HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1981-07-01Mayor Gus Nicolopulos
Vice Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia
Council:
Ronald G. Acosta
Mark N. Addiego
Emanuele N. Damonte
AGENDA
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Side 1 TF-O01)
CALL TO ORDER
AGENDA REVIEW
City Manager Birkelo requested:
- Adopt a Resolution honoring
Vietnam Veterans.
- Add as Item #5a Abatement of a
nuisance building at 2304
Olympic Drive.
- Add at the end of meeting dis-
cussion of possible development
in the marina and the Marina
Policy Board.
- Add at the end of the meeting
discussion of subsequent meet-
ings including two breakfasts
with Congressmen and Airport
representatives.
- Closed Session on litigation at
the end of the meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
Municipal Services Building
Community Room
July 1, 1981
ACTION TAKEN
Recited.
Mayor Nicolopulos asked that a
moment of prayerful silence be
observed for a long time resident
Dick Minucciani whole funeral took
place today.
7:35 p.m. Mayor Nicolopulos presid-
ing.
Council present: Acosta, Teglia,
Addiego and
Nicolopulos.
Council absent: Damonte.
AGENDA REVIEW
So ordered.
So ordered.
So ordered.
So ordered.
Vice Mayor Teglia requested that
the Closed Session include dis-
cussion of personnel matters.
So ordered.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No one chose to speak.
7/1/81
Page 1
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING JULY 4
AND 5, 1981 AS A "WEEKEND OF
RECOGNITION" TO HONOR AND
RECOGNIZE THE VIETNAM VETERANS
CONSENT CALENDAR
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
5/20/81, Adjourned Regular Meeting
of 5/21/81 and the Regular Meeting
of 6/3/81.
e
Staff Report 7/1/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution that
erects a three way stop at the
intersection of Stonegate Drive
and Sunset Avenue.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 3812, AS AMENDED, WHICH ESTA-
BLISHES CERTAIN TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE NO.
491 k~l~
3. Staff Report 7/1/81 recommending
by Motion award of the bid for
Liquid Chlorine to Jones Chemicals
of Milpitas.~.~..~.~
4. Staff Report 7/1/81 recommendin§
by Motion award of the bid for the
Orange Memorial Parking Lot to
MBM & Daughter~
5. Staff Report 7/1/81 recommending
by Motion authorization for the
City Manager to execute a Pro-
fessional Services Contract with
M.A.G. Consultants, Inc.
5a. Staff Report 7/1/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution approving
the plans and specification, author-
izing the work, and calling for
bids for the demolition and dis-
posal of existing structure at 2304
Olympic Dr., Project No. PB-81-1.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE
WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR DEMO-
LITION AND DISPOSAL OF EXISTING
M/S Acosta/Teglia - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 70-81
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approved.
RESOLUTION NO. 71-81
Approved.
Removed from the Consent Calendar
by Vice Mayor Teglia for discussion.
Approved.
7/1/81
Page 2
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CONSENT CALENDAR
5a. Staff Report - Continued.
STRUCTURE AT 2304 OLYMPIC DRIVE,
PROJECT NO. PB-81-1
5a.
Staff Report 7/1/81 recommending
by Motion award of the bid.for the
Orange Memorial Parking Lot to
MBM & Daughters.
Staff Report 7/1/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution approving
the plans and specification, author-
izing the work, and calling for
bids for the demolition and dis-
CONSENT CALENDAR
Removed from the Consent Calendar
by Vice Mayor Teglia for discussion.
M/S Addiego/Teglia - Consent
Calendar be approved with the
exception of Item 4 and Item 6.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Vice Mayor Teglia expressed concern
that the low bidder was $3,000.00
lower than the next lowest bid
and questioned what was known
about the Company that made the
low bid.
Superintendent of Parks & Land-
scaping DuPlessis said that the
bid was for grading and filling in
with rock, the base and header
board - that paving was not
included in the bid. He stated
that City Engineer Mike Sitel had
had dealings with this particular
Company and that they had been
satisfactory dealings.
M/S Acosta/Addiego - To award the
bid.
Councilman Addiego said that he
did not like the ideas of breaking
the project into several bids and
would prefer one bid package for
the entire work.
City Manager Birkelo asked that
the Item be put under Items from
Staff for later consideration after
discussion from the Public Services
Department.
So ordered.
7/1/81
Page 3
5a. Staff Report 7/1/81 - Continued.
posal of existing structure at 2304
Olympic Dr., Project No. PB-81-1.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE
WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR DEMO-
LITION AND DISPOSAL OF EXISTING
STRUCTURE AT 2304 OLYMPIC DRIVE,
PROJECT NO. PB-81-1 (TF-085)
APPROVAL OF BILLS
6. Approval of the Regular Bills of
7/1/81.
CITY CLERK
e
Staff Report 7/1/81 including
Initiative Petition and Certifi-
cate of Sufficiency (San Bruno
Mountain South Slope) recommending
that the City Council either intro-
duce the Initiative Ordinance or
call a Special Election pursuant to
Elections Code Section 4010.
Director of Public Services Yee
said that Council had declared
the property a nuisance and that
the property owner had not abated
the nuisance -- so this was a
legal step to remove the nuisance.
A discussion followed on whether
the owner had been notified, etc.
Acting City Attorney Rogers said
that he had talked to the Henderson
Attorney and the concern voiced by
the Attorney was how the City
would go after the costs of the
abatement. He stated that the
City could attach the costs against
the property and go after the
owner personally for those costs.
He described the procedure: go
out to bid; award the bid;
demolish the building and certify
what the costs were; a Hearing
for the owner to voice objection
to the costs; and a second Hearing.
M/S Teglia/Addiego - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 72-81
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
APPROVAL OF BILLS
M/S Teglia/Acosta - To approve the
Regular Bills.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Councilman Addiego did not parti-
cipate or vote in the matter of
the claim of Brentwood Market.
CITY CLERK
7/1/81
Page 4
CITY CLERK
7. Staff Report 7/1/81 - Continued.
INITIATIVE MEASURE TO BE SUB-
MITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS
OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO (TF-104)
(TF-125)
CITY CLERK
City Clerk Battaya explained that
the Initiative Petition had been
filed in her office on 7/15/81;
it was submitted to the County
Election Dept. for signature
verification on 7/16/81; returned
to the Clerk's Office on 7/23/81;
4,144 signatures were submitted,
3,643 were valid and represented
17.4% of the registered voters;
a Certification of Sufficiency
was issued 6/24/81 and the pro-
ponents notified on 6/24/81.
She stated that the Elections
Code states that if the initiative
petition is signed by not less
than 15% of the voters of the
City the legislative body shall
either introduce the Ordinance
or order a special election
to be held not less than 94 nor
more than 109 days after the
date of the order. She continued,
due to the fact that the Code
is quite specific in that an
Election cannot fall on the day
after a State Holiday, therefore
it is my interpretation that if
a Special Election is called the
only date available for the
Election would be 10/6/81.
Vice Mayor Teglia stated that
concern had been voiced that the
Initiative Petition as presented
may or may not be defensible in Court in
terms of the Federal or State
Constitution. She stated that she
would like to see one or two
outside legal opinions from environ-
mental firms that make it a practice
to defend municipalities in Court.
Acting City Attorney Rogers said
he had talked to John Noonan, Esq.
and there was concurrence to go
out and get an in-depth legal
analysis of the City's position
if the Initiative passed. He
stated that the discussion of
7/1/8Z
Page 5
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CITY CLERK
7. Staff Report - Continued.
(TF-175)
CITY CLERK
the selection of an attorney's
firm should be in Closed Session
as he felt that litigation was
likely as an outcome. He spoke
in detail of forced annexation
due to the sphere of influence;
refusing annexation and the
repercussions; would the Ordinance
interfer with contractual obligations
to provide mutual aid services;
the taking of land that is not
within the City's jurisdiction, etc.
Vice Mayor Teglia stated that the
people had brought the measure
forward to speak to Council and
felt it was necessary to direct
Staff to prepare some sort of a
report to delineate all relevant
information for the City to
perhaps prepare another measure
for the ballot.
A discussion followed on the
time frame necessary in conducting
the election and the City Clerk
was instructed to prepare a time
schedule for perusal of Council.
Mr. Alfred E. Savery, 6 Iris Court,
spoke in favor of the Ordinance
being adopted and spoke of the
question being raised as to
whether or not the signatures
indicated a majority of the
registered electorate. He said
that if it did not indicate a
majority, then that majority was
silent and not an expressed
opinion in opposition to the
petition. He spoke of the
unusual environmental qualities
of San Bruno Mountain and felt
the Mountain should be protected
against development.
7/1/81
Page 6
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CITY CLERK
7. Staff Report - Continued.
(TF-210)
(TF-234)
(TF-258)
CITY CLERK
Mr. Larry Casey, 363 Forestview
Drive, said he was not speaking
as a member of the Citizens
Actions League tonight. He
recommended that Council call
a Special Election for the
people to vote on this issue.
He stated that the Petition
asked that a Special Election
be called and did not address
the Petition being adopted as
an Ordinance. He stated that
the cosi~of a Special Election
were due to the untimely filing
of the Petition in the City
Clerk's Office. He spoke in-
depth concerning growth and no
growth.
Mrs. Jane Lee, 1321 Hillside
Blvd., spoke of a newspaper
article that spoke of the Task
Force Workshop as having an aura
of resignation. She stated that
it was not clear who was resigned,
the public or the Task Force or
the Developer. She said that
the fact that the Initiative was
before Council with 4,000 signatures
clearly showed that the public had
not given up. She spoke in great
detail of the services being called
for on the Mountain; she spoke of
the attorney CAL had retained and
that Vice Mayor Teglia had stated
that if you hire an attorney you
should take his advice, etc.
Vice Mayor Teglia gave credence
to the voice of 4,000 people
and that if the vehicle did not
measure up then perhaps the
Council could find another vehicle
to express it better.
Ms. Sydney Behrendt, 128 Claremont,
voiced some of the concerns of
the citizens when circulating the
Petition, i.e., to keep San Bruno
Mountain as open space; that money
and big business would ultimately
triumph; adopt this as an Ordinance,
7/1/81
Page 7
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CITY CLERK
7. Staff Report - Continued.
(TF-268)
(TF-285)
(TF-305)
(TF-308)
(TF-320)
CITY CLERK
and keep faith with the citizenry.
Mr. Dewey Faoro, 607 Larch Ave.,
asked why the Council hadn't
put this measure on the ballot
on a regular election and saved
the $36,000.
Acting City Attorney Rogers said
that if the Petition had been
presented at the next regular
City Council meeting it would
have been possible to put the
Measure on the November Election
or the April 1982 Election.
Mr. Rob Gibbs, 124 Drake Ave.,
spoke of the Save the San Bruno
Mountain Committee and said this
issue has been on-going for some
ten years and that this was the
first time it would go to a vote
of the people. He stated that
the Petition had been signed by
residents all over the City and
not just isolated areas.
Mr. Jake Jones, 12 E1 Campo Dr.,
stated he was amazed that people
were asking that Council adopt
an Ordinance, when he had signed
the Petition it had stated that
it was to call a Special Election.
Mr. Charles Getz, 845 Ridge Court,
stated that he was appearing as
an individual and in that he was
a land use attorney would be
willing to offer the names of
attorney firms that work in
environmental law. He stated
that one was Shute, Mahally and
Weinberger had successfully
defended the City of Tiburon
before the Supreme Court.
Councilman Addiego stated that
he had signed this particular
Initiative Petition. He said
the Initiative drive was just
the first in an education
process that the CAL group
7/1/81
P~ge 8
AGENDA
CITY CLERK
7. Staff Report - Continued.
(TF-334)
(TF-347)
ACTION TAKEN
72
CITY CLERK
is going have to undertake if
CAL wants to see this thing
through. The next is the
campaign itself and the questions
that are going to be raised and
there are some very important
things in the document that are
going to be raised that will
perhaps over-shadow. He stated
that it was very important to
remove the shadows from the
process to find out what the
citizens want for their town.
He agreed with Vice Mayor Teglia
in seeking outside environmental
law firm to give Council an
interpretation of the document
that the body will agree on.
He stated that it would be
unfortunate for the City to
be in a campaign where one side
was shouting at the other that
it was dishonest or being deceitful
and he wanted to remove that by
joining together to resolve this
issue of whether or not the
Ordinance constitutional.
Vice Mayor Teglia said that the
basis for the criteria in
selection of an attorney's firmj
that it is only a firm that has
made its name by defending
municipalities. She said she
would have difficulty in adopting
an Ordinance because she had
talked to many people who had
signed the Petition in order for
it to be placed on the ballot.
She felt the issue of constitution-
ality was most important to be
settled and proceeded to read the
oath of office each Councilperson
had taken when sworn into office.
Councilman Acosta stated that he
had circulated a lot of petitions
and that this one was the only
one in South San Francisco that
had been successful. He continued,
that an initiative gave the people
7/1/81
Page 9
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CITY CLERK
7. Staff Report - Continued.
(TF-379)
CITY CLERK
more time to garner signatures
and that it was a law of the
people. He stated that if the
people wanted to over turn an
Ordinance the people have 30 days
from the time the Ordinance
passed to circulate a petition
to over rule the Ordinance. He
stated that he admired the people
who had circulated the petition
and knew the hard work that
entailed. He continued, that by
putting it on the ballot it
enabled arguments to be heard
pro and con, which is the
American system. He stated that
the word used by Vice Mayor Teglia
"defensible" he found offensive
and would have used the word
"constitutional", even though
they both meant the same thing.
He said that he would not like
the people of South San Francisco
to vote for something in a positive
nature, thinking they are correct,
and then they find out they are
not correct and must stand liable.
He stated that he would like to
call for a Special Election
pursuant to Elections Code 4010.
Mayor Nicolopulos said that the
Initiative proponents deserved
a lot of credit for gathering
3,643, 17.4% of the registered
voters of South San Francisco
which totalled 20,933 at the
time of the Initiative. 3,140
signatures were required by
Elections Code 4010. The people's
efforts required dedicated enthus-
iasm and worn out shoe leather.
He spoke in detail of the self
determination, participation in
government and the right to
criticize, lethargy. He stated
that he did not want to deny the
17,290 registered voters that
were not heard from on the petition.
7/1/81
Page 10
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CITY CLERK
7. Staff Report - Continued.
(TF-408)
CITY CLERK
Mayor Nicolopulos felt that this
issue should go on the ballot
to enable all registered voters
in the City to be heard on this
issue at the polls.
M/S Acosta/Teglia - To call for
a Special Election pursuant to
Elections Code 4010, to be held
on 10/6/81.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Teglia/Acosta - To direct the
Acting City Attorney to seek
outside legal opinion(s) to deal
with the questions and issues that
had been raised, i.e., compatibi-
lity with Federal and State Law,
forced annexation, contractual
agreements and boundary area.
Councilman Addiego said that his
suggestion was that Council come
to agreement with the Initiative
proponents with the attorney's
firm to be selected. He said
that if the other side was removed
from the selection, then it is
just another interpretation that
is rebuttal and nothing has been
accomplished.
Acting City Attorney said he could
see some ethical problems down
the road for the attorney if it
were perceived there were two
separate opposing interests
involved. He said if the proponents
that their interest and the interests
of the City Council were opposed
then the attorney would have problems
if he were supposedly representing
both sides of an issue. However,
if it was understood that only a
legal opinion was requested, then
perhaps he could represent both.
Vice Mayor Teglia said that ultim-
ately the City Attorney for the
City was going to make the contact
7/1/81
Page 11
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CITY CLERK
7. Staff Report - Continued.
CITY CLERK
and ask for the interpretation that
could be asked for and Council was
asking could the CAL people be
allowed to participate in the
selection.
A discussion followed on whether
this would impugn the integrity
of the law firm giving the opinion,
the possibility of a future liti-
gation, etc.
Councilman Addiego said he was
interested in the consensus of
Council; how are we going to go
about this; do we want to begin
a battle right now or do we want
to remove a cloud from this
Initiative; even if the firm
selected was a reputable firm, and
it would be reputable, but even that
could be challenged, etc.
Acting City Attorney Rogers said
to look down the road to a lawsuit
by either the Developer or the
people who do not want the land
developed. He ~aid it would be
preferable to hold back information
in the event of litigation. He
said it was good to be open and
honest and get a good opinion from
an attorney.
Councilman Addiego said he would
like at least give the impression
that it was a good and honest
opinion.
Mayor Nicolopulos said a clarification
was needed on an issue that seems
cloudy at this time and that there
was some question of whether this
Petition was legal or illegal.
Councilman Addiego stated that the
City was committed to spending
$36,000 and then if it gets into an
attorneys war of interpretation
then it would be useless if it was
one sided.
7/1/81
Page 12
AG E N DA A C T I O N TA K E N''~ r~7
CITY CLERK
7. Staff Report - Continued.
(TF-463)
RECESS:
CITY CLERK
He said that often Government is
pushed into an adversary relationship
with the public and he said he was
trying to alleviate that.
A discussion followed on the CAL
Attorney and his discussions with
Acting City Attorney Rogers and
the fact that the City's Attorney
had not been shown the Petition
before it was filed; selection of
an attorney firm, etc.
Vice Mayor Teglia sai¢ if it is
found that there is a serious con-
stution problem with the Initiative
in the way it is written the Council
then has an obligation to point that
out to the people of this community.
She stated that 4,000 people are
trying to talk to Council and perhaps
they are not using the right password
to get through, but it is then incum-
bent upon Council to come up with
a substitute measure that would.
address some of the concerns of the
community.
Acting City Attorney Rogers asked
if the Council wanted a ruling on
the sufficiency or deficiency of
this measure and if found deficient
Council wants the attorney to make
suggestions in terms of language
to be used on another measure.
Vice Mayor Teglia said she would
like to tell Council how much time
they had to develop this additional
measure if it turns out to be
necessary.
Councilman Acosta asked that this.
matter be expedited as soon as
possible even if it entailed calling
a special meeting. He then called
for the vote.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Mayor Nicolopulos called a recess
at 9:15 p.m.
7/1/81
Page 13
A G E N D A A_C_T I_O_N__ T__A__KEN__
RECALL TO ORDER:
CITY MANAGER
8. Staff Report 7/1/81 with a report
on the status of the Brentwood
Shopping Center Parking Lot.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (TF-531)
0
Staff Report 7/1/81 recommending
adoption of an Ordinance that
establishes a new Zoning District
entitled "The Gateway Specific
Plan District" and the Rezoning
from M-2 to the "Gateway Specific
Plan District" certain properties
in the Gateway Redevelopment
Project: 1) Motion to waive
further reading of the Ordinance;
2) Motion that the Ordinance be
passed and adopted.
2nd Reading/Adoption
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO ESTABLISHING A ZONING
DISTRICT ENTITLED "GATEWAY SPECIFIC
PLAN DISTRICT" AMENDMENT OF SECTION
2.1 AND 2.2 OF ORDINANCE NO. 353
AMENDED, ENTITLED "ZONING ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO"
ADOPTED ON AUGUST 10, 1954 AND THE
MAP ENTITLED "ZONING MAP OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATED
JUNE 18, 1975
Mayor Nicolopulos recalled the
meeting to order at 9:30 p.m.,
all Council present.
CITY MANAGER
City Manager Birkelo stated that
this item had been kept on the
Agenda to resolve the matter.
He stated that a rough draft con-
taining four provisions were
given to the property owners and
the City Attorney. He continued,
that the property owners were
advised that through their attorney to
contact Mr. Rogers so that a
final draft can be given to Council at
the July 15th meeting. He stated
that otherwise Staff will come back
to Council with alternate recommend-
ations.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela said that the Gateway
Specific Plan District involved
an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance of the City and a Zoning
Map of the City which involved
117 acres of property. He continued,
essentially the proposal is to create
a special zone for the Gateway
District and amendment the map
consistent with that zone. He
stated that the Planning Commission
recommended that the Specific Plan
be approved and modified accordingly
and ask that the Council adopt the
Resolution making the four findings
in the Staff Report.
Councilman Addiego asked for a clarif-
ication of the term "clinics" on
page six.
City Clerk Battaya read the entire
title of the Ordinance aloud.
7/1/81
Page 14
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
9. Staff Report - Continued.
(TF-557)
RECESS:
RECALL TO ORDER:
10.
Staff Report 7/1/81 recommending
adoption of an Ordinance regulating
the conversions of condominiums,
stock cooperatives and community
apartment projects: 1) Motion to
waive further reading of the
Ordinance; 2) Motion that the
Ordinance be passed and adopted.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that would be
for doctor clinics, x-ray clinics
and such, that type of use that
is permitted in an office district.
Mayor Nicolopulos asked the
difference between precise plan
and a specific plan.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela said that the specific
plan is contained in the California
General Statutes and is a term
given to the process by which a City
can create a specific zoning district.
A precise plan is a way of defining
the phasing or the detail plans
within the umbrella of the specific
plan.
M/S Acosta/Teglia - To waive further
reading of the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Acosta/Teglia - That the
Ordinance be passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 868-81
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Mayor Nicolopulos called a recess
at 9:35 p.m.
Mayor Nicolopulos recalled the
meeting to order at 9:36 p.m.,
all Council present.
City Clerk Battaya read the entire
title of the Ordinance aloud.
M/S Teglia/Addiego - To waive
further reading of the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
7/1/81
Page 15
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
10. Staff Report - Continued. (TF-563)
2nd Reading/Adoption
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE CON-
VERSION OF CONDOMINIUMS, STOCK
COOPERATIVES AND COMMUNITY
APARTMENT PROJECTS
11.
