Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/22/1980 MINUTES of the Continued Public.Hearing: of the South San Francisco. Planning Commission TIME: 7: 35 p.m. DATE: January 22, 1980 PLACE : EL CAMIl\O HIGH SrnOOL LITTLE THEATRE, 1320 Mission RDad, SSF }~1BERS PRESENT: Vice Chairman Grimes, Commissioners Bertucelli, Getz, Hoyer, Martin, Campredon, and Chairman Mantegani A.l\-r:NOUNCEMENT: Announcement made by the Chairman that this meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission would be recorded on tape, and that anyone who wished to come before the Commission to be heard was requested to come to the front microphone so that his/her comments become part of the official record. AGENDA CHA.l\JGE: A request was made by the Director that Item 1 be heard as the second or third item as the proponent was out of town and expected to arrive later in the evening. / By unanimous voice consent, . the Commission agreed to take this matter as Item 3 on the agenda. ANNOUNCEMENT: Chairman Mantegani then made an announcement that there had been a question raised about his possible conflict of interest in the next two items since he is the Godson of Jeanette Acosta, wife of one of the interested parties to these items. The City Attorney has ruled that there is no conflict of interest. However, in the interest of expediting these matters without further conflict, Chairman Mantegani stepped down from the Chair and turned the gavel to Vice Chairman Grimes for the hearing of Items 2 and 3. mNTINOED PUBLIC HF~ING ITEHS: Acting Chairman Grimes then made a statement that a number of cards had been re- cei ved from citizens desiring to speak to the Items. He announced that he would hope for some continuity without a lot of repetition; that the speakers and audience would present themsel ves in an orderly fashion and that verbal expressions of feel-- ings would be controlled. Speakers were to speak once on an Item. The proponents would be heard first; the Item opened for discussion; followed by rebuttal time if necessary. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DNIFIED SCHOOL DISrrRICT/UP-79-524/CATEC-DRICAL EXEMPTION/ (mNT. FRONI ~,mING OF 1/14/80) Application of the South San Francisco Unified School District to authorize con- tinuation of various established non-commercial uses and a proposed establishment of an additional non-commercial use in Avalon School, 375 Dorado Way, in the R-l Zone District January 22, 1980 Staff Report presented. During its presentation, Staff noted that a letter to the Commission had been re- ceived from Joseph Smith, Associate Superintendent of Schools, presenting a joint application from the South San Francisco Unified School District and the tenants of the Avalon campus. Staff provided some of the history which lead to this Public Hearing. Reference was made to the Public Hearing scheduled for December 11, 1979 which was tabled to January 14, 1980 and to January 22, 1980 due to the fact that the large number of people wishing to be heard were far too many for the mandatory Fire Code of this City. At the meetings of December 11 and January 14 Staff Reports were presented. Staff refreshed the Commission's memory on the contents of these Staff Reports. A current list of the tenants at Avalon School and their usage of the property was presented. A letter dated December 19, 1979 describing the composition and intended uses of the Leo Ryan Teen Health Clinic \ivas read. Staff noted that they had requested detailed information from Guadalupe regarding their proposed usage of the property. A police report from Daly City on the impact of Guadalupe in that City was presented. The Staff's recommendations were directed to the people in the area and to the concerns of the Commission. They are sumnar- ized as follows. Traffic: The average volume on Dorado, north of Country Club, is 1,258 vehicles on week days; south of Dorado, there are 398 vehicles; on Alta Vista 2,500 vehicles. Staff feels that the street is of adequate size and the flow sufficiently low; that the projected traffic count will not exceed the carrying capacity and that the traffic generated will be no problem. Parking: Side parking - 25 spaces on Avalon; 70 spaces to the rear; overflow capability in excess of 50 next to ball field. It is Staff's opinion that there is sufficient on-site parking to accommodate the projected needs. Crime concern: According to an investigation by Lieutenant La Bruzo, Daly City, there are no unusual crime problems in proximity to the Daly City Center. Drugs and mental health clinic: Staff understands that this is not proposed to be a rehabilitation area, but primarily a health education use - serious cases will be handled elsewhere or referred elsewhere. Burglary: Center will be day time activity with only one night for counseling; adults on premises at all times; school property within fenced area; no evidence that would indicate any loitering. Land use: Present uses in operation from one to one and a half years, and the Staff is unaware of any complaints from current uses. It is the City Attorn~y'~s opinion that all of the proposed uses fall within the school