valid at this time, and asked
that consideration be given to changing
that corner from low density residential
to the medium density residential
designation. He stated that the main
blunt of the agreement at the time was
that if the low density was allowed to
stand the triplex approved 3 years ago
became a non-conforming use.
3/3/84
Page 2
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
I. Public Hearing - Continued.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela agreed with Mr. DeNardi and
stated that that change should have been
put on the map. He stated that it was
proper to designate that property as
medium density.
Consensus of Council - That the Director
of Community Development should change
the document to read medium density.
Mr. Raymond Latham, President of the
Board of Trustees of the South San
Francisco Unified School District, read
his letter into the record to the
Council, which is attached and a per-
manent part of the minutes of this
meeting on Policy 8-10 and Policy 10 with
added language. He stated that the
schools in the District were all located
in residential areas and generate a great
amount of nighttime and daytime traffic
and uses with some schools were more
intensive than others. He spoke of the
problem of distinguishing between vacant
and non-vacant schools in relation to the
various events held at night, i.e., ath-
letic, cultural, performances, night
school and Board of Trustees meetings.
He stated that the examples given as
proper uses such as churches and day care
centers were contradictory to the
language of Policy 10, because those uses
generate traffic depending on what par-
ticular group has leased the vacant pro-
perty.
Councilwoman Teglia requested that Policy
10 be read with the added language.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated classrooms in vacant
schools should be limited to non-
intensive, light traffic generating, and
predominantly day-oriented uses. Day care
centers, governmental offices, churches,
private schools and any School District
authorized use should be allowed.
City Attorney Rogers stated that the
School District had the authority to
3/3/84
Page 3
ADMINISTRATION
Superintendent
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 398 "B" STREET BOARD OF TRUSTEES
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94080
(415) 877-8700 President
March 3, 1984
City Council of the
City of South San Francisco
Dear Council Members:
Vice President
Clerk
Member
Member
The Board of Trustees of the South San. Francisco Unified School District wishes
to express some concerns that it has with the adoption of the General Plan
which is before you for consideration this morning. First, let me state
that the Board of Trustees wishes to cooperate and to do all that it can
to be a "good neighbor." Let me state at the outset that our definition of
a "good neighbor" is one that works closely and cooperatively with the people
in a given area. With that in mind, we are in general agreement with most of
· the recommendations that are made in the General Plan.
However, as President of the Board of Trustees, I am compelled to address the
Council with my concerns that there be as few impediments as possible to the
operation of the schools in our district and this includes those schools which
are no longer operated for the purposes for which they were built. There are
some concerns that I have with regard to the proposals before Council. I wish
to make specific reference to Policy 8-10 and Policy 10. The Board of Trustees
-and Administration of the school system can live with the policies with just a
few modifications. I am recommending that Council give consideration to
modification of those policy proposals with the following language to be added:
"...and any school district authorized use."
The Board of Trustees, as you know, has both by practice and in law established
a committee of citizens to advise it regarding the proper use of facilities and
with a special concern regarding those facilities which are considered to be
"surplus." Our record indicates clearly for all that we hold public hearings
on requests for uses of a sustained period, and we have complied with the
regulations -stablished by the South San Francisco Planning Department with
regard to the obtaining of the necessary use permits. It is the feeling of the
Board of Trustees that we would reserve to ourselves the right to determine the
proper usages of our facilities bearing in mind, as I have stated at the outset,
that we wish to be a "good neighbor." We feel that some of the language expressed
in the policy proposals is restrictive of the Board's authority to manage and use
its property for the best interest of the School District and we request of Council
that in those two policy areas the amendment I am recommending to you be added.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
~incerely ~ 6"-
'Rayn~ond Lath'am, President
Board of Trustees
Minutes
3/3/84
Page3a
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
I. Public Hearing - Continued.
determine its own destiny on school pro-
perty and how to operate School District
property used for educational purposes.
He stated that if the School District
wanted to use their property for other
uses such as offices and health centers,
then the School District was subject to
local land use controls. He stated that
if the Council put a policy in the
General Plan that effectively says the
School District can do whatever it wants
to do with its property, and did not
limit it to educational purposes, the
City could be giving up its right to
control how that property is used in
relation to surrounding properties.
