Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1979-10-17Mayor Terr~<' J. Mi rri Vice Mayor Ronald G. Acosta Counci 1: William A. Borba Emanuele N. Damonte Roberta Cerri Teglia MINUTES CITY COUNCIL ~ W. Orange Avenue Librar~v Auditorium October 17, 1979 AGENDA .Regul ar Meeting CALL TO ORDER (TF-O01) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Requested: - Adjournment of Tonights Meeting to City Council Conference Room Wednesday, October 24, 1979, at 7:00 p.m. for the Approval of Award of the Bid for the Municipal Services Building. - Announcement of Joint Meeting with the Personnel Board and City Council on Wednesday, October 24, 1979, at 7:30 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 19, 1979 and Minutes of the Special Meeting of September 26, 1 979. 2. Staff Report 10/17/79 - recommending approval by Motion authorizing the Purchasing Officer to advertise for the purchase of Cab, Chassis and Crane. 3. Staff Report 10/17/79 - requesting a Motion authorizing the Purchasing Officer to advertise for bids for one (1) Rebuilt Automatic Collator, Stapler and Folder. ACTION TAKEN Regul ar Meeting 7:34 p.m. Mayor Mirri presiding. Council present: Teglia, Borba, Acosta, Damonte and Mayor Mirri. Council absent: None Recited. AGENDA REVIEW So ordered. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilwoman Teglia abstained from voting on the Minutes of the Special Meeting of September 26, 1979. Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Councilwoman Teglia. Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Councilwoman Teglia. 10/17/79 Page 1 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN CONSENT CALENDAR CITY MANAGER Staff Report 10/17/79 - recommending approval by Motion authorizing the Purchasing Officer to advertise for the purchase of Cab, Chassis and Crane. e Staff Report 10/17/79 - requesting a Motion authorizing the Purchasing Officer to advertise for bids for one (1) Rebuilt Automatic Collator, Stapler and Folder. 4. Regular Bills of October 17, 1979. (TF-O056) CONSENT CALENDAR M/S Borba/Acosta - Consent Calendar be approved. Carried by unanimous voice vote with the exception of Councilwoman Teg!ia abstaining on approval of Minutes of the Special Meeting of September 26, 1979. CITY MANAGER City Manager Birkelo explained that this vehicle has an estimated cost of $27,000 and funds were available in the Vehicle Replacement Fund. Councilwoman Teglia asked what was meant by new type light standards. Mr. Richard Irli, Superintendent of Public Works, replied that the greater length gives the Street Department more leeway and makes it a safer piece of equipment. M/S Teglia/Acosta -To approve the recommendati on. Carried by unanimous voice vote. City Manager Birkelo said the purchase of this equipment would facilitate handling 11 x 17 size paper and would minimize the sharp rise in paper handling costs. Councilwoman Teglia requested further justification for this $4,000 expenditure. M/S Teglia/Borba - To postpone this item until cost figures were available. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Due to conflict of interest, Councilman Borba recited the list of bills he wished to be deleted. 10/17/79 Page 2 AG E N D A AC!!0_N !A~EN_ 2?9 CITY MANAGER 4. Regular Bills - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5. Public Hearing SA-79-56 (TF-O086) Staff Report 10/17/79 - recommending that the decision of the Planning Commission be upheld in denying SA-79-56, an application to convert an existing apartment building into a 39 unit condominium building at 1107 Mission Road by Mr. John Bjorner. Public Hearing Opened: (TF-O127) CITY MANAGER Councilman Borba questioned the Qantel bill for $509.00, asked that it also be deleted, and related that at the August 29, 1979 meeting Council had concurred in paying Qantel $3,000 for programming services with no other sums being authorized. City Attorney Noonan responded that if Councilman Borba chose to take exception of payment to Qantel for $509.00 he could but not as a conflict of interest as the reason for deletion. M/S Borba/Damonte - To approve bills not deleted. Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Borba/Acosta - To continue the bill of Qantel for $509.00 to the next meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Damonte/Teglia - To approve the deleted bills. Carried by majority voice vote, Councilman Borba did not participate in the vote. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Senior Planner Dan Christians presented the Planning Commission's report of their findings which led to the recommendation of denial of SA-79-56. M/S Acosta/Teglia - That the Planning Commission's report become part of the record of this meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Mayor Mirri opened the Public Hearing. Frank A. Borges, Esq., 1650 Borel Place, San Mateo, spoke on behalf of his client Mr. John Bjorner and argued in favor of condominium conversions. J. R. Rodine, Esq. rebutted the items addressed in the Staff Report. 10/17/79 Page 3 A G E N DA AC T'~ 0 N TAKEN 280 COMMUN I TY DEVELOPMENT 5. Public Hearing SA-79-56 - Continued. (TF-O190) Public Hearing Closed: (TF-0218) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT George Corey, Esq., 700 E1 Camino, Millbrae, requested his client's appeal be granted and addressed the subject of adequate parking. Mr. Bjorner was in the process of purchasing an easement for three parking spaces and had an approval from Southern Pacific for a 20 year lease on the Company's easement which would yield another ten spaces for parking directly behind the 39 units. Council questioned Mr. Bjorner's attorneys regarding adequate storage, parking and garage partitions. Mayor Mirri invited anyone to speak in opposition to the appellant's appeal and no one replied. Mayor Mirri closed the Public Hearing and opened the subject up for Council discussion. Councilman Borba questioned whether the permit was for an apartment building or for a condominium. George Corey, Esq., responded there had been a partnership Mr. Bjorner was a party to that took out a permit for an apartment building but that later he bought out his partners, and requested a permit for condominiums. A discussion followed on the ratio of parking spaces with or without the additional 13 spaces. M/S Borba/Teglia - To uphold the Planning Commission. A discussion followed on the differences between condominiums and apartments. The City Attorney Noonan defined a condominium owner as one who owns an air space over a piece of l O/17/79 Page 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5. Public Hearing SA-79-56 - Continued (TF-355) (TF-475) (TF-523) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT real estate. He also explained that it is important to have a structural engineer draw a final map showing the air spaces people are buying. Frank A. Borges, Esq. stated that Mr. Bjorner would comply with all of Council's requests i.e., a map from a structural engineer, adequate parking, storage, etc. Councilman Borba said that if BART decided to run through the Southern Pacific property whatever lease in effect at that time for the 10 parking spaces could be cancelled and for this reason he felt the lease with Southern Pacific should not be discussed at this time. Councilwoman Teglia was concerned about the dependent use of the Southern Pacific land if Southern Pacific wanted their property back and asked what the cancellation clause read. Frank A. Borges, Esq. stated it was a 30 day cancellation clause but believed it had never been put into effect by the Company. Senior Planner Christians stated these units were nonconforming by density and that the RPD requires l~ spaces per unit and more based on the lack of availability of parking on the streets. Frank A. Borges, Esq. stated that this is as permanent a lease that Southern Pacific Company will grant to anyone and is a 20 year lease. Mayor Mirri called for a vote on the motion and second. 10/1 7/79 Page 5 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 282 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5. Public Hearing SA-79-56 - Cont. (TF-526) City Manager Birkelo Requested Item #7 be Heard Before Item #6. 7. Public Hearing - SA-79-58 (TF-617) Staff Report 10/17/79 - recommending that the decision of the Planning Commission be upheld in denying SA-79-58 an application to convert an existing apartment building into a 16 unit condominium building at llll Mission Rd. by Russell Page and Neil J. Vannucci. Public Hearing Opened: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The motion failed by majority voice vote, Councilman Borba and Councilwoman Teglia voting aye. M/S Acosta/Damonte - To approve the appeal subject to all requirements of Sect. 8.038 plus storage, partit- ioning of garages, structural engineer's map, tiles on second floor, wood caps on railings, improvement of walls separating the 39 units from the 16 units. Carried by majority voice vote with Councilman Borba and Councilwoman Teglia voting nay. So ordered. Senior Planner Christians presented the Planning Commission's findings and said there are 20 parking spaces for 16 units which does not meet the RPD requirement as it is short lO spaces. Mayor Mirri opened the Public Hearing. Frank Borges, Esq., 1650 Borel Place, San Mateo, said this appeal was similar to Item #5 and that it allows tenants to get an equity owner's position. A discussion followed on condominium conversions where a speaker did not want to speak for or against but present evidence. These people were asked to speak after the speakers for and against the appeal providing what they had to say was relevant. 10/17/79 Page 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7. Public Hearing - SA-79-58 - Cont. (TF-709) (TF-729) (TF-752) Public Hearing Closed: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Doris Agee, 819 Ridge Court, was concerned about renters who could not afford to buy their units, the parking provided, and felt these units were too small to receive adequate management. Mr. L.T. Casey, 363 Forrestview, was concerned that the inadequate parking would impact parking problems in Sunshine Gardens. He further felt that all new construction should meet RPD standards. Mr. Jim Keegan, 1244 Crestwood Drive commented that these apartments were allowed to be built because of the low vacancy rate for rental units in South San Francisco. Mrs. Murphy, 253 Oakcrest Ave., opposed these conversions and questioned the ratio of rental units to owner occupied units. Mayor Mirri responded that the ratio would be lowered if these conversions were approved. Mayor Mirri invited anyone to speak relative to condominium conversions. Mr. Sherman Perry, 3930 Geddes Court, related problems he has had owning a condominium, i.e., assessments having increased, 75% are rentals, and problems with absentee owners. Mayor Mirri closed the Hearing and opened the subject for Council's discussion. Councilman Borba questioned Frank Borges, Esq. as to his relationship with the development owners. Frank Borges, Esq. res¢onded that his firm represents the applicants as consultants on Use Permits, etc. a discussion followed on the sewer 10/1 7/79 Page 7 ^C'r O, 'r^ EU COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7. Public Hearing - SA-79-58 - Cont. (TF-900) (TF-927) 6. Public Hearing - SA-79-57 Staff Report 10/17/79 - recommending that the decision of the Planning Commission be upheld in denying SA-79-57, an application to convert an existing apartment building into a 12 unit condominium building at 450 Commercial Ave., by Mr. John Bjorner. Public Hearing Opened: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT connections on apartments and condos, the fees, and any resultant problems in sewer lines. Vice Mayor Acosta questioned if proxy votes for condominium management were given to renters. Councilwoman Teglia expressed conern that if these condos became rental units then there is no pride of ownership. A discussion followed on management of the smaller condominiums as opposed to those with over 25 units. Timothy Costa, Esq. said there would be no dislocation of tenants as they would be given the opportunity to buy their unit and there would be adequate provisions for management and maintenance. M/S Borba/Teglia - To uphold the Planning Commission in denying this appeal. A discussion followed on the noise levels in the 16 units, poor construction, inadequate installation, parking, etc. Mo~ion carried by unanimous voice vote. Senior Planner Christians said the 12 units have 13 parking spaces which is 5 short to comply with the RPD Ordinance and has similarities to the two prior appeals. Mayor Mirri opened the Public Hearing. J. R. Rodin, Esq. said the units do provide enclosed garages set back 20 feet, security, earthquake standards and noise insulation. 