The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 1986-08-27Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia Vice Mayor Mark N. Addiego Counci 1: John "Jack" Drago Richard A. Halley Gus Nicolopulos AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) ROLL CALL: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION: PRESENTATIONS PROCLAMATION - NINOY AQUINO DAY AUGUST 21, 1986 ADULT LITERACY MONTH - SEPTEMBER 1986 SUMMER DAY CAMP SENIOR ADULT DAY CARE AGENDA REVIEW MINUTES City Council Municipal Services Building Community Room August 27, 1986 0001 ACTION TAKEN 8:00 p.m. Mayor Teglia presiding. Council present: Council absent: Nicolopulos, Haffey, Addiego, Drago and Teglia. None. The pledge of allegiance was recited. The invocation was given by Reverend Neeley, 1st Southern Baptist Church. PRESENTATIONS Mayor Teglia read the Proclamation aloud and presented it to Raul and Suki Riego. Councilman Drago read the Proclamation aloud and presented it to Project Read Coordinator Leslie Shelton. Ms. Shelton presented the students and tutors of the program who were in the audience. Recreation Supervisor Tsitovich described the summer day care activities: arts & crafts; organized games; special trips; swimming; hay rides and a penny carnival. Senior Adult & Day Care Coordinator Sandy Hageborn presented a slide show on the Senior Adult Day Care Center and described its many attributes to the com- munity for frail seniors unable to be safely or comfortably left at home during the day: ice cream shop socials; wheel chair soccer; special entertainment; music and exercise classes; crafts; wheel chair dancing; conversation; rest and support, etc. AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Birkelo stated that he had nothing to add to the agenda. 8/27/86 Page i AGENDA ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ACTION TAKEN 000 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Douglas Butler related the following from the Daly City Council's Monday night meeting: Blue Shield had not responded to the Council and they had rescinded the Ordinance for the 212,000 square foot structure; that the Council had certified the EIR and adopted the Statement of Overriding Considerations; a new Ordinance had had a first reading to change from Commercial to PD standards for a building of 151,000 square feet, a six story structure eighty five feet high instead of one hundred feet high. He stated that he had requested a copy of the documentation from the City Attorney, which he had been told would not be ready until Friday. He stated that the second reading of the Ordinance would be on 9/8/86. He quoted the following from the EIR, "The scale of the building should be reduced to minimize intrusion on the Winston Manor neighborhood and Clay Avenue Park." He stated that the only way to minimize that impact was to reduce the height of the building, but nothing had been done except to eliminate one story which did not minimize the height of the building. He hoped Council was still considering making a statement or taking legal action at the appropriate time. Mayor Teglia stated that there would be a report later in the meeting on the item. Ms. Sharon Albera, 204 Mansfield Dr., stated that she was representing the homes and residences of the West Winston Manor Community Association. She stated that in reference to the Serramonte Park Plaza, the residents had repeatedly approached the Daly City Council to deny the rezoning and not allow this building to be built - which had been to no avail. 8/27/86 Page 2 · ^ E N D ^ 0002 ACTION TAKEN ORAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY FORUM ORAL COMMUNICATIONS She stated that residents felt this building would be disastrous to the neighborhood and urged the City Council to assist the residents by doing something. Mayor Teglia asked if the residents had come to some agreement as to what would be agreeable on that site. Ms. Albera stated that no building would be preferable, however they would be agreeable to 130,000 square foot building. She stated that a petition of 200+ signa- tures, out of 460 residents in West Winston Manor, had been presented to the Council in opposition to any building. She stated that Daly City had not been responsive to any of their needs, when anything other than a one story building would be intrusive to the neighborhood. She stated that the residents had told the Developer that there were certain areas in South San Francisco for tall buildings, rather than build his building behind their homes creating an unsafe condition on the 2.7 acres. Mayor Teglia stated that there was a Closed Session at the end of the meeting that covered litigation and other items, and she promised that this issue would be discussed at that time. COMMUNITY FORUM Councilman Drago acknowledged a letter from the Historical Society urging the City Council to complete the restoration of the clock tower at City Hall. City Manager Birkelo stated that that would be discussed in the Capital Improvement Budget Program, and that he needed to set a meeting date. 8/27/86 Page 3 AGENDA COMMUNITY FORUM ACTION TAKEN 000 COMMUNITY FORUM Mayor Teglia stated that the Council was very committed to the restoration, however the dollar amount dictated what could be done now, and what would have to be done in the future. She questioned the cost of the work still to be done. Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee stated, that in his memory, the budgeted number in the Capital Improvement Program was $200,000 for the clock tower and some iron work. He stated that the tower needed to be reconstructed, and that a large crane might be needed to get to the site; make a mold, and redo the tower - which was costly. He stated that the building itself was over sixty years old, with most of the plaster having fallen off and patched. He stated that to do it right, the tower had to be removed and reconstructed. He stated that $1.8 million had been spent on the structure and the interior of City Hall, the Annex and the Library. He stated that to complete the entire project would cost $500,000: that the major portion of work was the balustrade, clock tower, the back door and other minor work. Councilman Drago stated that if the clock tower was disregarded, would there be any additional damage to the building if the Council did not do anything quickly, before the rains began. Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee stated no, there shouldn't be any problem with the next winter. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that each member of the Council had had priorities on the project, and it had been a real lesson in how democracy really worked. Mayor Te§lia stated that tonight's com- ments should be put in letter form to the /27/~6 age ~ AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0005 i COMMUNITY FORUM CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of the Adjourned Regular Meeting of 8/12/86, Adjourned Regular Meeting of 8/13/86, and the Regular Meeting of 8/13/86. Staff Report 8/27/86 recommending by Motion to accept as complete the 1985-86 Street Resurfacing Program, Project No. ST-85-4, in accordance with the approved plans and speci- fications. Staff Report 8/27/86 recommending by Motion to accept as complete the public improvements installed by the Rare Earth Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Staff Report 8/27/86 recommending by Motion to accept as complete the public improvements installed by the Rare Earth Subdivision Improvement Agreement. APPROVAL OF BILLS 4. Approval of the Regular Bills of 8/27/86. ~/3 COMMUNITY FORUM Historical Society with an invitation for the Society's input during the budget hearings. CONSENT CALENDAR Approved. So ordered. Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Mayor Teglia. M/S Haffey/Addiego - To approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item No. 3. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Mayor Teglia questioned if this part of Country Club was within City boundaries. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that it was in the City, and with one resident thus far living on one of the five lots. M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To accept the public improvements installed by Rare Earth Subdivision Improvement Agreement as complete. Carried by unanimous voice vote. APPROVAL OF BILLS M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To approve the Regular Bills of 8/27/86 in the amount of 8/27/86 Page 5 AGENDA APPROVAL OF BILLS CITY CLERK Staff Report 8/13/86 recommending adoption of a Resolution estab- lishing compensation and benefits for the City Clerk - continued from the 8/13/86 meeting. ~/~ A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR THE CITY CLERK ACTION TAKEN 0OO6 APPROVAL OF BILLS $1,327,382.61. Carried by unanimous voice vote. CITY CLERK City Clerk Battaya stated that this was a carry-forward item from the Council meeting of 8/13/86, wherein she had requested a salary adjustment of 40.3% to be compatible with her counterparts in benchmark cities. She stated that Council had questioned the comparables approach and indicated they wanted to examine wage increases within the City during the thirty-three month period ending in August, 1986, and had directed Staff to develop that information prior to taking action on her request. She stated that she had made a survey of twenty selected positions in the City to augment Staff efforts, in an effort to select only those positions that had not changed materially in scope during the time period in question. She stated that the survey included representation from Executive Management, Management and Confidential employees, as well as certain positions represented by AFSCME. She stated that the average increases ranged from 26.5% for Executive Management to 40.4% for the AFSCME, with an overall average increase for the twenty selected positions of 29.5%. She stated that a Staff memo had been written indicating that the average cost of living increase over the period in question was 20.91%, excluding the com' parable worth adjustment awarded female dominated classes, with a cumulative effect of the three increases adding to the 20.91% - which compounded was actually 22.36%. She respectfully requested a salary 8/27/86 Page 6 AGENDA CITY CLERK 5. Staff Report - Continued. ACTION TAKEN 00O7 CITY CLERK adjustment of at least 30%, and had attached a Resolution without specific data that could be adopted by title only. Mayor Teglia stated that Council had received a memo from the Coordinator of Labor Relations with a survey of living adjustments for employee units over the thirty-three month period. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that at the last meeting he had asked the specific question, and had not received an answer, on what the City Clerk's position should be compared to - in that cost of living increases varied throughout the whole City. He stated that there appeared to be a manipulation or game played with sta- tistics to try and confuse the Council. He stated that the figures from the City Clerk range from 40%, using twenty posi- tions, and the Staff survey was 20.91%. Mayor Teglia stated that it had been a debate point between Councilman Nicolopulos and the Council, about what to compare the Clerk to, and Councilman Nicolopulos had lost. She stated that Councilman Nicolopulos wanted to compare it to other City Clerk's and the Council decided they were not going to do that. She stated that Staff had been instructed to see what the municipal family had received over the years and whatever it was, the Clerk was entitled to receive - excluding the special adjustment for female dominated positions. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned if the 40% survey had been verified as accurate by the City Manager. City Manager Birkelo stated that the sur- vey data of the five cities had been verified as accurate. