HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1984-04-11Mayor Mark N. Addiego
Vice Mayor Richard A. Haffey
Council:
Emanuele N. Damonte
Gus Nicolopulos
Roberta Cerri Teglia
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
(Cassette No. 1)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
INVOCATION:
i--AGENDA REVIEW
City Manager Birkelo requested:
- Add Item No. 9a. Request to waive
permit fee for the Santo Christo
parade on 5/27/84.
- Carry over Item No. 13 to the next
meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMUNITY FORUM
MINUTES
City Council
Municipal Services Building
Community Room
April 11, 1984
5
ACTION TAKEN
7:37 p.m. Mayor Addiego presiding.
Council present:
Council absent:
Nicolopulos, Haffey,
Teglia and Addiego.
Damonte.
Councilman Damonte had stated at the
3/14/84 meeting that he would not be in
attendance at tonight's meeting.
Recited.
Rev. Tulafono F. Solaitta, First Samoan
Methodist Church, gave the invocation.
AGENDA REVIEW
Approved.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Lawrence Pera, 758 Baden Ave., spoke
of senior cards given to individuals by
Yellow Cab Co.; a legislative correspon-
dence concerning the killing of seals and
that the government was subsidizing it;
the government taking Medicare and
Medical away from the poor, etc.
COMMUNITY FORUM
Councilman Nicolopulos announced that the
Alessandro Volt~ Lodge was holding its
37th annual dinner dance on 4/21/84 at
the State Theater in the evening. He
stated that the Kiwanis Club would hold a
pancake sale on 5/6/84 from 8:00 a.m. to
1:00 p.m. and encouraged citizens to buy
tickets.
4/11/84
Page i
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of the Special Meeting of
3/3/84, Regular Meeting of 3/14/84,
Adjourned Regular Meeting of
3/21/84, Special Meeting of 3/21/84
and the Regular Meeting of 3/28/84.
Staff Report 4/11/84 recommending by
Motion to reject the late claim
application for leave to file a
late claim against the City as
filed by Isaac Bernard Haynie
alleging defamation of character,
intrusion on his right to privacy,
emotional distress, false arrest
and violation of his civil rights
as the result of an incident
involving members of the South San
Francisco Police Department.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
3. Approval of the Regular Bills of
4/11/84.
CITY MANAGER
e
Staff Report 4/11/84 recommending
adoption of a Resolution accepting
and approving a Memorandum of
Understanding for Unit No. 8,
Confidential Employees 9/1/83 -
6/30/84.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND
APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDER-
STANDING UNIT NO. 8, CONFIDENTIAL
EMPLOYEES SEPTEMBER 1, 1983 - JUNE
30, 1984.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approved.
So ordered.
M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To approve the
Consent Calendar.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To approve the
Regular Bills of 4/11/84 in the amount of
$925,498.55.
Carried by unanimous voice vote. Mayor
Addiego did not participate or vote in
the matter of the claim of Brentwood
Market.
CITY MANAGER
M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 47-84
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
4/11/84
Page 2
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
.... COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of
an Ordinance amending Sections
20.66.030 and 20.66.050 of the
South San Francisco Municipal Code
regarding theater use in the PCM
zoning districts.
Staff Report 4/11/84 recommending:
1) Open the Public Hearing and hear
testimony; 2) Close the Public
Hearing; 3) Motion to waive further
reading of the Ordinance; 4) Motion
to introduce the ordinance on
theater use in the PCM zoning
districts.
1st Reading/Introduction
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS
20.66.030 AND 20.66.050 OF THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
AND SECTION 4.42 OF ORDINANCE NO.
353, ENTITLED "THE ZONING ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO"
AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO.'S 553
AND 712
Public Hearing - UP-83-652/Robert
Leech, to consider the appeal of
the Planning Commission's decision
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mayor Addiego opened the Public Hearing.
