HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/24/1973
M I NUT E S
July 24, 1973
of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission
TIME:
8:00 p.m.
DATE:
July 24, 1973
PLACE:
Council Chambers, City Hall
South San Francis co, California
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vice Chairman Mathewson, Commissioners Hale,
Raffaelli and Chairman Mullin
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Commissioners Lazzari and Slade
ALSO PRESENT:
Acting City Planner and Secretary to the South
San Francisco Planning Commission Neal J. Martin
Planning Aide
Surendra N. Amin
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 10, 1973
Comm~sioner Raffaelli moved that the minutes of the regular meeting of the
South San Francisco Planning Commission of July 10, 1973 be approved. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Hale and was passed by the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
Vice Chairman Mathewson, Commissioners Hale,
Raffaelli and Chairman Mullin
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioners Lazzari and Slade
ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING TAPE RECORDING OF MEETING
Chairman Mullin announced that this meeting of the South San Francisco
Planning Commission would be recorded on tape, but that anyone who wished
to come before the Commission in order to be heard, but objected to having
his or her voice recorded in this manner, could request the Chairman to
order the tape recorder turned "off" for the duration of the time that he
or she is speaking or is heard.
- 3173 -
July 24, 1973
V-,165, variance request to construct an industrial building within the
required rear-yard setback o;f a building site located on the easterly
side of S.an Mateo Avenue and the extension of Atlantic Avenue, in the
M-2-H District.
Secretary Martin read the following report and memorandum into the record
Report and Recommendations of the Planning Office.
"Th.e Planning Office respectfully recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt the "findings", action, and conditions indicated
in the attached, preliminary Official Action Report.
"FINDINGS:
1. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applying to the land or building referred to in the application,
which. circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land or
buildings in the same district.
2. Th.e granting of the application is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner.
3. That the granting of the application will not, under the circum-
stances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the
health. or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood
of th.e 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 th.e Zoning Ordinance.
5. The requested variance is necessary to prevent practical diffi-
culties, unnecessary hardships" and results inconsistent with the
general purpose of th.e Zoning Ordinance.
6. The rear-yard requirements of the M-2-H District are designed
to promote the establishment of alleys, where such establishment
would be desirable and practicable. In the instant case, the
establishment of an alley would not serve a substantial purpose.
7. The Planning Commission has granted many similar variances."
CONDITIONS:
"The applicant shall comply with the submitted requirements of the
Ci ty' s officials, the standards and specifications administered by the
Director of Ecological Development, and the subsequent requirements
of the Planning Commission's Architectural Committee.
Parmed loading trucks on either side of the main parking area would
block ingress and egress to and from the parking area. It is recom-
mended that parking and loading be separated to insure no obstructions
for the parking area."
- 3174 -
V-165 Contd
July 24, 1973
Interoffice Memorandum, dated July 6, 1973, from the Police Department.
"1. I would recommend security lighting of 3 footcandles of
illumination in the dock area of the building.
2. All skylights be covered with burglary resistant glass or
glasslike material, iron bars of at least 1/2" round or a
steel grill of at least 1/8" material with a 2" mesh under the
skylight and securely fastened.
3. All overhead doors be secured with a padlock or cylinger lock
on the inside.
4. All warehouse pede doors be equipped with sliding deadbolts at
least 1/2" thick for nighttime security.
Signed P. Ziemer"
Names and addresses of Proponents and Opponents
Proponents:
Richard l\Diodati
Opponents:
None
Commissioner Hale moved that the Planning Commission adopt the findings
and conditions as set forth in the preliminary Official Action Report,
and approve V-165 upon the condition that the applicant comply with the
submitted requirements of the City's reporting department heads. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Raffaelli and was passed by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
Vice Chairman Mathewson, Commissioners Hale,
Raffaelli, Slade, and Chairman Mullin
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioners Lazzari and Slade.
V-166, variance request to construct a one-story addition to a two-story,
single-family dwelling in the required rear yard of 2244 Kenry Way" in
the R-l District.