Discussion followed: the language pro-
posed by Mr. Latham was not favorable to
the City; that the language would give
the School District the opportunity to
use its property any way it chose without
consideration of the City's land use
policies.
Mr. Tom Gaffney, Superintendent of
Schools, stated that the District had
prepared the language very carefully for
Council consideration. He stated that
the District had a Committee of Citizens
who make recommendations to the Board and
that the Board then after public hearing
passes on the use it feels is proper for
the property. He stated that Mr.
Latham's letter indicated that the
District proceeds in accordance with the
policies of the City in relation to
permits whenever the use was outside of
the area of education. He stated that
the 1 anguage would al low 1 atitude to the
Board in relation to its use of its
facilities.
Discussion followed: that only a school
sponsored use was proper; that the Board
of Trustees was a property owner in this
City and should be handled the same as
any other property owner by the City;
that Councilman Damonte would not make
comment due to the
3/3/84
Page 4
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
I. Public Hearing - Continued.
fact that he was employed by the School
District; eliminating Policy 29; elimi-
nating the list of uses (the second sen-
tence in Policy 10); Policy 3-10 - the
reuse of Avalon and Southwood School
buildings should only include very
restrictive uses which are compatible
with adjacent neighborhoods; the reuse of
the Avalon and Southwood sites should be
compatible with the single family resi-
dential uses in the area; making the
language in Policy 8-10 consistent with
the language in Policy 9-1; day care
centers; number of residents per home;
the citizens committee making recommen-
dations to the Board of Trustees;
Director of Community Development advised
to work out adequate language to be
brought forward during the discussion
period.
Mr. Marshall Golokuhl spoke against
Policy 81, Hickey Boulevard extension to
Hillside Boulevard. He stated that he
managed the Treasure Island Trailer Court
and Hotel Corporation and that Plan A
would come through the trailer court. He
stated that most of the policies dealt
with providing low cost housing for
senior citizens, which the trailer court
was providing. He stated that policies
23, 25, 2, 5-6, 6-3 and 6-4 requires
upgrading for the apartment buildings
scattered throughout the City. He stated
that he provided housing for a cost of
$105.00 a month which was different than
anything else provided by the City. He
stated that the trailer court was clean,
well managed with a crime rate lower than
any other project in the City. He urged
the City to look at Plan B which would go
around the trailer court and would be
cheaper than going through the trailer
court.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that Plan A
was just one particular plan which had
not been adopted by the City Council.
Mr. Golokuhl stated that he had lived
3/3/84
Page 5
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
I. Public Hearing - Continued.
with the hatchet over his head and wished
that Hickey Boulevard would be removed
from consideration. He stated that he
was trying to purchase adjacent land to
add more units and had been told that as
long as Hickey Boulevard was being con-
sidered the City was unable to issue a
permit.
Councilman Damonte stated that the future
of the Hickey Boulevard Project was a
County project and that most of the land
involved was in Colma rather than South
San Francisco.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that Mr. Golokuhl was
asking that Plan A be eliminated and Plan
B stand. He felt that if a major
thoroughfare was a long term goal of the
City and was built the Council would be
irresponsible to allow more units to be
built, then turn around and have to teac-
quire the improved property.
Discussion followed on whether the City
wanted the extension of Hickey Boulevard;
where manufactured and mobile homes
should be allowed in the City - Policy
27; whether the Hickey Boulevard exten-
sion would relieve cross town traffic,
etc.
Mr. Jack Stuppin, principal of Treasure
Island Trailer Court spoke against Policy
81, and stated that the trailer court
provided housing for the elderly and low
income people. He stated that condem-
nation would be an enormous expense for
the City. He stated that the triangular
piece of property his firm wished to
purchase was dead space next to Colma
Creek which when constructed could offer
more housing.
Discussion followed on other
alternatives: Holly, Grand Avenue and
Plan B; that the County had the project
on its planning list and had removed it,
etc.
