Loading...
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