Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/22/1968 - 1 - January 22, 1968 M NUTE of the regular meeting of the South Sian Francisco Planning Commission TIME: DATE: PLACE: 8:00 P.M. January 22, 1968 Council Cham.bers, City Hall, South San Francisco, California MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Mammi~i, Commissioners Boblitt, Zlatunich and Chairman Raffaelli MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Gardner, Lazzari, ~)sati City Planner and Sel~retary to the South San Francisco Planning Commission, Daniel M. Pass Planning Assistant :~ranc G. I. VanSteen Building Inspector :~y Ghilardi MINUTES OF PREVI€>US MillE'rING Minutes of the meeting of January 8, 1968 Commissioner Zlatunich moved that the minutes of the re.gular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning C~mmission of January 8, 1968 be appreved; seconded by Commissioner Boblitt; passed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Mammini, Boblitt t Zlatunich e'ind Raffaelli Noes: None Absent: Gardner, Lazzari., Rosati ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING TAPE ]~CORDING OF MEETING Chairman Raffaelli announced that thin meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission would. bH recorded on tape, but that anyone, who wishes to come before. the Commission in order to be heard. but objects to his voice being J:"eeorded in this manner, can request the Chairman to order the tap'~ recorder tUI'Il.ed"off"f for the duration of the time he speaking and is heard. - 2 - 69 January , 1968 Use permit request of Ted Connolly, to establish a shopping center at the northeasterly eorner of Westborough and Gellert Boulevards, in C-l District. City Planner Daniel M. Pass read the following staff report con- cerning the use permit and the consequent variance involved, to wit: H USE PERMIT - The Westborough Square center was con- ditionally approved by the Planning on June 26, 1967. The applicant, run order to make this plan more responsive to the needs of his tenants, and more harmonious with his final grading plan, proposes certain changes therein. These changes would consist of technical adjustments, and would not substan- tially alter the approved land-use plan, landscaping plan, building layout, or architectural elevations. The principal change involves off-street parking. While UP-39 indicated that the off-street parking on the easterly one-half of Westborough Square would be oriented on a easterly-westerly axis, the new plans call for a northerly-southerly axis, which would produce a safer pattern of pedistrian circulation. It should also be noted that the new parking scheme would provide 12 additional spaces. UP-69 calls for the enlargement of the proposed restaurant- specialty shop building. This enlargement constitutes a sub- stitute for the second service station proposed under UP-39. While the restaurant building is slated for enlargement, the applicant proposes to reduce the size of the Square's main building. The plans under consideration call for a redesign of the southwesterly wing of the said main building, and the inclus an arcade therein. The said plans also call for rearrangement the Square's service station, and the establishment an additional, right-turn-only egress addition to the above changes, the applicant requests per- mission to erect a maximum 7'xlO' directional sign at the Gellert entrance to the subject complex. ' The final change pertains to his request for the Commission's acceptance of a 2 to 1 slope at the easterly end of the project, in lieu of the 1.5 to 1 slope indicated on the site plan of UP-39. Planning Office has perused the instant request, and feels that the changes proposed therein would not adversely affect the Westborough Community, or the City of South San Francisco- at- . It is therefore recommended that the Commission f noted on the attached OAR-UP, and approve the use . also recommended that this approval be condit upon the applicant's compliance with the written requirements of the Direc.tor of Public Works, the Police Chief, and the Chief, as well as the subsequent requirements the tural Committee. VARIANCE - It is recommended that the off-street parking be approved, and that the findings on the attached preliminary OAR-V be adopt by the Commission. - 358 - January UP... 69 approval would not material affect the Square's ca.pacity to meet the parking needs of its patrons. The insta.nt ll7-space variance request is supported by the rugged graphy of the subject parcel. After the grading of this parcel, approximately one and a half acres of land at the easterly end of Westborough Square will be too steep for parking from a practical standpoint. If this acreage were level, 180 spaces could be located thereon, and the applicant would not require the subject variance. It should also be noted if the proposed complex were constructed in the C-2 or the applicant's 508 off-street parking spaces ient. These factors also supported the off- variance granted under UP-39.ft City Planner further read the following findings as made by his office and subsequently the conditions as recommended, to wi.au1 Use Permit "FINDINGS: 1. The establishment, maintenance, operation or the use of the building or lands for which the permit is sought will not, under the circumstances of the icular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the area of such proposed use, and will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements the nei.ghborhood or the general welfare of the ci.ty", 2. The approval of the requested use permit meets the require- ments of Section 6.