HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/08/1968
- 1 - April 8, 1968
M I N U E S
- -- --
of the re'~ular meeting of the South San
co Planning Commission
TIME: 8:00 P.M.
DATE: April 8, 1968
PLACE: Council Chambers, City Hall, South San Francisco,
Calif.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Boblitt, Gardner, Rosati, Zlatunich
and Chairman Raffaelli
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mamrnini, Lazzari
ALSO PRESENT: City Planner and Secretary to the South San
Francisco Planning Commission, Daniel M. Pass
Planning Assistant FrancG. I. VanStee.n
Assistant City Engineer Joseph E.. Neville
Building Inspector Austin Lynch
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEiETING
Minutes of the meeting of IIpr'" 25, 1968
Commissioner Zlatunich moved that the minutes of the regular meeting
of the South San Francisco Planning Commission of March 25, 1968 be
approved; seconded by Commissioner Gardner; passed by the following
roll call vote:
Ayes: Boblitt, Gardner, Rosati, Zlatunichand Raffaelli
Noes: None
Absent: Mammini, Lazzari
ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING RECORDING OF MEETING
Chairm~.n Raffaelli announced that this meeting of the South San
Francisco Planning Commission would be recorded on tape, but that
anyone who wishes to come be.fore the~ommission in order to be
heard but objects to his voice being recorded in this manner can
request the Chairman to order the tape recorder turned Hoff" for
the duration of the time that he or she is speaking and is heard..
- 432 -
- 2 -
April 8, 1968
GENERAL PLAN REVAMPMENT..
Proposed Comprehensive Revampment to the City of South San Fran-
cisco's adopted 1963 General Plan..
City Planner Daniel M.. Pass stated that the text of the proposed
revampment had been published, and that many a study session had
taken place. In cooperation with Neal Martin of Hahn & Wise,
1538 Laurel Avenue, San Carlos, his office had produced the
proposals here presented with a proposed resolution.
Mr. Neal Martin was presented to the Commission by Mr. Pass who
further stated that Mr. Martin was present to answer any and all
further questions the Commission or general public might have.
The text of this resolution was as follows:
t'RESOLUTION NO. 2093, a RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
THEREOF THAT THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE REVAMPMENT OF THE CITY'S
GENERAL PLAN BE ADOPTED.
Whereas, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco,
meeting in regular session on Monday, April 8, 1968, conducted a
public hearing on the proposed comprehensive revampment to the
City's adopted General Plan; and,
Whereas, notice of this public hearing was published in the Enter-
prise Journal at least ten days prior there~o; and,
Whereas, the Planning Commission, at least ten days prior to the
said hearing, transmitted copies of the proposed revampment to the
cities of Brisbane, Daly City, Pacifica, and San Bruno, and the
County of San Mateo, the State Pianning Office, the County of Alameda,
the State Department of Housing .and Community Development, the State
Division of Highways, the Association of Bay Area Governments, the
Development Commission, the San Francisco International Airport,
the San Mateo Regional Planning Committee, the City and County of
San Francisco, the West Bay Rapid Transit Authority and the
California Public Utilities Commission; and,
Whereas, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed comprehen-
sive revampment and public hearing thereon meets the substantive and
procedural requirements of Article 5, Chapter 3, Title 7 of the State
Planning and Zoning Law; and,
Whereas, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed ~omprehen-
sive revampment is designed to guide the orderly physical growth of
the City of South San Francisco and environs, and developmental
stability therein; and,
Whereas, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed comprehen-
sive revampment is designed to guide the orderly long-range, com-
prehensive and general growth of the County of San Mateo and the
Bay Region;
- 433 -
April 8, 1968
Therefore, Be Resolved, that the Planning Commission of the City
South San Francisco recommends to the Counc thereof that
the proposed comprehensive revampment to adopted 1963 General
Plan be adopted.u
Mr. Pass hereupon explained to the Commission that this was not a
totally new General Plan, but that this were only the proposed
changes in a framework of a five year revampment of the original
1963 General Plan as adopted by the Council and will remain in
effect hereafter. It was a mere effort to update the General Plan
by bringing in those changes for which the need was shown by the
changes within the community during the past five years. These
proposed changes were as follows:
1. Neighborhoods were named, not numbered as in the original plan.
This would help the citizen identify his own neighborhood.