Public Hearing - RZ-81-73 Rezoning
from "R-I" Single Family Residential
to "RPD-6" Residential Planned Dev-
elopment Zone District properties
at E1 Rancho Drive-In Theatre site
(Home Savings and Loan Assoc./
Hamlin Land Co.)
Staff Report 7/1/81 recommending:
l) Open the Public Hearing and hear
testimony; 2) Close the Public
Hearing; 3) Approve Negative
Declaration No. 311; 4) Motion to
waive further reading of the
Ordinance; 5) Motion to introduce
the Ordinance.
1st Reading/Introduction
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 353, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED
"ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO" AND ESTA-
BLISHING A "RPD-6" RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED ZONE DISTRICT ON CERTAIN
PROPERTY (COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE
EL RANCHO DRIVE-IN THEATRE SITE)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
M/S Teglia/Addiego - That the
Ordinance be passed and adopted.
Vice Mayor requested reassurance
from the City Attorney that within
three months an amendment would
be presented to Council with the
3% changed to 5% and other modi-
fications that Council requested.
Consensus of Council that the
amendment would be presented to
Council within three months with
the modifications stated.
ORDINANCE NO. 869-81
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
City Clerk Battaya read the entire
title of the Ordinance aloud.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that the Planning
Commission recommended that the
Council approve the rezoning of
the subject property from R-1 to
RPD-6. He continued, that the
subject rezoning was sought to
accommodate the proposed develop-
ment of a 92 unit townhouse complex
with applications presently being
processed through the Planning
Commission on the particular site.
He said that the rezoning was
also consistent with the General
Plan of the communitywhich states
that a low density residential
designation shall be allowed up
to a density of six units per acre.
He stated that the applicants
were in attendance to answer any
questions.
Mayor Nicolopulos declared the
Public Hearing open.and invited
anyone to speak in favor to step to
the dais.
7/1/81
Page 16
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ll. Public Hearing - Continued.
(TF-618)
(TF-790)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Vice Mayor Teglia told the Director
of Community Development that he
was asking for a rezoning, however
She wanted to see what the project
is that was being facilitated.by
the rezoning.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela explained the project
in great detail and the work that
was to be done on the slopes. He
stated that the project started
out to be a 102 unit project which
was reduced to the present 92 units.
Vice Mayor Teglia asked about the
latitudes of height under an RPD
which the Developer was not entitled
with R-1 and stated that she wanted
these things explained during the
process.
Mr. Charles Cencibaugh said he
represented the applicant, Home
Savings and Loan, who would build
single family attached units; to
be constructed in 2, 3 and 4 units;
that the density would be compat-
ible wi th the General Plan and
that he would answer any questions
on the recreational facility,
landscaping and elevation plans.
A discussion followed on the site
plan; asthetics of the buildings;
that the initial plan had been
for mobile homes; density and
heights; comparison to the Stonegate
Development; the panhandle, living
room about the garage and whether
the garage was detached; incorpor-
ating the San Francisco easement
into the project through landscaping;
the Council reviewing the RPD
process, etc.
Ms. Lillian Ortiz, 26 Conrad Court,
expressed the following cercerns:
how many cars this project would
generate in the neighborhood and
a security system and what control
would be exercised in the recreational
7/1/81
Page 17
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ll. Public Hearing - Continued.
RECESS: (TF-860)
RECALL TO ORDER:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
area to minimize litte~].gg.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that with 92
units at three round trips a day,
would generate 600 cars a day.
Mr. Hamlin stated that the home
owners would provide security
through fences and walls.
Mayor Nicolopulos asked if anyone
chose to speak against the rezoning -
no one chose to speak. He then
opened the discussion to Council.
Councilman Addiego stated that
ordinarily the Use Permit would not
t~' before the Council unless
it is appealed.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that if the
Council had a problem with the
design and type of units then
it should be requested that
Council review. He further stated
that the zone change should be
judged on its own merits.
Mayor Nicolopulos asked if any
of the groups of people questioned
disagreed with this project.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that there was
not an extensive amount of opposition
against the project primarily
because Staff had done a lot of
neighborhood coordination on this
project. He stated that at the
present time there were problems
with garbage being dumped and he
felt that this project would
improve the site.
Mayor Nicolopulos declared a
recess at 10:28 p.m.
Mayor Nicolopulos recalled the
meeting to order at 10:38 p.m.,
all Council present.
7/1/81
Page 18
AGENDA 82
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ll. Public Hearing - Continued.
(TF-908)
12.
Public Hearin9 - SA-81-70/Bayland
Development Corp. Appeal of the
Planning Commission's decision on
5/14/81 denying approval of the
ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A discussion followed on the
RPD-5 as opposed to a RPD-6;
how the Home owner associations
fees compare from one development
to another; when the City could
request a scale model of the
project; what a scale model would
cost, etc.
Mayor Nicolopulos declared the
Public Hearing closed.
M/S Acosta/Addiego - To approve
Negative Declaration No. 311.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Acosta/Addiego - To waive
further reading of the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Acosta/Addiego - To introduce
the Ordinance
Vice Mayor Teglia asked if the
intention was that when the project
be reviewed by the Council without
a formal appeal process.
Acting City Attorney Rogers said
that the last time this situation
occurred a Councilman had made an
appeal for Council to review and
a hearing.
Consensus of Council that Staff
notify Council after the Planning
Commission acts to allow Council
to appeal.
Carried by majority voice vote,
Vice Mayor Teglia voted no.
7/1/81
Page 19
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (TF-929)
12. Public Hearing - Continued.
Tentative Subdivision Map SA-81-70
(Stonegate Ridge Unit No. 5).
Staff Report 7/1/81 recommending by
Motion that the decision of the
Planning Commission be upheld.
13.
Public Hearing - UP-78-440 (Mod. 1)
Bayland Development Corp. Appeal of
the Planning Commission's decision on
5/14/81, denying (Mod. 1) a proposed
modification of Bayland Development
Company to the Site Plan, Building
Elevations and Floor Plans for
Stonegate Ridge Unit No. 5, to
create a 79 unit air space condomin-
ium project located on the westerly
side of the terminus of Ridgeview
Court in the PC - Planned Community
Zone District.
Staff Report 7/1/81 recommending by
Motion that the decision of the
Planning Commission be upheld.
(TF-994)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mayor Nicolopulos reviewed the
remaining Agenda.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that the recom-
mendation by the Planning Commission
was to open the Public Hearing and
hear testimony, close the Public
Hearing; requesting a motion to
deny the appeal based on the ten
findings in the Staff Report.
He further stated that Item No. 12
and No. 13 are appeal items and
that No. 13 related to a Use
Permit granted in 1978 and extended
to 1979. He continued, that
Item No. 12 is a subdivision map
which attempted to create a
condominium type of ownership
situation on it and are related.
He stated that Council had a copy of
a letter from the attorney repres-
enting the applicant who questioned
the Planning Commission's opinion
that the Use Permit for Unit 5 is
no longer valid. He stated that
for these reasons the two items
should be dealt with together.
Mayor Nicolopulos opened the
Public Hearing and invited anyone
to speak in favor of the Appeal.
Ms. Bette Land, 961A Ridgeview
Court, spoke in favor of the Appeal
and stated that it would stop the
vandalism, fires and garbage which
was being dumped on the site.
Daniel J. Modena, Esq., 421 Grand
Ave., representing the owner,
Mr. C. N. Chow, and the developer,
Mr. Charles Sprincin. He stated
that the Use Permit was the basic
fundamental underlying matter of
both twelve and thirteen and
believed it was still valid. He
also felt that the tentative map
with the 10 conditions, 9 of which
do not deal with the Use Permit,
that the Planning Commission ruled
upon.
7/1/81
Page 20
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 85
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
13. Public Hearing - Continued.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
He stated that the owner had come
before the Planning Commission and
the City Council in 1978 for an
extension of the Use Permit, which
was one Use Permit for Stonegate
4, 5, and 6, which was given
without any conditions. He
explained in detail that there was
one project that dealt in phases.
He stated that when the Council
addressed itself to the Use Permit
the owner was ready to work with
the Commission, Staff and the
residents to work out some of
the differences. He stated that
he was asking for two findings
from Council: 1) That UP 78-440
is valid and in full force and
effect; 2) Modification of the
Site Plan, Building Elevations,
etc.
Acting City Attorney Rogers agreed
with Mr. Modena that the Use
Permit should be dealt with first
and then Council deal with the
other issues on the Tentative Map.
Mayor Nicolopulos asked what the
proper recourse was, should the
two items be handled as one Public
Hearing or two separate Hearings.
Acting City Attorney Rogers stated
that if Mr. Modena agreed to one
Public Hearing for both items and
it was so stated on the record
then it would be proper.
Mr. Modena, Esq. concurred and
stated that once the Use Permit
was resolved he believed all else
could be worked out.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that if the
Use Permit was resolved then
Item No. 13, a modification to
the Use Permit, would go back to
the Commission. He stated that
7/1/81
Page 21
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
13. Public Hearing - Continued.
(TF-1060)
(TF-1130)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
on the Tentative Map the Use
Permit is only one of l0 findings
and that the other 9 findings
would still have to be addressed
before the Tentative Map could
be approved.
Mayor Nicolopulos asked anyone
wishing to speak for or against
the Appeal to address both Item
No. 12 and Item No. 13.
Maurice K, Hamilton, Esq.,
stated that the prime point in his
opinion was that UP 78-440 is a
single Use Permit encompassing
4, 5 and 6. He stated that the
record would show that they have
always been treated as a single
Use Permit with three phases of
development.
Councilman Acosta asked if
Article No. 4, phase number 4
was a part of the Tentative Map
or if each of the three phases
was a Tentative Map.
Acting City Attorney Rogers said
there was a Tentative Map filed
which covered 4, 5 and 6 and that
there was a Final Map filed on 4;
there was no Final Map filed on
5 and 6. He continued, the
Tentative Map covering 5 and 6
then expired because it was not
filed within the time limit.
Charles Sprincin, 50 California
Street, San Francisco, project
developer, stated that there
had been one tentative map for
all three phases, and that the
tentative map for 4 had been
submitted prior to the tentative
maps for 5 and 6. He explained
the problems which had arisen
out of the proposed concept for
the development.
7/1/81
Page 22
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
13. Public Hearing -Continued.
(TF-1316)
(TF-1365)
(TF-1393)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Discussion followed concerning the
parking; elevation of buildings;
possible violation of the City's
zoning ordinance; site plans; and
the Acting City Attorney's opinion
that "notwithstanding the fact that
we had erroneously issued one Use
Permit for three units, they will be
treated as three units."
Maurice Hamilton, Esq., requested
that the City find the Use Permit
valid.
Mayor Nicolopulos invited those
wishing to speak in opposition
to the appellant to the step to the
dais.
Doris Agee, 819 Ridge Court,
stated that the planning for the
Stonegate area was inappropriate
for the site and indicated that the
residents have voiced their concerns
since 1978. She requested that Mr.
Sprincin revise his original plans
and prepare new plans recognizing
the concerns and problems of the
a rea.
David Diller, 964 Ridgeview Court,
stated concern over the potential
traffic problems and requested that
Council consider the decision of the
Planning Commission and deny the
Use Permit and that Mr. Sprincin
submit a new plan which had been
considered by the residents.
Charles Getz, 845 Ridge Court,
explained that he was speaking as
a representative of the South San
Francisco Planning Commission and
stated that it had been unanimously
voted that the Use Permit was in-
valid and that the proposed design
was aesthetically unacceptable. He
stated that the Commission had heard
testimony from citizens as to the
impacts of the proposed development.
The Commission upon making its
decision had encouraged the developer
7/1/81
Page 23
AGENDA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
13. Public Hearing - Continued.
(TF-1492)
(TF-1569)
ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
to work with Staff and the Planning
Commission to develop a different
plan and come back with a new
application.
Mr. Getz continued that as a private
citizen and an attorney he felt the
analysis made by the Acting City
Attorney was correct concerning
the Use Permit for 5 and 63
that they are invalid or expired and
proceeded to state his reasons based
upon various court rulings.
Margaret Warren, 790 Stonegate Drive,
expressed concern with the appro-
priateness of the size, scope, design
and density of the project. She
further requested that the City not
allow the error to be repeated and
indicated that ignorance of the law
would be no excuse.
Discus~onensued as to the difference
between ignorance of the law and a
mistake of the law and its relevance
to the issue. Also the extension
which had been granted by the Council
for UP-78-440.
C. N. Chow, Managing Partner of
Bayland Properties, stated that he
had bought 4, 5, and 6 from Mr.
Coopman and had applied for the Use
Permit and Variance and indicated
that he had felt it was one project
with three phases. He continued
to explain the process of meeting
with the developers, staff, Mrs.
Agee and other residents of Stonegate
and obtaining their approval for the
proposed plans. He indicated that
he felt that everything was fine,
then he found out that the plans
did not meet the City's zoning
ordinance and that the Use Permit
was invalid. He stated that to
show good faith he had worked with
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela on redesigning the
project and explained the concepts
which had been presented to him
7/1/81
Page 24
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
13. Public Hearing - Continued.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
by members of the Design Review
Board and others.
In-depth discussion followed con-
cerning the design submitted; the
application not being completed;
the recommendations for redesign;
density of the area, etc.
Vice Mayor Teglia asked Acting
City Attorney Rogers if in his
opinion,"is there an active Use
Permit at this time."
Acting City Attorney Rogers stated
"if there are three separate units
and Council feels that they have
been treated as 3 separate units by
the developer, by staff, by Council,
by Planning Commission, all the way
through, except somebody made a mis-
take and issued one Use Permit
several years ago, then in my~
opinion the Use Permit on Units 5
and 6 is not a valid Use Permit
anymore, it's expired. However,
Council's opinion on the facts is
just 180o from that. It's one
integral unit and has to rely
on itself to survive, not necessarily
economically, but because these
things all tie in so closely that
you really can't function with 3 or
4 by itself, or 5 by itself, or 6
by itself, and we've treated it
that way all along and that was
Council's intent when they approved
the extension for 4, 5 and 6 all at
the same time on one particular night
in October of 1979, then I would say
that 4 can keep 5 and 6 alive."
" ..... Council needs to decide the
fact, first of all, as to whether
this thing is so closely tied that
it's one or whether it's been
treated separately and it is 3
separate things."
Mr. Modena, Esq., stated that they
disputed the opinion of the City
Attorney and did not want by their
silence to admit anything.
7/1/81
Page 25
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
13. Public Hearing - Continued.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mayor Nicolopulos asked how the
Council could rectify the previous
violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
Acting City Attorney Rogers stated
that the Ordinance was to require
timely application and to pursue
each phase of a development under
Use Permit so that they didn't get
so old that they're not in keeping
with the times. To let a developer
take three phases and get a ten-
tative map or Use Permit on all
three phases and develop one of them -
let the others sit for a long period
of time could cause a situation
where the development would not
meet the needs of the current
community. However, a Use Permit
was issued on three phases and it
was issued after the time frame when
it was supposed to have been done,
the developer didn't submit
one final map for all three phases,
as one piece of development, they
submitted one map on four and they
never came forth with the final map
on 5 and 6 within the time period.
They did ask for an extension of the
Use Permit and when presented to
Council it was recommended to approve
4 and deny 5 and 6. Council's motion
at that time was to approve 4, 5 and
6. The motion passed.
Mayor Nicolopulos asked if any
member of Council who was present
at the meeting could give their
recollections of the situation
at that time.
Vice Mayor Teglia explained that
Stonegate went farther back and
beyond that particular extension
and had been dealt with as a number
of separate units and this was one
of the final sets of units, and felt
that there were three separate units.
7/1/81
Page 26
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN' 9!
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
13. Public Hearing - Continued.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Councilman Acosta concurred with
Vice Mayor Teglia, three separate
units, three separate phases, but
there was one Use Permit. He
continued by asking if Council
could rectify the violation by
acknowledging two new separate Use
Permits for this.
Acting City Attorney Rogers ex-
plained that an application for
new Use Permits had not been sub-
mitted, however, the developer
could apply for two new Use
Permits.
Councilman Acosta asked what if
Council were to say he has his
Use Permit for phase 5 and 6 -
what are the ramifications.
Acting City Attorney Rogers stated
them could be civil challenge to
the project.
Discussion followed on the actions
takenl.previously and the reasons
for and considerations given.
M/S Acosta/Nicolopulos - That the
Use Permits are valid for a period
of one more year.
In-depth discussion ensued as to
the time element involved if a de-
cision were not reached at this
meeting; the legality of finding
the Use Permit valid; the deter-
mination if it is one unit with
three phases, or three separate
units, etc.
Mr. Modena, Esq., requested that
the matter be put over till the
next meeting or a Special Meeting
to clarify the points of law and
in the interim the developer meet
with staff and work together to
find a feasible solution.
Further discussion followed address-
ing the concerns of the developers,
7/1/81
Page 27
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
13. Public Hearing - Continued.
Side 2 (TF-389)
FINANCE
14.
Staff Report 7/1/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution approving
the Proposition No. 4 spending limits.
15.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING 1980-81 APPROP-
RIATION LIMIT FOR CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 13-B
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
Staff Report 7/1/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution approving
supplemental appropri ati ons.
FI RE
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT O-l,
1980-81 OPERATING BUDGET
16.
Staff Report 7/1/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution authorizing
execution of an Agreement with the
County of San Mateo providing for a
program utilizing mobile intensive
care paramedics pursuant to the
'~,~edworth-Townsend Act.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
staff and Council with respect to
continuing the item for further
research of the prior maps of the
area, date of sale for the subject
property, taxes, cost of permits,
etc.
Mayor Nico!opulos withdrew his
second to the Motion.
Consensus of Council to continue
the matter to the me~ing of July
15, 1981, and that the appelant
meet with staff in the interim.
Mr. Modena, Esq., requested that
in order to benefit from the
lengthy discussion this evening
a transcript be prepared within
the next week.
City Clerk Battaya responded that
a Court Reporter would be hired and
the transcript would be prepared.
FINANCE
Continued to adjourned meeting of
July 7, 198).
Continued to adjourned meeting of
July 7, 1981.
FiRE
7/1/81
Pa~e 28
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
FIRE
16. Staff Report 7/1/81 - Continued.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
AN AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A PROGRAM
UTILIZING MOBILE INTENSIVE CARE
PARAMEDICS PURSUANT TO THE WEDWORTH-
TOWNSEND ACT
FIRE
Assistant Fire Chief Lee explained
that this was the same basic agree-
ment the City has had with the
County and that the contract was
for a period of one year.
M/S Teglia/Acosta - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 73-81
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
PARKS AND RECREATION
17. Staff Report 7/1/81 recommending
by Motion approval of the Appian
Nay Park Master Plan.
PUBLIC SERVICES
18.
Staff Report 7/1/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution awarding
a contract to Monterey Mechanical
for the South San Francisco/San
Bruno Sludge Dewatering Facility
Project No. C-06-1267-140/City
Project No. WTP-80-1.
A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO-SAN BRUNO
SLUDGE DEWATERING FACILITIES,
PROJECT NO. WTP-80-2, EPA PROJECT
NO. C-06-1267-140~/..~
19. Staff Report 7/1/81 regarding the
Issuance of Grading Permit No. 80-1
and an Encroachment Permit for the
grading of a slope within Junipero
Serra Blvd. south of King Drive in
connection with the development of
the Ventana Townhomes in Daly City -
informational only.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
20.
Report from the Parking Place
Con~nission regarding time-limit
parking in the Central Business
District.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Continued to adjourned meeting of
July 7, 1981.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Continued to adjourned meeting of
July 7, 1981.
Continued to adjourned meeting of
July 7, 1981.
ITEMS FROM STAFF
Continued to adjourned meeting of
July 7, 1981.
7/1/81
Page 29
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
GOOD AND WELFARE
CLOSED SESSION: (TF-409)
RECALL TO ORDER:
21.
Request to adjourn this meeting
to a specific time for a Closed
Session for the discussion of
labor relations.
ADJOURNMENT:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
City Manager Birkelo requested
that a Special Meeting be held
to meet with Congressman Lantos
on July 7, 1981, at 7:15 a.m.
GOOD AND WELFARE
No one chose to speak.
Council adjourned to a Closed
Session at 2:12 a.m.
The Meeting was recalled to order
at 2:49 a.m., all Council present,
no action taken on personnel matter,
City Attorney instructed on matter of
litigation.
M/S Acosta/Addiego - To adjourn to
Tuesday, July 7, 1981, at 4:30 p.m.,
in the City Council Conference Room,
City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue, South
San Francisco.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Time of adjournment 2:50 a.m.
APPROVED:
!
Barbara A. Batt erk
City of South San Francisco
Gus Nicolopulos, Mayor ~
City of South San Francisco
The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council
to dispose of an item. Oral presentations, arguments, and comments are
recorded on tape. The ta~e and documents related to the items are on file
in the office of the City Clerk and are available for inspection, review and
copying.
7/1/81
Page 30
!
2
3
4
5
6
'7
I0
!1
!.2
13
14
15
16
17
18
,2O
,Z!
:2:2
23
24
CITY COUNSEL MEETING
~_~-~
.t
SAN FRANCISCO
433 - ?7G~S
WM. i:'. HI:'NDE:R$C:HEIO & ASSOCIATES
MARIN COUNTY
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER8 .. 383
CLERK BATTAYA: Public hearing, S80, 81--70, (~ay!and)
Development Corporation appeals the Planning Commission's
decision on May 14, 1981 denying approval of the Tentative
Subdivision Map, SA 81-70 Stonegate Ridge Unit #5 recommending
by motion that the decision of the Planning Commission be
upheld.