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The establishment of the proposed use would effectuate the City's adopted general plan, and the specific land-use plan of the Westborough Community. 4. The establishment of the proposed use would meet a need the Westborough Community. CONDITIONS: The applicant shall meet the requirements of the Di- rector of Public Works, the Fire Chief, the Police Chief, the Architectural Committee", FINDINGS: 1", There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land or building referred to application, which circumstances or conditions do not generally to land or buildings in the same district", 2", ing of the application is necessary for the preser~ation and enjoyment of substant property s the pet 3. That granting of the applicat circums of particula.r case, adversely the health or safety of ons the neighborhood of the property of the not under the circumstances of detrimental to the publ welfare or improvements said neighborhood", the , affect or working icant, will case, be materially injurious to or January 22, 1968 UP-69 $ The granting of the requeste.d variance will be in harmony with the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 5$ The requested variance is necessary to prevent practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The requested variance is supported by the steep graphy of easterly end of the subject site... This topographic conditio~ precludes the applicant's use of 1...5 acres of land, which woukd,under normal conditions, accommodate about 180 parked cars..u City Planner Pass then read a supplemental report from his office, is respectfully recommended that any approval of the instant request be conditioned upon the applicant's full compliance with the conditions of approval placed by the City Council and Planning Commission upon UP-39, the applicant's original use-permit request for the establish- ment of Westborough Square, except the park dedication condition, which has now been met...u City Planner Pass next read a report from the City's Lands Specialist John Hoffman, to wit: HI have reviewed subject landscape plan prepared by James H", Coleman and Associates. The plan appears excellent to me except for one choice of plant material and one omission of an area that should be landscaped. The plant material is Nerium oleander.. Our experience with oleander in the We.st- borough area indicates that it does not thrive or bloom satisfactorily in the cold wind prevalent there. I would suggest that it might be better to use hebe, escallonia, griselinia, raphiolepis, rhamnus, berberis or other hardier shrubs. The areas 'omitted are the median traffic islands on West- borough and Gellert Boulevards. I was under the impression that these islands were to be landscaped concurrently with the shopping center landscaping. The City Manager indicated in conversation with me yesterday that this was also his understanding. The landscape plans for these islands should be compatible with the landscaping planned by the State Division of High- ways for the island on Westborough Boulevard at the inter- section with Junipero Serra Boulevard. There is a "V'C problem of typing in the curbs and gutters and the tion system to the existing island. This needs to be on the plan.. I would suggest that the Superintendt of ion and Parks be consulted prior to finalizing the landscape plans these traffic lands, since he will imately have the responsibility for the of landscaping.. There are traffic hazards involved and to be made how much and what required." - 3 60 - - 2c - UP-69 January , 1968 City Planner Pass further read a report from the Director of Public Works, Louis H. Goss, to wit: "This office has checked the Plan Exhibit "Au, We.stborough Square, prepared by Hammarberg and Herman. The grading on these plans checks closely with the Grade Plan, West- borough Shopping Center, prepared by Theodore Tronoff dated February 1967. It is therefore recommended that the general site grading be approved..u City Planner Pass further John Fabbri, to wit: a report from Chief of Police 'tIn review of the submitted p,:hans, it is recommended that the following be included in the conditions of approval: 1. Adequate traffic signs be posted, one-way arrows and right-turn only, on Westborough and Gellert Blvds, subject to approval by the Director of Public Works and Chief of Police. 2. Lighting plan be submitted and installed in the parking lot area, subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works and Chief of Police.. 