Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1965-07-06TIME: PLACE: CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND INVOCATION: ROLL CALL: MINUTES: CLAIMS: PARKING DISTRICT NO. 1 CLAIMS: BUTLER ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CLAIMS: CABOT, CABOT & FORBES INDUSTRIAL PARK, UNIT NO. 1 CLAIMS: HARBOR WAY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CLAIM: REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF /HE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HELD TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1965 8:00 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall The meeting was called to order by Mayor Frank J. Bertucelli at 8:01 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was recited, after which the invocation was given by Reverend Kenneth Glenn, First Southern Baptist Church. Present: Absent: Councilmen Frank J. Bertucelli, Patrick E. Ahem, Emilio Cortesi, Andrew Rocca and Guido 3. Rozzl. None Mayor Bertucelli at this time asked if there was a motion approving the minutes of the regular meeting of June 21, 1965. Councilman Rozzi moved, seconded by Councilman Ahem and regularly carried, that the minutes of the regular meeting of June 21, 1965, be approved as submitted. Mayor Bertucelli then asked if there was a motion approving the regular claims as submitted for payment. Councilman Ahem moved, seconded by Councilman Rocca and regularly carried, that the regular claims totaling $50,131.78 be approved for payment. Mayor Bertucelli then asked if there was a motion approving the claims for Parking District No. 1 as submitted for payment. Councilman Rozzi moved, seconded by Councilman Ahern and regularly carried, that the claims for Parking District No. 1, totaling $656.53, be approved for payment. Butler Road Assessment District Claims: (a) (b) Chemical Weed claim dated June 1, 1965, in the amount of $144.00 for services, March, April, and May, 1965. A. Carlisle & Co. claim dated June 2, 1965, in the amount of $198.12 for Bond and Coupon Books. Councilman Ahern moved, seconded by Councilman Rocca and regularly carried, that the claim as submitted for Butler Road Assessment District be approved for payment. Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park, Unit No. 1 Claims: (a) A. Carlisle & Co. claim dated June 2, 1965, in the amount of $545.62 for Bond and Coupon Books. (b) Baldwin Warren Company, Inc., claim dated May 25, 1965, in the amount of $!5,228.29 for engineering services. (c) Robert S. Cooper & Associates claim dated May 20, 1965, in the amount of $907.50 for site grading and trench backfill. (d) Wilsey, Ham & Blair claim dated June 15, 1965, in the amount of $3,983.28 for engineering services. (e) Wilsey, Ham & Blair claim dated June 15, 1965, in the amount of $81.16 for engineering services (Swift easement). (f) Wilsey, Ham & Blair claim dated June 15, 1965, in the amoun~ of $1,137.55 for engineering services (drill track). (g) Wilsey, Ham & Blair claim dated June 15, 1965, in the amount of $3,791.31 for construction staking. Councilman Rozzi moved, seconded by Councilman Rocca and regularly carried, that the claims as submitted for Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park, Unit No. 1, be approved for payment. Harbor Way Improvement District Claim: City of South San Francisco claim dated June 22, 1965 in the amount of $100.00 for fire alarm box installation (credit to Trust Deposit) and claim dated June 22, 1965 in the amount of $720.90 for one fire alarm box and wire to box. Councilman Ahern moved, seconded by Councilman Rocca and regularly carried, that the claim as submitted for the Harbor Way Improvement District be approved for payment. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY CLAIM: PUBLIC HEARING - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 3: PUBLIC HEARING - PONDEROSA ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - MANTEGANI PARCEL: PUBLIC HEARING - JOHN LOCKHART: PUBLIC HEARING - FOXRIDGE: RESOLUTIONS CABOT, CABOT & FORBES: RESOLUTION NO. 4233 RESOLUTION NO. 4234 RESOLUTION NO. 4235 RESOLUTION NO. 4236 South San Francisco Public Librarv Claim: H. Christensen & Sons, contractor, claim dated June 8, 1965, in the amount of $8,517.00 for work performed on Library and Emergency Operating Center. Councilman Rocca moved, seconded by Councilman Rozzi and regularly carried, that the claim as submitted for the South San Francisco Public Library be approved for payment. The first item for Council attention was the Public Hearing on Notice of Proposed Vacation - proposed vacation of public utility easements lying within Lots 5 and 12, Block 16, South San Francisco Industrial Park Unit No. 3. Mayor Bertucelli declared the Public Hearing opened, asking if any wri~en protests had been received, to which the City Clerk replied none had been received by his office. He then asked if anyone present in the audience wished to register an oral protest. There being none, Mayor Bertucelli declared the Public Hearing closed. The next item for Council attention was the Public Hearing on Notice of Hearing on Amended Assessment - requested for the parcel of land, Parcel 45, Block 113. Mayor Bertucelll declared the Public Hearing opened, asking if any written protests had been received, to which the City Clerk replied none had been received by his office. He then asked if anyone present in the audience wished to register an oral protest. There being none, Mayor Bertucelli declared the Public Hearing closed. The next item for Council attention was the Public Hearing on Notice of Hearing on proposed amendment of