10/17/79 Page 8 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6. Public Hearing - SA79-57 - Cont. Public Hearing Closed: (TF-970) (TF-1078) RECESS: RECALL TO ORDER: Staff Report 10/17/79 - recommending approval of a time extension request for Stonegate Unit No. 4 and denial of a time extension request for Units No. 5 and 6 for UP-78-440. 285 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mayor Mirri asked if there was anyone who wished to speak against the appellant. Mayor Mirri closed the Hearing and opened the subject for Council's discussion. Councilman Damonte expressed concern about the lack of parking Vice Mayor Acosta felt that with only 12 units there was opportunity for a speculator to buy the units and rent them. The renters would not have proxy votes on the management of the units. J. R. Rodin, Esq. responded that Mr. Bjorner would give the first option to buy to the present renters. A discussion followed on CC&Rs being written to incorporate a policy to control absentee ownership as presented by J. R. Rodin, Esq. M/S Borba/Teglia - To uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Carried by majority voice vote, Mayor Mirri voting nay. Mayor Mirri declared a recess at ll :lO p.m. Mayor Mirri recalled the meeting to order at ll:30 p.m. with all Council present. Senior Planner Christians requested approval of the time extension of Unit No. 4 as the working drawings and final subidivision map are on file in the Building Dept. He requested denial of Units 5 and 6 which may conflict with the updated General Plan and Zoning Study regarding density and parking. 10/17/79 Page 9 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8. Staff Report 10/17/79 - Continued. (TF-1233) (TF-1379) (TF-1414) (TF-1462) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Senior Planner Christians retraced the history of Stonegate's Units and showed maps and drawings of the units. Councilman Borba asked if a full scale model had been made for Council's inspection as had been previously requested twice before. Senior Planner Christians said there had been discussion about the scale model but to his knowledge none had been made. Mr. Charles Springson, Bayland Dev., spoke in favor of the time extension for the units and presented scale drawings. Mr. Neil Martin, Planning Consultant, stated that the land is in excess of 15 acres and the Developer dedicated 5 acres to the City and he believes that the density should be considered on the total acreage. Mayor Mi rri invited anyone who would like to speak in opposition please come to the podium. Mr. L. C. Casey, 363 Forrestview, stated concern about residents double parking and believes the time extension should not be granted. This program was started in 1965 and there have been many Building Code revisions yet the Developer is working under the Use Permit acquired when the development started. Ms. Doris Agee, 819 Ridge Court, was concerned by the size of the buildings and parking. Ms. Barbara Hill, 856 Stonegate Dr., was worried about the traffic impact. 10/17/79 Page l0 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 287 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8. Staff Report 10/17/79 - Continued (TF-1559) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT She continued that if the City is going to have condominiums, this Developer has much to offer. Mr. Ed Subjeck, 816 Ridge Court, said that the Developer had spent a lot of time going over the plans with the residents and that the consensus was that the residents could live with the buildings and the landscaping. He wondered in that Sign Hill is so steep and hilly,how the City could put a park in there. Ms. Joan Grant, 862 Stonegate Dr., appreciates the cooperation the residents have had from Mr. Springson and since the plans have been in operation since 1965 they obviously cannot be changed and she can live with them. City Attorney Noonan in clarification said the Developer can make minor modifications but he cannot change the nature of the original plan. Mr. Perry asked how high up the hill the Developer planned to build before he was finished. Mr. Springson showed a detailed map with the buil. ding heights as projected for the development. A discussion followed on the 1965 Use Permit as opposed to the restrictions now in existence, land uses and legal modifications, and the open space donated ~o the City. Councilman Borba questioned the Developer about a scale model, traffic flow on Hillside Blvd. and Chestnut Ave., and the height of the townhouses. Mr. Springson said they had a scale model but the specifications were not to Council's standards so he did not present it. He stated that the townhouses were 10 feet high per floor. 1 O/17/79 Page ll AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff Report 10/17/79 - Continued (TF-1803) ,~_~9 J/~ RECESS: RECALL TO ORDER: (TF-OO12 SIDE 2) (TF-O017) CITY MANAGER Staff Report 10/17/79 - recommending adoption of a Resolution authorizing an Agreement for assisting safety services with R. L. Kautz & Co. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREE- HENT FOR ASSISTING SAFETY SERVICES WITH R. L. KAUTZ & COMPANY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Springson gave an in depth discussion of the building heights and addressed the parking for each unit. Mayor Mirri declared a recess at 12:35 a.m. Mayor Mirri recalled the meeting to order at 12:45 a.m. with all Council present. Councilwoman Teglia said the County should be contacted on their respon- sibility in improving Hillside Blvd. to ease the traffic flow and that she did not see any benefit in denying this appeal because of the traffic. M/S Teglia/Acosta - To approve a time extension for Units No. 4, 5 & 6. Councilman Borba felt there had been some fear put in the residents that if this development was not approved a lesser development would come into Stonegate. Motion carried by majority voice vote, Councilman Borba voting nay. CITY MANAGER Assistant to the City Manager Wilson said that this agreement would allow on-site inspections and that safety personnel would work with the supervisors and employees. Councilman Borba said this agreement was voted on before and defeated by a 3 to 2 vote, he believes this work should be done in-house. M/S Acosta/Damonte - That the Resolution be adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 122-79 Carried by majority voice vote, Councilman Borba voted nay. 10/17/79 Page 12 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC SERVICES 10. Staff Report 10/17/79 - recommending abandonment of a portion of the Kimball Way Cul-de-Sac Bulb Right-of-Way. a) Public Hearing; b) Resolution. Public Hearing Opened: ll. Staff Report 10/17/79 - recommending adoption of a Resolution authorizing execution of an Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and the Town of Colma for sewage dis- posal services. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE TOWN OF COLMA FOR SEWAGE DISPOSAL SERVICES 12. (TF-O054) Staff Report 10/17/79 - recommending adoption of a Resolution for the Street Sweeping Program from the 1979-80 Operating Program. A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT O-1 , 1979-80 OPERATING BUDGET PUBLIC SERVICES City Manager Birkelo said he had learned that the Director of Public Services Yee wanted to request a 30 day continuance. Director of Public Services Yee requested a 30 day continuance of the Public Hearing. M/S Borba/Teglia - To continue the Public Hearing for 30 days. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Director of Public Services Yee said this was an agreement that reflects the latest fee charges for sewer and connection charges. Councilman Borba asked if this agreement would bring in areas from Hillside Blvd. later on. Director of Public Services Yee said no, it is the same as it has been for many years, it covers Colma where E1Camino meets Mission in a triangle. M/S Teglia/Acosta - That the Resolution be adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 123-79 Carried by unanimous voice vote. City Manager Birkelo said this had been put on the agenda by Council request and he recommended it be continued until more information is developed. Director of Public Services Yee said Priority 1 was adopted as a pilot plan, 2 was for A, B and C street cleaning, and 3 deals with parking lots which are not a problem to clean. Mr. John Mascio, 912 Linden St., said that Linden and Hillside are never swept and that grass is growing in the gutters. 10/17/79 Page 1 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 290 PUBLIC SERVICES 12. Staff Report 10/17/79 - Continued. (TF-Oll3) ITEMS FROM STAFF 13. Report on Hillside Blvd. Traffic Program. PUBLIC SERVICES Councilwoman Teglia said the areas she was concerned with were not addressed in the report i.e., Commercial, Baden, Railroad, Miller from Spruce to Chestnut. Mayor Mirri directed Staff to schedule a Study Session to discuss the street sweeping program. ITEMS FROMSTAFF City Manager Birkelo said that in response to Council's direction on this matter Staff's recommendation was to install a stop sign at Franklin Avenue. He further related the investigation the Police Department had made on speeding, rocks being thrown onto private property by heavy trucks, etc. He further related that the contractors have refused to reroute their truck routes to ease the traffic congestion. Councilman Damonte suggested changing the frequency of signals which would slow down the convoy of trucks that use Hillside Blvd. Mr. Mascio said the trucks go up the hill empty at 4:00 a.m. and come back at 6:00 a.m. loaded. This activity has produced cracks in the sides of houses and makes it impossible to hear a radio or watch television. Chief of Police Datzman said the Police Dept. is riding hard on truckers to make them slow down by issuing tickets for overloads and speeding. Mr. Walt Hoeser had a petition of 85 signatures in support of action on this problem. He thought stop signs might slow the trucks down. Mr, Mascio said that trucks go by and large rocks are deposited against houses. 