Secretary Martin read the following report and letters into the record.
Report and Recommendations of the Planning Office
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.
- 3175 -
V-166, Contd.
July 24" 1973
"2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights of the petitioner.
3. That the granting of the application will not, under the circumstances
of the particular case} materially affect adversely the heal th or safety
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the
applicant, and will not, under the circumstances. of the particular case,
be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to prop~rty
or improvements in said neighborhood.
4. The granting of the requested variance will be in harmony with the
general purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. The requested variance is necessary to prevent practical difficulties,
unnecessary hardships, and results inconsistent with the general purpose
of the Zoning Ordinance.
6. The requested variance is supported by an odd size lot and public
utilities easement through the rear yard.
7. Similar variances have been granted by the Planning Commission"
CONDITIONS:
"The applicant shall comply with the standards and specifications
administered by the Director of the Department of Ecological Development"
Interoffice Memorandum dated July 9, !973 from G. Castro, Fire Inspector
"We have no objection to the issuance of this variance permit."
Letter, dated July 23, 1973, from Eugene Masciarelli, Secretary, San Mateo
County Airport Land Use Committee, Redwood City, addressed to Thomas and
Betty Sammon.
"The improvement proposed at this address lies within the 65 CNEL noise
cont(j)uw.(J~from aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport.
The Interim Airport Land Use Plan makes sound insulation a requirement
of developments in such locations. Where additions of less than 50% of
the existing flGor area are added to a developed structure, only the
newly created living space need be sound insulated.
Since the Airport Land Use Committee has not yet adopted structural
sound insulation standards, they require the developer' to furnish
documentation by a specialist qualified in the area of acoustical engi-
neering, of the steps to be taken to overcome the projected noise level
at the site of the proposed development. This can be accomplished in
the form of a letter directed to the Secretary of the Airport Land Use
Committee explaining what steps are proposed by the developer. The
letter will be kept on file as proof that the developer was informed
of the projected noise level and advised to take appropriate steps to
provide adequate protection from airborne noise penetration inside the
structure. The State noise law, Title 4, Subchapter 6, Article 1, Sec-
t~on 5014 defines adequate protection as insulation sufficient to reduce
such noise penetration to no greater than 45 dB in all habitable rooms
- 3176 -
V-166, Contd.
July 24, 1973
"Please let us know if we can provide further information."
Names and addresses of Proponents and Opponents
Proponents:
Mr. Thomas Sammon
2244 Kenry Way, South San Francisco,
the applicant
Opponents:
None
Vice Chairman Mathewson moved that the Planning Commission adopt the
findings and conditions as set forth in the preliminary Official Action
Report, and approve V-166 upon the condition that the applicant comply with
the submitted requirements of the City's reporting department heads. The
motion wassseconded by Commissioner Raffaelli and was passed by the follow-
ing roll call vote:
AYES:
Vice Chairman Mathewson, Commissioners Hale,
Raffaelli, and Chairman Mullin
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
Commissioner Lazzari and Slade
Draft Environmental Impact Report for Gellert Boulevard Extension :I3roject
Secretary Martin read the following report and letters into the record.
Report and recommendation of Acting City Planner Neal J. Martin
"The Planning Division has reviewed the URS Research Company's Draft
Environmental Impact Report on the Gellert Boulevard Extension Project.
The report was prepared for the City of South San Francisco in June of
1973 as a prerequisite to the approval of the assessment district project.
In general, the Draft Environmental Impact Report is a thorough and well-
prepared document. The format and content of the report appear to meet
the objectives of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and
the Secretary of Resources Guidelines of 1973
Although the general quality of the statement is very good there are
some points of misinformation and inadequacies which should be noted.
1. The araft implies that the elementary school proposed for construc-
tion on Galway Drive is already existing. Actually, the site is
presently vacant.
2. At several points the repoDr erroneously indicates that the West-
borough Community is served ~y the California Water Service Company and
the sanitation facilities of the City of South San Francisco. Actually
the community is serviced by the Westborough County Water District and
the North San Mateo County Sanitation District.
