HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/28/1968
.... 1 -
M UT
ober 28, 1968
of the regular meeting of the South San
co Planning Commission
TIME:
DATE:
8:00 p.m.
28, 1968
:
City
, South San Francisco,
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Zlatunich
i, R.osati,
Commissioners Gardner,
, and Chairman Boblitt
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Lazzari
ALSO
..
..
to the. South San Fran-
, Daniel M. Pass
G. I. VanSteen
Building
Leonard Pittz
MINUTES
PR.EVIOUS
Minutes
the
Commission Meeting
14, 1968
Commissioner moved the
of Planning
approved; seconded by Commissio'A.er
roll :
of the regular meeting
of October 14, 1968
; passed the following
..
..
t
, Raffaelli,
ati, Campredon and
Boblitt
NOES:
ABSENT:
None
Lazzari
ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING
RECORDING OF MEETING
who to
to his voice
to order the tape
that he or she is
in
turned lfoffu
or is heard"
of the South.San Fran-
tape" 'but that anyone
heard, but objected
request the Chairman
duration of the time
- 595 -
- 2 -
UP-25
October 28, 1968
Use permit request of Big Eye - South San Francisco, to locate
(paint) an appurtenant sign on a northerly wall of the White
Front Department Sote, located at the soutn-easterly corner of
El Camino Real and South Spruce Avenue.
City-Planner Pass read the following findings as made by his office:
lfl. The establishment, maintenance, operation or the use of the
building or lands for which the permit is sought will not, under
the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the
health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of pers~ns
residing or working in the area of such proposed use, and wl1l
not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in
the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city"
2. The approval of the requested use permit meets the require-
ments of Section 6.23 of The I.m.ing Ordinance.
3. The White Front Eepartment SDre complex is presently adver-
tised by nearly l~~~ square feet of sign area. The location of
additional signs on the subject premises would not be compatible
with the general purpose or spirit of the P-C-M District, or
congruous with the general development plans of.Tanforan Park.
~. The proposed wall sign would not be harmoni~us with the City's
pra'fi)osed boulevard treatment of South Spruce .Avenue."
Mr. Pass further read the City Planner's report with findings and
recommendations as made by his office, to wit:
ul. The ~ite Front stere is situated entirely within the
P-C-M District. The P-C-M District is a zone whiCh is designed
to accommodate planned industrial and commercial uses which mani-
fest a high-degree of order, and a considerable emphasis on
aesthetics. This conclusion is supported by the Sign Ordinance,
which autamatically permits only one-hundred square-feet sign
for each use in the P-C~M District. In contrast, a business in
the C-l~ C-2, & C-3 Districts is automatically permitted as much
as 3~O ~ of sign area. .
2. The White Front Stare complex, which includes the department
store, nursery, market, tire sholP, and service station, now has
twelve signs, with an aggregate area of approximately 137~ square
feet. This aggregate area does not include the various temporary
signs which from time to time adorn the White Front complex.
3. mnder the P-C-M sign regulations, White Front is entitled to
a sign area of 50~ sq. ft. Ynder the C-l, C-2, & 0-3 regulations,
the com~lex would be entitled to a generous 1500 sq. ft.
White Front's a~plication is approved, its physical plant would
be advertised by a sign area of approximately 2074 sq" ft..
~. Recommendations: The above factors indicate that the approval
of the requested use permit would constitute a detriment to the
Tanforan Park area, the central Oommunity, and South San Francisco-
at-large. It is therefore respectfully recommended that the Plan-
ing Commission adopt the findings embodied in the att.ched, pre-
liminary Official Action Reportjand deny the requested use permit.tt
- 596 -
- 2A -
UP-25
October 28, 1968
Mr" Pass further read a memo, dated October 18, 1968, from Chief of
lOlice John Fabbri,to wit:
ttReference above subject t please be advised that I concur
fully with the recommendations noted in City Planner's Report/
UP-25.u
Present for the applicant were Mr. Frieder, Store Manager of thite
Front, 180 El Camino Real, South San Francisco; and Mr. Ken Michael
of Heath and Company, of 3225 Lacy Street, Los Angeles, contractor
and agent for the applicant.