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that the 8/27/86 Page 7 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0008 CITY CLERK CITY CLERK Clerk had made a survey of twenty posi- tions within the City, and questioned if the figures had proven to be accurate. City Manager Birkelo stated that he had no reason to believe the Clerk's figures were not correct. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that there was a bottom line of 29.5% in the Clerk's survey of twenty positions, however the Labor Coordinator had come up with another survey of 20.91% and questioned how many positions that included. Coordinator of Labor Relations Tolmacheff stated that it included at least a hundred, out of 388 full time employees. City Clerk Battaya questioned why Staff would not respond to her survey, wherein if a person made X dollars in 1983 and made XXX dollars in 1986, which when com- puted exceeded the percentage shown by the Staff survey - how was that explained. Deputy City Manager/CD&A Lewis stated that the Mayor had hit it on the head, in that the difference between the two sur- veys was the 10% adjustment to female dominated positions. Councilman Drago stated that the first survey by the City Clerk was 40%, and tonight's staff report requested 29.5%. He questioned why the percentage figure had been revised. City Clerk Battaya stated that the Coun- cil had made it very clear that they did not want to judge her on the benchmark cities that had been established for Executive and Mid-Management, which was where the 40% had been derived. She stated tht her survey of the twenty posi- tions had a bottom line of 29.5% average in increases, which had included the 10% for six positions out of the twenty surveyed. /27/~6 age ~ AGENDA CITY CLERK 5. Staff Report - Continued. ACTION TAKEN OOO9 CITY CLERK Councilman Drago stated tht the clerk had said that the City survey of 20.91% should have been 22.36%, and questioned how that had been derived. City Clerk Battaya stated that to com- pound the percentages, the following method was used: 1.0867 X 1.0724 X 1.05 : 22.36%. Councilman Haffey explained in great detail the criteria used for the 10% increase for female dominated classes - which had not been on a city-wide basis. Mrs. Irene Mann, 103 Fir Ave., stated that she had been following this item on television and in the medea, and found it deplorable that an employee, even though she had been elected successfully twice by the public which had shown the public was well satisfied with her performance, had to demean herself to beg the Council for a raise. She stated that for work well performed, and with the cost of living going up every day, there was no reason why the Clerk should go without remuneration for three years. She stated that in her opinion it was not a question of women versus men in her position, but a vendetta against one employee. Mayor Teglia explained that the City did not normally conduct labor relations in public, however, State Law required that salary negotiations for an elected offi- cial had to be conducted in open session. Mr. Douglas Butler, 133 Adrian Ave., stated that the 5% increase, discussed at the last meeting, seemed low when he had received 91/2% last year as a cost of living increase. He stated that he would like the Council to consider the administrative quality of this office and adjust the salary accor- dingly, and that a compromise of 30% would be fair. 8/27/86 Page 9 AGENDA CITY CLERK 5. Staff Report - Continued. ACTION TAKEN 0010 CITY CLERK Vice Mayor Addiego stated that Mr. Butler's increase of 91/2% was probably not a cost of living increase, but recogni- tion that the teaching profession had fallen behind in salary. Ms. Herdus Gudmon, 176 Southcliff, stated that she agreed totally with Mrs. Mann's comments. She stated that as a nurse she was very familiar with being overworked and underpaid. She stated that the clerk worked very hard for the city and saw no reason she should not receive the salary she justly deserved. Mrs. Doris Agee, 819 Ridge Court, stated that she remembered being at one of the parties on election night, when Barbara had been elected and learned that with the election her appointed salary had been reduced. She felt that the Clerk's salary should be compared to other City Clerks, and that she should receive what she requested because of the quality of the job performed. Mr. Jake Jones stated that the council should agree on a raise for the Clerk and then start dealing from here with regular cost of living increases. He stated that many private enterprises were reducing employee salaries in order to stay in business. He stated that he had been reading about this City not making their budget this year, yet he heard rumors about Staff members salaries approaching $80,000 a year. He felt that the City Clerk should have been brought up to scale three years ago and every year thereafter for having done a good job. Discussion followed: the Clerk was pre- sently making $32,472; if the 20.91% com- pounded figure was used, the salary would be approximately $39,500-40,000, a $7,500-8,000 increase; if 29.5% was used the salary would be $42,500-43,000, a 8/27/86 Page 10 AGENDA CITY CLERK 5. Staff Report - Continued. ACTION TAKEN 0011 CITY CLERK $10,000-11,000 increase; getting com- parable City Clerk's salary from all around the State. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that he was very concerned that a comparable City Clerks approach could not be effected for the City Clerk, as had been done with all other positions in the City. Councilman Haffey stated that the purpose was to recognize that this person has not received a raise in three years and did deserve a cost of living adjustment with a rationale, a justification that was somewhat fair. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that a truer rational would be to have made a comparative analysis of her job, rather than comparing her to positions that do not have the aspects of her job. Vice Mayor Addiego stated that he was starting to choke on this discussion, and did not know if he could go a penny or a tenth of a percent more than 20%. M/S Haffey/Teglia - A pay raise for the City Clerk equal to the amount shown in the cost of living adjustment of 8.6%, 7.24% and 5.0% properly compounded; and directed the Clerk to have an agenda item each year, no later than May or June, for consideration of a general increase. Councilman Drago stated that he wanted to make an amendment or a substitute Motion, according to Robert's Rules of Order so we can vote on it first, and raise the wage percentage to 25% based on what the other employees received in the last three years and her salary; and that this would be a middle road for now. He stated that he believed it was a fair wage, and would bring her up fairly close to the Labor Negotiator's request and the Clerk's of 29.5% - 25% would be fair and was his proposed amendment to the origi- /27/~§ age ii AGENDA CITY CLERK 5. Staff Report - Continued. ACTION TAKEN 0012 CITY CLERK nal Motion. Councilman Nicolopulos - seconded the Motion. City Clerk Battaya questioned if the maker of the Motion or the Second to the Main Motion was going to withdraw their Motion or Second. Councilman Drago stated that the Amended Motion took precedence over the Main Motion. City Attorney Armento stated that in her recollection of Robert's Rules of Order the Amended Motion, technically, the Second should agree or disagree with the amendment to the Motion. She stated that if the person who Seconded the first Motion doesn't agree or disagree -- if the person who made the Motion should concur in the Amendment, if the person who made the Motion does not concur with the Amendment, then the Amendment is not acceptable. She continued, if the person who concurred in the Motion accepted the Amendment, then the person who Seconded the first Motion needed to concur in the Amendment, otherwise we define a separate Second. Councilman Haffey stated that he did not agree to the Amendment to his Motion, and called for a vote. Original Motion and Second failed, Councilmembers Nicolopulos, Addiego, and Drago voted no. M/S Addiego/Haffey - For a 20% pay raise for the City Clerk; and directed the Clerk to have an agenda item each year, in May or June, for an annual review in consideration of a general increase. Carried by majority roll call vote, Drago and Nicolopulos voted no. 8/27/86 Page 12 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0013 RECESS: Mayor Teglia declared a recess at 9:20 p.m. RECALL TO ORDER: Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to order at 9:35 p.m., all Council present. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION ® Public Hearing - Consideration of ~ City Clerk Battaya read the title of the Negative Declaration No. 547, ~"~) Ordinance in its entirety. General Plan Amendment (GP-86-30), Revised Zoning District Maps, and the Revised Zoning Ordinance. Staff Report 8/27/86 recommending: 1) Continue the Public Hearing and hear testimony; 2) Close the Public Hearing; 3) Motion to approve Negative Declaration No. 547; Motion to adopt a Resolution on the General Plan Amendment; 4) Motion to waive further reading of the Zoning Ordinance; 5) Motion to introduce the Ordinance. A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-86-30 PURSUANT TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2368, ADOPTED JUNE 12, 1986 Mayor Teglia stated the Public Hearing was still open and invited comment for and against the item. She stated that she had a letter from David P. Uccelli, Esq., dated 8/26/86, regarding the General Plan Amendment and Revised Zoning District Map (a copy is attached and a permanent part of the record of this meeting). She stated that there was also a com- munication from the Downtown Merchants, dated 8/22/86, requesting that the Public Hearing be continued for thirty days from the date of the letter. She stated that this would be dealt with at the end of the discussion. 1st Reading/Introduction AN ORDINANCE REPEALING TITLE 17 AND TITLE 20, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHAPTERS 20.57, 20.59, 20.61 AND 20.63, OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE (ORDINANCES NO. 353 AND NO. 455, AS AMENDED) AND ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 20 ENTITLED "ZONING" (Cassette No. 2) She stated that there was also a letter from Louis Dell'Angela, Environmental Development Group, dated 8/25/86, regarding Proposed General Plan Amendments and New Zoning Ordinance (a is copy attached and a permanent part of the record of this meeting). Mr. Alan Zellmer, Downtown Merchants Association, stated that a review had been made of the revised ordinance related to signage, and the Board of Directors of the Association had grave concerns over the document. He stated that Sign District 2 would cause a tre- mendous financial impact on existing merchants, as well as being restrictive to new merchants on the street. He stated that it was very subjective vs. being objective. 