Director of Community Development
Dell 'Angela stated that the proposed
ordinance would include theatres as one
of the uses requiring a use permit in the
PCM Zone and a proposal for a theatre was
anticipated on the PCM zoned property
along Noor Avenue.
Mayor Addiego invited anyone wishing to
speak in favor of the Ordinance to step
to the dais - no one chose to speak. He
then invited anyone wishing to speak in
opposition of the Ordinance to step to
the dais - no one chose to speak. He
then closed the Public Hearing.
Councilman Nicolopulos expressed concern
that he had not been privy to a theatre
project coming into the City and felt
that three members of the Council were
aware or a party to discussions of the
subject.
Mayor Addiego stated that Daly City
Councilman Teglia knew that Snufy
Enterprises was interested in acquiring a
new theatre and had given contact people
names in South San Francisco. He stated
that Snufy Enterprises had contacted
Councilwoman Teglia and the Planning
Department, who in turn had discussed the
matter with himself.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that she had
reported on this matter at a public
meeting.
M/S Teglia/Haffey - To waive further
reading of the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Teglia/Haffey - To introduce the
Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that the Council had
4/11/84
Page 3
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6. Public Hearing - Continued.
on 1/12/84 to construct a 6,085
square foot, 2-story automobile
the existing auto rental facility
at 435 South Airport Blvd. in the
M-2 Heavy Industrial Zone District
- Continued from 3/14/84.
Staff Report 4/11/84 recommending:
1) Continue the Public Hearing and
hear testimony; 2) Close Public
Hearing; 3) Motion to deny the
appeal based on the findings.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
heard the issue before and had referred
the matter back to the Planning
Commission for a use permit review. He
continued, the Planning Commission had
held a public hearing and on January 12,
1984 approved the use permit and that a
January 13, 1984 letter from Mr. Leech's
attorney, Mr. Becker, was received
appealing the decision. He stated that
there was no indication as to which
aspects of the use permit approval were
being appealed. He stated that specu-
lation was that the items of appeal were:
1) the need for a use permit; 2) Special
Condition No. 6, regarding the storage of
vehicles; and 3) Special Condition No. 7
regarding fencing. He stated this matter
before the Council had been continued
many times at the request of Attorney
Becker.
Mayor Addiego questioned if there was a
justification for this use in the area
for the rental cars and whether there
were provisions to assure that the ser-
vicing of automobiles will be limited to
the fleet and not employee and friends
cars.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that Special Condition
No. 6 stated that only fleet service
automobiles shall be stored on this site
and no exterior storage of automobiles
for salvage purposes on the site. He
stated that the City was very restrictive
in allowing this type of use in only cer-
tain locations. He stated that the City
Attorney had suggested amending the
wording in Special Condition No. 6 by
adding in wording that there shall be no
storage, only fleet vehicles shall be
serviced or stored.
Jeffrey Becker, Esq., stated that the
meeting agenda requested a motion to deny
the appeal based on the findings without
questioning how much it was going to cost
his client to build the fence which the
Planning Commission felt was unpleasing
to the eye whether it was concrete or
wood. He continued, since the Planning
4/11/84
Page 4
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6. Public Hearing - Continued.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Commission required Mr. Leech, as a con-
dition to building his second building
that was approved in 1978, that he put up
a six foot high fence. He stated that Mr.
Leech went out and got some estimates.
He continued, the estimate for the cost
of the second building, which was the
subject of a development permit that Mr.
Dell 'Angel a said should not have been
issued in the first place, would cost
between $160,000 to $210,000; that the
fence would cost approximately
$56,875.00. He stated that there were
pictures showing the esthetically
unpleasing sights of the back of Mr.
Leech's property. He presented an
excerpt from the tape of the Planning
Commission hearing of January 12, 1984,
which is attached and a permanent part of
this record. He stated that there were
two questions: 1) Why are we here
tonight, what is the condition which is
the subject of the appeal; 2) Is a use
permit required at all. He stated that
at the Planning Commission he had taken
the position that a use permit was not
required at all because a development
permit had been issued approving the
building which now had a $56,000 fence
condition which the Commission agreed
would not look nice.
