Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/26/1973 MINUTES March 26, 1973 of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission TIME: 8:00 p.m, DATE: March 26, 1973 PLACE: Council Chambers~ City Hall South San Francisco, California MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson, ~fullin, and Chairman Raffaelli MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Slade ALSO PRESENT: City Planner and Secretary to the South San Francisco Planning Commission, Daniel M Pass Assistant Planner William A. Timmons City Attorney John No onan MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 12, 1973 Vi ce Chairman Gamma moved that the minutes of the' regul ar meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission of March 12, 1973 be approved The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hale and was passed by the follow- ing roll call vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson, Mullin, and Chairman Raffaelli N OE S : None ABSENT: Commissioner Slade ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING TAPE RECORDING OF MEETING Chairman Raffaelli announced. that this meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commiss ion would be recorded on tape, but that anyone who wished to come before the Commission in order to be heard, but obj ected 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 speak- ing or is heard, Commissioner Slade arrived for the meeting at 8:0 p.m. - 3104 - UP-203 March 26, 1973 The Expiration of UP-203 , use-permit request of Michael C. Callan to establish Commercial Planned Unit Development "H" in the "Commer- Cial Zone" of the Westborough-West Park No. 2 Planned Community District. (continued from February 26, 1973) Secretary Pass read the following Inter-Office Memorandum, dated March 26, 1973, from City Attorney John Noonan. "Reference: 1. 10M dated 2/27/73 to C.A. from City Planner, Re: UP.",203 with attachments. 2. Resolution 5774 passed 2/7/72. approving UP-203. 3. Zoning Ordinance Section 6.51. After a review of the references and case law, it is my opinion that Permittees in good faith have made substantial expenditures and incurred substantial obligations which in accordance with the maj ority rule is sufficient to establish a vested right and, therefore, have "used" the permit witl1-in th-e time required by Zoning Ordinance Section 6.51, S UMJY1ARY Zoning Ordinance Section 6.51 reads as follows: "Any zoning permit" use permit or variance granted in accordance with the terms of this ordinance shall automatically expire if not used within one (1) year from date of approval." If a Permittee does nothing beyond obtaining the permit it may be revoked or suffer expiration as set forth in Section 6 .51 ~ but. where a permit has been properly obtained and in reliance thereon the Permittee has incurred material expense he a vested property right which entitles him to protection. Some jurisdictions have followed the minority rule requiring a physical change in the land or partial building but even in those jurisdictions there has been a gradual change to a more equitable point of view closely paralleling the majority view which requires substantial expenditure or incurring substantial obligations. Reference 1, including the attachments and oral presentations made at the hearing on February 26, 1973, sets forth several acts includ- ing a special design and cost thereof to meet City I S requirements. It is my opinion that the acts recited show substantial expenditures and the incurring of substantial obligations. However, the Commission has the decision to make and it is the same decision that a court would face--an evaluation of the, facts to determine whether the Permittee has made substantial expenditures and incurred substantial obligations or, as .otherwis e stated, in reliance on the permit has incurred material expense and thereby acquired a vested right." There being no proponents or opponents regarding the instant matter, Chairman Raffaelli closed the public hearing thereon, and solicited comments from the Commission. Upon a query from Commissioner Gamma, City Attorney John Noonan discussed at length his aforementioned memorandum. The Commission questioned at 1 ength the following speakers: 3105 UP-203 Contd. March 26" 1973 1. William D. Evans, Attorney for Texaco, Inc. 3350 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA. 9000 2. John E. Thorne, Attorney representing Michae C Callan 510 North Third Street, San Jose " CA. 3. Gary H. Boyd, Real Estate Agent, Texaco, Inc 475 Harbor Blvd., Redwood City, CA. 94064 4. Jim Slaight, Metterich Construction Co., Inc P.O. Box 748, Napa, CA. 94558 The Commission solicited furter comments from the City Attorney and City Planner Daniel M. Pass, After considerable discussion amonst the Commission, Chairman Raffaelli asked the Commission for a motion. Vice Chairman Gamma moved that the Planning Commission adopt the following interpretive rulings. ill. Section 6.51 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a us e permitted by use permit be, at least partially J physically established within one year after the date of approval of the governing use permit. 2. UP-203, use-permit request of Michael C. Callan to establish Commercial Planned Unit Development "H" in a "Commercial Zone" of the Westborough-West Park No 2 Planned Community District, was not used within the time prescribed by Section 6.51 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of South San Francis co, and has therefore expired." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hale and passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice-Chairman Gamma, Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson, and Chairman Raffaelli NOES: Commissioners Mullin and Slade ABSENT: None V-155 V-155, variance request of Roger D. Williams to occupy 42% of the building site at No. 461 Ferndale Avenue, in the R-l District, with an enlarged, one-story, single-family dwelling. - 3106 - V-155 Continued March 26 ~ 1973 Secretary Pass read the following report and letters into the record. Report and recommendation of City Planner Daniel M. Pass "The Pl anning Office respectfully recommends that the Pl anning Commission adopt the "findings" and action embodied in the attached, preliminary Official Action Report 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 buildings in the same district. 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner. 3. That the granting of the application will not, under the circum- stances 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 diffi- culties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. The requested variance is supported by the substandard depth and square footage of the subject building site. 7. The Planning Commission has granted similar bulk variances to freeholders in Sunshine Gardens." CONDITIONS: "The applicant shall comply with the standards and specifications administered by the Director of the Department of Ecological Development " Names and addresses of Proponents and Opponents Proponents: . Roger D. Williams 461 Ferndale Avenue, South San Francisco, CA. Opponents: None Commissioner Lazzari moved that the Planning Commission adopt the findings and conditions " as set forth in the preliminary Official Action Report, and approve V-155 upon the condition that the applicant comply with the sub- mitted requirements of the City's reporting department heads. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson, Mullin, Slade, and Chairman Raffaelli NOES: None ABSENT: None - 3107 - V-156 March 26., 1973 V-156, variance request of Robert E. Etchingham to construct an addition to a two-story, single-family dwelling in the required rear yard of No. 326 Camaritas Avenue, in the R-l District. Secretary Pass read the following report and letters into the record. Report and recommendation of City Planner Daniel M. Pass "It is respectfully recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the "findings", "conditions"., and action embodied in the attached, preliminary Official Action Report. FINDINGS: ill. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or condi- tions applying to the land or building referred to in the applica- tion, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land or buildings in the same district. 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preserva- tion and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner. 3. That the granting of the application will not, under the circum- stances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the heal th or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant, and will not, under the circum- stances of the particular case, be materially detrt:tmental 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 diffi- culties, unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance 6. The requested variance is supported by the substandard depth and square footage of the subject, corner building site. 7. The requested variance is supported by the extra width of the applicant's interior side yard, and the similar variances granted by the Planning Commission CONDITIONS: ill. The applicant shall provide a direct-access driveway to the proposed garage, and shall remove the existing driveway and drive approach within 30 days after the completion of the construction of the proposed addition. 2. The applicant shall landscape the area occupied by the existing driveway within 30 days.'.after the completion of the construction of the proposed addition. 3. The applicant shall comply with the standards and specifications administered by the Director of the Department of Ecological Develop- ment ." Names and addresses of Proponents and Opponents Proponents: Robert E. Etchingham, 326 Camaritas Avenue, South San Francisco, CA. Opponents: None - 3108 - V-156 Cont1d March 26, 1973 Commissioner Hale moved that the Planning Commission adopt the findings and conditions" as set forth- in the preliminary Official Action Report, and approve V-156 upon the condition that the applicant comply with the sub- mitted requirements of the City's reporting department heads. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slade and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson, Mullin, Slade, and Chairman Raffaelli NOES: None ABSENT: None PM-106 PM-106, tentative parcel map of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes, representing the submul tiplication of 4 lots, located on the southerly side of Forbes Boulevard, about 500' westerly of Kauffmann Court, in the M-2-H District, into 2 lots. Secretary Pass read the following report and letters into the record. Report and recommendation of City Planner DanielM. Pass Urban Planning Analysis No. 88, dated March 9, 1973 liThe proposed submultiplication meets the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act, and the regulatory standards of the Subdivision Ordinance of the ctty of South San Francisco. The said submul tiplica- tion would create two, well-designed industrial building sites. The irregular shape of 5.476-acre Lot 22 would not preclude its accommo- dation of a well-planned industrial land use. In light of the above factors, the Office of the City Planner respect- fully recommends that the South San Francisco Planning Commission approve the instant tentative parcel map upon the condition that the applicant comply with the submitted requirements of the City's department and division heads" and the standards and regulations administered by the Director of the Department of Ecological Development." Interoffice Memorandum dated March 15, 1973 from Roy R. Ghilardi, Acting Chief Building Inspector "Have reviewed the Tentative Parcel Map PM-106 being a resubdivision of Lots 20 & 21, Block 2 of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park Unit No.2 and find the following discrepancies. 