HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1986-01-08Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia
Vice Mayor Mark N. Addiego
Counci 1:
John "Jack" Drago
Richard A. Haffey
Gus Nicolopulos
MINUTES
City C. ouncil
Municipal Services Building
Community Room
January 8, 1986
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 Wednesday, the 8th day of January, 1986, at 7:15 p.m., in the Municipal
Services Building, Community room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting:
Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of litigation.
/
k"--~berta Cerri Teglia, M~r -~City of South San Francisco
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
SPECIAL MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
(Cassette No. 1)
1. Closed Session for the discussion
of litigation. ~~)
Vice Mayor Addiego Arrived:
RECALL TO ORDER:
ADJOURNMENT:
SPECIAL MEETING
7:16 p.m. Mayor Teglia presiding.
Council present:
Council absent:
Nicolopulos, Haffey,
Drago and Teglia.
Addiego.
Council adjourned to a Closed Session at
7:17 p.m. for the discussion of litiga-
tion: Bertetta and Damonte vs. City of
South San Francisco.
Vice Mayor Addiego arrived and joined the
Closed Session at 7:22 p.m.
Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to
order at 7:38 p.m., all Council present,
instruction had been given to the City
Attorney - no action taken.
M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adjourn the
meeting.
Carried by unanimo~Js voice vote.
Time: 7:38 p.m.
1/8/86
Page i
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
i~:RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Barbara A. Battaya, City C~[erk
City of South San Francisco
APPROVED.
'~}~6berta Cerri Tegi ia, ~l~or
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 are
available for inspection, review and copying.
1/8/86
Page 2
Mayor Roberta Cerri Te§lia
Vice Mayor Mark N. Addiego
Counci 1:
John "Jack" Drago
Ri chard A. Haffey
---Gus Nicolopulos
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1)
ROLL CALL:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION
AGENDA REVIEW
City Manager Birkelo requested:
- Need a Closed Session at the end
of the meeting.
- Add Item 17a. Schedule for meeting
dates for remainder of January.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMUNITY FORUM
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
12/11/85.
Staff Report 1/8/86 recommending by
Motion to set a hearing date for
1/22/86 for the Genstar Development
Inc., Broadmoor Homes, Northern
California Division for a one-year
time extension for Tentative Sub-
division Map SA-83-81/RPD-79-12,
(Lot 4, St. Francis Terrace, Appian
Way and Gellert Boulevard).
MINUTES
City Council
Municipal Services Building
Community Room
January 8, 1986
ACTION TAKEN
7:37 p.m. Mayor Teglia presiding.
Council present:
Council absent:
Nicolopulos, Addiego,
Drago, Haffey and
Teglia.
None.
The pledge of allegiance was recited.
The invocation was given by Reverend
Robin Dummer of Grace Covenant Church.
AGENDA REVIEW
So ordered.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No one chose to speak.
COMMUNITY FORUM
No one chose to speak.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approved.
Set 1/22/86 as a hearing date.
/8/86
age i
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CONSENT CALENDAR
®
Staff Report 1/8/86 recommending
adoption of a Resolution author-
izing the execution of an agreement
between the U.S. Coast Guard Air
Station and the Fire Department for
emergency medical technician
trainees.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL
AND EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES COAST
GUARD AIR STATION SAN FRANCISCO AND
THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FIRE
DEPARTMENT FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL
TECHNICIAN TRAINEES
Staff Report 1/8/86 recommending
adoption of a Resolution setting
the City's mileage reimbursement
rate to 21f per mile from 25~.
A RESOLUTION SETTING CITY'S MILEAGE
REIMBURSEMENT RATE
Staff Report 1/8/86 recommending by
Motion to authorize Staff to
proceed with purchasing an in-house
data processing system from IBM
Corp. (handware) and DLH/INE Corp.
(software).
Staff Report 1/8/86 recommending
adoption of a Resolution which
delegates to the City Manager the
authority to make disability
retirement determinations in accor-
dance with the Public Employees
Retirement Law.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY
MANAGER TO MAKE DETERMINATION OF
DISABILITY FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AS
PRESCRIBED BY STATE LAW
Staff Report 1/8/86 recommending
adoption of a Resolution to author-
ize a Consultant Services Agreement
with Daniel Rouss for the Community
CONSENT CALENDAR
RESOLUTION NO. 1-86
Removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion by Councilman Haffey.
Removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion by Councilman Nicolopulos.
Removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion by Councilman Nicolopulos.
1/8186
Page 2
AGENDA
ACTION
TAKEN
CONSENT CALENDAR
7. Staff Report - Continued.
Development Block Grant Program.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPROVAL
AND EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR
CONSULTANT SERVICES OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM
Staff Report 1/8/86 recommending hy
Motion to authorize Staff to
proceed with purchasing an in-house
data processing system from IBM
Corp. (handware) and DLH/INE Corp.
(software).
CONSENT CALENDAR
RESOLUTION NO. 2-86
M/S Addiego/Haffey - to approve the
Consent Calendar with the exception of
Items No. 4, 5 and 6.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Councilman Haffey questioned the phase-in
schedule of the new system.
Finance Director Lipton stated that after
approval and the order placed it would be
delivered in 4 - 6 weeks. He stated that
currently the City was using the Service
Bureau for yearly cost of $60,000 -
$70,000.
Discussion followed: lease purchase.over
a three year period; discounts of 15-30%;
that training was included; additional
cost of $2,000 for electrical installa-
tion; compatability with existing
machines.
M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To authorize
Staff to proceed with purchase of in-
house data processing system from IBM
Corp and DLH/INE Corp.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Staff Report 1/8/86 recommending
adoption of a Resolution which
delegates to the City Manager the
authority to make disability
retirement determinations in accor-
dance with the Public Employees ~
Retirement Law.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY~ Y'5
MANAGER TO MAKE DETERMINATION OF
DISABILITY FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AS
PRESCRIBED BY STATE LAW
Councilman Nicolopulos questioned if this
covered employees other than local safety
employees.
City Manager Birkelo stated that this
only covered local safety employees and
other employees were covered under State
Law.
M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To adopt the
Resolution.
1/8/86
Page 3
A G E N D A A C T I O N T A K E N~ -'
6. Staff Report - Continued.
®
Staff Report 1/8/86 recommending
adoption of a Resolution setting
the City's mileage reimbursement
rate to 21~ per mile from 25~.
A RESOLUTION SETTING CITY'S MILEAGE
REIMBURSEMENT RATE ~ 1
APPROVAL OF BILLS
Approval of the Regular Bills of
1/8/86.
CITY MANAGER
®
Staff Report 1/8/86 recommending:
1) Adoption of a Resolution that
establishes the compensation City
Treasurer and the duties as set by .l~
statute; 2) Motion to waive
further reading of an Ordinance;
3) Motion to introduce an
ordinance establishing signatures.
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE
DUTIES AND SALARY OF CITY TREASURER
1st Reading/Introduction
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION
2.22.020 AND REPEALING SECTION
2.22.050 OF THE SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE AND OF
ORDINANCE NO. 897, AS AMENDED
BY ORDINANCE NO. 947, ENTITLED
RESOLUTION NO. 3-86
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Councilman Haffey stated that he did not
have a question on this item.
M/S Haffey/Addiego - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 4-86
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To approve the
Regular Bills for 12/26/85 in the amount
of $1,178,104.91 and the Regular Bills of
1/8/86 for $1,064,945.53 for a total of
$2,243,050.44. Vice Mayor Addiego did
not participate or vote in the matter of
the claim of ~rentwood Market.
CITY MANAGER
City Clerk Battaya read the title of the
Ordinance in its entirety.
City Manager Birkelo stated that he was
recommending that the duties of the
elected City Treasurer be limited to
those provided by State statutes, i.e,
the safe custody of City Funds; and the
investment of idle funds prior to their
need for expenditure.
He stated that his analysis indicated
that the Council could and should
separate some of the duties the late
Treasurer Bonalanza performed as a paying
agent on some older Assessment Districts,
primarily Cabot, Cabot & Forbes develop-
ment issues. He continued, the City on
more recent issues had given the paying
agent duties to a local financial insti-
tution, which left the Treasurer only
statutory duties.
He stated that it was his best judgment
that five hours per week would be
1/8/86
Page 4
AGENDA ACTION TAKE~N .
CITY MANAGER
9. Staff Report - Continued.
CITY MANAGER
required to perform the statutory duties
with compensation to be paid bi-weekly in
the amount of $200.00.
Councilman Drago questioned what it cost
the City to contract with private finan-
cial institutions to provide the paying
agent services on the various bond
issues.
City kManager Birkelo stated that there
would be an initial fee for taking on the
job for each issue and an annual service
charge of approximately $100 per issue
and so much per coupon that the institu-
tion serviced. He stated that there was
roughly $5,000,000 remaining on the CC&F.
issue which would cost $3,000 the first
year, and would be declining thereafter.
Councilman Drago questioned comparable
salaries in surrounding cities for the
City Treasurer position.
City Manager Birkelo stated that in San
Mateo County there were four elected
Treasurers that receive less than what
he was recommending; and that Belmont and
Daly City paid their Treasurer more. He
stated that in his opinion it did not
take any more effort to invest a
$1,000,000 rather than $100,000.
He stated that in the past five or six
years all paying agent duties had been
contracted out to financial institutions
upon the recommendation of the City's
Bond Counsel and financial advisors. He
stated that Mr. Bonalanza had selected
the last paying agent based on taking
quotations from the various institutions
and their rates for that service. He
stated that the Finance Director had done
it more recently to handle the $5,000,000
bonds outstanding.