5~YOR NICOLOPULOS: Before we go on to decide, it's
getting close to 11:00 and I don"t want to get into it
!0
!i
12.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
23
24
because we have a policy that we will reassess at 11:00,
so why - May I ask the Council right now, we've got quite
a number of items. What is the Council's wishes right now
so that we can conclude at 12:00.
VICE MAYOR TEGLIA: ~9-the chairma4~, I suggest that we
take a poll of who is here for what item and determine
those people that/D~.~d) perhaps you can handle them
first.
NICOLOPULOS: Is that the Council's wishes?
TEGLiA: For example item's 12 and 13, that~u~
pretty much nana~ (inaud) of the t. hema~c development of
items, I would like a show of hands of how many people are
here for that?
VOICE:
TEGLIA:
Okay . ~ Ddd
Do you wish to take ~~ots, How about,
go through the next (inaud).
CITY MANAGER BIRKELO: Fourteen, (example fourteen),
.e~m~t~ will that be, fourteen?
How
SAN FRANCISCO
4:~S - 778S
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS ~"~, '*~-~? 1' ] I~.IN,~,~Y
DEPOSITION NOTARIE~
,,
FiN ~c ~
NICOLOPULOS: Fourteen, unless you ask our ~sci~.c~)
director to explain how the legislature arrived at the
formula, it should go fairly quickly?
BIRKELO: Well, I was trying to say this next item
might take us close to midnight, and then -
NICOLO?ULOS: I would think that fourteen,~ he's done
it the way the law requires him to do it, and we don't have
much choice, but when you get into budget we'll take more
time to explain as much as we can what we're trying to do
here. It's a good statement, and (inaud) I don't think
that the supplemental appropriation money (inaud)
tonight.
i.~ li~i~ ~ L~ '
NICOLOPULO$: Well, I think we'll have the Appian
~?
Way Plan,, now that's one we might like to spend more time
on.
TEGLIA: How about rescheduling? Is there anyone here
ZO for the Appian Way? Appian Way Park, which is item no. 17.
Excuse me, is that a resident or is that an architect?
NICOLOPULOS: It' s an architect.
TEGLIA: Oh, well can he come back, are we paying him,
or what ?
~R{~-~h0 : He can come back.
SAN FRANC 13CO
/33 - ?733
CENTRAL RSCORD
WM. ir. H~N:~R$CMi=iD & AS$OCIATI:'S
MARIN COUNTY
CI:'RTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTER8 383 - 1717
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
I
2
3
4
6
'7
8
10
!!
12
13
14
15
16
1'7
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
TEGLIA: Well than maybe we can reschedule -
NICOLOPULOS: Is there anyone in the audience that
is interested in these items that we have not addressed yet,
could you raise your hands please? I guess some -
Okay, may I have the staff report, next item.
~IRK~O: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, this is
an appeal by (Bayland) Development Corporation, Mr. C. N.
Chow, who is the principal, an appeal of the Planning
Commission's May 14, 1981 decision disapproving Tentative
Map SA-81-70, a tentative map to create 79 Airspace Condominium
and town house units in the Stonegate Ridge Unit #5 property
located westerly of the (Inaud) Terminal, Ridgeview Court
in the PC zone district. The recommendation is to open the
public hearing and hear public testimony, close the public
hearing and a motion to deny the appeal based on the ten
findings in the staff report.
NICOLOPULOS: Now, do both items 12 and 13 have similarities
or -
relates to a use permit granted in 1978 and extended to
1979, a modification to that particular use permit in
relation to Unit 5. Item 12 is a subdivision map which
attempts to create a condominium type of ownership situation
on it, so they are related.
NICOLOPULOS: Do you foresee possibly repetitious
CF_NTRAii-
WM. E. NENDERSCHEID &
~AN ~ANCI~CO MARIN COUNTY
~ - 7711 CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTER~
DEPOSITION
4
BIRKELO: I think, I think that you will get some
testimony on the question of the use permit, the validity
of the use permit, the, I believe you received a copy of
the letter from an attorney representing the applicant,
who questions the Planning Commission's opinion that the
Use Permit for Unit 5 is no longer valid. I think those
two, that reasoning is contained in both findings of the
Planning Commission; however, aside from the use permit
question, the subdivision map which is item 12 has 9
additional findings which are reasons for - given by the
planning commission for denying the tentative map. So, you
may get into the question of the use permit validity,
resolve that issue, but then you still have to address
9 other issues as far as the subdivision map is concerned.
Let me just continue on the subdivision map question.
NICOLOPULOS: Okay, in order that the audience and we
understand what each speaker is speaking on, will you just,
again, go through the agenda items so they know exactly what
they're for and what they're against.
BZ~.E~Q.: All right, number 12 is an appeal of a
denial decision, a Planning Commission Decision, denying
a tentative subdivision map to create a 79 Airspace Condominium
and Town House Unit on Stonegate Ridge No. 5. The applicants
have appealed the decision to the Planning Commission, and
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
~AN ~RANCI$CO MARIN COUNTY
~3 -7714 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER~ 313 - 17~?
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
testimony on both items?
the Planning Commission on May 14, I believe, denied this
particular subdivision based on ten findings and this is
an appeal to that decision.
NICOLOPULOS: Okay, I'd like to open up the public
hearing to those that wish to speak for this item, and
we have one speaker, Bette Land please, will you step
forward and state your name and address for the record,
please.
BETTE LAND: My name is Bette Land and I live at
961A Ridgeview Court. The first hearing that you had, I
attended. The second hearing I did not attend because
I was out of town, but I did not like the approach that
the planning staff had, you know, they didn't really give
any ideas of why they were denying us. All they came up
with is, you know, that they didn't like the building, I
guess. The thing that bothers me is that the planning staff
came up with a new design, they admitted that the 80 units
could be built on this hill, which is fine, they didn't seem
to think that the traffic was going to be a problem, they
didn't think the fire was going to be a problem, so, if
that's the case, the design is neither here nor there, is
it? I don't understand why, it's (inaud) be coming up now.
I understand that the planning commission approved this
thing in 1966. Now, I feel that this project has started
you started it once, in the condominium that I lived in,
SAN FRANCISCO
U3-77SS
! then you want to proceed in the second stage, and then
2 all of a sudden, now, you're throwing everything up and
saying, well now we've got to come up with a re-design.
4
I think the hill is going to look ridiculously more (designedl,
so, I think we have to stay with what we have. I think
more people on the hill is just fine. I don't see any problerL
with this. And I think Mr.Dell'Angela made a very nice
comment about this other thing, where, if you've ever walked
on that hill, like I have, it is a garbage dump. There's
lots of kids up there setting fires. I have just flown in
tonight from Reno, and I now feel that the hill has been
IZ charred. I think by building up there, I think that it's
going to stop a lot of this, I think there's not going to be
the vandalism and all the garbage is dumped, where it is
dumped on that hill. (Syne) hill is not that pretty, and
I think the building, if they let it continue, will be a
good sign for South San Francisco.. I think that's all I
have to say.
NICOLOPULOS: Thank you Mrs. Land. Is there anyone
Z0
else who would like to speak for this item? Will you state
your name and address for the record.
DANIEL J. MODENA: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I'm Daniel J. Modena,
421 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco. I represent the
Z4
owner, Mr. 3C~iiN~3~ Chow, and the developer, Mr. Charles
Sprincin. Mr. DetlJ-ahge~op0i~ted-'~ou~ tha~ ~h~re~ tWO
SAN FRANCISCO WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATE8 MARIN COUNTY
~ - 77il CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS 383 - 1
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
items before the Council, and I'd like to, if the Council
may, address ourselves to the use permit, which is the basic
fundamental underlying matter of both twelve and thirteen.
Insofar as we feel that the use permit is still valid,
contrary to what opinion was given by the City Attorney or
the staff at the planning commission level. We also feel
that the tentative map which was before you with 10 conditions,
9 of them which do not deal with the use permit, that the
planning commission, it is my understanding of this, that
the planning commission did not have time to review those
at all. I can see that, insofar as if, in fact, an opinion
was given at the Planning Commission level, that the Use
permit was not valid, then, I could not see why the Planning
Commission would even consider it, and I believe that's what's
happened. I would like, at this time, to present to you Mr.
Maury Hamilton who has presented this opinion to you. Mr.
Hamilton is well respected in this community, and he's
especially, in sofar as the League of California Cities is
concerned on his opinions. He gave an opinion, gave you
a history of this matter. I'll have Mr. Hamilton addressing
specific questions. You have to recall that this project
goes way back, and I think the lady that just talked, she
said in 1966. In 1978, we came before the Planning Commission
and we came before the City Council, later, for an extension
of the Use Permit, and with one Use Permit on 4, 5, and 6,
WM. E. HENDER~CHEID & ASSOCIATES
· AN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
~3 - 7711 CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTER~ 313 - 17~7
DE~SlTION NOTARIES
8
!
I think the record is quite clear on that. That extension
was given without any conditions. We immediately began to
proceed on developing the phase of phase four. That is
4
completed now, and it's been completed, and our so-called
extension has been - has - as part of the City Attorney
and Staff, has been, now, negated because we then proceed
on item - phase 5. It's been over a year, theoretically,
since phase 5, according to the staff, and city attorneys
that we haven't had - have not had a use permit. The first
10
time we have any inkling that the staff was going to
so-called, stand on the fact that there's no use permit was
in about the April or May meetings of the Planning Commission.
At that time, I indicated that we had no longer, any use
permit. Our use permit would have ran out in 19 - I think
it would have been theoretically, June 17, 1980. That's
correct. That's when the Planning Commission - and then it
went the City Council, October 17, 1980 meeting, where the
Civic Counsel ratified the Planning Commission. We have
been, in good faith, repeatedly discussing this matter with
Z0
the City. The matter of a use permit has never been brought
up, except lately. We have now taken the position, at least
the City Attorney has taken the position that, in his opinion,
there is no valid use permit. We have presented to you a
Z4
quite thorough history of what has happened in Stonegate
4, 5, and 6. There's no question that Stonegate 4, 5/ and
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES MARIN COUNTY
SAN FRANC ISCO CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
~ -??ii ~13-~?~7
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
!
6 was to be developed as one unit. There was one, only
one, use permit granted for Stonegate 4, 5, and 6. The
record is quite clear. Anything that we presented to the
4
Council or the Planning Commission always consisted of
4, 5 and 6 in outline form. We did 4, every map that we
submitted was 4. You Would see the outline of 5 and 6.
When we negotiated 4, 5, and 6 on conditions with the Staff,
at that time for density and so forth, we negotiated on
4, 5 and 6. No question, and it's very clear, on the
10
record before you that this has happened. The position at
the present time by the staff, we feel, is not correct.
IZ
Therefore, I'd like to address only the use permit now. I
suggested that - I suggested to the staff, and I would
suggest to the Council that we , that at this time, the
council address itself to the Use Permit only. And at
that, findings, there is a finding by the Council. Then
we are willing, and I've indicated to the planners - planning
staff, that we're willing to/back and work with the planning
19
commission, the staff, and get public input, and especially
20
from the residents of the Stonegate area to work out some
21
of these differences so we could come up with something
that's compatible for all people concerned. But, as you
can see, we have this before us. The use permit, we cannot
24
act. And I'd like, we require now, at least we're~asking
the court - Council for two findings, and that specific
WM. E. HEND£R$CHEID & AS$OClATE~
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
~3 - ??SS CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DE~SITION NOTARIES
10
finding would be that UP 78440 is valid and in full force
and effect. If that finding is found tonight, then, as
I stated before, we would welcome to go back to a Planning
Commission, welcome to go back to the Staff, and welcome
to go back to the Stonegate Residence and work out something
that's desirable. Maury Hamilton is here. I think you
ought to address any questions you have in regard to the
use permit, and I would request this, to Mr. Maury Hainilton,
and maybe he can answer some questions that you may have.
'~$~ANT CI.£ A~-TO~qE~ RO~RC: Thank you, Mr.
Modena, Bob Rogers, we're dealing with 12 now, but he
wants to go on to 13 and, what's our proper recourse.
---V~TC:: I think that they're tied together and I
think that this issue is probably the major issue of the
two, because if you find that a valid use permit exists
13 is dealt with and a portion of 12 is dealt with and
you can, it's going to use (inaud) quite a bit. I agree
18 with Mr. Modena, on the procedure. I think it should be
:he use permit first. That'll be the main decision, then
you can deal With these other issues on the tentative map
After that.
NICOLOPULOS: Well, how are we going to address
uhis public hearing, shall we include it all as one, the
uhe two items as one and allow one hearing or two separate
hearings.
SAN FrRANCISCO
4,1". 77il
CENTRAL RECORDS
WM. E:. HB:NDE:RSCHE:ID & ASSOCIATE~
MARIN COUNTY
CERTI FI ED ~HORTHAND REPORTER~ 313 - 17~7
DEPOSITION NOTARIE~
11
ROGERS: If the developer has requested, or requests
that you do that and you make a record that's what you're
trying to do, I think you've made Clear that everybody
understands what the ground rules are.
NICOLOPULOS: Do you request that, Mr. Modena.
MODENA: Yes, we do request that insofar asr and
I think Mr. Rogers is quite right, once we resolve the
issue of the use permit, then I think we can work out
everything~ else. That's a concern of us, right now.
,4h ee L e~4f, o.~:
%~IC~: What's the consensus on that.
]SELL 'AN&~*L~ ~
N~L~3U~$: Let me, if I could add something
to that. If you resolve the use permit, then item 13,
which is a modification to the use permit, would appropriately
go back to the co~ission, you will not have resolved that,
you will only have said that the use permit is still valid
and that modification can appropriately be considered to
that use permit. So that hasn't been taken care of, but
you do have, then, the authority or whatever, to send it
back to the planning cor~ission. On the tentative map,
however, the use permit is only one of 10 reasons, and you
will still have to address those other 9 reasons before you
approve that tentative map, and it's staff's position
is that those findings that you make on the tentative
~ap are distinct and separate(from those)you would make
on a use permit. So it's not as simple as, perhaps, I
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID · A880ClATE~
~AN F~AN~I~GO MATIN COUNTY
~ -7741 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER~ 3e~- 17~7
DE~SlTION
12
I think the use permit question (_solved} is one problem, but
2 there are some other issues that we need to address.
N~oLoP~Le&~
3 ~IJ/~LO, My concern is to keep this (~inaud) on
4 some type of continuity so we're not interlapping and
5 intertwining and so we have some kind of consistency with
6 ~ur agenda item, here, and I don't want to shift back and
? forth.
$ i~T~JOT.OFTUOS: All right, I don't - I think we
9 probably ought to have public input, but I think if this
(.~ 10 Nere to go back to the Planning Commission, certainly
I! staff would not want to go back with the feeling that the
iZ decision had been made and that we do not have any
13 flexibility or leverage, if you will, to get a more
14 desirable project. So, that's all I'm going to say for
15 now. NI¢o&~F~£~S"
16 5TRK~LO: Well, I have a speaker or two that wants
I? to speak on 13, so it would be applicable if that person
18 also spoke on 12 if they would cover 13.
19 ROGERS: Well, is it agreeable to the appellant
Z0 that we deal with both of these in one set of testimony
21 to save time.
~N~: Mr. Mayor, it is agreeable that we
Z3 combine both of these.
ROGERS: It is made a record of that and I think we
Z5 ~an go on from there.
SAN FRANCISCO
BT/IKE~u: Thank you very much..
13
TEGLIA: For a point of clarification, what,we're
doing is three thinlgs: number one~we'~.e, going :t9 dle.~! '
first to find out whether or not there is a valid use
4
permit. Apart from that we're secondly going to look at
the map. ~hether or not we're going to approve that
tentative map is (inaud) expected to be, well, I guess, in
conjunction with a valid use permit, and thirdly, we're
going to deal with a modification to the use permit, if,
in fact, we find there is a use permit in effect.
ROGERS: That's basically how I understand it,
however, if you find there's a valid use permit my suggestion
is that you give the Planning Commission a chance to look
at the merits of the modification.
14
TEGLIA: We are going to ,act~, one way or another.
NICOLOPULOS: Is the council understood on that
basis. Okay, Mr. Hamilton, would you state your name and
address please for the record.
MAURICE K. HAMILTON: Yes, thank you, ~Ir. Mayor.
Maurice K. Hamilton, 2260 Kingston Avenue, San Bruno.
Honorable Mayor and members of the Council, copies of my
z!
opinion addressing the validity of the use permit in question
were distributed to you, and hopefully you've had time to
read those and review the exhibits attached thereto. The
Z4
~rime point is ~hat UP 78440 is a single use permit
~ncompassing 4, 5 and 6. Now, they've interchangeably been
C~T~ ~O~D~
WM. E. HENDER~CHEID · A~5OCIATE~ MARIN COUNTY
SAN FRANCISCO CERTIFIgD SHORTHAND RgPORTER~
4~-~ DEPOSITION
14
called units and phases, but I think the record clearly
shows that they've always been treated as a single use
permit with three phases of development, a very normal
method for a developer to proceed with any major subdivision
project. In light of that, if it is in a single use permit
for the three phases, then the section 6.51 of your ordinance
353 of the zoning ordinance has been met in that the use
permit was put to use by the developers within one year
of the extension granted by this council on October 17, 1979.
In that unit core was begun' and has now been completed.
That, I think, is the major thrust, and if that is the
case then we have a valid and legally binding use permit,
and as I've indicated in my t~tcr opinion, we feel very
strongly that your record clearly reflects that and that
we think it's strong enough that it would be sustained if
tested in court. Now, Mr. Mayor, if there are any questions
then, on my opinion itself, I'd be pleased to answer them.
NICOLOPULOS: Yes, Ron, you had a question.
~O~: Yes, ~. H~ilton. Reading through
your opinion, (~letter) opinion, reading through ~, so
forth, the same, somewhat, material that's here other than
your cover letter and so forth where you stipulate certain
~hings. I have one question in my mind as Mr. Dell'Ange~
~ow brings it up that the tentative map, correct me if I'm
z~wrong, Mr. Dell'Angela, the preliminary approval on the
WM. E. HENDER~CHEID & A~OCIATE~ MARIN COUNTY
SAN FRANCISCO CERTIFIED 6HORTHAND REPORTER~ 313 - 17E7
15
1
4
7
!!
12
14
15
17
22
24
tentative map no longer exists?
DELL'ANGELA: No. That is the tentative map has
expired and there's never been any kind of request for
a extension of time on that.
~0~'1'~ : Okay. I've got that.
has expired, the tentative map?
DELL'ANGELA: Yes.
~0~l'~ : Article No. 4, phase number 4 is a
part of that tentative map or each one of these phases
is a tentative map?
DELL'ANGELA:
-- ah, the tentative map, ah --
Does it cover 4, 5 and 6?
Yes.
Are each one of them separate
You said it
SAN PR&NC ISC. O
4.1~! - 77S4~
-- So there is a final map on 4 then?
WM. E. HENDE~RSCHEIC) 8c AS~OGIATE~ MARIN COUNTY
CERTI F I ED ~HO RTHAND REPORTERB 3e3 - 1727
DEPOSITION NOTARIE~
They could have --
:
DELL'ANGELA:
tentative maps? It's one tentative map for your 4, 5 and 6?
How could it be not and yet be, ah, you've got a dwelling
that's already constructed on a tentative map. Do we not?
ROGERS: You may file a tentative map for the
project and then file separate final maps on each phase
of the project. And what happened here was I believe
there was a ten~tive map filed which covered 4, 5 and 6,
there was a final map filed on 4, there was no final map
filed on 5 and 6. And the tentative map as to 5 and 6 then
expired because they didn't file it within the time limit.
I
3
4
8
I0
II
12
13
14
15
I?
18
2O
21
24
16
TEGLIA: Yes.
ROGERS: They filed a final map on 4, and 4 is
constructed, or at least under construction. 5 and 6
there was never an application for a final map brought
forth, and there was no application for an extension of
the tentative map as to 5 and 6. So there's no argument
among, between the City and the developer as to whether
or not there is an effective tentative map on 5 and 6 at
this point. We've gone over it several times, and there's
never been any argument on the facts on that.
~@~ : But because it -- they were not
constructed on it --
ROGERS: They didn't even -- they didn't file a
final map.
~~ : It expired.
ROGERS: You see when you have a tentative map on
a phase, then you've got so long to file a final map.
If you don't do that, it expires. Now you can request an
extension -- it provides for it by ordinance, the state
law allows it, but no extension was applied for in this
case. It may have been an oversight or whatever, but
there is no extension applied for on tentative, and
therefore without filing the final maps on those two
phases, then the tentative map expires then.
Well, --
CANTRAL RECORD~
SAN FRANCISCO WM. E. HENDER$CHEID & A$~OCIATE~
43,* - 7761 CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARI N COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIE~ '*eS - 17Z7
17
then.
ROGERS: That's why your back to the tentative map.
~0~: That' s why we're back to the tentative
I
3
4 : That's right.
5 NICOLOPULOS: Is that point --
6 HAMILTON: If I may, Mr. Mayor. That usually is
? the way that subdivisions are developed, even where they
8 are master-planned, -- it, plan~nit development for a
9 very large area, that it will be broken down into phases
10 with tentative maps submitted for each of those phases.
II And that obviously is what has taken place here. We're
12 not arguing the subdivision map at the present time
~3 because the key in this is the validity of the use permit.
14 If there is no use permit, then the applicants, the
15 appellants are back to square one on this entire project.