8/27/86 Page 13 0014 LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. UCCELLI SUITE 300 $20 EL CAblINO REAL · SAN bfATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 (415) S79-1100 August 26, 1986 Hand Delivered South San Francisco City Council Members Mark Addiego Roberta Teglia Richard Haffey Jack Drago Gus Nicolopolus Post Office Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: General Plan Amendment and Revised Zoning District Map Dear City Council Members: I represent the owners of the real property located along the southerly side of Oak Avenue between Commercial and Grand Avenues, and 3 parcels across from the Jehovah Witness Church. A parcel map depicting said property is attached hereto as Exhibit The surrounding properties are presently used as the North County Court Facilities, Jail, County Health Center, and High Density Residential Developments. The adjacent property to the north is owned by the County, and to the east by the City, and consists of unimproved land. In September, 1978, my clients' properties were zoned C-O to allow Commercial and Professional Office use. At that time the Planning Commission made specific finds regarding the land use which included the following: A. That the C-O zoning would be compatible with the surrounding land uses and zones. B. That the rezoning of these properties to the C-O zone will accommodate desirable land uses and the development standards will ensure adequate provisions for parking, setbacks, landscaping and other desirable site standards. Page 13a 8/27/86 0015 South San Francisco City Council Members Re: General Plan Amendment and Revised Zoning District Map August 26, 1986 Page Two C. That the rezoning will not be adverse to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, D. That based on the initial study prepared for this case, a negative declaration has been prepared making a finding of "no significant environmental effect" in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. A copy of Resolution No. 2239 adopted by the Planning Commission is attached hereto for your convenience marked Exhibit "B". The C-O zoning allowed either High Density Residential Development or Commercial and Professional Offices thereby providing a degree of flexibility regarding the future development of said property. On three prior occasions I have expressed my clients opposition to a down zoning of their property under the General Plan Amendment. Copies of my letters dated December 13, 1982, May 6, 1983 and January 25, 1984, are attached hereto for your convenience marked Exhibit "C". Since 1978 there has been no change in the surrounding land use nor the use of my clients' properties. Absent any change in use, the findings of the Commission set forth in the above-mentioned Resolution are still appropriate. I again call to the Council's attention that some provisions should be made in the General Plan and/or Zoning District to allow my clients to develop their property in such a manner as to compliment the existing professional and municipal use in the area. When I appeared before the Council in April, 1983, the members recognized that professionals whose business activities requires them to use the present County Facilities would locate their offices in the area if they has the opportunity. The subject property is one of a few in the area suitable to accommodate such development. My clients wish to retain the flexibility they now have under the C-O zoning so they may develop their properties in a Page 13b 8/27/86 0016 South San Francisco City Council Members Re: General Plan Amendment and Revised Zoning District Map August 26, 1986 Page Three manner compatible with the surrounding uses, i.e., either High Density Residential and/or Commercial and Professional Offices. Down zoning the property to Medium Density Residential and precluding any future Professional Office development would not be in the best interest of my clients, the surrounding area, nor the people of South San Franci~ DPU/nb Enclosures Page 13c 8/~7/86 0017 Page 13d 8/27/86 Z 0::'4~ D C-O : Lc Cra: [XHIB1T "k" of the gouth San Francisco ~lann~n§ ~[SOLU110~; ~.dopted day of 0[18 · ', I 0-0 ZONN, % Z 7~ 0019 Page 13f 8/27/86 RESOLUTION NO. 2239 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE REZONING OF PROPER- TIES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY SIDE OF OAK AVENUE BETWEEN GRAND AVENUE AND 200 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY OF COMMERCIAL AVENUE FROM THE R-2 DUPLEX FAMILY AND R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY TO THE C-O COMMERCIAL OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT INCLUDING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 187 0020 WHEREAS the Planning Commission made the following findings: That the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Administrative Professional designation shown on the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 2. That the C-O zoning would be compatible with the surrounding land uses and zones. That the rezoning of these properties to the C-O zone will accom- modate desirable land uses and the development standards will en- sure adequate provisions for parking, setbacks, landscaping and pther desirable site standards. 4. That the rezoning will not be adverse to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. That based on the initial study prepared for this case, a nega- tive declaration has been prepared making a finding of "no signi- ficant environmental effect" in accordance with the California. Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco that it is recommended the City Council adopt an Ordinance rezoning the properties located on the southeasterly side of Grand Avenue and a point 200 feet southwesterly of Commercial Avenue from R-2 and R-3 to the C-O Zone (see Exhibit "A" and "B") NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is recommended the City Council review and approve Negative Declaration No. 187. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution of policy was introduced and adopted by the planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 26 day of Septembe~ , 1978 by the following vote: Page 13g 8/27/86 RESOLUTION NO. Z239 0021 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Vice - Chairman Mullin, Con~issioners Bertucelli, Slade. Grimes. and Manteqani. NONE NONE Chairman Campredon and Commissioner Mathewson ATTEST: .,,,,.,,, Co y of the Planning Commission Page 13h 8/27/86 ... ii-. ! ' I LL '~.~ ;-.':, -,-' ." '""" EXHIBIT "A" of ~he Sou~h San Frnncisco Planning Co.mi ssion RESOLUT]OH NO.~ Adopted ..... da~ of / / .' _ Z O/VF_b 0022 'ZONED AVENUE EXHIBIT "B" RESOLUTION NO. 0023 Rezoning From R-2 to C-O Assessor Parcel No. 011-313-080 BEGINNING At the most Westerly corner of the street described in the Grant of Easement from South San Francisco Land and Improvement Com- pany of the City of South San Francisco, dated December 26, 1946 and recorded January 3, 1947 in Book 1300 of Official Records of San Mateo at page 475, (43768-G) said point of beginning bears North 36o 45' West 20 feet from the most westerly corner of Lot 8 as shown on the map entitled "DALY SUBDIVISION SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA", which map was filed in the office of the Recorder of the County of San Mateo, State of California, on January 23, 1951 in Book 32 of Maps at page 47, said point also being in the northeasterly line of the lands of the California Water Service Company; thence from said point of beginning along said line, of the lands of the California Water Service Company North 36o 45' West 140.00 feet to the southeasterly line of Oak Avenue; 'thence along said southeasterly line, North 53o 15' East 48.84 feet to the southwesterly line of the lands described in the Deed from South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company to Irene Shuman, dated February 28, 1912 and recorded March l, 1912 in Book 209 of Deeds at page 345, Records of San Mateo County'; thence along said southwesterly line, South 360 45' East 140.00 feet to saiu northwesterly line of the 20 foot street; thence along the last mentioned line, South 53o 15' West 48.84 feet to the point of beginning. Rezoning from R-2 to C-O Assessor Parcel No. 011-313-090 BEGINNING at a poiht that is south 36o 38' East 205 feet distant from a point in the westerly boundary line of the Lands of the South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company, and which said last mentioned point is north 53° 22' East 590.6 feet distant along the said boundary line from the northeasterly line of the County Road known as Mission Road, running thence from said point of beginning parallel with the above mentioned boundary line north 53o 22' East 50 feet, thence at right angles south 36u 38' East 140 feet, thence at r~ght angles south 53~ 22' West 50 feet, thence at right angles North 36v 38' West 140 feet to the place of beginning. Assessor Parcel No. 011-312-210 BEGINNING at a point that is distant South 15° 33' West 291.75 feet, and North 74o 27' West 160 feet from the intersection of the southerly line of Grand Avenue with the westerly line of Chestnut Avenue, int~he City of South San Francisco, said point being on the Westerly line of that certain tract of land conveyed to Luigi Costiglio by Deed dated August 24, 1920 and recorded September 8, 1920 in Book 294 of Deeds at page 379, Records of San MateolCounty, California; running thence from said point of beginning along thewest~rlyline of said Costiglio Tract and its production southerly, South 15v 33' West 268.25 feet; thence at right angles, North 74° 27' West 37.90 feet; thence North 36o 45' West 344.20 feet to the southeasterly line of Oak Avenue; thence along Oak Page 13j ..... _8./. ~ 7../86 EXtllL~IT RFSOLUTION NO. Page 2 O024 Assessor Parcel No. 011-312-210 cont'd: Avenue, North 53o 15' East 73.00 feet to the most Westerly corner of the Pietro Uccelli, 1.O12 acre tract described in Deed recorded October 6, 1919 in Book 289 of Deeds at page 294, Records of San Mateo County, California; thence along the Southerly line of said 1.O12 acre tract, South 74o 27' East 265.62 feet to the point of beginning. Assessor Parcel No. Oll-312-OlO BEGINNING at a point, which is distant South 15 degrees 33 minutes West 277.5 feet and North 74 degrees 27 minutes West 160 feet from the inter- section of the southerly line of Grand Avenue and the westerly line of Chestnut Avenue in said City of South San Francisco, California, running thence South 15 degrees 33 minutes West 14.25 feet; thence North 74 degrees 27 minutes West 265.62 feet to the easterly line of Oak Avenue; thence along the easterly line of Oak Avenue north 53 degrees 15 minutes East 308.6 feet; thence on a curve to the right with a Radius of 122.47 feet, the chord of which curve bears North 74 degrees 41 minutes 52 seconds East 91.69 feet to the westerly line of an alley; thence South 15 degrees 33 minutes West 275.86 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 1.012 acres, more or less. Rezoning From R-3 to C-O Assessor Parcel No. 011-312-200 BEGINNING at a point on the easterly line of Oak Avenue, in said City of South San Francisco, California, which, point is distant North 74 degrees 27' West 249.22 feet and South 53 degress 15' West 492.8 feet from the intersection of the easterly line.of Chestnut Avenue with the center line of Grand Avenue, and running thence South 36 degrees 45' East 140 feet; thence South 53 degrees 45' West lO0 feet; thence North 36 degrees 45' West 140 feet to the easterly .line of Oak Avenue; thence along said easterly line of Oak Avenue North 53 degrees 15' East 100 feet to the point of begin- ning. Containing 0.32 acres more or less. Rezoning From R-2 to C-O Assessor Parcel No. 011-313-019 BEGINNING at a point in the southeasterly line of Oak Avenue in the City of South San Francisco, said point of beginning being distant South 53o 15' West 457.46 feet and South 36o 45' East 205.0 feet from a granite monu- ment designated "L-7" on the map of survey made for P.E. Iler of Land pur- chased in the Buri Buri Rancho and,-.Section 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 Township 3 South, Range 5 West, located in the San Mateo County, filed March 10, 1891 in Book "E" of Maps at page 79, said point of beginning being the most Northerly corner of property now or formerly of Irene Sherman; thence from said point of beginning along the Northeasterly boundary of said property now or formerly Sherman, South 36o 45' East 100 feet; thence North 53° 15' East 100 feet; thence North 36° 45' West lO0 feet to said Southeast- erly line of Oak Avenue; thence along said last named line South 53o 15' West 100 feet to the point of beginning. Page 13k 8/27/86 0025 Page 131 8/27/86 0026 LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. UCCELLI SUITE 300 520 EL CAMINO REAL · SANMATEO, CALlFORNIA94402 (415) 579-1100 January 25, 1984 South San Francisco City Council Members Mark Addiego Richard Haffey Roberta Teglia Emanuele DaMonte Gus Nicolopolus P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Public Hearing January 26, 1984: Land use Circulation and Transportation Elements of the City of South San Francisco Proposed General Plan Members of the City Council of South San Francisco: My clients, Oak Farms, Inc., and Mr. Lawrence Varni, own the real property located along the southerly side of Oak Avenue as outlined in the attached parcel map. Since 1978 this property has been zoned C-O which allows commercial and professional office use. The property is situated near the North County Court facilities, the new jail facility, the County Health Center, and is adjacent to property now owned by the County of San Mateo on Oak Avenue. Although such properties are used for agricultural, professional, municipal and office purposes, the proposed Plan designates the same as Medium Density Residential. In April, 1983, I appeared before the Council to call to your attention that some provision should be made to allow property near the County facilities above-mentioned to be developed in such a manner as to compliment the existing professional and municipal office use in the area. The Council recognized that many professionals whose business activity requires them to use the present County facilities would locate their offices in the area if they had the opportunity. The Council further recognized that my clients' property, as depicted in the attached parcel map, is one of the few properties in the area suitable to accommodate such development. Page 13m 8/27/86 oo 0027 ~-Z : Lc C."