or quasi public uses section of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 3.l2A of the R-l Zone. January 22, 1980 The Restrictive Covenants on this property cannot be resolved by Commission since Covenants cannot supercede or undermine City zoning. Loss of recreation area: It is Staff's opinion that there will be no loss of space or area; play apparatus will be relocated; ball field will be open for children; and no reduction of facilities for parking. Noise: Nominal traffic expected; would not contribute to polution in area. Irresponsible drivers: Cannot speak to this concern; matter of opinion. Staff recommends that uses proposed be approved subject to conditions stated in Staff Report and subject to findings made in Staff Report of December 11, 1979. It is suggested that, due to the community concern regarding the Leo Ryan Health Clinic, that that approval be for a seventeen month period only, until July 1, 1981. Three months prior to the date of renewal the tenant must reapply. The Commission could then judge any negative impacts to the coImlUni ty . Proponent: Bruce Webb, Executive Director, Guadalupe Health Clinic/75 Wellington Avenue, Daly City Mr. Webb noted that the Leo Ryan Clinic was the recipient of a grant from the City of South San Francisco through the City Council; that they were preparing the pro- perty on a valid lease; that a large amount of money had already been expended. He stressed the community service aspect of the project; that the patient load would be largely in the 10 to 19 year age bracket and for the purpose of preventive and maintenance health care; that the expectation is that clinic referrals would be from the schools and other responsible cOImlUnity organizations; that the wish of the Staff of Guadalupe was to be cooperative. Proponent: Barrie Stewart, Finance Director, Guadalupe Health Clinic/75 Wellingtom Avenue, Daly City Th~. Stewart noted that three classrooms at the site had been renovated for clinic use, approximately 3,000 square feet of space; that approximately $100,000 had been spent in fixtures and approximately $20,000 in equipment. The purpose of clinic is as a health clinic, not as a sickness clinic. Funding has been received from the United States Public Health Service (H.E.W.) and $10,000 granted from the South San Francisco City Council. Nlr. Stewart noted that the clinic -oould not include drug rehabilitation; that its purpose is nutrition programs and health education. Proponent: Kathy M:urray, Adolescent Coordinator, Guadalupe Health Clinic/75 Wellington Avenue, Daly City Ms Murray stressed the preventive health approach projected for the clinic, medical, dental, social services programs, and health education. In response to the traffic concerns for the area, she noted that the expected caseload would be 34 patients per day only one-third of whom would be driving, which is less than t-oo cars per hour. To answer the concern for security, she stated that there \\Quld be no narco- tics on premises; that there would be two sectrrity systems activated, that the area -oould be fenced and that alarms "WOuld be installed. Ms Murray stated that the con- cern of the Center would be for community involvement; that many of the concerns could best be addressed through a citizen advisory committee; and that the Staff of the Center would be available to the public at all times. - 4229 - January 22, 1980 Proponent: Esther Calavero/Daly City Ms Calavero spoke as a founding member of Guadalupe Health Clinic, Daly City. She stated that the clinic was to meet the needs of people unable to pay the high cost of health care; that it would provide a non-threatening atlIDsphere for youth with problEms; that it was to serve youth, often to open communications for them with concerned adults. She made a request for the clinic and suggested that citizens volunteer for this community service so they could recognize its value to the com- muni ty . Proponent: Patricia Portillo/35 Werner/Daly City Ms Portillo spoke as an original Board member of Guadalupe Health Clinic. She stated that she could not understand why the community was against the clinic; that there was an adolescent clinic at Kaiser which the community accepts; that there was a need for those who are out of the mainstream of health care. She made a request for the community to put aside their bias and give the clinic a chance. Proponent: Conrad Pavellas/Daly City Mr. Pavellas spoke as a member of the Guadalupe Health Center Board. He expressed his concern over spiraling health costs and the need for such clinics to meet citizen needs. He agreed that there should be a concern over the possibility of a crime in- crease. He stated that he was one of the founders of the Daly City Anti-Crime League. As a result of enlisting neighborhood concern and support, the crime statistics for Daly City have decreased and that this is specifically true in the Guadalupe Health Center area. Proponent: Helen Williams/85l Ridge Court/South San Francisco Ms Williams spoke as a patient of the Guadalupe Health Center in Daly City. She felt that the services to be provided by the Leo Ryan Teen Clinic were needed