Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/23/1973 Revised page 3116 MINUTES April 23, 1973 of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco anning Commission TIME: 8:05 p.m. DATE: April 23, 1973 PLACE: Council Chambers, City Hal South San Francisco, Cali MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson, Mullin & Slade MEMBE RS ABSENT: Chairman Raffaelli ALSO PRESENT: City Planner and Secretary to the South San Francisco Planning Commission, Daniel M. Pass Assistant Planner William A. Timmons Planning Aide Surendra N. Amin MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 9, 1973 Commissioner Lazzari moved that the minutes of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission of April 9, 1973 be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and was passed by the follow- ing roll call vote: AYES: Acting Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson, ~fullin & Slade NOES: None ABSENT : Chairman Raffaelli ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING TAPE PECORDING OF MEETING Acting Chairman Gamma announced that this meeting of the South Sm1 Francisco Planning Commission would be recorded on tape, but that anyone who wished to come before the Commission in order to be heard, but objected to having his or her voice recorded in this manner, could request the Chairman to order the tape recorder turned "off" for the duration of the time that he or she is speaking or is heard. - 3116 - V-158 April 23, 1973 V-158, variance request of Bonnie Novinski to construct a one-story addition to a one-story, single-family dwelling in the required rear yard of No. 16 Verano Drive, 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. "The Office of the City Planner respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the "findings" and action indicated 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- st ances of the particular cas e, materially affect advers e ly the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighbor- hood 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 bulk variance is supported by the substandard depth of the subject building site." CONDITIONS: "The applicant shall comply with the standards and specifications administered by the Director of the Department of Ecological Development." Inter-Office Memorandum dated April 10, 1973 from Fire Marshal William A. Fox "V-158 - No recommendation as this is an addition to an R dwelling." Names and addresses of Proponents and Opponents Proponents: Bonnie Novinski 16 Verano Drive South San Francisco, CA. Opponents: None Commissioner Hale moved that the Planning Commission adopt the findings and conditions, as set forth in the preliminary Official Action Report, and - 3117 - V-158 Continued April 23, 1973 approve V-158 upon the condition that the applicant comply with the submitted requirements of the City's reporting department heads. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mullin and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Acting Chairman Gamma-, Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson, Mullin & Slade NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Raffaelli RZ-24 RZ-24, proposed rezoning of a certain 10.36-acre parcel of land located at the southwesterly corner of Westborough Boulevard and Oakmont Drive, from "R-3", restricted Multiple Family Residential District, to "R-2", Duplex Residential District. (Continued from meeting of January 22, 1973) Secretary Pass read the following reports into the record. Report and recommendation of the City Planner Daniel M. Pass "Urban Planning Analysis - 79, dated June 2, 1972 "The instant matter is before the Planning Commission pursuant to this body's adoption of Resolution No. 2123, a resolution of intent to redistrict the subject territory from "R-3" to "R-2 " The Planning Department has perused the proposed zonal change, and has performed a city-planning survey of the ten-acre parcel of land in question. The following analysis and recommendation are predicated upon the said perusal and survey. ANALYSIS 1. the subject lands were reclassified from "U" District to "R-3" District in 1965 to accommodate the Westborough Unit No 5 (Jolly King) planned unit development. The Use and Variance Permits which were subsequently granted for the purpose of establishing the subject planned unit development have expired on the ground of nonuse. While the final subdivision map of Westborough Unit No 5 was approved by the Planning Commiss ion and the City Counci 1, i tis als 0 no longer viabl e, since it was not recorded within the time pres cribed by the State Subdivision Map Act. 2. Although the reason for the subj ect land's "R-3" classification is no longer extant, the said classification remains. The property owner of these lands can, without Use Permit, establish more than 400 dwelling units in defunct Westborough Unit No.5. 