Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/13/1979 ~1INUTES of the regular meeting of the South San Francis Planning Commission TIME: 7:30 p.m. DATE: February 13, 1979 PLACE: [1 Camino Senior High School, Little MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Campredon, Vice-Chai Bertucelli, Mathewson, Grimes Mantegani, Commissioners ~1u 11 i n MEt'1BERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Commissioner Slade City Planner William Costanzo Senior Planner Daniel C. Christians Assistant Planner ~i1ark A. ItJheel er ~1 ay 0 r vIi 11 i am Borba Councilwoman Roberta Teglia Ci ty t~anager City Engineer C. Walter Birkelo Robert S. Yee Chief Building Inspector Roy Ghilardi Police Chief James Datzman Fire Chief H. Derk Zylker Deputy Fire Marshal Fred Lagomarsino Community Relations Officer John Moran r1inutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 23, 1979 Commissioner Grimes moved that the minutes of the regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission of January 23,1979, be approved. The moti on It/as seconded by Commi ss i oner Bertuce'l i and was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Chai rman Campredon, Vi ce-chai rman ~1antegani, Commi ssi oners Bertucelli, t~athewson, Grimes and t'1ullin NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Slade ABSTAINED: None -4070- February 13, 1979 ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING TAPE RECORDING OF MEETING Announcement was made that this meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission would be recorded on tape, and that anyone who wished to come be- fore the Commission to be heard is requested to come to the front microphone so that his or her comments become part of the official record. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS RZ-78-50 and Neqative Declaration No. 177 (Continued from 1-9-79) An application by the City of South San Francisco to rezone the property located on the north~vest corner of the i ntersecti on of Grand an.d Chestnut A v en u e s fro m R - 1 Sin g 1 e - f am i 1 y; R - 3 ~~ u 1 t i - f am i 1 y Res i de n t i a 1 and II U II Un- classified and R-2 Duplex Zone Districts to RPDResidential Planned De- velopment Zone District. RZ-78-51 and Negative Declaration No. 176 (Continued from 1-9-79) An application by Robert t~antegani to rezone the property located on Chest- nut Avenue approximately 350' north of Grand Avenue, from R-l Single-family Residential and R-2 Duplex to RPD Residential Planned Development Zone District. RZ-78-53 and Negative Declaration No. 193 (Continued from 1-9-79) An application by Rino, Bianca and Maria Gemignani to rezone the property located on the west side of Chestnut Avenue and Sunset Drive from R-l Single-family Residential to RPD Residential Planned Development Zone District. RZ-78-54 and Neqative Declaration No. 193 (Continued from 1-9-79) An application by Elsie Lagomarsino et al to rezone the property located on the west side of Chestnut Avenue approximately 1800' north of Grand Avenue from R-l Single-family Residential to RPD Residential Planned Development Zone District. -4071- February 13, 1979 RZ-78-55 and Negative Declaration No. 193 (Continued from 1-9-79) An application by Jeanette Rose Ghiozzi to rezone the property located on the west side of Chestnut Avenue approximately 7501 south of Hillside Boule- vard from R-l Single-family Residential to RPD Residential Planned Develop- ment Zone District. Let the record< show that Vice-Chairman ~1antegani will not be acting on any of the rezoning items being heard tonight because of his ownership of one of the properties being considered tonight. Staff presented the staff report and a slide presentation of condominium and townhouse developments to demonstrate typical densities and land use patterns. Mr. Ray Latham 495 Holly Avenue South San Francisco, CA Mrs Latham, a long time resident, spoke of his concern to permit the property in qUestion to be rezoned RPD-25 for the following reasons: 1. Inconsistent with the City's General Plan. 2. Not highest and best use because this recommendation is based strictly on the economic advantage. 3. Conflict of interest because of the City's involvement as well as a Planning Commissioner ownership creating a biased recom- menaation. 4. Influence on future development of San Bruno Mountain. 5. Increase of police problems because of higher densities. 6. Aesthetic value. 