3. Signal system, Westborough and Gellert Blvd., be subject to approval by Director of Public Works and Chief of Police upon complete installation. All recommendations be a condition of approval in accordance to the recommendations of UP-39 and UP-69.ff Mr. Pass stated that his office had received in the meantime a copy of the landscape plans for the median strips and that Mr. Hoffman had attached his approval to this@ Mr. James Thompson, agent, was present for the applicant. Mr.Thompson thereupon exp1aitled the changes that had been made since an earlier application, Listed as UP-39 with the Commis- sion, had been approved. Although the separate building in the front of the site and the most easterly portion, next to the proposed Walgreen store, would be developed within the second phase, all the parking and landscaping would be part the first phase. Weather permitting, they hoped to begin not later than the ultimate of April and open the center somewhere between October 1 and November 1 of 1968. Commissioner Boblitt asked about the completion of the land- scaping and the necessary widening of Westborough Boulevard. Mr. Thompson stated that they had a contract with Caesar-Callan to have this also completed in time, unless these works are performed, the Callan Corporat would not a penny. Mr. Garo Dorian, Director Westborough Water Dis , stated that he was not aware of such a contract.. He feared the proposed restaurant building, the front of the site, would block the view of traffic coming southwards off the freeway. _ ~ h1 _ - 2D - 69 January 22, 1968 City Planner Pass indicated on the map that the site itself, without the restaurant, would be approximately 26 feet above the paved off-ramp, and the Police Chief had not raised any question concerning any built-in danger in this regard. Mr. Thompson assured Mr. Dorian that Mr. Callan understood that only performance on his part would assure him of payme.nts due as agreed. Mr. Callan had bee.n bonded for this, and as.far as he understood, there was full willingness on the part of Mr. Callan to p~~~ such a performance. Commissioner Boblitt then inquired as to the type of restaurant to be constructed in the second phase. of the project.. Mr. Thompson statled that promotion of this business opportunity was still in progress. Sincehis principal intended to hold on to the whole project as his own investme.nt, and that no specula- tion was intended, he wanted a high quality 'fsit down" restaurant with a lounge, a bar, and other facilities, characterist of such an operation. This was intended to be a 24-hour operation, but only when an interested party had been found who would agree to the specifications of both the owner and the party leasing it. He indicated it certainly would not become a "doggie diner't.. There being no onelse further to speak for or against the request, Chairman Raffaelli declared the public hearing on this matter closed and solicited comments from the Commissioners. There being no further comments by any of the other Commissioners, Chairman Raffaelli asked for a motion on the matter and a roll call vote thereon. Commissioner Mammini, seconded by Commissioner Zlatunich, moved to adopt the findings of the City Planning Office, and to approve the application as requested, subject however to compliance with all the requirements set by the several Delpartme.nts, as stated in their respective reports; also would be subject to full com- pliance with the conditions of approval as placed by the City Council and the Planning Commission upon Use Permit, UP-39, the applicant's original use permit request, establishing Westborough Square, and in agreement with the presentation as made at this hearing.. The motion was passed by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Mammini, Boblitt, Zlatunich and Raffaelli Noes: None Absent: Gardner, Lazzari, Rosati ... 3 62 - - 3 ... , 1968 Subdivision map San Francisco Unified School District, representing the subdivision of an approximately 8.4-acre parcel of land, located on the northeasterly side of Wexford Avenue, opposite Burren Way, in the R-l District, into l2 parcels. City Planner Daniel M. Pass read a report from his office with the following findings recommendations, to wit: HThe propos subdivis surplus the Foxridge Elementary , standard lots would be similar in size to those situated on s..outhweste.rly side of Wexford Drive.. Their dicaated by which traverses the parent parcel. proposed subdivis meets the lot standards of the West- borough Community, and the minimum requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act the Subdivision Ordinance.. The approval of the instant map would serve the cause of land economy.. It is recommended that the tentative subdivision map be approved subject to the requirements of the City Engineer and the Building Inspector19fT City from Pass further read a letter, dated December , 1967, Haney, District Engineer for the School District.. "Attached herewith are 20 copies of a ive map proposing the subdivision of ce.rtain lots fronting on the.Foxridge .. 1. street improvements are. on Wexford Avenue except for the individual sewer laterals, water services and driveway cuts to individual lot. I have discuss the above matter with Mr. Goss of your staff. an ort to minimize street cuts would be our recommenda- tion that these services and driveway cuts be made as the individual homes are constructed. t.:J e meet 11 appreciate your scheduling this matter at the earliest possible. We shall be present to answer any questions.tT City Planner Pass then read a report from the City's Landscape Specialist, John Hoffman, to wit: ~tAt your request I have inspected the subject prope.rty make the following recommendations: 1. 1 through 11 to be fenced along their common boundaries with Lot 12. 