Mr. Michael stated that his client and company wished to apologize
for this de facto violation of the local ordinances. By some form
of breakdown in communication and by misunderstanding this had
taken place, but now they realized the subject sign could only be
put up by permit, they wanted to comply. The had labored under the
fact that in most cities painted bulletins on walls were not subject
to permits. The sign itself would be their only identification on
South Spruce Avenue. Such a sign would tie in with the hundreds of
thousands of dollars the chain spends every year on all sorts of
advertising. The sign was in good taste and in balance with the
tremendous volume of business done by the store.
Mr. Frieder stated it would be the only sign for identification on
the South Spruce Avenue side of the building" It would be one. of
three signs, the others being on the west and south side of the build-
ing. The square footage as reported by the City Planner he found
to be correct. He requested that the sign be approved.
Commissioner Campredon asked if there. was a sign on the east side
of the store to the rear. Mr. Michael stated there was'~''~none. He
also stated .that South San Francisco had the smallest signs of all
stores.
Chairman Boblitt stated that White Front occupied an area in the.
city as large as a city block, which he considered enough identi-
fication by itself.
Mr. Michael stated that without a sign the store would look like a
warehouse. He realized that the area was zoned industrial-commer-
cial, but such a sign would brig~tem up an ot~erwise dull front.
Commissioner Raffaelli inquired regarding the many signs and banners
found almost ,ermanently aro't'J;n(i the premises.. Mr. Micha.el stated
it was the com~any's policy to dress itself festively at any exist-
ing store whenever a new store was e~enad. Recently they had
opened a store in San Francisco, and these lecal banners and signs
were part of the celebration.
Mr. Pass thereu~on made the following statements:
1. The lands, on which White Front was located, were not zoned
for industry, but P-C-M, which means commercial-industrial, as a
planned community, with many restrictions not known in traditional
commercial and industrial areas.
... 5~7 -
- 2B ....
UP-25
October 28, 1968
2. Two years ago the Planning Commission and the City Council
labored many manths, when the Tanforan Park site utilization map
ca.me before them and at that time the emphasis had been on the
and character of this planned community. The City
this quality and character.
3. When one
the number of
about .
Front had. been
every time
legal amount
a permit
was the
that UP-99 was the Commission, while
application was 25, one might wonder
catne 'befare the City about two years ago.. White
'many times to request suchla sign and other signs
they had told they were already far over the
square . }Row they suddenly go ahead without
stopped by the Chief Duild.ing Inspector. This
were here. t0night before Ithe Commission.
all s0rts of signs had been made to the office
were advised their present abundance of signs.
4.
but
claim the
the
have
store is their main business,
()f th.e tire shop and the service
signs within their complex.
Front.
meant to become a beau.tiful shapping center,
the community and theairpart with its inter-
which would be similar to the
cemmercia.l areas the past should be avoided.
for the of identification was one
past lopments... Tanforan Park
to s14lch causes of blight.
7. The size af White Front itself, as large as a normal city block,
he agreed with the Chairman, was already identification enough.
with past decisions taken with. regard to Tanfaran
the C0mmissi0n could. not approve the request,
request for denial, as asked for in his repart, was most
and appropriate.
Mr.. then wanted to meet with Mr" Pass and his staff
to rec011sider all signs presently up.. By continuing
matter he eliminate some of the other signs and pre-
subject sign.. Promotionally it was necessary otherwise
would be in trouble. The store would remain looking like a
8.
..
had alsa faile.d to keep up
Spruce Ave.nue. side
too big to beov.erlaoked.
invitation il1..~~('1)dand
compliance wit;hexist
aeen a drag..As as
was the legal 1
Architectural
agreed on a
located on El Camino Real.