7. Increased traffic on already overcrowded public streets. Mr. Latham concluded his statements with a plea to the Planning Commission to deal with the land use issue fairly and in the best interest of the communities in the immediate area. Mr. Lawrence F. Casey 363 Forestview South San Francisco, CA ~\1r. Casey presented a slide presentation to support the Citizen1s Action League's position to retain R-l zoning on the existing proper~y and to recommend R-l zoning on the property under consideration tonight. He further requested an immediate stop to high density development in and around the -4072- February 13, 1979 Sunshine Gardens area. Comments followed with the concern that Sunshine Gardens is being walled in by continuous high density development creating parking and policing problems as a result of this high density IIwall". Ms. Gloria Beckstrom 389 Willow Avenue South San Francisco, CA Ms. Beckstrom spoke as an apartment manager for the past 15 years. Mrs. Beckstrom's concerns centered around children in the Brosnan and surround- ing condominium developments. Mr. Charles W. Getz, President Stonegate No.2 Association 845 Ridge Court South San Francisco, CA Mr. Getz indicated his board's position to support single family development based on the problems with common greens and common recreational areas of condominium projects such as his at Stonegate Ridge. His comments further centered around his board's concerns about increased traffic congestion if RPD-25 development were to take place. Ms. Doris R. Agee 819 Ridge Court South San Francisco, CA r~s. Agee supported condomi ni um styl e 1 i vi ng but opposed addi ti ona 1 condo- miniums because of the related congestion problems that this area cannot physically absorb. Her comments further addressed the economic concerns and the effect on the established lifestyle as a basis for the recommendation for RPD-25 as the highest and best use as stated in the staff's report. t1s. Agee concluded by requesting the Planning Commission deny the request tonight based on her spoken concerns. Ms. Marie Cox 466 Holly South San Francisco, CA t,1s. Cox exp 1 ai ned her res pons i bi 1 i ty as part of the C. A. L. effort was to call various cities in the area to determine ItJhether any City would approve a project of the RPD-25 nature. The results of her survey were unanimous that a project of the RPD-25 nature would not be approvable under any' cir- cumstances. Her final comments included a recommendation to the Planning Commission to: 1. Deny all requests 2. Change zoning of City property to R-l. 3. Resolution to amend General Plan to R-l for entire 60 acres. -4073- February 13, 1979 John Falsarella 1385 Lasuen Drive Millbrae, CA Mr. Falsarella requested the Planning Commission clarify the issue of why the previous rezonings were not forwarded to the City Council within the time limits. Staff indicated that these items had been forwarded to the City Council within the time limit. Mr. Falsarella further expressed his concern for the City Planner's lack of concern for sound development and the oossibility of adverse effects on the surroundinq Sunshine Gardens properties. His comments further expressed his desire to have the prooerty values in Sunshine Gardens protected. Concerns were also expressed over decisions being made based on the econo- mic advantages of a developer and not on the best interest of the surround- inq residences. t1r. Falsarella indicated that the United Taxpayers of South San Francisco concur with the Citizen's Action Leaque's position on this issue. Mr. Fal- sarella stated that the San Mateo County Taxpayers Association also supports the position to rezone to R-l for all these items. Mr. Falsarella questioned Chairman Campredon of his possible conflict of interest because of business association as a plumber. Chairman Campredon responded that he is not an owner of the company and did not have any conflict of interest. Mr. Falsarella concluded by statinq his support to rezone all property to R-l Single-family. Ms. Alison Fast 1052 Crestwood Drive South San Francisco, CA ~1s. Fast spoke regarding her concerns to retain the current land uses by down-zoning the entire area to R-l. Mr. Dennis Travis 304 Holly Avenue South San Francisco, CA Mr. Travis spoke in opposition to continued mul ple family development in his area. His comments stated his desire to oppose any zoning to high density. Mr. R. Paiva 1213 Birch Avenue South San Francisco, CA February 13, 1979 Mr. Paiva spoke briefly regarding the IIhelter s elter" development of the past typified by Lindenville. Mr. Morris Slater 395 Holly Avenue South San Francisco, CA Mr. Slater concurred with previous speakers and questioned the longest time a Commissioner had been on the Planning Commiss on. He also questioned the City Planner's length of time of appointment. Mr. Slater asked about future improvements alon Chestnut Avenue as well as the figures stated in the staff's report. ~,1r. Jim Thompson 1048 Crestwood Drive South San Francisco, CA Mr. Thompson concurred with all the previous speakers but added his concern to speak his piece. His comments relayed his concerns to stop development of high density in South San Francisco once and for all. ~1r. J ack 'Yl~1urray 1043 Crestwood Drive South San Francisco, CA Mr. t~urray a 1 so concurred wi th all the previ ous~ speakers. t1r. Bob Cox 466 Ho lly Avenue South San Francisco, CA Mr. Cox questioned the Commission regarding their voting intent. Commissioner ~1athewson