2. Lots 1 through , between toe-of-slope and top-of- bank, to be planted with ice plants, ivy or other erosion control plants, to maintained by until are conveyed. 3. One street tree to be planted in front of each fac Wexford Avenue. Tree to orm to street tree list.." - 3 January 22, 1968 Pass next read a report from Chief Building Inspector to wit: have checked Tentat Subdivision Map Westborough No.3 and find it.to be in order for approval, however, to submitting the Final Map, I suggest that Mr.. Stan Haney contact this department regarding minor correction to adjacent. numbers." Pass further read a report from Fire Chief Marchi: "In regards to the subject" please be advised there are no requirements required by the Fire Department at this time, however, I wish to pass on the final plans" City. Planner Pass then read a report from the Director Works Lo~is H.. Goss, to wit: Public "'Afhen Final Map is prep.ared, it is recommended that the following information be added.. Between proposed Lots 28 and 29, Block 28, there should a lO-foot easement established for the 6" sanitary sewer.. (5 feet on Lot 28 and 5 feet on 29) A condition should also be placed on the approval the Final Map so that a detailed grading plan be furnished Lots 21 thru 32, Block 28. There is a critical drainage problem, particularly in the rear of Lots 21 through 25.. It would be the suggestion of this office that these lots all drain to Wexford Avenue and that there be a different of elevation on each lot. This will undoubtedly require small concrete block retaining wal between each lot to support them properly for the building of houses. This, I feel, should be a condition of the approval of the subdivision map so that any developer elected to improve these lots would be obligated to take care of the grading properly. is recommended that a 6ft sanitary sewer line constructed across the front of proposed Lots 21 thru 32, Block 28, which will act as a sewer line to service all the lots in the pro- posed subdivision. Then each lot will not have to make a separate cut into the street (Werlord Avenue).. This 6" vitrified clay line can be cut back into Wexford Avenue at the lower end with the construction of a manhole at junction of the two pipes in Wexford This 6ft li.ne should either be placed in back of the sidewalk or an easement furnished for back of the H City Planner Pass next read a report from City Attorney John Noonan,. to wit: interoff memorandum dated January 9, 1968 of Public Works to Planning Commission, same subject.. Upon receipt of the memorandum I discussed the matter the City Planner and he advises me that the matter is ceeding by way of a subdivis map rather than a The easements set forth the memorandum may dedicated by a final map and set forth on f January 22, 1968 SA-3 with the construction installat igated an agreement. If th~ matter were proceeding by way of a parcel map, it would be necessary to have metes and bounds descriptions of the respective easements and a grant of the easements by separate document together with an agreement providing for construct installation of improvements..n of the improvements for the applicant was Mr. Stanley Haney, District Engineer the South San Franc Unified School District, 398 HBu Street,South San Francisco. Mr. Haney stated that he was here, representing the School Board, and would try, to the best of his abilities, and within his commis- sion, to answer any questions that might arise.. Mr. Daniel Sofranac of 2480 Galway Place requested that the homeo\vnerst association be allowed to consider the matter at hand before the Commission took action. Mr. Garo Dorian of 2309 Shannon Drive stated that he was sure that the .lot sizes and other matters would be all right within the subdivision requirements. He believed that some of the lots should Qe sold, but that two lots on either side of the fresent driveway be preserved for open space and landscaping. He discussed at length the general benefit of such e~~n space for the community and also voiced concern over the fact that, after lots were sold, the school would have lost control over the.ir further development<li Mr. John F. O'Connor, of 2570 We~ford Avenue, stated his objections as follows: 1. At the time he bought, the se.ll~r had assured him that no houses would be built on said lands; 2. The bonds for the school had been approved by the voters, and, in his opinion, the voters should also decide on this matter; 3. What would be the position of the school should future expan- sion come up and require more land; 4. Parking at present was already insufficient; 5. The. entrance would become a safety hazard. Mr. replied that: 1. Although the seller might have assured that no houses e.ver be built, and the community might have assumed was no mention of this School Board ever their intent ... records were public was on these records that the school buildings were enough to provide the separat of these proposed the planned expansion would be on the northwesterly s present school building. would while the - 365 - - 3C ... SA-3 January 22, 1968 2. When: the school site was graded, the proposed resident lots were purposely not leveled, as was the main lot, but were left with their natural grade with ord Avenue. This was decided by the School Board a long time ago, while the grading itself had become .since then a real physical evidence to adjacent neighbors of the school's intent. 