zoning ordinance to establish a duplex residential district or R-2 district for the parcel known as the Mantegani Parcel. Mayor Bertucelli declared the Public Hearing opened, asking if any written protests had been received, to which the City Clerk replied none had been received by his office. He then asked if anyone present in the audience wished to register an oral protest. There being none, Mayor Bertucelli declared the Public Hearing closed. The next item for Council attention was the Public Hearing on Notice of Hearing on the request to operate a nursery for 1 to 6 mentally retarded infants at 3375 Oakmont Drive. Mayor Bertucelli declared the Public Hearing opened, asking if any written protests had been received, to which the City Clerk replied none had been received by his office. He then asked if anyone present in the audience wished to register an oral protest. There being none, Mayor Bertucelli declared the Public Hearing closed. The next item for Council attention was the Public Hearing on Notice of Hearing on the request for resubdivision and variances for the following: Westborough Unit No. 3, Tract 817, Block 26 - Lots 1 thru 8 and Block 24 - Lots 22 thru 26 and 11 and 12; also Westborough Unit No. 2, Tract No. 808, Block 22 - Lots 36, 37, 38, 39 and Westborough Unit lC, Block 3, Lots 29 and 30. Mayor Bertucelli declared the Public Hearing opened, asking if any written protests had been received, to which the City Clerk replied none had been received by his office. He then asked if anyone present in the audience wished to register an oral protest. There being none, Mayor Bertucelli declared the Public Hearing closed. No further action was taken on the following resolutions as listed, action having been taken on their adoption at a Special Meeting held Monday, 3une 28, 1965. These were as follows: 1. "A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN LANOOWNERS, AND DECLARATIONS CONCERNING RESPONSIBILITY IN CONNECTION WITH IMPROVEMENT WORK, ESTABLISHING COVENANTS RUNNING WITH THE LANO - CABOT, CABOT & FORBES INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 2." 2. "A RESOLUTION DETEPJ~ING TO UNDERTAKE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ANO ASSESSMENT BONO ACTS FOR THE ACQUISITION ANO CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT PROCEEDINGS UNDER DIVISION 4 OF THE STREETS ANO HIGHWAYS CODE - CABOT, CABOT & FORBES INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 2." 3. "A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ENGINEERS AND ATTORNEYS -'CABOT, CABOT & FORBES INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 2." 4. "A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ACQUIRE AND CONSTRUCT IMPROVEMENTS - CABOT, CABOT & FORBES INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 2." RESOLUTIONS CABOT, CABOT & FORBES: RESOLUTION NO. 4237 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT #3: RESOLUTION NO. 4238 PONDEROSA IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 4239 ENDORSEMENT TO RC. RESO NO. 1908-A: RESOLUTION NO. 4240 PO~?ER LINE INSTALLATION CABOT, CABOT & FORBES: 53¥7 RESOLUTION NO. 4241 GRADING PERt,~IT TO ARTHUR HASKINS AND IRA LARSON: RESOLUTION NO. 4242 UNIFICATION SCHOOL DISTRICTS: RESOLUTION NO. 4243 AWARD OF CONTRACT CORPORATION YARD: 5o o RESOLUTION NO. 4244 FROPOSED STREET: ORDI NANC E - AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 353: 1st Reading/Introduction MANIEGANI PARCEL P.C. RESO. NO. 1908A: There being no objections from any member of the City Council, Mayor Bertucelli continued to the next regular meeting of 3uly 19, 1965, the next three resolutions as follows: 1. "A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH CABOT, CABOT & FORBES CALIFORNIA PROPERTIES, INC. FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE ON CABOT, CABOT & FORBES INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 2." 2. "A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING ASSIGNI~ENT OF NDNIES AND CONSENTING THERETO CABOT, CABOT & FORBES INOUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 2." 3. "A RESOLUTION AWAROING SALE OF BONDS - CABOT, CABOT & FORBES INOUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 2." City Attorney Noonan explained the next resolution, after which Councilman Rozzi introduced: "A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE VACATION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY EASF~ENTS WITHIN LOTS 5 AND 12, BLOCK 16, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT ~." Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Frank 3. Bertucelli, Patrick E. Ahem, Emilio Cortesi, Andrew Rocca and Guido 3. Rozzi. Noes, none. Absent, none. City Attorney Noonan explained the next resolution, after which Councilman Rozzi introduced: "A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING AN AMENDED ASSESSMENT - PONDEROSA IMPROV~ENT PRO3ECT." Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Frank 3. Bertucelli, Patrick E. Ahem, Emilio Cortesi, Andrew Rocca and Guido J. Rozzi. Noes, none. Absent, none. City Attorney Noonan explained the next resolution, after which Councilman Rocca introduced: "A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REPORT AND RECOmmENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SET FORTH IN PLANNING CONg~ISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1908-A, PASSED MAY 24, 1965, AND ORDERING ENDORSF~ENTS AFFIXED TO SAID REPORT AND RECO~9~ENDATION." Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Frank 3. Bertucelli, Patrick E. Ahem, Emilio Cortesi, Andrew Rocca and Guido 3. Rozzi. Noes, none. Absent, none. City Attorney Noonan explained the next resolution, after which Councilman Ahem introduced: "A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A REVOCABLE PERMIT TO CABOT, CABOT & FORBES - POWER LIN~ INSTALLATION." Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Frank 3. Bertucelli., Patrick E. Ahem, Emilio Cortesi, Andrew Rocca and Guido 3. Rozzi. Noes, none. Absent, none. City Attorney Nooman explained the next resolution, after which Councilman Ahem introduced: "A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCf OF A GRADING PERMIT TO ARTHUR'HASKINS AND IRA LARSON." Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Frank 3. Bertucelli, Patrick E. Ahem, Emilio Cortesi, Andrew Rocca and Guido 3. Rozzi. Noes, none. Absent, none. The City Attorney explained the:next resolution, after which Councilman Ahem introduced: "A RESOLUTION D~CLARING THE CITY COUNCIL'S OPPOSIT.DON TO THE PRO- POSED UNIFICATION OF SOUTH SAN FRAEEIS$O UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND LAGUNA SALADA SCHOOL DISTRICT." Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Frank J. Bertucelli, Patrick E. Ahem, Emilio Cortesi, Andrew Rocca and Guido 3. Rozzi. Noes, none. Absent, none. City Attorney Noonan explained the next resolution, after which Councilman Rocca introduced: "A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT ADDITION TO CORPORATION YARD BUILDINGS AND STALLS - 1965 (REVISED)." Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Frank 3. Bertucelli, Patrick E. Ahem, Emilio Cortesi, Andrew Rocca and Guido 3. Rozzi. Noes, none. Absent, none. The City Attorney explained the next resolution, after which Councilman Ahern introduced: "A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE COUNCIL'S INTENTION TO ESTABLISH THE EXTENT, NATURE AND PURPOSE OF A PROPOSED STREET, CALLING FOR A REPORT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING.: Roll call vo~e was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Frank 3. Bertucelli, Patrick E. Ahem, Emilio Cortesi, Andrew Rocca and Guido 3. Rozzi. Noes, none. Absent, none. City Attorney Noonan explained the Ordinance which had been prepared and was ready for its first reading and introduction, stating that if Council wished a motion could be adopted that reading of the Ordinance in its entir~y be waived and that it have its first reading and introduction by the reading of title only. Councilman Ahem so moved, seconded by Councilman Rocca and regularly carried. City Attorney Noonan then stated that a motion could be adopted that an Ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A~ENDING ORDINA~EE NO. 353, AS A~ENDED, ENTITLED "ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO" PASSED AND ADOPTED AUGUST 10, 1954, AMD ESTABLISHING ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED," be introduced reading in its entirety having been duly waived. Councilman Rozzi so moved, seconded by Councilman Ahem. Roll call vote was ~s follows: Ayes, Councilmen Frank 3. Bertucelli, Patrick E. Ahem, Emilio Corte$i, Addrew Rocca and Guido 3. Rozzi. Noes, none. Absent, none. Resolution No. 1908A received from the Planning Commission entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CON~ISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 1908 AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COU~EIL APPROVAl. OF THE CITY COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 4201 SO AS TO REZONE 425FT. X 140 FT. OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SW CORNER OF ORANGE AND CO~9~ERCIAL AVENUES, KNOWN AS THE NtANTEGA~II PARCEL FROM A R-1 DISTRICT TO A R-2 DISTRICT." This matter having been acted upon earlier under resolutions, no further Council action was taken at this time. SOUTH GITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY CO. USE PERMIT P.C. RESO. NO. 1909: 5o ~-o The next two items under Unfinished Business being related were taken together and were as follows: (1) South San Francisco Lumber Use Permit Resolution No. 1909 entitled: ""A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CON~ISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE USE PER~IT APPLICATION OF SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY GO. RECON~ENDING APPROVAL OF THEIR REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A DRIVE-IN THEATER IN A M-1-H DISTRICT, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF RAILROAD AMD SPRUCE AVENUES, ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 14-061 - 1, 2, 3. (2) Variance Resolution No. 1910 - SOUTH CITY LUMBER & SUPPLY CO. - recommending permission be granted to be allowed a screen for the proposed drive-in theater to be 75' 6" instead of permitted 65' in an M-1-H district (Railroad & Spruce Avenues), subject to conditions as follows: (1) That the design of the structure and screen be submitted to the Architectural Committee. (2) That any advertising for the back of the screen be subject to a sign use permit submitted to the Planning Commission along with the marquee sign to be erected at the entrance to the drive-in. Mayor Bertucelli at this time asked the City Clerk if the City had received any documents concerning the subject matter. The City Clerk then read in full Planning Commission Resolution No. 1909 and Planning Commission Variance Resolution No. 1910. He remarked that in addition the following had likewise been received; A Summary of Hearings on the Use Permit, dated May 24, 1965, as received from the Planning Commission, as well as Planning Officer's Report A petition containing ninety-five (95) signatures, the introduction of which read as follows: WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, ARE AWARE THAT THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING CON~ISSION AND THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COUNCIL ARE BEING ASKED TO ISSUE A USE PER~IT ALLOWING THE CON- STRUCTION OF AN ULTRA-MODERN DRIVE-IN THEATRE ON APPROX~ATELY ELEVEN (11) ACRES OF PROPERTY, LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF SPRUCE AND RAILROAD AVENUES. THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY N~R. I. E. HORTON, PRESIDENT OF THE SOUTH CITY SUPPLY AND LUMBER COMPANY, AND IS PRESENTLY USED BY A CONCRETE PROCESSING COMPANY. WE SINCERELY URGE THAT THE PER~IT BE ISSUED. 