10/17/79 Page 14 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ITEMS FROM STAFF 13. Report on Hillside - Continued. (TF-0257) (TF-0312) RECESS: ITEMS FROM STAFF Captain Swinfard, Police Dept., presented information on the trucks being overweight and the Police Dept. fines imposed after taking the trucks to a scale and citing them. Chief of Police Datzman said that the Police had been spending much of the past few weeks investigating the area and trying to come up with adequate solutions. Mr. Hoeser commended the Police Dept. for the time and effort they have expended and said the County should be petitioned to improve the road. Mr. Mascio presented photos taken of the rocks thrown on the property and said he was tired of cleaning them up each day. Councilman Borba asked what trucking firms were involved. City Manager Birkelo said Diablo Const. and Rodgers Truckling. Councilman Borba said he did business with these firms and would not participate in the vote. M/S Damonte/Teglia - To approve Staff's recommendation. Carried by majority voice vote. Councilman Borba did not participate in the vote. City Manager Birkelo suggested a meeting be scheduled with the Mayor, Vice Mayor and the County Director of Public Works to discuss the improve- ment of Hillside Blvd. So ordered by Council. Mayor Mirri declared a recess at 1: 55 a.m. 10/17/79 Page 15 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 292 RECALL TO ORDER: ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 14. Discussion and disposition of a matter related to a Planning Commissioner's letter. (TF-0320) Mayor Mirri recalled the meeting to order at 2:04 a.m. with all Council present. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL Mayor Mirri read into the record a letter dated 10-5-79 from Planning Commissioner Hoyer to Mr. Robert Gilmore with copies to City Council and the Planning Commission. (A copy of this letter is on file in the City Clerk's office attached to the original Minutes of this Meeting.) The letter expressed Mr. Hoyer's support of the proposed South Slope Development. Mayor Mirri stated that at the last adjourned meeting Council directed the Mayor and the City Manager to meet with Commissioner Hoyer and inform him of the concerns and possible actions of Council. The possible actions to be taken 1) do nothing about the letter; 2) a reprimand; and 3) a possible dismissal. In discussion of the letter it was voiced that the letter appeared to have prejudged the South Slope Development and City Attorney Noonan was to ask Commissioner Hoyer if he would be willing to address Council and describe his intentions in writing the letter and answer questions from Council. Mayor Mirri continued, the City Attorney was asked to analyze the letter legally and make a decision as to whether or not having written the letter would dis- qualify Commissioner Hoyer on any sub- sequent voting on the South Slope development. Commissioner Hoyer had written a subsequent letter to Council in explanation that he would read later in the meeting. The Mayor said he would ask City Attorney Noonan what his recommendation is and if it is relative to a disqualification then Council will discuss what action is to be taken. 10/17/79 Page 16 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 14. Discussion and disposition-Continued. (TF-362) (TF-438) ITEMS FROM COUNCIL Vice Mayor Acosta related that another thing Council asked was a determination from the City Attorney on whether this matter was to be handled in an Executive Session or an open meeting. Mayor Mirri replied that the City Attorney after having researched the matter said it must be handled in a public meeting. The Mayor requested a recommendation or opinion of the City Attorney relative to Commissioner Hoyer's letter. City Attorney Noonan recommended that Commissioner Hoyer not vote in any matter related to the South Slope Project. Based on evidence heard tonight he would reserve the right to change his recommendation if warranted. Mayor Mirri asked Commissioner Hoyer if he would abide by the City Attorney's recommendation if it did not change. Commissioner Hoyer said he would abide by the recommendation. Commissioner Hoyer read into the record his open letter to the City Council, Planning Commission and the public dated 10/15/79. (._A copy of this letter is on file in the City Clerk's office attached to the original Minutes of this Meeting.) In closing Commissioner Hoyer expressed his sincere apologies to the Council and the Planning Commission for his error in judgement which cost time, effort and embarrassment to all concerned. Councilman Borba said that in the interview for a Planning Commissioner he had posed this question, "If you had something in mind that you couldn't get across to the Commission would you pursue the matter or drop the subject?" You responded, "No, you would drop it." Commissioner Hoyer said he had not related the two incidents. The Commission has disagreed on things as a matter of course, but that he would 10/17/79 Page 17 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 294 ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 14. Discussion and disposition - Continued. (IF-qB0) (TF-517) (TF-541) ITEMS FROM.COUNCIL never pursue an issue beyond the vote. Councilwoman Teglia said she had given a great deal of thought to Commissioner Hoyer's letters and she had composed her thoughts on paper and proceeded to read them into the record. (A copy of this letter is on file in the City Clerk's office attached to the original Minutes of this Meeting.) A discussion followed regarding errors in judgment and conduct of a Commissioner. Vice Mayor Acosta discussed acts of contriction, personal integrity, mistakes in judgment and said he felt dismissal was not warranted. City Attorney Noonan said he found nothing in either letter to indicate misconduct, but there may be an error in procedure. The significance of that error upheld his original recom- mendation that Commissioner Hoyer not vote on this subject because it may put him and the Board into a position of being open to attack by an opponent of the project. A discussion followed on a Commissioner's dismissal in 1973 after Council had put a gag order in effect. M/S Damonte/Acosta - To reprimand Commissioner Hoyer and if it occurs in the future it will result in dismissal and the spirit of this reprimand shall be observed by members of all Commissions and policy making bodies. Carried by majority voice vote, Councilman Borba voted no and stated that a prior such occurrence had ended in the dismissal of the Commissioner and he believes that precident should be followed now. 10/17/79 Page 18 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 295 ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 14. Discussion and disposition - Continued. (TF-570) GOOD AND WELFARE ITEMS FROM COUNCIL A discussion followed on Commissioner Getz's letter of rebuttal On this subject and Councilman Damonte felt that if Commissioner Hoyer could not vote on the South Slope Development then Commissioner Getz should not vote either because of prejudgment. Councilwoman Teglia said Commissioner Mantegani was quoted in the newspaper as saying that Commissioner~Hoyer did not speak for him and he had not yet made up his mind, so here is another Commissioner to bring into this if Council goes along with Councilman Damonte. Mr. Jim Keegan said, "Mr. Mayor I would like to rise to a point of order." Mayor Mirri said that only a member of Council can recognize a point of order and then call for one. He stated that a point of order is not recognized? A discussion followed on points of order, rebuttal, evidence and other Commissioners names being brought into this matter. Councilman Borba said names should not be brought up when those people are not in attendance to speak for themselves. Council should call for a joint session with the Planning Commission to iron out these problems. Mayor Mirri invited Mr. Keegan to speak. Mr. Jim Keegan was concerned that earlier he had not been allowed to speak on a point of order. His request concerned Councilman Damonte's accusation that another Commissioner had demonstrated similar actions and Council should act on them. Councilman Borba said that on the Sutter Hill site Council had dictated that no further trees were to be cut down yet the Planning Commission is hearing a request to cut down 10 10/17/79 Page 19 GOOD AND WELFARE (TF-0723) ADJOURNMENT: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Barbara A. Battaya City of South San Francisco GOOD AND WELFARE additional trees. Councilman Borba read into the record a letter by Mrs. Hoops entitled "What is a Use'Permit". (A copy of this letter is on file in the City Clerk's office.) The letter made mention of the 10 trees to be removed permission for which was to be discussed at a Public Hearing on 10-23-79 by the Planning Commission. Councilman Borba requested Staff to look into this matter. Vice Mayor Acosta related that he, Police Chief Datzman and Sgt. Tognetti had just returned from Lawrence, Kansas that afternoon after attending an ICAP meeting. He requested Staff to schedule a Study Session to acquaint Council and the public on the Federal grant monies that make this Police program so important and valuable. Mr. Casey asked if a date had been set for Council's discussion of the Parking Revision Ordinance. City Manager Birkelo responded that November 7, 1979 had been scheduled to hear this matter. Mrs. Agee thanked Council for attending her Board meeting at Stonegate #2 to discuss condominium conversions. M/S Borba/Damonte - That the meeting stand adjourned to Wednesday, October 24, 1979 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment 3:15 a.m. APPROVED: Terry J. M~rri, City of Sd~th San Francisco 10/17/79 Page 20 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN~]97, The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose of the item. Oral presentations, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape and documents related to the items are on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for inspection, review and copying. 10/17/79 Page 21 HERMAN R. HOYER, FCSI · SPECIFICATIONS CONSULTANT · 700 T~lford Ave. {ll;~:~'~ ...... ~ ~' SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94080 · i415) 761-E~;;~ 1712 OctOber 15, 1979 An Opem Letter to the City Council and Planning CommiSsion of the City of South San Francisco and the Public. Ladies and Gentlemen: I am deeply saddened to find that, what was meant to be a s~mple and positive response to a legitimate concern of a sizable body of citizens, has provoked such a negative reaction from so many people. In an effort to dispel! any further misunderstanding, let me clarify my position and feelings on this matter. First of all, let's establish the fact that I have a right to answer mail addressed and sent to me. Secondly~-let's establish the fact that the letters I wrote were honeSt and straightforward and, in all respects, the truth. · Finally, let's establish the fact that, in no way whatsoever, did I- represent that I was speaking for anyone but myself. I have always believed that it was common and accepted practice for legislators and other public figures to take stands on issues of concern to the public. After all, legislators do it all the time. For example, most U.S. Senators have taken a public stand on the Salt II Treaty, even though the Treaty has yet to be ratified. As another example, I have, on several occasions, written to Senator Alan Cranston and the late Congressman Leo Ryan, expressing my concern about various matters. In each case, I received a letter in reply, thanking me for expressing my concern, and telling me the positions they intended to take on those matters. In one letter, Congressman Ryan even told me how he intended to vote on several Bills before the Congress. Planning Commission meetings are publicly held and attended. There are no secrets at these meetings. Planning Commissioners routinely express opinions of projects before the vote is taken. I felt there was no differ- ence in that from what I did, except an expanse of time. And I felt, in this case, that it was important to keep faith with the people by addressing their legitimate concerns. Open Letter/City Council/Planning Commission/Public/Hoyer ....... 