Vice Mayor Addiego questioned why the
City did not have the capacity to handle
the paying agent duties in-house rather
than contracting out.
1/8/86
Page 5
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN'::
CITY MANAGER
9. Staff Report - Continued.
CITY MANAGER
City Manager Birkelo stated that it was
type of function that the financial con-
sultants said investors were more used to
and more comfortable with having a bank
provide that service.
Vice Mayor Addiego stated that the
Council did not know what the City was
going to attract in the election process.
He continued, but if a talented person as
Mr. Bonalanza was should be elected,
then the Council could utilize those
talents.
Councilman Nicolopulos stated that the
staff report only mentioned four statu-
tory duties in Government Code Section
41000, and questioned if there were more
Codes that would give additional
information.
City Manager Birkelo stated that there
were a number of provisions in the statu-
tes that a Treasurer had to be aware of
in the invest of City funds. He stated
that he had a Municipal Treasurer's
Handbook with 100 pages of State statutes
that should be of interest to a City
T~easurer.
Councilman Nicolopulos questioned the
signatories presently on the bank
accounts that tonight's Ordinance would
change when it was adopted.
City Manager Birkelo stated that there
had been a provision which enabled the
city Treasurer to sign off on bond coupon
redemptions which would no longer be
required, and would allow Staff to
contract the paying agent duties to a
financial institution.
Councilman Nicolopulos questioned where
that authority to contract out the ser-
vices was mentioned in the Ordinance.
City Attorney Rogers stated that the sec-
tion of the Ordinance being repealed was
1/8/86
Page 6
AGENDA ACTION TAKE N ~: ~
~CITY MANAGER
9. Staff Report - Continued.
CITY MANAGER
the section that said the City Treasurer
a) was authorized to establish and main-
tain checking accounts for bond redemp-
tions; and b) issue bond redemption
checks over his signature. He stated
that it would transfer the authority to
sign bond redemption checks from the
Treasurer to the the Manager's Office.
He stated that those checks had to be
signed by two people from each of the two
categories cited in the Ordinance.
Belmont City Clerk Jim McLaughlin stated
that he was Secretary/Manager of the
California State Association of Local
Elected Officials, a statewide asso-
ciation which included all but approxima-
tely two non-legislative elected
officials in this County. He stated that
that included the Superintendent of
Schools and the County Sheriff. He
stated that this association was pri-
marily interested in preserving the
people's right to elect those that hold
the most important offices in local
government based on the history and
intent of our Constitution.
He proceeded to read his presentation
into the record (a copy of which is
attached as Exhibit A and a permanent
part of the record of this meeting).
He thanked the Council for the oppor-
tunity to make his presentation on
behalf of the Association and on behalf
of the deceased and very respected member
Mr. Bonalanza. He stated that he felt
that were Mr. Bonalanza here tonight he
would have said the same things on behalf
of the Association as he had been a
member.
Mayor Teglia thanked Mr. McLaughlin for
coming to tonight's meeting and sharing
his opinions, however she did not believe
he had the authority to speak on behalf
of Mr. Bonalanza. She stated that Mr.
Bonalanza always spoke for himself and
1/8/86
Page 7
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CITY MANAGER
9. Staff Report - Continued.
CITY HANAGER
she did not believe he would have sup-
ported Mr. McLaughlin's entire letter.
Vice Mayor Addiego stated that he felt
the presentation had been a very creative
document, but he took exception to cer-
tain items: that city employees were
often maligned and he was not sure that
the public at large was going to be that
secure in thinking an elected person
controlling all funds with just his own
signature; that the document stated that
the appointed Treasurer was not bonded
and questioned whether Mr. Birkelo was
bonded.
City Manager Birkelo stated that his bond
had been increased from $500,000 to
$750,000 after the appointment and that
Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lipton and Mr. Figuerido
were bonded in equal amounts.
He stated that the inference was made
that the Treasurer had control of expen-
ditures, but that was not true as the
Code stated that the city Treasurer shall
pay out money on warrants signed by
legally designated persons.
Vice Mayor Addiego stated that as an
elected official he could see that it was
the Council's responsibility to move in
the manner recommended by the City
Manager because it was the only way to
protect City funds and bond monies by
checks and balances.
Councilman Drago questioned if the City
Attorney could say there were no legal
problems in the unexpired portion of the
City Treasurer's term changing salaries.
City Attorney Rogers stated that he
believed that was an incorrect statement
of the law.
Mr. Jake Jones, 12 E1 Campo Dr., stated
that for $5,200 a year, when unemployment
was much more than that - it was $500 a
1/8/86
Page 8
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CITY MANAGER
9. Staff Report - Continued.
CITY MANAGER
month, that this was a giant step that
the City Manager wanted the Council to
make to eliminate another elected offi-
cial's job. He continued, this was
taking away another elected position from
constituents and felt that the Manager
would like to take away the Council's
position to have complete control. He
stated that for $5,200 a year the City
was not going to get a qualified person
to be the City Treasurer.
He urged the Council strongly, though he
knew they were not going to, to turn down
this proposal from the City Manager and
keep the paid City Treasurer with a
salary to attract a person who was
qualified to do the job.
Councilman Drago stated that a special
election had been called to fill the
vacant elected position and that there
had not been a test to see if the office
should be appointive or elected - nor was
the Council looking to deprive the people
of an elected official.
Vice Mayor Haffey stated that the Council
was not looking for an unemployed person,
rather a person with talent, who wanted
to share in community service as the
Council and Clerk did.
Councilman Nicolopulos expressed concern
over trying to establish what a position
or person was worth and arbitrarily
establishing it was worth $5,200. He
felt that the salary was a minimal sum
and would like to see the salary more
compensatory.
Vice Mayor Addiego stated that if the
person elected had talent the Council
could increase the salary.
Councilman Drago stated that he would
rather keep the salary as it was and
increase the duties, rather than water
down the job and make it a mere figure
head.
1/8/86
Page 9
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CITY MANAGER
9. Staff Report - Continued.
10.
Staff Report 1/8/86 recommending
adoption of a Resolution that
establishes the investment policy
for public funds.
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING INVESTMENT
POLICY FOR PUBLIC FUNDS
CITY MANAGER
Mayor Teglia stated that the duties were
set by Code and that because of Mr.
Bonalanza's gifted expertise, he had
assumed many duties and the Council had
augmented his salary.
She stated that the Council had the
responsibility of a $20,000,000 budget,
employees and the health and welfare of
the community, and spent more than five
hours a week and yet these five people
did not make $200 a week.
M/S Addiego/Haffey - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 5-86
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
M/S Addiego/Haffey - To waive further
reading of the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Addiego/Nicolopulos - To introduce
the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
City Manager Birkelo stated that the
State Legislature required, beginning
1/1/85, that Municipal Treasurers submit
recommended investment policies for
Council approval. He stated that the
outline of the investment policies
attached to the Resolution conformed to
that recommended by the Municipal
Treasurers Association.
He stated that it was a set of guidelines
for the prudent investment of municipal
funds and its cash management system. He
stated that it spelled out those invest-
ment vehicles to be used, i.e., securit-
ies of the U. S. Government, its Agencies,
certificates of deposit, etc. He stated
that it further set forth certain cri-
teria to be followed in deciding where
1/8/86
Page 10
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CITY MANAGER
10. Staff Report - Continued.
RECESS:
RECALL TO ORDER:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
11.
Staff Report 1/8/86 recommending:
1) Motion to waive the read of the
Ordinance; 2) Motion to adopt the
Ordinance. ~.~I
2nd Reading/Adoption ~
AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 20.61
ENTITLED "SHEARWATER SPECIFIC PLAN
ZONE DISTRICT" TO THE SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES
15. Staff Report 1/8/86 recommending by
Motion to approve the Westborough
Community Building Master Plan.
CITY MANAGER
those investments should be made in
safely to minimize risk, etc.
Discussion followed: concern over
savings and loan institutions for city
investments; that State Law required
depositories to either have government
insurance or to put up security deposits
in the of amount of 110%; that the
Council had power over the investment
function if it was not satisfied with the
elected treasurer, etc.
M/S Haffey/Addiego - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 6-86
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Mayor Teglia declared a recess at 8:48
p.m.
Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to
order at 9:03 p.m., all Council present.
She stated that Item No. 15 would be
heard after Item No. 11.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
City Clerk Battaya read the title of the
Ordinance in its entirety.
M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To waive further
reading of the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To adopt the
Ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 996-86
Carried by majority roll call vote, Drago
voted no.
RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES
~[ 1/8/86
Page 11
AGENDA
ACTION TAKE N~
RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES
15. Staff Report - Continued.
RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES
Director of Recreation and Community
Services Norton explained the scope of
the study and process utilized to arrive
at the Master Plan: preliminary site
analysis for an approximate 7,000 square
foot recreation building on the site,
and development of a preliminary plan.
He stated that in the process of the
study a steering committee was formed of
people representing different organiza-
tions and clubs in the Westborough com-
munity. He stated that 22 people served
at various times at 7 meetings.
He stated that Mrs. Waters, representing
the steering committee, had indicated a
desire to do future fund raisers for a
potential pool on the site and had
addressed the Council with concern for
the Galway Development if the land adja-
cent to the park should be lost for a
potential expansion of the park. She had
requested the City do a site analysis to
prove that a potential pool for a future
facility could be developed on the site.
He stated that that had been done and
acreage had been found within the park to
accommodate any potential uses in the
future.
Mr. Wayne Gehrke, Group 4, stated that
his firm had developed a preliminary
program of building areas and proceeded
to describe in-depth the drawings and
designs.
