CCMIN052196 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swift referred to the table in the staff report to explain the expanded allowable uses. Timothy O'Leary, 388 Market Street, Suite 670, San Francisco, representing INS, requested Council to adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to rezone the parcel to C-S/O. He felt that was a compromise between the long-standing use of the property by Interstate Nuclear Services with the mixed residentiai/commercial uses of the neighborhood. INS has been on this site since 1959 and has a vested interest in commercial use. The proposed change to C-C would be a substantial change in the use of the property and would be an interference with the use of the property. He disagreed with the staff recommendation that the discontinuance of the property as a laundry is a forfeiture of its entitlement to the use. INS only ceased the laundry use in response to a proposed amortization of the use by the City and therefore believes it retains its rights as a non-conforming use. The second issue is compatibility of the property with neighboring uses. INS was there before everyone else and all other uses grew up around the INS facility. The property direc~y adjacent to INS was zoned C-S/O within the last five years with the same uses that INS is requesting. There have been no changes to those uses. Staff indicates this is a gateway or corridor to the downtown with C-C designations. If you look at the location map, almost all adjacent properties are C-S uses. As you proceed on Ray Street towards Main Street there are multiple residential uses and this is not a situation where everything from Ray Street to downtown is C-C and we just need to bring this property in line. That is not the case and there will not be a uniform corridor. The neighbors have complained about the hours of use, however the Planning Commission allowed C-S/O and added a condition restricting the hours of use. There was a comment about auto repair, that would be a conditional use of this property, not a permitted use. Council would have the opportunity to add conditions of operation. Ms. Michelotti asked if there were discussion at the Planning Commission about automotive repairs or that type of thing being uses that were not desirable. Mr. O'Leary did not believe that specific use was discussed. However, since that would be a conditional use, it was possible to impose conditions of operation. He did not know how important that particular use was to the marketability of this property. Ms. Michelotti inquired about the rezoning of the adjacent property in 1991 and asked if the fact that there was commercial service zoning next to this property affected the decision? Mr. Swift recalled that the property was already zoned service commercial and it was rezoned to that PUD designation to add the broader uses, such as limited warehouse uses. The most striking difference between this parcel and that other parcel is that it is behind the INS parcel and has no frontage on Ray Street of any consequence. So a retail type use did not make a lot of sense. Staff does not feel the INS property, which has fine visibility from Ray Street, suffers from that same problem. Ms. Mohr asked whether the Dunkley property had been sold. She thought someone might want to combine that property with the INS property. 05/21/96 -19-