-: -~"~ -/2- :-z . i]B]'[ "A" of the ,th San Francisco r,n~n9 Ce~_~ ss i on .aL U:I ] 05~ ;;0. ?ted._.__~y ~)-f' __ A 1-23- 5 8/2-7/86---P~e- .1-3o- 0028 South San Francisco City Council Members January 25, 1984 Page Two The members of the Council seemed to agree that some provision should be made in the Proposed Plan to allow my clients' property to be developed for professional office use. Therefore, on behalf of my clients, I respectfully request the Council include in the Proposed Plan a provision which will allow the property in question to be developed for professional office use. S~nce re~'ly, ~ /7 'DAVID P. UCCEL~I DPU/nb cc: clients Page 13n 0029 LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. UCCELLI SUITE 300 520 EL CAM1NO REAL * SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 (415) 579-1100 May 6, 1983 South San Francisco City Council Members Mark Addiego Roberta Teglia Emanuele DaMonte Rona!d Acosta Gus Nicolopolus P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: Proposed Land use Circulation Element of the General Plan for the City of South San Francisco Dear--City Council Members: My clients, Oak Farms, Inc. and Mr. Lawrence Varni, own the real property located along the southerly side of Oak Avenue as outlined in the attached parcel map. For the last four (4) years this property was zoned C-O which allows commercial and professional office use. Under the new proposed plan the property would be designated for Medium Residential Density. On December 13, 1982, I caused to be delivered to the members of the Planning Commission a letter, on behalf of my clients. ~The same was included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report of December 1982 at page 97. Reference to the same is hereby made for further particulars. The property is situated near the North County Court facilities, the new jail facility and the County Health Center, and is adjacent to property now owned by the County of San Mateo on Oak Avenue. Although such properties are used for professional, municipal and office purposes, the proposed Plan designate the same as residential. Although my letter of December 13, 1982 suggested the General Plan designate the area as high density residential, my clients primary interest is to designate the property so as to allow professional office us in the future. Page 13p 8/27/86 0030 South San Francisco City Council Re: Proposed Land Use May 6, 1983 Page Two Some provision should be made to allow property near the County facilities above-mentioned to be developed and used to compliment the existing use in the area. It appears only natural that the many professionals whose business activity'require them to use the present County facilities would locate their professional offices in the area if and when the opportunity arose. Since no provision has been made by the proposed Plan to allow such development, I suggest the Council re-examine the proposed land use for the property in question and provide for professional and commercial office use~ ~AVID P. UCCELLI DPU/nb Encl. Page 13q 8/27/86 _/ Z ~h~E D Z 0~4.= ,-D. c-O 9Z!BIT "g" of the .outh San Francisco '1 ar, hi ng Cc.-..~i ss i on doffed._ ___d ;.y _~,1978 05, 7.o'z7'w- / KL'L FiK'~ - - --- ........ =:..: 8/27/86 P~e ZS~ - 0032 LAVe OFFICES OF DAVID P. UCCELLI SUITE 300 520 EL CAMINO REAL ~, SANMATEO, CALIFORNIA 94402 (415) 579-1100 December 13, 1982 Frank J. Bertucelli Donald J. Grhres Ro!>ert b~ntegani Charles W. C~tz Hel~an R. Hoyer Louis Paul Terry Louis Dell 'Angela 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: Proposed land use Circulation Element of the General Plan for the City of South San Francisco Gentlemen: I represent Oak Farms, Inc., and Y~. Lawrence Varni, ~¢ners of certain real property located along the southerly side of Oak Avenue between Con~ercial Avenue and Grand Avenue, and 2 parcels of real property on Oak Avenue across from the Jehovah Witness Church. Approxir~ately 4 years ago, this property was rezoned to a C-O classif5cation which allows con%mercial and professional office use. A copy of the proposed rezoning map presented to the Planning Conmission at that time is attached hereto for your convenience. It has come to n~y clients attention that the General Plan presently under consideration would include the above mentioned propez~cy in a residential ~tium density area. Neither my clients nor I see any reason why the use of said property should be restricted in such manner in that the adjacent property on the northerly side o~ Oak Avenue, is presently used for professional and municipal purp?ses, being occupied by the County health center, Santa Cristo Hall, the North County Court facility, and the new jail facility. On behalf of r~, clients, I suggest the General Plan desi~ate the area in question as high density residential with a provision or policy to allow professional office use in the fn~ture. This %.xDuld allow the property to be developed in a ma~er consistent with the surrounding area, ~nd not be in violation of the General Plan. S~/cerely' A~.~ ~PU/nb ~ncls. Page 13s 8/27/86 I 0033 1 · '\\ '-~. ' ,,.,," ___ ,,5 ?.'-- zT'g N'x' ~': % 2t,,5. t.~' 'C-'-:-', ',.o, · , , . ~\'NN X. ~ O '~ "'": k ..~'R O F'O.S E ._ C-O ZONE .% ..:~: ,-,,/, ~5 \ 'Z OH.~- D I Lc C.-.:: -:.~'~ -:- "-: ' "."~ r [×HIBIT "^" of the "S0uth San Francisco PlannSn§ Corem5 ssSon P[SOLU~]ON ~r do?ted day of ,1978 Ah;LO X Z_.7.~._.5 Z -. '--' ,, :./. t,'t,~-._ ,-,. ~ / OF J 0034 Environmental Development Group 400 Oyster Point Boulevard, Suite 10~ ~25 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Telephone 415 / 583-9230 City of South San Francisco City Council 400 Grand Avenue, P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 OFF~cE OF CITY cLA~;~st 25, 1986 $0. SAN FRANCIsco Re: Proposed General Plan Amendments and New Zoning Ordinance. Dear Mayor Teglia and City Council Members: At the City Council's August 13, 1986 public hearing on the above documents, I noted that changes were made to certain sections of the proposed zoning ordinance without a public hearing being held on these changes and without the Planning Commission having seen or approved these changes. Here are the discrepancies which I have found between the zoning ordinance which was approved by the Planning Commission on July 10, 1986 and the ordinance presented to you on August 13, 1986: 1. New definitions were added to section 20.06.050 of the ordinance. These include "Veterinary, Camper Shell, Hospital Services, Operable Vehicle Storage, Laundry Services, Light Manufacturing, Revised Corner, Major Public Services, and Medical Services. " 2. The definition of "Hotel" (section 20.06.120 (g)) was changed in the new draft by eliminating the prohibition against cooking facilities in individual rooms or suites. 3. A new "District Use Matrix" (figure 5) was added to the new document. 4. Certain wording in the following sections of the new ordinance related to the "Purpose" of zoning districts were eliminated: 20.14.010, 20.16.010, 20.18.010, 20.20.010, 20.22.010, 20.24.010, 20.26.010, 20.30.010, 20.32.010, and 20.34.010. 5. "Personal Storage" was added as a new use permit in the Planned Industrial, P-I zone (section 20.32.030 (d)). This was not in the Planning Commission draft. 6. Wording related to regulations of open uncovered porches were deleted from the bottom of Figure 7 in the new document. 7. A new requirement (section 20.74.060 (3)) related to off-street parking for airport-oriented hotels and motels was added to the City Council draft of the ordinance. This was not ~ the~.j~_lanning Commission draft · ~ 0085 City Council/Zoning Ordinance August 25, 1986 Page 2. 8. Sections 20.76.300 (a) and (b) of Commission draft which describes the 5 sign districts established, was eliminated in the City Council draft. Wording related to the Removal of Non-Conforming Signs (Section .76.190 (a), (b), and (c) was changed in the Council draft. 10. Section 20.81,020 (b) entitled "Required Documents" in the Commission document was eliminated in the Council document. 11. Wording in Section 20.88.030 (d) (Type D Notice) was changed. 12. Section 20.91.060 (Planning Commission Hearing Procedure) was changed in a major way. New wording was added to this section. 13. Most if not all of the Chapter 20.08 Use definitions have been added to Chapter 20.06 (General Definitions) of the latest document. Now these are the changes/discrepancies which I have found. I would be interested if there were any other unauthorized changes made. Some of the above changes are major, others are minor. The point is that these specific changes should have been reviewed and discussed at the Planning Commission level before being brought to the City Council for approval. The bigger question which you need to deal with is credibility. First, we are told,in connection with the General Plan amendments, that these amendments "do not represent a change in policy or direction" and "merely clarify certain aspects of the document." This is an obvious misrepresentation. Now we have a zoning ordinance which is different than the one recommended to you by the Planning Commission. This misrepresentation and "shortcutting" of the process has got to stop sometime. There may be attempts made to rush you through your review process on these documents. You should resist these attempts. The General Plan amendments should not be adopted as recommended and the proposed zoning ordinance still requires major reorganization and rewriting. Above all, you need to closely examine and question the impacts and enforcement problems related to many of the zoning provisions being recommended. I will have more comments to make on these documents at your future public hearings and study sessions. Sincerely, Louis Dell'Angela, AICP cc: Barbara A. Battaya, City Clerk Valerie J. Armento, City Attorney C. Walter Birkelo, City Manager Page 13 v 8/27/86 00:]6 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY LOUIS DELL'ANGELA, AICP ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP AUGUST 27, 1986 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMEND~ GP-86-30 June 12, 1986 City of South San Francisco Planning Division 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco (415) 877-8535 Page 13w 8/27/86 '' .. COF~ENTS/RE~ATIONS GENERAL PLAN AMF./9'DMENT GP-86-30 The Land Use, Circulation, and Transportation Elements of the City's General Plan were revised and adopted in June, 1984. Since that time, there have been four amendments made to these elements to address specific concerns. This General Plan Amendment is not a wholesale revision, but merely an amendment to clarify certain aspects of the document, to update some major sections, and to correct errors which have become evident during the past two years. No changes are proposed for the Land Use Diagram; only the text is amended. This proposed amendment does not represent a change in policy or direction. The proposed changes which constitute the General Plan Amendment are listed below, words proposed to be eliminated are indicated with strike-outs ~examp~e), new wording is indicated in bold print and underlined (example}. After the General Plan Amendment is adopted, the policies will be re-numbered and all the changes will be integrated into the General Plan Document. Figure No. 2 (follows Page 4): LOCAL SETTING - map revised to reflect Terrabay annexation Page 7 - update as follows; The 1980's and Beyond During the 1980's, South San Francisco will experience a dramatic increase in new office, commercial and research and development centers. These will include the Gateway Center, Oyster Point Business Center, Sierra Point, and the-fe~mer-B~S?