16 ~0~: Well, what you're saying then,
I? Mr. Hamilton, if the use permit is valid, then the
18 tentative map is valid.
19 TEGLIA: No.
lO HAMILTON: No. No, sir. If the use permit is
Zl valid, they still have to submit maps and get approval
2/ of the City.
23 ~@~F~ : Another tentative map?
Z4 HAMILTON: Yes. Yes, sir.
ROGERS:
: Okay.
(inaud)
do you have
WM. E. HENDE:R~C~HEID & ASSOCIATES
C:ERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
SAN PRANC;ISGO MAII~IN COUNTY
!
2
3
4
'7
8
9
10
Ii
12
13
14
15
16
1'7
18
2O
2.1
22
23
24
25
18
TEGLIA: This is for clarification (inaud)
Mr. Rogers, you indicated that there was one page of
maps, two parts of which failed because they did not
meet their time -- time lines. You indicated here that
there would be -- that the approach was three separate
tentative maps. That's different -- (inaud)
truth from reality?
HAMILTON: Well, one --
TEGLIA: The important points being, I'll tell you
why later, but I'd like that clarified.
HAMILTON: (inaud) Four was filed as a tentative
map in process, and the final map was recorded.
TEGLIA: Was that map on 4 only? Or was that
tentative --
HAMILTON:
TEGLIA:
HAMILTON:
ROGERS:
That was on 4 only, yes --
--map -- 5 and 6?
On 4 only.
I don't have -- I don't have the
information right at hand here to deal with that. I had
understood that there was one --
HAMILTON: -- 4 only.
ROGERS: -- kind of map and there were to be three
final maps filed on it, but --
TEGLIA: Okay, if --
ROGERS: -- documentation otherwise, and --
(Multiple voices) C~NTRAk
SAN FRANCISCO WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES MARIN COUNTY
4~:~ -77,S CERTIPIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
383.17Z7
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
19
NICOLOPULOS: Mr. Hamilton, go ahead, continue.
HAMILTON: There may be some confusion because I did
refer to the maps in my letter opinion. Maps were submitted
to the City on 5 and 6 in May of 1979. They have not been
processed by the City and there have been no hearings on
them. The only map that has gone through completion,
of course, in Unit 4, which has a].ready been constructed.
NICOLOPULOS:
Cerri --
TEGLIA: Sure.
SAN PRANCISCO
4'13 -
Well, may we stop there for a moment
-A~O~?~;- Okay. Is that a fact or not a fact?
~E[L'~N~. The application in '79 was not a
valid, complete tentative map application, and as a result
the applicant in December of 1980 filed a new tentative
map which was complete. So it's the Staff's position that
that tentative map or tentative map application was not
a complete one and therefore not a valid one. And that
the tentative map application which was filed in 1980 is
the only valid tentative map that the City has before it.
~L~~: There's some discrepancy, Mr. Hamilton,
with what our -- it, it seems to be that --
~E~['~N&~: If that was the case, sir -- let me
finish it. If in '79 the tentative map was valid, then
there'd be no need to file the '80 application.
NICOLOPULOS: Would you state your name for the --
WM. E. H~ND~RSCHEID · ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIE~ 313 - 1737
!
2
3
4
5
8
10
I!
12
13
14
15
16
1'7
18
19
21
24
20
SAN PRANC ISCO
433 - 77SS
CHARLES SPRINCIN: Yes, my name is Charles
Sprincin, 50 California Street, San Francisco. I'm the
developer on this project.
If I may, there seems to be a bit of confusion on
the issue of the tentative maps that were originally
submitted to the City and the fees paid therefor in 1979
on 5 and 6. The three phases have always been covered by
three separate tentative maps. There was not one tentative
map for all three phases. Phase 4 tentative map was
submitted for the first time in the Spring of '78. Phases 5
and 6 were submitted and are still in the files of the
Planning Department.
~!~L~ALI~ : Excuse me, may I stop you there?
SPRINC IN: Yes.
~0tO~: Why do you feel they're there. You
didn't follow up on it?
SPRINCIN: I'm -- I'm go -- no. I'm about to
explain it. That's part of, some of the reason that we're
here. They were submitted to the City and fees paid in
the Spring of 1979. After, between the period of '78 and
'79 and then immediately subsequent when I became involved
in the Fall of '79, Staff prior to Mr. Dell'Angela's
employment with this City, was negotiating with ~. Chow
and then myself when I became involved due to the public's
concern about the esthetics of the condomini~ building,
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES 383 - 17~7
SAN FRANCISCO
4.15 -
21
then a 45-unit condominium building to be built on lot 91,
which is a sub-lot, a part of lot 5, which is the unit
that we're discussing tonight. And there were concerns
from Staff when this Council approved the extension without
conditions with respect to the --
~l~Ok~o~ : Which Council are you referring to now?
SPRINCIN: The City Council of South San Francisco.
~W~0~LO~ : At what time -- what time?
SPRINCIN: In the Fall of 1979, you extend -- you --
~0~L~: That's a different Council than is
presently here --
SPRINCIN: Well, two of the Honorable Members were
present on that Council as well.
: (inaud)
SPRINCIN: Yes. That's correct. No, I'm not --
there -- it was a different Council, and they came to us,
Staff came to us in good faith with the concerns that
members of that Council as well as the community had --
pardon me -- with respect to the esthetics of the condominiu~
building to be built as a part of lot 5, and subsequently
the esthetics of a similar condominium building that is
planned on lot 6. Between the time of 1979 and approximately
February of this year, at Staff's continued request and
our cooperation, we were negotiating in terms of modifi-
cations of that building to meet Staff's objections, which
WM. E~. H£NDER$CHEID & AS$OC~IATE~B
CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERB MARl N COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES 353 - 17~7
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
Ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ZS
22
were esthetics and then added on to bulk, i.e., the
number of units.
~f~0L0~&~ : Where was this one building located,
what project was that?
SPRINCIN: This is on lot 5, which is before you
this evening. There is a, a 39-unit building before you
this evening that at the time in 1979 consisted of 45 units.
We were making progress with Staff -- among other things
we voluntarily offered to reduce the stories on the
condominium building by one full floor down from five
floors including the garage to 'four. We also had two
meetings with Design Review Board where we made changes
in the design at the request of Staff, etc., etc., making
progress.
In February of this year, Staff came to us and
requested in lieu of modifications of the concept that
has before the City since 1978 and requested that we
change our concept in total and completely redesign from
square one.
N[~&D~&~: What date was this now?
SPRINCIN: This was in -- I don't have the exact
date, but it was either late January, early or late
February of this year when that change in concept was
first made known to us.
SAN PRANCISCO
(inaud)
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
stopping momentary
MARIN COUNTY
]83 - 1727
I
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
I!
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
24
25
23
Lou, were you incorporating some of our general
plan amendments in here somehow?
DELL'ANGELA: I think Mr. Sprincin is trying to
be accurate but he is not quite accurate. He said that
he reduced the building down from five to four stories.
Well, obviously, he had to reduce it because if he didn't,
he would be contrary to the Stonegate ordinance that was
on the books. And I think the Staff's position to this
whole process, at least where I was here, was that there
were, there were variations from the Stonegate plan, which
could not go forward without some change. And so we were
attempting to modify and revise that plan, and so when we
are talking about parking, change in location of parking,
the elevation of buildings, many of these changes were
the result of violations of the ordinance that we had on
the books there, and they would be necessary.
NICOLOPULOS:
DELL'ANGELA:
NICOLOPULOS:
At what time?
Well --
I'm, I'm trying to get a perspective
for the whole concept, because we (inaud) updated
the general plan -- and what I'm trying to ascertain is
was one condition given at one time and because we've had
updated some general plans, this has to conform to general
plans. That's what --
DELL'ANGELA: Well, we have an interim ordinance
SAN FRANCISCO
WM. i=. HENDi=R$CHEiD & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
MARIN COUNTY
~1~ - 17~7
I
2
3
,4
5
6
'7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
which is interesting. 792-79, which is prohibited uses
and this was adopted as an emergency ordinance in June,
June the 6th of 1979, and it prohibited uses in the
Stonegate area unless there was a finding made by the
Planning Commission and Council that there was consistency
with the proposed updating of the general plan. So that
was a factor in the discussions as well, that there had
to be some consistency with the general plan updating
(inaud)
NICOLOPULOS: Were you fully as cognizant of that
change, sir?
DELL'ANGELA: Well, that was one of the factors
that we were cognizant of.
NICOLOPULOS: I mean, I'm asking Mr. Sprincin.
Were you, your clients, fully cognizant of that factor
that's just discussed?
SPRINCIN: Both statements were never made to us.
However, in all fairness, Mr. Mayor, I think it's
peripheral to the issue, I don't want to make statements
that would reflect negatively on Mr. Dell'Angela because
I don't have any intent nor meaning to do that.
NICOLOPULOS: I'm only -- I'm only trying -- I'm
only trying to get the information sir, nothing else.
SPRINCIN: No. What came to us in February of
this year, out of the blue, was a request to completely
SAN FRANCISCO
4'm~ - 7?iS
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
MARIN COUNTY
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER~
383 - 1727
!
2
3
4
5
6
'7
8
9
I0
!i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SAN FRANCISCO
4'~I~ - 77~S
25
redesign the entire project, when until February of this
year the discussions were based on the esthetics, which
is an elevation architectural detail of the condominium
building. Now that's what occurred. And how it came
into a request for a complete and total project redesign
and what the manner and the intent that created such a
request is, is, not to our knowledge.
: (inaud)
SPRINCIN: Well, I want to say in all fairness
that has always had a concern with respect to these
condominium buildings, and that the discussions with
respect to esthetics were in an effort to attempt to
mitigate Staff's concerns and our neighbors' concerns.
They also have concerns about these buildings.
NICOLOPULOS: I -- this time element we're talking
about, Lou, was January of '81, you said?
DELL'ANGELA: Well, we received an application --
NICOLOPULOS: Well, this, this specific incident
we're talking about now, -- January of '817 -- when you
brought it to his attention?
DELL'ANGELA: It seems to me that Mr. Sprincin and
I have just been living with this for quite sometime.
We've been trying to resolve a site plan, development plan
for 5, which Staff could support, which we felt was, was,
complied with all current ordinances, and with the intent
CENTRAL RECORD~
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER~ MARIN COUNTY
DE~$1TION NOTARIES ~83 - 17~?
I
2
4
6
'7
8
10
!1
1,2
13
14
15
I1'
18
19
2O
Zl
23
24
Z5
26
and spirit of the Stonegate plan. I guess this, as long
as I've been here there's been discussions off and on
about what the form of Unit 5 should take, so I can't
pin a specific date -- I'm just saying it took place over
a period of time.
NICOLOPULOS: It's important to you, some closeness
though, because I -- it will clear up my mind a little
bit better and clarify my position.
DELL'ANGELA: All right.
NICOLOPULOS: What I'm trying -- the discussion
took place between you and Mr. Sprincin sometime -- you
informed him of those, at least you had knowledge of it
but he didn't have knowledge, is that the case?
DELL'ANGELA:
about --
NICOLOPULOS:
Well, we've -- we've had discussions
Well, I'm talking about -- let's say
SAN FRANCISCO
~-77Ei
from '8! -- what has happened between January of '81
to maybe make Mr. Sprincin cognizant of those, still
those deficiencies?
DELL'ANGELA: Well, the application, the tentative
map application was filed, of course, in December of 1980,
so let's get into '81. Over a period of time we had
discussions with Mr. Sprincin, Mr. Chow, Mr. Siridian,
the architect, and Ban Christians and I had -- and we
raised certain questions, the Design Review Board was
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID &
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER8 MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES 313 - 17~7
I
2
3
4
-/
8
9
I0
Ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
27
SAN FRANCISCO
43'i - 7?ii
involved, the Technical Advisory Committee, which is made
up of our Staff people, were involved, and we attempted
to work a design that we felt we could support at the
Commission level. We finally got to, we finally got to the,
March or thereabouts, and I think there was a feeling that
this ought to go ahead in some form, and I believe it was
in April we had an informational meeting, Mr. Sprincin,
Mr. Chow and I discussed it. We still had concerns and,
and Staff made it quite clear at that point in time that
we felt there were major problems associated with the
Unit 5 project but that it might not be a bad idea to go
to a, a hearing, an informational hearing and receive
input from the people at Stonegate area and also the
Planning Commission on what they thought about the
concept plan, if you will, or the plan that was present.
And what happened out of that meeting was a great deal of
concern on the part of the Commission was expressed and
the homeowners in the area about traffic and the vi
the height of the building and such -- and the Commission
then gave the option that basically continued the action
with the consent of the applicant, continued it either
off -- volunteered to continue it off calendar or to the
next meeting, depending on the inclination of the
applicant to see if some of the problems could be resolved.
The decision was made at that point in time with Mr. Chow
CENTRAL RECORII:~
CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARl N COUNTY
DE~SITION NOTARIES 3e3 - 17~7
28
that he wanted a Commission meeting. He wanted basically a
final decision from the Commission on the subdivision
proposal. Knowing at that point in time, I think, that
the Staff was still concerned about it, we did go to a
meeting on, I believe, May 14th, in which residents of the
area showed up, the Staff presented its position, and the
Planning Commission voted to deny the tentative map.
So I would say the first part of 1981 was utilized to a
great extent in meetings between Staff and the applicant
in an attempt to resolve legal problems and design problems
which we felt were Ireally, we could not support. And then
we got into April and May, in which we had the informational
meeting, and then the actual Planning Commission meeting,
in which a decision was made --
NICOLOPULOS: Let me go back, Lou, to the expiration
of the, or at least alleged as expiration of the use
permit was in October of 1980, and from October 1980 to
today, that time elapsed -- my question is: What dialogue
has taken place between yourself and Mr. Sprincin all --
during all this time from October. I mean, I'm, I'm asking
why did this surface now and why didn't it surface back in
October or November or January?
DELL'ANGELA: You mean about the
expiration of the use permit?
NICOLOPULOS:
SAN I~RANC ISCO
23
24
25
(inaud)
Yes, yes, I mean, what effort did this
WM. E. HE~NDER$CHIEID 8: ASSOCIATES
MARIN COUNTY
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
383 - 1727
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
29
I
2
4
5
6
8
9
I0
!i
12
13
14
15
16
1'7
18
2O
21
22
23
SAN FRANCISCO
423 - 77,8
City, you know, what did we do to -- or did we have to
do anything to tell Mr. Sprincin "Your permit's expired" --
or a clarification?
DELL'ANGELA: I think we, we through the whole
process we examined the records of the file, the, the
the record of just what's happened in the many years before
and when we got to the point that April and May came, I
think it was our conclusion at that point in time that
the use permit had expired.
NICOLOPULOS: But it's expired since October of 1980.
Is that correct?
DELL'ANGELA: Well, I -- maybe it's a recognition
situation, Mayor.
ROGERS: Mr. Mayor, early in this year, I don't
remember the exact date or time, it was somewhere around
January or February, I believe, the question was asked
of me about the use permit. I don't know what, about the
delay from October until January, but somewhere early
in the year, I think earlier than April, quite a bit
earlier than April, someone asked me about the use permit
itself. I rendered an opinion at that time. I believe
shortly after that Mr. Sprincin and Mr. Dell'Angela and
I sat down in my office and talked about it, found out
where we disagreed and where we didn't disagree on the
facts, and that's been since, that was, that occurred, if
CENTRAL ~ECORDS
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARIN COUNTY
DE~SITION NOTARIES 383 - 1727
30
3
4
7
8
I0
II
!.2
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
I'm not mistaken, before April, but I don't recall the day,
Mr. Dell'Angela or Mr. Sprincin may have a better fix on
that than I do.
~Co~ : +o ~1~
~ELL'ANGELAI Yeah, I have t~e of the City
Attorney here: UP-780440, that is the use permit. Did that
use permit, when it was issued, cover Units ~ and 6 and-
ROGERS: Yes, it did.
DELL'~N~EL~: -original issue.
ROGERS: Yes, it did.
DELL ANCELA:
ROGERS:
ordinance.
'.
D~LL'AN~LA:
ROGERS:
Okay.
And that was in violation of the
SAN FRANCISCO WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
4,~:~. ?7El CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARl N COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES :3E3 - 17')7
required for each of the planned units.
for which shall be filed and (inaud).
_DELL ' ANGW, LA ~
VOICES:
Who did it?
(inaud)
FI~.-O5T/~ : This City Council did (inaud). In
other words, you couldn't issue a use permit on 4, 5, and 6,
you had to issue use permits on 4, another use permit on 5
and another one on 6.
ROGERS: It may have been an oversight but the
Section states that each unit, a use permit shall be
The application
C2NTRAL RECOFiD~q
Now, whose fault was that?
That was what (inaud)?
That was done in violation of the ordinance.
2
3
4
'7
8
10
'11
12
13
14
15
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
ACOSTA:
at the time?
ROGERS:
31
Is that as the ordinance was written
This is, this is Ordinance #5.8 (inaud)
One modification close into that that does
SAN FRANCISCO
not modify this provision and that began the problem of
my trying to interpret what we have today because having
issued on, use permit in violation of the ordinance, I then
had to go on and look at how these things were treated
after that point by Counsel, the Planning Commission, and
the developer and staff and everybody else and try to
figure out whether on those facts on the record, in my
opinion, it really was three years and not one integral
unit, my answer to that came up based upon what I could
tell, it was three units, it should've been handled as
three units all along and that, in fact, it was handled
that way at the Council Meeting where the extension was
granted.
ACOSTA: Right, it was handled again as Units
4, 5, and 6.
ROGERS: That's a factual determination and that
was done by me. In order to render my opinion I had to
first arrive at what I thought the facts were and I based
that upon what I considered the minutes of the record and
that's where I came down. Of course, the Council is more
qualified to talk about the facts and should be the fact
CF_NTRAL. RiSC..ORD~,
WM. ~'. MI:'ND~'R$CH~'ID & ASSOCIATe'S
CERTIFIED ~HORTHAND REPORTER~ MARIN COUNTY
DEPOHITION NOTARIE~ 313 - 17~7
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I0
Ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
23
2.4
32
decider in this case anyway.
ACOSTA: Well, the questions before us, you
know, are right now, I guess, as it stands, you're saying
they should've been separate ones, at the time of the issue
(inaud) it covered all of them. Jeez, I hate to
use Mr. Hamilton's terminology, but the word (inaud)
estoppel has been utilized in the sense where we're
denied the right to stop it once we had issued it. How
you gonna stop somebody? Or we use means of this (inaud)
right now to do this stopping.
ROGERS: I think it's a relatively complex issue
in terms of whether estoppel is necessary. Mr. Hamilton
disagrees with me, he feels it's clearly a matter of
estoppel and that the court would overwhelmingly tell_ us
that we are stopped from enforcing the provision t~ to
three units when the issue's that the build, the, excuse
me, the use permit originally on the three units with one
use permit. I have attempted to research that. I have
found some authority for the proposition that estoppeling
the City from enforcing its zoning ordinance even in the
face of prior failure J~h-e enforce the zoning ordinance all
along (inaud).
ACOSTA: (inaud) Mr. Rogers, but what I'm saying
here, you know, there is a good faith practice and we keep
talking about good faith. You do things like you're
WM. E. HENDER$CHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER8 MARIN COUNTY
DE~SITION NOTARIES 383 - 17~?
SAN FRANCISCO
~3-77ll
33
SAN FRANCISCO
4~'~ - ??SS
supposed to do but obeying ordinances and so forth and
(inaud) the City would live up to them and this is
where we have this running argument, so forth, with people
who come in here, something has not been done properly and
so forht and we say, "this is the ordinance and you got to
stick by it." (inaud)
ROGERS: I, I agree with you.
ACOSTA: -now we in turn, let me finish, we in turn
say something, we issue the use permit in contradition to
our own ordinance. Now, who's really wrong there? The
developer who comes in good faith, is it his responsibility
really to know our ordinances or is it the City itself,
San Francisco's, responsibility to know its ordinances?
ROGERS: They are both held to the knowledge of
what the ordinance is. Issuing one use permit on the
three units was an error. All I can say is that, based
upon the facts in the case, it appeared to me that the
City had been treating these three units as three separate
units all along. The developer had been treating them as
three separate units during the process of development and
based upon that, it is my opinion that notwithstanding the
fact that we had erroneously issued one use permit for
three units, they will be treated as three units and
therefore, if, if diligent efforts on all three units to
pursue development had not been taken that as to the units
WM. ~. HENDER$CHEID & ASSOCIATES
MARIN COUNTY
CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DE~SITION NOTARIES
34
where diligent efforts had not been pursued, the use permit
would have failed after one year's non-use, so to speak.
I looked at it and it appeared to me that Uni%~4
had been certainly diligently pursued and
developed but that in the case of Units 5 and 6, there
had not even been valid final maps filed-and therefore
I felt that there had not been diligent efforts as to 5
and 6 and that they, the use permit had expired as to them.
If the Council feels that these three ~in~ud) are
integrally related and that it is their understanding that
throughout the processing of this development, they have
understood that it is one integral (phase) that can't be
separated out and that the one use permit evidences that,
that's a fact determination for the Coucil to make, and then
I would say that would be, it would be tied closely enough
together that diligent pursuit of 4 would keep 5 and 6
alive. I wasn't able to come to that conclusion based upon
the record but Council was there, Council knows, presumably,
what they were intending and how they were dealing with
this project at the time and it's a fact determination
Council needs to make.