- 598 -
- 2C -
5
Octo~e.r 28, 1968
Mr. Michael stated he wanted a review and that they intended to
remove all illegal signs such as A-boards, etc. and that they
wanted to complete their landscaping.
Chairman Boblitt noted that their sign could almost be read from
San Francisco and by standing on top of San Bruno Mountain White
Frent could be easily identified. He though this particular sign
to be obnoxious and ugly and certainly not fitted to be a part of
a high class commercial project as TanforaR Park was 'meant to be.
Mr. Michael again emphasized that he wanted a continuance until all
these matters such as signs and landscaping had been properly
reviewed to the satisfaction of all parties involved.
Co,mmissioner Zlatunieh stateCl that at present they were alreaCly
more than 5(j)() square feet ever themeximum. He indicated this
would set a preceClent for all P-C-M-zoned areas and the City would
lose ground in similar re~uests from ethers. It would go too far.
Mr. Pass agreecft wheleneartedly on this. (iJommissioner Zlatunieh
further stated that when the signs were cut Clown to the legal maxi-
mum, ne felt that t,he City would be willing to reconsider. Mr.
Michael again statea that he was all fer recons~d.eration and review.
Mr. Pass statea that witnin the legal limits no use permit would be
rec.:rtlirea as the BuilCling Department could take care of tnat.. Denial
of tne present re(:fuest, which haa prove.a to be tao far reacning,
wauld not Cleny the applicant any future right to apply again with
proposals which complieCl with the orClinance.
There being no one else further to speak for or against the request,
Chairman Boblitt CleclareCl the pUDlic hearing on this matter closed
and solicited comments from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Campredon asked about the pole sign. Mr. Pass stated
that it too was illegal. Mr. Frieden stated that many of these
signs were put up temporarily for one. celebration or another, but
that in their enthusiasm to merchandise,removal had been delayed.
Mr... Garcftner stated that WID.ite Front had a tremendous history of
illegal signs and noncompliance with legal requirements as made by
the City in the l'ast.. That they were rignt now before the Commis-
sion because they had been caught doing anetner illegal thing. Now
they wanted to nave the Commission legalize a request that would
go beyond the law of the City itself.
Mr. Michael stated that; he wanted a review.
Commissioner Zlatunich asked if there was a possibility for the
applicant. Mr. Pass stateCl that it would, but a better possibility
was to deny the present request which went beyond limitations and
have the applicant a~l'ly again for another use ..~ within the
limitations of the law.
- 599 ...
- 2D -
UP-25
October 28, 1968
There. being no further comments by any of the other Commissione.rs,
Chairman Boblitt declared the questioning closed and asked for a
motion on the matter and a roll call vote thereon.
Commissioner Zlatunich mored, seconded by Commissioner Campredon,
to deny tlP-25, a request from White Front Stores, Inc. and to
accept findings the City Planning Office and other reporting
departments.
The mot
was
by
call vote:
AYES:: , Raffaelli, Campredon, Boblitt
NOES: None
i
ABSENT: Lazzari
- 600 -
... .3 -
UP-99
28, 1968
Use permit request of D. Magro, to comprehensively alter a non-
conforming single-family dwelling, to construct a conforming
addition thereto, and to subsequently add three dwelling units
thereto, at #566 Commercial Avenue, in the R-3 District.
Eity Planner Daniel M. Pass read the following recommendation as
made by office, to wit:
recommends that the Planning
the/attached, preliminary
requested use permit upon
c(i)nlply with the attached require-
o.eacl.s, and the subsequent
Committee.1f
Mr.Pa.ss
as made by his office, .to wit:
., maintenance.,. operation or the use of the
waich the-permit is sought will not, under
the particular be detrimental to the
cernrort welfare of persons
tae pro}F)osed use, and will
to prC3>pertyiand improvements in
welfare of the city.
use permit meets the requirements
0rdinan.ce.
3. The the requested use permit would enable the
applicant aer single-family dwelling.