-Stee~Ame~ean B~dge-s~e Shearwater. Major new residential developments expected to be constructed during the next ten years include 745 72__~1 dwelling units on the South Slope of San Bruno Mountain, ~S dwe}}~ng-u~s the remaining phases in the Stonegate Ridge Planned Community, }~9-edd~*e~af-dwe~}~ng-ua~ts and in the St. Francis Terrace Condomini%u~ project (west of 1-280-~. and-9~ ~owflhouse-eendem~n~m-~fl~s-efl-~he-~ermer-~-Reneho-Br~we-~n T~es~e-S~e= During the }988*s next decade, it is projected that more than 3.5 million square feet of commercial and office building space, nearly 2.0 million square feet of building space for research and development, distribution and high technology uses and approximately 1500 additional dwelling units will be constructed within the City. Page 13, Policy 10 - changed as follows: Policy 10 Uses in vacated and operating schools with surplus space should be limited to non-intensive, light traffic generating, and predominately day-oriented uses. Specific permitted uses should be established for surplus school properties which are leased to private, public or non-profit organizations. Impacts of the change in use frc~ a school facility to a facility used by private, sho~ul and/or non-profit organizations be assessed, as well as impacts from specific individual uses. Page 18, Policy 11 for clarity, revised as two separate policies: Policy 11 The-~mp~ovemen~-of-nenee~e~m~ng-uses-ama bu~d~ngs-shou~d-be-perm~ed-p~o¥~ed-~he sree-eeeup~ed-by-ehe-noneenfc~m~ng-~se-~ bu~d~ng-~s-no~-~flc~eased~ Policy lla The improvement of buildings end/or ~acilities containing nonconforming uses shall be permitted, provided the area within -said-b~ildinqs or facilities occupied bY the nonconforming use is not increased. The nonconforming use of a portion of a building or facllit~f~a~be continued and may be ex~ended within the-building or facility. Page 14, Policy 12 - changed as follows: Policy 12 The eens~me~en ~ of buildings on in- fill pro~erties should be compatible with surrounding uses. (1) 0037 No! This is an obvious misrepresentation. It is irresponsible to keep repeating this. Many of these amendments represent a significant change in policy and direction! No comment. No comment. No comment. This policy should be retained as written. : No co~roent. These two new policies should be rejected as they create more confusion than clarity. Page 13w-1 8/27/86 Page 14, Policy 13 - clarified as follows (refer to Policy 1): Policy 13 The benchmark density (units per net acre of land) shall be the number of dwelling units proposed on a specific site for each 43,560 square feet of raw land exclusive of land dedicated allocated for ,aw-public streets and.stthe~rqed land. When the average cross slope of a p=epe~y site is between 20% and 30%, e~-~he-eN%~e-s~ee the City may reduce the net density of a residential project up to fifty percent (50%) of the benchmark density in order to discourage grading and the destruction of natural hillside environment. When-~he-average-eress-ste~e-ef ~eduee-~he-ne~-densA~-by-up-~o-seven~y-f~ve peFeen~-~S%~-ef-~he-benehmaFk-dens~¥, MAXIMUM BENCHMARK M~N~M~M-Le? COMPARABLE DENSITY (UNIT PER ARBA-PER F.~ST~N6 NET ACRE) BWEBL~N8 ZONING {$@-PEBT½ DISTRICT 8 ~7445 R-1 15 ~7984 R-2 30 t74~ based-e~-ea~h-*~d~v~d~a~-ne~ghberhoed ehareeter~st~es-to-s~ew-eeem-edd~t~ens-~e-be made-w~hout-eon~ng-var~a~eesT Polic~ 14 ~ Infill development may occur on individual lots of 7,000 square feet or less within existtn~ ne~hborhooddensities. Page 16, Policy 15 - Clarify as follows: Policy 15 ~ Reem-edd~ene-and-aceessory-b~d~n~s-sheu~d be-areh~tee~ure~y-¢empe~bte-w~h-exis~n~ s~ng~e-fem~ty-dwe~ngs, ~ Accessor~bulld~n~s and room additions should be architecturally c~atible with the main structure and of a character and scale compatible with the surroundin~ neighborhood. Pa~e 16, Policy 16 - Clarify as follows: Undeveloped properties which are suitable for s~b~v~s~en low densit¥ development often have unusual shapes, limited street frontage and other physical constraints. In order to encourage o~ng~e-fem~ty low density developments on such Page 15, Residential Land Use - clarified as follows: P, ESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORY Low Density Medium Density High Density Page 16, Policy 14 - It is proposed that this policy be eliminated. No existing residential neighborhoods have been identified for reduced rear yard setbacks. New projects developed as Planned Unit Developments may propose reduced setbacks. it is proposed that the following policy he added at this location to clarify issues relating to residential densities in existing low-density and medium density neighborhoods. sites, innovative designs, such as zero side line setbacks, building clustering, and other planned development concepts should be permitted. Policy 16 The use of zeFo-s~de-l~ne-se~baeks-%ene-s~de+ and-eAueee~ed-heus*ng-~es*gns planned developments should be encouraged in &}} new single family residential projects to maximize usable open space ~n-e&eh deYelopme~. Page 18, Policy 21 - Proposed to eliminate the policy, since multi-family projects are no~ permitted in low density areas. ~S/RE~ATIONS 0 0 3 8 These changes should be reject~ They serve no beneficial purpos Arbitrarily reduces density and value of residential property b 15% to 20%. It will have negative impact on sales value of',City's Chestnut-Grand site. Question benefit of eliminating this protective wording. Wording should be retained. Zoning Ordinance has density designators "J" & "K" which pemit 40 & 43 units/acre. T~is is a reasonable policy and should be retained. Reduced rear yard setbacks permitted fo~ "Second Units" in new zoning ordinance but not for regular additions. Question purpose of and need for this newpolicy. It doesn't make sense. No comment. No comment. No comment. (see comment on next page) (2) Page 13w-2 ,, Policy 21 The-he~ghe-ef-new=ee~dem~aie~s~-~ewnheusesr and-rents~-apar~ment-bu~d~ngs-she~td-ne~ exeeed-ewe-~t-seor~es-~fl-he~ht-~notow dens~ey-areao-end-eheee-~-seer~es-~fl-he~ghe med~um-densA~y-res~den~-nrens-ef-~he-e~ey~- Fes~Fie~ed-~e-H~gh-Sensi~y-Ees~den~a~-and P~enned-eemmeFe~a~-ereas-ef-ehe-e~yv Page 19. Policy 24 = ¢~ari~¥ as follows: Policy 24 Senior citizen apa~men~ housing pro,acts may be allowed to be constructed ~o a max~uuum density of 50 units/acre and off-street parking maybe provided at a ratio et-eye apeee-tee-eeeh-~eue-dwell~nq-un~ts lower than that which is otherwise required. This change allows discretion, based on factors, such ss how much care is provided for the residents, in determining the parking standard. Page 20, Policy 27 - Update wording as follows: Policy 27 Areas that should be considered for mixed use development include the Downtown Business area, the-g?$r-Steet Shearwater, and properties along E1 Casino Real Wesebeeeuqh-Beuleveed. Page 20, Historical Preservation - Update section co reflec~ the C£t¥'S ordinance No. 978-85 and the survey which is ongoing to identify historical structures. H~storical Preservation serueeure-must-be-s~gn~f~eane-~n-A~er~can-h~s~ory~ arch~eeetuee?-aeeheee~egy-er-eu~tuee?-and-pessess-~e~r~ ef-~eeat~en?-des~gn~-se~ng?-ma~ee~ats-and-week~ansh~p,- uH~s~or~en-~s-generat~y-eeeepted-te-mean~--UF~rs~-bu~t befere-memery-of-~v~ng-peraensTu Seme-ef-ehe-er~efla-wh~eh-~s-used-~-ehe-se~eet~en-et h~oeer~e-bu~d~ngs-*neJude-the-fe~ewi~q~ ~he-bu~d~ng-~s-areh~eeeeura~y-upureU-~ree-~rem~me~er ateere~ons~, The-be~d~ng-~s-areh~ee~ura~y-oAgn~f~een~-oPer e~empte~-~-~s-a-rere-or-exee~ten~-examp~e-ef-a-eeF~e~n type-of-ereh~eeeture?-a-produe~-ef-a-~eted-arehiteet-eF bu~dee?-eteT The-bu~d~ng-Ao-h~o~er~ea~¥-s~gn~f~eentT--Per-e~eAp~e; ~-~s-a-Uf~rseU-ef-aome-k~nd?-~he-fermer-res~de~ee-ef-a noeed-$oueh-San-PFane~see-fa~-~he-s~e-ef-e memoFabte=evene-~n-ehe-h~seer~-ef-~he-e~¥;-e~e~ 4T The-b~td~ng-~s-ene-ef-a-gFeup-wh*eh;-teken-as-a-whe~e; exh~b~ts-areh~ee~urat-pur~y;~areh~ee~ura~ s~gn~f~eanee~-e~-h~see~eat-s~gn~eance?=e~-the b~d~ng-een~F~butea-~e-ehe-se~n~-e~-sueh-a-gFe~p~ S, The-bultdlng-~s-struetura½!y-~n-geed-cendieien? ln-~984-the-Seuth-$en-Frane~see-HAseee~ea~-See~eey-wss researeh~nq-and-deeument~ng-var~eus-s~rueeures-~n-~he-ee~d~u~ey tha~-may-have-h~ste~ea~-s~gn~eeneev The City intends to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the C~ty of South San Francisco through: (1) The Identification, protect[on, enhancement, perpetuation and use of structures, sites and areas that are reminders .of past eras, events and persons important to local, state or national history, or which provide significant examples of architectural styles of the past or are elements in the history of architecture or which are unique and irreplaceable assets to the City of South san Francisco and its neighborhoods, or which provide foe this and future generations examples of the physical surroundings in which past ~enerations iived. (3) CO~S/REC~ATIONS 0 0 ~ 9 This policy should be re~ained as ~ri~en as i~ deals wi~h building scale. Perhaps WOrds "~wo (2) s~ories in hei~h~ in low density areas~ and" could be deleted. Last portion of this recon]nended policy related to parking is meaningless! Question purpose and benefit of allowing mixed uses along E1 Camino Real, south of Westborough Boulevard. No comment. No comment. Page 13w-3 8/27/86 {2) The develola~enk and emintenance of appropriate settings and environments for such structures, in such sites and areas. (3! The enhancement of pro~ert¥ values, the stabilization of neighborhoods and areas of the City, and the increase of economic and financial benefits to the ¢it~ and its inhabiters. {4} The preservation and encouragement of a City of varied architectural styles, reflecting the distinct phases oE its history - cultural, social, economic, political and architectural. (5) The e~rich~ent of human life in its educational and cultural dimensions in order to serve spiritual as well as material nc~d by fostering knowledoe of the living heritaoe of the past. Page 21, Commercial Land Use - Proposed changes for consistency, clarification, and to reflect policy: COMMERCIAL/OFFICE LAND USE CATEGORY COMPAP~L~ EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT Retail Coneuerctal c-1 Planned Co~uercI~l c-2 Retail Commercial: Includes, but is not limited to retail sales, services, offices, neighborhood and uommunity shopping centers, grocery stores, fas~-~aed full .service restaurants, banks, motels, w~th-~if~y-+~9+-e~-~ess-~s? and gasoline service stations. This category also encompasses neighborhood commercial areas which provide space for retail sales, services and related activities needed to serve a residential neighborhood. This commercial land use is the most restrictive and least intensive of the two commercial categories in the Plan. Appropriate types of Uses in this category ars grocery stores, drug stores, personal service establishments, and branch hanks. Planned Commercial: Includes, but is not limited to large, co~ercial planned unit developments and mixed commercial/residential uses, including office parks, hotels and motels, w~h-~y-ene-+5}}-e=-me~e-~eems?