Director of Community Development
Dell 'Angel a stated that the fi rst
question had been discussed thoroughly at
the Planning Commission level. He stated
that the Staff position on the question
of the use on the site, which includes the
rental car use as well as the proposed
vehicle storage use, was that it was
inappropriate within the scope of the
zoning ordinance to consider either on
the development permit basis. He stated
that a development permit was basically a
design review permit for permitted uses.
He continued, the decision made back in
1978 was that it was a proper development
permit which did not include a second
building; there was no review of a second
building in 1978; the provision of the
development permit stipulated that i f a
permit was not issued within a year - the
permit expires - so the applicant failed
4/11/84
Page 5
EXCERPT from Tape of Planning Commission Hearing -
January 12, 1984
" ..... the response to the use permit is this,
Back in 1978 when this so-called Development .Permit was
granted to MR. LEECH and he proceeded to build one building
but didn't proceed to build the other, it is our current
position that that Development Permit has no legal status
because the City had no right to allow the use such as a
repair facility in a M2 Zone without a Use Permit because it
was not a permitted use, and what circumstances were present
to...that Director at that time to make that determination,
I. cannot ascertain. At this point in time I think that
decision made in 1978 was improper and since we cannot do
anything about the front building I think we do not have to
repeat a legal error that was made in the past. I interpret
the zoning code in the M2 Zone if a use is not permitted and
there is some question whether or not it is suitable in the
zone that a use permit is subject, is required, then the
Commission must do that. Now, also there is difference in
the structure that was approved back in 1978 and the
structure that was approved today, that is being requested
today. The applicant says only the size is different
slightly. There are differences. The service area is much
larger in this particular proposal then it was at that point
in time and there is a different configuration in the
particular building. Our position is that that Development
Permit, right if you will, is not a valid right, and that a
Use Permit is certainly proper as we would require any other
user in an M2 Zone to apply for."
4/11/84
Page 5a
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6. Public Hearing- Continued.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
three tests.
Jeffrey Becker, Esq., stated that this
was the first he had heard about the per-
mit expiring in one year and that the
permit issued in 1978 made no reference
to a requirement that Mr. Leech commence
the acquisition of a building permit
within one year. He continued, when the
ordinance referred to revocation for lack
of use for not commencing work pursuant
to the permit. He stated that it talked
about use permits, building permits and
they are not talking about development
permits. He spoke of Mr. Dell'Angla's
comments before the Planning Commission
wherein he said that the development per-
mit has no legal status because the City
had no right to allow the use, such as a
repair facility in the M-2 zone without a
use permit. He questioned why Mr. Leech
should be penalized to the tune of
$60,000 because the City gave him a per-
mit that he should not have had in 1978,
and he relied on it by commencing the
construction of his first building;
completed it and had no idea he was sup-
posed to begin construction on the second
building within any length of time. He
continued, his business grew and he
needed another facility; he made applica-
tion and now he has to pay $60,000 for a
fence. He continued, because a hotel may
go in and there was rumor that Price Club
would be near Mr. Leech. He stated that
there were two buildings on the plans
that were approved in 1979. He felt his
client should not have to spend the money
to build a fence. He suggested that the
plans should be reviewed which showed
that there were two buildings and the
Staff Report stated that two buildings
were approved.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that that Staff Report
was in error and the record had been
corrected.
Vice Mayor Haffey requested an opinion
from the City Attorney on the position
that the development permit had no legal
4/11/84
Page 6
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6. Public Hearing - Continued.
12
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
standing.