- 3177 -
IDRAFT EIR FOR GELLERT BLVD. EXTENSION Contd
July 24~ 1973
"3. In the st aff 's opinion the report does not adequately pres ent a
solution to the problem of dust control which has, in the past, been
of great concern to the residents of Buri Buri and Avalon Park. In
our opinion the dust control problem will not be solved by the
employment of water trucks as indicated in the report. It is
suggested that some innovative program of dust control, including a
system of enforcement, should be developed and made a part of the
project specifications.
4. At one point the report suggests that the additional noise
generated by the Gellert Boulevard Extension could be mitigated by
zoning the adjacent property commercial. In the first instance, the
adjacent property is already zoned commercial. In the second instance~
i.heisdfelt that the commercial development would not alleviate the
noise problem as suggested by the URS Research Company.
5. The report indicates that a proper use for the lands which would
be made accessible and developable by the Gellert Boulevard Extension
would be for additional apartments. It is felt that apartment use
of the lands adjacent to this boulevard would be inconsistent with
the City's General Plan and would lead to further congestion in this
area. In our opinion, further apartment development would lead to
overcrowding in this already highly developed neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the Draft EIR
and all other reports pertaining thereto as the Final Environmental
Impact Report on the Gellert Boulevard Extension Proj ect. It is
suggested that the Planning Commission find that the Gellert Boulevard
Extension Project is consistent with the General Plan of the City of
South San Francisco.
It is suggested that the Commission recommend the following to the
City Council:
a. That the Gellert Boulevard Extension Project be approved.
b. That provision be made for adequate dust control and
enforcement in the plans and specifications for the proj ect.
Letter dated July 9, 1973 from Henry F. Eich, Public Health Engineer,
County of San Mateo
"In accord with your request of June 15, 1973 regarding the Gellert
Boulevard Extension Project, the attached comments from our
District Supervisor are forwarded."
Inter-Department Correspondence, dated July 5, 1973, from Reint Lingeman,
Supe:rvising Sanitarian to Henry F. Eich, Public Health Engineer
"Reviewed E.I.R. report.
John Thompson stated he had no comments. Rod Mayer mentioned the
extra drainage to South San Francisco, extra burden on the Colma
Creek, and suggested tight control on the dust problem during con-
struction. I believe the report takes care of most of the normal
prob 1 ems. "
- 3178 -
DRAFT EIR - GELLERT BLVD. EXTENSION CONTD.
July '24, 1973
!lOne thing I do not understand is, the drinking water for this area does
not come from California Water Service" unless th.ere is a change. The
area is in the jurisdiction of the Westborough Water System and not in
the California Water Service area.
The sewage of this area at present again is handled by the Westborough
Water District. If there is any change, the City of South San Francisco
does not know about it. All the sewage of the Westborough Water District
is pumped to the treatment plant in Daly City of the North County
Sanitation District."
Letter dated July 12, 1973 from H. E. Pape Jr., Chief, Engineering Division,
Department of the Navy, Corps of Engineers, 100 McAllister Street, San Francisco
"This letter is in reference to letter, June 15, 1973, from Daniel M. Pass,
AlP, City Planner, in which he requested U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
review and comment on the Environmental Impact Report for the Gellert
Boulevard Extension Project.
The impacts and aspects of primary concern to the. human environment are
adequately addressed in the EIR. This District has no further comment
on the report. Thank you for the opportunity to review it."
Names and Addresses of Proponents 'and Opponents:
Proponents: .
1. City of South San Francisco
2. Theodore Tronoff, Agent for the developer
Speakers:
1. Tom Williams ,) URS Co., 155 Bovet Road, San Mateo
2. Theodore Tronoff
~npponents :
1. Mrs. Thelma Hale
318 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco
2. Don Gamma, 3790 Cork Place, South San Francisco
3. Mr. Wilson
4. Elmer Hitchcock, 2449 Greendale Dr., South San Francisco
5. Thomas Sammon, 2244 Kenry Way, South San Francisco
Mrs. Thelma Hale cl aimed that dust has already caused damage and repair costs
to their house and expressed great concern that the.proposed Gellert Boulevard
Extension would create more problems involving dust and create more school
prob lems as the school is already saturated. Mrs. Hale felt th.ere was no need
for the extension of Gellert Boulevard.