in the com- munity and expressed the hope that the use would be allowed. Proponent: Barbara Washington/377 Mandarin/Daly City Ms Washington spoke as Chairman of the Board for the Guadalupe Health Center, Daly Ci ty. She stated that the aim of the proposed clinic was to meet the needs of the commlmity; that a comprehensive program was to be offered; that their Board was composed of professionals as well as clients; and that their desire was to cooperate \vith the citizens of the community. Proponent: Ms Robertson/San Mateo County Probation Ms Robertson stated that she hoped the use would be allowed; that the programs pro- vided by Guadalupe Health Center, Daly City, were aITDng the best available in the county; and that she felt there was an urgent need to approve the Leo Ryan Teen Clinic Proponent: Ernie Bezzola/156 Miriam Street/Daly City ~Ar. Bezzola noted that the Guadalupe Health Center has been serving the citizens of South San Francisco for several years; that the purpose of the proposed clinic is to help children to be educated toward good health; that fees would be on a sliding - 4230 - January 22, 1980 scale based on ability to pay; that crime was no problem at the Daly City facility and should present no problem in this area. He urged a vote in favor of the use. Opponent: Carl Lambert/255 Avalon Drive/South San Francisco Mr. Lambert stated a personal knowledge of juvenile drug abuse and his fear that the Leo Ryan Teen Clinic would be drug abuse oriented and that he resented the health center coming to Avalon Park. Opponent: Joy Ann Wendler/32l Granada/South San Francisco Ms Wendler stated that she was one of the principal spokesmen against the proposed clinic use of the Avalon School property. As such, she gave some background and history to this matter from the standpoint of the residents of Avalon Park. She noted that two years prior a petition was forwarded to the School Board requesting no change of character in the neighborhood and no increase in vehicular traffic as a result of uses in the Avalon School property; that the residents of the area had requested to be notified and consulted Vlhen uses were decided for the property. She noted that the Police Department described this area as being a high accident area, residential school zone, and having poor street alignment; that the Police De- partment described this area of Dorado as having extremely poor sight distance. She stated that there was no desire on the part of the residents of the area to have their streets improved to correct these problems; that they did not want to change the character of the neighborhood; Ms Wendler expressed concern over the safety of the neighborhood children if such a use were permitted and concern over the teenage drivers which the clinic use would encourage.. She further stated that the school was not built for such a use and such a use did not belong in any residential area. She expressed further concern for neighborhood safety in view of the transients which the clinic would encourage. She cited numerous statistics regarding teenage delinquency, noting that Guadalupe would be installing high lighting for protection of their personnel. Ms Wendler noted that the clinic would be helping the disturbed. She expressed con- cern over the fact that abused children were to be treated at the clinic in conjunc- tion with parent counseling, stating that abused often become abusers if given the opportunity. She noted her concern over where teen drop-ins would wait for atten- tion when visiting the clinic. Ms Wendler reminded the Commission that the renovating work for the clinic was done in the school illegally without Use or Building Permits; that the residents of the community were angry over what was done and how it was done. She noted that the Master Plan calls for low density in this area. She also noted that the former Planner had stated, in writing, that Use Permits should be required for any non- school occupancies at Avalon School. Ms Wendler stated that the Daly City use could not be compared to the one proposed for South San Francisco. She also noted her concern over the Friends to Teenage Parents and the driving clinic uses in this school property - whether their clients were residents of our City or whether a wider area was served. Ms Wendler noted that the Leo Ryan Teen Clinic would be receiving Federal funds and must receive patients from other areas. - 4231 - January 22, 1980 Ms Wendler requested strongly that the Commission vote against this proposed use in the Avalon School property. Opponent: Harold Molumby/3ll Granada/South San Francisco Mr. Molumby spoke as President of the Avalon/Brentwood Homeowners Association. He presented a letter to the Commission statlngthe view of those residents to this proposed use of the Avalon School property. He called attention to Exhibit "N" dated February 8, 1978, a letter to the School Board regarding the petition from the resi- dents of the area and concerning the possible uses of the Avalon School property. He stated that the vieVlS of the residents of this area have not changed; that they are opposed to the Leo Ryan Teen Clinic usage and to the driver's school. 