City Attorney Rogers stated that the use
should have been subject to a use permit
in 1978 and that any amendments to add a
repair facility on the site should be an
amendment to the use permit. He stated
that as he understood it when this addi-
tional use was proposed recently, to add
the auto repair in the rental area, a
decision was made to not take the posi-
tion that the whole use was illegal as it
existed, not withstanding the error of
1978, but just to deal with the auto
repair facility. He stated that the
Staff was trying to accommodate the
applicant by not raising the other
issues. He stated that he did not feel
the development permit should have been
issued, and he did not believe the deve-
lopment permit had legal status because
of the time lapse since it was issued
without further pursuit of the other
building. He continued, even if the
other building was shown as a building on
the plans, it does not show as an auto
repair facility. He stated that the con-
cern here was the use as much as the
building for they could have built the
second building to store cars, in which
case this is a shift in use - a different
use.
Discussion followed: that the fence was
required and had to be built and that the
cost of the fence was not relevant;
whether to allow the two uses on site;
that the Planning Commission had denied
the use permit and the Council had upheld
the appeal of Mr. Leech and sent it back
to the Commission for reconsideration;
that the applicant was appealing the
requirement of a use permit and the
fence; that the fence could be wood or
cement or a combination; the need for a
fence from the aspect of security and
esthetic reasons; that if the use permit
is allowed it should be monitored and
reviewed in the near future; clarifica-
tion for Council of what was being voted
upon.
4/11/84
Page 7
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
__COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
~ 6. Public Hearing - Continued.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Director of Community Development
Dell 'Angela stated that it should be that
Council reaffirm or agree with the Staff
and Planning Commission that indeed a use
permit is necessary; 2) that the Council
was voting to impose all the conditions
recommended by the P1 anning Commission in
approving or ratifying this use permit as
amended in Exhibit A.
Mayor Addiego stated that it would be the
eight conditions with the amended
language in number six as shown on the
last page of Exhibit A. He stated that
the amended language on condition number
six was "shall be stored or serviced on
this site."
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that if the Council
agreed wi th the conditions as amended
then the applicant has a choice as to
whether he wants to proceed based on
those conditions or he wants to wait.
Vice Mayor Haffey stated that it could be
said in another way, that the Council was
going to uphold the decision of the
Planning Commission.
Councilman Nicolopulos questioned whether
Mr. Leech was in violation of any of
these conditions.
City Attorney Rogers stated that Mr.
Leech was not in violation of these con-
ditions until he gets the permit and
starts the use, and if he doesn't get it
he is in violation. He stated that the
motion should be to deny the appeal,
uphold the P1 anning Commission based on
all the conditions plus the amended
1 anguage.
Mayor Addiego closed the Public Hearing.
M/S Teglia/Haffey - To deny the appeal,
uphold the P1 anning Commissi on based on
all the conditions plus the amended
language on condition number six, "shall
be stored or services on the site.
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
4/11/84
Page 8
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
PUBLIC SERVICES
Staff Report - Continued.
testimony; 2) Close the Public
Hearing; 3) Adoption of a
Resolution ordering the vacation of
a public utility easement within
the Rancho Buri-Buri Subdivision.
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE VACATION
OF PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT WITH THE
RANCHO BURI-BURI SUBDIVISION
COMMUNICATIONS
Request from Alta Loma Junior High
School to waive the carnival fees
for their 8th community carnival on
April 13, 14, and 15, 1984.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Mayor Addiego opened the Public Hearing.
Director of Public Services Yee stated
that this was an easement no longer
needed by the City on the property at 209
Indio Drive and that the request was from
the property owner who planned to build
an addition on his property. He stated
that Staff had no objection and recom-
mended the vacation of the easement.
Mayor Addiego invited those wishing to
speak in favor of the vacation to step to
the dais - no one chose to speak. He
then invited those wishing to speak
against the vacation to step to the dais
- no one chose to speak. He then closed
the Public Hearing.
Mayor Addiego questioned if this easement
ran down the center of the property.
Director of Public Services Yee stated
that it did.