Director of Recreation and Community
Services Norton stated that it would be
staffed by existing recreation personnel
with an additional $15,000 - 16,000 a
year in part time supervision and
supplies, etc. He stated that there
would be a need for a full time custodian
at $35,000, including benefits to main-
tain the building.
He stated that the preliminary cost esti-
mate for the Park Building was
$1,137,395. He stated that a preliminary
1/8/86
Page 12
AGENDA
ACTION
TAKEN
RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES
15. Staff Report - Continued.
CASSETTE NO. 2
RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES
study of potential funding indicated
perhaps $500,000 could be raised.
He stated that there was approximately a
7,000 square foot building to serve a
population of 15,000 and he felt the
architect had used the square footage
wisely in his designs.
Mayor Teglia stated that the Council was
committed to a community center, however
there were dreams in the community for a
pool and that the site be protected, and
perhaps see some library services
extended to Westborough. She stated that
this plan only dealt with the community
center.
Director of Recreation and Community
Services Norton stated that the Council
was dealing solely with the park
building, however part of Council's
direction was that Staff indicate the
feasibility in the future of putting
other facilities on the site.
Mrs. Ann Waters, 2266 Shannon, stated
that she was happy that the plans had
gone so far with the community center
plan, but was disappointed as far as the
swimming pool was concerned.
She stated that she had volunteered to
beat the bushes to find funding to build
the swimming pool, however the Council
had not given her a tool to use when she
approached foundations for contributions,
which would assure that the City
Council was in support of the swimming
pool.
She stated that she had attempted to open
a community center fund and had had to go
through legalities to have that done and
yet the City had only approved funds for
the building, not the swimming pool.
Councilman Haffey stated that he
understood that when you apply for grants
one needed an authorizing Resolution from
the governing Board and he did not see why
1/8/86
Page 13
AGENDA
RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES
15. Staff Report - Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES
this Council could not authorize a
Resolution to provide Mrs. Waters with
that tool. He stated that it could say
that if the community raises the money to
build a pool that the City would be com-
mitted to actually operate the pool on
behalf of the community. He continued,
if the City made that commitment it would
go a long way to help Mrs Waters in her
grant applications.
Vice Mayor Addiego suggested, in approving
the Master Plan to include a second phase
for the pool.
Councilman Haffey stated the Resolution
should set aside the land for the
swimming pool as it would go a long way
to assist Mrs. Waters in applying for the
grants.
Mr. Charles Theiss, Westborough
Homeowners Improvement Association
President, requested approval of this
facility that had been promised and
long overdue.
He stated that his concern was for the
cost of doing this pool now or later
because of inflation factors.
Ms. Alice Bulos, 2444 Liberty Court,
stated that she was a member of the
Steering Committee and felt that this was
a very good project for the community.
She stated that she was happy over the
Resolution Councilman Haffey spoke of
which would facilitate the tool needed
for grant applications to benefit the
community.
Mr. Jake Jones, 12 E1Campo Drive, stated
that as a member of the Park and
Recreation Commission he had sat in these
hearings and he felt it was a very good
plan. He stated that a community center
was long overdue for the Westborough
area and that anything the Council did
for the community would be greatly
appreciated.
1/8/86
Page 14
T [ I
A G E N D A A C T I O N T A K E N:~'' ~
RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES
15. Staff Report - Continued.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
12.
Public Hearing - GP-85-29, Use
Permit 85-742, Negative Declaration
No. 525 - 304-306 California Ave.
(Isaac P. and Betty Guillory), to
amend the definition of the Retail
Commercial designation in the Land
Use Element of the General Plan to
allow Residential/Commercial Mixed
Use Development in Planning Area 2.
Staff Report 1/8/86 recommending:
1) Open the public Hearing and hear
testimony; 2) Close the Public
Hearing: 3) Motion to approve
RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES
M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To approve the
Westborough Community Building Master
Plan.
Councilman Nicolopulos stated that he
seconded the motion with the stipulation
that the City had not promised to build a
pool on the site.
Councilman Haffey stated that at the next
meeting there should be a Resolution on
the agenda authorizing grant applications
on behalf of the construction of a
swimming pool in Westorough Park, that
details the City's commitment both to the
operation and the land - but not the
construction.
He stated that in most of the large capi-
tal improvements there was a subcommittee
of Council to bird dog and make sure the
individual projects move forward in a
timely fashion. He suggested that the
Mayor appoint a subcommittee to do that
and he would volunteer to be on that
committee.
Councilman Drago stated that he also
would volunteer to serve on the
committee.
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
Mayor Teglia opened the Public Hearing
and called for the Staff Report.
City Planner Gorny stated that adoption
of the Resolution would allow residential
and commercial mixed use development in
Planning Area 2, on the vacant lot on the
northwest corner of California and Linden
Avenues. He explained that there would
be three residential units above a 1090
square foot office area.
He stated that Planning Area 2 was the
downtown area from the Bayshore to
1/8/86
Page 15
[ I
AGENDA
ACTION
TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
12. Public Hearing - Continued.
Staff Report 1/8/86 - Continued.
Negative Declaration No. 525; 4)
Adoption of a Resolution.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT GP-85-29 PURSUANT TO
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
2366 - ADOPTED THE 14TH DAY OF
NOVEMBER 1985
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
Chestnut Avenue, Railroad Avenue to
Tamarack Lane and the northern portion
along North Spruce to Randolph Avenue
back down to Bayshore again.
Mayor Teglia invited those wishing to
speak for or against the General Plan
Amendment to step to the dais - no one
chose to speak and she closed the Public
Hearing.
Discussion followed: that the proposal
held merit; concern that Planning Area 2
embraced residential areas wherein this
type of project would not be appre-
ciated; that this type of project could
only go into an area that was zoned com-
mercial; that there should be protection
against this type of use for residential
neighborhoods; whether the Downtown
Homeowners Association had been notified
of this public hearing; that a public
hearing notice had been published and
mailed to homes within a 300' radius;
that in residential neighborhoods the
noticing process should be expanded
beyond the Code to all residents affec-
ted; whether to continue the item for two
weeks would place a hardship on the
Builder and he said it would not.
City Planner Gorny stated that language
could be added to the definition of
Retail Commercial in the Land Use Element
of the General Plan adopted by the City
Council on 6/27/85, i.e., Retail
Commercial: Includes retail sales, ser-
vices, offices, neighborhood and com-
munity shopping centers, grocery stores,
fast food restaurants, banks, motels with
fifty or less rooms, and gasoline service
stations. Residential/commercial mixed
use developments may be allowed in corn-
merci al zones in Planning Area 2.
M/S Addiego/Haffey - To hold the item
over to the next meeting and notice all
affected homeowners and homeowners
associations.
1/8/86
Page 16
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
12. Public Hearing - Continued.
13.
Public Hearing - Appeal of the
Department of Planning/Community
Devel opment-Admi ni strati on deci si on
regarding out-door storage of
equipment at 280 Wattis )Jay in the
M-2 Industrial Zone District in
accordance with Ordinance 962, as
extended, and Title 20 of the
South San Francisco Municipal Code
(Dennis P. Mason, President,
Scaffold Mart).
Staff Report 1/8/86 recommending:
1) Open the Public Hearing and hear
testimony; 2) Close the Public
Hearing; 3) Motion to deny the
appeal.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
City Clerk Battaya stated that the
Council had received a four page letter
from Mr. Dell'Angela, Environmental
Development Group, and that that letter
would be incorporated into the minutes as
a permanent part of the record of this
meeting as Exhibit B.
Mayor Teglia opened the Public Hearing
and called for the Staff Report.
Planning Director Smith stated that
Council had received two Staff Reports on
this item, the second one being an adden-
dum (a copy of which is attached and a
permanent part of the record of this
meeting as Exhibit C) to respond to Mr.
Dell'Angela's letter.
She proceeded to chronicle the events
which led up to the appeal by Mr. Mason
of the Department's determination that
the outdoor storage of scaffolding was
inconsistent with the Planned Industrial
District of the General Plan. She stated
that the Planning Commission had upheld
the Department's decision.
She explained the definition of planned
and light industrial policies of the
General Plan and refutted Mr.
Dell'Angela's interpretation of the
General Plan. She recommended that the
Council uphold the decision of the
Planning Commission and deny the appeal.
Mayor Teglia invited those persons
wishing to speak for the appeal to step
to the dais.
Mr. Dell'Angela, Planning Consultant,
stated that he had been asked by Mr.
Mason to be here tonight and review the
General Plan as it affected this location
and use. He stated that in the record
was a letter with his written comments.
He spoke of his knowledge of the General
1/8/86
Page 17
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
13. Public Hearing - Continued.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
Plan and its intent while being a part of
the City during its adoption by the
Council. He stated that one of the
omissions in the whole process of the
General Plan discussion was the case of
storage yards. He continued, the only
policy that referenced a storage yard
industrial zone was Policy 51 which said
storage yard industrial areas shall be
screened and landscaped. He stated that
in his contention there was an implica-
tion there that storage yards are okay or
could be permitted in industrial zones
provided they are landscaped or screened.
He refutted the definitions given on
planned and light industrial. He stated
that storage yards were intensive uses
and that the planned industrial district
was the intensive industrial zone in the
City. He stated that when the Planning
Consultant started drafting the Zoning
Ordinance, and looked at the General
Plan, he drafted a Zoning Ordinance dated
June of 1985, that contained a provision
for storage in the Planned Industrial
Zone District. He continued, then the
Consultant must have been reading the
same thing he had been reading and the
point was still relevant.
He stated that the Zoning Ordinance in
the area was M-2, storage was permitted in
the M-2 zone - there was no question
about that. He stated that the subject
site was a small business site which sat
on an acre lot, a half of which was
covered by buildings and the rear one-
quarter was the storage area in question.