1tt. Molumby requested that the Friends to Teenage Parents Center be restricted to its current use and its types of services not increased. He expressed his concern over the loss of recreational facilities at the school to residents of that community; also concern over the possibility of vandalism problems brought about by the presence of the cliniciat this site. He stated that a medical clinic will be a source of drugs; that the clinic will have a negative impact on the area; that this facility would be incompatible with the neighborhood location. Mr. Molumby stated, regarding a trial period, that he questioned how, at the end of eighteen months, the use could be changed, particularly if one of the concerns is the money spent to establish the clinic. He stated that he would prefer this matter could be settle cooperatively; however, if the use is granted, that his group would resort to the courts. Rose Gemma spoke for the Children's Center at the school site and again noted the disapproval of the residents of that area to the location of the Leo Ryan Health Clinic in the Avalon School property. Opponent: Elaine Stevenson/297 Alta Vista Drive/South San Francisco Ms Stevenson had a number of questions for the Director. Was there to be one Use PeTIni t for all the uses, or how was this to be handled? Staff would recommend that each use be voted on separately; that the City Attorney would be consulted in the event of any conditions or denials. Friends to Parents - what other use, is this a day care center only? Staff noted the three areas of this service; 1) on site - care for children 2 months to 2 years while parents are working or in school; 2) an out-reach program - Staff visits home; 3) on site - parenting classes - three times per year - 6 to 10 people involved. - 42:12 - January 22, 1980 Edna Daniels, Executive Director, Friends to Parents, clarified this use further. It is a support service whose main function is the care of children 2 months to 2 years; there are parenting classes, parties, . et cetera. The traffic count is low and should remain so. Its purpose is for day care as well as an assist to parents. Ms Stevenson questioned the Salvation Army office use noted for the property. Joe Smith, Associate Superintendent of Schools, assured ~1s Stevenson that the use had been terminated by the Salvation Army. Ms Stevenson questioned the Head Start program at the school site. Ms Tracey Holiday explained the Head Start program to Ms Stevenson and assured her that the program was solely for pre-school children. Ms Stevenson then questioned the Staff as to what use the gymnasium was to have; if it is to be rented, if a Use Permit will be required. Staff replied that, if the g~nnasium use fell within the City's jLITisdiction as decided by the City Attorney, a Use Permit would be required. Opponent: Bert Butler/235 Country Club Drive/South San Francisco Mr. Butler stated that the citizens were annoyed by the location of the proposed clinic, not by the clinic as such. Hs Stevenson returned to the microphone and made the statement that the following uses only, for the Avalon School property, should be approved: Friends to Parents - day care only; The American Indian program; Head Start; South San Francisco Children's Center; The District Administrative office now occupying the site. She further stated that, if any of the other uses were approved, her group would take the matter to court. Since there were no further speakers for or against the proposed uses at the school, the Public Hearing was closed by Acting Chairman Grimes. Commissioner Getz addressed the audience noting the concerns expressed and his understanding of them. However, he stated that the main thing he detected was a note of fear of teenagers. He reminded the audience that the role of the Planning Commis,sion was to be impartial and to make their findings based on the evidence pre- sented. He noted that he heard concern over one use only for the property and won- dered if there are alternatives which would not bring disagreement. He noted that - 4233 - January 22, 1980 traffic, on the one hand is stated as dangerous but that, on the other hand, the residents of the area do not want the roads improved. Mr. Getz further stated that he heard no evidence that the Daly City use generated traffic or created crime prob- lems. He f el t that the proposed clinic was designed to serve South San Francisco residents. From the standpoint of land use, he saw the clinic as an allowable use; considered it a good use which will benefit the community; and stated his intent to support it. Commissioner Bertucelli questioned the letter of February 24, 1978 to the School Board and the fact that there was no response. He asked whether it would have been forwarded to the Board. Associate Superintendent Smith assured him that all correspondence directed to the Board was so forwarded. Commissioner Martin requested population data when Avalon functioned as a school. Associate Superintendent Smith answered that the population for 1973/74 was 689. The population for the present uses is 200 plus. That, as a school, the traffic included Staff, faculty, parents, and school buses; that the faculty numbered 23 including the Principal, Secretary, Custodian, and Gardeners. Commissioner Martin noted his concerns that the community was not consulted on the uses proposed for the school site; that the Planning ConTnission was sitting as a Commission after the fact; that the City Council had awarded a Grant for this use; that the Commission should not be aske to pass judgment with improper input. He stated that he found it unusual that a unded agency would enter the community without input. He also stated that he found>the program good but perhaps requested for the wrong part of town; that he was concerned with the need to make a decision, on the Use Permit after the fact. * ~~rr.'G.c+Q<{i~/\I\.