3/3/84
Page 6
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
I. Public Hearing - Continued.
Paul M. Hupf, Esq., said he represented
Foster and Kleiser. He stated that
Policy 37 called for the removal of all
outdoor structures and Policy 38 prohi-
bits further outdoor advertising struc-
tures with a conflicting provision of the
relocation of certain signs. He stated
that Policy 1-8 calls for the removal of
signs on Airport Boulevard; Policy 8-5
says no additional billboards in the
future, they would be phased out. He
spoke of Policies 9-10, 3-5 D-18. He
stated that all of the Policies mentioned
were in conflict with California Law and
Federal Law and are not enforcible for
that reason. He stated that outdoor
advertising is a commercial business
activity which is constitutional and
lawful as defined by the State of
California. He continued, the use of
property adjacent to highways was lawful
and proper and addressed issues locally
and statewide. He stated that the'adver-
tiser did not have to pay for anything
other than the circulation he desires for
the product, which is not the case for
newspapers. He spoke of the First
Amendment protection and the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States
Constitution. He spoke in great detail
about the broad policy statements that
appear in the proposed general plan
having been litigated in the case of
Metro Media vs. San Diego. He went
through a long explanation of the case
involving the prohibition of all adver-
tising structures and their removal in
five years which had been challenged in
the courts. He stated that in the final
analysis the Court found the Ordinance to
be unconstitutional and that legislation
was adopted, as a moratorium on all liti-
gation pending in California, which
suspended three hundred lawsuits. He
stated that the Committee recommended to
Governor Jerry Brown that compensation be
paid for the removal of the structures
and that had become the law of the State
of California on January 1, 1983. He
stated that a City could remove outdoor
3/3/84
Page 7
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
I. Public Hearing - Continued.
advertising structures if it adopts an
Ordinance that properly deals with First
Amendment rights and secondly calls for
the payment of compensation. He con-
tinued, phasing out was generally
understood to mean the removal without
payment of compensation or the concept of
amortization which has now been held to
be invalid and nonenforceable so far as
outdoor advertising structures are
concerned.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that the
Council was dealing with a policy state-
ment which would follow all of the defi-
nitions and all of the Federal and State
laws.
Mr. Paul Hupf, Esq., stated that the
policy flies in the fact of the Federal
and State laws and constitutional protec-
tion when it calls for the removal of all
outdoor advertising structures without
any showing of compelling public
necessity for that to be done. He stated
that that was invading an area that has
constitutional protections and that was
why the San Diego Ordinance was found to
be invalid. He stated that Policy 37 was
a very broad general statement of prohi-
bition which was an invalid statement.
Discussion followed on the general policy
statement without an Ordinance; setting
policies in the hope the law would
change.
City Attorney Rogers stated that he did
not think that the policy statement was
in violation of either Federal or State
law. He stated that the policy statement
was so flexible and so broad that it
merely stated the desire to achieve a
certain end.
Mr. Michael Callan, 82 Isabella,
Atherton, spoke of Policy 1 which he
agreed with and spoke of his property on
Sweetwood that according to the Policy
would have to be two properties because
3/3/84
Page 8
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 285
Public Hearing- Continued.
(Cassette No. 2)
of the grade. He stated that Policy 5,
day care center, would be a good use for
his property in Westborough, at the foot
of a park as it was a flat lot good for
handicapped. He stated that Policy 29
indicated that that was the area for day
care centers.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that a day
care center could be put on any piece of
property that was suitable.
Mr. Callan stated that he agreed with
Policy 16 but he though it should include
waterscapes.
Discussion followed on various project
amenities.
Mr. Callan spoke of Policy 10-1 and asked
that a comma be put after condominiums
because townhouses have a different con-
notation than townhouses. He stated that
Policy S-1 should include marinas. He
spoke of the land use element he stated
that the density of 30 units per net acre
conflicted with Ordinance No. 511, he
stated that he would rather have the
words gross acre rather than net acre.
Mr. James W. Basin, McDonalds, addressed
the Policies 32 and 1-10. He requested
that the words "allowed only" be replaced
with the word "encouraged" in Policy 32
which would make it less restrictive and
allow fast food restaurants in areas
other than E1 Camino Real to allow
McDonald Restaurants future opportunities
to locate.
Mayor Addiego stated that the existing
fast food restaurants such as McDonald's,
Ben Franks and Jack in the Box do not
work in traffic circulation.
Mr. Basin stated that the burden would
lay upon the applicant to prove that the
traffic circulation in a new area would
work. He stated concern that the poli-
cies adopted would stand future Councils
3/3/84
Page 9
I. Public Hearing - Continued.
(Cassette No. 2)
RECESS:
RECONVENED:
II.