He stated that it was important as it
tied back to Policy 51 and the storage
area was completely screened by fences of
the building. He stated that it was true
that if someone was on the fifth floor of
the Airport Executive Inn he could
see the yard, which he did not feel was
important because there were many tall
buildings that came in after industrial
areas were built. He felt that the
responsibility was not to screen up to a
1/8/86
Page 18
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
13. Public Hearing - Continued.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
five story building but to do it in a
reasonable way which would be a first
fl oor 1 evel.
He stated that this was not a site speci-
fic issue but was an issue that affected
a large industrial area of the community.
He stated that he did not feel that
Council had intended to create that type
of operational hardship in the community.
He stated that there was no General Plan
conflict and the Council would be very
reasonable in approving the appeal this
evening.
Mr. Dennis Mason, owner of Scaffold Mart,
explained that his Company had resided in
Brisbane for seven years until abruptly
notified that they had to leave the pre-
mises. He stated that he had selected a
site in this City and had had thirty days
to vacate the other location. He con-
tinued, only after he had relocated did
he find that there were conflicts in
the plan with regard to the storage in
the back yard. He spoke of abusive
confrontations with City Hall, wherein if
he didn't put the storage inside the
business would be locked up.
He stated that the yard was a necessity
for him to continue in business because
of the type of equipment utilized and he
needed access to that yard.
Mark D. Hudak, Esq., expressed concern
with the assumption by Staff that open
storage could only occur on either light
industrial or planned industrial zones or
both. He stated that he did not see
anything in the General Plan which said
it had to be one or the other but not
both. He stated that if a survey was made
in the planned industrial and light
industrial areas we would see that open
air storage was occurring in both and is
compatible with both zones.
He stated that the only mention in the
1/8/86
Page 19
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
13. Public Hearing - Continued.
CASSETTE NO. 3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
General Plan of open storage was the
Policy that if there was going to be open
storage, that it be behind fences and
landscaping.
He showed photographs of his clients
business that showed that the storage was
shielded from view.
Mayor Teglia invited those wishing to
speak against the appeal - no one chose
to speak.
She stated for the record, that some time
ago she had been called by a woman she
knew who felt that a very unfair
situation was taking place. She stated
that the woman described the fact that
the Planning Department was not going to
allow this particular storage and sought
her help. She stated that she looked
into it and was told about the General
Plan inconsistency and conveyed that to
the party who had contacted her.
She stated that she had been told that
the Company could not comply immediately,
as they needed to move in, but a 120 days
to comply was reasonable.
She then closed the Public Hearing.
Discussion followed: that the business
did not have a business license when it
moved in; that the business had indicated
that it would screen the storage; the
intent of Policy 51 and the various
interpretations; options to further
screen the back yard; that the use would
be proper if it was covered, then it
would not he outdoor storage; etc.
Councilman Drago questioned, if the
intent of the General Plan was to not
allow outdoor storage in that area why
Policy No. 51: "all industrial storage
yards should be screened from public view
by extensive landscaping/fencing." He
stated that anyone reading the Policy
would think that by screening his pro-
1/8/86
Page 20
A G E N D A A C T I O N T A K E N' ~.~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
13. Public Hearing - Continued.
COMMUNITY DEVELOP)4ENT & ADMINISTRATION
perty he would be in compliance with the
Code.
Director of Planning Smith stated that
there was a section that stated that
heavy industrial uses including outdoor
storage shall no longer be permitted in
the City unless they are restricted in
their intensity and location.
Councilman Drago stated that that section
could be used anywhere in the City,
including residential.
Director of Planning Smith stated that
Policy No. 53 entitled Industrial Parks,
specifically mentions the Cabot, Cabot &
Forbes and the South San Francisco
Industrial Parks which covered the area
in question.
Councilman Drago stated that the outdoor
storage was not mentioned in either
definition in the staff report.
Discussion followed on the definition of
chassis container.
Motion by Nicolopulos - To not uphold the
decision of the Planning Commission with
the caveat that the General Plan
language, Policy No. 51, was nebulous and
not specific and should be clarified.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Attorney Hudak stated his client was
willing to have the appeal continued and
sit down with Staff to find a way to
resolve this with some additional
screening and limiting the storage area
so that it was acceptable to the City.
Ms. Joy Ann Wendler, Vice Chairman
Planning Commission, stated that at cer-
tain times of the year the business
stored large amounts of scaffolding
on the outside which aided in the
rejection by the Planning Commission.
1/8/86
Page 21
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
'COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
13. Public Hearing - Continued.
14.
Staff Report 1/8/86 recommending by
Motion to deny the request for one-
year extension of time for
Tentative Subdivision Map SA-83-82
and Residential Planned Development
Permit RPD-79-8 (Dominguez/
Eucalyptus Avenue and Stonegate
Drive).
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
Consensus of Council - To continue the
appeal to the next meeting.
Director of Planning Smith stated that if
the Council upheld the decision of the
Planning Commission based on the three
findings, Staff recommended that a fourth
finding be added: "that new General Plan
provisions be adopted which could require
a lower density for this development
because of the significant cross slopes."
She stated that the project had been
delayed for at least five years; the road
connection from the Subdivision to
Stonegate Drive is steep and curved;
there was a lack of substantial improve-
ments on the site to date.
She stated that Staff had recommended
that the one-year extension be granted by
the Planning Commission based on the
following factors: that the slope stabi-
lization steps would not be taken except
as part of the approved Subdivision Map;
this proposed project incorporates
measures to reduce the effects of grading
and the run off.
Mr. Roman Dominguez, 2960 Dublin Drive,
stated that he had received assistance
from the City Engineer and had met all
engineering requirements of the City and
that he had also complied with the
DCC&Rs. He stated that he was proceeding
with financing to obtain funds for fees
to proceed with the construction, which
he could not do until November 1st when
the moratorium on grading began.
He stated that American Savings, the lien
holder, did not want to continue with the
project and that he had a letter from
Time Savings stating that they would con-
sider funding a loan for the proposed
development upon receipt of a satisfac-
tory appraisal - which had been done.
Mr. Richard D. Zimmerman, American
Savings & Loan, spoke in favor of grant-
1/8/86
Page 22
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
14. Staff Report - Continued.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
ing the extension: that substantial bene-
fits would be created by the project; the
project would stabilize the slope,
improve drainage and reduce run off from
the area; the City Engineer had no
problems with the project; Park Avenue
Home Owners were in favor of the project
and its benefits; a denial of the exten-
sion could cause financial hardships and
loss of benefits; that the safety of the
roadway had not been raised by the engi-
neers; that storm drains had been
installed, etc.
Ms. Lucille Creamer, 529 Eucalyptus Ave.,
stated that Viewmont Terrace had had fif-
teen years of development proposals and
developers had abandoned the site. She
stated that Mr. Dominguez had come in
five years ago and had worked with the
home owners to effect a project that
would enhance Park Avenue. She expressed
concern that if the extension was not
granted the project would die and another
developer would not be compassionate to
the needs of the community.
Mayor Teglia stated that she appreciated
Mrs. Creamer's apprehension, however
another developer could come in and build
the same development. She stated that
she wanted guaranties that this would
happen.
Mr. Zimmerman stated that Mr. Dominguez,
at the moment, was in default and there
could be a foreclosure on the deed of
trust. He stated that the risk would be
minimized by a one-year extension or his
company could find another developer or
do it themselves. He stated that if it
was not extended the City did not have an
approved plan.
Mr. Dominguez stated that he did not have
any guaranties tonight, but if the
Council continued the item to the next
meeting he could bring someone from Time
Savings with such a guaranty. He stated
that he could finish the grading by May
1st and at the end of the year finish the
1/8/86
Page 23
AGENDA
ACTION
TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
14. Staff Report - Continued.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
16.
Request by the Board of Supervisors
for the City Council to consider
adoption of a Resolution designating
a portion of Westborough Boulevard_
as a County Highway. z,;2j~
A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE~ ~ ~
DESIGNATION OF WESTBOROUGH ~
BOULEVARD WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO AS A COUNTY HIGHWAY
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
17.
Report from the City/Chamber of
Commerce Liaison Committee which
requests that a Motion be made to
give tentative approval to the
draft agreement. ~/~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
project.
Ms. Margaret Warren, 790 Stonegate,
recommended that the appeal be denied as
it was not a reliable development. She
spoke of Mr. Dominguez having started to
grade illegally and that his dirt hauling
trucks had broken down curbs.
Ms. Creamer stated that a construction
lender provided for the overseeing of
the disbursement of money and an outside
assessor to over see the property.
Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee
stated that if the Council gave the
extension Mr. Dominguez would pay the
fees and receive the plans as part of the
final map in the subdivision agreement,
however a new developer could change the
plans.
Consensus of Council - To continue the
item to the next meeting.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee
stated that the area in question was E1
Camino Real and 300' west of Camaritas
to be designated as County Highway.
M/S Addiego/Haffey - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 7-86
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
Mayor Teglia summarized the goals of the
Chamber and their request for a one time
funding of $80,000. She stated that
instead there would be a three year phase
out for the Chamber to stand on its own.
She stated that the authorization would
be for the first six months and the
Council would look to the budget for
later funding.
1/8/86
Page 24
AGENDA
ACTION
TAKEN
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
17. Report - Continued.
GOOD AND WELFARE
CLOSED SESSION
18.
Closed Session for the purpose of
of discussion of personnel
matters, labor relations and
litigation.
RECALL TO ORDER:
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
Mr. Mike Valencia, Chamber of Commerce,
spoke of current activities of the
Chamber: a blood drive this Saturday;
that the Annual Installation Dinner on
1/31/86 would honor the entire Lilac
Lane Home Owners Association for their
dedicated work in the community.