3118 - RZ-24 Contd April 23, 1973 113. The construction of a 400-unit apartment house proj ect on the lands in question would tend to glut the Westborough Boulevard-Callan Boulevard- Oakmont Drive intersection, and thereby limit residential enjoyment in the adj acent "R-l" area of Westborough. 4. The subject lands are slated for low-density residential development under the General Plan of 1969, entitled, "Orderly Growth," and were so slated under the General Plan of 1963. 5. The "R-3i1 Zoning of the lands in question is in derogation of the General Plan. Section 65860(a) of the Government Code provides: "County or City zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the General Plan of the County or City by January 1, 1973. II 6. The rezoning of the lands in question to "R-2" would bring them into close conformity with the adopted general plan of the City of South San Francisco. 7. The above factors indicate that the subject lands should be rezoned from "R-3" to "R-2". The "R-2" zoning would enable the landowner to develop his propeX'ty on a planned-unit basis, or to subdivide said property into conventional lots. RECOMMENDATION "The Planning Department respectfully recommends that the Planning Commis- sion adopt the attached, preliminary resolution, and thereby recommend that the Honorable City Council rezone the subj ect lands from "R-3" to "R-2". Letter dated January 19, 1973 from R. David Martin, Chairman, San Mateo County Airport Land Use Committee liThe San Mateo County Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) has reviewed the proposed development referenced above. The Noise Exposure Forecast here is wi thin the 65-70 CNEL range from aircraft operations and the evaluation criteria developed under the ABAG Regional Airport Systems Study indicates new construction or development should be undertaken only after an analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. It is recommended that these suggestions be made a basic requirement of this development by the local jurisdiction If we can provide further information, please contact Eugene Masciarelli, of the ALUC staff in the County Planning Commission office, 369-1441, extension 4161. Ii Letter dated October 24, 1972 from John E. Thorne of Thorne, Clopton, Herz, Stanek Inc., 510 North Third Street, San Jose, CA. "Re: Parcel 12 - Prudential Guaranty Co. C all an Dear Mr. Pass and Members of the Commission: liThe undersigned is representing Prudential Guaranty Company who recently purchased the above piece of property under a sheriff's sale in attempt- ing to collect monies due and owing to them by virtue of Prudential acquiring the position of a creditor of Mr. Tom Callan and Mr. Michael Callan. We had hoped that other bidders would purchase the property, - 3119 - RZ-24 Contd April 23, 1973 "but i,t became necessary for the judgment creditor (our client) to make the purchase, and we now find that we have a very difficult situation on our hands with parcel 12 We are attempting to work out the difficulties with the Callans, a good deal which presently involves a court action which will be occurring wi thin the next few weeks J and we have high hopes that these difficul- ties will be resolved in the not too distant future. In view of the fact that it does involve parcel 12, and our underst anding being that you now h~ave that parcel before you on the question of zoning, we would make a very simple request. We would ask at this time that any action on your part be delayed until your meeting of January 22, 1973. No one can absolutely guaranty the future, but we have every confidence that by that time the problems our client has with Thomas and Michael Callan will be resolved, and we would hope that once that has occurred our client can work with your planning department and with you to resolve the issues of parcel 12 in any way that is completely satisfactory with the City and with the owners. Obvious ly, the City and the property owners would be interested in getting the highest and best use from the property, as at is highest and best use the City is realizing the most in taxes and the property owners realize the greatest benefit from the use of the land It would be our only hope that that highest and best use can be worked out on an amicable basis. I regret that I cannot be with you this evening to present this matter and answer any questions" however" there will be a representative of Prudential Guaranty Company at the meeting and I am sure he will be able to answer questions that you might have. Certainly if there is any other matter that you would want to delve into after your meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me and I will do everything wi thin my power to get the information I want to thank you, Mr. Pass, for your cooperation in talking with me on the phone, and I do hope that our request is not out of line II Letter dated January 22, 1973" from John E. Thorne, AttorneYO:D