2 We have studied and discussed this Project in Subcommittee, as well as at Planning Commission meetings. To say that I should not, as yet, have formed an opinion on the Project is to deny human nature. I have not prejudged the San Bruno Mountain South Slope Project, because I have not seen any specific plans. Obviously, I would not support anything except the finest development, in my opinion. For example, I have stated to my fellow Planning Commissioners, on more than one occasion, that I could support the proposed shopping centeronly if it was beautifully planned and landscaped. My broad support of the Project stems from the fact that i believe i~ will be a very good thing for South San Francisco economically. For example, I like the idea of being able to annex this additional amount of land into the City. I like the fact that the City, as'a bonus, will get an improved Hillside Boulevard, and that it will extend to the Freeway, along the present City Limits, and will be widened to four lanes all the way. Such a project will be a necessity if the extension of Hickey Boulevard to Hillside Boule- vard becomes a reality. And, I like the fact that the Project will provide a considerable amount of additional employment and housing for the people of South San Francisco. The accusation that I am an "agent" of the developer is unfounded and slanderous. I work for a large engineering firm that specializes in the design of large hydroelectric projects -- dams, power plants, pumping plants, reservoirs, etc. My firm has no interest whatsoever in the South Slope Project. Neither do I, except for the good I think it can do for South San Francisco. Were I to be guilty of such a gross misconduct, I would lose my job immediately. My firm is very particular and sensitive about the conduct and demeanor of its employees. Just to be accused of such misconduct by a responsible authority, such as the City Council of South San Francisco, could still cost me my job. The stationery I used, I have been using as personal stationery for the past five years. It's true that it used to be my business stationery. I have a large supply which I have been trying to use up. I would have thought that all members of the City Council were aware of my employment status, since all members had reviewed my application and resume at the time of my interview for appointment. I signed myself as a Planning Commissioner, because I was addressed as a Planning Commissioner and I answered as a Planning Commissioner. I was, however, speaking only for myself. In the letter, I expressed a belief, based upon logic, and the belief was truthfully expressed. After all, how could I believe that such a great project had only my support. Open Letter/City Council/Planning Commission/Public/Hoyer ....... 3 My reference to "those of us" was meant as a reference to other people in South San Francisco who want to see the Project happen. Without mention- ing any names, I'm sure we all know there are others who are anxious to see this Project move forward. In retrospect, however, I do believe I committed a serious Breach of procedural courtesy by not having informed Chairman Campredon before the fact (rather than after the fact) that I intended to answer these letters. I completely overlooked the fact that Chairman camPredon would be the first. person queried in such a matter, and that ignorance of my motives could result in an embarrassment for him. I hereby extend my apology to Chairman Campredon for this oversight. I can assure you that I will not write another letter without first clearing the letter and its contents with the Chairman. In closing, I might suggest that a brief set of guidelines of accep- table conduct be issued to new Planning Commissioners. Such a set of guide- lines could have prevented this incident and the resultant notoriety. Thank you very much for your audience and consideration. Sincerely, THE CITY COUNCIL DEPENDS HEAVILY ON ITS PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF AND ITS PLANNING CO~v~MISSION TO IMPARTIALLY WEIGH MAIlERS AFFECTING THE PHYSICAL ]DEVELOPMENT OF THIS CITY. WE LOOK TO THE COMMISSION TO DEVELOP A~)ST PROFESSIONAL COMPETANCE IN CRITICALLY ANALYZING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WITH RESPECT TO NOT ONLY ~-~AT IS VALUABLE TO THE CO.v~qUNITY TODAY BUT ALSO WITH RESPECT TO THE BROADER FUTURE IMPLICATIONS FOR THIS [OM~'~UN ITY. ~'IE LOOK TO THE COMMISSION TO PROVIDE RECOM~qENDATIONS, BASED UPON EVIDENCE AND PUBLIC INPUT, RELATIVE TO THE ORDERLY GROWTH OF THE COM~qUNIIY, WE DEPEND UPON THE COMMISSION FOR THE KIND OF CRITICAL ANALYSIS THAT WI[iL NOT ' ONLY PRESERVE PRESENT COM~V~ERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL VALUES,....BUT THAT WILL ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE VALUABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT..,, .THAT WILL GUARANFP_E A FAVOP, ABLE COST/BENEFIT RATIO TO THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND .....THAT WILL NOT PRODUC E DEVELOPMENTS THAT WILL BE A DRAG ON THIS CITY'S FINANCES, -' ALL OF THIS, WE EXPECT ACCOMPLISHED IN A MANNER THAT WILL ASSURE THE PUBLIC, THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, THAT THEIR HIRED, APPOINTED AND ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE IN FACT WORKING IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS..,..AND ONLY IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS. THiS CREDIBILITY FACTOR, IF YOU WILL, IS OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE. TOO MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ALIENATED BY GOVERNMENT.,,..TOO MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT SPECIAL CO?~SIDERATIONS ARE GIVEN DEVELOP~NT INTERESTS IN CITY HALL.,...WHETHER IT BE )..'~ GRAND AVENUE OR IN ANY OTHER CITY ACROSS THIS COUNTRY, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE IMPARTIAL PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS BE PRESERVED.,...ESPECIALLY IN A COMMISSION WHICH SITS IN A DUE PROCESS SITUATION ON DEVELOPF£NT PROPOSALS OF SUCH VAST SIGNIFICANCE. I'IITH THIS PREAMBLE, I WOULD LIKE TO f©VE TO THE ISSUE THAT MOST DEEPLY CONCERNS ME AS .A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AS RAISED BY YOUR LEITERS,' THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE, AT LEAST TO ME, IS THAT OF WHAT SEEMS TO BE A STRONG INDICATION OF PREJUDGEMENT ON THE ECONOMIC AND OTHER BENEFITS A PARTICULAR POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL MAY HAVE FOR THIS CITY AS EXPRESSED MOST STRONGLY BY A- PLANNING COM~qISSIONER WITHOUT APPARENT BENEFIT OF ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC DATA OR OTHER SPECIFIC DATA. IT IS MY CONCERN, AFTER CAREFULLY READING ALL OF YOUR LEI-FERS, THAT INSTEAD OF ASSUMING THE ROLE OF A RESPONSIBLE PARTICIPANT IN A DUE PROCESS REVIEW ANgANALYSIS OF A POTENTIAL PROJECT,,,,,YOU HAVE INSTEAD CHOSEN THE ROLE OF ADVOCAT. E, I ASK MYSELF.....HOW CAN ~.,...MORE IMPORTANTLY, HOW CAN THE PUBLIC THAT ~ REPRESENT, BELIEVE THAT YOU AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER FOR THIS CITY, SIll'ING IN REVIEW OF THE YET TO BE PRESENTED HARD EVIDENCE, BE ABLE TO IMPARTIALLY WE][GH AND CRITICALLY ANALYZE THIS SAME EVIDENCE.....ESPECIAU_Y IN LIGHT OF THE VERY STRONG STATEMENTS MADE IN YOUR LEI-[ERS? CONCERNS ARISE FROM SPECIFIC REPRESENTATIONS IN YOUR LETTERS Yf~ICH STRQ~LY SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY MADE UP YOUR MIND WITH RESPECT TOT HE BENEFITS OF ME POTENTIAL PROJECT, . .... YOU STATE YOUR PERSONAL ANXIETY TO SEE 'THE PROJECT GO FORWARD .....YOU GIVE PERSONAL ASSURANCE THAT YOU WILL DO ALL YOU CAN TO MOYE THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT ALONG ..... YOU NUMBER YOURSELF AKDNG THOSE PROMOTING THIS PROJECT. ..... YOU STATE YOUR UNSUPPORTED BELIEF IN THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS WHICH WILL AcCRuE TO " THIS CITY UPON DEVELOPMENT WHEN NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS YET BEEN PLACED BEFORE THIS CITY,,,,, INFACT, WE AWAIT A STUDY ON JUST THIS SUBJECT, I'~'~OULD INDICATE TO' YOU THAT THE RECENT LAFC0 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STUDY ON THE NORTHEAST RIDGE REFERS TO REPORTS THAT CONCLUDE THAT. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPNENTS ARE IN MANY CASES SHOWING NEGATIVE FISCAL IMPACTS FOR CITIES, ,,,, ,YOU SAY HOW DESIRABLE ANNEXATION OF THIS ACREAGE WOULD BE,,,. ,YET WE HAVE NO COST/BENEFI.T..~YSIS TO SUPPORT THIS FINDING. IN FACT, OUR FORJ'",ER CITY ENGINEER FRANi~ ADDIE DICATED TO THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 'BUDGET REVIEW IN I'IARCH O~ --TH'IS YEAR THAT IT WAS CRITICAL THAT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SEE HILLSIDE BLVD. BUILT PRIOR TO ANNEXATION SO THAT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WOULD NOT GET STUCK WITH THE CONSTRUCTION COST OF THIS MAJOR IMPROVEMENT. ,....YOU INDICATE A SPECIAL BONUS WHICH SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WILL RECEIVE IN AN - IMPROVED HILLSIDE BLVD...., .YET, THOUGH AN ALIGNMENT FOR SUCH AN IK~ROVEMENT WAS APPROVED BY THIS COUNCIL NEARLY A YEAR AGO, 'TO DATE NO SUCH AGRE~NT HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO BY THE COUNTY AND THE PROPERTY O~,~ER. IN FA ,'THE 1978-79 COUNTY BUDGET CONTAINED MONEY TO COVER THE COUNTY'S PORTION OF THIS 'ROAD PROJECT. THIS YEAR'S BUDGET DOES NOT SIMILARLY CONTAIN SUCH K~qNIES. BOB YEE, OUR CURRENT CITY ENGINEER, INDICATED AT THE SAME IqARCH BUDGET MEETING THAT VISITATION ASSOCIATES HAD INDICATED THAT THEY WERE NO LONGER WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CON STRUCTION OF AN IMPROVED HILLSIDE BLVD. ..... FINALLY, YOU INDICATE THAT "AFTER ALL, HOW COULD I BELIEVE THAT SUCH A GREAT PROJECT HAD ONLY MY SUPPORT. I"]R HOYER, .... I HAVE NO QUARREL WITH YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS ..... I DO HOWEVER, QUESTION THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE ROLE YOU SEEM TO HAVE CHOSEN AS PROJECT ADVOCATE WITH THE ROLE WE HAVE CHOSEN FOR YOU AND YOU HAVE ACCEPTED OF IMPARTIAL PLANNING CO~'~ I SS I ONER. UNLESS YOU CAN CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE I'HIS EVENING, .... I MUST CONFESS TO A STRONG INCLINATION, BASED ON YOUR WORDS AS EXPRESSED IN YOUR LETTERS, TO BELIEVIN~ THAT YOU HAVE SERIOUSLY AFFECTED YOUR ABILITY TO SERVE AS AN IMPARTIAL COMMISSIONER IN A DUE PROCESS HEARING ON PLANNING MATTERS RELATED TO I'HIS ISSUE, CENTRAL HERMAN R. HOYER, FCSI · SPECIFiCATiONS CONSULTANT · 700 Telford Ave. ~i~f.