Councilman Drago questioned if this was
common for the City to fund the Chamber.
Mayor Teglia stated that the City could
participate in those functions that are
for community promotion.
City Manager Birkelo stated that State
Law said that a City can spend 5% of
its General Fund for community promotion.
M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - to give ten-
tative approval to the draft agreement.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
City Manager Birkelo suggested the
following schedule for meetings in
January: 1/29/86 Study Session from 5:00
- 7:00 p.m; 1/29/86 Special Meeting with
the Parking Place Commission at 8:00 p.m.
GOOD AND WELFARE
No one chose to speak.
CLOSED SESSION
Council adjourned to a Closed Session to
discuss the items listed at 12:19 a.m.
Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to
order at 12:35 a.m., all Council present,
no action taken.
M/S Haffey/Addiego - To adjourn the
meeting.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
1/8/86
Page 25
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
ADJOURNMENT
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
City of South San Francisco
Time of adjournment 10:49 p.m.
APPROVED.
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 are
available for inspection, review and copying.
1/8/86
Page 26
Honorable Mayor and Councilmen,
My name is Jim McLaughlin, the elected City Clerk of Belmont
for twenty years. I am Secretary/Manager of the California
State Association of Local Elected Officials, appearing be-
fore you tonight, accompanied by Tony Zidich, City Treasurer
of Daly City, at request of our Association President, for
two reasons.
Firstly, we wish to commend you on your decision to call an
election to give the voters of your City the decison as to
who will complete the unexpired term of John Bonalanza, your
former City Treasurer who served the citizens of your City
faithfully and well for many years.
Secondly, we want to urge that you NOT adopt the Ordinance
and Resolution prepared and recommended for adoption by your
City Manager.
Why should the proposed Ordinance NOT be adopted? Because it
would authorize'the signing of checks or warrants, including
bond redemption checks and bank signature cards, by the City
Manager or Assistant City Manager and the Finance Director or
Purchasing Officer.
Government Code Section 41001 states, "The City Treasurer
shall receive and safely keep all money coming into his hands
as City Treasurer". - How could the City Treasurer keep the
money safe if four other people, but not the Treasurer, were
authorized to sign checks spending the citizens' money? It
would be like asking your spouses to protect your homes but
taking away the spouse's keys and giving them to four of your
neighbors.
The proposed Ordinance would set into concrete --not only for
the present while the people you name may be more honest than
the twelve apostles - but also for the future, that people
other than the citizen chosen by fellow-citizens to protect
the money would be authorized to spend it. You would be risk-
ing the possibility that in some future year a fox and his
appointees will be guarding the eggs in the henhouse - then
moving to new mansions built in South American on South San
Francisco taxpayers' money.
We respect~ly question both the legali~ of the proposed
Ordinance and the motivation of your Ctt~ Manager in wanting
his appointees and himse~ in charge o~ Signing all checks.
We would like to remind you of newspaper headlines only one
year ago when the City of San Jose suffered a $60 million
loss on bad investments of City funds completely controlled
by management appointees.
1/8/86
Page 27
] I I
EXHIBIT NO.
Perhaps you did not hear about Escondido where, during 1984,
the City Council adopted a Resolution, over protests by the
City Treasurer and citizens, turning over all City funds to
an appointed Management Services Director. With a $27 million
investment portfolio already in his control, it was learned
that he had no $100,000 bond on file with the City Clerk as
had been claimed. The Council had also reduced salary of the
City Treasurer, effective at the next election, to $200 per
month. These actions led not only to litigation against the
City but also to a City Treasurer Accountability Initiative
the voters of Escondido adopted on June 5, 1984. It set forth
powers and duties of the City Treasurer, as defined in State
Codes, and established the salary of the City Treasurer to be
not less than one-half that of the highest paid appointed
official, other than the City Manager. The salary of the
City Treasurer became $3,400 per month, instead of $200 per
month, and has been increased since that time. -- which leads
to the next question.
Why should the proposed Resolution NOT be adopted? Firstly,
it sets forth duties of the City Treasurer, which is un-
necessary because they are all set forth in State Codes.
Secondly, it states that "it has been determined that the
bond redemption duties presently performed by the Office of
City Treasurer can be more efficiently performed by outside
consultants" and that "delegation of those bond redemption
duties will greatly reduce the time requirement for the
position of City Treasurer." This would be like adopting
a Resolution requiring that changing of spark plugs and
air filters on City cars be performed at service stations
because it could be done more efficiently and save time of
the new mechanic you were hiring. We contend that the law
makes no provision for Council to deputize City Treasurer
duties but does provide that the Treasurer may appoint
dupties for whom he and his bondsman are responsibile. We ask
why you would want to delegate responsibilities that
legally, rightly and logically belong to the person elected
as your City Treasurer to someone other than the City
Treasurer? We even question the legality and wisdom of your
previous assignment of $22 million Redevelopment Agency funds
to care of your appointed Finance Director when these are
public funds the City Treasurer is elected to receive and
protect.
Lastly, a memorandum by the City Manager says, "It is esti-
mated that the deposit and investment duties of the position
can be adequately performed within a five (5) hour weekly
time period and that a bi-weekly compensation of $200 would
be fair remuneration for such duties." Then the Resolution
sets the compensaton at $5,200 per year -- $100 per week --to
include compensation for~any Deputies the City Treasurer may
appoint.
2
1/8/86
Page 28
EXHIBIT NO.
We contend, honorable Council Members, that this proposal is
not only an insult to the Office of City Treasurer but to
your intelligence and the intelligence of the citizens of
South San Francisco. Who, we ask, would undertake the
enormous responsibility of receiving, protecting, deposit-
ing and investing many millions of dollars of public funds
for a salary no higher than is earned by your newsboys and
youths serving hamburgers over the counter?
When you want to employ a City Manager or Department Heads,
you set very high salaries for their positions to attract
very qualified applicants. When you hire consultants you
expect to pay large amounts. You do not estimate and specify
hours these appointees will work but set salaries based on
the value and importance of the responsibilities they are
undertaking.
Under Government Code Section 36501, the powers of city
government are vested in the City Council, City Clerk, City
Treasurer, Police Chief, Fire Chief and such subordinate
officials as may be provided by law. The City Treasurer is
NOT a subordinate official as is the City Manager and other
appointed officials. The City Treasurer is a named REQUIRED
OFFICIAL because of the responsibility to take care of the
City funds. We trust that for the citizen with this very
important responsibility, you would not set such an unjust,
unreasonable, insulting and discriminatory salary. We also
contend that to do so would not be legal because the salary
had already been established for this office on the term
already begun and now to be completed for its unexpired por-
tion.
In conclusion, the City Treasurer is a required and most
important official in City Government. The salary for its
important responsibility should be just and reasonable to
attract best-qualified citizens to become candidates so
that fellow-citizens may have a choice as to the person
they most trust and respect to hold the office. We also
contend that the responsibilities of the Treasurer should
not and cannot be tampered with as has been proposed in
the Ordiance and Resolution prepared for your considera-
tion tonight.
Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation on
behalf of our Association. I feel very sincerely that I
have also made it on behalf of our deceased and very
respected member John Bonalanza, who would have said
approximately the same things were he with us tonight.
1/8/86
Page 29
3
':EXHIBIT NO.
Environmental Development Group
400 Oyster Point Boulevard, Suite 106
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Telephone 415/583-9230 ~=':,~
January 6, 1986
Honorable Hayor and City Council SO.
City of South San Francisco
400 (:;rand Avenue, ?.0. Box 711
South San FrancSsco, CA 94083
Re: General Plan Interpretation. Appeal of Planning Commmission
Determination Regarding Outside Storage at 280 Wattis Way.
Scaffold Engineering. (Item 13, 1/8/86 City Council Meeting)
I have been retained to examine the General Plan issues related
to the above case and to assist Dennis Mason, President of
Scaffold Engineering, in his appeal presentation at the above
public hearing. In the interest of saving time at this hearing,
I am forwarding to you in this letter my analysis of the General
Plan issue as it affects this property and this use.
IT IS MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION THAT THE STORAGE OF MATERIAL IN THE
REAR YARD AREA OF THIS BUSINESS SITE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
"PLANNED INDUSTRIAL" DESIGNATION AND POLICIES CONTAINED IN THE
GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY. SCAFFOLD ENGINEERING'S APPEAL SHOULD,
THEREFORE, BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
The above opinion is based on the facts of this case and my
intimate knowledge of the General Plan of the City. You will
recall that while employed with the City, I supervised the entire
preparation and contributed heavily to the actual writing of this
General Plan. I also attended all public hearings and workshops
held by the Planning Commission and City Council on the General
Plan prior to its adoption. I am familiar with what was and was
not intended by the General Plan Policies and definitions of each
General Plan land use classification.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Scaffold Engineering has, since August 1, 1985, occupied a 22,000±
square foot building on a one acre site located along the west side
and at the end of Wattis Way. Wattis Way is a dead end street
which intersects with and extends north of Utah Avenue.
The building occupied by Scaffold Engineering generally cove~s.~.
the middle one half of the site. The front one quarter of the site
is used for parking while the rear one quarter is used for the
outdoor storage of scaffolding equipment. It is important to note
that this rear storage area is screened from public view by the
building to the east and six (6) foot high fencing to the West,
north, and south. Further, while the storage yard is located
directly east of the Airport Ekecutive Inn, the view orientation
of the ro~ms in the hotel are in a north and south direction.
1/8/86
page 30
Scaffold Engineering Appeal
Item 13, 1/8/86 C.C. Meeting
January 6, 1986. Page 2.