~ ~C~$T~ : Well, my reckoning was it was one
SAN ~RANCISCO
~3-77ii
permit, 4, 5, and 6 were the (~km~f~) there's no
denying it. You know, I'm gonna say it was not. Roberta's
recollection may be other than mine but the facts speak for
CEN'FF~AL RECORD~
~,L~ NO.: ¢~ 7 ~..
WM. E. HENDER=CHEID & AS~OCIATE~
MARIN
GERTI FI ED ~HORTHAND REPORTER~ 313 - 1
DE~BITION NOTARI E~
I
3
4
7
8
I0
!i
!,2
13
14
IS
17
18
2O
21
23
24
25
35
(inaud)
N coL.p l s: If there aren't any more for, I would
like to open the meeting up to those who are against this
item. We have several here. First one is Mrs. Doris Agee.
Would you again for the record give your name and address
please?
AGEE: My name is Doris Agee, I live at 819 Ridge
Court in the Stonegate Community. (inaud) staff report
CENTRAL REC. ORDS
tmL~ NO-, "~'~ '~ r/~
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID 8c ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND RIrPORTIrRS MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES 383 . 17~?
SAN FRANCISCO
4S't - 7?88
themselves.
VOICES: (inaud)
~l~O),.~lO~ : We have (inaud) for the item now.
Do you wish to continue further Mr. Hamilton or Mr. Modena?
~MIL~OM : Mr. Mayor, (inaud) all we do
now is request a finding and I get, the City Attorney's
indicated that that's your finding, (inaud) - you
would find the specific finding that the use permit is
valid.
: (inaud) I have no (inaud) wish to
speak on this (inaud).
: There's no more.
: Wait a minute
~l~0L~~: Is there anyone else in the audience
who was not given a card for this item? If you are will
you please proceed forward?
: Well, if there are no others for it,
36
SAN FRANCISCO
43~ - 7711
addresses itself so well to so many of the items that have
concerned us in the neighborhood that I'm not going to get
into those. They deal with density and just the general
problems that you're going to find with the way this thing
has been planned. I just want to say that I think that
it's obvious that what has been planned for our neighborhood
is totally inappropriate for the site. The concerns have
been voiced since 1978 and Mr. (inaud) just isn't getting
the message that we're trying to give him. In a letter to
the planning commissioner, in a letter to Planning
Commissioner Martin dated April 28, Mr. Sp~incin stated
lots 91 and 92 have for 16 years been legally zoned and
twice previously approved for five story.- condominium
buildings. All existing homeowners had knowledge of the
Stonegate zoning when they purchased their homes. The
desire of about 6 residents to down-zone us now smacks a
little of the "I got mine, Jack" syndrome. Mr. (Sprincin)
is a little off the mark. I have yet to find a single
resident of Stonegate, and I've talked with a lot of them,
incidentally, some of them gave up and went home, we did
have a lot more people here from Stonegate earlier, ah, I've
talked with a lot of them and I haven't yet found one who
wants one four story building in this neighborhood, much
less two and that's what's being proposed. I can assure
Mr. Sprincin that there are many more than six people at
WM. ~:. HENDI;R~SCHEID & ASSOCIATES
MARIN COUNTY
CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS lS'l - 17~?
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
SAN FRANCISCO
37
Stonegate who oppose in total what he's trying to do to our
neighborhood. I think most offensive of all is the idea
that we are suffering from the "I got mine, Jack" syndrome.
In that one paragraph in the letter to Commissioner Martin
Mr. Sprincin made three false assumptions. Number one, he
assumes that we were told when we bought our homes all
about Stonegate's future development. We were not told and
most of us knew so little about condominium buying at that
time that we actually believed the salespeople who told us
that there wasn't anything else could be done at Stonegate,
I~ ~T
that was it. That was (inaud) ~e~. ~umbc~ two,
the implication in Mr. Sprincin's statement is that we
may not react to Stonegate development as they occur, no
matter what mistakes we see happening. In his view,
apparently, we bought our homes with our eyes wide open
and if we don't like what we see we can just live with is
or we can move. Number three, Mr. Sprincin assumes that
as a developer, he is free to build what is economically
feasible for him. He can do is-phase by phase, under a
blanket endorsement of plans still on forms, changing his
plans to suit the market, the economy and whatever else
affects his bankbook with no real concern for the people
already living in the neighborhood, and dare to call us
selfish. I, for one, have not only invested a lot of money
in my Stonegate home, both at the time of purchase and in
WM. E. HENDER$CH£1D & ASSOCIATES
MARIN COUNTY
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
383-1727
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
I
2
3
4
7
8
9
10
!1
1,2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
later improvements. I have invested immeasurable quantities
of the most valuable commodity that I have, my time. I
have sat through innumerable planning commission meetings
and City Council meetings and I had spent hour after hour
after hour at City Hall and I've been doing those, trying
to better the lot of not only my own neighborhood but all
of the people in South San Francisco and I have done it
with no motive whatsoever other than in care. To me that's
every bit as valuable an investment as ~'dollars that
Mr. Sprincin, Mr. Chow or any others have invested in their
projects. Just because Stonegate as a whole was zoned a
particular way in the mid 60's doesn't mean that we have
to accept the kind of density and other built in problems
that have become apparent in the 16 years since. A five
story building was in the original plan but it obviously
would be unacceptable today on that particular site. A
four story building, 235 feet long, and I want to digress
just a moment, when we questioned the 45 unit condominium
building, we learned later that that has been reduced to
a 39 unit condominium building. Now, we were carefully
not told that at the time that the number of units was
reduced from 45 to 39, the number of units that, most of
those units changed from being one bedroom units to being
two bedroom units. So we have a building that streched in
length from 165 feet to 235 feet. We never heard that
CENTRAL RECORDS
WM. ~. HEND~RSCH£1D & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND R£PORTERS MARIN COUNTY
DE~SlTION NOTARIES $13 - 1727
SAN FRANCISCO
4'1~ - 774i
39
SAN I~RANC~ ISC:O
4~'l - 7711
officially, it just kind of happened. What does it take
to get this deve].oper to understand that he must revise
his original plans and come to us with something that we
can live with. Because we, after all, are the ones who
are going to have to live with this. You, the members of
the City Council, all of here in this room, with the
possible exception of the developer himself, who will do
his work and leave, just as they all do, I thank you very
muc h.
~lCo[o~l~5 : Thank you, Mrs. Agee. I'd like to ask
the next speaker, David Diller, will you also state your
name and address for the record please.
DILLER: My name is David Diller, I live at
964 Ridegview Court. I want to preface my remarks tonight
by saying that I, of course, defend Mr. Sprincin's right
to be here this evening but in all honesty I am just really
perplexed at Mr. Sprincin's hard-headedness and just not
listening to people. I went to 2 planning commission
meetings. There was all kinds of testimony from residents
who lived in the area and from people who lived in South
San Francisco and the message came through loud and clear,
the residents who live there do not want a four story
monolithic building blighting the skyline of South San
Francisco. There were ten reasons sited by the planning
commission as to why that building shouldn't go there. You
WM. E. HENDER$CHEID & ASSOCIATES
MAIRI N COUNTY
CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTER~ 313 - 17~'?
DEPOSITION NOTARIE~
40
SAN FrRANCISCO
4~1" - 77E!
! probably read them. Amongst them, to me one of the most
2 important reasons, if you've ever taken the time yourself
3 to drive up to Ridgeview Court, you'd see that it's a
4 narrow windy street and just using the arithmetic that was
5 used tonight upon the proposal that came before the
6 (inaud) thing, we're talking about 79 units, 2 cars
7 per unit, that's 158 cars and if we use 3.5 trips, and
8 incidentally, it's not both ways, there's only one entrance
9 to Ridgeview Court, you're talking about a potential of
10 553 cars using that street everyday. There's no way!
!! There's no way that street can accomodate that kind of
IZ traffic and when we get down to Mr. Sprincin's attorneys,
13 they're talking about 1 point out of the ten, getting
14 you to look at the use permit, you know, if they (inaud0
15 up in Stonegate, we want more buildings to go there,
16 we're not opposed to buildings, what we're asking for is
17 for some thoughtful kind of planning, some thoughtful kind
18 of building and whether the use permit is approved or not
19 approved, all we've ever asked is, we've asked Mr. Sprincin,
Z0 please come up, speak to us residents, sit down with us,
Zl give us a chance, tell us what you have in mind, let give
ZZ you a little input, we're not saying, you know, we want more
Z3 buildings to go up there, we realize that South San Francisco
Z4 has to expand, but for God sakes, please don't put a four
ZS story building which is going to be visible to us but for
WM. E. HEND~R$CHEID & A$$OCIAT~
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES ~ - 17~7
End Side 1
Side 2
I
3
4
-/
8
0
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
I'/
18
10
:PO
21
22
23
,24
25
41
miles around. You won't be able to drive anywhere on 280
or Highway 101, when you'll see that ugly thing on the
skyline, so that's why I'm asking please to this Council
to look at the wisdom of the Planning Commission and the
people whol have spoken for the Planning Commission and
please uphold their decision to deny this permit_and
ask Mr. Sprincin to come back in to the Planning Commission
and submit some kind of a plan which been gone over with
the resident of the area and give us a chance to have a
little input. Thank you.
SAN FRANCISCO
43'~ - 7764
Nlcoko~L~;i : Thank you Mr. Diller. The next
speaker I'd like to address is Mr. Charles Getz, and again.
for the record, would you announce your name and address?
GETZ: Honorable Mayor, member of the Council,
Charles W. Getz, 845 Ridge Court, South San Francisco.
Appearing in two capacities, I'm appearing with the
permission of the Planning Commission as representative
of the Planning Commission to briefly express our vote
and views on this issue, on the merits, and then I would
like to address individually, as an individual some of the
issues concerning the legality of the use permit. It was
the unanimous vote of the Planning Commission that the
use permit was invalid. It was also the unanimous feeling
of the Planning Commission that this proposed design was
CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTER~ MARI N COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES 383 - 17Z7
42
SAN FRANCISCO
433 - 77SS
unacceptable aesthetically, unacceptable from a variety
of other findings as set forth in the staff's report.
We heard testimony from a number of citizens of our City,
not just Stonegate residents as to the impacts of the
proposed development and especially the four story
building from danger viewpoints of our City from 280 for
example and also from Sunshine Gardens and from Stonegate
itself. We also looked at the site plan and looked at the
small amount of open space that was provided and the large
amount of buildings which seemed to be crammed into
every available nook and cranny which raised serious
concerns about the seismic safety and about the amount of
open space and about the quality of life that would be
available to the new residents. Mr. Sprincin in return
talked about the views they would have as being the,
probably the most important factor, certainly views are
important but I think when you're looking at proper
planning, views are one minor point compared to open space
and quality design. It was the feeling of the Commission
that this particular proposal was not appropriate for the
site. But I want to emphasize that I don't think by making,
taking that position the Planning Commission in any way,
shape or form indicated that it felt no development in that
area would be appropriate. Certainly, the Planning
Commission has encouraged Mr. Sprincin to work with us and
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
GERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARl N COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES 3l$ - 17~?
SAN FRANCISCO
4SS - 77SS
43
I he came up with the idea of having that informal discussion
2 that Mr. Dell'Angela referred to earlier and would invite
Mr. Sprincin to come back with a new application for a
3
4 different plan, should Mr. Sprincin so decide. The lawyer
5 in me, speaking as a private individual, will not allow
this discussion to go on the use permit validity without
7 making a few comments in support of your City Attorney's
8 I think very sound advice. And let me explain why I say
9 that. Nothing worse than getting a bunch of lawyers
10 together and trying to ask them what the truth is because
!i you're going to get 15 versions, no question about that.
However, my background as a land use attorney has been
12
to represent agencies on exactly this question. I cannot
13
tell you how many times I've been in court on the issue of
14
15 phasing of developments and whether there is interdependence
or not and I've found it significant that in the letter
16
17 which has been submitted to you by Mr. Hamilton, not one
18 case was cited. I have my own theory why he didn't cite a
case but I can cite some and I'll be happy to provide some
19
to the City Attorney and I'll cite one today which deals
specifically with this issue. Before I do that I want to
emphasise that I understand the dilemma you find yourselves
in. Here you are decision makers on a validity of a use
23
Z4 permit, which is a really picky-sticky legal isuse that
drives some judges up a tree and yet you are expected to make
FiLE NO~... ,~,~,.~ ~2~,/~
WM. E. HENDER$CHEID & ASSOCIATES
MARIN COUNTY
CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTER8
~13-1727
DEPOSITION NOTARIEg
44
SAN FRANCISCO
4S] - 7?iS
a legal finding and I sympathize with that and I will not
try to make that overly complicated, that decision, but I
think the City Attorney is absolutely correct in my
opinion in his analysis of this use permit for 5 and 6,
the use permits involved there are invalid or are expired
for unit 5 in particular for a number of reasons. First
of all, the issue of estoppel that Mr. Hamilton feels is
such a strong issue, well, I would suggest Mr. Hamilton
read the Supreme Court of California, in (inaud) vs. City
of Long Beach, in the Court of Appeals in Petit vs. City
of Fresno, now I just saw Mr. Hamilton's memorandum a few
minutes ago so I do not have the cites but they're easily
found. In those cases, the courts held that a law is
known to everybody, that everyone is presumed to know the
law and that a city cannot be (estopped) if the city in
error and a city building inspector, for example, gives
a building permit that should not be given, even where the
building is started. That sounds very harsh, but the reason
for it, and I especially, Councilman Acosta, the reason for
it is if the city and the developers goof as, apparently,
may have occurred here, the city, the citizens of the city
should not pay the price for that goof by having a
development that is awful or does not make sense. You don't
penalize your citizens for the matter. There might be
some kind of inconvenience to the developer, that's the
WM. [. HEND~RSCH£1D & ASSOCIATES
MARIN COUNTY
CERTIFIED ~HORTHAND REPORTER~
~15-1727
DE~SITION NOTARIE~
45
SAN FrRANCISCO
43:3. ??II
I burden of our system of government. There might be some
liability to a city official, I'm not suggesting that in
3 this case there is, of course, but there are remedies
4 available in short, but not penalizing the community with
5 bad planning because of a "estoppel." Those cases reject
the idea that a city is estopped in its planning
procedures because of an error made, because the developer
8 has, is on notice as much as the city that the ordinance
9 is being violated. Because he's presumed by law to know
10 the law. So, if anything, it's a mutual mistake and one,
!i one party should not benefit over the other in a mutual
mistake, it should just be recinded, which is what the
City Attorney's saying should occur here One building,
14 one use permit for three phases is not proper, therefore.
15 In looking though at, beyond estoppel and looking at
16 whether or not there is a single project or three separate
17 projects, the courts look to the facts of each case, in
18 my experience. The courts look not only at the nature
19 of the permit given, the single use permit, but as Mr.
Rogers has correctly pointed out, the conduct of the
developer, the conduct of the city and the way the
development goes forward. There is a case, in my opinion,
directly on the nose. The Supreme Court of California
again, involving the Coastal Commission, called Urban
Renewal. Agency of Monterey vs. Coastal Commission. I
~,~_~ ~. ,. ~'~ ~7~ ~'
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARIN COUNTY
DE~SITION NOTARIES 383 - 17~7
!
2
3
4
5
6
'7
8
9
I0
I!
~2
Iq,
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
SAN FRANCISCO
435 - 7764
46
believe it's a 1975 case, I believe it's found somewhere
at 13 or 15 (Cal third), Mr. Rogers, again, and I'm sure
Mr. Hamilton can find it very easily. The issue there
was exactly what's before you here, whether certain actions
and approvals on a project which involved many phases and
construction, start of work on part of those phases, was
construction, start of work on all phases, and the answer,
and the arguments by the developer in that case, in that
case, the City (inaud) Urban Renewal Agency, were that
there was economic interdependence between the phases,
that they were always considered to be one big project,
that they were presented as one project, they were considered
as one project and they were starting one part of the
project, a phase, for economic reasons, but they were all
tied together economically. The Supreme Court rejected
that. Economic interdependence is not interdependence, the
Supreme Court said. There must be some functional tie
between two phases of the project other than pure economics
that create interpedence. Example: a grocery store and
a parking lot, say you have two permits for that, it
doesn't make sense to have one without the other. In this
case, however, we seem to have a phase, Unit 4, which was
built successfully and is trying to be sold, not quite so
successfully, apparently, hopefully, will be sold, and it's
standing all by itself, it is not functionally dependent on
C~N [RAg
WM. I. HENDER$CHEID & ASSOClATIS
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARl N COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
47
SAN ~RANC ISCC)
43'~. 7764
5 and 6 in any manner the Planning Commission was presented
with evidence, or any manner that I can see personally.
5 and 6, 6 isn't even before, the plans are not drawn yet.
5 is now coming down the pipeline. The developer has
treated them separately, separate tentative maps, only
reason one permit, due to a mistake by both parties,
separate construction, separate loans, and in short,
separate projects. Therefore, I think it was those factors,
some of which I enumerated at the time of the Planning
Commission decision and finding, primarily relying upon
our City Attorney's advice that the Planning Commission
made a finding that the use permit for this new phase had
expired, in any event, there was no tentative map and that
a an intended map would be required. So, in conclusion,
and of course, I would be happy to answer any questions and
provide whatever assistances the City Attorney, would be
of any help to him. In conclusion, I believe the use permit
issued has expired and is invalid. And I believe, speaking
on behalf of the Planning Commission on this part, that
the proposed design is inappropriate, it's too intense for
the site and the Planning Commission felt that Mr. Sprincin
should come back to us at some future date with a new
application that made better sense for the area. Thank you.
~l~O~#L~ : Thank you, Mr. Getz. Before we
continue ~urther that charming hour has arrived and I'd like
WM. £. H£ND£RSCH£ID & ASSOC,ATES
DEPOSITION NOTARIE~ 315 - 17Z7
I
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
I0
!1
1,2
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
2,4
48
a consensus or concurrence on the Council. I think we must
~ ~inaud) ~-the last item for tonight and
with the Council's concurrence, can we put these other
items on to another
:
NICOLOPULOS:
(inaud) meet ing?
(inaud)
So, will the record show that we will
SAN FRANCISCO
,LIS- '77SI
continue this item and this will be the last item of the
evening and that the other remaining items that were not
addressed will be addressed at an (inaud)
Okay, we have another one. Miss-
~0~/~ : (inaud) I think we need
something that has to be done by a- there's a time limit
on one certain thing, one item, and that is the (inaud)
that one has to be done.
NICOLOPULOS: All right, can we amend that to
include that one item that must be done.
~60ST~ : That has to be done this evening.
~E&&I~ : Before we do that, can we ask (inaud)
if there's anything else that needs to be done
tonight that cannot wait for (inaud) meeting.
Okay, while they're doing that we can proceed with this.
NICOLOPULOS: Okay, I'd like to call on Margaret
Warren at this time and again, for the record's sake, will
you state your name and address.
WARREN: My name is Margaret Warren, 790 Stonegate
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES 313 - 1711
I
2
3
4
5
6
-/
8
10
I1
!,2
13
14
15
16
!'/
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
Drive. As the Planning Commission has heard me state, I
feel very strongly about the inappropriateness of the size,
scope, design and density of the project, Stonegate 5, as
proposed by Mr. Sprincin, the developer, and Mr. Chow, the
the 1960's. Millions of people inhabiting this city have
changed considerably during the intervening 20 year period,
or 16 years, if you will. Open space was sprinkled
throughout the City at that time. Now, if you will forgive
the parallel, it's an endangered species. Homes that looked
alike were quite the style in the 1960's. Now as the song
from the same decade so aptly put it, "they're all made out
of ticky tacky and they all look just the same." The
previous developments of Stonegates 1, lA, 2, 3, 4 and 8
are unquestionably high density housing, no matter what the
number of units to the gross acre. Just ask the residents.
The buildings are long and contains many units, the
steepness of the terrain makes development difficult,
and it tends to bunch the housing. It also makes all of
the acreage which is not covered by buildings and driveways
unusable. It is inevitably so steep as to require stairs
or adequate hiking boots. The current development of
Stonegate is excessive. (~ud)- started at a different
time and under different circumstances. I feel that the
design of Stonegate 5 as presented is not in the best
WM. E. HENDERSGHEID & ASSOCIATES
SAN F~RANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
4~'1-77EI CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
313 - 17~7
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
!
2
4
8
I0
Ii
12
13
14
15
16
I?
~8
2O
21
22
24
50
interests of South San Francisco or Stonegate. Most
specifically, the 235 foot long, four story, 39 unit
apartment style condominium building is in my opinion
a monolithic structure on the top of the ridge which is
entirely incompatible with the rest of the area.
Mr. Sprincin has admitted that the current building which
is high on that hill is unsightly, yet he plans to mitigate
that building with yet another, even larger one. No matter
what superficial changes he makes, the building is too large
for the site and the number of units too great. The
cumulative effect, both visual and sociological, of such
continued high density development must be considered
very carefully. I live at Stonegate. I like it. But I
recognize it has its mistakes. Non-residents tend to
identify it as "the projects." It has little usable space
that isn't covered by concrete or buildings, its density
is too high and it does look old (inaud) Please, do
not allow these errors to be repeated, let this city
demonstrate that it can and does learn from its past
mistakes. Let us not apply 1960's logic to 1981 circumstances.
And as a sidenote to the comments about the use permit and
knowledge of the law, as two ex-officers on the Council
will I'm sure recognize, the statement ignorance of the
law is absolutely no excuse.
~e~ : But a mistake of law is... Okay.