3. Letters as received from the following outside agencies: (a) Recreation-Park District, Simi, Calif., dated May 14, 1965 (b) City of Lompoc, Calif., Office of Mayor, dated May 18, 1965 (c) City of Lompoc, Calif., Chief of Police, dated May 18, 1965 (d) Chamber of Commerce, Santa Susana, Calif., dated May 14, 1965 (e) City of Santa Barbara, Office of Mayor, dated May 21, 1965 (f) Santa Barbara County, Office of Sheriff, dated May 17, 1965 (g) Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Barbara, dated May 20, 1965 (h) City of Lompoc, Calif., Office of Mayor, dated June 18, 1965 Letters of Petition, dated May 10, 1965, twenty-three (23) in number, reportedly sianed by residents and property owners which stated there were no objections to the proposed drive-in theater, one of which was signed with two (2) signatures of which one stated there was no objection to the proposed drive-in theater and one which objected to the proposed drive-in theater. Letters of Petition, dated June 9, l~&5, one hundred and thirty-two (13P) in number, reportedly containing ±he signatures of residents of the City, all of which were the same in context, reading one in full. In±er-Office Memorandum, dated May 27, 1965, from the Planning Commission Secretary transmitting various documents concerning the proposed drive-in theater. Communication, dated May 24, 1965, from the South City Lumber and Supply Company, over the signatures of Frank Watson, Vice President, as well as Harry ~allace, Vice President of the North Coast Theater Corporation and addressed to th~ Fire Chief. Inter-Office Memorandum, dated June 2, 1965, from the City Clerk to the Mayor and members of the City Council, transmitting certain 4ocuments concerning the proposed drive-in theater. Inter-Office Memorandum, dated June 10, 1965, from the Planning Officer to the City Clerk transmitting six (6) copies of Use Permit No. 1909. 10. Inter-Office Memorandum, dated June 10, 1965, from the Planning Officer to the Director of Public Works, Building Inspector, Police Chief, Fire Chief, forwarding information concerning the proposed drive-in theater. 11. Inter-Office Memorandum, dated July 6, 1965, addressed to the City Council from the City At:torney concerning the Use Permit Application of the South City Lumber and Supply Company drive-in theater in an M-1-H district. SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY CO. USE PERMIT D.C. RESO. NO. 1909: (CONTINUED) 5o 12. Inter-Office Memorandum, dated July 6, 1965, addressed to the City Council from the Director of Public Works over the signature of 3. E. Neville, concerning certain public improvements on the east side of Spruce Avenue from Railroad Avenue to the proposed theater entrance. 13. Two (2) black and white.photos and one (1) colored photo concerning the proposed drive-in theater. At the request of Mayor Bertucelli, the three (3) photographs mentioned were placed on exhibit on the Council Chambers walls. In addition, there was obtained from the Planning Department, two (2) large colored designs, one of which showed the proposed new Spruce drive-in theater as prepared for Metropolitan Theaters by Designers and Builders Associates, Martin Bloom Associates, St. Louis, Missouri, and the other, a design of the proposed marquee for the Spruce drive-in theater as prepared for Metropolitan Theaters by Designers and Builders Associates, Martin Bloom Associates, St. Louis, Missouri. At the request of Mayor Bertucelli, these were placed on display. Mayor Bertucelli then asked if anyone present in the audience wished to speak concerning the subject matter. The following persons then spoke: Mr. Frank Watson, Vice President of the South City Lumber and Supply Company read from a prepared statement concerning their application~ requesting favorable consideration by the City Council. Conrad Reisch, attorney-at-law, representing the South City Lumber and Supply Company and the Metropolitan Theaters, commented that he did not represent the applicants when they a~peared at the Planning Commission but since that time, had thoroughly analyzed the Planning Commission's action and was present to answer any questions there might be in opposition to the erection of the proposed drive-in theater. He, at this time, placed on file as exhibits, three (3) photographs which showed the present status of the site. City Attorney Noonan asked that these be made part of the record. It was so ordered. Dennis Rosaia, 114 Fir Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed drive-in theater remarking that he spoke as a home owner, property owner and merchant, urging denial to the Use Permit, further commenting on the disturbance factor by the honking of horns, increased traffic, litter and debris as a result of the snack shop operations, stating that the area could be better developed by light industr¥~ such as is being done in the Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrialarea. Robert Hunter, attorney-at-law, stated