On November 11, 1985, the City of South San Francisco issued
Business License #2918 to Scaffold Engineering to conduct their
business at this site. Further, the Company has modified its
signs along Wattis Way to be in conformance with City staff
requirements.
At the November 14, 1985 Planning Commission public hearing, no
one spoke in opposition to the Scaffold Engineering use or to the
outside storage proposal at this site. Even representatives of
the Airport Executive Inn, who were in attendance at this meeting,
did not express opposition to the Scaffold Mart storage use existing
east of their property.
To my knowledge, no complaints have ever been received by the City
from adjoining or area property owners about the Scaffold Engin-
eering use in the five (5) months since this business has been
operating at this location. The only complaint received was from
another scaffolding company who had earlier been interested in
this same site. This company had been given incorrect General
Plan and occupancy information. Rather than question this
information and pursue the appeal process which was available,
this company subseqently located their business elsewhere.
RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS
1. While there is in excess of two hundred (200) specific development
policies in the City's General Plan, no where in the plan is there
a policy that specifically recommends that outdoor storage be
prohibited on any developed parcel in any Planned Industrial General
Plan District. Further, there is no policies contained in the
General Plan which prohibit outdoor storage in Planning Area #1,
which is the area of the City located east of Highway 101.
The General Plan was a policy-oriented plan. It was intended to
be quite specific so as to avoid arbitrary and inconsistent
interpretations in the future. What was stated in the Plan was
what was intended to be in the Plan. If it had been the intent
of the Planning Commission and City Council to prohibit outdoor
storage,such as is being proposed by Scaffold Engineering, then
a specific policy would have been drafted and included in the Plan.
Such a policy was not drafted or included because this was not
perceived to be a problem in this area, particularly if the
storage is incidental to a main building use and the storage was
screened from public view by landscaping and/or fencing.
It is interesting to note that only thirty (30) days after the
Planning Commission General Plan hearing on the Scaffold Engineering
case was held, staff recommended that outdoor storage be permitted
on the Schenker International Forwarder's site at 380 Littlefield
Avenue. This site is also is the Planned Industrial General Plan
category. There appears to be an absence of consistency in the
General Plan interpretation process being followed with regard to
storage yards.
118186
Page 31
Scaffold Engineering Appeal
Item 13, 1/8/86 C.C. Meeting
January 6, 1986. Page 3.
2. General Plan Policy 51 reinforces Scaffold Engineering's
position that the Plan clearly intended to permit outside
industrial storage when it states:
"All industrial storage yards should be screened from
public view by extensive landscaping and/or fencing."
The Scaffold Engineering storage yard~is indeed screened from
public view and specifically complies with this General Plan policy.
3. No where in the definition of the Planned Industrial District
in the General Plan is there mention of storage yards nor can
it be reasonably construed that the intent of the definition was
to prohibit storage yards. Further, the Planned Industrial District
is the more intensive of the two industrial districts contained
in the General Plan.
4. The current zoning of the subject property is M-2, which
permits the outdoor storage of material on industrial lots in
this zone.
5. Not only does the current zoning ordinance permit outdoor
storage on M-2 zoned land, but the proposed zoning ordinance
draft prepared by Sedway Cooke Associates and dated June, 1985,
permits the outdoor storage of material on properties in the
proposed Planned Industrial zone district.
6. The Scaffold Engineering site has, in all probability, been
used for the storage of equipment and/or vehicles since this
land was developed in 1958. This new use does not appear to
represent a significant change in use intensity from uses
previously operating at this location.
7. Typically, scaffolding equipment is moved in and out of this
rear storage area on a regular basis, depending on demand. This
is a fluid rather than a static storage situation. This can
be compared to the use of pallets which are stored on the outside
of many industrial properties in this area until they are needed
to move material.
8. This General Plan issue regarding outdoor storage is not site
specific. Rather it has area-wide significance. Currently,
many industrial companies in the Utah and Cabot, Cabot, & Forbes
industrial area have outdoor storage ar~as~+- Theseli¢ompanies
include Armour Meats, Schenkers Forwarders, Georgia Pacific,
Royal Cathay, Haulage Sky/Express Sky, Greyhound, American Litho,
and Lucca Packing Company of California, to name a few. Mercedes-
Benz's automobile storage yard along Eccles Avenue is also another
example of outdoor storage.
An arbitrary judgement at this point in time on the Scaffold
Engineering case will create a multitude of non-conforming use
situations in the surrounding industrial area and create severe
operational hardships on many industrial firms in the city,in
ih- the _.fu ~ture.
1/8/86
Pa~e 32
Scaffold Engineering Appeal
Item 13, 1/8/86 C.C. Meeting
January 6, 1986. Page 4.
CONCLUSION
I would suggest that a reasonable interpretation of the City's
General Plan would be that outdoor storage is permitted in the
Planned Industrial General Plan District provided the storage
area is screened from public view by fencing and/or landscaping.
(follow direction of existing Policy 51). If a more severe
outdoor storage policy is desired, then such policy should
be presented as a General Plan amendment at a future public
hearing. The numerous companies impacted by such a proposal
would have an opportunity to appear and comment on the new
policy before it is adopted by the City.
I would suggest that an extensive impact study be prepared by
staff before any such severe or limiting outdoor storage policy
is proposed.
I will attend this public hearing to answer any questions which
you may have on this matter.
Sincerely,
Louis Dell'Angela, AICP
Principal
1/8/86
~age 33
January 8, 1986
TO:
The Honorable City Council
SUBJECT:
Appeal by Dennis P. Mason, President, The Scaffold Mart, 280
Wattis Way
Addendum to Staff Report for Agenda Item 13, City Council Meeting
of January 8, 1986
Staff has received a communication from Mr. Louis Dell'Angela, a communication also
delivered to members of the City Council, which makes a number of statements in sup-
port of this appeal. Mr. Dell'Angela has sent this letter "in the interest of saving
time" at the hearing. Inasmuch as this has been presented early, Staff also is tak-
ing the opportunity to answer some of these statements for Council's information prior
to the meeting. In addition, Staff is supplying some of the previous correspondence
between Staff and The Scaffold Mart's President or his representative on this subject.
On page l, Mr. Dell'Angela states that he is familiar with what was and was not
intended by General Plan policies and definitions. Inasmuch as the Planning Com-
mission and City Council are actually responsible for the determination of the
policies and their adoption, the Commissioners and Council members would have a
better idea of what was intended. Further, it must be said that there are some
ambiguities and inconsistencies in the General Plan document. As one Planning
Commissioner put it, because of this inconsistency, the law "forms a Vacuum" on
this subject. It should be noted that the Planning Commission was unanimous in
upholding the interpretation of Staff with respect to this land use. (Minutes of
Planning Commission meeting of November 14, 1985, attached.)
At the top of page 2, it is stated that the City issued a business license to
Scaffold Engineering on November 11. A copy of that license application is at-
tached; note that there is a notation at the top of the page "OK subj to no
outside storage."
Also, on page 2, it is stated that representatives of the Airport Executive Inn
who were in attendance at the November 14 hearing did not express oppostion.
That is because no representatives of the hotel were yet present at the time of
the hearing on this item. Although the printed agenda for that meeting had this
item Number 8 and the Airport Executive Inn Number 9, the Scaffold Mart appeal
was moved up to Number 4 at the request of Mr. Dell'Angela to the Commission
Chairman because the Scaffold Mart President wanted to catch an airplane that
night.
The applicant for the Airport Executive Inn expansion, Mr. Robert Rossi, has ex-
pressed his opposition to this use to Staff. He has stated that other businesses
in the immediate area are more of a commercial service nature; the products used
in their business are not industrial items like this which present a visible in-
trusion when stored outside; this will especially be~visible from their new addi-
tion. Airport Executive Inn may have a representative at tonight's meeting.
l/8/a~
Page 34
STAFF REPORT
TO: The Honorable City Council
SUBJECT: Appeal/The Scaffold Mart/Addendum for Agenda Item 13
January 8, 1986
Page 2
e
Be
Mr. Dell'Angela states, at the bottom of page 2, that Staff recommended outdoor
storage be permitted for Schenker International at 380 Littlefield Avenue. On
the contrary, the Staff Report states that we were concerned about "the unauthor-
ized open storage which is occurring on the site" and further notes that Planned
Industrial "does not allow for such open storage." Mr. Dell'Angela is equating
parking of container chassis, trailers and trucks with open storage.
Staff interprets General Plan Policy 51 as referring to outside storage in the
Light Industrial (not Planned Industrial) area. The Planning Commission concur-
red.
e
Neither the current M-2 zoning provisions nor the proposed provisions in the orig-
inal zoning draft revision prepared by Sedway Cooke (nos. 4 and 5 of the letter)
are relevant to this immediate situation; the General Plan prohibits many uses
allowed in the existing Ordinance, and the proposed draft has not been adopted
and is certainly subject to change.
e
Although scaffolding equipment may be moved in and out (no. 7 of the letter), be-
cause it is the substance of the business, there is always some scaffolding of
varying sizes on the site. It is a different situation from such equipment as
pallets which are incidental to other operations.
A number of businesses are mentioned as having outside storage (no. 8). In some
instances, confusion is being made between storage and parking. Some uses pre-
cede the present General Plan and are legally non-conforming. There have been
contacts made with some businesses in that area by the Code Enforcement Officer
to eliminate unsightly storage areas.
In his letter of September 20, Mr. Mason requested 120 days to move the equipment in-
side; this was extended by Staff after the Planning Commission action in November
1985. Staff will be happy to cooperate with this company in accomplishing the move
of the equipment to the interior.