+~~q -:;20~;J-.I.'Z?6$'t~'t;i-,-,.Q.d. d'feL)i:CJP./i C\',i I ' -,\2> Commissioner Hoyer suggested that a trial period for the clinic might be in order; that he would prefer it have a chance to prove or disprove its worth. He asked for a show of hands regarding the feeling of the audience on this point. (Loud reaction against any trial period.) ~1r. Hoyer then stated that the City belongs to the residents and that he would go with the citizens because it was their neighborhood; that he believed if it was in his neighborhood he would go for it but that he couldn't ignore the voice of the residents of the Avalon Park area. Commissioner Campredon noted that he ~as upset over the numerous mistakes which had been made over the uses at the Avalon School site. Acting Chairman Grimes asked the pleasure of the Commission. Staff made the recoillnendation that each use be taken as a senarate motion' that in .J. " the event any use was to be denied, the wording of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 6.23A, criteria for appropriateness of a Use Permit, "use will be detrimental, et cetera", be used in the denial; if a use was to be approved that the reason be as stated in the Staff Report. Commissioner Martin agreed that each motion should be as noted by Staff. However, he wished to note that there are three uses at the site which are school uses and do not require a Use Permit; these are the American Indian Program, the Childrens' Center, and the District Administrative office. - 4?~4 _ January 22, 1980 The following motions were now placed before the Commission. Motion-Hoyer/To deny the Use Permit for the Leo J. Ryan Teen Health Clinic. Second-Martin Ayes: Comnissioners Bertucelli, Hoyer, Campredon, Martin, Acting Chairman Grimes No: Commissioner Getz Motion-Campredon/To approve the Use Permit for Friends to Parents Second-Martin Unanimously approved. Motion-Getz/To approve the driver safety school Use Permit Second-Bertucelli Unanimously approved. Motion-Getz/To approve the Head Start program Use Permit Second-Martin Unanimously approved. Staff recommended that a formal vote to approve the school uses be made. Motion-Campredon/To approve the three school use programs. Second-Martin UnanimoL~ly approved. Commissioner Martin questioned whether the previous conditions requested would still be required. Staff replied in the affirmative. It was requested that Condition J be added: Stop sign to be installed at Dorado and Alta Vista. The Commission concurred. - 4235 - January 22, 1980 Staff was questioned regarding the outline of work to be completed at the site and the time frame; are these to be implemented by the dates noted. Staff responded that there must be intent to comply; that the applicant must concur wi thin 10 days or the Use Permit will be invalid. It was requested of Staff that the City Attorney be consulted regarding the respon- sibility of the School District. CONTINUED SUBDIVISION MAP: RODNEY CATAlANO/SA-78-49/(CONT. FROM IVIEETING OF 1/14/80) Request for Final Subdivision Map to create 5 parcels from one existing on partially developed property at 276 Country Club Drive in R-l Zone District. Staff Report presented. For the benefit of the Commission, the Director noted his concern over the bulb of the cul-de-sac formed by this development which would be only half completed. He felt that the Commission might want to give consideration to modifying the project to assure that this cul-de-sac would be finished. A question was raised regarding Restrictive Covenants with respect to this property. The Director had requested an opinion from the City Attorney on this matter. He was informed that the law states that Restrictive Covenants cannot take precedent over local zoning requirements; that this is an extremely complex question which will, probably, have to be decided through the courts. With his presentation, the Director provided copies of three LAFCO documents to be read into the record - a zoning appli- cation and petition ( Catalano 5/26/78), a negative declaration (Ayoob 6/6/78), a notice of determination (LAFm 6/22/78). Commissioner Campredon questioned the noted cul-de-sac. Tlle Director replied that the bulb should be completed in some form. This would occur if there is a subdivision of the church property in future, but he felt that the CoITDlission might wish to address this situation at present since there is