3. The present l2 classrooms, plus two kindergarten classes, would ne.ed a maximum expansion of 8 classrooms, for which the northwesterly site previously mentioned, was set aside. This expansion would make the school sufficiently large in order to serve the area for which the school has been built. 4. By opening the playgrounds for parking, the school should have sufficient "off ...street" parking. The playgrounds should be available for parking for special events. He would convey this matter to his superiors so that they could take up the problem with the principal the school. S. It has been the School Board's intention, after publ discussion of this matter, to again bring it before the Planning Commission of this City for further hearings, and to learn po'ss iole objections.. Since residents of the neighborhood had voiced great concern and brought up questions which should be answered more clearly, he proposed that the matter be delayed in order to give the School Board an opportunity to sit down with representatives of the neighborhood to discuss these matters further.. He thereupon asked the Commission to grant them a delay. The School Board should be informed. As their representative, he did not have the authority to com- promise, to deal, or to promise", He was acting as their se.rvant in presenting the matter before the Planning Commission in the manner in which he. had been commissioned. Mr. Irving Katz of 2601 Donegal Avenue stated: 1. Wind was a great problem in the area. He proposed that trees be plantied to act as windbreakers and to cut do~m on erosion. 2. He wondered if property bought by public bonds could be sold. Mr. Haney assured him that, within the law, the School Board could do this after a public hearing at its regular meet 3. There was a tremendous need for lands for beauty. He disliked to see the almighty dollar become the decisive factor in' this matter . 4. He further proposed that the lands be used for park and recreation of mothers with small children. City Planner Pass responded.to the last proposal to the effect that in order to acquire this land as a park, the City would have to subdivide this land from the present site and purchase from the School District. 66 - - 3D - SA-3 January 22, 1968 Mr. Daniel Sofranac stated that he recognized Mr. Dorian's right to speak up for what he thought was right, but that the Commis- sion must not see him as speaking for the Association, but that he was only speaking for himself and whoever here~resented. TIle Association was represented by its President and Board, and if necessary, the Association would voice its opinion through these properly elected officials. Mr. Wesley Slade of 2555 Donegal Avenue stated he was much con- cerned about safe play areas for the children of the neighborhood, and also saw a tremendous need for more greenery in the area. Here were public lands available and the public itself should first be properly heard. If there was indeed a land surplus for one need, another public use could have priority above rendering these lands right away to private use and ownership. These matters had not been discussed at all, and as long as no sincere effort was made in this respect, he resisted the proposed subdivision and the sale of the lands to private owners.. Mr.. Edward Toby, of 2570 Bantry Way, President of the Westborough Homeo\vuers Association, stated that as far as he could see it, the Association and its members were against the proposed sub- division, and he agreed with them. Mr.. John O'Connor stated again that there was a parking problem. Mr. Dorian again stated that he was convinced that all these problems could be solved and that dedicating two lots on either side of the. present driveway could hold a solution for open space. Mr. Daniel Sofranac again stated that Mr. Dorian was entitled to his own views as long as he did not represent himself as speaking for the Association. The duly elected members of the Board of th~ Association were present for this purpose and Mr. Dorian was speaking only as a member. Mr. David Albright of 2501 Albright Way stated he was against any form of sale and conveyance of these public. lands to parties not within public control. Subdividing the land would make it possible to sell off part of these public lands. Commissioner Boblitt stated that money seemed to be the only motive of the School District in selling such lands as proposed for subdivision. Mr. Haney stated that was not the only reason. Since the District had a shortage of gardeners, II for 18 school sites, lacked funds to landscape an approximate 1.5 acres land, had no money in its budget for this purpose and not need the land to develop the Wexford school site to its capacity 20 classrooms and 2 kindergarten c , as the ult for the community, these just be the tax rolls, growing weeds. The Districtiwas act taxpayer, who carries the f ,iby ciai solution as a count for the $46,100 per - 367 - - 3E - SA-3 January , 1968 the court ordered the district to pay to the former owner for over 8 acres. However, since there was so much dissatisfaction on the part of the neighbors with the proposed subdivision, he again asked to