C. WALTER BIRKELO
City Manager
MARK LEWIS
Deputy City Manager
Fx~nT. ~ anning Director
CWB:ML:JTS:jws
1/8/86
Attachments Page 35
THE SCAFFOLD MART
Scaffold Engineering, Inc.
October 17, 1985
Ms. Jean T. Smith, Planning Director
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
City Hall, P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, Ca. 94083
EXt{IBIT "A"
PC M~fG 11/14/85
Dear Ms. Smith:
Pursuant to Section 6 of Ordinance 962-84, I hereby appeal
to the Planning Commission your determination that the
incidental storage of material at the rear of property which
we lease at 280 Wattis Way in the City of South San Francisco
is inconsistant and/or incompatible with the City's General
Plan.
Regarding my September 20, 1985 letter to you, I have, after
further consideration, concluded that the operation of our
business at this location would be adversely impacted by moving
into our building the material which is currently stored in
our rear yard area. The decision made at that time to move this
material indoors was made under duress and without a complete
knowledge or understanding of our rights under the General Plan
or Ordinance 962-84. I hope that you will understand our
position in this regard.
Please advise me when a public hearing is scheduled by the
Planning Commission on my appeal.
Dennis P. Mason
President
cc:
Mark Lewis, Deputy City Manager
Ralph S. Armenio, Grubb & Ellis
Louis Dell'Angela, E.D.G.
280 WATTIS WAY, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 · (415)588-7766 · (800)SCA-FOLD
CA. LIC. NO. 316862
1/8/86
Page 36
E~HIBIT '~"
PC ~fIV, 11/14/85
01J';!¢£ OIr ~
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
Admini$lration and.
Community Development
Planntng Divtslon
877-8555
September 10, 1985
Misha David Weidman
Grubb & Ellis
1450 West Cape Drive, Suite 400
San Mateo, CA 94404
RE: OUTSIDE STORAGE YARDS
The Planning Division has reviewed your request for a determination
regarding new outside storage lots in the Planned Industrial portions
of South San Francisco. According to the City's General Plan, new
outside storage lots should only be permitted in areas designated as
Light Industrial.
The intent of the Planned Industrial designation is to provide for uses
akin to industrial parks or other large employment, planned industrial
uses. In contrast, the Light Industrial designation generally encompasses
uses of a ~naller, lower e~ployment, individual character, such as the
one you propose.
Attached is a copy of Interim OrdinanceNo. 962-84which outlines the
procedure for handling problemswhichmy arise as a result of conflicts
between the recently adopted General Plan and the existing Zoning Ordinance.
Accordingly, this division my not approve any new use which is in-
consistent with the adopted General Plan.
If you have further questions regarding this matter, do not hesitate
to contact this office.
Deputy City Manager
arming Director
~: JTS:SN:cd
~/8/86
Page 37
Attachment
EXHIBIT "C"
PC MTG 11/14/85
THE SCAFFOLD MART
Scaffold Engineering, Inc.
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
P.O. Box 711
So. San Francisco, CA 94083
Attentiont Jean T. Smith
September 20, 1985
Dear Ms. Smith
We are in receipt of a letter to Misha Weidman.our realtor,
from the planning division regarding the use of our yard for out-
side storage. It is our understanding that due to city ordinance
no. 962.84 we are not permitted to have outside storage for our
type of equipment.
At this tLme we would like to request a period of 120 days
to make the necessary arrangements to move all of our equipment
inside our warehouse facility. We also understand that at no
time in the future will we be allowed outside storage. My only
question regarding this is at some future date would the plann-
ing commission entertain a proposal for some type of coverage
(meeting city regulations) to this outside area.
President
1/8/86
Page 38
280 WATTS WAY, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 · (415)588-7766 · (800)SCA-FOLD
CA. LIC. NO. 316862
FXHIBIT 'D"
PC ~.{PG 11/14/85
DEPUTY CITY M~%6ER
~xlmini strat ion and-
Comaunity Development
Planning Division
(415) 877-8535
October 8, 1985
Mr. D~nnis P. 'Ma~on, President
Scaffold Engineering, Inc.
280 Watt is Way
South San Francisco, CA 94080
~ ~OR ~IANCE DATE EXTENSION
The Planning Division is in receipt of your letter dated September 20,
1985, requesting a 120-day period in which to achieve c~liance with
City regulations. This request is hereby granted and, therefore, all
outside storage activity at Four facility at 280 Wattis Way shall cease
on or before January 20, 1986.
The Planning Division is willing to work with your firm on proposals
for any additions or alterations you may wish to make to your building.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office regxrding this or other
questions you n~y have.
MARK LEWIS
Deputy City Manager
JEAN T. SMITH
Planning Director
~us~ Xs~k n, Planning Aide
ML: JTS: SX: adw
1/8/86
Page 39
~NDUSTR~AL
LAND USE CATEGORY
Ltght Industrt al
Planned Industrial
COHPARABLE
ZONI#G DISTRICT
EXHIBIT "E"'
~c ,n~, ~/~/ss
Light Industrial: Includes ltght Industrial, distribution, manufacturing,
~holesale and warehousing uses, 1trotted office uses, auto repatr and painting,
cabtnet and ~ood~orktng shops and machtne shops, Including Incidental rata11
sales and commercial service types of uses but excluding Junk yards.
The uses tn thts classification tend to tnclude a vartety of mallet and low
employment businesses. The 11ght Industrial area ts proposed tn the south
central portton of the Ctty tn the Ltndenvtlle area.
Planned Industrial: Includes Industrial parks, 11ght manufacturing, distribu-
tion, wholesale and warehouse uses, 11mtted and low-rtse office uses, research
and development and Including incidental retail sales and commercial servtce
types of uses but excluding auto repair, Junk yards, and meat processing.
The Planned Industrial designation ts tntended to encompass a broad range of
large employment and intensive Industrial uses. The Planned Industrial designa-
tion ts for the most part proposed easterly of U.S. 101 in the Cabot-Utah area
and a~acent to Railroad and South Spruce Avenues. These areas have the advan-
tage of rail service and direct access to the freeway system. These are also in
close proximity to the San Francisco International Airport.
Newer portions of the Cabot-Utah area have well designed butldtng and extensive
landscaping. This design theme should be continued as the remaining vacant land
is developed and older portions of the area are privately redeveloped.
Planned industrial areas located adjacent to residential or commercial areas
should be required to provide buffer areas including setbacks, walls or fences
and landscaping to reduce noise, traffic and odor impacts on the adjoining uses.
INDUSTRIAL ISSUES AND POLICIES
Heavy Industrial Uses
Certain heavy industrial uses often create unacceptable environmental impacts
and cause health, safety, traffic or land use problems. Uses which produce
flan~nable, toxic, odorous, or otherwise dangerous and/or offensive by-products
should no longer be permitted in the City unless they are restricted in their
intensity and location and negative environmental impacts mitigated.
Policy 48
Additional truck terminals, chemical plants, meat
processing plants, auto salvage yards, above-ground
flammable liquid storage, and other similar inten-
sive industrial uses should not be allowed in the
community in the future unless restrictive mitiga-
tion measures are implemented to eliminate any
potential adverse environmental impacts.
2g
U8/86
Page 40
Pollcy 49
Po1 Icy 50
Polt c,y $!
Policy $~
Industrial uses which tnclude substantial hazardous
wastes should be prohibited in the community.
Zndustrtal uses whtch generate a significant amount
of exterior notse (SS dB CNEL or greater), odors
and/or generate heavy truck trafftc should not be
permitted near residential uses.
M1 Industrial storage yards should be screened
from publlc vtew by extensive landscaping and/or
fenctng.
New auto repatr and auto patnttng establishments
should be ltmtted to the Ltght Industrial areas of
the community.
Industrial Parks
South San Francisco has two major Industrial parks Including the Cabot, Cabot
and Forbes, and South San Francisco Industrial Parks. Each Industrial park has
1ts own deed restrictions and development standards, Including mtntmum setbacks,
landscaping requirements and hetght 11mtts. For instance, Cabot, Cabot and
Forbes has a mtnlmum forty foot front yard setback requirement of whtch two-
thtrds must be landscaped. These standards/restrictions have resulted tn well-
destgned Industrial parks with park-like settings. These areas are also
characterized by Imaginative butldtng destgns, often utilizing "tilt-up"
concrete construction materials.
While concrete buildings are cost efficient and have an attractive exterior
appearance, they are also vulnerable to potential seismic activity and liquefac-
tion' particularly on land-filled sttes. Proper mitigation measures for new
building design and retrofiring of existing structures should be required to
minimize seismic-related problems in the future.
There has been a recent trend to construct large office-warehouse condominium
buildings. These uses provide the opportunity for individual ownerships of
small Industrial firms whtle affording excellent building design and extensive
landscapt rig.
Policy 53
Building coverage on any industrial site should not
exceed sixty (60) percent.
Policy 54 At least ten (10) percent of each industrial
butldtng site should be landscaped.
Pol icy 5,5
The construction of "tilt-up' industrial buildings
should be permitted east of the Bayshore Freeway
only if seismic safety measures are provided in
connection with these buildings.
30 1/8/86
Page 41
TO:
SUBJECT:
FRO
~,Pf OF SOUTH SA/~ FRANCISCO
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Da e October 25, 1985
CO~.,~ TO:
Jean T. Smith, Planning Director
280 Watt is Way
Maureen K. Morton, Senior Planner
EXI{IBIT "F" ~ ~
PC ~,fI~ ll/14/g~ %.
I visited the site at 280 Wattis Way - Scaffold Engineering, Inc.
There was in inflatable sign flying above the site, at a height exceeding
the height of Airport Executive Inn.
Also, unauthorized signage has been painted on the front of the building.