no present intent where the church property is concerned. Commissioner Campredon questioned the possibility of a temporary cul-de-sac. The Director agreed that that would be an interim solution provided the owner had control of the adjoining property to insure the proper installation when Taylor Drive is improved. It was also noted that Country Club Drive is eventually to be improved; however, should be delayed until some overall policy is established for this area. Commissioner Campredon noted that this cul-de~sac bulb should be required to be canpleted to protect the City - that it made no sense to widen just a portion. Commissioner Getz made reference to the Map Act about which the City Attorney has been consulted. - 4236 - January 22, 1980 In clarification, the City Attorney agrees that the Commission has wide discretion on a Tentative Map but can impose very little restriction ona Final Map provided it follows the Tentative Map as approved. Staff respects the City Attorney's opinion but does have concern about this cul-de- sac; that it should be completed. Commissioner Campredon raised the question of whether this area would be landlocked. Staff replied that it would not. Commissioner Martin questioned why the cul-de-sac was necessary. Staff replied that it was a requirement to complete the project. Opponent: Mrs. Lillian O'Rourke/264 Country Club Drive/South San Francisco Contends that this development should not be constructed as it is against the Covenants; that it will change the character of the neighborhood; that it leads to further piecemeal development. In her presentation, Atts. O'Rourke cited the follow- ing references. 9/12/78 - Planning Commission requested a joint meeting with City Council - the matter was continued for 60 days. The applicant advised that he had a 30 day purchase option on the property. (Investigation disclosed that he was the purchaser of record as of May, 1978.) 10/10/78 - Tentative Subdivision Map approved less than one month following September meeting rather than 60 days. This matter was not advertised, which ~,tts. O'Rourke contends was a violation. 1/9/79 - Property rezoned. Petition circulated by residents to deny approval. Matter in the hands of land use attorneys to enforce Covenants. The Director noted that the annexation and rezoning had progressed properly. Mrs. O'Hourke stated that the residents within 300 feet of the rezoned area had not been notified. She wishes an investigation of this rezoning. Opponent: Harold Molumby/3ll Granada/South San Francisco Spoke against piecemeal subdividing - questions land use - requests clarification. The Acting Chairman requested the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Hoyer stated that he \~uld like the opinion of the City Attorney re- garding his research of the Hestrictive Covenants. Staff explained that this was a very complex issue which the City Attorney feels the courts will have to decide. However, the. Planning COITll1ission can proceed based on the approval of the Tentative Map. If the Commission chooses to deny on basis of - 4237 - January 22, 1980 the Covenants, a determination will have to be made which he does not feel qualified to make. Consequently, a postponement, based on a ruling by the City Attorney, will not achieve anything due to his statement that the courts would have to decide this issue. Staff again noted that the Tentative Map. had been approved and that the Final Map was in accordance with the Tentative Map; that no additional condition would be asked other than the condition regarding the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Getz felt that the legality of the Tentative Map approval should be checked. The CoIrn1ission agreed, unanimously, to continue this matter to February 12, 1980 in accordance with the concerns and doubts raised.by the opponents. AT 11: 35, THE CJIAIR WAS RETURNEDID CHAIRlVIA_N". MANTEGANI . mNTlNUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: MR. R. J\lliNNUCUCCI (HABITAT GROllP, INC. )/RPD-79-l3/SA-79-63/NEGATlVE DECLARATION NO. 245/(CONT. FROM MEETING OF 1/14/80) Application to construct 36 condominium building on vacant property on west side of Blondin Way in R-3 Zone District. Staff Report presented. Staff noted some changes from the original proposal: Change from 39 to 36 condominiums; 82 off street parking spaces from 72 - 2.3 per unit; open space requirements met; loop parking eliminated, landscaping substituted. At one point a question had been raised as to whether, if this proposal were to be denied, the applicant would have the right to place rental project on this property. The opinion of the City Attorney is that the.applicant has no vested right in the property and would have to go to permit hearing process. Applicant does not agree wi th this finding, which might be a matter to be legally decided at another time. Concern had been expressed regarding light - indirect lighting to be provided. Question about roadway widening - no issue, road scheduled to be widened to two travel lane. Vehicles generated can be adequately handled on Country Club and Blondin. Cypress trees - new trees to be planted and