1:00 p.m. - Continued Public
Hearing and Council consideration
of the policies of the General Plan.
and Planning Commissions and would say
the policy is clear and will not deviate
from the wording adopted in the General
Plan. He stated that if the Council did
not like the word "encourage" perhaps it
could strike out the word "only" in
Policy 32 which would achieve the purpose
for the duration of the General Plan.
He requested that the wording in Policy
1-10, "quality sit down," should be
struck because the wording was ambiquous
and he felt that McDonalds food was
quality wholesome food.
Mayor Addiego stated that the language
could be rewritten to define food con-
sumed on the restaurant premises and food
consumed in a car to make it more
restrictive.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that the important
part of the policy was the second sen-
tence not the first sentence Mr. Basin
wanted to change.
Discussion followed on the definition of
quality restaurants.
Mr. Basin further requested that line two
of Policy 1-10 which read "should not be
permitted" should read "should not be
encouraged" to allow more flexibility.
Mayor Addiego declared a recess at 11:50
aomo
Mayor Addiego reconvened the meeting
at 1:20 p.m., at the City Council
Conference Room, City Hall.
Mrs. Joy Ann Wendler, President Avalon,
Brentwood Homeowners Association, spoke
of Policies 29, 10 and 8-13. She stated
that Policy 8-13 preserving the low den-
sity, single family character of the
neighborhood and vacant classrooms should
be limited to non-intensive light traffic
generated uses, should be adopted by
3/3/84
Page 10
AG E N D A A C T I 0 N T AK E N 287
II.
Public Hearing and consideration
of the policies of the General
Plan - Continued.
the Council. She stated that Policy 10
spoke of daycare uses and said that there
were three daycare centers in Avalon and
they worked very well. She stated that
the organization urged the Council to
adopt Policy 28 which is reuse of surplus
school sites should be consistent with the
residential land use designation and com-
patible uses in the surrounding area.
She stated that she agreed with the
listing of organizations as outlined in
Policy 29 and felt they were compatible
and would give a basis for the future in
the event problems arose. She stated
that she agreed with Policies 8-10 and
8-13 and hoped the Council would adopt
the Policies. She stated that the open
space description did not mention Avalon
Park, which is called Avalon Lots, and if
that was one of the four places mentioned
that it would be considered for open
space with the name changed to Avalon
Park.
Councilwoman Teglia apprised Mrs. Wendler
that representatives of the School
District had spoken this morning asking
the opposite - that the specific uses be
eliminated and substitute the wording that
all school authorized uses would be
permitted.
Mrs. Wendler stated that Southwood and
Buri Buri, feel very strongly that the
uses should be very restrictive and that
the cities of Burlingame and Millbrae
felt the same and were very protective of
the neighborhoods.
Mr. William Ryan, Pacific Gas & Electric
Company, spoke of Policies 52 and 1-11
and stated that most of PG&E's rights-of-
way had been developed for parking which
was a good way to use the land under long
term uses.
Dr. Charles Bona, 1131 Mission Road,
spoke of Policies 80 and 81, traffic cir-
culation and land use at Mission Road
which was a concern he had discussed
3/3/84
Page 11
II.
Public Hearing and consideration
of the policies of the General
Plan - Continued.
at many Planning and Council meetings to
alleviate the circulation and traffic
congestion. He commended the Staff,
Council and Planning Commission for their
attention and efforts that had developed
his confidence over attention finally
being given to the General Plan and
relieving the traffic congestion through
the Policies 80 and 81 as set forth to be
adopted. He suggested that only alter-
native "B" of the Hickey Boulevard
Extension and/or Oak Avenue Extension be
considered at this time as the Hickey
Boulevard Extension has been on a General
Plan for over 20 years and is no closer
to becoming a reality now than it was
then. He stated that Chestnut was a cir-
culation route; that construction on
Mission Road compounded a bad situation;
that the Oak Avenue Extension would alle-
viate the traffic flow and allow access
to the North County Facility and Kaiser
Hospital.
Joe Tevini, Esq., stated that he was
speaking on behalf of his client Joe
Pasco on Policy 50 and suggested the
following language be substituted, "The
possibility of problems with cardrooms
will be regulated with a reasonable and
comprehensive cardroom ordinance.