Now
WM. E. HENDIrR$C:HIrlD & AS$OClATIrS
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERB
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
SAN FI~ANCISCO MAF~IN COUNTY
SAN FrRANCISCO
4~ - 77~
51
I this is a mistake of law, this is not ignorance of the law.
2 There is a difference.
3 WARREN: I think you have to ask an attorney for
4 that kind of an opinion.
5 NICOLOPULOS: Okay, thank you Miss Warren. Is there-
E '~L~ : (inaud) attorney comment on
7 that because I don't know about that.
8 NICOLOPULOS: Okay, could you give us a (inaud)
9 on the case? The issue that just arose, clarify it for
l0 the, you know, audience?
Ii ~0~ : I don't think it's relevant to the
IZ issue tonight, Mr. Mayor. I think maybe talking about a
13 mistake of fact, rather than a mistake of law.
14 NICOLOPULOS: Mistake of fact? Is there anyone else
15 in the audience that would like to speak against this item?
16 Anyone against? Okay, and if there isn't, yes?
17 ~kL'~&~ : Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to, we looked
I~ through our files on this question of intent on the part
19 of the applicants at the time the extension was given in
ZO the latter part of 79. I came across a memorandum that
;.1 was sent to the City Council by Mr. Neal Martin, who
ZZ represented the developer in this particular case and it's
Z3 interesting in this letter to you dated August 10, 1979,
Z4 that Mr. Martin suggests, and I assume he has done it with
ZS the consent of the applicant, he suggests that the City
~M, £, NI=N~£R$¢HI~'ID & A$~OCIATI~$
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND R£PORTER$ MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIE~ 31] - 17~'?
52
I
2
3
4
5
'7
8
9
I0
Ii
12
13
14
15
16
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
Council impose a condition of the use permit that the plans
are granted in concept, that when he's talking about 5
and 6 and that prior to final approval the public hearing
would be held by the Planning Commission considering the
details, including the design, of 5 and 6. And secondly,
he requested that the use permit extension for Unit 4 be
granted so obviously there was some intent at that point
in time, by representative of the developer, to separate
4 out as a projects (inaud) immediately go forward
ahead and conceded that there would need to be some
review on 5 and 6 down the road. Now, (inaud) I don't
want to say that Mr. Sprincin or Mr. Chow was the applicant
signed the letter or co-signed the letter, that's not the
intent, but it's my understanding that Mr. Martin was
representing the developers at that time, this communication
did come to the Council, and I think clearly said, requested
that the use permit extension for 4 be granted and so there
was a distinct separation and if you want to see this letter,
I'll be glad to give you, if this adds any clarification
to the particular subject.
NICOLOPULOS:
this document?
~#~ :
Does the appellant have knowledge of
Mr. Mayor, the application that was
brought before the Planning Commission and then appealled
and brought before this Council asked for an extension of
C~E~?~,-~'~.~,~._ ~'~?i,. .... '~-~:~2;'~
WM. ir. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
SAN PRANClSCO MARIN COUNTY
43B - 7711 CERTIFI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
BIB - 17B7
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
1
2
3
4
5
6
-/
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
I';'
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2:5
53
use permit 78440. The Planning Commision and the City
Council granted the extension in accordance with the
alwful request for an application for extension. What this
document may say that is not a lawful submission with
resepect to the request for the extension. In other words,
thousands of reams of paper.
NICOLOPULOS: Yes, Mr. ~lnaua)
~&O~O~: DO you see relevance with this to our
(inaud)
~['/~n~/&~&~: I think it's relevant in respect to
that (inaud) It represents or seems to represent the
intention of the applicant by his professional, if you will,
his professional technician, that he contencds that, or at
least he states in this letter that it's important that
they move ahead on Unit 4 and that he offers to the Council
a proposal that 5 and 6 could be reviewed and discussed
after a public hearing and so I think it' relevant in terms
of defining the intent at that point in time. Now, whether
or not you put heavy stock in this or light stock in this,
I can't tell you, but I think it's relevant to the issue
as to what you approved at that particular night.
NICOLOPULOS: (inaud) the decision was made
and that nullifies this, I think, by the decision that was
made that nullifies this-
~EL['~L~: Well, that's your judgement, certainly,
SAN FRANCISCO WM. ~'. HENDE:RSCHEID ag ASSOCIATES
4:~:~ - 7766 CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARl N COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES ~SS - 17Z?
Mayor.
54
SAN lit RANC: ISC:O
4~'~ -
NICOLOPULOS: Mr. Chow, you wish to say something?
Please state your name and address for the record.
CHOW: My name is C. N. Chow, I live in Oakland and
I'm managing partner of Bayland Properties, who bought
land 4, 5, and 6 from Mr.~ -~'~--~~%~ and I was original
applicant so I know the history a little bit more and I
would like to brief you on the background maybe it will
ehlp to resolve the problem that's facing us now. Before
we bought this-
NICOLOPULOS: Could you relate the dates that were
current as to what you're speaking of J~
CHOW: In 1978, I negotiate with Mr. (inaud) to
buy the remaining portion, 4,5, and 6 from Mr. (inaud),
16. some acres, and at that time, I study Mr. (inaud)'s
overall plannig of the Stonegate project and then, as you
know, this Stonegate project consists of 60 acre~ and
with 60 acres, it was (inaud) with single residential
multiple townhouse and include a highrise apartment, one
for 66 units, the other for 72 apartments, and then you
have the (El~s) Club and then some commercial here, 2
schools along here, then (ia~-er~d~~?~R ~ 1,2,3 was built,
the El~s Club, and then there are tennis court and then
landscape garden in the center. And then we bought the
remaining portion of this 4, 5, 6, so the overall development
C~T~
WM. ;. HENDER$CHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTER~ M AR! N COUNTY
D£POSlTI ON NOTARI E8 ]e3 - 17~?
55
I is consists of 60 acres and the density of the whole area
2 is calculated by the whole 60 acre project, not by 5 alone.
3 Nl~0~°b : Mr. Chow, may I stop you momentarily.
4 I'd like a question please. At the time of (inaud)
5 project, were the stipulations in that that they would
6 apply to your permit as they are today or were there
7 different stipulations in there?
8 CHOW: (inaud) What we bought from Mr. (inaud)
9 is the remaining portion of the overall development, the
10 highest density portion from Mr. (inaud) of this Stonegate
!i project and then at that time, we revised the plan and
12 applied for a permit, which we called the UP 7844-
13 N~&0Lo~lo~: Which (day) did you speak on that?
14 What's the date on that?
15 CHOW: 78. (inaud) the overall design of,the
16 project follows the main concept of the, ah
17 proposal and development.
18 : We have the town (inaud)
I~ CHOW: (inaud) tennis
Z0 court and then the landscape garden here and then we
Zl (inaud) one project here and I paid $200 for the
ZZ variance application and $3,400 some for the whole project
23 of 234 units. This one project,, this I want to emphasize,
24 one use permit and (0inau~) we want to build it in
ZS three phases, not in three different units, that we would
FIL_~ NC>.:
SAN FRANCISCO WM. E. HENDE:R$CHEID & A~SOCIATES MARIN COUNTY
43~ - 7711 CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTER~ 383 - 17~7
DE~SITION NOTARSE8
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
'7
8
10
!i
12,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
,21
22
23
Z4
like the Council to be very clear on this point.
NICOLOPULOS: Excuse me, sir. Could you explain
for myself and the rest of the Council, what are you
talking about when you say one stage and not phases, could
you explain what that means?
CHOW: One (inaud) , one project divided into
3 phases to build because it's too bi~ a project to build-
NICOLOPULOS: But what are you talking, what's the
substance of that (i.naud)? What is that?
CHOW: I followed the number because we bought 4,
~oop~U
~n~Ud3 unit, for one project but still taking three
phases to build it.
:
(inaud)
Mr. Rogers, if I understand him
SAN FRANCISCO
~]-7748
correctly, he bought 3 separate units that were so designated
at the time he purchased them. He is regarding it as one
project, but he bought 3 separate units. Is that correct
or not?
RO~ : I think that's what he's saying. He
bought 4, 5, and 6 and he's regarding them as one project.
"TE~C~ : But according to the(i~dd) plan
there were 3 separate units.
~~ : Right and according to your ordinance
there are certain units in that development, it's a planned
WM. E. HENDER$CHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER$ MARIN COUNTY
DE~$1TION NOTARIES ]83 - 17~7
57
I
2
'l
8
9
10
I1
1.2
13
14
15
16
1'7
18
20
21
23
24
community development, and he bought three of those
planned units.
CHOW: Now, the 4, 5, and 6, at this time, I
remember, because Mr. ' (pass away) two years
(inaud) 4,5,6, (inaud) 3 on the map and then
on the zoning map of this city, still they are 2 pieces
of land, up in here. (inaud)
these two ('~ are for high-density
apartments and then (inaud) the remaining portion is
for townhouses so that 4, 5, and 6 as far as
is concerned this is 5 and this is 6, two (inaud)
and then the (inaud) of the townhouses is 4.
(inaud)
apartments, but you combine it in
(inaud)
the one project and this
These three spaces aren't efficient for
building because they will cost over $i0 or $20,000,000
construction of some 200 and some units, it's difficult
for the market and so on, so we (inaud)
ijnto 4, 5, and 6 so consist of 50 townhouses and
this 5, forty townhouses and one condo and then 6, another
30 some number of townhouses and then another condo. The ,
subdivision of our 4, 5, 6, is different from Mr.
4, 5, 6, but we intend to explain to the City that we want
to develop this into 3 phases, not three units, please. Now,
the overall design is all (~) into one project. As you
SAN FRANCISCO
~-77SS
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER$ MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIE$ $8~ - 17~'7
5
6
7
8
9
!0
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
2,2
23
,?.4
58
can see, we repeat the townhouse design in 4, 5, and 6. We
have a garden in here and then here a (inaud)
part of 4 and part of 5 and then (inaud)
from 6 down to the (inaud) in the garden. Now
we have 6 (barbecue) area and (inaud)
which is the existing (inaud) area. So all these
3, 4, 5, 4, 5, and 6 are linked together in the design. No
separation. And at the same time the police department
and the fire department is concerned about the those two
(i~ra15~ and in case someone call them ~nd then
they make a mistake and then someone call them in the
upper portion and they make a mistake and go down, then
it's difficult for them to circle'around so they ask us to
have a road linking 4 and 6 so all the design is one
concept. The calculation of the density, the calculation
of each unit and then the linking of the (inaud)
the road linking 4 to 6, all in one design, not two, not
three separate designs. The calculation of parking
space and then the open space area, everything is one
design and one project and but we would like to build it
in three phases because of economical issue and difficult
to build 200 and some units at one time. And we are not
(inaud) the fee we pay to the City at that
time so we, after paying that use permit, $3,000 some, right
WM. E. HI~NDE:R$CHEID & ASSOCIATES
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
4~3 - 77SS CERT! FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
!
2
'7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
I?
18
2O
21
22
23
24
25
59
away we apply for the tentative map for 4 so that we can
proceed with the first 50 unit of townhouses. Now as far
as our concern, everyone is concern about the highrise of
this two building in here. It has been (inaud) there
for some 15 or 16 years ago. It is in the Planning
Commission (i~IN~- map that is hanging on the Planning
Department when you enter there, these two lobbies over
there. If you (inaud) who bought the home in
Stonegate knows that is too zoned for apartment. This one
is zoned for 66 apartments and this one 92 is zoned for
72 and then when we first applied we go down to 44 units
of condos and then 48 in here. So is downzoned for the
original apartment and the calculation of all the open space
and everything is on the same. Now (inaud) when we
bought the property, we come to San Francisco with the hope
(inaud) on the architect developer and I got my master
degree on architecture and city planning and I have
developed over tens of thousands of homes and apartments in
Hong Kong, in China, in Peking, in Taiwan and also in
my first project is in San Leandro and they give me an
award for my design over there. And I'm in love with
architecture and I study with Frank Lloyd Wright and Mies
van der Rohe so I want to build with the intention to
build a good project for the City. We work with (Agee)
and at that time we hire (Neal Martin) and Seyranian to be
WM. 1~. HI='NDERSCHEiD & ASSOCIATE;8
~AN IIrI~ANCI$CO MARIN COUNTY
433 - ??1~ CERTI FI lED SHORTHAND
DEPOSITION NOTARIIr~ 313 . 17~?
I
3
4
'7
8
9
10
Ii
12
13
14
15
16
!'7
18
2O
21
22
23
24
25
60
our architect and planner. We work in this, with Agee
and the homeowner association several time. I visit they,
her home and then we discuss every aspect of this
development; townhouse, home and 2 condo. She knows about
it. And then after all the review she wrote a letter to
support us, said of all the developer that they would think
that we are the one that really worked with them and she
supported and we got the first approval in one weekend
because the homeowner all support us. Now, so we start on
4, I don't know what make the change, I'm all confuse. At
that time, this plan is all in accordance with the zone
and then everything is, with the City ordinance certainly
(inaud) that everything is incorrect. I'm
all confused. We have the same thing, except one modification
(inaud) this unit and this time we
work with Lou Dell'Angela and I would like to mention this
the first approval is that we have the whole project
approved except that we have to work on the elevation of
each condo so we can get the approval of the Planning
Commission (inaud) the treatment of the condo is in
accordance with the overall project. No other time. No
redesign, no density problem, no traffic problem. Everthing,
the parking problem is all right and then suddenly they
I~O d~s
turn over (~a~d~ everything is in
violation of the City Code and so on and in fact (inaud)
~ERTI~I~ $~ORT~A~ RE~ORTERS ~R~N ~O~T¥
DE~81TION NOTARIES $13 - 17~7
SAN IrRANCISCO
43~. 778i
!
2
9
I!
15
I?
22
2~
61
the zoning and that is still hanging in the Planning
Department's wall. Now I would like to make a proposal.
We have been working hard and diligently and everyone of
you can go to see the phase 4. We have already incorporate
most of Miss Agee's opinion into the design and then we
got the homeowner's support at that time and it was approved
and then we would like to (~nmud) modifications which
we would hope to better the design. Instead of having
800 square feet, 35 feet wide, sort of thing, one bedroom,
800 some feet, we increase it to 37 feet wide, which make
it one bedroom more ~ and then we introduce
some two bedrooms in this and then the two bedrooms in this
is about (12,000) square feet. Ordinary two bedroom
building, only 800 some square feet, and then the one
bedroom is about 5 or 600 square feet. We like to increase
the size, in case if the City finds that these buildings
too big we would like to reduce it back to the original
dimension, there's no difficulty over there. The townhouse,
we would like to repeat, and then Mr. Dell'Angela never
mentioned about any of the design until the last moment, and
I ~t~ ~a~) only two hours before the
meeting then we had, no longer had a valid use permit.
Mr. Chow, may I ask you a question?
Apparently, there's a difference in
NICOLOPULOS:
CHOW: Yeah.
NICOLOPULOS:
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERm
DEPOmlTION NOTARIEi=
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
4.13 - 77,S 3S3 - 1 ?S?
I
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2:4
25
62
what the City requires to our expert staff and what you
are proposing. My question is, have you been told by this
City what we would like to see you build there, or what
we would like, not specifically, but what are the criterion,
have we told you what criterions we want, or criteria we
want-
CHOW: When?
NICOLOPULOS; I don't know
CHOW: What period?
NICOLOPULOS: Well, we've been discussing things
for a long time, I'm saying there's been a difference of
opinion here, the City states that what is there now is
not acceptable and has the City come back and asked you
or told you, I'll give you some criteria to follow so you
can maybe accomodate us or ah-
CHOW: Let me (inaud) . It's about two or
three months, early this year that we hear that they have
concern on the big building and then later on from (inaud)
up to the townhouse, and then finally, overall design. Now,
we show our faith. I work with Lou Dell'Angela on
redesigning the project twice. If you may have the time
I can show you the, what Lou and City Planning Board wants
us to redesign. Would you like to see the criteria we
NICOLOPULOS:
do?
Well, is it lengthy? I don't want to-
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
4~ - 7761 CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
313.17~7
D~FOSITSON NOTARIES
63
CHOW:
Ail right, okay.
CHOW: Well, I have the drawings in my, only take
two minutes for me to-
NICOLOPULOS: My question, before you do it though,
is, how far apart are we?
CHOW: (inaud) no, first let me (in~)~. a
few points. Mr. Lou Dell'Angela ask an architect from the
Planning Department to give us a direction of what they
think would be, what they want. Now first, they want to
(inaud) this whole area into one lot and then (inaud)-
~ELL'/J'/d6"~'/--/~ Just for clarification, ~_l~haclangclo
didn't do that, a member of our design review board
volunteered to come to a Planning Commission one night
and present some alternate concepts which could be
considered and at that meeting he did not say this was
the magic solution and neither did Lou Dell'Angela
say this was the magic solution.
CHOW: Anyway, the (inaud) even higher, a higher
organization of this city inform us the direction that we
should follow, it's very important.
NICOLOPULOS: Mr. Chow, I don't know what you mean,
higher. The agency or the entity that Mr. Dell'Angela's
talking about is an advisory, they're not higher.
CHOW: No, higher than (inaud)-
NICOLOPULOS: No, no, just a planning-
WM. E. H£NDER$CHE:ID & ASSOCIATE:$ MARIN COUNTY
SAN I~F~ANClSCO CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS 'tl3.17~'7
433.1111 DEPOSITION NOTARIES
64
I
2
3
4
6
7
8
10
!i
1,2
13
14
15
17
18
20
21
23
2.4
25
NICOLOPULOS: Just an advisory to Mr. Dell'Angela.
CHOW: Then, anyway, the advisor of the City Planning
Board give us the direction on what, where to go and then
later on-
NICOLOPULOS:
DELL'ANGELA:
NICOLOPULOS:
difference.
DELL'ANGELA:
Was that an ultimatum, Mr. Dell'Angela?
No, it wasn't an ultimatum-
Well, it seems to (inaud) a
It was a concept that one of the
architects on our design review board thought might be
interesting to consider, he, he did not study it in depth
in the sense that this would be the magic solution. He
said, here is a possibility, here is a concept you might
consider and certainly I did not support or endorse or
recommend it. He thought that it, he thought it might be
helpful in just making that presentation.
NICOLOPULOS: Yeah, but the inference I get right
now is that Mr. Chow accepts that as the ultimate decision.
DELL'ANGELA: Well, I don't know that that's an
accurate inference.
NICOLOPULOS: Meanwhile, he infers that way, he feels
like we've given him an ultimatum here.
CHOW: Now, let me please. That is not the way
(inaud) he wants him to present it in the last meeting
and show us the direction.
SAN FRANCISCO
,U:l - 7?il
What's the purpose if he knows
WM. ~. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
~ARIN COUNTY
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
313 - 1727
DE~SITION NOTARIE~
I
2
3
4
8
9
10
!1
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2.5
65
that is not workable.
DELL'ANGELA: During the process, very quickly,
Mr. Chow, Mr. Sprincin, I think, other representatives
appeared before our design meeting board and made a
presentation on what they thought should be build on that
site and the design review board had some serious concerns
about that and the architects on that board came back and
with the helpful position of "no, that's not very
desirable from our standpoint, but why don't you try this
particular concept" and they were invited to come to the
Planning Commission at the informational meeting and just
suggest some alternatives, and beyond that it was not an
official submittal, it was a concept, it was an idea, which
Mr. Chow could accept or reject.
NICOLOPULOS: How did you interpret this, Mr. Chow?
CHOW: After that, all right, let's forget, after
I showed, I made the design and then the study and then go
back and talk with Lou and explain him why that concept
is not workable and he finally agreed. Now, but I spend
several weeks of time and then after he agreed on that he
asked me to type another one. Now first, he want me to
try to eliminate ~ and put ~
townhouse (inaud)
WM. K'. HB:NDi:'R$CHi:,iD & ASSOC:iATirS
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
SAN Ir"RANC ISCO
432 - 771E
a condo in here and (inaud)
he wants me to put a condo
and then I
MAI~I N COUNTY
3S3 - 1727
I
2
4
6
-/
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
2.4
25
66
explained to him (i~a) ~N ~ ,~0~L~
area's too small (inaud)
he (inaud)
(inaud)
(inaud)
the
for the townhouse and then
the townhouse
and then he have all the traffic go
instead of (inaud) .
SAN FRANCISCO
433.778S
He agreed, then he said why don't you try? And I said how
long you want me to try? He say 3. to 6 months. He said,
he doesn't even know what he really wants. Now, for zoning
for the City, zoning ( you are not supposed
to put any high rise in here. We can put (inaud)
townhoUse and keep (inaud)
without any direction. I'm more lost. We follow
the City regulation and zoning code and finish our project
which was approved and then all of a sudden everything
goes haywire and then, it is not in accordance with the
zoning ordinance and then now we are asked to build some
high buildings in here which is not zoned for high buildings.
What can we do?
NICOLOPULOS: May I ~d) ~momentarily. In
answer to that question, Lou, what is your, ah-
DELL'ANGELA: Well, I, Mr. Chow and, of course,
Mr. Sprincin, their representatives and myself and my
staff had many meetings. What I had tried to do is impress
on them that there were major problems with the present
I
2
3
4
7
8
I0
Ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
67
development as planned but we would like them to take
units 5 and 6 and submit a combined proposal so that we
perhaps could (inaud) reduce the densities in
one area and maybe increase it in other areas but all the
time meeting the requirements of the Stonegate plan. It
was always a question of density and the Stonegate plan
states that density of a development must meet the
general plan of the City so there was always a concern that
the density was entirely too high and not consistent with
the general plan. Other factors related to coverage, lot
coverage. The Stonegate plan said that the property ought
to, had to be covered no more than 50%, they were up in
the area of 60% so I said, essentially in our discussions
I was trying to convince Mr. Chow, Mr. Sprincin to take
fresh look at the, both the 5 and 6 development and come
in with a new approach that not only met the Stonegate
ordinance but as well could satisfy staff and the people
of the community. We never reached a point where there
was any significant change that was conceded. It was only
we were back to the same footprint in the same floorplan,
with perhaps some cosmetic changes here and there but never
any substantial reanalysis of the project, and I think
that's why we probably didn't make more progress than we
did.