existing trees to be retained. For Applicant: Michael Galligan, Attorney at Law/1795 El Camino Real/Millbrae Made the following points: Applicant had. cooperated fully and this was the best project he can build; the project complies with all recommendations of Staff; is consistent with the General Plan; is compatible with surrotmding uses; the applicant agrees to all conditions. - 4238 - January 22, 1980 Archi tect for proj ect : C:reorge Avanessian/9l4 Linden/South San Francisco Answered some previous points: Open space is over requirement; parking is over requirement; the cypress trees will conceal most of the building from view - can be seen only from three houses, one a neighbor with no objections; can be seen from corner of Blondin and Country Club drive; traffic will provide no impact on neighbor- hood, main travel will be few hundred feet on County Club only. Opponent: Ronald Brown/2l7 Country Club Drive-South San Francisco Noted that the former Planner had informed residents of the Country Club area that the Rotary Plaza would be the end of high density in Country Club area. Mr. Brown noted that on January 11, 1980 he had requested, from the Department of Community Development, a transcript of the rezoning hearing of May 10, 1977. He was told that such a transcription was not available and, if the manhour time could be provided, the charge would be approximately $100. Mr. Brown presented copies of several documents to the Commission: 4/12/77 Staff Report - Rotary Plaza 5/10/77 Staff Report - Poletti Realty/Rotary Plaza 6/15/77 - City Council on above petition for rezoning 5/10/77 - Commission minutes Resolutions 2207, 08, 09 Staff recommendation for Rotary Plaza facility Rezoning from Unclassified to R-3 Mr. Brown alleged that it was the understanding of the residents of that area that the area would not be further developed for the good and welfare of the community and for the protection of the elderly at Rotary Plaza. The property was sold off. 1tr. Brown believes there has been a misrepresentation of the use of the property. He requests use as Rotary implied or rezoning back to Unclassified. Mr. Brown posed a number of questions to Staff and the Commission: Was there adequate parking; the acceptability of the cypress trees to conceal a high rise building from single level dwellings; why no EIR, feels this is negative and detrimental to area; increased volume of traffic; overburdened sewer mains - "What provisions, "Who to pay for any improvements needed. Mr. Brown closed by requesting an EIR for the project and an additional EIR for that portion of Blondin Way in Country Club Park. ~!tr . Brown also requested a traffic barrier be erected in front of his personal property at Country Club Drive and Blondin Way as protection to his family and home. Opponent: Charles Heslin/44 Constitution Way/South San Francisco 1tt. Heslin had originally argued against the project from the standpoint of bright lighting; had stated that if indirect were provided, he could live with that; has now changed his position on basis that candlepower necessary will still have adverse effect on the area. - 4239 - January 22, 1980 Opponent: Alan Siver/229 Alta Vista/South San Francisco Reviewed history of property; questioned how area could be rezoned without plans. The Chairman responded that rezoning does not require plans. Mr. Siver noted that Mr. Avanessian is both the developer and the architect for the proposed project; that he is a member of the City Design Review Board. Mr. Siver would like a ruling on conflict of interest and would request a moratorium on this project until such question resolved. Would also like an EIR and an answer on the legality of the re- zoning. Opponent: Rudy Mont Eton Requests EIR for Blondin Way; EIR on use of Blondin Way as only ingress and egress to property in question and to Rotary Plaza; these reports as required in Section 4C-2, Environmental Review of 1978. Opponent: Adolph Corcini/223 Country Club Drive/South San Francisco Requests that rural aspect of neighborhood be retained; that character of neighbor- hood not be changed. Opponent: Joy Ann Wendler/32l Granada/South San Francisco Notes that she feels there is a pattern developing which will destroy the rural aspect of the area. Public Hearing Closed. Staff responded to some of the questions raised by Mr. Brown. Adequate parking is being provided - 2.3 per unit - greater than requirement. Conditions of Approval will mitigate the concerns expressed; that an EIR for the project and the area would be a waste of money. The cypress trees do provide a physical buffer between the proposed development and the surrounding area. The anticipated traffic volume - roadway more than adequate. Overburdened sewers - no indication from engineers; our understanding that sewers are adequate for the area. The Director also noted that he felt demands such as that for a lengthy transcript of 1977 were totally irrespon- sible on the part of the public and that the Department of Community Development was not equipped to expend the manhour time required for such a project. If such a service were to be undertaken, that the individual or