Cardrooms will be encouraged to cooperate
with the City's growth and the vitality
of the downtown area. No new
cardrooms/clubs will be allowed in the
community absent the approval of the
electors." He stated that both he and
hi scl ient were confused with the clause
"phased out" and its intent.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that the policy reads
that the existing two cardrooms should be
considered existing legal non-conforming
uses and not be allowed to expand in the
area or be relocated to another area of
town; and no new cardrooms should be
established in the City until or unless a
majority of the electors so effect.
3/3/84
Page 12
II.
AGENDA
Public Hearing and consideration
of the policies of the General
Plan - Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
Joe Tevini, Esq., stated he did not
understand what that meant. He stated
that he thought the City wanted his client
to move after he had gone through a lot
of expense on that premise.
Mayor Addiego stated that a move would be
of benefit to Mr. Tevini's client and
would entail expansion which was not a
part of the policy.
City Attorney Rogers stated that the
whole idea of whether the City wanted the
cardrooms to move or not was a misunder-
standing. He stated that Staff wanted
a statement from the Council to encourage
cardrooms or phase cardrooms out - one or
the other so Staff would know how to
maintain the existing ones with non-
conforming uses. He stated that the
philosophy was moving to discourage
cardrooms rather than the other. He
stated that the policy was developed so
that the cardrooms could not relocate as
of January i of this year. He explained
that the City did not have an ordinance
that authorized cardrooms and that there
were two cardrooms treated as lawful non-
conforming uses. He continued, if the
cardrooms were relocated they would be
new uses on a parcel and State Law says
they must go to the voters for expansion
of the business.
Joe Tevini, Esq., rebutted the City
Attorney's interpretation of the new
Business and Professions Code to mean
that expansion had to go before the
voters.
City Attorney Rogers explained the
options available to the City if Mr.
Pasco tried to expand his business on the
present parcel: turn it down; put con-
ditions on the expansion; if the busi-
ness was discontinued for six months or
more the use dies; relocation would mean
a new use,
Councilman Nicolopulos stated that he
liked Mr. Tevini's new wordage and felt
3/3/84
Page 13
II.
AGENDA
Public Hearing and consideration
of the policies of the General
Plan - Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
it gave everyone an opportunity to deal
with the situation and favored retention
of the two cardrooms; that an election
would allow the citizenry to determine
their destiny gracefully; that an ordin-
ance had to be drafted to set up regu-
latory controls.
Mayor Addiego stated that he understood
that without a City ordinance to regulate
the business it fell under State law.
City Attorney Rogers responded that State
law says that cities that have not per-
mitted gaming clubs prior to 1/1/84 can-
not allow gaming clubs to locate in the
City without a vote of the people first
and they specify what the ballot measure
is to say. He stated that in his opinion
relocation of the cardrooms from one par-
cel to another is allowing a new use to
be established and that that was created
by the Business and Professions Code.
Joe Tevini, Esq., stated that he was in
opposition to that, however he would be
happy to ask for declaratory relief and
ask for the Court to interpret this at
his own expense. He stated that he felt
the City Attorney's opinion was a great
distortion of that Code and an undue bur-
den on the cardrooms.
City Attorney Rogers stated he had talked
to the legislative people who had put it
together and with Counsel in Sacramento
and had been assured that that was the
intent behind the law.
Councilman Damonte stated that Mr. Hupf
had stated that you could not legislate
against sign boards, that it was a law of
the State that you could not do this. He
stated that the City Attorney had been
willing to challenge that and now a law
just a little bit different and he does
not want to challenge it.
3/3/84
Page 14
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
II.
Public Hearing and consideration
of the policies of the General
P1 an - Continued.
City Attorney Rogers stated in detail the
differences between the cardrooms and
billboards advertising and cited State
law, Federal law and Court actions.
Joe Tevini, Esq., stated that he had also
spoken to the Attorney General's Office
and the people who had drafted the
legislation. He stated that if the
Council would read the legislation they
would find that it only speaks to
cardrooms after a cutoff date and does
not address expansion or movement - only
talks about new cardrooms.
City Attorney Rogers stated that he did
not maintain that expansion violates
State law on the site within the provi-
sions of the use permit process for non-
conforming uses. He stated that the last
sentence of Policy 50, as proposed by the
Staff, does say that uses should not be
allowed to expand. He felt that that
would control.if someone came in for a
use permit under the non-conforming use
provisions for expansion it would be in
conflict with the last sentence of the
policy which he did not believe State law
mandated.
