Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/14/1973 M I NUT E S August 14, 1973 of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Panning Commission TIME : 8:00 p.m. DATE: August ]~, 1973 PLACE: Council Chambers, City Hall South San Francisco, California MEMBE RS PRES ENT : Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Raffaelli, and Chairman Mullin MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairman Mathewson and Commissioner Slade ALSO PRESENT: Acting City Planner and Secretary to the South San Francisco Planning Commission Neal J. Martin Acting Assistant Planner Surendra N. Amin MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 1973 Commissioner Hale mentioned that on page 3179, under "Opponents" the names of Mrs. Antoinette Fraschieri and Mr. Robert Volosing should be added. Commissioner Hale moved that the minutes of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission of July 24,1973 be approved with the correction noted in the preceding paragraph. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Raffaelli and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hale, Raffaelli and Chairman Raffaelli NOES: None ABSTAINING: Commissioner Lazzari ABSENT: Vice Chairman Mathewson and Commissioner 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. - 3184 - UP-247 August 14, 1973 UP-247, a use-permit request of Union Bank to allow a total of six signs, each sign being 8' x 4' in size, and 6' high above ground, located at (1) Call an Blvd. at Greendale Dr., (2) King Drive at Geddes Ct., (3) King Dr. at Radburn Dr., (4) Radburn Dr. at Roundtree Way, (5) Radburn Dr. at Westchester Ct. and (6) Greendale Drive at Geddes Ct., in the PC District. All signs are existing. Secretary Martin read the following report and letters into the record. Report and recommendation of City Planner Neal J. Martin "The Planning Office respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the "findings" and action indicated in the attached Official Action Report. FINDINGS: 1. The establishment, maintenance, operation or the use of the building or lands for which the permit is sought will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the area of such proposed use, and will be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city. 2. The approval of requested use permit does not meet the requirements of Section 6.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. ,3. The subject signs are installed in violation of Zoning Ordinance No. 455, Section 6. 4. It is the opinion of the Planning Office that permitting this use permit would encourage other people to install similar signs, such as plumbing, electrical, etc. The neighborhood would be full of signs. 5. The above factors require the Planning Office to respectfully recommend thattJhh:~(!0Jp'lanning Commission deny the use permit application." Memo, dated Augus~_ 7, 1973 from Captain Datzman of the Police Department. "1. No recommendation at this time as no apparent traffic problems or other potential police problems are evident." Names and addresses of Proponents and Opponents Proponents: 1,. John :Murphy, Contractor for Union Bank Los Ange 1 es 2. Gordon Millward 1607 55th Ave., Oakland, CA. Both men represented the applicant Opponents: 1. Elmer Hitchcock, 2449 Greendale Drive, South San Francisco 2. Don Gamma, 3790 Cork Place, South San Francisco - 3185 - UP-247 Contd August 14, 1973 Elmer Hitchcock stated that since Westborough Neighborhood is a Planned Community all are subjected to strict regulations, and Union Bank should not be allowed to put up these signs. Don Gamma stated that the current signs should be taken down and placed in a proper manner, not in every corner. Commissioner Lazzari moved that the Planning Commission adopt the findings as set forth in the preliminary Official Action Report, and recommendations as submitted by the City's reporting department heads and deny the requested UP-247; seconded by Commissioner Raffaelli. The motion was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Raffaelli and Chairman Mullin NOES: None ABSENT: Vice Chairman Mathewson and Commissioner Slade Chairman Mullin declared the motion for denial of the request passed and informed the applicant of his right to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission, if he wished to do so, within 10 days hereafter. His appeal shouldth:&ribe filed with the City Clerk in order to have a second hearing set before the City Council. UP-248 UP-248, a use-permit request of T. K. Sharma for "on-sale" liquor in a restaurant, at 107 Grand Avenue, in the C-3 District. Secretary Martin read the following report and letters into the record. Report and recommendation of City Planner Neal J. Martin "FINDINGS: 1. 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 persons residing or working in the area of such proposed use, and will not beddetrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city. 2. The approval of requested use permit meets the requirements of Section 6.23 o'f the Zoning Ordinance. CONDITIONS: The granting of this use permit is subject to the following conditions: 1) Getting a business license from the City of South San Francisco, - 31 86 - UP-248 Contd August 14, 1973 2) Getting a liquor license from Alcohol Beverage Control of the State of California, 3) The applicant shall comply with the submitted requirements of the City's officials, and the subsequent requirements of the Planning Commission' s Architectural Commit tee. It Interoffice memorandum, dated August 2, 1973, from Fire Marshal William Fox "We have no objection to this Use Permit, provided our requirements for the Business License are met. Approved second means of exit shall be provided or size of drinking and dining area shall be reduced so that the occupant load is less than fifty (SO) people." Interoffice memorandum, dated August 7, 1~73, from Police Captain Datzman "We have no obj ection at this time to issuance of UP-248 providing that the applicant indicates that no entertainment of any type will be provided upon the premises (this was indicated by the applicant at his business license hearing on 26Ju173) and that the use of said premises will be restricted to restaurant purposes only. The Police Department recommends that UP-248 only be granted if a liquor license is obtained from the Alcohol Beverage Control for the State of California. Objections to the granting of such license may be voiced by the Police Department at the time of that hearing." Names and addresses of Proponents and Opponents Proponents: Tej Krishan Sharma 106 So. Magnolia Avenue So. San Francisco, CA. The applicant 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 UP-248 upon the condition that the applicant comply with the sub- mitted requirements of the City's reporting department heads. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lazzari and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Raffaelli, and Chairman Mullin NOES: None ABSENT: Vice-Chairman Mathewson and Commissioner Slade - 3187 - PM-IIO August 14, 1973 PM-llO~ tentative parcel map of Saracco Tank & Manufacturing Corp.~ representing the subdivision of a 2.88-acre parcel of land located on the easterly side of So. Maple Avenue, about 200' northerly of Victory Avenue (No. 141 So. Maple Avenue), in the M-l-H District, into two lots. Secretary Martin read the following report and letters into the record. Report and recommendation of Acting City Planner NealJ~ Martin "The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and the regulatory standards of the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco. The said proposed sub- division would create two building sites. The Planning Office respectfully recommends that the Planning Commission approve the instant tentative parcel map upon the condition that the subdivider comply with the submitted requirements of the City's depart- ment and division heads, and the standards and specifications administered by the Director of the Department of Ecological Development. The subdivider shall also comply with the Architectural Committee's requirement for landscaping and parking. The existing fence in front shall be removed and the gravel driveway in the parking area shall be paved." Names and addresses of Proponents and Opponents: Proponents: Louis A. Arata, 1 LaCruz, Millbrae, CA. The agent for the applicant Opponents: None Commissioner Lazzari moved that the Planning Commission approve the instant tentative parcel map upon the condition that the subdivider comply with the requirements as set forth by the City's reporting department heads. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Raffaelli and was passed by the follow- ing roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Raffaelli, and Chairman Mullin NOES: None ABSENT: Vice-Chairman Mathewson and Commissioner Slade. - 3188 - Draft Environmental Impact Report for Gellert Boulevard Extension Project August 14, 1973 Second Hearing (Continued Public Hearing from the meeting of July 24, 1973) Secretary Martin read the following report and letters into the record. Letter dated August 14, 1973 from Donald A. Woolfe, Planning Director, County of San Mateo, Redwood City, with copy to Assistant District Attorney. "The San Mateo County Planning Department has completed its review of the Gellert Boulevard Extension Project EIR. We find that the report is sub- stantially inadequate in terms of addressing itself to the seven concerns mandated in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), in that the following topics have been omitted: The relationship between local short-term uses of man,Is environment and the maintenance and enhance- ment of long-term productivity, any irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented, and the growth-inducing impact of the proposed action. In addition, certain facts regarding the current state of the site have been omitted or are incorrectly stated, there are several highly questionable and un- substantiated statements on impacts, and the "al ternati ves" section is wholly inadequate. Were San Mateo County only responsible for reviewing and commenting upon this EIR, we would take this opportunity to go into more detail on the aforementioned inadequacies. However, due to the involvement of unincor- porated territory in both the assessment district and the actual construc- tion area, the County is placed, under law, in the position of being an approval agency. The County's responsibilities at law are derived from the following: 1) Under Section 5118 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Board of Supervisors (and, incidentally, the Daly City City Council) must approve a Resolution of Intention for Extra-territorial Permission, to be prepared and presented by South San Francisco, in which the County cons~nts to and approves the ass essment district inclusion and the proj ect. 21 Under the State CEQA Guidelines, this approval requirement places the project in the realm of a multi-agency project, wi th South San Francisco being the Lead Agency (i. e., more than one agency must approve same, but the project is basically South San Francisco's - Section 15064 & 15065 (a) ). 3) Under those same Guidelines, South San Francisco's obligations, as Lead Agency, include consultation with all other approving agencies "at an early state of the development of the EIR" (Section 15066). There is no record by either the County Planning Department or County Engineering of any contact having been made. 4) Under that same section, San Mateo County must formally consider and approve the EIR prior to approval or disapproval of the project, which brings a whole special set of reviewing circum- stances into play pursuant to San Mateo County ErR Guidelines. - 3189 - Draft EIR - Gellert Blvd. Ext. Corttd August 14.'1 1973 "5) In order for San Mateo County to approve the EIR (and the Resolution of Intention), the EIR must conform with State laws and County guidelines regarding content (format and adequacy). It should be noted that the ErR is deficient in both regards. It should be noted that the transmittal letter received by the County with ErR indicated that the transmission was being made for the purposes of review and comment only, with no request made for County adoption approval of the report. It is indeed unfortunate that San Mateo County's legal responsi- bilities were not ascertained at an earlier date so that coordination could have been exercised between your consultants and the County Planning Department's Environmental Division in the preparation of a mutually acceptable EIR. As it is, it appears that significant modification to the EIR will have to be undertaken in order for the County to be able to adopt the report and approve the project and the Resolution of Intent. With respect to