2. The whole planning area was altered in order to meet the reality
of our own political subdivision. The. old plan contained the
City of Brisbane, a large portion of the City of San Bruno, and
even larger portions of the City of Daly City and the Town of
Colma. These areas had all been eliminated.
3. Density standards had been redefined. Instead of defining them
by numbers of people, a more realistic standard had been used in
defining them by the number of dwelling units and types thereof.
4. Grand Avenue had been realigned. Instead of closing the main
stretch of downtown Grand Avenuet it had been opened for con-
trolled traffic.
5. The southerly component of the Regional Bayshore Park had been
redesigned to create a more realistic approach by this City to
its waterfront solution and a bayshore park.
6. A new plan, known as the Marchi Plan, concerning a better spread
of fire services over the entire City had been developed by Fire
Chief John A.. Marchi. The new plan would consist of a new
Central Fire Station on the southerly side of Commercial Avenue,
a little to the east of present Chestnut Avenue.. This would
replace the present central station and the Buri Buri station.
Station No. 2 on Mitchell and Harbor way would remain and be
maintained to serve the vital protection of our industrial
ions, while the newly planned Westborough Station on Gellert
Avenue would serve that residential community and portions
other westerly areas.. this way the City would get three
newly designed stations which meet the requirements of modern
methods of combatting disasters and th.e protection of life and
..
7. The elimination Avenue and Bayshore Freeway inter-
change was cons this time to be a very desirable
, Can~l Ex~ressway would demonstrate a
more orderly approach to connectin.g the City traff with
a main feeder.. The still maintained close contact with
the Division of 9 neighboring
cities and other off in
believed this to be a great step the
- 434 ...
-2B -
8,
68
8. The land use, the circulation within the city and the considera-
tion of public facilities within the Greendale Neighborhood,
which is the newly designed West Park 3 area, had been updated.
9. Chestnut Avenue had been chosen over Oak Avenue as the future
line of the new WestboroughBoulevard, a more northerly east-
west road for the County.. The present design of a new link in
this very much needed expressway dramatizes already this choice
of Chestnut Avenue. In the future it will hook up to the
newly proposed Hillside-Randolph Expressway, linking it with
Highway U. S. 10l.
,10. In the urban core the central business district has been
enlarged from 35 acres to twice that size, approximately 7Q
acres, in order to serve better the ultimate need of catering
to approximately a ceiling population of 80,000..
11.. Due to the more rugged terrain a change had been proposed by
lowering the density and holding capacity of the Grand-Parkway-
Sterling Neighborhood substantially.
12. But the holding capacity of population within the Valley Park
Neighborhood had been slightly increased.
13. Along the El Camino Real additional acreage had been slated
for commercial development following the natural need for
such community and general commercial along a main artery.
l4. Also the location of neighborhood commercial sites had been
made more specific.
15. The McClellan ,~chid Farm on the west side of El Camino Real
had been slated as a community park and would serve as very
much needed open space. This had been done in order to com-
pensate for the original site which was presently occupied
and own~d by Macy's. The Park and Recreation Department was
in agreement with this solution.
l6. The Canal Expressway would terminate at West Orange Avenue
and would not cut through the park as was originally proposed.
Splitting the. Park had proved to be very objectionable and
would tend to partly destroy its functions.
17. The general objectives and design proposals were restated and
simplified in order to obtain a better insight in the whole
ma.tter.
18. Through redesign and reassignment of uses a plan had been
created where the need for bay fill was very much minimized.