responded that all public hearings were held in proper order and that the final results of this hearing will hopefully indicate each Commissioner's position. ~~r. Gene Ros s i ni 399 Holly Avenue South San Francisco, CA ~1r. Rossi ni concurred wi th previ ous speakers and requested the Ci ty' s property be rezoned to R-l. There being no more speakers for or against the items being considered, the Chairman moved to close the Public Hearing at this time. Commissioner Mathewson questioned the Negative Declaration contained herein as the only E.I~R. requirement for these rezonings His comments further ex- pressed the possibility of a complete E.I.R. on the requests tonight~0 Secretary Costanzo responded that if the Draft Negative Declaration being sub- mitted tonight were reviewed and found in accordance with C.E.QeA@ that this would satisfy the E.I.R. procedure. Commissioner Mullin questioned the violation of State law of compliance with the City's General Plan. -4075- February 13, 1979 Secretary Costanzo responded that no violation existed and that an amendment would be necessary once the development request exceeded an average of 15 units per acre. Commissioner Mullin further questioned any conflict of interest from a legal aspect on the City's part. Secretary Costanzo indicated the City's interest is the basis for the City's rezoning request. Commissioner Mullin requested clarification of the percentage of owner occupied units required by State law. Secretary Costanzo indicated that State la\~ was currently being researched and that restrictions 06 the CC&R's could regulate type of ownership patterns. Commissioner Mullin further requested an explanation of the concerns of other cities to prohibit RPD-25 development. Staff indicated that this type of development occurs allover the Bay Area with the exception of certain restricted areas such as Hillsborough, Portola Valley and Woodside. Ms. Cox reiterated that all cities contacted will not permit RPD-25 develop- ment any longer. Comments to the effect that the City of South San Francisco permits develop- ment on earthquake faults were indicated to be totally incorrect and that in fact a11 such development is regulated by State and Federal regulations as we 11 as "j oca 1 Uni form Bui 1 di ng Codes. Comments followed regarding further concerns over the possibility of attract- ing undesirable elements into this City by developing high density slums. Staff comments followed to further clarify the RPD standards of the Zoning Ordinance as compared to the R-l standards. Further comments indicated that the recommendation of staff at this time is to reaffirm the RPD-25 policy and rezoning; however the Commission could set any designation they desired. Staff clarified all options available to the Commission at this time. Commissioner Mathewson introduced Resolution No. 2245 entitled: "RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COM~nSSION RECO~~~1ENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE AND NORTHERLY OF GRAND AVENUE FROM THE R-l SINGLE FAMILY, R-2 DUPLEX FAMILY, R-3 MULTI-FAMILY AND "U" UNCLASSIFIED TO RPD-25 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DE- VELOPMENT 25 INCLUDING RELATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOS. 176, 177, AND 193. (RZ-78-50, RZ-78-51, RZ-78-53, RZ-78-54, & RZ-78-55)" Commissioner Mathewson motioned the Resolution be amended to permit a density not to exceed 18 units per acre. On the q ues ti on, Commi s s i oner r1ull in ques ti oned the RPD Dens i ty on all property. Staff responded that the Resolution d include all 5 zone changes. -4076- February 13, 1979 On the question, Chairman Campredon questioned the City property and the effect of the RPD-18 designation. Comments followed pertaining to possible violation of the densities set forth in the General Plan. Indications were clearly stated that no viola- tions exist and as such an average has been taken to arrive at the speci- fic density. The motion on the table was withdrawn by the maker of the motion. Questions followed pertaining to the effects ofR-l Zoning. Secretary Costanzo responded that the General Plan could be amended to reflect closer adherance to this zoning. Responses from staff indicated that low density in the entire area would result in single family homes along Chestnut as\^Jell as single family backing up to high density; Willow Gardens and Brosnan properties refer- enced. Five minute recess f~11nwed. Commissioner Grimes made a motion to deny the recommendation of the City Planner and approve this request at R-l Zoning and a Resolution be drafted so stating this recommendation be forwarded to the City Council. Commissioner Bertucelli seconded the motion. Commissioner Mullin suggested the motion be amended to RPD-10 zoning rather than straight R-l zoning. The Commission concurred with this amendment and Commissioner Grimes agreed to amend his previous motion to reflect this amendment. Robert