Mayor Addiego questioned the advantage to
notify other property owners that if they
wanted to add on to their homes that they
could go through the same process.
Director of Public Services Yee stated
that the process was not that simple.
M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adopt the
Resol uti on.
RESOLUTION NO. 48-84
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
COMMUNICATIONS
M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To waive the
carnival fees for Alta Loma Junior High
School.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
4/11/84
Page 9
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 15
COMMUNICATIONS
9. Letter from Mrs. Gisela Horejsi
protesting the cutting back of the
shrubbery in the Westborough Common
Areas.
9a.
Letter from Santo Cristo Society
to waive permit fees for their
parade on May 27, 1984.
COMMUNICATIONS
Director of Parks and Recreation Norton
stated that a year ago the funding had
been cut back. He stated that Staff had
responded to a Police Report of poten-
tially dangerous areas that were
overgrown. He stated that his department
was not triming blooming trees , just
shrubbery which had been a concern of
Mrs. Horejsi for wild life in the shrub-
bery. He stated that he had asked the
Superintendent to inspect the area near
her address to see if there was any
severe pruning and meet with the liaison
person. He stated that the second issue
raised was the condition of the median at
Callan Boulevard which he investigated
and had found that the plant material was
not in good condition and needs general
rejuvenation.
Mayor Addiego stated that he had been in
the area in October and November and
found the area to be very dangerous and
had so advised the Police Chief to which
he had responded. He stated that other
than for personal safety pruning should
only be done in the dormant season.
Vice Mayor Haffey stated that Mrs.
Horejsi had indicated in her letter that
she had written many times before - and
he should bring her into the picture for
input on pruning.
Director of Parks and Recreation Norton
stated that he planned to meet with Mrs.
Horejsi and work out her concerns.
Councilman Nicolopulos directed Mr.
Norton to contact Mrs. Horejsi and let
her know that her concerns would be
addressed.
Mayor Addiego questioned why this parade
would not be on Grand Avenue as it had
been in prior years.
Councilman Nicolopulos stated that that
4/11/84
Page 10
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNI CATIONS
9a.
Letter from Santo Cristo Society -
Continued.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
10. Staff Report 4/11/84 requesting a
review of the 3/27/84 and 4/3/84
reports on building permits for the
Interim Ordinance on landmarks~r~
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
11.
Consideration of the adoption of
the General Plan.
5c ¢1
12.
Grand Avenue crosswalk markings.
13. Super Bowl Task Force.
14.
Approval of Council meeting
schedule.
COMMUNICATIONS
was a decision the Santo Christo Society
had made.
M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To waive permit
fees.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To approve the
building permits.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
City Clerk Battaya stated that this had
been put on the Agenda at the request of
the Mayor in the event the policies had
not been completed they could be
resumed.
Mayor Addiego stated that Item 11 would
be done after the Closed Session.
Councilman Nicolopulos strongly suggested
that some action be taken quickly and
that he was open to any options to make
the crosswalks more visible, he had
suggested painting them - others said no.
City Manager Birkelo directed Director
of Public Services Yee to bring back a
report which he felt was proper on the
subject.
Director of Public Services Yee stated
that he would come back to the Council
within 30 days with a report
Continued to the meeting of April 25,
1984.
City Manager Birkelo stated that a study
session was needed and that a tentative
date had been set for Wednesday, May 16,
1984 for purposes of the amended housing
element and perhaps other items as well.
4/11/84
Page 11
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
14. Approval of Council meeting
schedule.
GOOD AND WELFARE
~CLOSED SESSION
15.
Closed Session for the purpose
of the discussion of personnel
matters, labor relations and
litigation.
RECALL TO ORDER:
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
11. Consideration of the adoption of
the General Plan. (Cassette No. 2)
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
Discussion followed on Martin Carpenter
doing the amended housing element; change
the April 28, 1984 meeting to the after-
noon at the Municipal Services Building;
what Boards should be prioritized; Vice
Mayor Haffey wanted the Youth Advisory
Commission as a high priority; Mayor
Addiego wanted to interview applicants
for the Housing Authority; that because
of a new Councilmember all applicants
would be interviewed.