1. The resubdivision of Lots 2 & 4, Block 2, Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park Unit No.2 not in file with Building Division. Most likely it has not been recorded. .,.. 3109 -, ~M-106 Continued March 26, 1973 "2. A small island of land located at the extreme southwest corner of Lot 22 which originally pertained to Lot 2 is now isolated. The Radius on 30 58' 09" of this small parcel reads R 367.25' on original and on resubdivision reads R 397.25'. 3. Slope easement not shown on the southwest corner of Lot 22." Names and addresses of Proponents and Opponents: Proponents: Richard Smith~ C.E. Wilsey & Ham, 1035 E. Hillsdale, Foster City, CA. 94404 Opponents: None COmnIissioner Lazzari moved that the Planning Commission approve the instant tentative parcel map upon the condition that the subdivider comply with the requirements as set forth by the City's reporting department heads. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mullin and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Gamma, COmnIissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson, Mullin, Slade and Chairman Raffaelli NOES: None ABSENT: None PM-107 PM-107, tentative Parcel Map of Cabot, Cabot & Forb , representing the rearrangement of two adjoining lots, located at the southerly terminus of Kauffmann Court, in the M-2-H District. Secretary Pass read the following report and letters into the record. Report and recommendation of City Pilianner Daniel M. Pass "The proposed resubdivision meets the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act, and the regulatory standards of the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco. While the geometric order of the proposed re- subdivision leaves much to be desired" said resubdivision would produce two functional, industrial building sites, and is therefore supportable. In light of the above factors, the Office of the City Planner respect- fully recommends that the Planning Commission approve the instant tentative Parcel Map upon the condition that the subdivider comply with the submitted requirements of the City's department and division heads, and the standards and regulations administered by the Director of the Department of Ecological Development." - 3110 - PM-107 Cont'd March 26., 1973 Interoffice Memorandum dated March 14., 1973, from Fred W. Hull, Director of Ecological Development "The Department of Ecological Development has reviewed the subj ect parcel map and finds that the on-site drainage system which has been dedicated to the City of South San Francisco is no longer operating as originally designed; namely, the drainage area has been reduced by the introduction of additional drainage systems in the uplands development and the valley gutter that exists on this property may, in all likelihood be removed during the grading operation for any proposed building in this area. For that reason, I think it is in the best interests of the City to abandon this as a drainage easement, have all on-site drainage facilities designed in such a manner that they adequately handle all drainage in the area, and that they deliver the storm flows to the storm drain system that is in and operating on Kauffmann Court, and that all on-site main- tenance for the proposed drainage facilities be the responsibility of the landowner and not the City om South San Francisco." Interoffice Memorandum dated March 15, 1973 from Roy R. Ghilardi, Acting Chief Building I~pector nHave examined the Tentative Parcel Map PM-107 being a resubdi vision of Lots 9 & 10, Block 2, Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park Unit No.2 and find the following omission: Slope easements not indicated on the southerly portion of both lots," Names and addresses of Proponents and Opponents: Proponents: Richard Smith~ C.E. Wilsey & Ham, 1035 E. Hillsdale, Foster City, CA. Opponents: None Vice Chairman Gamma moved that the Planning Commission approve the instant tentative parcel map upon the condition that the subdivider comply with the requirements as set forth by the City's reporting department heads. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hale and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Vice Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson Mullin, Slade and Chairman Raffaelli NOES: None ABSENT: None GOOD AND WELFARE AND COMMUNICATIONS With the concurrence of the Commission, Secretary Pass was instructed to notify Mr. Neal Martin that Tuesday, April 17, 1973, 8 p.m., would be an acceptable date for him to appear in the Council Chambers before the Planning Commission. - 3111 - GOOD AND WELFARE AND COMMUNICATIONS Cont'd Mar ch 26, 1973 Mr. F. Allen Weinstein, 332 Susie Way, South San Francisco, at the sugges- tion of Mayor Mammini, addressed the Commission regarding the posting of political signs on public property. Secretary Pass advised the Commission that under Section 8 of the Sign Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco, advertising is prohibited on public property. There being nothing further to be considered under Good and Welfare, and there being no further communications or other matters of interest for the Planning Commission, Chairman Raffaelli announced that the next regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission would be held on April 9, 1973 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, South San Francisco, California. The meeting was adjourned at 9:43 p.m. Mario Raffaelll, Chairman Planning Commission City of South San Francisco, Daniel M. Pass, Secretary Planning Commission City of South San Francisco wt NOTE: Oral presentations, arguments and comments are recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Office of the City Planner. - 3112 -