Loading...
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