Mr.. Pass stated, that in general the preceding proposals were
simply an updating of the original and present general plan as
adopted in 1963.. The proposed revampment would better preserve
the original investmelltand the City would define better its
guidelines for future development.. The economic and soc struc-
ture of the community, as de.fined in 1963, must still be considered
to be very current..
.... 435 -
April 8, 1968
Chairman Raffaelli then invited the Commission and the general
public to participate in further discussions and to let them-
selves be heard on the matter.
There being no one else to speak for or against rhe request,
Chairman Raffaelli declared the public hearing on this matter
closed and solicited comments from the Commissioners.
There being no further comments by any of the Commissioners,
Chairman Raffaelli asked for the introduction of a resolution,
if so desired,and a roll call vote thereon.
Commissioner Rosati thereupon moved, seconded by Commissioner
Boblitt, to introduce RESOLUTION NO.. 2093, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RECOM-
Mi:tfDiNG TO THE CITY COUNCIL THEREOF THAT THE PROPOSED COMPRE~:
HENSIVE REVAMPMENT OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN BE ADOPTED.
The resolution was adopted with the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Boblitt 9 Gardner, Rosat i, Zlatunich and Raffaelli
Noes: None
Absent: Mammini, Lazzari
- 436 -
- 3 -
V-46
April 8,
68
Variance request of Hugh Robertson to permit the construction of a
two story duplex in the required rear and exterior yards of a lot
located at the southeasterly corner of Lewis and Green Avenue, in
the R-2 District.
City Planner Daniel M. Pass read the following recommendation flUm
his office, to wit:
UIt is respectfully recommended that the Pla.nning Commission adopt
the findings coritaine.d within the attached,preliminary Official
Action Report, and grant the requested variances.."
Mro Pass then read the findings as made by his office, to wit:
"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 witl 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 circum-
stances 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 difficulties,
unnecessary hardships and results inconsistent with the general
purpose of the zoning Ordinance.
6. The requested variance is supported by the substandard width
and square footage of the subject lot, and the similar variance
granted in connection with the duplex situated at the most northerly
corner of Lewis and Green Avenues..
7. Ample yard and open space is available on the Lot land 2
components of the building site in question.1t
Mr. Pass then read the conditions as recommended by his office:
!'l. The applicant shall meet the requirements indicated in the
attached reports of the City's department heads.
2. The use of the Green Avenue right-of-way for driveway purposes
shall subject the applicant to the requirements attached thereto
by the City's department heads.
3. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the
Architectural Committee."
Mr. Pass then read a letter from the applicant, Hugh Robertson:
- 3A -
V-46
April 8,
68
HIn reference. to my application for a variance to construct a
duplex building on R-2 zoned Lot 9, Blk S, Pecks Sub No.1, I
respectfully request an additional variance to allow an
encroachment of l2' into the required 20' rear yard.
The reasons for the request are technical. Lot 9 is quite
steep and would require a retaining wall on the east side of
the driveway and garage. This area would then be filled. The
effect would be to raise the total height of the proposed build-
ing, presenting a high ungainly appearance.
The accompanying plot plan shows the lot coverage of less than 50%.
The side yard is large and tree covered.. Spot elevations
existing gradient are shown.
Thank you for your time and attention in this important matter."
Mr. Pass then read a report from Fire Chief Marchi, to wit:
f'I approve the above subject.. H
Mr. Pass then re.ad a report from Police Chief Fabbri, to wit:
!See previous 10M on V-42 regarding guard rail. No further
recommendations by this Department at the present time.ff
Present for the applicant was Mr.. Dave Robertson of 35 Lookout
Road, Hillsborough, California.
Mr. Pass stated that Mr. Hugh Rob~rtson, a pilot, had been assigned
a flight at this hour and his partner was presently involved in
the process of becoming a father. They had both intended to be
present, but had reasonable cause to be absent. Mr. Pass further
noted that a delegate was present in the person of Mr. Dave
Robertson, but that the Commission should be aware that this
gentleman, had not been involved in the negotiations and therefore
was not as fully informed as the original applicants would have
been. The matter before the Commission had been well studied and
the applicanmhad appeared several times in his office both in
connection with this request and their original request under
application V-42. He saw no reason to further delay action as
the applicants had provided all the information they could..
