The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 11/12/1968 M s meet co 8:00 p.m.. , : 1, : .. .. : San s G.. I.. 28, 19 : , 11 it : : , Mr. as made ice, to .. .. 2.. the s 3. by an emphasis .. 4. facility would served off-street as by his .. .. with n irements of the ice Director of Public the Planning Commiss is propos of the exist , a contract , be shown so storm " 26, 19 , from ... and .. as with Bell plans. the a memo, 1968t from Fire use the property a memo, 24, ice . Gary L. Graham, Cottage Ave.., would be to company reports of storm drain would of isco ly what the influence by Colma Cree.k. re.lief the he trusted that properly guided Commissioners, mot vote: ., it ati, - 3 - Map of Evasio Bottino, representing the subdivis of an approximately 16,800 sq. ft. parcel land, located on westerly side of Linden Avenue, approximately 70t southerly of Armour Avenue, in the C-2 District., into two lots. City Planner Pass read the recommendation as made by his office: f'The ion meets the minimum. requirements of Cityts . While one the proposed lots would have an area less than 5000 square feet, and therefore would not meet the requirements of the R-3 District, it would not be substandard for an urban-core, residential site, and would not be incongruous with the standards of the Armour-Linden Ave. area. The subdivision would not alter the existing orderly, resident environment of the subject parent parcel. It recommended, therefore, that the map be approved, subject to the requirements of the City Engineer, and the Chief Building Ins pector .ft Mr. Pass 1968, from memorandum, dated , to wit: 4, has no 6 mot 1 call vote: .. .. , , ati, 140ES: .. .. - 4 - 68 Rezoning petition of the Estate of Rose Giannini, Deceased, to re- classify an approximately 2.5 acre parcel of land, located on the southerly side of Holly Avenue, oppos Westview Drive, from "R-in to 'fUf'.. City Planner Pass read the following report with Findings and Recom- mendations as made by his office, to wit: "The Planning Department has perused the instant pe.tition, and has studied the urban-planning significance thereof. The follow- ing factors and observations are predicated upon the Department's perusal and study, as well as prior interpretations of the state of the City's plan in the Sunshine Gardens neighborhood. 1. In early 1965, the Planning Commission, by unanimous vote of its membership in attendance, denied the request of Rose Giannini to rezone the subject lands from R-l to R-3. This denial was primarily based upon the Commission's finding that NeighborhoodlO had nearly reached its minimum holding capacity of approximately 4,600 persons. The Commission felt that any increase in the size of Nei~hborhood lOts apartment-house potential would eventually drive the said neighborhood's population substantially above the maximum holding capacity indicated therefor in William Spangle-s plan of 1963 . 2. While Y0ur City Planner feels that Spangle's 5,600-person maximum holding capacity for Neighborhood l@ was supportable, on planning grounds, in 1963, he feels that a higher density in certain subneighborhoods of Sunshine Gardens is now indicated. Such increases density would enable South San Francisco to meet its housing needs, and approach the ultimate population assigned to it under current regional plans. Well-designed apartment-house developments produce orderly growth, land economy, and an effective counterattack against urban sprawl. 3. The proposed rezoning would eventually augment the population SunshiRe Gardens by ap:proximately 100 persoRs, if the deRsity of the development of the subject lands were limited to 15 dwell- ing units per acre under the use-permit process" Since the adopted General Plan would permit the su'Dject lands to accommodate a maximum @f 84 persons, the said proposed rezoning would not 'De materially inc@ngruot1s therewith. In fact the HGeneral Plan Pr@posal,n at page 28, provideCl that "the medium Clensity category of this neighborhood (#l@) allows for a limited amount of mt1ltiple- family dwellings in addition to the presently predomiRaRtly single- family uses.".ft 4. The Commission's F>roposed "ComF>rehensive Revampment to adopted General Plan" indicates that the su'Dject lands a medium-high density potential. Under this designation, Giannini lands could accommodate a maximum forty dwe .. the Giannini rezoning request 64-65 had approved, 100 dwelling t1nits could have been constructed on the premises in question. This dens ,which would have 'Deen harmonious with the tenets and precepts of sound , was rly denied by the Planning Commission.tf 6 - II 19 abut a modern 's are not properly located with respect for subdivis Their orderly is respect- the attached, City Council redistrict - quality and for , , the Estate of 2.5-acre Avenue, as nparcel l2, South Fran- District \' to 'tu, H three prior the said the published in the ; and, also posted in at least ten days , report the City ion of Antonio J. ; and, presentations .f .. . ., 68 "2.. According to the Planning Commission f s Revampment the lands are slated resident . Under this des could be const Plan density, ion, a maximum of the said subject lands. on the petitioner's of 100 persons, the involved Community, the. proper sub- would be. perpetuate, Oommis- residential Oommission of the. thereof ., be ordinance", , memorandum, dated Louis H. GOBS: at 224 Holly office is as set forth Oity Planner Pass then read au Marchi, to wit: from Fire Ohief the large. area #76 hydrant on an can be ... read an from Ohief no re.commendat timeoU , 19 Mr. Mrs.. read a letter, dated l, 1968, from , 251 Avenue, South San Francisco: HI feel in South in families resident areas irable citizens middle-class isco the.ir pe.rm- Avenue that live and content effect will our will Avenue which tract, but the traffic it is not certainly not headed to use Holly trips nearly it makes one feel our neighbor- building on consider the homes a structure. conformity with the How can become? to consider but homeown.er and I : icat for re- for your con- : departure from limits the number ad in the. "R-3 ff would classification master plan the current planning Appraiser market value in ion the surrounding area. ially given parcel in the multiple residential which such appraisal appraisal will add tax base when finally should recom- tTR-l H to "un the applicant.. an appl for the use was one to a nUH, would put any City's Planning Com- the present on the owners to City and the zone for a of the applicant allow, Mr.. 2 We.stview .. .. since of the use zoning its be better than traffic G was to in lit , 19 1 a a children. 5. to 6. concern was come 7. ne a matter to s Mr. . .. 28 3. 5. on .. 1 Mr. st a co, - 621 - RZ were not ent <II Mr. .. . some 2 - 2. The 2.S-acre area were as a result to and parking and at designed follows: Mrs.. 1. .. 2. t 3. 4. 5. Mr.. s s, o . res to neighborhood.. the tenants? peak. be subject to ., sine by its uses other Mm.. .. .. 1.. ne to 1 owner, was Jr.. o re did t on ioners.. assumed 40 s , that anything e his the uU'tDistrict the Planning Commission be proposed they ed res6lution the 40 resident Commiss i asked where the would would use would come t decis , Ordinance. Commiss would the~n intent, the Mr.. this t why ice Department - 625 - , 1 1 requirements o the to use t record resolution held property not s.. Commiss closed vote thereo. the 1. , report of the of Ant J. .. .. 5. area, 1 vote: f f i : come t . - 5 - his , "1. matter develop a facility on for meet a and environs. recommended il that trict be ' within Zoning ility 4, by checked against this map is to be as such.." t, matter being Chair- mot t on There Act for a , ., ati, 8 - - 6 - AND , III , , meet was at . .. p.m.