Thorne, Clopton, Herz, Stanek Inc. Law Office, 510 North Third St., San-Jose, CA "As I think your records would reflect, the undersigned is presently engaged in 1 i tigation invo 1 ving the above parcel of 1 and whi ch is to be before you tonight for th-e question of rezoning. There is an outstanding question as to who the owner of that property will be, as the property was sold under a judicial foreclosure proced- ure, and the original owners have one year within which to redeem the property. This will not be up until some time this coming June or July (the exact date escapes me), and it would seem to me that until the owners are actually known, it would be best for all conc€Tned to continue this matter, Also, as I said, there is litigation involving this parcel of land" and although the judge has it under submission, he has not rendered a decision. Pending the termination of the legal proceedings, I would - 3120 - RZ-24 Contd April 23> 1973 I?also suggest that it would be of benefit to al concerned if the matter could be continued. It is most certainly the intent of the present owners to cooperate fully in resolving the problem of this particular parcel of land to the benefit of the City of South San Francisco as well as the owners. This assumes that the present owners will be the owners and that the property will not be redeemed from them. That is most certainly a possibility, and if it happens I can assure that the minute the present owners are determined to be the final owners> they will be working with you in every way to resolve the difficulties for the best interest of all. In v~ew of the above, we would request that this matter be continued until a meeting in July or preferably August. If this is not possible, we would then ask for a continuance at least until the judge issues his decision in the present case, and he has indicated that that will occur prior to April 9th of this year. If there are any questions> I will try to answer them. Thanking you for your cooperation, I am, II Opponents: 1. Michael C. Callan 82 Isabella Avenue3 Atherton, CA. 2 . I ch i ro S as ak i;, Ar ch i t e c t 441 90th St. Apt. 23 Daly City, CA. Mr. Sasaki and Mr. Callan explained the whole history from the beginning regarding the above parcel. After considerable discussion, Acting Chairman Gamma asked the Commission for a motion. Commissioner Mathewson moved that the Planning Commission rezone the property in question from R-3 to R-23 as set forth in the Urban Planning Analysis - 79. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slade and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Acting Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson" Mullin and Slade NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Raffaelli - 3121 - P.athway Easement Vacation April 23, 1973 The Director of Ecological Development IS Recommendation that the Pathway Easement, located between No~ 103 Francisco Drive and No. 105 Francisco Drive, in the Francisco Terrace R--l District, be vacated. Michael Wilson, Acting Director of Ecological Development, requested that the subject matter be allowed to be withdrawn for further study. Acting Chairman Gamma, with the concurrence of the Planning Commission, ordered that the above item be withdrawn from the agenda as requested. THE GENERAL PLAN - Comprehensive Review of the General Plan of the City of South San Francisco Secretary Pass explained the General Plan, and open space element, as well as the zoning ordinance, in detail. ' Speakers: Bette Higgins 201 Hillside Jon Deasy 376 Granada Mr. Thompson 310 Del Monte Dave Alvarez 278 Village Way Doreen Granelli 288 Avalon Dr. Arthur "Buzz" Haskins, 2895 Summit Drive, SSF SSF SSF SSP SSF Hillsborough Considerable discussion ensued regarding the Comprehensive Review of the General Plan and other Elements. At the conclusion of its consideration Commissioner Mullin moved that the Planning Commissionvatify the General Plan of 1969, as amended, and its adopted Working-,Living Areas, Circula- tion, Public Facilities, and Housing Elements; and respectfully recommen that the Honorable City Council adopt the approved Open Space, Seismic Safety and Urban Design Elements. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slade, aHd was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Acting Chairman Gamma, Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Mathewson, Mullin and Slade None Chairman Raffa~ NOES: ABSENT: GOOD AND WELFARE, OTHER AND COMMUNICATIONS 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 May 14, 1973 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, South San Francisco, California The meetinU;:;;~~ Donald Gamma, Acting Chairman Daniel M, Pass, Secretary Planning Commission Planning Commission NOTE: Oral presentations, arguments and comments are recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Office of the City Planner sna - 3122 -