Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/09/1970 M I NUT E S November 9, 1970 of the regular meeting of the Soath San Francisco Planning Commission TIME: 8:00 P.M. DATE: November 9, 1970 PLACE: Council Chambers, City Hall South San Francisco, California MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Campredon, Commissioners Boblitt, Gardner, Rosati,Zlatunich, and Chairman Lazzari MEMBERS ABSENT: Raffaelli ALSO PRESENT: City Planner and Secretary to the South San Francisco Planning Commission, Daniel M. Pass Assistant Planner William A. Timmons Chief Building Inspector Leonard J. Pittz MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 1970. Vice Chairman Campredon moved that the minutes of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission of October 26, 1970, be approved; seconded by Commissioner Zlatunich; passed by the following roll call vote: AYES:- Campredon, Boblitt, Gardner, ,Rosati, Zlatunich, and Lazzari NOES: none ABSENT: Raffaelli ANNOUNCE~~NT CONCERNING TAPE RECORDING OF MEETING Chairman Lazzari announced that this meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission would be recorded on tape, but that anyone who wished to come before the Commission in order to be heard, bat objected to having his voice recorded in this manner, could request the Chairman to order the tape recorder turned "off" for the duration of the time that he is speaking or is heard. - 1258 - UP-172 November 9, 1970 UP~172, use-permit request of the South San Francisco Equipment & Merchandise Mart to establish a second-hand store at 415 Grand Avenue, in the C-2 District. Secretary Pass read the following reports into the record. Report and recommended "Findings" of City Planner Daniel M. Pass "The Planning Department respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the "findings" and "action" indicated in the attached, preliminary Official Action Report." FINDINGS: 1. The establishment, maintenance, operation or the use of the building or lands for which the permit is spught will, ander the circumstances of the particular 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 be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city. 2. The approval of the requested use permit does not meet the requirements of Section 6.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The establishment of additional second-hand stores in this municipality's urban core would tend to spread the decline and blight infestation extant therein 4. The establishment of the pToposed ase in Soath San Francisco's urban core would be inconsistent with General Objective No.8 of the General Plan of 1969, to wit: "The urban center should be the civic, commercial, financial, recreational, social, and cultural focus of South San Francisco." Report, dated October 30, 1970, of Chief of Police Salvatore Rosano "Reference subject noted above, please be advised that the Police Department concurs with the findings and recommendations of the Planning Department." Names and Addresses of Proponents and Opponents Proponents: Oral presentation of Mr. Morris Katz, 1404 Grand Ave., Pacifica, Ca., agent of the applicant. Opponent s : None Commissioner Boblitt moved, that the Planning Commission adopt the "Findings" of the City Planning Office, the City's Reporting Department Heads, and deny the application as requested. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gardner, and passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Campredon, Commissioners Boblitt, Gardner, Rosati, Zlatunich, and Chairman Lazzari NOES: None ABSENT: Raffaelli Chairman Lazzari declared the motion for denial of the request passed and informed the applicant of his right to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission, if he wished to do so, within 10 days hereafter. His appeal should then be filed with the City Clerk in order to have a second hearing set before the City Council. - 1259 - V-89 November 9, 1970 V-89, variance request of Howard Stegman to construct a one-story addition to a two-story, single-family dwelling in the required level rear yard of No. 2247 Kenry Way, in the R-l District. Secretary Pass read the following reports into the record. Report and recommended "Findings" of City Planner Daniel M. Pass "The Planning Department respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the "findingsll indicated in the attached, preliminary Official Action Report, and grant the requested variance." FINDINGS: 1. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land or building referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land or baildings in the same district. 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of sabstantial property rights of the petitioner. 3. That the granting of the application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant, and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said neighborhood. 