Murphy, property owner on Chestnut Avenue, requested his parcel be withdrawn from this RPD-10 designation. Clarification was made that Mr. Murphy is the owner of a duplex recently sold to him by the City on Chest- nut Avenue. ~.1r. Dave Ucce 11 i 534 Eucalyptus South San Francisco, CA Mr. Uccelli indicated his protest to the continuous line of speakers per- mitted to enter comments into the record after the public hearing was closed. Further discussion followed pertaining to the down-zoning of certain R-2 properties if the Commission agreed to the RPD-10 Resolution as recommended. Commissioner Mullin questioned the "backing out" of certain properties from being rezoned to a lesser density. -4077- Februa ry 13, 1979 Staff indicated in fact that down-zoning is legal and has been done in the past in other cities. Staff indicated the Negative Declarations must be certified; also the re- zonings must be formally denied as part of the motion. A vote was called for and the motion to amend and adopt Resolution No. 2245 to RPD-10 zoning and forward to the City Council was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Chairman Campredon, Commissioners Bertucelli, Mathewson and G ri me s NOES: Commissioner Mullin ABSENT: Commissioner Slade ABSTAINED: Vi ce-Chai rman t'1antegani The Commission further acted as follows: Commissioner Grimes moved that Negative Declaration No. 177 (RZ-78-50), Negative Declaration No. 176 (RZ-78-51) and Negative Declaration No. 193 (RZ-78-53, 54, and 55) were complete and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Commissioner Bertucelli seconded the motion and it was approved by a unanimous roll call vote. Commissioner Bertucelli moved that RZ-78-50, 51, 53, 54, and 55 be denied and Resolutions No. 2237 and 2238 dated September 12, 1978, be rescinded and Resolution No. 2246 be adopted and forwarded to the City Council. Resolution No. 2237: IIRESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE RE- ZO~ING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE AND NORTHERLY OF GRAND AVENUE FROM THE R-l SINGLE FAMILY, R-2 DUPLEX FAMILY, R-3 ~1ULTI-FA~~ILY AND "U" UNCLASSIFIED TO RPD-40 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 40 INCLUDING RELATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS NOS. 176 & 177. (RZ-78-50 & RZ-78-51)" Resolution No. 2238: "RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLAN- NING COMMISSION WHICH SHALL SET FORTH AND ESTABLISH THE DENSITY AND LAND USE POSITION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THAT AREA BOUNDED BY GRAND AVENUE, HILLSIDE BOULEVARD, CHESTNUT AVENUE AND THE SUNSHINE GARDENS SUB- DIVISION" RESOLUTION NO. 2246: "RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLAN- NING COMMISSION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 2237 AND 2238, AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY REZONING CASES RZ-78-50, RZ-78-51, RZ-78-53, RZ-78-54 AND RZ-78-5511 -4078- Commissioner Grimes seconded the motion and it roll ca 11 vote: February 13, 1979 passed by the following AYES: Chairman Campredon, Commissioner Be Grimes li, Mathewson and NOES: Commissioner Mullin ABSENT: Commissioner Slade ABSTAINED: Vice-Chairman Mantegani REPORTS Staff presented a report regarding Oyster Point Associates (PM-77-145) with staff's recommendations that Special Conditions No.5 and 6 of the previous- ly approved Final Parcel Map (approved July 12, 1977) be deleted from the Special Conditions. Commissioner Mathewson moved that the applicant would be released from the mandatory requirements of Special Conditions No 5 and 6 of PM-77-l45. Commissioner Mullin seconded the motion and it approved by a unanimous roll call vote. COMMUNICATIONS Staff indicated that the proposed revocation he ring previously scheduled for January 9, 1979, for "Darby Dan's" was reso ved; a revocation hearing is no longer necessary. A joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, March 14, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room. GOOD AND ~~ELF ARE Lawrence Casey commended the Planning Commission on the support of the people involved in the items heard tonight. There being nothing further to discuss under Good and Welfare of matters of interest for the Commission, Chairman Campredon announced that the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission would be held on February 27, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. in the West Orange Avenue Library Auditorium. -4079- February 13, 1979 The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight. (J~~ William Costanzo, Secretary Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Marcel Campredon, Chairman Planning Commission City of South San Francisco NOTE: The entries of this Planning Commission meeting indicated the action taken to dispose of each item. Oral presentations, and documents are recorded on tape. The tapes are ava.ilable in office of the City Planner and are available for public discussion. -4080-