Councilman Damonte questioned that if the
electorate changed this would the City
then go back and change the zoning to
allow this use in an area.
City Attorney Rogers stated that his
advise if the issue was going to be taken
to the electorate was that he would have
anordinance behind it for the Council to
pass specifying where the uses could go,
regulating the use in terms of size,
number and how they would operate. He
stated that if the voters voted against
cardrooms it would not remove the two
existing cardrooms because the were
covered as non-conforming uses.
Joe Tevini, Esq., stated that another
issue that Staff had raised was that the
cardrooms were a vitality issue, which he
stated was probably true of the area. He
said his client had gone to great expense
3/3/84
Page 15
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
II.
Public Hearing and consideration
of the policies of the General
Plan - Continued.
to try to raze the place and build a new
project with senior citizen rentals and
the plan had not been to expand the size
but rebuild. He stated that the cardroom
and bar would be downstairs with apart-
ments upstairs for senior citizens. He
stated that his client had been told he
was in conflict and could not upgrade in
that way. He stated that by not being
allowed to upgrade the business to pro-
duce new revenue placed a financial bur-
den on his client. He stated that all
conversations with Staff had been on the
potential problems of cardrooms, most
specifically in Los Angeles. He
believed that small cardrooms presented
no more of a problem than any cocktail
room or a bar.
Police Chief Datzman stated that the
Pasco brothers were concerned with 1993
being written into the General Plan and
when it was removed there was concern as
to what it meant. He spoke of Staff's
efforts to sit down with the Pascos in
various meetings with their attorneys to
solve differences between the two
businesses.
Joe Tevini, Esq., stated he was still
confused about the Sunset law and if Mr.
Pasco died and you could pass on the
business - that was fine. He stated that
his client was without offspring and
heirs, so the business will only survive
as long as he does which was a lot dif-
ferent than the other Pasco business.
Councilman Damonte stated that the Pasco
family has the reputation of running
very fine establishments and because of
the way they run their businesses there
has not been much involvement with the
law. He stated that his understanding
was that the cardrooms would stay within
the family and would not be passed off to
any other operator or person.
City Attorney Rogers stated that he had
informed the Pascos on the subject of
transfer, that a lawful pre-existent non-
conforming use is something that you can
3/3/84
Page 16
AGE,D^ ^CT O, T^KE.
II.
Public Hearing and consideration
of the policies of the General
Plan - Continued.
(Cassette No. 3)
sell or lease or alienate and the regula-
tions were contained in the Municipal
Code as to whether or not the use could
be transferred - which in the case of
cardrooms could not be transferred.
Discussion followed: an example of phase
out if the use was discontinued for six
months then the use was no longer lawful;
that it would take an ordinance to phase
out cardrooms; by leaving the last sen-
tence of Policy 50 in tact it would
effectively phase out cardrooms; spot
checks of cardroom activities in the past
six months; and that Mr. Tevini's client
had only had one card game in six months
and that the other cardrooms have had no
less than four card tables going.
Joe Tevini, Esq., stated that his client
was over sixty, not in good health and
felt that if a sound ordinance was
adopted it would alleviate the concerns
over crime. He stated that if the
cardrooms were phased out there should be
payment by the City to the Pasco
brothers.
Tom Callan, 2790 Junipero Serra
Boulevard, Daly City stated that in his
experience during the lunch break he
discovered that when you talk about a
quality restaurant maybe the Council
should consider a person's pocketbook and
their ability to eat.
He stated that Policy 10-3, that his
attorney had addressed on June 22, 1983,
wherein a letter had been exchanged with
the City stating that Mr. Callan was
developing his property, Westborough, in
the County. He continued, in developing
the land in the County he had a general
plan that was approved by the County and
if the City wanted to review that plan
and had not objections he had been
willing to have his land become a member
of the City. He stated that the City had
accepted that plan and the property and
presented a map that showed the property
zoned R-3 by San Mateo County. He stated
that this square mile was uninhabited and
he had employed four different land
3/3/84
Page 17
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
II.