Since there was no report from the ~irectorof Public Works it
would be recommended to incorporate in a possible motion the
recommendations as given in connection withV-42.
There being no one else further to speak for or against the request,
Chairman Raffaelli declared the public hearing closed and solicited
comments from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Zlatunich moved, seconded by Commissioner Rosati, to
adopt the findings of the Planning Office and to approve the applica-
tion as requested upon compliance with the conditions as set by the
City Planner, and the requirements as set forth in the reports of
Fire Chief Marchi, Police Chief Fabbri, and those of the Director
Public Works under V-42. The motion passed as lows:
Ayes: Boblitt, Gardner, Rosati, ,Raffaelli Noes: None
Absent: Mammini, Lazzari
- 438 ..
- 4 -
PM-26
April 8, 1968
Continued hearing on the parcel map of Utah Construction & Mining
Company, representing the subdivision of an approximately 6 acre
parcel of land, located on the southerly side of Belle Air Road,
approximately 400' easterly of South Airport Boulevard, in the
M-2 District, into two parcels.
City Planner Daniel Pass read a letter received from Mr. Joseph K.
Allen of Utah Construction and Mining Company of 550 California
Street, San Francisco, to wit:
"You have before you a request for subdivision of a parcel
of land adjacent to Belle Air Road in South San Francisco.
We request that your consideration of this application be
continued to the earliest possible meeting of the Commis-
sion which we understand will be May l3, 1968..tf
Chairman Raffaelli stated that the Commission understood that
several matters had still to be taken care of before any action by
the Commission would be feasible. He hoped! that by the next meeting
all preliminary preparations would be finished so that they could
take the matter at the meeting of May 13), 1968. He further
instructed the City Planner to show the matter as being continued
on the agenda the May 13th meeting..
City Planner Pass responded that this would be done immediately.
... 439 ...
- 5 -
PM...28
8,
68
Parcel Map of the Trustees of the G. E", Pension Trust, representing
the subdivision of an approximately 22-acre parcel of land, located
on the northeasterly side of South Spruce Avenue, approximately l40'
southerly of Victory Avenue, in the C...3 and M-l-H Districts.
City Planner Pass read the recommendation as made by his office:
"The proposed subdivision would merge the! several parcels owned
by the G. E. Pension Trust and used by the Zellerbach Paper Co.
into one parcel. (2) Th.e said proposed subdivision meets the
minimum requirements of the Subdivis ion Ordinance, the 2'.oning
Ordinance and the State Subdivision Map Act... While Parcel lIs
configuration is unusual, its increased area would enable the
Zellerbach Paper Co.. to substantially enlarge its physical
plant and off-street parking capacity. (31) In light of the
above factors it is respectfully recommended that the instant
tentative parcel map be approved, subject to the requirements
of the City Engineer, the Chief Building Inspector, the Fire
Chief and the Po lice Chief","
City Planner Pass then read a report from Louis H. GOBS, Director
of Public Works, to wit:
"After examining this tentative parcel map, I recommend the
following requirement from this office.
A grading plan shall be submitted to this office for roval.
The portions of old lots 26 and 27 shall be graded to drain
toward the Zellerbach building... and not across lots 2 and 3. (new)
Otherwise the proposed subdivision appears satisfactory to me."
City Planner Pass the.n re.ad a report from Chief Building Inspector
Leonard Pittz, to wit:
have examined the tentative Parcel Map 28 and find that the
following corrections should be made before approving the.
final map. .
l. Since the parcel numbers l, 2 and 3 are already assigned
to parcels in the Lindenville Industrial Park, Block 2,
the parcel number be changed to 29, parcel 2 to 30,
and parcel 1 to 31.
2. Added to the title should be the legal description of
the G.. E. Pension Trust p.operty as recorded, portion of
parcels 5, 26, and 27 of Assessor's Map 2:5, South San Francisco."