~ r~.i~,~j~ · SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94080 · (415} 7§1-I~ 1712 Mr. Robert Gilmore Business Manager The Building and Construction Trades Council of San Mateo County 300 Eighth Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401 October 5, 1979 Dear Mr. Gilmore: Thank you for a copy of your letter to Mayor Terry Mirri. Please note that I am strongly opposed to relegating the San Bruno Mountain South Slope Development back to the category of "special study~ area," and I have voiced this opinion openly and forcefully at Planning 'Commission Meetings. I am as anxious as you are to see the Project go forward. I believe there are others on the S.S.F. Planning Commission who share my view. Rest assured that I will. do my best to see the Project move along to fruition. " Your letter to MayOr Terry Mirri was a good move. It will help ~hose of us who are working for the success of the Project to convince others not to support any further delaying tactics. I am glad you have voiced your concern, and, believe me, I appreciate the urgency of the situation. cc: Sincerely, Herman R. Hoyer ( / Planning CommissionkZr City of South San Francisco Members of the S.S.F. City Council Members of the S.S.F. Planning Commision 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 }0 11 12 13 I4 !5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1979 --o0o-- TRANSCRIPT OF EXCERPTED PROCEEDINGS Public Hearing in Re: SA-79-58 llll Mission Rd by RUSSELL PAGE and NEIL J. VANNUCCI an application to convert.an existing apartment building into a 16 unit condominium building --oOo-- TRANSCRIBED BY: Barbara A. Battaya, City Clerk 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, Ca. 94080 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1I 12 14 15 16 18 19 2O 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Public Hearing Council Discussion Motion and Second Roll Call Vote INDEX --o0o-- Page 3 13 23 25 CENTRAL- RF..CORO~ FIt.E; NO. 3 ! MAYOR MIRRI: There has been a request that 7 be 2 moved in place of Item #6 and vice versa, if there are no objections from 3 Council we will proceed on that basis. 4 CITY MANAGER BIRKELO: Item #7 is the appeal of a condomin- S ium conversion on SA-79-58 which Mr. Christians will give you a brief summary G of that item. ? SENIOR PLANNER CHRISTIANS: To make it short, this case since it 8 has a lot of similarities to the previous Staff Report, this is the adjacent 9 property to the last case. The Planning Commission did recommend against this 10 condo conversion based on the three findings regarding inconsistency with the 11 Condominium Conversion Ordinance, the housing element and the permanent parking spaces. This will summarize the differences on this Project. First of all this 13 Project is even higher than the previous one, this is about, in density, about one unit per 787 square feet. It has 20 parking spaces for 16 units, it is 1§ 10 short from the minimum under the RPD standards. It has the same question 1G about the S.P. under a short term basis, if there were three extra spaces it 17 would still be short of the RPD minimum. It doesn't have the open space 18 amenities that the 39 units have, those are some of the differences. Again, 19 they have submitted some of the required documents, others have not been 20 submitted. We have the same concern on this regarding vacancy rates, regard- 21 ing the provision of permanent parking spaces and the Commission again basic- 22 ally adopted the same four final concerns that are listed in the report - with 23 that again we have the same basic documents from the Commission and that includes our Staff Report. 25 MAYOR MIRRI: That concludes the Staff Report. 2G The Hearing on Item #7 will be opened to include the Staff Report. The 27 Appellant in this case is entitled at this time to make his presentation, 28 obviously reasons for his appeal. 4 ! MR. FRANK BORGES: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Members of 2 the City Council. Again for the record, my name is Frank Borges, 1650 Borel~ 3 Place in San Mateo. Thank you for the nice thing I am going to hear myself 4 on tape for I have one more to go. But basically again as I made my comments $ on the other application that this again is a condominium conversion in its G more truer concept, the other you recall is an unoccupied building. In this ? particular case we have a 16 unit apartment that is occupied by tenants. 8 Therefore the Applicant on our advice and consultation has initiated what I 9 call a true tenant relations program, addressing themselves to the concerns 10 of the tenants in the areas of notification of the conversion taken place by 11 registered mail. The offer of sitting down with each one of them to explain 12 the tenants' rights which are protected by the State of California under the 13 Subdivision Map Act and the Department of Real Estate; as well as, discuss 14 with them if th6y-d~d not wish to purchase the possibility of relocation 15 at the Applicant's expense by looking through the Rental Survey of the City. 1G In terms of what kind of vacancies are available for the - I believe there 17 are five - actually eleven tenants there on the site. 18 There have been some responses from the tenants. There have been 19 no negative responses from any of the tenants of this particular project, 20 there have been two or three initial inquiries regarding an interest in 21 acquiring their unit. I think the Council should look at this project in 22. the sense of what will occur in the future under conditions of a true condo- 23 24 25 26 27 28 minium conversion. I would like to make a couple of remarks in regard to this project as relates to City standards and we have discussed in some detail on the other project certainly conditions that are attached to this project, we would agree as we did the preVious one. We are talking now about a little bit different approach or a concept or philosophy in the conversion process as we did the prior application. What we are looking at here is what we call 5 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22.' 24 25 26 27 28 a true conversion taking place in an occupied building that allows those living in rental units, who basically are rented by circumstance and not by choice, an opportunity to own or have an equity entry kind of housing. When you look at those kinds of programs you have to understand that you are looking at buildings normally older than this building and this is about the same age as the other applicants. Therefore in most instances the impact upon the community in terms of standards, that there are certain standards that can be adapted and certain that cannot. You have got to consider this project in terms of trade-offs in allowing certain citizens in'South San Francisco to own what I call truly an affordable housing, Affordable housing by these projects are only as good as creating financing and the amenity package and the condition supplied by the City in renovation and those sort of factors to make it truly affordable. This project being fairly brand new and occupied for the very mininimal amenity package can truly offer an entry level housing in the City that is not available at the moment. I think that I will have Mr. Rodine, who is present, and Mr. Tim Tosta, Legal Council for the Advocate to make their remarks other than what I basically discussed in terms of con- cepts of affordable housing and condominium conversion as this particular application represents. We can not relate the two and accept that again the conversion of this project will add three parking stalls to an existing apart- ment occupied by people and cars which is an improvement of what is there now. I would like to have you consider very carefully on the technical remarks by Mr. Rodine and the comments by Mr. Tosta. Now we are looking at a true conversion and we have a relocation program and we have a tenants relocation program and we have made these units available to the tenants; and there has been what I call a true approach of what you are going to be dealing with under a true condominium approach. This is not an unoccupied building. There have been no negative responses and I will leave it at that CE.NTRAL RE. CORD.~ NO. 6 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22. 23 24 25 26 27 unless there are some questions about our programs and what we are attempting t9 do here in light of this particular project. But again this does allow those renters to get an equity position, there is no negative response, it allows to get three more parking spaces and the impact upon the vacancy factor or the rental market in South San Francisco would be minimal with 16 units. ! think the considerations of the three extra stalls and the consideration of available portable housing with this particular project weighs very heavily in favor of this process taking place. If there are no other questions on the part of the Council, I would like to have Mr. Rodine respond again to any of the comments Staff has expressed and they are identically the same responses that were on the prior application and our answers will be basically similar except for any special concerns that any Councilman may have. MAYOR-~IRRI: Okay, if that is the case, unless Council would like to go over every one of those items and I don't see where that would be necessary. MR. FRANK BORGES: We have stated them before and we have agreed to the same program. MAYOR MIRRI: If we can do as we do on a Hearing situation, make your presentation and after that is closed you can answer any questions. MR. FRANK BORGES: Thank you very much. MAYOR MIRRI: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of the Appellant's point of view. Now for clarification it is my understanding that some blue cards have been submitted and also a querywas made as to whether or not one could speak not in support or in opposition but some general statements relative to 28 condo conversions. I would ask that unless it is either for or against, that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 those comments be withheld until after the Hearing is closed and I will allow those comments to be made. COUNCILWOMAN TEGLIA: Through the Chair, if that is the case Terry, then that doesn't become part of the Record. MAYOR MIRRI: It Will be considered in the Motion that is made to either accept the Appellant's case or not. That is my under- standing, isn't it John, that the purpose of the Hearing is to hear the opponents and proponets.o. ~CITY ATTORNEY NOONAN: COUNCILWOMAN TEGLIA: MAYOR MIRRI: And any evidence. And any evidence. ...in the Hearing. Well, I am talking about in terms of that aspect, where would that fit in if it were to fit in either for the proponent or the Appellant. CITY ATTORNEY NOONAN: Well, you are right, it is difficult, I guess you would have to say to the Developers, that if the general comments requested by someone who signed a blue card relative to the inquiry although neither in support nor opposed but is relevant to the facts of the inquiry so that you can incorporate the conjectures into your Motion of Findings. MAYOR MIRRI: Could we do it this way John, after the Appellants have spoken and those who speak on behalf of the Appellants and the opponents and those who speak in behalf of the opponents, rather than closing the Hearing, after that segment is done I can say those who would like to speak in general terms about conversion - would that be acceptable? CITY ATTORNEY NOONAN: Yes, you would have... MAYOR MIRRI: I don't want to prejudice either side, particularly if the speaker isn't taking a side, I think that that... MR. FRANK BORGES: One question Mr. Mayor for my clari- fication. I obviously spoke ~directly to