4. The additions would be characterized by a substantial
emphasis aesthetic design.
5. The remC3>.deled single-family dwelling and the subsequently-
attacaed apartment units wuld be architecturally harmonious with
other deV'elopmeRts in Commercial - Magnolia Avenue area."
Mro Pass then read the conditioRs as recommended by his office., to wit:
'.fThe applicant shall comply with the attached requirements of the
reporting department heads, and the subsequent requirements the
Arcaitectural Committee,,"
Mr. Pass furthe,r read a memo, dated October 10, 1968, for Director
of Public Works Louis H.Goss, to wit:
uThis office concurs with City Planner's recomme.ndation in
the adoption of this Use Permit. If
Mr. Pass further
Chief
t dated October 10, 1968, from Fire
.,
the ."
Mr..P9.SS then read a memo., dated October lOt 1968 from Police Chief
Fa.bbr~:
fINo recommendations by this departmentq n
- 601 -
- 3A -
October 28,
was :M'r.. John
Spruce
, architect and agent
Francisco.
Mr.. that
was the.re to answer any
the applicant and
Commiss might have.
or against the request,
on this matter closed,
Commissioners,
asked a
.
Zlatunich,
to approve
with
Public
departments,
The
vote:
, Raffaelli,
ati Campredon, Boblitt
..
'"
ABSENT:
.... 602 -
- 4 -
V-56
October 28, 1968
Variance request of Norman L. Snyder, to construct an addition to a
one-story, single-family dwelling in the required side yard of 205
Southcliff Avenue, in the R-l District.
City Planner Pass read the following recommendation as made by his
office, to wit:
that the Planning Commission
in the attached, preliminary Official
the requested bulk variance..f1
Mr. Pass further
as made
his off
1 to
:
circumstances or con-
referred to in the appli-
do Rot apply generally
is necess.ary for the preserva-
prai1>erty rights of the petitioner.
3. That the ap,licatian will not, under the
case, materially affect adversely
persat1.s. residi11.g or working in the neigh-
f)roperty of theal:lplicant., and will not, under the
of the f)articular case, be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in
said neighborhaod.
4" The granting of the requested variance will be in harmony with
the general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. The
culties,
general
to prevent practical diffi-
inconsistent with the
..
6. The r~~ueste.d side-yard variance is su:pported by the existing
3. side yard on the subject lot. The approval of this variance
would not create a new building line, but wauld merely extend an
existing one.
7. Similar have been granted to freeholders in the Serra
Highlands subneighborhood. *
*Exarnples: V-33, T. La Grave; V-37, DonaldJ. Frolli; V-27, Don
Fagundes; and V-20, John Tamburini.
Mr. Pass further read a memo, dated October 14, 1968, from Director
of Public Works Louis H. , to wit:
HRegarding construction an addition to a one-story s
family dwelling at 205 Southcliff this office concurs
with the recommenelation of the City regarding the adoption
of this variance request" If
Mr.. Pass then read an l.O.Me, elated Oct. 14, 1968 from Fire Chief Marchi~
f'I have checked the above subject and approve same. U
28, 19
V-56
Present for the applicant was his agent, Mr.
Construction Company.. Mr. Fields stated
answer any and all questions the Commiss
Fields of Roberts
would be glad to
have.
There being no one else further to speak for or against the request,
Chairma.n Boblitt declared the public hearing on this matter closed,
and solicited comments from the
There
Chairman
mot on
other Commissioners,
and asked for a
..
Commissioner
adopt the f
appl
ments
heads
ioner Raffaelli to
to approve the
with the require-
departme.nt
The mot
was passed
following
1
vote:
.
..
,
,
Campredon, Boblitt
NOES: None
ABSENT:
- 604 -
- 5 -
PM-41
October 28, 1968
Parcel Map of Caesar-Callan Homes, Inc.., representing the subdivision
of an approximately 4.675-acre parcel of land, located at the south-
easterly corner of Callan Boulevard and King Drive, in the P-C-C
District, into two lots.