City Planner Pass further read a report from Fire Chief John Marchi:
"In reviewing the above subject it will be required to comply
with the following Fire Department requirements:
That a paved roadway 30 feet wide, meeting the requirements
of the Director of Public be extended north from
Zellerbach building entrance this proposed parking area,
extending and connecting to Victory Avenue;
Or : roadway t t t then an 8 - inch water main
a Greenberg No.76 hydrant or equivalent hydrant be talled
parking area. Fire Chief to spot the hydrant.
Apr 8, 1968
PM-28
"Also: Connecting to and extending existing lO-inch water
main, and encircle the entire southerly portion l,
Block 2 as shown on Tentative Parcel Map 28, with Greenberg
No.76 or equivalent hydrants every 300 feet apart.
This will have to be done before any construction is allowed
on this southerly portion.."
City Planner Pass then read a report from Police Chief John Fabbri:
"This department has no recommendations to offer at this time
with reference to above subject."
Present for the applicant was Mr. Samuel M. Nash of Wilsey and
1035 Hillsdale Boulevard, San Mateo. Also present waa Mr.. Thomas
M. Meyersieck, manager of real estate for the Crown Zellerback
Corp.. of 1 Bush Street, San Francisco. Also present was Mr. Don
Galbraith of Poletti Real Estate, 333 El Camino Real, South San
is co, agent..
Mr. Galbraith asked Mr.. Pass if he could read again the report
of the Fire Chief as he thought there were two separate matters,
namely the first one a choice between a road easement to ory
Avenue and a fire hydrant with an 8" line in the proposed parking
and secondly, the lOft main looping around the possible new
on the present vacant rear portion of the bulk of the
lot, with hydrants spaced at 300' intervals.
City Planner again report the report with which he showed full
agreement with Mr. Galbraith's understanding of this matter..
Mr. Galbraith then asked if this second condition meant that
main around the possible future addition had to be put in at present..
Mr. Pass answered that he did see this to be the meaning .f the
Fire Chief who only wanted to protect and to provide now for
protect , such a possible future. addition. This was only an
agreement at this time on the part of the applicant to provide
this water main loop with said hydrants at the time the applicant
extended his ical plant into the rear yard of the main portion
of the land. . Galbraith agreed with this explanation.
A short discussion by the Commission followed with Mr. Pass and
members of the applicant's party.
Mr.. Thomas M. Meyersieck then took the stand and stated that
company would be very pleased to comply with this essential and
necessary request of the Fire Chief, and when, the proposed exten-
sion was built this line would be installed simultaneously under
the direction and according to the specifications of the Fire
There being no one else further to speak for or against the
request, Chairman Raffaelli declared the public he.aring on this
matter closed and solicited comments from the Commiss
Commissioner Bobl asked Mr. he had taken note
changes regard to the road and asked
whould be recorded with the final Mr. Nash
be recorded as noted on the revised to be f
Commiss This second edition was map
the
easement
- 441 ....
- 5B -
PM-28
April 8, 1968
City Planner Pass then asked Mr. Nash if this map was correct,
and if the 30' road easement and the 10' strip were still on the
correct property as meant by the applicant.
Mr. Nash replied that both the road easement and the 10' strip
were intended to go there, where the seconal filed map showed it,
and should be recorded as such, in accordance to the desire and
need of the applicant.
There being no further comments by any of the other Commissioners,
Chairman Raffaelli asked for a motion on the matter and a roll
call vote thereon..
Commissioner Boblitt moved, seconded by Commissioner Gardner, to
adopt the findings of the City Planning Office and to approve. the
applicaimen as requested, subject however to compliance with the
conditions and requirements as set by the City Planner and the
requirements as set forth in the reports of the Director of Public
Works, the Chief Building Inspector, the Police Chief, and the
Fire Chief, with the understanding that the lot' water main and
the 300" spaced fire hydrants should be provided for at the time
the applicant extended his present structure to the rear yard,
and provided that said map should be recorded with both the 30'
wide roadway easement and the 10' wide landstrip between said
road easement and the easterly property boundary of in dotted
numbers indicated Lot 25 on the subject parcel'map_
The mot was passed by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Boblitt, Gardner, Rosati, Zlatunich and Raffaelli
Noes: None
Absent: Mammini, Lazzari
- 442 ..