the project and so forth, if we open CENTRALRECORD~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ]15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 up comments to the public who talk about the philosophy of conversion in the C~ty of South San Francisco, will I have an opportunity to respond to those comments? I assume that is what it is leading to, because obviously conversions in South City is of concern to the Council and they will be addressing studies to that. You said there would be general comments not related to the project and if that is the case I would like to take the opportunity, I would love to get into a nice long conversation on conversions - the pros and the cons. MAYOR MIRRI: I would have no objection to that. I am trying to find out the procedure - this is very unusual, I think it has only happened once before, that I recall, and we held off the comment saying it had to be done later and what I am looking for is guidance so that it is done procedurally correct so as not to bias either side. CITY ATTORNEY NOONAN: I think it is going to put a burden on the Chair, Mr. Mayor because if someone starts talking generallyand those general comments are really not relevant then it should not be received in the Hearing. If those general comments are relevant to the questions you have to address in making your findings, then you can permit it and even then you can limit repetitious type presentations. So with those general guidelines, a general comment that is not relevant, the person can be requested to discontinue and invest a later time. A general comment that is relevant can be accepted and his presentation limited to a reasonable period of time. MAYOR MIRRI: Okay, we will let both sides speak and after they have both spoken we will allow a speaker to speak on the general subject of conversion relative to the permits that we are talking about right now, which is a pretty broad base. Okay, there are no others who would like to speak on behalf of the Appellant? The area which is now reserved for those who would oppose the Appellant's point of view. Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the conversion? Yes, Mrs. Agee. 9 ! MRS. DORIS AGEE: Doris Agee and I manage Stonegate 2 Unit #2 Homeowners Association. I didn't say anything when the one for 39 $ units came up because I thought that maybe that had a little more going for it, 4 however, I have got to speak up now. I am sorry the other one was passed, $ however I feel very'sorry for people who need to buy housing and can't afford G it these days, but I also feel sorry for people who must rent or choose to ? rent - someone has got to consider them sometime along the line. I am con- $ cerned about the amount of parking that is being made available to the people 9 who live in these units. The one that has just passed, also this one and the 10 one that is to come and my major concern is the one I have brought up many 11 times before and I am going to keep on saying it because it is important. You 12 may not - you will not have decent management of a condominium of 16 units or 13 12 units or anything of that sort. I have great questions about a 39 unit 14 ~ondominium... 15 MAYOR MIRRI: If we can limit the testimony to 1G the item we are discussing. 17 MRS. DORIS AGEE: Okay, then on this one particular 18 item a 16 unit condominium is far too small to be managed with any reasonable 19 expectations. This is based on additional information that I have received 20 from ECHO, the Executive Council of Homeowners Association. I went to the 21 Association's conference last Saturday and I talked to a number of people who 22. are in management, who are being managed, who are managing either with firms 23 or as resident managers and the verdict was unanimous. That anything under 24 50 units is going to be a problem for the people who live in it and the City 25 and I hope you will bear that in mind when you make your decision. Thank you. 26 MAYOR MIRRI: Thank you, Mrs. Ageeo Is there 27 anyone else who would like to speak in opposition of the Appellant's point of 28 view. Mr. Brady -- Mr. Casey, I said Mr. Brady, excuse me. CENTRAL RECORD~ 10 1 MR. LARRY CASEY: I am Larry Casey, 363 Forrestview Dr., 2 South San Francisco. I would like to speak against this conversion primarily because of the parking problem it entails. As I pointed out before at the Planning Con~nission there is no parking on Old Mission Road as it is now and 5 there probably never will be, it is a no parking street. So it is appropriate G that any development on that street,contain sufficient parking to handle the ? residents parking and the guest parking. What this is going to do is further 8 impact the parking problem in Sunshine Gardens which is serious because a lot of us have one-car garages and no way to add any additional parking to that 10 whole area. 11 So what we are going to get here is where the people here are going to have to come up into the first few blocks of Sunshine Gardens to park. They are going to come up in front of my house and I am going to go up and park in front of somebody else's house and then I guess then we are going 15 to go park on Palm Avenue, or some place - that's all. Okay, I have another 1G point on it, inasmuch as - if my recollection is correct, this is a relatively 17 new construction which was put up about the same time that Mr. Brosnan was I8 putting up his development adjacent to the Sunshine Gardens area and I feel that probably at that time the Developer chose not to go to the RPD standards in order to avoid the type of problems that Mr. Brosnan was having. I think that it should be a minimum thing that condos should at least meet the RPD. standards. 1.5 parking spaces is probably up for revision and I think that this 1.25 or less is just totally inadequate, and that is about what I had on 24 it. Thank you. ~G MAYOR MIRRI: else who would like to speak? MR. JIM KEEGAN: Thank you Mr. Casey. Is there anyone Mr. Keegan! My name is Jim Keegan, I live at FILE NO., -~ ll 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1244 Crestwood Dr., I would just like to refresh the memory of Council and go back to the days when this project came before the Planning Commission. One of the strong arguments used by the Developers, in faCt it was the strongest argument, it was the convincing argument at that time and that was the low vacancy rate for rental units in South San Francisco. They hit that point very strongly and I think that is what really sold this project. Now the project is being developed and they want to turn it into condominiums - what happens to vacancy rates, it certainly hasn't dimished any or we still have probably the same rate. So that condition which existed at that time which really sold that project because you remember there was a lot of opposition to the project for various reasons; for the zoning and the rest it had been zoned commercial office and the zoning was changed. But remember that point if just to refresh your memory that that was the number one selling point for that project - a low .vacancy rate for-rental units in South San Francisco. Thank you. MAYOR MIRRI: Thank you Mr. Keegan. Ms. Murphy! MS. CECILIA MURPHY: Cecilia Murphy, 253 Oakcrest Avenue. I don't know just how this fits in but in my feelings I would have to oppose this just for the simple fact that there was a statement made earlier about a certain ratio of rental units. Now, each time they come up they all say it isn't going to affect the rentals because it is only so many units, but we are speaking of a total of 67 units being asked to be converted tonight. I would want to know how this will lower our 30% rental units with that total in mind. MAYOR MIRRI: I don't know, do you know that? If my recollection is correct Mr. Rodine said, with the inclusion or exclusion of the 39 units from the rental market you would have a 29.9 percentile - is that correct? So we are right now with a 30.2 so we would be lowering it even further if we were to adopt these conversions. Is that correct? CENTRAL RECORD~ FI~£ ~0. 12 1 2 3 4 5 pKobably. SENIOR PLANNER CHRISTIANS: A portion of a tenth of a percent, MAYOR MIRRI: MS. CECILIA MURPHY: MAYOR MIRRI: G to speak in opposition to the Appellant's point of view? At this time then ? the proponet and the Appellant and those opposing the Appeal have given their 8 positions, are there individuals who would like to make some general statements 9 relative to conversions, hopefully these conversions... 10 CITY CLERK BATTAYA: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Perry 1! wishes to speak. 12 MAYOR MIRRI: Mr. Perry, would you like to step up 13 to the podium? 14 MR. SHERMAN PERRY: Good evening Mayor. Sherman Perry !5 is my name and I live at 3930 Geddes Court. I have lived there since it was 1G built and it is a condominium, I am on the Board and am President now. From 17 day one the first problem we have had is we have never had a quorum, meaning 18 that all 72 units never showed up for a meeting. Okay, as it stands five 19 years later we have 75% rentals. Okay, the cost of Assessments a month have 20 gone up around $24.00 to $39.00 a month. The big problems we are having now 2! are the rentals. The C.C.&Rs do not cover rentals, meaning that the absentee So that would be your answer Mrs. Murphy. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like 22. homeowner must be called if there is a problem in the Association, it is up 23 to them to take care of their rental. We cannot take care of their rental. 24 We cannot call a person and say you are spilling oil in the driveway. These 25 are just some of the problems that we have run into that I thought I would 2G bring up. 27 MAYOR MIRRI' Thank you Mr. Perry. 75% rental! 28 Okay, the Hearing at this time will be closed and we will have an opportunity 13 ! to ask questions of any of those who have come before us. Councilman Borba! 9. COUNCILMAN BORBA: I would like to ask Mr. Borges, 3 what is your position with the condos, are you tied in with them or is it a 4 job to make their representation. $ MR. FRANK BORGES: I will explain very briefly, my G company was founded in 1969. After serving several years on the Planning ? Commission of San Mateo, City of, found while I was a Commissioner that 8 applicants were not addressing concerns of the communities. I established 9 a consulting firm in '69 which is now ten or eleven years old. During that 10 time I have represented all types of use permits. Condominium conversions 11 being one of them in terms of articulating the viewpoint both of the !9. applicant as well as trying to address the concerns of the community through 13 what we call a development team, an attorney, engineers, architect and so !4 'forth. Similar~t~hat environmental impact reports have been part of 15 presentations and this is what my company has attempted to do for the last ll !G years. I have been well accepted by most Councilmen, I have a track record 18 19 20 job. 21 of success. community. I have a credibility because I do have the concerns of the That very briefly Mr. Borba is my role in this thing. COUNCILMAN BORBA: It's a job for you - just another MR. FRANK BORGES: No, I am afraid it is not. I had 22. a job for 15 years with a major corporation, that was a job. This is a joy 23 to represent the viewpoints of applicants. I enjoy it, it's a profession, ~.4 it is a very highly skilled and honorable profession. 