organization requesting same should be willing to pay. Mr. Brown further questioned the parking and the fact that Blondin Way would not be sufficiently improved if the Rotary Plaza residents were to add to the vehicular traffic. Staff responded again that the roadway was considered more than adequate and that parking for a senior citizen project was 1 space per 3 units; Rotary is above re- quirements with 1 space to 2.8 units. Commissioner Hoyer noted that, due to the concern of the residents of the area and the possibility that the development might prove detrimental to the area, the Environmental Analysis submitted might be insufficient and that an EIR on the impact of this development on the area should be provided; he felt that there was a - 4240 - January 22, 1980 legitimate concern; that, perhaps, the development was not consistent with the General Plan on buffer zones. The EIR should address the traffic patterns, possible crime potential, the fact that the use might be detrimental to the neighborhood. He felt that he could not support the development \vithout first being assured that the pro- ject will not have an adverse effect on the area. Commissioner recommended an EIR at the expense of the applicant. Commissioner Getz agreed with Commissioner Hoyer and stated that he had requested a cumulative impact report from Staff which he did not see reflected in the Staff Report; this would be the impact on that land and on the surrounding Country Club land; that he did not think a Negative Declaration appropriate without the requested report. He noted that we are currently in the process of updating the General Plan and that a buffer zone would be in order in this area; that we might have to downzone this area; that we are under no obligation to issue buildingperIDits just because a project complies; that this project should be held in abeyance until an impact report is received. Staff responded that the intent of zoning is for the good of all, not anyone indivi- dual; that the concern for the cumulative effect on Country Club Park and the possible destruction of the rural atmosphere should be negated by the fact that the COITIDission and the Council retain the authority to control development in this area. Commissioner Getz again noted his concern for piecemeal developing. , Motion-Hoyer/That the Negative Declaration be disapproved and that RPD-79-13/SA-79-63 be continued off calendar until such time as an EIR has been submitted to the CoITIDissio Second-Getz with reference to AB 884 and the time frame of 6 months The polling was begun but stopped by Commissioner Getz due to the fact that a request from the audience to speak to the question was missed by the Chairman. Attorney for proponent, Mr. Galligan, noted to the Comnission that an EIH would not address the issues raised with reference to the cumulative impact. Commissioner CRtz noted that, according to the law, the above information would be required of an EIR; that he felt that the traffic issue should be addressed; that the possible increase of crime in the area should be explored with the Police Department; that the impact on the adjoining property should be explored. ]\!Ir. Avanessian noted that the lighting would be less than 1/4 foot candlepower. He also addressed the implications made by a former speaker; that there was no "hidden agenda" in his interest in this development and that there was no conflict of interest. Attorney Galligan questioned how the EIR was to be focused. Commissioner Getz answered that it should address the cumulative impact on the sur- rounding area; traffic generated; parking; any sewer problems; and any other areas which would be required of a complete EIR. The vote polling was again initiated with the Comnission.voting unanimously;; lilT t' .,J.,. I . '')..1 11 'D i " ,( )' /I;CL "' .. J l /1 ! mO lon. ;rf' f'-ed ~ It;';1. n /:.>,ey-rt)-(~e/i t / r...)7/-r'I/l)/('s:,J;)l1"1 (a'i')"',";Z . , i ;;".. ," /' ""'7 /I "7l---;" f ' J=-'~- /7'Li t.: Ie" '. ,/1' . .;ri ttC..... }" . h ...J r The proponents for the were informed that they had a 10 day appeal period - 4241 - January 22, 1980 the City Council. Ronald Brown further questioned whether the EIR would include Blondin Way. He was informed that that would be included; however, he was reminded that Blondin Way would be widened regardless of the outcome of the project under discussion. REIDRTS: None mNffi,llUNICATIONS: None GCDD & WELF AHE : Commissioner Getz requested thought be given to placing the Good and Welfare area at the beginning of the meeting rather than the end so that citizens would not have to ,~it out lengthy meetings to address the Commission with their concerns in this area. There being nothing further to consider under ClOod and Welfare, Chairman Mantegani announced that the meeting was adjourned. ADJOURI\J1\/IENT: 12:50 a.m. 61~~ ~~ Secretary to the Planning Commission, City of South San Francisco Robert Mantegani Chairman to the 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, arguments, and documents are recorded on tape and are avilable for public discussion in the Office of the Department of Community Development. - 4242 -