that he represented Mrs. Dewey, a property owner, in the immediate vicinity, registering objection to the pro- posed drive-in theater. He, at this time, presented as an exhibit to Council, a petition containing signatures of one hundred and twenty-five (125) residents of the City, reading in full the communication of transmittal thereon. He then presented a copy of the original petition urging approval, containing approximately ninety-five (95) signatures stating that eleven (11) of these signatures were those of employees or relatives of the South City Lumber and Supply Company and that twenty-five (25) who originally signed in favor, had signed his petition opposing the proposed drive-in theater. He also commented on the application before the Town of Colma months previously for the establish- ment of a drive-in theater which was unanimously denied by its Planning Com- mission and Council, further remarking that the members of this City Council as well as the Chief of Police appeared at the hearings requesting denial. He then gave as an exhibit, a~py of the San Mateo Times, dated 3uiy 2, 1965, which carried an advertisement concerning "Dusk to Dawn" shows~ also submitting as an exhibit for the record, a copy of the Report of the Planning Commission of the Town of Colma and a resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF COLMA DETERMINING FINDINGS OF FACT IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICATION OF VITTORIO SPIREA" and Findings and decision in the matter of the application and appeal of Vittorio Spirea~requested denial. Walter Cappaccioli, attorney-at-law, representing the E1 Rancho Drive-in Theater spoke concerning establishment of the E1 Rancho Theater some years prior, re- markina that when it was located, the area was not in the City limits and was undeveloped at the time, further, that there was no police problem with regard to the operations of the E1 Rancho Theater. He likewise commented that the present applicant was requesting Use Permit for the area which was' not presently zoned for a drive-in theater, stating that the City Attorney had opinioned that the Use could be granted under the present ordinance. He further remarked that the area should be developed as it was presently zoned, light industry. He asked that the City Council vote in the best interest of the people based on the evidence furnished tonight. Robert Ferrario, 457 Commercial Avenue, stated that the exit side of the proposed theater would be approximately one hundred and seventy-five (175) feet from his bedroom and requested that the application be denied. Ethel Ferrario, 457 Commercial Avenue, requested denial of the application since it was not a proper establishment in a residential area. SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY CO. USE PERMIT P.C. RSSO. NO. 1909: (CONTI~O) Rena Watts, 445 Commercial Avenue, requested denial stating that their sleep would be interrupted by the proposed drive-in theater. Mrs. Baretta asked concerning an earlier drive-in theater which was to have been hocated in a neighboring area ~o be known as "Starlight Theater," stating that shortly after it had been developed, the theater was removed and developed industrially instead. She asked if this was going to happen ih'this case as well. Homer Gibbs requested denial stating than he was opposed on the basis of traffic and noise. Della Ming, 458 Railroad, requested denial since the exit would be directly in front of her bedroom. Keith Copeland of the Alfred J. Olmo Drayage Company, requested denial stating that he opposed the request on the basis of the thefts by teenagers of gasoline, mirrors and other accessories fro m the trucks which are parked in the open in their corporation yard and which would be in the vicinity of the proposed drive-in theater. Paul ~est, 206-208 Spruce Avenue, requested denial stating that he opposed the proposed drive-in theater on the ba~ks of traffic and noise and the inability of emergency equipment to travel on Spruce Avenue. Mr. Testo urged denial stating he was opoosed to the proposed drive-in theater since it was directly across the street from his home and that he would prefer to have the unsightly area as it presently exists with no dis- turbance rather than a developed area with disturbance. Albert Stanker,.201 Eucalyptus Avenue, requested denial stating that he was opposed as a property owner at the corner of Spruce and Railroad in as much as the street was not wide enough for the future traffic. Joseph Pucci, 465 Commercial Avenue, sta;ed that he has lived in the area of Railroad and Commercial for the past ?erty years, was now reaching retirement age of sixty-five and did not wish to have his peace and quiet disturbed by increased traffic. He requested denial and opposed the pro- posed drive-in theater. Dino Frediani, 705 Magnolia Avenue, opposed the establishment of the pro- posed drive-in theater requesting denial since it would disturb, the tenants of his five-unit apartment on Spruce Ave3ue. Conrad Reisch, attorney-at-law for the a~plicant, commented that he was aware of the present zoning, citing the various types of enterprises which could be allowed under its present state. He, at this time, commented on the traffic problem which he stated had been thoroughly explored by the Police Chief and the noise and other matters which could be controlled by management. He then read portions of th~ following exhibits which he requested be made part of the record~ (1) Letter from Santa Barbara Better Films Council, Santa Barbara, California, dated June 21, 1965 (2) Letter from Goleta