- 6 -
PM-33
April 8, 1968
Parce.l Map of Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Co., representing the sub-
division of approximately 1.4l acres of land, situated at the
northerly side Carlton Court and the cul-de-sac thereof,
in the M....2-H District, into two parcels.
City Planner Pass read the recommendations as made by his office:
"The proposed subdivision meets the minimum standards embodied
in the State Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Ordinance
of the City of South San Francisco. The approval of the said
proposed subdivision would creat~ two, well-designed industrial
lots. (Proposed Lot 54 will be merged with Lot 50).
It is therefore respectfully recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the subject tentative parcel map, subject
to the requirements of the City Engineer, and the Chief
Building 'Inspector..H
City Planne.r Pass then read a report from Louis H.. Goss, Director
of Public Works, to wit:
uReference is made to tentative parcel map submitted by
Wilsey and Ham for the resubdivision of Lot 51, Block 1,
Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Industrial Park No.. l-A.
Please be advised that this office has checked the
tentative parcel map and recommends its approval, subject
to the submittal of engineering boundary closures to be
checked by this office at time that the final parcel
map is submitte.d approval.u
City Planner Pass then read a report from Chief Building Inspector
Leonard Pittz, to wit:
have examined the tentative Parcel Map....33, being a
resubdivision of Lot 5l, Block 1 as shewn on the parcel
map recorded in Volume 4 of Parcel Maps, Page 48 and
recommend the following correction be made before
approval of the final map:
l.. The parcel and the subdivision adjoining Lots 54 and
55 to the North should be identified.."
Present for the applicant was Mr. Samuel N.Nash of Wilsey and
Ham, agent, of l035 Hillsdale Ave., San Mateo. Mr.. Nash sta.ted
that this request had been filed a little later than usual since
next meeting had been cancelled and the first meeting the
matter could be heard would be five weeks from this date. His
client was in a specific haste to have these matters
in order to take further ion of his
.. Through the offices City
able to get everything in sufficient time to
low other involved agencies the.
simply presented the moving a property
client's needs. He appreciated very much the
he had experienced this mat
- 443 -
- 64-
8,
68
There being no one else further to speak for or against the
request, Chairman Raffaelli declared the public hearing on
matter closed and sol ad comments from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Boblitt asked Mr. Pass if, d.ueto the very_short
time of preparation, all the usually involved agencies had had
sufficient time to file a report if so needed.
City Planner Pass stated that the necessary copies had been
distributed with a request for immediate action. Two reports
had been received and the other agencies indicated that they had
no comment at this time and that everything had been found to be
in order.
There being no further comment by any of the other Commissioners,
Chairman Raffaelli asked for a motion on the matter and a roll
call vote thereon.
Commissioner Gardner moved, seconded by Commissioner Zlatunich,
to adopt the findings of the City Planning Office, and to approve
the application as requested, upon complianct, however, with the
conditions and requirements as set forth in the report of the
City Planner, the Director of Public Works, and the Chief Building
Inspector, and in compliance with the rules and recordation of the
final map. The mot was passed by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Boblitt, Gardner, Rosati, Zlatunich,.Raffaelli
Absent: Mammini, Lazzari
Noes: None
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, Chairman Raffaelli announced that. the next regular meeting
of the South san Francisco Planning Commission of April 22, 1968
would not be held and was cancelled. The first meeting thereafter
would be held on May 13, 1968 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
of City Hall, South San Francisco, California.
The meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m.
Mar ~o
Planning Commissic{n
of South
~. /tl~
. Pass, Secretary
Commission
San isco
fvs