They have listed every item which they rent on the facade of the building.
This violates the provisions of the Design Review Guidelines and was done
without review or approval.
I photographed these signs, but the film has not yet been developed.
Please note that the Business License Certificate of Occupancy Application
states that they will not be adding or changing any signs.
Since there has been an appeal filed on this site, I will defer any
corrective action to you on this matter.
Maureen K. Morton, Senior Planner
1/8/86
pa§e 42
CITY OF SOUIH SAN FRANCISCO
..~..~ BUSINESS Llr"NSE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPAI~'V APPLICATiONIgXI~II3IT '~,"
Bus. ~te. I "~':'~ /} Cert. of Otc. I '~ ~
the applicant shall complete the following application. ~omplete applications will
returned. Questions may be directed to the Planning Division, 877-8535. THE BUSINESS S~LL
aOT OPEN UNZlL 1HIS APPLICATION ~S BEEN APPROVEO BY ALL CI1V OEPARIMENTS.
Business Name:
Business Address :_~z_O
Applicant: ~)~ro~5
Mailing Address
Number of Employees:
Business Phone:
Home Phone: '10")
9q9~
Zoning: ~-~
1. Is your business a home occupation? C)Yes I~No
If yes, complete a Home Occupation Form, available from the Planning Division, and skip
to No. 11 of this application.
2. What was the prior use at this location? ~Office [3Retail ORepair
~Warehouse [3Restaurant/deli/bar [3Manufacturing/labs [3No prior use
C30ther
3. Approximately, when did the prior use terminate? DMore than 6 months ago
~Less than 6 months ago [3Use is still there [3Not known
4. What is the business you propose? ~Office [~Retail OManufacturing/labs
[3Repai r [3Restaurant [3Deli K1Bar [3Outside Storage ~]Wa rehouse
I-IOther
Briefly describe:
5. Are you just sharing space (i.e. desk, portion of a warehouse) within an established
business? I~Yes ~No
6. Will you be changing or adding any signs? [3Yes I~No.
7. Will you be remodeling the building or making any other improvements? OYes l~No.
8. Will you be increasing the square footage of any use? l~No ~Yes. If yes, list
the total square feet of each activity: Office ; Retail
Warehouse ; Manufacturing/labs ; Other
9. No. of off-street parking spaces existing ~ . No. of additional spaces proposed ~
10. Will you be selling or serving any alcoholic beverages? [3Yes ~No
11. Will your business involve the storage manufacture, or distribution of.any toxic
chemicals, dangerous or fla~able materials? [3Yes JS)No. Will it create any
excessive noise, odor, light, vibration, traffic, or other impacts? ~No
If yes, explain:
Water meter account No.
I declare that I am the (circle one) owner/le~&/~-t~o~y of the owner of the above property
and that the foregoing is true and correct. I understand that this. business shall not be .
~established until this application is approved by all involved departments and divisions, and
returned to the Finance Department for final recording. I acknowledge receipt of Form
lSSFPD-50-g75 pertaining to Section 15.48.075 of the Municipal Code (available at the Finance
~epartment).
Si gnature/~ate
Print Name:
~-~_Cg ~/~ 1/8/86 Page 43
Appeal - Dennis_Mason,_The_Scaffold_Mart
Appeal by Dennis Mason, President, The Scaffold Mart, of the
Department of Community Development and Administration's decision
regarding outdoor storage of equipment at 280 Wattis Way in the M-2
Industrial Zone District.
Applicant's Representative Present:
Lou Dell'Angela
Environmental Dev Group
400 Oyster Pt Blvd
Mr. Dell'Angela thanked the Commissioners for moving this item up
on the agenda.
Mr. Dell'Angela stated that the Staff Report does not answer the
question of whether the General Plan prohibits an accessory storage
use in a Planned Industrial Zone. He also mentioned that the only
specific policy in the General Plan which addresses this issue is
Policy 51, which states:
"Policy 51. Ail industral storage yards should be screened
from public view by extensive landscaping and/or fencing."
To Mr. Dell'Angela, this implies that certain storage yards may be
allowed in industral zones and that these yards should be screened
from view.
He also stated that if the applicant covered the entire rear
portion of the yard with buildings or a covering, he would be
violating Policy 53, which states that coverage of buildings on a
lot should not cover more than 60% of the lot.
According to Mr. Dell'Angela, the fact that the Airport Executive
Inn is east of this project is irrelevant because there is a
screened fence and landscaping between it and the use.
Commissioner Getz said that the General Plan has a policy of
encouraging hotels and expansion of existing hotels and if there is
problem generated that affects that expansion then the law forms a
vacuum. He adds that the Commission and Staff have a right to set
a discretionary policy to fill that void and to interpret the
General Plan in such a way that is consistent for all properties.
Commissioner Getz stated that there is no problem with temporary
storage, such as a forklift for moving materials in and out. But
with permanent storage, there is a problem because it is visually
intrusive, which violates the General Plan. Storage, he feels,
should be part of the Use Permit.
He agreed that Mr. Mason has stored the material neatly, but
saw no reason why it cannot be stored inside the warehouse, other
than it can be inconvenient to the operation of his business.
From minutes of Novenber
14, 1985 Planning Cc~mission
meeting.
1/8/86
Page 44
Vice-Chair Wendler commented that every businessman should be
familiar with the City's regulations concerning the operation of a
business.
Chairman Terry said that the intent of the developers and the City
for this area when it was built was a Planned business community,
and not for outside storage.
Motion-Agee/Second-Getz: To deny the appeal of the decision of the
Department of Community Development and Administration that the
outdoor storage of Scaffolding equipment at 280 Wattis Way is
inconsistent with the Planned Industrial designation under the
General Plan. AYES: Chairman Terry, Vice-Chair Wendler,
Commissioners Boblitt, Getz, Agee. ABSTENTION: Commissioner
Martin.
Commissioner Agee asked about the sign. Planning Director Smith
answered that the applicant will have to submit an application for
the sign which will have to be approved by Staff or by the Design
Review Board.
Chairman Terry declared a 10 minute recess.
Isaac Guillory, GP-85-29, UP-85-742, Negative Declaration No. 525
General Plan Amendment to the Definition of Retail Commercial in
the Land Use Element of the General Plan to allow a residential/
commercial mixed use and a use Permit to allow same on the north-
west corner of Linden and California Avenues in the C-2 Central
Commercial Zone District.
Applicant Present:
Isaac Guillory
1402 Ashwood Drive
San Mateo, CA 94402
Architect:
Henry Yanaga
1650 Borel Place, Ste 228
San Mateo, CA 94402
Commissioner Agee expressed concern about the wording in Exhibit
"A", in which there may be times when mixed use developments may
not be desirable. She suggests that the wording be changed
to: "Residential/commercial mixed use developments may be allowed
in Planning Area 2." This will imply that developments will not be
automatically approved.
Commissioner Martin asked what the current residential density for
this residential area is.
Senior Planner Gorny answered that this area does not have one.
Commissioner Martin had concern about precedent with the density
limit.
1/8/86
Page 45
~TAFF REPORT
tO: Planning Commission
APPLICANT: Schenkers International, UP-83-661/Mod 1
December 12, 1985
Page 3
Staff has several concerns with this application. First, this
undeveloped area incorporates approximately 56,000 square feet of
land, over one-third of the site. Staff has no concerns with a
proposal for the temporary storage of trailers, container
chassis, and trucks as a use anciliary to the existing office
warehouse use currently occupying the site. This site should
not,. however, become a trucking and storage terminal. There is
concern that the applicants are providing parking and storage
facilities for businesses not associated with the approved
business. The applicants' revised proposal dated November 26,
1985, limits the proposed parking area to the southerly one-half
of the open lot, which is more acceptable.
Another concern is the visual impact of the proposed parking
area. Staff recommends that this area be screened by an eight-
foot cyclone fence with slats. The fence should be protected
from damage by the large vehicles by some manner acceptable to
staff. Special Condition No. 3 reflects this requirement.
Another concern is how the proposal will affect the parking on
the site. The sketch plan dated November 26, 1985 submitted with
the application indicates that the proposal would eliminate seven
(7) existing parking spaces. The present building requires
sixty-one (61) spaces; sixty-five (65) are provided on the site.
If seven (7) spaces are lost with the present proposal, three (3)
additional spaces shall be required to comply with the sixty-one
(61) space requirement. This can be resolved when the applicant
submits the required site plan, drawn to scale, for the building
permit.
The final concern that staff has is regarding the unauthorized
o~e~torage which is occurrinq on this site. Not only has the
site peen use~ for parkin~ trailers, container chassis, aHd
trucks, but there ~ ~ tr~m-naous amount of storage of goods and
ma-~erials, ~n~r~ned dehri~ hoxe~, ~ wooden firewood bin, etc'.
located on this sit~ (photon ~v~i]~h]e at the meeting). Whether
or not this Use Permit Modification is approved, the Planning
Commission should put the applicants on notice to remove this
unauthorized storage and comply with the provisions of Use Permit
UP-83-661 regarding treating this remaining open area for weed
growth, dust, and erosion. ~site is designated Planned
Industrial on the City's General Plan, which does not allow for~
1/8/86
Pa§e 46
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
APPLICANT: Schenkers International, UP-83-661/Mod 1
December 12, 1985
Page 4
such open storage. If the applicants require incidental storage
Space and/or debris boxes, a site and screening plan should be
submitted to the Design Review Board.
The documents related to this case are attached.
Mark Lewis
Deputy City Manager
Jean T. Smith
Planning Director
Maureen K. Morton
Senior Planner
ML:JTS:MKM:sp
Attachments
1/8/86
Page 47