Mr. Don Gamma stated that the Westborough area is already crowded and by
extending Gellert Boulevard there will be additional residential development.
Mr. Gamma emphasized that t~e dey~loper should be asked to come up wmth a
complete plan for the :vac.llp.t:!3.reacJim,order that they could investigate the proposed
extension further. He further claimed that th.e extension is neither wanted nor
necessary at this time, and additional residential units in this commercial zone
would be disastrous.
- 3179 -
DRAFT EIR - GELLERT BLVD. EXTENSION Contd.
July 24, 1973
Mr. Thomas Sammon expressed his concern over the potential dust problem
and the overcrowding that would result from the proposed extension.
Mr. Elmer Hitchcock asked Mr. Tronoff if sewer hookups could be made
without the proposed extension, and was informed by Mr. Tronoff that
this could be done but would result in an unsatisfactory high-lift
operation up a steep slope.
Considerable discussion ensued following Mr. Tronoff's statement to
the effect that the City Council's approval of West Park #3 "guaranted"
development of Gellert Boulevard by a certain date.
At the conclusion of the first public hearing on the Draft EIR on the
Gellert Boulevard Extension, Chairman Mullins closed the hearing and
called for a second public hearing to be held at the regular meeting
of August 14, 1973 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
- 3180 -
Proposed Rezoning along the North Side of
Spruce Avenue in the Vicinity of Mayfair
V 1.1 1 age
July 24" 1973
Secretary Martin read the following staff report dated July 24, 1973
"An application for the resubdivision of property on the north side of
South Spruce Avenue, across from Starlite Street, has prompted the
Staff to recommend that the entire strip of land between Mayfair Village
and South Spruce Avenue be rezoned to a C-3 District. The proposed re-
subdivision (PM-Ill) would divide an approximately 3-acre parcel into
four lots and require the construction of a cul-de-sac street from Spruce
Avenue to serve these lots. Presently, two different zoning districts
divide the strip of land which parallels Spruce Avenue to the north
between that street and Mayfair Village. The C-3District is located
along Spruce Avenue, and the R-3 District is located approximately 100'
to the north between the C-3 District and the R-lDistrict of Mayfair
Village. The ~eneral Plan designates the entire area between Spruce
Avenue and Mayfa~r Village as light industrial. No mention is made in
the General Plan of residential, either multinfamily or lower density,
within this strip. Existing developments along South Spruce have been
primarily commercial in nature and generally extend back to the Mayfair
residential area. Specific examples are: A service station, a news
printing service and other commercial uses.
The Staff feels that development according to the existing zoning plan
would produce an undesirable result. The proposed cul-de-sac (PM-Ill)
is a typical example of the solution which is afforded a developer in
utilizing this property. The lots fronting on Spruce Avenue would un-
doubtedly be developed with commercial or light industrial type uses.
The lots on the rear would be required to be residential, and access
to those residential lots would have to go through the commercial district.
It would seem that this arrangement would have a deteriorating effect on
the new apartment units which would be constructed to the rear of the
cul-de-sac. From a planning standpoint it would seem that the lands
between Spruce and Mayfair Village should be zoned for one type of use,
either commercial or multi-family residential. In the Staff's opinion
the most appropriate designation would be that of commercial.
The concerns of the residents in Mayfair Village however must be recognized
since their properties abut this single family residential neighborhood.
Some type of buffer, such as a heavily landscaped planting strip between
the commercial area and the residences would seem appropriate.
The Staff therefore recommends that the entire strip of land between
South Spruce Avenue and Mayfair Village be rezoned to C-3 District, and
that the Planning Commission establish a policy which would provide for
the creation of a landscaped strip a minimum of 25' wide along the rear
of residences in Mayfiar Village. The policy should also include a
statement that parking should be provided along the rear portion of any
developments on Spruce Avenue" and that parking should be located
between the buildings on Spruce and the 25' landscaped strip near the
residences of Mayfair Village.