Consensus of Council - To approve the
Council meeting schedule and change the
April 28, 1984 meeting time to 1:00 p.m.
to 5:00 p.m. and strike the June 16, 1984
meeting.
GOOD AND WELFARE
No one chose to speak.
CLOSED SESSION
Council adjourned to a Closed Session at
9:03 p.m. to discuss the aforementioned
items.
The meeting was recalled to order at 9:50
p.m., all Council present, no action
taken.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
Council direction was given: Accept
Policies 2-7, 2-8, 2-9; delete wordage
"residential condominiums' from Policy
2-10; accept Policy 2-11.
Mr. William Borba stated that he owned
the property at 198-214 Airport
Boulevard. He stated that he, his son
and grandson had a full interest in this
community through the Borba Corporation
4/11/84
Page 12
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 18
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
11. Consideration of the adoption of
the General Plan - Continued.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
and planned to stay there a good number
of years. He stated that he did not like
the new concept of the general plan, it
is made of various industries, businesses
and commercial. He stated that he
attended a Council meeting last Wednesday
and had asked one question. He con-
tinued, they said it would be a light
commercial use on Airport Boulevard -
what are light commercial uses. He
stated that he had an industry there
that was manufacturing and he looked for
protection in that area as did other
businesses on both sides of the street
interested in their operations. He
stated that it was proposed that all out-
door storage lots should be phased out of
existence and manufacturing warehouse
related uses should not be permitted in
this area. He stated that that looked
like a strike against his industry and
others on Airport Boulevard and felt the
uses should be more defined. He con-
tinued, the manufacturing industry, and
commercial uses had been in the area for
many years. He continued, they have been
the backbone of the community along with
other areas of South San Francisco. He
stated that they had paid a large share
for it and he had a large investment in
the business which would continue. He
stated that if the Council phased these
businesses out in favor of hotels and
restaurants they should realize that
restaurants were not doing well in the
City and the hotels are not full and have
to fight for any business they can get.
He stated that if the Council in the
future did away with industry, commercial
businesses for office complexes, hotel
complexes and restaurants the City would
fall flat on its face. He stated that
the proposed office site north of the
City limits was sold by the developer to
another enterprise who is having problems
filling the office space. He spoke of
the Gateway and the Oyster Point
also having a hard time filling their
office space. He stated that if the
4/11/84
Page 13
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
11. Consideration of the adoption of
the General Plan - Continued.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
Council was going to propose this City as
a Cinderella City then he felt it was a
mistake. He cited concern for himself
and other businesses on Airport Boulevard
in not being informed in advance of
General Plan meetings of the Council and
Planning Commission.
Mayor Addiego stated that the Council
understood the concept of the Cinderella
City and the market trends and that it
was not possible for the City to be all
one thing. He stated that the Council
could see that South Airport was pro-
ceeding to a tourist type of thing and
that the northern Airport Boulevard was
something entirely different. He stated
that Mr. Borba's situation was doubly
unique because there were few businesses
on that particular side of Airport
Boulevard so there might be some latitude
afforded the Council because of the cir-
cumstances of his property.
Vice Mayor Haffey stated that Mr. Borba's
property fell under the downtown area and
not Airport Boulevard policies.
Mr. Borba questioned whether light
industry and manufacturing were allowed
in the downtown area.
Vice Mayor Haffey stated that there would
be opportunity to discuss that.
Director of Community Development
Del l'Angela stated that the use was per-
mitted in the downtown area, but the
Council could focus in on unique par-
ticular parcels in the downtown area and
stipulate a policy for that without
blanketing the entire downtown area with
a policy.