have the matter delayed. The purpose of this hearing was to bring the public in on the matter, and since additional problems are evident after it had been publicly before the" School Board, he could not do otherwise than request a continuation in order to have more opportunity to iron these things out where there seemed to be a conflict. He, himself, could not deviate from the present proposal, since that authority was vested in the School Board and not in the District Engineer as their representative in such matters. Whatever happened at this meeting must be reported faithfully back to his superiors under whose instructions he labored. Mr. John F. O'Connor again said: No, No, No. Mr. Harry D. Merrill 2401 Bantry Way stated that he found no excuse for the School District to come unprepared to this meeting, and he wanted direct action. Mr. Haney stated that the of this hearing was to hear all interests involved and the Board had come prepared as much as it could. First they had had their own public hearings and meetings, and after that they had taken this next step. The Board thought it important. Nothing could be settled unless all parties were satisfied and final ion was made. But to consider on one side the matter incomplete and unprepared, and on the other side to demand an action that would finalize the whole matter, that the. School Board, after sincere considera- tions and studies had deemed important to the community at large, would be tent with the purpose of any public hearing. ~ Mr.. Pass stated there were also other matters to be considered, such as the overall picture of the community, the to the general public, and the interest all the. taxpayers, in one way or another contribute to this, and many other aspects of community planning.. Schools and the way they operate were a very integral part of this whole picture.. The School Board, as guardians of certain public properties, had a right to act as they deemed right under certain circumstances and to bring such matters before a public hearing.. Commissioner Mammini stated that a recent study that came to attention showed that South San Francisco was at the top of the ~ist of cities with the most open space in acreage per in all of San ~~teo County.. short discussion followed concerning open parks and recreat s the whole Westborough area.. ~trs. Jones of 22 Ivin already overcrowded and needed more parkinglsince school site. was often c ed parking when certain events.. - 368 .... January ,19 Mr.. again called for open space, original concept had called for great out that the masses of land.. There being no one else further to speak request, Chairman Raffaelli declared the matter closed and solicited comments from or against the ic hearing on this commissioners.. There being no further comments from any of the other commissioners, Chairman Raffaelli asked for a motion on matter and a roll call vote thereon.. Commissioner Boblitt, seconded by Commiss to adopt the findings as presented by the the application as requested. The motion following roll call vote: Zlatunich, moved not fS staff and to deny passed by the Ayes: Mammini, Boblitt, Zlatunich and i Noes: None Absent: Gardner, Lazzari., Rosati - .3 - 4 - 5 January 22, Ross & Webber, representing the subdivis of an approximately 40,000 sq. ft. parcel of land, located on the southwesterly side of Mission Road, opposite Evergreen a Hutt District, into three parcels.. City Planner Daniel M. Pass read the following findings and recommendation from his office, to wit: llThe proposed subdivision would create three,,%well-designed quasi-commercial lots.. The said proposed. subdivision meets the minimum requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, and the. City's Subdivision Ordinance.. According to the adopted General Plan, Evergreen Drive should eventually traverse the parent parcel in question, and connect with San Felipe Avenue. This proposal, however, is fraught with difficulties, and in the. writer's opinion is not supportable.. Said proposal would require an expen- sive crossing of the S..P.R.R.. right-of-way, and would tend to impede traff flow on El Camino Real by adding an arterial grid connection thereto. The writer further feels that the BOoot-long, Evergreen-San Felipe.arterial would serve no substantial purpose after the Hickey and West- borough Expressways are established less than one mile therefrom. In light of the above factors, it is recommended that the subject map be approved, subject to the requirements of the Chief Building Inspector and the City Engineer,," City Planner Pass further read a report from Fire Chief John Marchi.: uln regards to the above subject, please be advised there are no requirements required at this time by the Fire Department, however, I wish to passon the f plans.H City Planner Pass then read a report from Assistant Public Works Engineer Joseph E. Neville, to wi.t: "When the final Parcel Map is prepared, please show' all dimensions of property to the nearest one hundredth of a foot. Also show all bearings in degrees, minutes seconds. The seven-foot (7..0f) easement running south- westerly along Mission Road is a street and highway easement and should be stated as such. The five-foot (5.0') easement on the northwesterly side of the parcel is a sewer and storm drain easement. If