-~en-~ast-~eed full service restaurants, gasoline service stations, research and- development uses, and h*~h-=~se apartment or condominium residential uses. The benchmark density of residential uses in this district should not exceed thirty (30) dwelling units per net acre of land. Page 22, Policy 29 - Clarify to reflect actual City policy: Policy 29 New-~ast Fast food restaurants wEn~ews-sheuE~___xbe allowed only along E1 Camino Real south of Westborough Boulevard. Page 24, Signs - minor word changes for clarification: There are many signs located throughout the community. Some signs detract from the architectural design of a building and can affect the overall appearance of the City. Most wall signs and freestanding signs are subject to design review approval by the City of South san Francisco. Certain large signs and ail off-site advertising signs are subJec~ to approval by the Planning Commission. An excesstve number of signs or unusually large signs which are out of scale with a proposed use should be avoided. Colors of signs should complement the architecture of the adjoining build- ing and no~ adversely detract from uses in the surrounding area. Excessive copy, the advertising of products, and unattractive pict~rial representation should be avoided. Banners, pennants, excessive~y-~arge window signs, certain roof signs and eer~ai~ projecting signs should be d~see~aged prohibited. Freestanding signs should be designed to b~end co~l~z~ent or be ~Datible with ~he overall architecture of the site. a~d-u~i~ze ~he-e~me-ee~o~s?-ma~er~a~s;-and-~ex~e-e~-~he-ma~-str~e~m~e~ Nonument signs are encouraged. (4) COF~iENTS/RECIIMMENDATIONS 0040 No comment. Question purpose and benefit of this proposed change since E1 Camino Real, south of Westborough Boulevard is a "Retail Commercial" area. Question purpose and benefit of this proposed change since South Airport Boulevard is "Planned Commercial" area. Reflects actual city policy?? Who approved this policy? Question purpose and benefit this policy. What's wrong wit~ fast food resturants with no d~i~/e in windows locating in selected other areas? Existing wording should be retained. Question why only "certain" roof signs and all projecting signs should be----prohibited. No co~nent. Page 13w,4 8/27/86 ,~ ,- COlUMnS/RECOMMENDATIONS 0 0 4 1 Comprehensive sign programs sheu}d shall be en=~u~aged required when there are ~h~ee two or more individual tenants located on the same site. Signs should be located so that they do not project into public right-of-ways or into public easements. Individual illuminated letters are preferable to canister signs since they are usually more compatible with the exterior design of a building. Many off-site advertising signs are located in the community, particularly along Highway 101 and E1 Camino Real. In 1982, there were approximately fourteen off-site advertising signs along Highway 101 and approximately seven off-site advertising signs along E1 Camino Real. These signs create a poor visual ~mage of the City, and often obstruct views and adversely affect property values. Page 25, Policy 36 - Clarify as follows: Policv 36 en-s*~e-~den~f~ea~om-s~g,s ~ should be reviewed as to size, height, materials, colors, design, and number to prevent visual clutter throughout the community. Page 25, New Policy - Add a new City-wide policy to reflect the limitations already expressed in Policy D-17 and to reflect current City practice: New Policy To the extent legally practicable and to the extent that it is fiscally feasible fr~ the City's vie~oint to do so, off-site advertisin~ si~nSo signs in public rights-of- way, a~ sig~swhich advertise specific products should not be permitted. ~age 25 - Add s~ction regarding landscaping; ~..endsca~u~ng Landscaping improves the image of the city and should not be limit~ to,arks and street ~auttfication. Landscaping should --~ develo~ to e~ce residential districts and the ~rking enviro~nt. ~capino c~ ~ us~ effectively to screen parking areas fr~ roadways ~d to provlde a ~sitive visual ~ge. ~dscaptng can eff~tively scr~n storage areas, utility areas, ~d trash containers fr~ ~1~c ~capinq us~ In ~e city should ~ sult~ to the s~cific clare, s~uld ins~11~ with aut~tic irrigation ~st~. - Add two new policies to reflect current landscaping N~ Poli~ ~caplng shall include a ~n~ of ~rcent of ~e tr~s as ~x s~c~ns. N~ ~1i~ A min~of l~ca~. Page 25 - Policies 38 and 39 - Eliminate, to allow maxim~ opportunities for hotel developmen~ city-wide, with lot size and a d%scretionar~ ~it dete~ining the appropriate size. Polic~ 38 Ho~eAs-and-mo~e~s-hav~ng-~ess-~han-f~y-%S9+ aFeav ~11 or ~ s~z~ ~els/ho~els should ~ ~tible in sco~ ~d size with s~ro~din~ ~es. ~r~er ~el/ho~els should ~ l~t~ to ~e area alon~ the easterly slo~ of S~ B~o No.tarn ~d east of the ~in track of the Southern Pacific ~road. Pa~e 26, ~olicF Polic~ 43 The maxim~ heigh~ of co~ercial buildings ~h~ take of~ and l~ndin~ p~th~ of ~he San Francisco Airport should criteria established by the City, the Airport Land Use Comlttee, or by F~ requirements, whichever is m~e ~s~ restrictive. (5) Existing wording should be retained. Use of word "shall" is inflexible and inappropriate here. No comment. This new City-wide policy should be rejected. "Reflects current city practice Question if this "practice" was authorized or formally approve~' by the City Council? Policy D-17 refers only to Downtown area. No cou~nent. i, These two new policies should be rejected. These should be requirements contained in Design Guidelines or the Zoning Ordinance. Word "shall" is toe. i~lexible and inappropriate ir areas such as Downtown. Policy 38 should be retained as currently written. Should consider addition of North Airport Boulevard as area for smaller (under 50 room) motels and motor hotels. Policy 39 should be retained as presently written. No comment. Page 13w-5 8/27/86 ' '~ COMMENTS/RElATIONS 0 0 4 2 Page 27, Policy 44 - Eliminate Policy. The specific standards for types of buildings, amount of insulation, etc., are located in State law. It is preferable not to summarize the specifics into a general policy. Pe}~e¥-44 Bu~d~ngs-~ea~-~he-~ake-e~f-er-~snd~ng-pa~hs o~-~he-San-P~a~e~seo-A~per~-sh~u~d-be- Feq~ed-~o-have-add~ena~-~e~se-~su~a~*en Page 28, Policy 46 - Change word: Policy 46 Card rooms/gaming clubs should continue to be uses which are not permitted in any zone district in South San Francisco, unless a majority of electors voting thereon affirmatively approve a measure permitting legal gambling within South San Francisco. Card rooms which presently exist in the community should be phased out of existence. Abaen~ without the approval of the electors set forth above, no new card rooms/g~ming clubs should be allowed in the community, nor should the existing nonconforming card rooms be allowed to expand in area or in the number of tables operated or to relocate to another area of the City. Page 29, Industrial Uses - Clarify definitions of industrial uses as follows: INDUSTRIAL LAND USE CATEGORY COMPARABLE ZONING DISTRICT Light Industrial M-1 Planned Industrial PCM Light Industrial: Includes, but is not limited to light industrial, distribution, ~anufacturing, wholesale and warehousing uses, limited office uses, auto repair and painting, cabinet and woodworking shops and machine shops, including incidental retail sales and commercial service types of uses but excluding 9mnksal~ yards. Limited ol~n storage facilities maybe permitted when properly screened fr~ public view. The uses in this classification tend to include a variety of smaller and low emplolanent businesses.' The light industrial area is proposed in the south central portion of the City in the Lindenvtlle area. Planned Industrial, Includes, but ts not limited to industrial parks, light manufacturing, distribution, wholesale and warehouse uses, limited and low-rise office uses, research and development and Including incidental retail sales and commercial service types of uses but excluding auto repair, 9~Ak salvage yards, amd meat processing, and eden storage facilities. The Planned Industrial designation is intended to encompass a bread range of large employment and intensive industrial uses. The Planned Industrial designation is for the most part proposed easterly of U.S. 101 in the Cabot-Utah area and adjacent to Railroad and South Spruce Avenues. These areas have the advantage 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 building 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. P~anned Industrial areas located adjacent to residential or commercial areas shamed ehal% be required to provide buffer areas including setbacks, walls or fences and landscaping to reduce noise, traffic, visual and ede~ other impacts on the adjoining uses. (6) No comment. No comment. Delete last sentence. Creates more confusion than clarity. Question what is intended by "limited" open storage. Delete words "and open storage facilities" from this definitio' There is no legitimate reason to exclude open storage in this district if the storage is properly screened. Cannot believe open storage yards are considered in same light as junk yards and meat processing plants. Use word "should" instead of "shall". Page 13w-6 8/27/86 S/R . ATZOXS 0048 Page 29, Industrial Uses, Policy 48 - Clarify as follows: INDUSTRIAL ISSUES AND POLICIES Heavy Industrial Uses Certain heavy industrial uses ~ftem create unacceptable environmental impacts and cause health, safety, traffic or land use problems. Ne___Wuses which produce flammable, toxic, odorous, or otherwise dangerous and/or offensive by-products should shall no longer be permitted in the City. Other industrial uses with' potential negative impacts may be Derm/tted if they are restricted in their intensity and location and if the negative environmental impacts are mitigated. Policy 48 Additional t=uek-term~na½s chemical plants, meat processing plants, auto salvage yards, above-ground flammable liquid storage, and other similar intensive industrial uses shoo,d-shall not be allowed in the co~munity in the future. Uses such as truck terminals and storage facilities shall not be allowed unless restrictive mitigation measures are implemented to eliminate any potential adverse enviro~mental impacts. Page 30, Policies 49-52 - Clarify as follows: Policy 49 Industrial uses which include substantial hazardous wastes she~ shall be prohibited in the community. Policy 50 Industrial uses which generate a significant ame~-ef exterior noise (55 dB CNEL or greater), odors, a~or generate heavy truck traffic sh~ shall not be permitted near residential uses. Policy 51 All ~s~r~e~ open storage ya~s areas ShoULd shal1 be screened from p~b}~e view by extensive landscaping and/or fencing and adequate parking shall be provided. Open storage facilities shall be limited to the Light Industrial designation. Policy 52 New auto repair and auto painting establishments shewed shall be limited to the Light Industrial areas of the com~unity. Appropriate mitigation measures shall be required to address adverse environmental impacts. Page 30, New Policy - A new policy has been developed under the industrial land use category to replace the current policy 1-11. The Commission indicated that these uses should be allowed only under utility lines in locations other than along South Airport Boulevard. New Polic~ Auto, truck and/or equila~ent sales and rental lots and vehicle rental agencies should not be permitted in