Mr. Borba stated that his position, with
his son and grandson, was to give the
business a complete new face, and have
it tie in with the Gateway Project. He
continued, otherwise he would leave it
4/11/84
Page 14
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
11. Consideration of the adoption of
the General Plan - Continued.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
the way it was, which would not do the
City any good.
Vice MayOr Haffey stated that the Council
was sensitive to Mr. Borba's concerns and
could probably come to some type of
agreement when the Council came to the
appropriate policies.
Discussion followed on Airport Boulevard
policies: that Policy 2-10 was
appropriate for Airport Boulevard; that
Miller Avenue or Tamarack was the logical
boundary for the North Airport Boulevard
to the northern City limits; that North
Airport Boulevard had a mixture of uses
zoned C-2 and C-3, a mixture of heavy
commercial, light industrial and some old
residential structures from Miller to
Armour; that the first floor could be a
commercial use with residential on the
second floor; encouraging residential
condominiums; dividing Airport Boulevard
into four areas and establish policies
for each area.
Council direction was given: accept
Policy 2-11; change description of Orange
Avenue to Chestnut Avenue to Miller to
Railroad and Miller to Chestnut; accept
Policy 2-13, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 3-1,
3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5 and 3-6; Policies 4-1,
4-2, 4-3 should be rewritten by the City
Attorney to address the concerns of
Terrabay; accepted Policies 5-1 through
7-5 delete Policy 7-6; accept Polices 7-7
through 8-4; Policy 8-5 wordage
"additional billboards" should read
"additional commercial billboards' and
delete wordage "by 1987"; accept Policy
8-6; Staff to rework the language in
Policy 8-7; accept Policies 8-8 and 8-9;
restate Policy 8-10 to read the same as
Policy 10; accepted Policies 8-11 through
8-14.
Mayor Addiego read into the record the
proposed policy D-20 which is attached
and a permanent part of this record.
4/11/84
Page 15
.April ll, 1984
ADDITIONAL GENERAL POLICY FOR DOWNTOWN AREA
Proposed Policy D-20
The operation of existing light manufacturing and sales
facility located along the east side of Airport Boulevard
south of Grand Avenue should be continued in the future.
No expansion of this facility should, however, be permitted
until and unless a comprehensive development plan which
incorporates the State-owned property to the east is
approved by the City. Said plan should include the exterior
remodeling of existing buildings, provisions for additional
required off-street parking and landscaping, an improved
internal vehicular circulation system, and an upgrading
of the sign program.
4/11/84
Page 15a
AGE,HA ACTIO, TAKE, 22
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
11. Consideration of the adoption of
the General Plan - Continued.
ADJOURNMENT
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
Councilwoman Teglia stated that this
pol icy allowed manufacturing use but that
any expansion would have to deal with the
inadequacies of that expansion.
Mr. Borba stated that he would come up
with the plant operational master plan of
the full operation of his company's
operation. He extended courtesy to the
Council for allowing him to address his
concerns this evening.
City Clerk Battaya stated that the City
Manager had requested that this meeting
be adjourned to Wednesday, 4/18/84, at
4:30 p.m. to continue the policies and
then hear the Police Department's goals
and objectives.
City Manager Birkelo stated that he did
want the meeting adjourned to Wednesday,
4/18/84, 4:30 p.m. at City Hall for a
Closed Session to deal with the airport
easement matter, Police goals and objec-
tives and a brief report on Magnolia
Center. He stated that there would not
be time for further discussion of general
plan policies because of the anticipated
time to cover the Police goals and
obi ecti yes.
M/S Teglia/Haffey - To adjourn the
meeting to Wednesday, April 18, 1984, at
4:30 p.m., in the City Council Conference
Room, City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue, South
San Francisco, California
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
4/11/84
Page 16
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
ADJOURNMENT:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
City of South San Francisco
The meeting was adjourned at
APPROVED:
Addi eg(o, Mayor.
Citybof 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.
4/11/84
Page 17