4. The granting of the requested 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 applicant's compliance with the level-rear-yard requirements of Section 3.l6(c) would serve no useful purpose. The Planning Commission, under its proposed Comprehensive Revampment to the Zoning Ordinance, recommended that the level-rear-yard requirements in the R-l District regulations be deleted therefrom 7. Similar variances have been granted in Westborough. References: V-40, Stephen Soong (2-13-1968); V-66, Nemo Elzarian (4-14-1969). Names and Address of Proponents and Opponents: Proponents: Mr. M. A. Krause, 245 So. Railroad Ave., San Mateo, Ca., agent of the applicant Opponents: None Commissioner Rosati moved, that the Planning Commission adopt the findings, as set forth in the preliminary Official Action Report, and approve V-89; seconded by Vice Chairman Campredon; passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Campredon, Commissioners Boblitt, Gardner, Raffaelli, Rosati, Zlatunich, and Chairman Lazzari NOES: None ABSENT: Raffaelli - 1260 - Tentative Resolution of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board November 9~ 1970 Secretary Pass read the following report and letter into the record. Report, dated October 20, 1970, of City Planner Daniel M. Pass "Since the tentative resolution would require the City of South San Francisco to notify the California Regional Water Quality Control Board of all tentative maps filed with the Planning Commission~ said resolu- tion's adoption would constitute a de facto extension of the requirements embodied in Section 13266 of the California Water Code. The adoption of said resolution would also require South San Francisco to submit its "findings and supporting data on the effect that the discharge of waste" from proposed subdivisions "will have on the violation of waste discharge requirements." This submittal requirement would place an additional burden upon the City Engineer, and require this municipality to justify its determination on the effects of waste discharged from proposed sub-, divisions. Said adoption, therefore, would extend the requirements of Section 11551 of the Business and Professions Code." "The Planning Department respectfully recommends that the Planning Commis- sion find that the proposed, tentative resolution would constitute an unwarranted extension of Section 13266 of the California Water Code, and Section 11551 of the Business and Professions Code. It is further respect- fully recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the California Regional Water Quality Control Board should be notified thattthe proposed, tentative resolution's adoption would tend to constitate an unwarranted extension of the Board's power over local matters, and that said adoption would therefore be unacceptable to the City of South San Fran- cisco." Letter, dated October 14, 1970, from Fred H. Dierker, Executive Officer, CRWQCB "TO: County Boards of Supervisors County Planning Commissions City Coancils City Planning Commissions "Gentlemen: "You will find enclosed a tentative resolution which would require cities and counties to notify the Regional Board of the filing of development proposals which may involve the discharge of wastes. The Regional Board at its last regular meeting received this tentative resolution, directed that it be sent to Cities and Counties for comments and recommendations and instructed the staff to review these comments for incorporation in a final tentative resolution for consideration at its November 24 meeting. Your comments are requested by November 6, 1970. "Section 13266 of the California Water Code requires each city or county to notify the Regional Board of the filing of a tentative subdivision map, or of any application for a building permit which may involve the discharge of waste, other than discharges into a community sewer system and discharges from dwellings involving five-family units or less pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Board. - 1261 - Tentative Resolution of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board November 9, 1970 lYSection 11551 of the Business and Professions Code added by the Porter- Cologne Act requires cities and counties to determine whether the wastes from a proposed subdivision would result in the violation of existing requirements. This section further provides that the tentative subdivision map may be disapproved if the discharge would result in or add to the violation of requirements. liThe attached tentative resolution would require cities and counties to notify the Board of the filing of tentative subdivision maps, and would require them to submit their findings on whether the additional wastes would result in or add to the violation of requirements. "Please contact Mr. Roger James of this office if you have any questions regarding this matter." "Sincerely, Fred H. Dierker, Executive Officer: Names and Addresses of Proponent and Opponents: None Commissioner Zlatunich moved, that the Planning Commission respectfully recommend thattthe California Regional Water Quality Control Board that the adoption of the proposed, tentative resolution would tend to constitute an unwarranted extension of the Board's power over local matters, and that said adoption would therefore be unacceptable to the City of South San Francisco. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Campredon, and passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Campredon, Commissioners Boblitt, Gardner, Rosati, Zlatunich, and Chairman Lazzari NOES: None ABSENT: Raffaelli Special Instructions to the Secretary. - 1262 - RZ- 17 November 9, 1970 RZ-17~ petition of the J. H. Snyder Company for the amendment of the General Development Plan of theWestborough~ West Park No.3 Planned Community District, to wit the redesignation of several of the duplex-family of "R-2" lots indicated on the "Zoning Map-- Westborough-West Park No.3, Appendix A to Ordinance No. 575." Secretary Pass read the following letter and report into the record. Letter, dated October 22, 1970 from Henry L. Richman, Vice President, J. H. Snyder ,Company "The Honorable Planning Commission City of South San Francisco South San Francisco, California "Attention: Mr. Dan Pass, Secretary "Gentlemen: RE: Grouping of PC-DF (Planned Community-Double Family) Units from a Scattered Area Around WestboroughWestPark 3 to ONe Area in the South East Corner of West Park 3 "I herewith submit a verified application, and a check in the amount of $50.00, for your consideration in the above referred to matter. "Beverly-Glenwood Corporation and J. H. Snyder Company feel that the overall planning for West Park 3 would be enhanced if we had all the PC-DF dwellings in one area instead of scattered throughout the area, at the end of blocks where there are fourteen to eighteen single family homes in between. "We are proposing to put 250 PC-DF in one area, nineteen of which will be located in the northwest corner of the property and will be used as a model sales area. "I look forward to discussing this with you in further detail." "Yours very truly, Henry L. Richman, Vice President" Report and Recommendation, dated October 26, 1970, of City Planner Pass "1. the proposed amendment is designed to redesignate several of the 250 IlR-21V lots indicated on the approved General Development Plan of Westborough-West Park No.3. This redesignation would merely relocate the "R-2" lots, but not increase or decrease the number thereof. "2. The proposed amendment would enable the petitioner to assemble its "R-211 parcels, and to subsequently rep1at and replan these assembled parcels into condominium projects. The design and layout of these projects would be controlled by the Planning Commission through the sub- division-map and planned-unit development (use permit) processes. "3. The proposed amendment would not contravene the adopted General Plan of the City of South San Francisco, or materially alter the regulatory standards of Ordinance No. 575. Said amendment would tend to improve - 1263 - RZ-17 November 9, 1970 lithe land-use character of West Park No.3 by the elimination of the piecemeal "R-l" - IlR-2" admixture now permitted therein." RECOMMENDATION "The Planning Department respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached, preliminary resolution, and recommend to the City Council that the petitioned amendment be enacted into ordinance." Names and Addresses of Proponents and Opponents Proponents: Henry L. Richman, Vice President, J. H. Snyder Company, agent of the appl icant . Opponents: None Commissioner Rosati moved, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2110, and recommend to the City Council that the petitioned amendment be enacted into ordinance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Zlatunich RESOLUTION NO. 2110 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THEREOF THAT RZ-17, PETITION OF THE J. H. SNYDER COMPANY TO AMEND THE GENERAL DEVELOP- MENT PLAN OF THE WESTBOROUGH-WEST PARK NO. 3 PLANNED CO~1UNITY DISTRICT, BY THE REDESIGNATION OF SEVERAL OF THE DUPLEX-FAMILY ("R-2") LOTS THEREIN, BE GRANTED, AND THAT THE PETITIONED AMENDMENT BE ENACTED INTO ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission, meeting in regular session on Monday, November 9, 1970, conducted a public hearing on RZ-17, petition of the J. H. Snyder Company for the amendment of the General Develop- ment Plan of the Westborough-West Park No.3 Planned Community District, to wit the redesignation of several of the duplex-family or "R-2" lots therein; and, WHEREAS, notice of the said hearing was published in the Enterprise- Journal, and posted at three locations on or near the subject lands at least ten days prior thereto; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the written petition and oral presentation of the applicant; and, studied the written reports of the City's department heads; and, WHEREAS, THE Commission, after the close of the instant public hearing, adopted the following findings: 1. The "Findings Required" under Section 4.25(b) of Ordinance No. 490, 'AN ORDINANCE AJ1ENDING ORDINANCE NO. 353, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO." - 1264 - RZ.".17 November 9, 1970 2. The proposed amendment would he ,consonant with the General Plan of the City of South San Francisco, and would not substantially contra- vene the General Development Plan of the Westborough-West Park Planned Community District. 3. The proposed amendment would not be incongruous with the regulatory standards embodied in Ordinance No. 575. 4. The proposed amendment would enable the petitioner to unite its "R-2" lots, and to subsequently develop condominium projects thereon. 5. The proposed amendment would tend to improve the land-use character of Westborough-West Park No.3 by eliminating the piecemeal "R-l" - "R-2" admixture now permitted therein. 6. The pIDoposed redesignation would not increase the number of "R-2" lots in, or the residential density of West Park No.3. 7. The proposed amendment would tend to promote the orderly growth and developmental stability of Westborough-West Park No. 3 (the Greendale Neighborhood), the Westborough Community, and the City of South San Francisco. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco recommend to the City Council thereof that the petitioned amendment be enacted into ordinance. The motion was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Campredon, Commissioners Boblitt, Gardner, Rosati, Zlatunich and Chairman Lazzari NOES: None ABSENT: Raffaelli Special Instructions to the Secretary. - 1265 - November 9, 1970 Fire Chief John Marchi on "The City-Planning Significance of South San Francisco's Fire Safety Program" ~~A Colloquy between the Planning Commission and Chief Marchi "We have close to 900 hydrants in South San Francisco on which we pay $l!.iOO per hydrant per month to the California Water Company, and 96 hydrants on which we pay $2.00 per month to the Westborough Water District. "We maintain for this fee, such as repairs, service and paint these hydrants while the California Water Company maintains the water mains. "The Westborough Water District, to which we pay $2.00 per month per hydrant, maintains the hydrants as well as the water mains. "This fee per month allows as to use as much water as necessary for fire fighting purposes at no cost to the City of South San Francisco. "In conjunction to the above hydrants, there are several hundred additional hydrants that are privately owned on private property that are maintained by the owners of the property. "Althoagh the builders, developers and owners of property pay for the purchase and installation of these mains and hydrants, we take over ownership of all the hydrants, except the ones on private property, and the California Water Company takes over ownership of the water mains, except the ones on private property. "95% of these hydrants are Greenberg hydrants, therefore we have to keep on hand many Greenberg hydrant parts for replacement and repairs. This is the main reason we ask for Greenberg hydrants as it would be very inconvenient and require much space if we handled many different types of hydrants. Ten too, these Greenberg hydrants have given us excellent service over the years. "There are many types of Greenberg as well as other name hydrants, howver only two types are usually used. These are the No. 74 and the Steamer or No. 76 hydrant. The No. 76 and the Steamer hydrant is the same hydrant except it is referred to as either 76 or Steamer. "The No. 74 type is a hydrant with two 2--1/2" outlets only, which at the most will allow you to draw about 1200 gallons per minute with our equip~ ment, while the Steamer or No. 76 has two 2--1/2" oatlets and one 4-1/2" outlet, which will allow us to draw better than 3000 gallons per ruinate from this type of hydrant, which is more than twice as much water. "This No. 76 or Steamer hydrant is required where you have occupancies requlrlng great water flows in event of fires, such as Industrial, Commer- cial or high value districts, while the regular or No. 74 hydrant is used usually in scattered residential areas. "Now as to proper sized water mains: - Nothing smaller than a 6" main is recommended and recognized by the Insurance Underwriters, and this 6" sized main would be used in residential areas. ViA 6" water main would allow approximately 1200 gallons per minute which would be adequate in a low density residential area. However in an apart- ment or denser residential area, nothing smaller than an 8: main would be recommended. This 8" main would supply approximately 2200 gallons per minute which in ordinary circumstances would suffice. - 1266 - November 9, 1970 Fire Chief John Marchi on"theCity";'PlanniIigSignificance of SduthSan'Francisco'sFireSafetyProgram" "As I previously stated, in commercial, industrial or high value districts we would either recommend a 10" or a 12" main, depending on how much water we would need to properly fight a fire in these areas. "A 10" main will give us about 3300 gallons per minute while a l2"main will give us about 6000 gallons per minute. "You see in high value districts sprinkler systems have to be supplied 1;Jy these mains as well as hydrants and each sprinkler head that opens flows about 25 gallons per minute and, for example, if you had 50 heads open up, this would be equivalent to 50 x 25 gallons or 1250 gallons per minute, for the sprinklers alon@, plus a great amount for hand and master streams. In other words, the occupancy determines the size of main and type of hydrant required. ' "Since becoming fire chief nine years ago, over $2,000,000 has been spent in improving our water mains and hydrants and this entire cost has been borne by the developers, owners, etc. and at no cost to our city. "This improvement to our water system will be mainly responsible for a con- tinued, excellent Class 3 insurance rating should we receive same, which we will know for certain in a short time. " GOOD AND WELFARE, OTHER AND COMMUNICATIONS. There being nothing to be considered under Good and Welfare, and there being no further communications or other matters of interest for the Planning Commission, Chairman Lazzari announced that the next regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission woald be held on November 23, 1970 at 8:00 P.M. in the Coancil Chambers of City Hall, South San Francisco, California. The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 P.M. Aj ~ /1<>. .., l ,,: r7/f.'fL/~?~' Nello Lazzari, Chairman Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Daniel M. Pass, Secretary Planning Commission City of South San Francisco wat - 1267 -