Public Hearing and consideration
of the policies of the General
Plan - Continued.
planners to come in with a plan as to
what would be the best, highest use of
that property. He stated that the plans by
the four planners show the best use of
the property was to be a school or a
park. He stated that City Planner Anita
Robinson wrote to the City Manager and
said that the Staff and Department Heads
would find no objection to having the
land come into the City. He stated that
Councilwoman Teglia knew of the fifteen
acres being donated to the City on
October 24, 1963 at the time of the
annexation. He stated that the
Westborough land had been zoned for
apartments and he had paid taxes accor-
dingly, as time went on the 15 acres was
not available as anticipated and ten
acres was made available to the City for
park purposes. He stated that during
this stage he had been notified that the
City was going to rezone his property
from R-3 to R-1 and the Council at that
time adopted the general plan with the
zoning change. He continued, at that
time the apartment activity was not
bustling, Mr. Pasch was in Court with him
at that time and testified before Judge
Carter and Mr. Pasch told him he could
get 240 units on that property in 1975.
He stated that Councilwoman Teglia had
questioned why he had not come forth and
questioned the rezoning, yet the only
time he could come forth was when Council
was considering a new general plan; and
that was why Mr. Adams had come forth at
the June 22, 1983 meeting. He stated
that the agreement that had been reached
with related documents in City files; and
he felt that he had lived up to his end
of the stipulation; and since the land
was vacant and zoned; and the zoning had
been taken away from him; that he had
found no objections from the community to
the zone change from R-3 to R-1 which had
been done without a great public outcry.
He stated that he was here today because
of a statement Councilwoman Teglia had
made - that if anyone in our City can
show that they were not treated fairly,
come forth and we will certainly look
into the situation.
3/3/84
Page 18
II.
AGENDA
Public Hearing and consideration
of the policies of the General
Plan - Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
He requested that the Council refresh
their memories and say here we had dif-
ferent planners saying this property
should be zoned R-3 - and urged the
Council to restore the zoning back to R-3
with the idea in mind that he had to go
back to the Planning Commission and give
him an opportunity to get back what they
had prior to the annexation to this
community.
Discussion followed on the zone change;
the 15 acre donation; the general plan
adoption; why Mr. Callan at the time did
not object to the zoning change.
Mr. Callan stated that today in this
hearing there were less than 50 people
whose land was vitally affected who came
and chose to address Council, yet many
others affected were not aware or in
attendance. He stated again that this
was unjustly done to him and asked for
reconsideration.
He stated that Policy 10-6 in the
Planning Commission Minutes did not
address his presentation on that Policy.
He stated that Mr. Adams had addressed
this Policy at the June meeting, which
was eliminating his legal right to access
to his property. He stated that
Westborough had been installed by private
funds and that a property owner has the
legal right to access to his property.
He stated that the Chief of Police had
stated today that he was not coming
before the Council with something that is
not consistent with the general plan and
general policies statement. He requested
that the Council not put in the policy
statement that there shall be no access
off of Westborough Boulevard. He stated
that when the McDonald's Restaurant was
considered City Staff, at that time
knowing that he wanted to develop the
property had insisted on a 6" of land
donated to the City so that he would not
have legal ownership to the property. He
stated that he had rejected that and had
gone to the Planning Commission and the
Council with the position that any person
3/3/84
Page 19
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
II.
Public Hearing and consideration
of the policies of the General
Plan - Continued.
should have a legal right to make an
applicationfor access to their property.
He stated that if the Council adopted the
policy the Police Chief would be saying
to every Staff member and every Council
in the future that we have a policy sta-
tement and we must live up to that policy
statement. He stated that the policy
statements were serious and could be very
damaging to property owners. He stated
that in the last four years he had lost
three or four businesses because of not
being able to give them access to
Westborough Boulevard. He stated that he
had taken the position with Staff that he
would make every effort to try to develop
the land so that he would not ask for
access. He continued, that he may come
back some day and ask for access to
Westborough Boulevard and he did not feel
that the Council should pass that policy
statement carte blanche.
He commented that if the City was having
problems with drive-in windows why was it
being allowed south of Westborough
Boulevard. He stated that Policy 46 sta-
tes medium and high rise office buildings
4 to 20 stories high should only be con-
sidered east of the Bayshore Freeway. He
questioned why they could not build
across from the Municipal Services
Building or in other locations in the
City and relook at the General Plan.
Dr. Stalteri spoke with encouragement of
the City Council resolving the problem
with the Pasco family.
Mr. A1 Pasco stated that he still did not
understand the term phasing out. He
stated that his brother Joe was not
operating his cardroom because he could
not find competent people.