industrial and planned co~rcial areas unless such uses are located under major utility lines. Develolxaent standards shall apply. Page 30, Policy 54 - Eliminate; a city-wide policy regarding landscaping is already included. bu~d~g-s~e-shem~d-be-{s~dsea~ed~ Page 40, Proposed Bridges and Thoroughfares, Policy 68 - Eliminate the policy and update the background information, due to completion of the East Grand Avenue Separation Project: Major improvements to all three interchanges wi:h Highway 101 are planned by the City during the next 10 years ~r have been recently co~lete~. These improvements include new grade separations and freeway on and off-ra~ps at Oyster Point Boulevard end-a~-East-~an~-Ave~e? currently in progress. The East Grand Avenue Separation Project was completed in 1985. The Produce Avenue on-ramp to 101 is a~s~o9~epeaed under construction to be widened to accommodate increased southbound traffic volumes. (7) Use word "should" instead of "shall". Use word "should" instead of "shall". Question what is meant by "storage facilities" which are permitted by this policy and "open storage facilities" which are prohibited in other policies. Difference? Use word "should" instead of "shall". Use word "should" instead of "shall". Last sentence in Policy 51 should be deleted. Absolutely no legitimate reason for limiting "open storage facilities" only to Light Industrial areas. Use word "should" instead of "shall". Last sentence is meaningless. These are important and necessary service uses. This policy should be rejected! There is absolutely no legitimate reason to prohibit these uses in the industrial or Planned Commercial areas in the future. Purpose and benefit of this policy was never stated No comment. No comment. Page 13w-7 8/27/86 CO~IS1N~rS/RECIIMMENDATIONS 0 0 ~ '~ CIRCULATION ISSUES AND POLICIES Proposed Bridges and Major Thoroughfares In accordance with Section 66484 of the Government Code, the following bridge crossing and major thoroughfare improvements are identified as major circulation proposals of this Plan: (See Figure 9) Eas~-arand-Aven~e-~ade-Se~ara~en---Eas~-~aad-Awe~ue ~s-a-ms~er-ease-wes~-~herou~h~are-se~v~ng-as-the pr~e~pe~-aeees$-frem-H~ghway-~e~-~e-the-eabe~-eebe~ an~-FeFbes-~nd~seF~a~-area-and-ee-ehe-eaeeway-Redeve~- epmene-~Fe~eet~ ~e-hes-~eng-beem-recegn~ee~-ehae-a-grede-sepaFae*em-ef ~ese-Grand-Avenue-ae-and-the-SeutheFm-Pae~f~e-~a*~read eraeks-was-needed-ee-~neFease-se~ee¥-end-reduee-eFa~f~e eengese~en~ Fue~re-e~ee-and-~md~se~s~-deve½epmenes-w~½~-~ne~ease era~e-ve~umes-beyend-e~e-eapae~e~es-e~-seee~ens-e~ ehe-em~se~m~-~eadwa¥-s~seem-~n~ess-ma~e~-~mp~evememes ?~e-Ease-6~end-Avee~e-~ade-Separae~en-pre~eet-w~½ ereeks?-pass-umder-theoex~se~ng-~ghwe¥-~8~-f~eewey struetures-and-~Fov~de-new-en-and-e~f-ram~s-te-the-~ ~reewayT--?h~s-pre~eee-~s-be~ng-eenstrueted-~n een~unee~en-w~eh-ehe-Geeewa¥-Re~eve~e~mene-~re~eee-and w~-be-eemp~eeed-by-~98S, Pe~.iey-68 ~he-Ease-6rand-Aveeue-6~ade-Seperae~en- Pre~eee-sheu~d-be-eenserueeed-eeneu~ent ~y w~th-ehe-~rse-phase-e~-ehe-eeeeway-~edeve~- epmene-Pre~eee-am~-w~ ~-be-eomp~eeed Pa~e 49, ~l~nninc A~e~ No. 1 - U~a~e ~o ~e~ec~ Shea~a~e~ and u~ate Gatewa~ ~I~/S~A~'~/SOU~ AIRPORT BOUL~ This planning area includes all land located east of the Bayshore Freeway, between the San Francisco International Airport and the South San Francisco/Brisbane City Limits. The area contains the largest concentration of industrial development tn the entire City. Between 1976 and 1981 more than 2.3 million s~are feet of new industrial building space was constructed in this planning area. For the purpose of analysis, this study area has been divided into northern and sou:hem subareas. ~ster Point/Grand (Northern Subarea) This is primarily an industrial area with the Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Industrial Park being the dominant land use. The City's Gateway Redevelopment Project is ais~ located tn this area. This project, which includes the former Bethlehem Steel and Edward's wire Rope properties, is planned to be developed as a major office, co~ercial, and research park. "The Gateway" is planned to contain 2.6 million s~are feet of office and research building space and ~wo major hotel. Major street and highway improvements w~-be-~ens~u~e~-~o~eu~e~-w~h have ~dertaken with the construction of the first building phase of the Gateway Project. These improvements include the construction of the East Grand Avenue/Southern Pacific Railroad grade separation project, new highway on and off r~ps at Grand Avenue, a 4-lane arterial street (Gateway Boulevard) through the Gateway Project from East Grand Avenue to ~ster Point Boulevard, and street widenings along both East Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard adjacent to the Project. A-see~d-mapo~-~a~ad-~rade city's U.S. Steel R~e~lo~nt Pro~t Is also l~at~ In this area. ~is Dro~ect, which includes ~e four U.S. Steel/ ~ric~ Bridge site ~d the four GSA site on ~ter Point ~ulevard has ~en aDDrov~ as a ~x~-use develo~nt, includin~ offices, hotels, c~rcial uses, D~lic facilities, ~d residential uses. (8) No comment. No comment No comment. No comment. Page 13w-8 8/27/86 .. cot ,rrs/ ^T :ot s 0 0 4 5 A second major railroad grade separation project and new highway interchange at O~ster Point Boulevard and Highway 101 is planned to be completed b~ 1990. In addition, ~e-new-bu~!d~ng-eens~=~en-~n-the-6a~ewa¥-Pre~e¢~ this s~b-area will exDer£ence major growth at ~euF three locations. These include the Sierra Point site, wh c~s planned to contain intensive office uses, the Oyster Point Marina site, which is planned to contain intensive office uses, the oyster Point Marina site, which is planned to contain commercial uses, and the Oyster Point Business Park site located northwesterly of the Marina, which, As-p~enne~-~o at build-out, will contain approximately 4~0,000 square feet of office space, 313,000 square feet of warehouse/office building space, and a 224 boat marina. The-Feeen~ty-demeiAshed-~THT-S~eei~Ame~ea~-B~idqe-s~e-e~-eys~er Pe~a~-Bo~teva~de&o-p~aaaed-~e-eea~e~-aaa~ge-eemmere~a~-er-~ed ~oe-deve~epmen~, Page §l, Policy 1-10 - Clarify policy to reflect actual city Policy: Policy 1-10 Additionalfull service dinner house restaurants should be encouraged te-}eea~e along South Air~ort Boulevard. Fast food restaurants w~h-dr~ve-~hreugh-serv*ee w~ndews-sheuid shall not be permitted in this area. Page 51, Pol[cy 1-11 - Eli~inate this policy, since a City-wide policy has been developed to restrict these uses. .. Pe~}ey-}-}~ New-s~e?-~Fuek?-and~er-equ~men~-sa}es-ie~s; Beu~evsrd-~n~ess-s~eh-~ses-a~e~~e-be-~eea~ed Page 52, Policy 1-2 - Propose to eliminate policy; South Airport Boulevard is designated for Planned Commercial and Planned Industrial uses on the Land Use diagram. Po}~e¥-}-}~ New-~ndus~a~-uses-nhou}d~no~-be-pe~m~ed s~eng-Seu~h-A~rpe~e-Beu~evard? Page 52. Policy ~-13 - rewritten to clarify and to reflect the pro~ect already approved for this site: Policy ~-~3 The City-owned property located along South Airport Boulevard should only be developed with an intensive commercial use: s~e~-as-a ~esea~aae, ~ndustrial and/or storage uses shewed shal! not be permitted on this site. Page 530 Policy 2-~ - Addition to reflect current practice: Policy 2-3 A new sign ordinance should be adopted for the area. Nonconforming signs should be required to conform with the ordinance within a reasonable period of time. window signs should be restricted. Page 54, Policy 2-6 - Ul~ate to reflect current ordinance: Policy 2-6 New uses which are more parking intensive than current uses should not be permitted in the downtown area unless additional off- street parking is provided on site or unless sn-~n-~eu-~a~k~n~-~ee-~s-~aid, measures to m~tigate the parking are provided, among which may be the payment of in-lieu parkin~ fees. Page 55, Policy 2-11 - Update policy to reflect 1985 General Plan Amendment which limited the area: Policy 2-11 Infi11 apartment and planned residential developments consistent with the densities and policies of the Land Use Element should be encouraged in the High Density Residential area located between Spruce Avenue, Orange Avenue, M~}~e~-Ave~e Fourth Lane and Railroad Avenue. (9) Question if 1990 is a realistic date for completion of this project. No comment. Question if this reflects "actual City policy." Second sentence in policy is inconsistent with City Council position/policy on McDonald Restaurant case. Agree. This policy should be eliminated. Serves no useful or beneficial purpose. This policy should be retained with word "buildings" substit- uted for word "uses". No co~ent. Question whether "current practice" without prior authorization by City Council justifies this policy. Last s9ntence is meaningless! "In lieu" parking fees were deleted from proposed zoning ordinance. Question why it still appears in this policy. No cou~nent. Page 13w-9 8/27/86 Page 62, The South Slope - Update the number of dwelling units in Terrabay: The Specific Plan indicates that development will occur along the lower slopes and within the valley pockets of San Bruno Mountain. The approved Specific Plan indicates that ;4~ 72__1 dwelling units, a 400-room hotel, a 286,000 square foot high technology trade center, three restaurants, an 18,000 square foot health club, a recreation center, a four acre park facility, and a fire station will be constructed in this area. (See Figure 20) Included in the Terrabay Plan is a four lane extension of Hillside Boulevard fro~ its intersection with Randolph Avenue easterly to Airport Boulev&rd. Page 64, Policy 5-2 - Clarify policy to more clearly state the actual intent: Policy 5-2 Ail future multiple-family residential developments in the Sunshine Gardens area should be built to densities a character and scale which are-eempa~b}e-w*th relate to surrounding low density residential uses. Page 65, Policy 5-4 - Eliminate Policy. If it is the City's intent to give density credit for land required for public improvements, a general policy should be developed. ~e~ey-~-4 A~-new-deve~opment-prepesa~s-a~eng-ehes~u~ Ave~ue-sheu~d-be-~equ~red-te-ded~ea~e p~o~erey-er-~ane-easemen~s-~o-ehe-e~y-~e enab~e-~h~s-~eadway-~-be-w~dened-*~-~he be-~a~ed-~he-E~y-Eer-w~den~n~-purp=ses sheu~d-be-g~ven-~e-ad~e~n~nq-preper~y-ewne~sv Page 66, Policy 5-7 - Clarify policy to reflect RPD zoning along · the west side of Chestnut Avenue: Policy 5-7 Page 72, Policy 8-2 sign program: Policy 8-2 The vacant agricultural properties along the west side of Chestnut Avenue, north of Grand Avenue, should be developed in & residential planned development at a building density not to exceed ten (10) dwelling units per ne__~ acre. - Add statement to policy to reflect existing Any new uses proposed in the Brentwood or Southwood Shopping Centers should be less intensive with regard to required off-street parking requirements than current uses and shall conform to ex~stinq si~n proqrams. Page 83, Policy 10-7 - Eliminate restriction as to what type of development is proposed: Policy 10-7 The remaining vacant property located between Gellert Boulevard and Appian Way should be developed as-e-~ewnhe~se-eendem~n~um-deve~ep- men~ at substantially the same density, design, and guality as the St. Francis Terrace Phase I development. Page 89, Policy D-17 - Eliminate portion of policy and add it as a city-wide policy: Policy D-17 High quality signs, including wood carved, individual letters, canopy signs and professionally painted signs should be encouraged. prae~ea~e-and-te-~he-ex~e~-~ha~-~-~s f~sea~y-feas~b~e-frem-~he-e~y~s-v~ewpe~n~ ~o-do-so~-eff-s~e=adver~s~n~-s~gnsv-s~gns on-~he-sAdewa~ks;=and-s~gns-whAeh-adveF~Be spee~f~e=predue~s-sheuAd=ne~-be-peFm~eed~ (10) COmMENTS/RElATIONS 00~6 No comment. Word "densities" should be ke~t in this policy. This policy should not be eliminated until and unless a city-wide policy is developed and adopted. Building density credit is a fair exchange for street widening dedications. This policy should not be amended. The proposed RPD zoning process is cumbersome and unnecessarily complex. This policy should not be amended. Question why sign programs for only two shopping centers are mentioned. No comment. D-17 is a policy for the Downtown area. Page 13w-lO 8/27/86 AGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 6. Staff Report - Continued. ACTION TAKEN 0047 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION Mayor Teglia questioned if it was possible between now and the next Council meeting that a meeting could be effected between the Planning Staff, Planning Commission and the Downtown Merchants for further input - so proceeded to direct Staff to arrange such a meeting. Discussion followed on the amortization program's effect on signs when the pro- posed ordinance was adopted; whether there should be a cushion if the merchant had been in business for a period of time. Mr. Douglas Butler reiterated his concern over Policies 38 and 39 dealing with hotels and motels that he had voiced at the 8/13/86 meeting in reference to the absence of the 50 room limitation plus the ambiguity of the language. He stated that it could have a negative impact on the residential areas and increased traffic along E1 Camino and felt that the two policies should be retained with the number designation in the specific areas of E1 Camino and east of E1 Camino. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that he was a advocate of using strong language and that should be addressed in the ordinance. Mr. Butler stated that the other issue he wished to address was in the zoning ordi- nance and the planned commercial zoning. He spoke in detail of an Attorney General Commission study that had been developed over fourteen months on pornography, phy- sical abuse of women and children. He stated that today filth was unchecked in society, even though the Attorney General stated that there were laws on the books to be enforced. He stated that pornography degraded women and exploited children, as well as the danger of adult book stores and narcotics being cesspools of disease and a threat to a family. /27/~ age l~ AGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 6. Staff Report - Continued. ACTION TAKEN 0048 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION He stated that the planned commercial zones included adult entertainment busi- ness areas that should not be allowed in the City as the usages were too lurid, and extensive, and a threat to the community. He stated that the zone ran along E1 Camino beginning at Winston Manor and Sunshine Gardens, Old Mission Road, Westborough to Chestnut - skipping to the library and then continued down to the southern end of E1 Camino near Brentwood and Mayfair to South Spruce. He stated that the other section ran along both sides of the freeway along Airport Boulevard down South Airport Boulevard and impacted other neigh- borhoods. He stated that he realized there were certain restrictions: not within five hundred feet of a residential neigh- borhood and at least a thousand feet away from a church or school. He stated that he agreed with what Mr. Dell'Angela had stated previously, that the planned com- mercial when it included adult entertain- ment, was much too extensive. He stated that that chapter of the zoning ordinance should be revised to change the language and the adult entertainment section taken out and put into another zone that was less intrusive. Mayor Teglia requested that Staff pay attention to Mr. Butler's concerns and find a method to control the zone, even if the City cannot exclude the adult entertainment from a zone. She requested the City Attorney to research the matter for the Council. Mr. Richard Neely, 801 Miller Ave., stated that that zone backed up to the High School and he felt that zone was much too broad. Nancy A. Butterfield, Esq., 353 Sacramento St., San Francisco, stated that she was representing Phil and Elaine /27/86age 15 AGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 6. Staff Report - Continued. ACTION TAKEN OO49 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION Bill who owned twenty acres of land on Sign Hill. She stated that the revised zoning ordinance proposed that the Bill's land be rezoned from R-1 to Open Space, with a maximum development of residential unit per acre with a special permit from the City. She stated that Chapter 20.34 dealt with open space and the types of uses per- mitted: community education; cultural and library services; essential services; park and recreation; safety services; and agricultural uses. She stated that those uses are those given to the community by a City, and questioned if the City intended to purchase the property from the Bill's. She stated that otherwise it was a gross injustice for the Bills to be made to donate the land because of the proposed usage. She stated that if the City wanted to buy the land the Bills would consider a proper offer. She stated that architects had been con- sulted who had assured her clients that greater density was possible and could be aesthetically suitable for the environment. She stated that the neighboring land owners had been fortunate and had deve- loped their land prior to the rezoning from eight units per acre to one unit per acre. She stated that eight units per acre was reasonable. She asked three questions: 1) Does the City intend to purchase the land; 2) What were the basic reasons for the zoning restrictions; 3) That the City consider the possibility of not imposing a severe development restriction, but increase the maximum density and leave it to the architect and City Staff when plans are submitted to determine if the land will bear two or five units - as opposed to arbitrarily limiting it to one unit per acre. 8/27/86 Page 16 AGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 6. Staff Report - Continued. ACTION TAKEN OO5O COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION Xenophon Tragoutsis, Esq., stated that when McDonald's had applied for a permit to open a retail establishment on Airport Boulevard, they had been told in no uncertain terms that Airport Boulevard was not out of bounds for such a business, but only the particular location selected because it would create a traf- fic problem. He stated that his client did not want to be precluded from the selection of another site on South Airport because of the proposed zoning ordinance which only allowed fast food restaurants on E1 Camino Real. Mr. Louis Dell'Angela stated that as a resident of the community and a former Director of Planning for the City, he wanted to offer some suggestions to make the proposed zoning ordinance the best that could be offered for the City. Mayor Teglia requested that Mr. Dell'Angela indicate which client he was representing as he gave his comments on the documents. Mr. Dell'Angela thanked the Council for not closing the Public Hearing and allowing further public input to refine the documents to be adopted. He presented his comments and recommen- dations on the Proposed General Plan Amendment GP-86-30 (a copy is attached and a permanent part of the record of this meeting). He stated his concerns on the new signage section of the documents and felt that businesses throughout the City should be made aware of the financial impact this would have on their businesses before it was effected. Councilman Nicolopulos requested in the near future, that Staff respond to Mr. Dell'Angela's concerns before action was taken by Council on the documents. 8/27/86 Page 17 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0051 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 6. Staff Report - Continued. ITEMS FROM STAFF Staff Report requesting author- ization to prepare City owned property at Chestnut and Grand Avenues for a surplus property designation· ~.~7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION Mayor Teglia stated that all concerns had been listened to and when the Public Hearing was closed, two weeks from now or longer, then the Council would go through the documents one by one. ITEMS FROM STAFF Deputy City Manager/CD&A Lewis recom- mended that Council review the develop- ment guidelines for the Chestnut and Grand, and seek an appraisal for the pro- perty for a cost of $5,000. He stated that the next step would be for the Council to declare the property surplus and offer the property to the State, which was a sixty day period, after which the property could be sold in a time frame of six months. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that he would like to have a full accounting of the amount invested in the property by the City, so that when it was sold, there would be a realistic picture of a gain or loss on the property. Councilman Drago questioned if the den- sity for the property would change with the new zoning ordinance. Deputy City Manager/CD&A Lewis stated that it would remain ten units per acre. Discussion followed: whether the streets in the development would be private or public; that the development should enhance the community; whether there should be a landscape buffer around the entire project; clustering on the high side of the lot by Willow Gardens, and a lower density on the street side; that the Staff was recommending public streets which would be netted out of the project creating less density, etc. Mrs. Doris Agee suggested that the City plant a row of trees to soften the pro- perty line. 1271~ age l~ AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0052 ITEMS FROM STAFF 7. Staff Report - Continued. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL GOOD AND WELFARE CLOSED SESSION 8. Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of personnel ITEMS FROM STAFF She strongly urged that the Council not back off of having public streets in the development to minimize the maintenance of the development when a homeowners association was not formed. M/S Haffey/Drago - To authorize Staff to prepare a surplus property designation that include the variables mentioned on public and private streets. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Jake Jones suggested having a realtor appraise the property, rather than an appraiser, which he felt could save the City money. He questioned if the County had repaid ~,~) the several million dollars for Colma Creek. City Manager Birkelo stated that the County was paying 7% interest, and that the pay back was in progress. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL No one chose to speak. GOOD AND WELFARE Mr. Douglas Butler questioned if the Closed Session would include discussion of the Serramonte Park Plaza EIR, and would there be an announcement for the public if a decision was made. Vice Mayor Addiego stated that if the Mayor said that direction was given to Staff on litigation, Mr. Butler might assume that a decision was made. CLOSED SESSION Council adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:45 p.m. to discuss the items noticed. 8/27/86 Page 19 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0053 CLOSED SESSION 8. Closed Session - Continued. matters, labor relations and litigation. ADJOURNMENT: CLOSED SESSION Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to order at 11:45 p.m., all Council present, no action taken. Mayor Teglia stated that Council was directing Staff to seek further infor- mation in regard to actions taken by Daly City in approving the Serramonte Park Plaza Project, especially with regard to the statement of overriding con- siderations adopted by the City Council. She continued, also to monitor the mora- torium that is in effect in that City with respect to sewer hookups and its application to this project. M/S Addiego/Haffey - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time: 11:46 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Barbara A. Battaya, Ci~ Clerk City of South San Francisco ~-RQ V E O. 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. 8/27/86 Page 20