NICOLOPULOS:
Well, let me ask you a~question,
WM. E. HENDER$¢HEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTI F! ED SHORTHAND REPORTER8
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
SAN FrRANCI$CO MARIN COUNTY
4~i'l - 77ii :3e3 - 1
I
3
4
6
,./
8
I0
!1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Z5
68
SAN FrRANCISC~O
Mr. Dell'Angela, do you feel that in the process that you
carried out all t'his time that you applied as much
diligence and concern and you reached a point where there
was an impasse? Would you say that you reached a point
where there was an impasse? An impasse means you're bogged
down, you can't go anywhere.
DELL'ANGELA: I think we reached a point where we
had an honest difference of opinion.
NICOLOPULOS: No, I'm asking you, do you think it
was an impasse or you don't?
DELL'ANGELA: No, I don't. I think we were at a
point Where I felt strongly about a particular project and
they felt that they couldn't move, they couldn't change
the project and if that's an impasse, then that's an impasse.
NICOLOPULOS: Is that a fact, Mr.?
CHOW: Now let me (inaud) I don't know why
that Mr. Dell'Angela would ask us to combine 5 and 6 in
the design. Instead we combine 4, 5, and 6 in one project.
Doesn't he understand this simple principle that we have
all gone along with so far, and 6 is already consider and
planned as one unit? What is his request 4, 5, and 6 to
recombine in the design? It is one project already and
he doesn't understand, he thinks that we are designing
5 separately. We are not, we are utilizing the use permit
of 4, 5, 6 and then apply for five so that we can proceed
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARl N COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES ~3 - 17~7
69
I
2
3
4
6
-/
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
16
1'7
2.O
21
2;2
23
24
with the construction. And then 6 is the part of 4, 5, 6,
5 is a part of 4, 5, 6. What is the necessity for us to
redesign 5 and 6 to consider, in fact, we considered it
all along already. You see, that is a misunderstanding
and you want us to review an overall, and throw out all
of our project, and at the same time I wish to emphasize
NICOLOPULOS:
:
NICOLOPULOS:
: May I interupt. I want-.
We have to stop for the tape.
(inaud)
Mr. Chow, may we continue?
SAN FRANCISCO
4.13.776i
Um, sir?
CHOW: How did (inaud)-
: Ah, the counsel like to know, do you
want to know about what direction that they want to give us
and then how difficult we are (inaud) to accept those
requests, that's why we wanted to bring it up to the
Counci 1 ?
NICOLOPULOS: Well, I think this Council would like
to see a resolution, some decisions were made and maybe
not the proper decisions, but they were made and it's put
us in this dilemma right now, I think. It all stems from
whether you yourself and your colleague, Mr. Chow, are
willing to sit down further with the City and try to reach
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
MARIN COUNTY
CERTI F'l ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
8
!0
I1
12
13
14
15
16
i'7
18
20
;.!
23
24
70
a agreement that the City feels is proper for that project.
We got a basic, I guess we're far away here (inaud)-
CHOW: Let me point it out to you how difficult that
we had to do in order to meet the design review board and
then the Planning Commission, ah , Planning Director's
request, and how hard we tried. I want to prove this to
the City Council that we did try to meet their standards
but cannot. Now, I bring this up not to, not to say
anything wrong or on a certain person but I want to prove
that we did try very hard to work with the Planning
(inaud).
DELL'ANGELA: I think what's important is that the
Planning Commission is the decision maker (inaud)-
NICOLOPULOS:
Mr. Dell'Angela-
DELL'ANGELA:
Excuse me, Mr. Chow, I think
No, I just think it's clear, you
ought to make it clear, that the Planning Commission is
the decision making body on tentative maps, not the
Planning Director and obviously, we're just advisors.
The record will show that one.
(inaud)
No, I think there were 6 there. I
NICOLOPULOS:
DELL'ANGELA:
think that-
DELL'ANGELA:
(inaud)
Yes, there was.
WM. I='. HWNDE:R$CHEiD & ASSOCIATES
CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARI irs
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
433. ?TiS
!
2
4
5
7
8
9
I0
!i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
72
(i~%~/d~ we would have a huge parking space (entering
on one side). With two parking space, we have to ~
19 stairways in order to be (inaud)
19 staircase into one huge parking area. That's what
they are requesting and then, then you come down with
(inaud) people want to move in there, those moving
trucks will not go in, they have to stop in here and then
move all their furniture inside, in order to get into
their apartment. And if there's a fire in here, the fire
department cannot get in either. This is the ( ~&~
in order to accomodate, a truck to go in, we have
to build 18 feet high.
NICOLOPULOS: Stop there Mr. Chow. Mr. Dell'Angela,
is this our suggestion.
DELL'ANGELA: As I explained before, this was a
concept prepared by one of our design review board members,
Mr. sinclair, as an idea for the developers to follow. It
was not a proposal that came out of my office as an
acceptable alternative , it was just a concept that should
be considered and we talked about it last time and
Mr. Chow keeps trying to hang this on me. It's a concept
that one of our design people -
Okay, that's a suggestion or an
NICOLOPULOS:
advisment.
DELL'ANGELA:
SAN PRANCISCO
There are obviously other alternatives.
WM. E. HENDER$CHEID & ASSOCIATES
MARIN COUNTY
CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
~12. 1727
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
I
2
3
4
8
I0
!i
12
13
14
15
1'7
18
19
,20
22
23
24
25
NICOLOPULOS:
though?
DELL'ANGELA:
NICOLOPULOS:
73
There are, I mean, are they still open,
Certainly, they're always open.
Are you familiar with that, Mr. Chow?
These options are still open to you. That's not an
ultimatum.
CHOW: No, I want to make it clear to the Council
that we did try to work with them and then this doesn;t
work. He has (inaud) here we have
(inaud) 12 or 15 feet down the road in order to
provide parking space so all right now-
NICOLOPULOS: Mr. Chow, excuse me, getting back to
this architectural suggestion. What was the rationale when
our designers suggested this? I mean-
CHOW: Why do they want to suggest it?
DELL'ANGELA: He has seen the concept work in other
hill side developments and he thought that he ought to
bring it forth as an idea to Mr. Chow to explore as a
possibility for this site.
NICOLOPULOS: But were the circumstances similar
with the other projects, did you have the same geographical
area as the others?
DELL'ANGELA:
NICOLOPULOS:
scale.
(inaud)
Oh, it's just a, a methodological
CENTRAL
WM. IE. HIrNDER$CHI='ID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERI"
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
433;. 7711 313 - 17Z7
74
SAN FRANCISCO
4~3 - 7?iS
DELL'ANGELA: No, I think he believes it, he
sincerely believed that this was perhaps a comparable
project. He could not design the project for Mr. Chow
or the developers and certainly didn't want to. But he
thought that this particular condition existed elsewhere
where the same concept was used and he suggested it as
a helpful way of getting started in terms of thinking. I
think one of the problems that we've had with the developer
is that he is bound, he seems bound and determined to
build that project the way he wants to build the project
and what we are saying to him is that perhaps break out
of that mold and be a little more imaginative, perhaps
you can get a similar density or similar building types
with a different concept. Up to now, he has been only
willing to modify it slightly and not get in there and
take a fresh look at it and~I- think that's where the
problem comes in. We would like him to take a fresh look
at it, we are certainly open to as many alternatives as
he can come up with and we have not said no to anything,
but we would like him to get away from this particular
point of view or fixed situation where he must build what
he has and if he can get beyond that point, I think staff
would certainly work with the developer and with the
people in the community I think who should be involved, to
come up with, hopefully, an acceptable (in~ud)-
C[NTRAL RECORD~
WM. £. HEND£R$CHEID & ASSOCIATES
MARIN COUNTY
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
383-1727
DE~SITION NOTARIES
1
2
3
4
?
8
9
I0
I!
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
75
NICOLOPULOS: But getting back to this model here,
now, I'm not an architect or designer, but if he tells me
19 steps, I think that would be an indication of a
cardiac hill.
DELL'ANGELA: Yeah, it's possible. Now, Mr. Mayor,
it's possible that a version of this plan could work, you
know. Maybe not this plan itself but maybe a version of
this plan. But this is something that Mr. Chow, Mr. Sprincir.
and the involved people have to be willing to go to, they
have to be willing to get in with fresh ideas, perhaps
modify this or do something else. It was a concept meant
to be helpful and that's the point of it. Beyond that
I don't think anybody was jamming that plan down their
throats in any form.
NICOLOPULOS: Are you familiar with what he said
and do you believe that, Mr. Chow?
CHOW: No, I don't. Now, let me repeat the thing
(inaud) You want something with fresh look,
fresh idea, fresh look, fresh idea, that to him is a
beautiful word to you but at that time ~e wants us to
scrap the whole thing and the design.
he mean by fresh look and fresh idea.
modification did you make (inaud)
Now, that is what
What sort of
without any result.
~a~'plan to change all the concept and then
(/~ final concept-
WM. ir. HEND~.R$CH~-iD & ASSOCIATE;8
C.E:RTIIrlED SHORTHAND REPORTER~
DEPOSITION NOTARI g:~
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
,LIa - ??ii 383 . 17a?
76
DELL'ANGoLA: You mean those are not your plans?
They're another architect's plans or-?
CHOW: (inaud)
to build it, it would ~i~
at least $20 or $30,000
more per townhouse which is (inaud)
2
3
4
we located the main
8 utility line and then (inaud)
9
I0 ~"0 kl~/open space but it is not ~ because of
!I the social problem we are facing all those
12 c~K~:t'~ to (~)pu~[44areas~ Y6,0~ window
13 up to the concrete ~)
14 ~4~S ;~ ~ ~W~K~ because we (cut off) public
15 areas, you have no ~d~-ng whatsoever in the lower level
16 of these townhouses. People can (shout) at the window
17 and come into your bedroom. Now, why do we have to go
18 along with this kind of concept. (inaud) concept
1~ is not (/ma~) t-~'ld~bLF expensive, of course,
Z0 as a developer have no way to build this kind of project-
21 ~.~%~/~ : Excuse me, Mr. Chow, let me ask you
ZZ something. Do you realize that the design review board
Z~ is only a recommending body. Mr. Dell'Angela does not
24 have to agree or accept the design review board's
2,5 recommendations, he may set his own.
SAN FRANCISCO WM. w, H~.NDER$CH~.iD & ASSOCIATES
433 -7?il CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERe~ MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIE~ 383 - 17~7
I
3
4
-/
8
10
!i
1,2
13
14
15
1'7
18
2O
22
23
24
25
77
CHOW: Yes, good-
~0~ : And do you understand that?
CHOW: And then he, himself, make a few suggestions,
too, like moving (inaud) here and then (inaud)
we found out there's no (inaud) and asked
Mr. Dell'Angela how many more study, what sort of direction
he wants us to do, what kind of fresh look and fresh idea.
He couldn't say, he said, you just keep on trying (inaud)-
NICOLOPULOS:
minute.
Stop there, Mr. Chow, stop there a
(i~ something of our City
Attorney and maybe Mr. Dell'Angela. Hypothetically, and
I think this has come to that point that you have come
to an impasse-
CHOW: (inaud)
~0~ : Wait a minute, wait a minute, between
the design review board, Mr. Dell'Angela and so forth,
as to the specific design that you (inaud) perhaps may
want now. Now, Mr. Rogers or Mr. Dell'Angela, you answer
me, please.
~T/~ : When it comes to that type of impasse,
where a project keeps going on and on and on till you get
to the point where nobody will agree, then what is the
recourse.
: We're here (inaud)
WM. i:'. HENDE:RSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
~AN FI'RANCI$CO MARIN COUNTY
4Z~3 - 77S$ CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS '~1'11 - 17a7
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
I
2
3
4
'7
8
I0
!i
12
13
14
15
16
I1'
18
,20
21
22
23
24
permit?
78
: Now, when ya going to put a use
~gg~N~E£~ : We're here for-
~D~ : Wait a minute now. Did that action
that was been taking place here because you could not agree
on a design and so forth make the point of that use permit
not being valid?
: (inaud)
~D~T/~ : You see the point I'm getting at?
The procrastination of the design made the use permit not
be ~inau~) ---
~LL'~F£~ : No, no, that's not true at all.
~S~ : Okay, but let's say it does get
to that point. Now, say that there is a design submitted.
You can't agree, he can't agree, then it comes to this
Council, does this Council make the decision that this is
the design.
~GL~'~'L~ : I think the Planning Co~ission
makes that decision and on ~ ~d) you make the
final decision.
~a~7~ : (inaud)
CHOW: Now let me l~n=ud)~ we have a ~d)
a year and a half ago and he was bringing to a vote 6 to 1
that the design uphold and he wants us to make a change
now. During the period of the starting (inaud)-
WM. ~. H~ND~RSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CEETIFIED SHORTHAND EEPOETEE~ MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTAEI~
SAN FRANCISCO
I
2
3
4
6
?
8
9
I0
I!
12
13
14
15
16
i'7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHOW: Yes.
but not a design?
79
: The design was once approved?
The overall design was approved and-
: You mean the site plan was approved
CHOW:
is approved.
over and over again.
oLop to$ :
Except the elevation of the condo, everything
We are using the same townhouse repeated
questions ....
You said that everthing was
approved but you said the (inaud) ~ not-
approved for that area, ne of those areas.
CHOW: Now, we submitted in 79, paid the fee, two
sets of tentative maps for 5 and 6-
CHOW: They never '(~naud) . You ask them, why
not ask them? Don't ask me.
~ELL//%~JG"~-L~ : I can tell you it was not a
complete application.
-"/'~'~,,'/../.9 : It was not a complete application.
CHOW: It was not complete, (/~) ask for
material. Why didn't you ask that,- what is not completed?
SAN FRANCISCO
43~l - 7?il
b~. LL',q-,uc,.,e L A-
CHOW: ~o !
: What is this?
: We did, and in fact that's-
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASBOCIATE$
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
: -why Mr. Chow submitted another
MARIN COUNTY
303.17Z7
I
3
4
-/
8
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
1'7
18
,2O
21
23
24
25
tentative map in December of 1980.
CHOW: No.
: finally got a map to us that
we could process.
END SIDE TWO
80
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
Side 3
I
3
4
./
8
9
I0
II
12
13
14
15
16
!'7
18
ZO
23
2.4
81
C./'t'OUJ : (inaud) Don't ask me.
b~LL'6WGE~: It was not ~a complete application.
CHOW: If is not complete (inaud) ask for
material, why you not ask for (inaud) ? What is
not completed?
'~&c~ : What is this?
~L~'~N~ELI% : We did, and, in fact, that's why
Mr. Chow submitted another tentative map in December
of 1980.
CHOW: No.
process.
CHOW: We are forced to do that. Now, at the same
time I wish that City Council would understand during
: Finally got a map to us that we could
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
SAN IIRANC::::ISC::O MARIN COUNTY
43:~ - 7?ii 313 - 17Z?
.82
3
4
6
7
9
!0
Ii
1,2
13
14
15
16
17
18
2O
21
22
23
24
our construction ~a~d) We have worked with
developer and lending companies to supply us with funds to
complete the whole project and then approval has been
delayed for a year and so on and then we are on the stage
of almost losing those things. Now, how long are we going
to have to get this ~nau~) from this
: Let me get back to- Mr. Chow, let me
get back to your question. You said that you asked for some
direction and what was Mr. Dell'Angela's response to you?
CHOW: He said (;naud)-~,~ I{E~ On ~,'vd.. -
you keep on trying.
N~.[.a~.~· : Well, ~s that a correct statement or
not?
SAN FRANCISCO
43~. 77111
DELL'ANGELA: There's a lot of suggestions we talked
about. One was, of course, the planning of the project
include both 5 and 6 to render some flexibility in terms
of location of buildings. We asked him to look at the
concept that Mr. Sinclair presented. I suggested that
perhaps ~ look at the possibility of making 5 a strictly
a condo project and putting the larger buildings, maybe
breaking up the larger buildings, if you will, and putting
them on the other site we talked about, possibly instead
of staging the condos in a row along the ridge line, that
he possibly investigate reorienting the buildings in a north-
CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTER8 MARl N COUNTY
DE~SITION NOTARIES 313 - 12~?
1
2
3
4
8
10
I!
12
13
14
!?
18
20
2!
24
83
south direction in some areas to get a mix of housing types.
There's a lot of idea that were presented. The problem is
that we never got out of the mold of where we were so
consequently there
NICOLOPULOS:
DELL'ANGELA:
was nothing to look at.
What do you mean by a mold?
Well, the mold of what we're looking
SAN FRANCISCO
46'l - 7768
at right now. The big building on the hill and three
rows of tOwnhouses.
NICOLOPULOS: Let me address that momentary,
because that's important to me. If the mold is there and
there's a (difference) did Mr. Chow ask you, okay,
Mr. Dell'AngDla, you don't approve of this, tell me what
I should ~ here?
DELL'ANGELA: I told him that, I told him that he
should investigate other alternatives and that-
NiCOLOPULOS: But what? But what?
DELL'ANGELA: I just told you, Mr. Mayor. I just
told you, I told you perhaps relocating some of the bigger
building at another site, breaking up the bigger buildings,
orienting the bigger buildings, and the condos in a
different direction, considering Mr. Sinclair's alternative,
but the problem that I had with the builder is that, or the
developer, is that he was never willing to put any of
those other things down on paper. And so consequently
he always came back to square 1 in terms of what we were
WM. ~. M£ND£~$CM£1D & A~O~IAT£~
C~YI~I~D SMO~?MAND ~£PO~?~R~ NARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIE~ ]6~ - 171?
84
looking at. Essentially, all we were looking at was
cosmetic changes to the same plan that we've seen over and
over again and that plan was unacceptable to me and
obviously the plan was unacceptable to the planning
commission.
NICOLOPULOS: I submit (inaud) Mr. Chow. What
you said and what Mr. Dell'Angela says seems to be a
difference of interpretation and opinion so I don't know,
I don't know what transpired. You said that he told you
to come back and try something, he did give you some
suggestions, apparently, if he did give you those suggestions
they were not acceptable to you. Is that correct?
CHOW: Those suggestions ('~~ ~e~
yeah, those few suggestions he-
NICOLOPULOS: Did he tell you that, though? Did he
tell you just what he said?
CHOW: Yes.
NICOLOPULOS: Allright, so he told you something.
He gave you some guidelines.
CHOW: Yeah, I think (inaud)
and then I come back with him the design (inaud)
23
24
but the Council agreed this (inaud)
Please answer that.
: Inaudible.
is the truth or no?
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
433 - 7711 CE:RTl F I ED SHORTHAND REPOIIITER8 !13 - I?E?
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
CHOW:
(inaud)
: (inaud)
: We had a question/for (inaud)
85
a lot of things.
(inaud) ~ ~r~EA~?~eN~ -FhA~,
LoT e~6 =~g~ ~~; ~Nb
we've talked about
I've got a list of things I'd like to
go over and see if we can establish some of this stuff as
fact. Mr. Rogers, you help me, okay? Number one, (inaud)
Mr. Dell'Angela (wake up). Since 1965 there's been three
separate phases for 4, 5, and 6 shown on the Stonegate
plan. That's correct, isn't it? Because he indicated to
us that that's what he thought; three separate units; 4,
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES 'll'~ - 1717
the use permit.
NICOLOPULOS: (inaud) Sprincin, go ahead.
SPRINCIN: Yes, may I make a point of clarification
to (Mrs.) Teglia because she asked about the Council vote-
the Planning Commission vote, which was unanimous against
this. The vote that was before the Planning Commission
was that the use permit was invalid. They accepted that
position and they made an additional determination that
the use permit was invalid; at that point they would have
had no further standing but to vote against everything
because they made the determination that we had no
legal standing before them.
I
2
3
4
7
8
I0
!i
!,2
13
14
15
16
17
18
2O
Z1
23
25
5 and 6, that's what he purchased from Mr. (Coopman).
that correct? Is that a fact?
fact?
May we consider that a
86
Is
: (inaud) the ordinance that
was passed in 1966, or passed in 1965 and I guess
/~
in 1966 had a map attached to it. It was the
Stonegate, ~he ~) Stonegate Community map and it
set forth (~. ~
-~ ~U, ff : Okay.
~~% : I would, I don't have the map with
me and I don't know if Mr. Dell'Angela~ the map should
have the zones set forth on it and the (i~d) should
be possibly outlined on that.
7~Ll~ : So there should be 4, 5, and 6 and
if I'm to take this gentleman at his word, that's what he
purchased from Mr. Coopman; 4, 5, and 6. What? You're
waving something.
CHOW : (inaud) we paid for that
4, 5, and 6 (inaud)-
-~Ll~ : No, I'm not interested in that
right now. Thank you. Okay, second thing, there were 3,
we talked about the tentative maps, that there were 3
separate maps proposed for these three phases. Not one but
3 separate tentative maps. Is that correct? Is that a fact?
(ROGERS): That's what I heard tonight.