City Attorney Rogers reiterated his
earlier explanations to Mr. Pasco.
Ms. Jan Pont, 111 Belmont Avenue,
questioned the neighborhood shopping
center and car wash in Policy 2-15, which
was a real eyesore and should be cleaned
3/3/84
Page 20
AGENDA ACTZON TAKEN
II.
Public Hearing and consideration
of the policies of the General
Plan - Continued.
up. She stated that she was concerned
with Terra Bay like Policy i and 4, and
felt that the City would have a great
liability on its hands if it accepted a
Terra Bay problem. She stated that she
lived next to the Mountain and knew of
the problems of the land frequently
shifting and asked that the City take a
long hard look at the situation before
taking on any liabilities.
Ms. Pat Elliott, 107 Linden Avenue,
stated that she and her partner Kathy
Wimsat had a problem with traffic on
Baden and Third Lane. She presented pic-
tures of semis and heavy trucks that were
causing problems for Kathy's Restaurant
and with other merchants in the area bet-
ween 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. She felt
that in the policies there should be one
stating that heavy truck deliveries
should be revamped with designated times
of delivery.
Discussion followed on the pictures with
trucks jack knifed or blocking the alley
and Linden; restrict the larger vehicles
to public streets rather than alleys;
illegal u-turns; backing up problems;
etc.
Mr. Joe Stamatis spoke on Policy 8-10 and
stated that recently the School District
had advertised for new uses for the
multi-purpose room which included a
theatre with nighttime productions. He
stated that the performances would begin
at 7:30 p.m., to 10:30 p.m. and expressed
concern that there were only 23 parking
spaces available; that the streets are
narrow; that the upper parking lot was
unlit which would impact the neighborhood
with traffic. He requested it be changed
to read - any, because the residents of
the area are not happy with the leasing
of schools. He stated that with the
schools closing down maybe the buildings
should be sold and revert to an R-1 zone.
He stated that the permitted uses should
be park and recreation activities, even
though he had heard good things about the
ART-Rise productions.
3/3/84
Page 21
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
II.
Public Hearing and consideration
of the policies of the General
Plan - Continued.
RECESS:
RECALL TO ORDER:
(Cassette No. 4)
Discussion followed on the compatability
of uses with the neighborhood; that there
were six churches in the area with night
services; reiteration of the School
District's requests that had been in
opposition to Mr. Stamatis requests;
buffer zones at Avalon Park
maintained between high density and
residential areas, that other cities do
not allow night uses in their schools;
the density issue of Mr. Poletti's
recently annexed property that has a
buffer next to Avalon.
Mayor Addiego declared a recess at 3:10
p.m.
Mayor Addiego recalled the meeting to
order at 3:20 p.m., all Council present.
Mayor Addiego closed the Public Hearing.
City Manager Birkelo requested the
Council to adjourn the regular Council
meeting of March 14, 1984 to March 21,
1984 at 4:30 p.m., at City Hall for
discussion of the General Plan Policies;
tentatively schedule the Police
Department's goals and objectives for
March 24, 1984 at 10:00 a.m.
Discussion followed on the changed poli-
cies going before the Planning Commission
before formal adoption by the Council on
March 28, 1984; having a joint special
meeting with the Planning Commission
before adoption of the General Plan.
Consensus of Council - To adjourn the
March 14, 1984 meeting to March 21, 1984
at 4:30 p.m., at City Hall and the goals
and objectives set for March 24, 1984 at
10:00 a.m., at City Hall.
Councilman Damonte stated that he would
be out of town from April 11, 1984
through Easter.
Councilwoman Teglia reminded the Council
that April 26, 1984 would be Government
Day.
3/3/84
Page 22
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 239
III.
Closed Session for the purpose of
the discussion of personnel
matters, labor relations and
litigation.
RECALL TO ORDER:
ADJOURNMENT:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Council adjourned to a Closed Session for
the discussion of litigation at 3:50 p.m.
Mayor Addiego recalled the meeting to
order at 4:10 p.m., all Council present,
no action taken.
M/S Addiego/Damonte - That the meeting be
adjourned.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:12 p.m.
APPROVED:
City of South San Francisco
Mark ~. Addieg~ Mayor~
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 Office
of the City Clerk and available for inspection, review and copying
3/3/84
Page 23