Boys' Club, Goleta, California, dated June 21, 1965 (3) Letter from Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Barbara, California, dated 3uno 15, 1965 (4) :Letter from Property Trends Inc., Los Angeles, California dated July 1, 1965 (5) Letter from Executive Life Insurance Company, Beverly Hills, California, dated 3u~¥ 6, 1965 Let±er from Warner Ranch Co., Inc., Los Angeles, California, dated June 29, 1965 Letter from Madison & Burke, San Francisco, California, dated 3uno 28, 1965 Letter from Recon Services, Los Angeles, California, dated July 1, 1965 Letter from Pitts & Backmasn, Santa Barbara, California, dated 3uno 28, 1965 Letter from Pat Elliott Realty, Sou~h San Francisco, California, dated July 2, 1965 Letter from D. ~. Ratto, South San Francisco, California, dated 3uno 29, 1965 (6) (7) (8) (9) (lO) (11) He also submitted a petition which had keen circulated and contained eighty- one (81) names, sixty-one (61) of which were from the area of Railroad, Spruce and Maple and which he stated had been circulated by Mr. Frank ~atson, Mr. Clem Lautze and Mr. George Hallenbeck. At this time, he read the statement which preceded the signatures on the petition. He likewise submitted as exhibit, fifty (50) copies of a letter, dated June 23, 1965, the context of which were the same, reading the body of the letter which was signed by property owners urging the establishment of the proposed drive-in theater. He urged Council's favorable consideration to the granting of the proposed drive-in theater which would remove an 6ye-sore and replace it with a beautifully landscaped theater. ® SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY CO. USE PER~IT P.C. RESO. NO. 1909: (Continued) RESOLUTION NO. 4245 JSOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY COMPANY DRIVE-IN THEATER In answer to Mrs. Watts' question, Police Chief Fabbri explained the traffic surveys made by his department wuth regard to the proposed drive-in theater. Mr. Tragoutsis, attorney-at-law with the firm of Capaccioli and Tragoutsis, commented on the commuhications which the City had received endorsing the prop~md drive-in theater stating tha~ Council should listen to the pleas of the persons who spoke in opposition and not the letters. He also asked that consideration be given to the best and highest use of the land area. He commented that the wishes of the peopie be considered. Bruce Corwin, Vice President of the Metropolitan Theaters, commented that the letters received from various Southern communities were necessary in order that the City could be apprised of the type of operation that they conducted in other areas. He also mentioned that they presently operate three theaters in San Francisco, stating that it was their desire to work with the people of the community. Victor Boido, 505 Orange Avenue, mentioned that the traffic would be increased from the White Front Stores operations, as well as the proposed theater, that the people who had worked & lifetime to secure their own property should be considered as well as their peace and comfort. At the request of the City Attorney, the City Clerk read in full the Planning Officer's Report, dated May 24, 1965. The City Attorney, at this time, commented on the sections of the present ordinance which regulated the Use Permit as proposed and the control which Council had. Sn answer to Councilman Rocca's questions, the Police Chief made mention of the present drive-in theater's operations as well as the number of school children attending the local schools, further remarking that one 3uvenile Officer takes care of this function. In answer to a question from a woman in the audience, the Fire Chief commented on the services required of his department stating that in the event traffic conditions did not permit the use of Spruce Avenue, an entrance on North Canal to the theater was to be provided. The Po~ce Chief then further commented, stating that in the event of an emergency, both depart- ments responded. He explained the numbez of parking lanes and storage lanes at the proposed theater entrance which were to be provided for the vehicles attending. Councilman Rocca, in answer to Mr. Boido's remarks, stated that the Council was always in sympathy ~ith~the people in the community, especially the older residents. A recess was declared at 10:20 p~m.for a tape change and the meeting recalled to order at 10:27 p.m. Councilman Rocca then.commented on the later petitions which had been received on the matter stating that there appeared to be more residents on Railroad Avenue in favor than there were opposed. At the request of the Mayor, Robert Ferrario read the names of the signers of the letters of petition as well as the petition which had been received earlier from Mr. Hunter. Mr. Hunter, at this time, submitted photographs of other drive-in theaters in the vicinity, showing the traffic conditions as they existed, also a December 1949 copy of Information Report No. 9 from American Society of Planning Officials concernid g drive-in theaters. At the request:Df the Mayor, the City Attorney explained the alternate resolutions which he had prepared concerning the matter explaining first the resolution granting the Use Permit if Council was so desirous and the con- ditions to be imposed which were those of the Planning Commission as well as the additional conditions from the Engineering Department and the second resolution which would be to deny the reqJest if Council so desired. Further discussion followed concerning the City's control of the matter and the Right of Revocation in the event Lt was necessary. Mayor Bertucelli then