the public hearing being held by your august body on August 14, 1973, we find that we regretfully must advise that no action to approve this project should be undertaken until such time as San Mateo County has completed its review of the Revised Draft EIR and as Final EIR is subsequently produced and approved by the Board of Supervisors. This advice is based upon the dictum of California Court of Appeals in the Coastside County Water case (Environmental Defense Fund v. Coastside County Water District (1972), 27 CA 3d 695). In closing, we would like to assure the City of South San Francisco that we look forward to the opportunity to coordinate with the City in resolving the problems which have arisen. We will look forward to conferring with your staff at their convenience." Chairman Mullin stated that, as requested by the San Mateo County Planning Commission, the South San Francisco Planning Commission would not take action to approve the project tonight, but wou~d~wait until San Mateo County had completed its review of the Revised Draft EIR and other documents. Chairman Mullin ~~eB.Mr. Tom Williams of URS Research Co. if he had any comments. Mr. Williams stated that his company had contacted San Mateo County during the preparation of the report, but the persons responsible was on vacation and will be back in two weeks. Mr. Williams further indicated he would agree to the decision of the Commission to withhold action at this time. Opponents: Mrs. Antoinette Fraschieri, 478 Avalon Drive Mrs. Fraschieri asked if the land can be developed without approval. Secretary Martin replied that the land is zoned C-l and if the developer complied with the City's requirements he could develop the area. She stated that she would withhold further comment until final reports are received from San Mateo County. -3190 - Draft EIR - Gellert Blvd. Ext. Contd August 14, 1973 Commissioner Hale moved that the Planning Commission withhold its decision on Gellert. Boulevard Extension EI R until such time as San Mateo County has approved the Final EIR. Commissioner Lazzari seconded the motion which was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Hale, Lazzari, Raffaelli and Chairman Mullin NOES: None ABSENT: Vice-Chairman Mathewson and Commissioner Slade REPORTS - SOUTH SPRUCE REZONING August 14, 1973 "Addition of Resolution of Intention to rezone 4.401 acres of land, located at the westerly side of So. Spruce Ave. between the C-3 District and the R-l District of MayfamtT Village, from "R-3", Restrmcted Multiple-Family Residential District, to "C-3", Heavy Commercial District. Secretary Martin read the following Resolution of Intention into the record. RESOLUTION NO. 2130 "RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION TO REZONE 4.401 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE WESTERLY SIDE OF SOUTH SPRUCE AVENUE BETWEEN THE C-3 DISTRICT AND THE R-l DISTRICT OF MAYFAIR VILLAGE, FROM "R-3", RESTRICTED MULTIPLE-F~ILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO "C-3" HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. YlWHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission, meeting in regular session on Tuesday, August 14, 1973, considered the zoning classification of 4.401 acres of land located at the westerly side of So. Spruce Avenue betw.een the C-3 District and the R-l District of Mayfiar Village, in the City of South San Francisco; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made the following findings: 1. Presently, two different zoning districts divide the strip of land which parallels Spruce Avenue to the north between that street and Mayfair Village. 2. The C-3 District is located along So. Spruce Avenue and the R-3 District is located between the C-3 District and the R-l District of Mayfair Village. 3. The Genenal Plan designates this area for light industrial uses. 4. The area fronting on So. Spruce Avenue would undoubtedly 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. - 3191 - SOUTH SRRUCE REZONING Contd. August 14, 1973 "NOW, THEREFORE, BE' IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission proposes and intends to rezone 4.401 acres of land located at the westerly side of So. Spruce Avenue between the C-3 District and the R-l District of Mayfair Village, from "R-3" Restricted Multiple-Family Residential District to "C-3" Heavy Commercial District. NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary to the Planning Commission be instructed to place the public hearing on the proposed rezoning on the agenda of the Commission's regular meeting of Tuesday, August 28, 1973, and publish and post the required public notice thereof." Commissioner Raffaelli moved that the foregoing Resolution of Intention be adopted by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hale seconded the motion which was passed by the following roll call vote. AYES: Commissioners Hale, Lazzari, Raffaelli and Chairman Mullins NOES: None ABSENT: Vice-Chairman Mathewson, and Commissioner Slade Secretary Martin stated that if the Commission desired, a study session could be arranged regarding RZ-24, the rezoning application of Michael C. Callan, representing 10.36 acres of land located at the southwesterly corner of Westborough Boulevard and Oakmont Drive, on September 5, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference Room. The Planning Commission concurred with this proposed study session date. Commissioner Hale expressed his appreciation of Mr.. Neal Martin's efforts, and stated that he should be commended for his outstanding and dedicated performance as the Acting City Planner for the City of South San Francisco. Chairman Mullin and the members of the Planning Commission concurred and stated that this action should be made a matter of record in the minutes of this meeting so that it might be conveyed to the City Council. 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 thattfu.he next regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission would be held on September 11, 1973 at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, South San Francisco, Oalifornia. The/~eeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. / tu , Secretary ion Franci sco / Eugene l' llin, Cliairman Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NOTE: Oral presentations, arguments and comments are recorded on tape. The tape is on file in the Office of the City Planner. sna - 3192 -