The procedure which should be followed in accomplishing such a recommendation
would be the adoption of a Resolution of Intention to rezone this property
to C-3 District by the Planning Commission.) the holding of required public
hearings, and finally a recommendation to the City Council for the rezoning
and for the adoption of the policy statements referred to above. II
- 3181-
Proposed Rezoning to a C-3 District
July 24) 1973
After some discussion Chairman Mullin asked the Commission for a motion.
Commissioner Hale moved that the Planning Commission. instruct the Secretary
to prepare a Resolution of Intention and set a hearing for the proposed
rezoning. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chairman Mathewson and passed
by the following ,roll call vote:
AYES: Vice-Chairman Mathewson, Commissioners Hale, Raffaelli and
Raffaelli
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Lazzari and Slade
Greenview Commons, Westborough Unit No. 3A
Secretary Martin read the following staff report dated July 24 -' 1973
"Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting of July 10 the varlOUS
staff members of the Department of Ecological Development met with the
developers of Greenview Commons to discuss various aspects of the
project and discrepancies between the development . and approved plans.
Three basic subjects were discussed, (1) the status of approval of
landscaping for the common greens, (2) discrepancies between the
existing grading and improvements in the common greens and deviations
from approved plan, (3) the colors and general aesthetics of the
initial phase of the development which has been completed.
In general it was determined that only preliminary approval had been
given to the landscape plans for the common greens. Use Permit
No. 220 stipulates that final approval of the landscape plans shall not
become effective until they are reviewed and approved by the various
department heads. Apparently this has not been done. It was agreed
that the developer would submit proposed final landscape plans for the
common green areas to the department heads and) subs equent to their
approval, would complete the common greens and dedicate them to the City.
Th-e situation concerning the grading and utili ty improvements in the sub-
division was discussed at length. It was finally determined that the
developer would provide the staff with a copy of the "as built" grading
plan. The staff would review that plan in conjunction with the proposed
landscape plan for the common green area and recommend certain modifica-
tions to the existing improvements to insure that all drainage and other
public facilities are adequately planned and constructed.
The subj ect of building, colors and materials was discussed. It was
determined that the materials used and the colors applied to the buildings
were in conformance with those approved by the Architectural Committee.
However, the approval of colors was limited to those structures located
on Archdale. The colors for the balance of the proj ect were to be
negotiated between the Architectural Committee and the developer's architect
or agent. It was finally agreed that the developer would return to the
- 3182 -
Greenview Commons Contd.
July 24" 1973
"Architectural CommitteeewiJl:J.h a proposed color scheme for the entire project,
including the existing units on Archdale Court. It was further determined
that the developer would abide by the decision of the Architectural Committee
on colors and possible modifications to alleviate the aesthetic problem
which has developed on the existing units and on future units which are
under construction south of Westborough Boulevard.
In general, the developer seemed to have entered into these discussion in
a spirit of cooperation, and it is hoped that some of the concerns of the
Commission and Architectural Committee can be alleviated."
The following persons spoke for the proponents:
John Gibson
Arthur Chartock
Robert Chang
Ken Cummings
George Avanessian, Architectural Committee member.
After considerable discussion by the Planning Commission, this item was
referred back to the Architectural Committee for color scheme approval.
GOOD AND WELFARE
There being nothing further to be considered under Good and Welfare" and
there being no further communications or other matters of interest for the
Planning Commission, Chairman Mullin announced that the next regular meeting
of the South San Francisco Planning Commission would be held on Tuesday,
August 14, 1973 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, South
San Francisco, California.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:46 p.m.
Eugene Mullin, Chairman
Planning Commission
City of South San Francisco
sna
NOTE:
Oral presentations, arguments and comments are recorded on tape. The tape
is on file in the Office of the City Planner.
- 3183 -