City Planner Pass read the following recommendation as made by his
office to wit:
tIThe proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the State
Subdivision Act the standards embodied in the South San
Francisco The subdivision was
originally approved General Development Plan
West indicated the site
plan of n:B111 was established.
It is that the Planning Com-
instant tentative map upon the condition
that the comply with the attached requirements of
the reporting department heads.H
read a memo, dated October 18, 1968, from the
Works Louis H. Goss, to wit::
lIThe tentative parcel map is approved subject to the follow-
ing conditions:
1. Final Parcel
with traverse
shall be based on an accurate survey
calculations furnished this office.
be furnished showing area to be
for street purposes at the inter-
and King Drive. Show bearings,
and furnish legal descriptions",U
2.
Mr. Pass
Building
read a memo, dated October 18, 1968, from Chief
Leonard J. Pittz, to wit:
HI have. examined Tentative. Parcel :Map 4l and find the
following correct should be made on the final Parcel Map:
l. Use 161f x 24" sheet or sheets for final map.
2. The title the Map read, H:Being a
Resubdivision of Planned Unit Commercial, in the
Westborough-We.st Park Unit No. Planned Community.
.3.. Show bearings, distances and area involved.H
Mr. Pass then read a memo, dated, October l8, 1968, from
Chief John Fabbri, to wit:
;HReference subject, this Department has no recommendat
to offer at this time."
- 605 -
.... SA ...
PM-41
28, 1968
Present for the applicant was their agent, Mr. John Hamel of
Theodore Tronoff, consulting engineers, of 345 Plaza Drive, Daly
City, who stated he would be glad to answer any and all questions
the Commission might have.
Tb.ere being no one else further to speak for or against the request,
Cijairman. BoblittCl.eclared the public hearing on this matter closed,
and solicited comments from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Zlatunich asked why the dividing strip on Callan Boule-
vard was not shown on the map.
Mr. Pass stated tha~ improvements should not be shown on the parcel
maps, which were only to snow the limitations of different parcels
and their relationsnip to publicly owned lands as right of ways, etc.
Commissioner Rosati asked if a population clause should be included
in the final approval of such a map.
Mr. Pass again stated that this was only a matter of land division,
not of use" The use for the subject lands had been considered under
the Use Parroit process under UP-8S, which had been approved finally
by the City..
Commissioner Gardner asked if there was any report from the Fire
Chief. Mr. Pass stated that a full set of in.formation, incluCl.ing
map, had been submitted to the Fire Chief, but no report had been
received. His decision at this stage. was probably one()of no recom-
mendation, but whenever the improvements were to come up before the
City's diffe~ent agencies he might select to do so.
Chairman Boblitt again stated that he understood that a parcel map
was only one of land division, and not one of proposed improvements.
He asked Mr. Pass if he was correct in this. Mr. Pass stated that
he was.
There being no further komment by any of the other Commissioners,
Chairman Boblitt declaredthe questioning closed and asked for a
motion on the matter and a roll call vote thereon.
Commissioner Raffaelli moved, seconded DY Commissioner Gardner, to
adopt the findings of the City Planning Office and to approve the
application as re~uested, however, upon compliance with the require-
ments as set by the City Planner, the Dire.ctor of Public Works, a.nd
the Chief Building Inspector.
The motion wa.s passed by the following vote:
AYES: Zlatunich., 8ardner, R.affaelli, R.osati, Campredon, Boblitt
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Lazzari
- 606 -
- 6 -
October 28, 1968
OFF-STREET PARKING
Proposed Amendments to Sectwns 7.28 and 7.33 of the ZOning Ordi-
nance, pertaining to Garage and Parking Spaces.
City Planner Daniel 14.. Pass read the following mport with recommenda-
tions as made by his office, to wit:. .