25 COUNCILWOMAN TEGLIA: Through the Chair, may I, just on 9.G that. I think what Mr. Borba wants to know is if you have an interest in 9.? this project or is it simply your job to get this project through the 9.8 machinery of government? CENTRAL RI='CORD$ 14 MR. FRANK BORGES: before City Government. COUNCILWOMAN TEGLIA: through City Hall. MR. FRANK BORGES: for your judgment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 I am a consultant to applicants So your job is to get this application It is my job to present the facts 7 COUNCILMAN BORBA: Now, the other question I would like 8 to ask the Staff, Mr. Mayor, the sewer hook-up on apartments and condominiums - 9 they two different set-ups? If you are going to make condominiums separate I0 than apartments - you are going to divide them, aren't you? 1! SENIOR PLANNER CHRISTIANS: Maybe the Director of Public Services 12 could respond to that. 13 COUNCILMAN BORBA: In apartments, Mr. Birkelo don't they 14 have a running tie into the system. ]5 CITY MANAGER BIRKELO: You are thinking of a street hook-up 1G separately for each? 17 COUNCILMANBORBA: Funneled into one... 18 COUNCILMAN DAMONTE: They are both multi-family or multi 19 units and they would have one... 20 COUNCILMAN BORBA: Why not, they are separate units, 21 they should be tied separately. 22 CITY MANAGER BIRKELO: I would presume your utility service 23 would be different. 24 SENIOR PLANNER CHRISTIANS: There is only one line. 25 COUNCILMAN DAMONTE: Mr. Mayor, if I could refer- there. 2G is an item here from Colma and it has numerous classifications. It has resi- 27 dential family, single family dwellings and multi-family dwellings which include 2B duplexes, flats, apartments, auto courts, hotels, trailer courts - many classes 15¸ 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of usage. line. I would assume condominiums come under those classifications. MAYOR MIRRI: COUNCILMAN BORBA: CITY MANAGER BIRKELO: SENIOR PLANNER CHRISTIANS: Okay, are there any other... I still haven't got the answer. Mr. Yee can respond to that. Actually we have a map of the sewer DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SVC. YEE: Mr. Mayor, I understand the question relating to the sewer system for either condominiums or an apartment, as far as I know there is only one system that serves condominiums or apartments it is the same structure. COUNCILMAN BORBA: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SVC. YEE: COUNCILMAN BORBA: Is that on the plans there, Mr. Yee? Yes. Well, it's on that plan for apartment construction, then if you have condominiums you are breaking up the apartment 'units into individual units of their own, so I think you will have a problem there. MAYOR MIRRI: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SVC. YEE: Is that premise true? Well, the condominium as you know is nothing more than an air space, the sewer, lines serve the building and still belong to part of the building and part of the common area. COUNCILMAN BORBA: My question, Mr. Mayor, if you have a problem with the sewer unit who is to blame, which part of the condominium is going to get... DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SVC. YEE: The Homeowners Association, just like a swimming pool and other common utility areas. MAYOR MIRRI: Any other questions? Vice-Mayor Acosta. VICE MAYOR ACOSTA: Since these are for clarification CENTRAL RECORD~ FlEE i'~O. ~._~'-O ~'~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for myself - these are single family homes per se, but they are tied together i~ a condominium basis in their sewer fees that they pay to the City. Do they pay as a whole or does each unit pay as a single family home? Well according to what Damonte says per dwelling now, this is $500.00 per dwelling, in other words the sewer collection fees as it is now it's $43.00 per single family home. CITY MANAGER BIRKELO: Are you talkino about the annual rate? MAYOR MIRRI: Okay, I think it would be well if we can address the merits or demerits of this, because obviously the same questions we talk about tonight would affect the 39 units and we didn't get into that. VICE-MAYOR ACOSTA: We brought up that point and I just wanted clarification. Mr. Sherman - Mr. Perry rather brought up a very interesting point here, and I don't think it's possible for absentee landlords for example, where there is an Association of sorts, can there be a proxy vote? In other words, you know what I am getting at, if the person owns it and he rents it to somebody else and he is gone, can a proxy vote be given to that tenant for that tenant to vote? Is that possible? MR. SHERMAN PERRY: We mail them out hoping to get a return vote, it is in the rules that the tenants cannot have a vote. VICE-MAYOR ACOSTA: there have a proxy vote. MR. SHERMAN PERRY: Then does that person who resides No, the C.C.&R.s say they cannot have any say in any of the activities of the Association, which is bad. TIMOTHY TOSTA, ESQ. In the Condominium Management Document, my name is Timothy Tosta, I am an attorney in San Francisco. In the Courts in the last few years I have gone through the particular string and educational process and types of conflicts that you are addressing now and in several ! communities in the Bay Area. I have been an attorney in connection with 2 p~obably five to six thousand units throughout the Bay Area,. so we have 8 addressed these problems on a case by case basis and had an exceptional opportunity to meet the particular criteria on a project by project basis; 5 and my C.C.&R.s, that is the covenance, conditions and restrictions, which G manage the Association provide that proxy can be and will be given. I have ? never had the situation arise where there hasn't been the need for a quorum. 8 My C.C.&R.s further provide rental restriction, if necessary. That is for 9 example, if you have a building that appears~to be heading towards absentee !0 ownership what you can put in the C.C.&R.s is that you can't rent for a 11 period of less than, for example, three months that would keep the owner of 12 a condominium or would keep the tenant even if there is going to be some sort of turnover. It would keep the tenancy a little more consistent and avoid what is effectidely-an apartment house type of ownership, but there is a 15 trade-off there when you made a condominium and it is simply rented out, you ]G have not lost any rental housi'ng. So you have an important decision to make, 17 that is when you restrict the number or length of time in which it can be 18 rented. There is tremendous trade-offs in here and in San Francisco I drafted one of the versions of the Condominium Ordinance that was adopted by the Board 20 and I spent hundreds of hours working with them to get them to understand that 21 almost every decision you make has trade-off in it. Nothing really onerous 22. has been happening, if you want rental units you can still convert and have rental units, but in this type of project you can end up - there is the possibility if you want to restrict the rent of units you can still restrict them so that only owners live there. That is always the choice and always the Developer's choice, if you want to make it your choice you have got to be careful to weigh all the factors that go into it and it is something that is best not done uninformed. CENTRAL RECORI3~ FILE NO. ~'"~ ~? 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COUNCILWOMAN TEGLIA: Through the Chair, you don't under- stand, you see.the great wonderfulness about condominiums is that now we have pride of ownership and you see this is what makes these condominiums work so wonderfully for the City and the people who live there because they own those individual units. So you don't really want to rent them out, do you, is that really what you... TIMOTHY TOSTA, ESQ. I am not advocating that at all... COUNCILWOMAN TEGLIA: But that is what is happening in this City... TIMOTHY TOSTA, ESQ. I understand you have only got a hundred units converted and approved, so I don't quite... COUNCILWOMAN TEGLIA: If these applications tonight were exempted from a moratorium which we imposed because we did not know enough about how to go about converting condominiums. There is nothing exceptional about these buildings. TIMOTHY TOSTA, ESQ. MAYOR MIRRI: building... Let me tell... I think that anybody that has seen that COUNCILWOMAN TEGLIA: I have seen the building. MAYOR MIRRI: I have too and maybe you haven't seen as many as I have or maybe you have but in my opinion, as humble as it may be, that is an exceptional building. COUNCILWOMAN TEGLIA: You are talking about the 39 units, you are not talking about the 16... MAYOR MIRRI: I am talking about, your categorization of conversion was very general and I won't address that, but that was a very exceptional building. As to whether the items under contention right now are, we will come to that conclusion soon I hope but at least the one building we 19 ! talked about this afternoon was a very very exceptional building. 2 TIMOTHY TOSTA, ESQ. Well, in fact we have three rather 3 exceptional cases from what I understand the history to be beCause you have ~ in this particular case this application was filed in April of this year $ and I understand last month was when this moratorium became effective. In G the course of the moratorium you specifically excepted the three pending ? applications for consideration from the moratorium. Everytime I have been $ in this situa%ion, and I have been in three sets of moratoria in which the 9 Councilmembers or Boards of Supervisors have had to consider the issue, they ]0 have generally tried to conduct themselves in such a fashion that old rules ]1 apply to the buildings that were in track or on line as the applications ]2 were there. But I see, as I have also seen in other communities, is that ]3 you are feeling your way towards new standards, and while we understand that ]~ you have declared-a~moratorium. There is a distinct category of applications 15 that been here since April and we would like the opportunity to be under the ]G terms of your current Ordinance. Now if you look at the Planning CommiSsion's l? Resolution you will see that it says that at the outset that they found it 18 not consistent with the intent and purpose of the CondominiUm Ordinance. 