stated that he was ~eady for a resolution in favor of granting the Use Permit. City Actorney Noonan then read the resolution in full after which Councilman Rocca remarked that Council had heard both sides of the matter, that Che Planning Commission had made a thorough study, that it contained the recommendations of the departments concerned along with the further recommendations of the Director of Public Works and introduced the resolution entitled: "A RESOLUTION GRANTING A USE PERMIT TO SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY C~PANY TO ESTABLISH A DRIVE-IN THEATER IN AN M-1-H DISTRICT ON THE PARCEL BOUNDED BY SPRUCH AVENUE AND RAILROAD AVEb~E, PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 14-061-1, 2, 3." ~ Councilman Rozzi, in voting "Aye," stated that in addition to the information given this evening, should the operations become a nuisance, the City had the Right of Revocation. Councilman Rocca voted "Aye." Councilman Ahem remarked tha~ in as much as the recommendation from the departments concerned SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY CO. USE PE~IT P.C. RE$O. NO. 1909: (CONTINUED) SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY CO. VARIANCE APPLICATION P. C. R2S0. NO. 1910: JOHN LOCKHART USE PERMIT P.C. RE$O. NO. 1913: ~0~o FOXRI DGE: SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT ADDITIONS: CHESTNUT AVENUE EXTENSION: FRED MATAS VARIANCE APPLICATION P.C. RESO. NO. 1921: PENINSULA MASTER BUILDERS VARIANCE APPLICATION P.C. RESO. NO. 1922: EDWARD KAMINSKI VARIANCE APPLICATION P.e. RESO. NO. 1923: JOSEPH LENGIONI VARIANCE APPLICATION P.G. RESO. NO. 1924: 5o and the Planning Commission set forth the conditions under which the Use would be permitted and since the City had the Right of Revocation, voted "Aye." Councilman Cortesi voted "Aye." Mayor Bertucelli voted "Aye," stating that he did so in conjunction with the present City Beautification Program under way~ further remarking that the construction of this proposed drive-in theater would peautify an area which was presently run-down. VARIANCE ResolutiOn No. 1910 received from the Planning Commission recommending permission be' granted for the request to allow a screen for the proposed drive-in theater to be 75' 6" instead of permitted 65' in a M-1-H district (Railroad & Spruce Avenues), subject to conditions: (1) That the design of the structure and screen be submitted to the Architectural Committee (2) That any advertisin~ for the back of the screen be subject to a sign use permit submitted to the Planning Commissionaalon9 with the marquee sign to be erected at the entrance to the drive-in. Councilman Rozzi moved, seconded by Councilman Rocca and regularly carried, that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be approved, accepted and granted. USE PERMIT Resolution No. 1913 received from the Planning Commission recommending denial for the request to operate a nursery for 1 to 6 mentally retarded infants at 3375 Oakmont Drive. Accompanied by: (1) Letter of appeal, dated May 26, 1965 from Mrs. Geraldine Lockhart (2) Inter-Office Memorandum dated May 21, 1965, from Captain Fox, Bureau of Fire Prevention. (3) Plan- ning Officer's report, dated May 10, 1965. Councilman Rozzi remarked that in view of the communications received, moved that the recor, mendation of the Planning Commission be approved and accepted and the request denied. Councilman Rocca seconded the motion which was regularly carried. Inter-Office Memorandum dated June 10, 1965, received from the Planning Commission recommending denial to the request of Peninsula Master Builders (American Housing Guild) for resubdivision of various lots in Foxridge. Communication dated May 27, 1965, from t~e Peninsula ~aster Builders appealing the decision of the Planning Commission accompanying. Councilman Rozzi moved, seconded by Councilman Ahem and regularly carried, that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission since it was felt that the requested realignment of lots could be affected through variances instead of resubdivision. The first item under New Business was a communication, dated June 10, 1965, from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare concerning the com- pletion of sewage treatment plant additiDns and extending congratulations for the City's interest in water pollution control. At the request of the Mayor, this communication was accepted and ordered filed. The next item for Council's attention wa~ the adoption of alignment and plan lines for the extension of Chestnut Avenue from the City limits near West Orange Avenue to Hillside Boulevard. This matter having been acted upon by Council earlier under resolutions, no further action was taken. VARIANCE Resolution No. 1921 received fr~m the Planning Commission recommending permission be granted to allow 43% coverage in lieu~of normal 40~ at 1321 Crestwood Drive in an R-1 district. Councilman Rocca moved, seconded by Coun:ilman Rozzi and regularly carried, that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be approved and accepted. VARIAMCE Resolution No. ]922 received from the Planning Commission recommending permission be granted to establish a temnorary rea]. estate office in a single family garage at 2204 Kenry Way in an R-[ district. Councilman Rocca moved, seconded by Coun:ilman Rozzi and regularly carried, ~hat the recommendation of the Planning Commission be approved and accepted. VARIANCE Resolution No. 1923 received from the Planning Commission recommending permission be granted to encroach 1'3" i%to required 15' front yard setback at 115 Francisco Drive to