HPursuant to Planning
Department submits the
park:i:ng
amendme:nts
ments
ion instructions, the Planning
proposed am~ndments to the
of South iFranc:tsco. These
and trJ.pa.ate tn.e width require-
in the City's residential and
a.m<il to therelly llromote orderly
taerein.
p~rmitted by Sections 7.28
(Ziomja.tillle with mOcfJ.ern, 6,,5'-wide
inootllllat:tbility litas produced scratched
, strained muscles, and excessive on-
It is respectfully :recemmena.e.d that the Plan:ning Commission
aa.Qpt , preliminary-resolution, and recommend to the
City the req,uired minimum widths of garage and parking
spaces 1)e increased to 9'.
SECTION 7:
7.28
THE OF SOUTH SAN
NO. , AS AMENDED
7
(20) feet
of automobiles.
and usable space of not
feet by twenty (20) feet
off the street, such
lot as to meet the require-
accessory building.
- An accessible and usable on the
il.tJAt nine I.S1 by twen ty
the street with ac ess the parking
III Deletions
Addenda f I
Mr. Pas.s further read a memo, dated October 11, 1968, from Chief of
Police John Fabbri, to wit:
"Pursuant to I.O.M. of October 9, 1968 and proposed resolution,
this department strongly recommends that the proposed amend-
ments be adopted.H
Mr. Pass stated that the eight feet width has become
to the fact that most cars today are too wide to
limited space. Although 10 feet: would have b>een
would cause many }?ro'Ol.ems a:ae to the
of lots improvements within the Jurisdiction.
25-feet wide lots, as Martin Subdivision, Peck's Lots the
Baden, and many in the inner core of the City where l~rger
due
Town
parcel
- 607 -
28, 1968
Off-Street
had been subdivided in the past to 25-foot
would build on such lots, 3-foot side yards
both sides, leaving only 19 feet for
rule out two ten-foot. wide interior
cause an burden upon the
develop to maximum.. With 9 feet
A lO-foot would cause a
and he was they
l. the was mainly
2.
variance within
ment.
When an owner
required on
This would
which would
who wants to
reasonable do so.
variance re.quests,
; and
of built-in
legal require-
o/r against the request,
on this matter closed,
only affect new
would be involved,
other Commissioners,
and asked for a
such a resolution were
i0l'l 2097, supporte.d by
S0UTH SAN
IL TFIEREOF
7.28 AND 7.33
PARKING SPACES.,
Commission,meeting in
, at 8 :.00 p.m.,
to ions 7.
session on
a public hearing
7.33 of the Zoning
in the
t
the Commission
and update the Cityfs
- 608 -
- 6B -
Off-Street Parking
October 28, 1968
WHEREAS, the Commission also found that the 8f-wide parking bays
permitted by existing Sections 7.28 and 7.33 are inconvenient,
and lead to vehicular damage; and
WHEREAS, the Commission also found that St-wide spaces encourage
on-street parking, resultan.t traffic congestion; and
WEIER-EAS, Commission further found tna.t the proposed amend-
ments would s resiidential neighborhood commer-
cial into conf0rmity with its
revised parking re.quirements;
NOW, Planning Commission of
the City to Ithe City Council
thereof tnat: Sections 7.28 and 7.33
of into ordinance","
Resolution No. 2097 was approved by the follc>wing roll call vote:
AYES: Zlatunich, Gardner" Raffaelli, Rosat i, Carnpredon, Boblitt
NOES: None
ABSEN'F : Lazzari
GOOD AND COMMUNICATIONS
There
and there
interest
that the next
Commission
Council Cnamlrlers
under Good and Welfare
ions other matters of
Ch.airman Boblitt announced
South Sa.n Francisco Planning
12, 1968 at 8 :00 p..m.. in the
San Francisco, California.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:ll p.m.
~~~.~:~ r;~_
lLla.nIe. M. Pass, Secretary
Flanning Commission
City of South San Francisco
,
Planning Commission
City of South Francisco
fvs
- 609 -