19 Well I have carefully read your Condominium Ordinance and it has only got 20 three criterias referring to purpose and intent and those are to insure that 2! the project will have an overall positive effect which is a case by case basis and it is our contention that with no opposition here with a willingness to buy that there is not going to be any mass dislocation of tenants. Two of the units are currently vacant, three are involved in cases where the tenants have not paid rent,i~so there are some flaky tenants in there, and we have got a problem and it is the kind of problem that leads to a lot of turnover. You want to rectify that situation and add some stability to the area. The second point is that you make adequate provision for maintenance and manaQement. C[~TRAL R~COR~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22, 23 24 25 26 27 That is something I have been hired to do. That is something that I have sub- stantially more experience than most people in the area have, we make-condomin- iums work, we make management documents work. The third point is, do the governmental entities have the right to enter into the common area. Well, that is something we will provide in our management documents that you con- tinue to do so. So if the event arises where you find the need to come into the common area to enforce the right that the City has, you will be allowed to do so. That is all the purpose and intent that the Condominium Ordinance provides. The second point made by the Planning Commission' is that it is inconsistent with the General Plan in the housing element. Well, your housing element calls for a well balanced community to contain a variety of residen- tial densities... MAYOR MIRRI: If I may, Mr. Tosta, in all fairness your position that you are articulating is interesting, and I am sure the input is accurate. My point is that I think this testimony should have been made... TIMOTHY TOSTA, ESQ: At the onset. MAYOR MIRRI: ... at the time that your position was before this Council. It is this Council's opportunity at this point, perogative, to ask the questions. If those questions are addressed by any member of this Council... TIMOTHY TOSTA, ESQ: Actually~ I was attempting to rebut the management concept. MAYOR MIRRI: Okay, the management concept. If my recollection is correct, it was specifically asked, I know it was stated earlier. Now, quite frankly I would like to know that because I met with Mrs. Agee and she has explained a lot of things about it. I still-have reservations about the fact that it has to be 25 units because I have seen CENTRAL RECORI3~ some that operate beautifully that are smaller than that. I know she sincerely feels that way and she gave me some evidence as to why she feels that way, I respect that, but I would like to hear another point of view as well. But the Chair generally reserves its questions to last and if Council has any other questions, anyone here I will allow them... COUNCILMAN BORBA: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a statement. You have heard the facts earlier, it is more or less repetitious and we know what they are asking for, we 'either make a Motion to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission or reject it, so I will make a Motion... MAYOR MIRRI: The Chair is not going to recognize the Motion, because I have a question to ask. COUNCILMAN BORBA: Well, it is the same verbage. MAYOR MIRRI: Well, you may think it's garbage. COUNCIt~.~N BORBA: I didn't say garbage, I said verbage. 15 Do you want me to make the Motion? !G MAYOR MIRRI: I want to ask a question, then I will allow you to make a Motion and I do apologize. This management concept thing has been addressed before Council many times. I have seen some small er conversions and they are well done. As I said, Mrs. Agee has presented some evidence to me that I have to admit I had to listen to,-Ye.t I am still convinced that smaller developments ought to be allowed for many purposes, can you give me some background? TIMOTHY TOSTA, ESQ: Well, I would say in San Francisco I probably converted 50 to 60 buildings of units of ten and under, now none of them to date, and that would be in the last two or three years, have had any substantial management problems. In fact, with respect to the parking issues, none of them have parking at all, they have no parking whatsover and there is no substantial impact. With respect to storage areas, these are buildings that 22 built in the early 20th century, with respect to professional management they have no professional management. That is the homeowners gather together and make the decisions without a professional manager maintaining the building, they function very well. I also represent some Homeowners Associations, the willingness of the people to get along together that sometimes fails but more often than not it is successful. We have just not had that type of problem, we see the theme but we don't see the experience, there is a general tendency 8 at this point to downgrade the condominium conversion as a form of ownership that to be the result... MAYOR MIRRI: TIMOTHY TOSTA, ESQ: 9 and one of the items I have heard here which I have never heard in any other l0 community is the problem of management. We don't have the problem in San 11 Francisco, in particular, we don't have it in the East Bay, we don't have it in 52 Sacramento or in Carmel Valley all of which areas I have converted buildings. 13 Generally the people get along together, remember that people have put out good 14 money to own a unit and everyone has put themselves in the same position, so 15 you haYe got to look at your own self interests, what would you do if you iG lived and owned a building and you had a structure in which you could manage 17 your common areas... 18 MAYOR MIRRI: Mr. Tosta, but then you get a state- 19 ment like someone who said that there is.a 75% rental consideration, is that 20 because the market was such that that kind of speculation was affordable and 21 today because of the high market value. 22 TIMOTHY TOSTA, ESQ: Generally in this market no one is 23 going to get the loans to be able to speculate on a condominium unit, but again 24 most of the Developers I represent aren't intending to convert to speculate, 25 when they come in they say they want to provide homeownership and they intend ~G They wouldn't come in... Well, we generally provide a lease CENTRAL i~£¢01~ 1 9.. h~gh speculative project. 3 MAYOR MI RRI: 4 $ provision that acts a a dis-incentive towards the type of rapid turnover and Thank you Mr. Tosta. COUNCILMAN BORBA: I will entertain a Motion, Mr. Mayor, that we uphold the decision -- no tape, well I will wait until it gets on. (City Clerk Battaya runs out of tape on Side I and turns tape to Side 2.) COUNCILMAN BORBA: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a Motion now to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. COUNCILWOMAN TEGLIA: MAYOR MIRRI: COUNCILWOMAN TEGLIA: I would second that Motion. On the Question. Yeah, I would just like to make a 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 statement and perhaps it is redundent, but I would like to make it anyway. 14 -I am not opposed-t~ condominium conversion, I really am not, but I really feel 15 that if we are going to be converting buildings we ought to be converting good 1G buildings and the 39 unit building had some redeeming quality. This one does 17 not and I just hate to see my City going this way. 18 VICE-MAYOR ACOSTA: If I can make a statement also on 19 the same opinion, not to cast aspersions against Motel 6 please, but this 9.0 particular building has a common hallway and walking through it you can hear 21 that stereo. I would imagine everyone in there can hear that stereo. Here 22 I get back down to Item No. 3, and here again as far as noise levels and so 23 forth, is that part of the condominium - you know the conversion and so forth - 24 if that should be entered in there as part of the thought when we go to condo- 25 minium conversions; as far as installations; as far as the C.C.&R.s; as far 2G proxy votes so we can maintain something as it should be. Those are two 27 qualities that I would like to see, so if Staff would give it thought when 28 they go around to bringing in the new Ordinance, yes. 24 ! COUNCILMAN DAMONTE: Mr. Mayor, may I? Thank you Mr. Mayor. 2 I found the same thing to be true when I toured the building and besides the 3 noise factor, it was one of those extremely warm days and I thought I was 4 walking into a sauna. It was extremely hot, and there was no ventillation in $ the hallways and we stayed as short a period of time as possible. G MAYOR MIRRI: The building, I think that a concept ? of conversion particularly - well, particularly we only deal with those that 8 being dealth with by the Department - there are a couple of points that have 9 to be made here. I think Mr. Keegan raised the question that one of the ]0 arguments was indeed to provide apartments, ironically there are many people 11 who do not want apartments but and now argue to keep them as apartments. However, i2 I think tha~ conversion must be selective and I think that the first vote in i3 my opinion was an expression of that selectivity. One that was justified and 14 one that I think the community has a right to deserve. I think in this instance ]$ you have a situation where as it was given to us by Staff that there are 10 1G parking spaces short. You do not have those open space amenities, which I !? think the 39 units far surpass anything I have seen with twice that number of !8 units to complement this community. There is a displacement consideration ]9 that I know that you do not have objections from the tenants that was articulately 20 pointed out by Mr. Borges, but there is in fact a displacement, one that people 21 are going:!to have to deal with that are displaced. So I think particularly 22 and you gentlemen must understand I am not being apologetic to you, you have to 22 understand that this City is presently under a moratorium. I know you have 2~ interests involved and I respect those interests, but this Council went a 25 distance, some of us went a distance to put these three up for review because 2G we knew you had submitted those applications prior to our placing a moratorium 27 on conversions in this thing. So for those reasons I must look at this very 28 differently then I look at the 39 units, however, you know I don't know what CENTRAL RECORI3~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2:! 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 we expect for conversions or even conversions when we are asking under the $]00,000.00 range. We just aren't going to get air conditioning, we just aren't going to get swimming pools and that is one of the things that you can all say, boy we should have this, we should have that. But let me tell you you are not going to be able to buy a piece of property with all those amenities for under a $125,000.00 and anybOdy that has property should be telling you that, and there are a lot of kids that aren't going to be living with their parents in the next ten years. Okay, there is a Motion on the floor made by Councilman Borba, a Second on the Motion that was made to deny the Appeal. All those in favor signify by aye, all those opposed signify by nay. COUNCILWOMAN TEGLIA: COUNCILMAN BORBA: VICE~M/~YOR ACOSTA: COUNCILMAN DAMONTE: MAYOR MIRRI: MAYOR MIRRI: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. The Appeal has been denied and the decision of the Planning Commission upheld. Next Item. --o0o-- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22. 23 24 I 25 26 27 28 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) CgUNTY OF SAN MATEO ) I, BARBARA A. BATTAYA, City Clerk and Competent Shorthand.Reporter in the City of South San Francisco do hereby certify that the foregoing trans- cript consisting of 25 pages in RE: Public Hearing, NEIL D. EISENBERG APPEAL, SA-79-58, excerpted from the Regular City Council Meeting of the City of South San Francisco held on October 17, 1979, is a true typewritten reproduction of the tape recording and machine shorthand notes of said meeting. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of off~Ce this 24th day of January, 1980. Barbara A. Battaya ~ STATE OX CALIFORNIA SS. COU,'~T'f ;];: SA~; I. B.~-b,~ra A, B~tta¥'a, Cit,/C(e~k of the c;fy o~ Sou~h San Fran- cis::(:, ~]o:n~',' o' 5a~ Mateo. State of California, an e,-o~{ cio C~erk ~ _2.5... p~g~s._J.n .Re: Pub1 ic.. Hean~ ng ...~A.:?.9.-58 excerpted ..from...~he- Regu]a.~- ..... C~ty Council Meeting of 10-]7=7.9 J~-i WITNESS W~E2EOF ! have hereunto set m',, hand ~nd t~e seat of Clt'j C~rk a-,d ~-o f;c~o Cterk of th~ City Cou~c;t of the City of B~ C~t~ C'erk Depb~ City C'erk