enclose his porch. Councilman Rocca moved, seconded by Councilman Rozzi and regularly carried, that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be approved and accepted. VARIANCE Resolution No. 1924 received from the Planning Commission recommending permission be granted to allow 4 less than the required number (20) of off street parking spaces in a C-1 district. Councilman Rocca moved, seconded by Councilman Rozzi and regularly carried, that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be approved and accepted. ANGELO BALDOCCHI VARIANCE APPLICATION P.C. RESO. NO. 1925: BERKY BEAR PHOTO USE PERMIT P.C. RE$O. NO. 1927: CABOT, CABOT & FORBES USE PERMIT P.C. RESO. NO. 1930: TIME EXTENSION BALDWIN WARREN CO. HALEJA CONSTRUCTION CO. - CORPORATION YARD BUILDINGS 60 o TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION RESOLUTION NO. 4246 TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYS'iEM INSTALLATION MONTHLY REPORTS: DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL: VARIANCE Resolution No. 1925 received from the Planning Commission recommending permission be granted to a variance to e~croach 2 ft. into required 20 ft. rear yard at 379 Catheri~Drive in an R-[ district. Councilman Rocca moved, seconded by Counsilman Rozzi and regularly carried, that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be approved and accepted. USE PERMIT Resolution No. 1927 received from the Planning Commission recommending permission be granted to erect one (1) sign on face of building and one (1) directional sign and recommending denial to erecting the pole sign at 103 Wondercolor Lane in a M-2~H district. A~companying this is letter from Berky Bear Photo appealing the denial of the Planning Commission on the pole sign. Brief discussion followed, after which Councilman Rozzi moved, seconded by Councilman Rocca and regularly carried that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be approved and acceoted and permission as requested be granted on the erection of one (1) sign on the face of the building and one (1) directional sign. The matter of the pole sign at 103 Wondercolor Lane which was received with a recommendation that it be denied in accordance with the letter of appeal as received from the Berky Bear Photo was set for Public Hearing at the next regular meeting of Monday, July 19, 1965. USE PERMIT Resolution No. 1930 received From the Planning Commission recommending permission be granted to allow construction of a monument 94 ft. high in the Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park, an M-2-H district, in lieu of the per- mitted 65 ft. Councilman Rocca moved, seconded by Coun:ilman Rozzi and regularly carried, that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be approved and accepted. Inter-Office Memorandum dated June 23, 1965, received from the Director of Public Works recommending extension of time on the contract with The Baldwin Warren Company. Councilman Rozzi moved, seconded by Councilman Ahem and regularly carried, tha~ the recommendation of the Director of Public Works be approved and accepted. Communication dated June 22, 1965, from Scampini, Mortara & Ertola rescinding BID FOR ADDITION TO CORPORATION YARD BUILDINGS & STALLS in behalf of their clienf, Hsleja Construction Company. Discussion followed, at which time City Attorney Noonan requested that the record show that the rescinding letter as made by Haleja Construction Company through their attorneys, Scampini, Mortara & Ertola, be accepted ~rd ordered filed and the City proceed to award the contract to the second lowest bidder. Mayor Bertucelli so ordered. Inter-Office Memorandum dated June 23, 1965 received from the Director of Public Works concerning bids received on traffic signal installation and related street work projects. Brief discussion followed, at which time ~r. Neville of the Public Works Office recommended that the bids be rejected and a call for new bids made. Councilman Rocca moved, seconded by Councilman Rozzi and regularly carried, that all bids received be rejected and a call made for new bids. City Attorney Noonan then explained a resolution approving plans and specifications and calling for bids after which Councilman Rozzi introduced: "A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTE~ INSTALLATION AND RELATED STREET WORK PROJECTS." Roll call vote was as follows: Ayes, Councilmen Frank J. Bertucelli, Patrick E. ~hern, Emilio Cortesi, Andrew Rocca and Guido J. Rozzi. Noes, none. Absent, none. Monthly Reports were received from the following for ~ay, 1965: City Clerk Parking District No. 1 Police Department San Mateo County Dept of Public Health & ~elfare (Sanitation Section) There being no objections, ~Aayor Bertuceili ordered the reports accepted and placed on file. Department of Alcoholic Beveraqe Control: Application as filed by the Southland Corporation (Off Sale Beer and Wine) af Holly and Mission Streets. There being no objections, I~ayor Bertucelli ordered the report placed on file. 78( GOOD AMD W~:FARE: A D3'OU R kTM E N T: There being nothino further, Mayor Bertucelli asked if any member of the Council had anything they wished to offer dnder Good and Welfare. There being none, Mayor Bertucelli then asked if any member of the audience wished to offer anything under Good and Welfare. Nothing was offered from the audience. There beln9 nothin9 further, Councilman Rozzi moved, seconded by Councilman Ahem and regularly carried, that the meeting be adjourned to the nex~ regular meeting to be held 3uly 19, 1965. Time of adjournment: 11:27 p.m. R5SP2GTFULLY SUBMITTED, APPROVED: Mayor Cify Clerk/