the parcel is to be subdivided into three parce ,each lot or parcel should be givan number sett them from other and establishing ity"," s then a report from : - 370 ... January , 1968 PM-25 Plann Office respectfully recommends that any Planning Commission approval of the subject tentative map be conditioned upon the subdividers' removal of the dwell- ing and unauthorized equipment-storage yard from the parent parcel in question. It is further! recommended that the said removal be completed prior to the filing of final parcel map. The said dwelling would traverse the common property line between proposed Parcels 2 & 3, and would thereby effectively merge them.u City Planner Pass further read a report from Police Chief John Fabbri, to wit: 7'With reference to above subject, this department has no recommendations to offer at this time. We concur with the recommendations of the City Planner.." City Planner Pass further read a report from Superintendent of Recreat and Parks, Robert L. Maxey, to wit: HAccording to the adopted general plan the area in question is proposed as a gre.enways system paralleling proposed rapid transit and Old Mission Road. Subdivision of this parcel makes implementation of the greenways system more difficult.. The piecemeal development of the "Valley Park Area'T greatly reduced the number of acres available in the park, recreation and greenways system proposed in the adopted general plan.. A total review of this problem and some adopted guide for the future would be of great value to this department.." City Planner Pass further read a report from Chief Building Inspector G. L. Rozzi, to wit: "I have checked the Tentative Parcel Map 2S to resubdivide Devincenzi ET.Al. property on Old Mission Road and my findings are as foll.ows: 1. Tentat Map - should have read 'Tentative Parcel Map.' 2. In Title Block following the wording 'Parcel Map' describe the legal recorded description of the property being subdivided. 3. Assign Parcel Numbers 2 and 3 respectively to the two parcels east of Parcell. 4. Indicate all bearing lines and correct dimensions of all property lines and existing easements. S. The above corrections may be made to the Final I Map, however, in no case shall the Final Parcel be until a has been by lit ion of property Parcel 25.fT - 371 - ... 4B - PM-25 January , 1968 Present for applicant was Mr. Robert S.Webber of 600 El Camino Real, San Bruno, attorney and agent for the applicant. There being no one else further to speak for or against the request, Chairman Raffaelli declared the public hearing on this matter closed and solicited comments from the Commissioners.. Commissioner Zlatunich asked Mr. Webber if his client was willing to remove the house and the storage use from the property. Mr. Webber stated that his client intended to comply with all the requirements as set forth by the different municipal agencies. Commissioner Mammini further asked City Planner Pass concerning the greenway as proposed on the General Plan. City Planner Pass answered in the following lmanner: Although said lands originally had been designed as greenways, bordering on the proposed~uture rapid transit lines, there had been a trend to blend these involved lands in with the general plan's recommended use of professional and administrative offices for the neighboring lands. Since then the large dental center had been erected, and in 1966, under UP-5, the re.quest for medical. offices for Dr. Joseph Awender had been approved by the Commission. At that time, the report of his office had made the Commission aware of the necessity for the City to purchase such lands, when they would restrict them for the owners for the use of greenways only. There being no further comments by any of the other commissioners, Chairman Raffaelli asked for a motion on the matter and a roll call vote thereon. Commissioner Zlatunich moved, seconded by Commissioner Mammini, to adopt the findings of the City Planning Office and to approve the application as requested, subject however to all requirements as set forth by the different departments in their reports as recorded. The motion was passed by the following rollcall vote: Ayes: Mammini, Boblitt, Zlatunich and Raffaelli. Noes: None. Absent: Gardner, Lazzari and Rosati - 372 - - 5 - January 22, 1968 PM-26 Parcel Map of Utah Construction & Mining Co., representing the subdivision of an approximately 6-acre parcel of land, located on the southerly side of Belle Air Road approximately 400' easterly of South Airport Boulevard, in the M-2 District, into two Is. Before any further action was taken on this matter, Chairman Raffaelli announced that said matter would be continued and con- sidered at the next meeting of the Planning Commission on February l3, 1968. GOOD AND WELFARE, OTHER AND COMMUNICATIONS.. There being nothing to be considered under Good and Welfare and no further communications or other matters of interest, Chairman Raffaelli announced that the next regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission would be held February 13, 1968 at 8:00 M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, South San Francisco, California. The meeting was adjourned at 10:09 P.M. M. Pass, Secre.tary-'- Commission San Francisco Marl.O Ra Planning Commission City of South San Francisco fvs - 373 -