SAN FRANCISCO
~3-7741
WM. E. HIrNDE:RSC:HEID & ASSOCIATES
GERTIFIEO SHORTHAND REPORTER~ MAIl, IN GOUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES 'l~O3.. 1727
I
2
3
4
6
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1'7
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
Or that's fact?
(ROGERS):
: I 'm sorry.
Okay.
~87
Someone opposed that?
That's what I heard from the developers.
: Okay, now a single use permit was
issued and we're being told tonight that that was in
violation of our own ordinance, in error. Is that a fact?
(ROGERS): That's correct.
~'~&l~ : Thank you. Okay, fact, only
phase 4 was actually built. No work was done on 5 or 6.
Is that a fact?
and 6 expired due to inaction by the applicant?
a fact?
SAN FRANCISCO
That's a fact.
Okay, the tentative map for 5
Is that
~O~ : That's a fact.
~'E~LI~ : Okay. Mr. Dell'Angela, will you
address please and tell me the functional relationship
between 4, 5, and 6 and tell me whether or not there is a
real functional connection between 4, 5, and 6.
DELL'ANGELA: I think 4, 5, and 6 are indepen-, can
operate independent and function independent of one another.
-~LI~ : Thank you. All right, number 7,
although the developer may have considered 4, 5, and 6
as one project which he has indicated to us more than one
time tonight, for his own planning purposes, the development
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTER~ MARI N COUNTY
DEPOGITION NOTARIEB ~83 - 17~7
'7
9
I0
II
12
13
14
16
!';
20
21
23
24
25
88
in fact, has occurred in separate phases, with unit 4 being
built before consideration for building any additional
units(~'~d) considered. Fact?
3 phases, yes.
"TEG,- L ~ ~
: I think it was being done in
LdELL, *["~LA*r I S I~o'r Id)tAt' .T.
[i~ the
SAN IS'RANC ISCO
4,1'~ . ~"7EI
developer may have considered phases 4, 5, and 6 as one
project for his own planning purposes, which was indicated
to us several times tonight, but the development in fact
has occurred in separate phases, with the one phase being
completed before another phase began.
~)~LL '/%N&~-L ~ : That' s right.
'T~LI~ : Okay. Mr. Rogers, after having
heard everthing that you heard tonight, in your opinion,
is there an active use permit at this time?
ROGERS: Well, I haven't heard anything from counsel
to change my opinion of the facts of the record which was
that although one use permit was issued several years ago
the whole thing has been treated as 3 separate units-
"TtE~,..L.I/~' : Mr. Rogers, if I can stop you
right there. As far as I am concerned, Stonegate has been
treated as any number of individual units and when the
construction started any number of years ago, construction
on any one of those units was to mean that the whole
project (~ followed and I don't think there would
WM. ~. HIr'ND~'R$CHE:ID ~g A~OCIAT~:~
MARIN COUNTY
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
303 - 1727
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
89
I
4
7
8
9
10
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
24
have been-
ROGERS: That's not a correct statement of your
obligation, I think, if they had built one they didn't have
the right to build two (through eight). They built one
and two, they don't have the right to build 3 (.~naud)
~-~LI~ : That's what I mean.
ROGERS: -and so on. That's true.
T~t~ : Okay
~u~r ~ unless you want to
address some concern about whether or not it's active.
ROGERS: Well.
+kc ~O~,L ~~"'
~kl~ : Cause I think /~-
ROGERS: That really ties to the facts for me and
I would, I have an opinion about whether or not it's active
if there are three separate units and Council feels that
they have been treated as 3 separate units by the developer,
by staff, by Council, by Planning Commission, all the way
through except somebody made a mistake and issued one
use permit several years ago, then in my opinion the use
permit on units 5 and 6 is not a valid use permit anymore,
it's expired. However, Council's opinion on the facts is
just 180° from that. It's one integral unit and has to
rely on itself to survive, not necessarily economically,
but because these things all tie in so closely that you
really can't function with 3 or 4 by itself, or 5 by itself,
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERI MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIE$ 383 - 17~7
SAN FRANCISCO
4~. 77e6
I
2
3
4
?
8
9
I0
I!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
23
24
25
90
or 6 by itself, and we've treated it that way all along and
that was Council's intent when they approved the extension
for 4, 5, and 6, all at the same time on that one
particular night in October of 1979, then I would say that
4 can keep 5 and 6 alive. But (ina~ this depends on
the facts and that's really what I kind of feel, Council
needs to decide the fact, first of all, as to whether this
thing is so closely ~ that it's one or whether
it's been treated separately and it is 3 separate things.
You make a determination on that, then ~.~naud) ~b~
~ how I feel about the law/'~
feel that
that, (~ naud)
: I guess, maybe we need to determine
SAN ~RANClSCO
: Would you like to say something?
y~lO (~ ~M PI : Sure (in.nud) Just
for the record, Councl± [~u~) Teglia asked certain
factual questions of the City Attorney. I don't want the
record to be void insofar as we do not accept the, that
basis. We dispute the opinion of the City Attorney and we
don't want by our silence to admit anything so we definitely
dispute what the City Attorney has replied to Councilma~
Teglia.
Nio..~Le~u,L~S : I'd like to address a real serious
legal problem and it involves law and coming from a law
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID 8~ ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITI ON NOTARIES 3~3 - 17~7
I
4
7
0
I0
!i
14
17
2O
21
22
24
91
enforcement background, way back, if there's a law and
somehow legislation made a law contrary to that law and
I correct (Bob) that that did happen in this case so the
Council approved a law which shouldn't have been approved
and we may havc (inaud) to allow these people to
perform something in good faith, is that, can I correct
aud)3 that decision was made illegally?
R0&E~ : Okay, that last statement was
correct. You made an administrative decision to issue a
use permit. You did not make a law that went against another
law. There was only one law, that was your ordinance and
you d~- (in~ud~
Nl~.~)L.o~ttJ-c).~ : NO, we violated. We violated
(inaud)- and made something legal.
~0~t : That's correct. You violated your
SAN FRANCISCO
4.13 - 77SS
own law.
Mi~L~0~ : All right, that's a fact.
And
that's where we stand today. Now the question arises, how
can we undo that to make it legal from what previous
Council, no, how do we do that? Because we have to make
something legal before we can operate. Now, if we've been
doing something illegally for 2 years, God help us, you
know.
iROGERS~ : Well, I have been operating under the
belief that, that your intent was to comply with your
CERTI Fl ED SHORTHAND REPORTER~ MARl N COUNTY
DE~SITION NOTARIES 313 - 17~7
92
1
2
3
4
7
8
10
!i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
SAN FRANCISCO
43~i - 7761
ordinance. And with the spirit and letter of the ordinance.
The spirit of the ordinance, as I see it, was to require
timely application and pursuit of development of each
phase under use permits so that they don't get so old that
they're out of date, they're out of synch with the times.
Times change, things are a whole lot different than they
were in 1965. And so my view was that the same kind of
spirit attaches to this type of thing as it does, for
instance, in the subdivision ¢inau~) where they don't
want a subdivision map, a tentative map going on so long
that it's out of date, they only give you so long to file
your final map and get on with the project. If you don't
file that map and get on with it, it expires. They ~i~~
give you a chance for an extension on that and the idea
there again is not to let a project get so old that it's
out of synch and that's the way I view the intent of the
provision within this planned development. It was a long
term project, it was a lot of phases where the idea was
to require a separate use permit on each phase so that
each phase would come along with (inaud)- development,
it would be properly presented and it could be reviewed.
Now, to let a developer take three phases and get ~
a tentative map or a use permit on all three phases and
develop one of them, let the other two sit fallow for
a long period of time could cause a ~~'ar situation ~
C~NT~AL ~CO~
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES 383 -
I
3
4
?
$
I0
Ii
12
13
14
15
!?
2O
22
24
SAN FRANCISCO
4S3 - 7755
93
somewhere down the road yo~developing something that is
not in keeping with current standards, not in keeping with
current needs in the current situation of the community.
I started from that point, trying to figure out what the
spirit of your law was and then see how far we wanted to
go with the letter of it. I looked through the facts on
the thing and thought, okay, you ~5 issue one use permit,
can't argue with that, and you issued it on three phases
and the ordinance says don't do that. You also issued it
long after the time frame when it was supposed to have
been issued but I thought, well, okay, it's issued, w~t~- ~
~a~r~, start from that point and move forward. ~ -m
look~at how the thing was handled after that; Now, and
before it. They didn't, they didn't submit one final map
for all three phases, as one piece of development, they
submitted one map on four and they never came forth with
the final map on 5 and 6 within the time period. They did
come in and ask for an extension of the use permit and when
it got to Council in October of 79 the recommendation was
to approve 4 and deny 5 and 6. Well, Mr. Christian
argued on these points. As a matter of fact he even brought
up that it might conflict with the (i~ general plan
the kinds of things I was thinking about that might have
(i~) motivating force behind passing this ordinance
as it is in the first place are the kind of things
(;~NT~AL rECORD~
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES ~i3 - 17~7
I
3
4
?
8
10
!!
12
13
14
15
I?
2O
21
22
24
94
Mr. Christians argued when he asked Council to deny 5
and 6 at that time. It's Clear to me that Mr. Christians
on October 17 was dealing with these three phases
separately. It's,~ motion however was to pass
4, 5, and 6. I don't know what Council's intent was at
that particular point but I know there was some discussion
about the design of 5 and 6 and those types of things in
there.
: (~naud~ from
one of the two Councilpeople-
ROGERS: I think that the Council is in a very
unique position of being able to tell more about what
their intent was back when they made this extension, back
when they were dealing with it than I am because all I
can base it upon is the record I have which is on paper and
(il,~ud)'-
was there at that time
(~ naud) -
who
who would care to help the
situation here by some type of analysis or what you thought
at that time, if you think you can recollect that. Roberta?
TEGLIA: Li~~M~, I couldn't give you a fdll
analysis, all I can tell you is that Stonegate to me is
going back and beyond that particular extension. We've
dealt with, as a number of separate uni,ts and this was
WM. E. HENDER$CHEID & ASSOClATIr~
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
4.1'l - 7?il CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
:383. 1727
DEPOSITION NOTARIEg
95
I
2
3
4
'7
8
I0
I1
12
13
14
15
16
1'7
18
19
10
Z1
Z2
~3
Z4
25
developers, different owners, each one with a different
unit and in this particular instance we dealt with three
separate units. We took a single action, which apparently
we should not have done, but as far as I'm concerned and
was at that time, there were three separate units.
~O~t~ : I concur. There were 3 separate
units, three separate phases, but there was one use permit.
TEGLIA: That's right. That's correct, I mean,
the record says 3. One use permit, but 3 separate-
: But-
: Well, by that interpretation, I
~Tthat that's the entire project-
~0~/} : Well.
were they in violation of our ordinance?
TEGLIA:
+~ ~ ~,~ ~, ~.
what ~hhir-(~nau~)
Well, then I would say yes.
~&D~'~/~ : No, I think-
~-~ : Well, the violation occurred when
the use permit {~nau~} ;~~
NICOLOPULOS : But the decision that they were
told to, or instructed directly, or given information to ah-
~~ : Well, to be honest with you, Mr.
Mayor, I don't think the issue has come up until early this
WM. ~. HEND~RSCH~ID · A55OCIAT'S
C~RTIFIED ~HORTHAND REPORTER~ MATIN COUNTY
DEPOSIT]ON NOTARIES 313 - 17=7
SAN FRANCISCO
4.13. 7761
SAN FRANCISCO
4.~'l - 77EI
96
year as to whether there should have been 3 use permits or
one use permit. I think it may have been overlooked until
that point so I don't think Council had the issue of how
many use permits they should have
~uldn ~-kavo vio±ated the ordinance. I don't think it
was before (~naud) October
TEGLIA: By accident or not we better (inaud)-
ROGERS: What I'm dealing with and ~indud)
is trying to get the concept. What was it Council was
/
thinking of in terms of this project. Was it 3 units, was
it 1. I came up with the answer, it looked to me like
Council was dealing with what they thought were 3 separate
units. They could stand or fall on their own and they
were approving an extension of-
TEGLIA: One of the last units of development-
ROGERS: -a use permit with regard to each phase
and they could just as easily have approved 4 and
disapproved 5 and 6. That's, and so I looked at it that
way and then I thought, well, you know, we're trying,
~,ou w~r~ not only violating, by taking this and putting it
back together as one, it would become a position where
you're violating the spirit of that ordinance as well.
TEGLIA: Well, if you go back and look at the whole
Stonegate picture you look at the units as they have
developed and the separate, the way we treated separate
C~'NT~Ak.
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER~ MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIE~ 313 - 17~'?
97
I requirements for associations, we've got an association
2 here and an association there. From the very beginning
3 it was distinct units.
5 TEGLIA: The issue is coming ungluedo
6 ~0&~ : All right, let's say that there
1 is one use permit now, okay, the fee has been paid. One use
8 permit, three phases. And I think Gus has already asked
this question, can Council rectify ~a~a~d) now,
acknowledging two new separate use permits for this, at
10
this Council meeting, can we do this? Issue 2 new use
permits? Because the zoning, I think, is there already.
The density question has already be answered in the past,
14 it may not be according to what these people to be, they
would like it less, and so forth, because the design
issue was still the critical point, as far as Mr. Dell'Angela
is concerned, the design review board and Mr. Chow and
~?
18 so forth. But the key answer here is that use permit. Can
we, as a body, issue 2 separate use permits at this
19
20 particular time?
ROGERS: You're talking about, are you talking about
rather than dealing with the issue of this use permit,
issuing new use permits?
: Two new use permits.
ROGERS:
I would say no.
There hasn't even been
SAN ~RANCt$CO WM. E:. HENDE:R~C:HE:ID 8~ ASSOCIATES MAlt, IN COUNTY
43~i - 77ii (::ERTl FI lED SHORTHAND REPORTERS :3~3 - t 7~7
DIEPO.eJITI ON NOTARI E~
I
3
4
5
6
'7
8
I0
Ii
12
13
14
15
16
!?
18
20
21
23
24
25
SAN FRANCISCO
98
an application for new use permits and that, you have a
process for that in your zoning ordinance so you should
get into the question of whether or not you are on your own
motion tonight as a Council, are going to issue two new
use permits to these people and said criteria therefore
at this meeting.
~7~ : Right, Bob, I understand what
you're saying in that respect, but at one time the
Planning Commission and so forth and this Council voted
for a use permit. Where the individual, the developer and
so forth, went before the public more than one time, has
done this already, and now your going to put that, (inaud)
back again to square one because I know in here you now
have the 1981, January, amended, subdivision ~inaud)
as amended January 1, 1981. And there's been some changes
in ~. Are you going to make this person go right back
to square one and (insud) any amendments or- ~naud~
ROGERS: The new subdivision map has to be brought
into the new act because that's the new tentative map but
the use permit's different- it's not-
NI~~ : But you know what we're doing, Bob,
you know what we're doing, you know, in good faith, there
has to be good faith up here. I'm concerned about, that
bothers me about having a resolution passed that we
shouldn't have had passed. I want to rectify that. But
WM. £. H~ND£RSCH£1D & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES 315 - 17~?
1
2
3
4
-/
8
10
Ii
12
13
14
15
16
1'7
20
21
22
23
24
25
SAN FRANCISCO
99
when I do that, something happens here that I got to ~ina~d)
good faith here. These people came here with, the
Council three years ago for whatever reason, made a decision
and they're going along on this decision in good faith and
we are here in good faith too, now give, answer me, Bob,
ROGERS: Well, you're going to have to come down on
one side of the issue or the other, Mr. Mayor.
NICOLOPULOS: Well, it's not that simple. It's not
that simple. I could make a decision, I could make it
very easily, but I still have to have, I still want these
people in this City to think that they're coming to a city
that they can have faith in and they can deal with.
ROGERS: Okay, well, you can look at it this way, if
you wish then, you can, Mr. Acosta mentioned the possibility
of issuing two new use permits and I, I guess I don't know
what the conditions he's talking about. If you are to
find that these use permits are not effective, there's
nothing to stop the developer from applying for two new
use permits in the proper course of affairs and presenting
his plan either changed or unchanged and going to the
Planning Commission and having it approved or disapproved
and then appealing it to the Council-
NICOLOPULOS: But some indication was given, Bob,
that that wouldn't happen if, there was an indication given
WM. ~. HENDERSCH£1D & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES 3e3 - 17~?
100
! that there would have to be some conformity before a use
2 permit would be considered. Now, I don't know what that
3 meant..
~ Mr. Dell'Angela would disagree with. me at all is they have
~ to comply with certain procedural requirements ~in~ud)
~ NiC~LOPULOS: But ~ha~ wouldn'~ happen if ~4crc
~ was (ina~) .... therc has ho b~ mo~,,e uor~fo~mity bcforo
~ ~a usc p~rm~ would be congidcrcd. Now, · d~n't know wh~
~0 ~hat
~2 Mr-~ll'Angel~ would di_~gre~ with me a~ all is they h~ve
~3 ho comply wih], uer~ain procedural requ~reme~t.~ ho ~,~bmit~
]4 a complctcd spplic~tion f~[ a use p~-~it. ~ whether
~5 Mr. Dell'Angela agreed with that or not, he still has to
I~ .,.~z':~) to the Planning Commission and the Planning
~? Commission has to make a decision. Now the Planning
~ Commission makes the decision that is unfair or that you
19 feel is unfair or that Mr. Sprincin or Mr. Chow feels is
Z~ unfair, they have a right to appeal that to you , you have
21 the same issues before you on a new use permit and then
22 you get into the merits of _.=~ner a use permit should be
Z~ issued on the project as it is.
24 J~P...O~'T.~ : Suppose Council proceeding were
Z~ to say .he has his use permit for phase 5 and 6, what are
CENTRAL ~ECO~:~
WM. E. HENDE~R$CHEID & AS$OC;IATBS
SAN FRANCIS;CO MATIN COUNTY
~ . 771~ CERTI FI ED ~HORTHAND REPORTER~
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
I
2
3
4
6
'7
8
I0
II
12
13
14
15
16
1'7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
SAN Is'RAN(.~ ISCO
101
~0
the (i~,aud) '?
ROGERS: I would/first of all~ that you'd be
basing it on the fact that you think it's one integral
operation.
~O~ : Suppose we did that? As a basis
of law, is there anything wrong with it? Could this
Council be held liable (4naud)
~O&~ : (in~ud)' the ordinance.. ·
~0~ : I know, but could be held liable
~in~ P Could we be charged with a misdemeanor
violation of law because we violated our own ordinance
or something?
ROGERS: I think it's highly unlikely, I think there
may be some-
~D~.~ : Well, I want to knoW.
ROGERS: There may be some civil challenge to the
project and if somebody went in for a writ of mandate, to
require you to reconsider a decision and change it because
it was not in compliance with the law the court would just
say, hey, reconsider this, don't allow anything further
to go and I-
~&~ : I think that's the chance this
Council will have to take, because we could be going on and
on and on. It's 1:30, 1:33 and we've been here for almost
2 hours or more and listening t~ almost cverything else but
~E~TIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARIN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES ~83 - 1~7
102
I
2
4
$
7
8
9
I0
I!
12
13
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
the point that was before us, whether it's a valid use
permit or not. If there are no serious consequences of
a legal nature, and I'm not going to be thrown in jail
tomorrow, you know.
~T~ : Well, you know, I thought I'd have
to ask anyway, you know. (inaud~ '
~OST~ : It will never happen again, I can
tell you that. It will never happen again as far as me
sitting up here. I'm sure it will never happen (inaud)
the other four me,ers 6i~) Council who
are p~ivy to this particular (ina~d) took place.
of them are not concerned with it but two of us are. I
wish to God that Mr. ,Damonte was here at this present
time, you know, to get his in, his input. But when :I was
looking at it back then, when we gave that extension, I
looked at it as, there's the elevation, that was the
particular problem at the time? the extension of the use
permit so they could do itl
: What was the big problem?
~05T/~' : The concerns of the people was
the elevation because it would be blocking the views and
there were photographs that show. from Westborough , E1
Camino, how it would blend in and all of that. You're shakirg
SAN FRANCISCO WM. E:. HENDE:RSCHEID & ASSOCIATES MARIN COUNTY
431. 7711 CERT! FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTER~
313, - 17~7
DEPOSITION NOTARIE~
103
1
3
4
7
8
9
I0
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
14
25
your head, Mrs. Agee and I've got just as good a memory as
you have of what was there because I was there a~ that time
and that was the main concern.
~' : (inaud)
~~ : Okay, but that is how (inaud). ,r ~'~ ~
so people could see. Allright.
~6 : (inaud)
~O~ : But those people in them also if they
were too high then other people's view would be blocked,
t~c (inau~) terrace . Okay. But that was mine. So if
needs a motion that the use permits are valid for the
period of one more year, I guess, then I would so move.
purposes ~i~aeud,~. o~ ~ke lW-~~ O~ .
~W~ : You know what the next question is so
It dies -for lack of a second then we-
Is there a second on that motion?
I'll second just for discussion
answer it before I ask it.
-~~ : I think yOu should ask it.(inau~).
~o~J' what the answer(inaud)~
: Well, it could be continued to the
next meeting, all thc (~n~,~) taken and it comes out to
: ( inaud ) m~ ~' ~.
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
I
104
let's do something then.
I ~ the procedure on it and you got a
hearing on the use permit (~and a~f~w of the Council
to have a hearing
12 In this case, You've got a use permit2
on the tentative map
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2:1
:'4
the tentative map in this case (-naud
/~d~T whether or not, what the effect is of failing to
act within the (.~au~): .(~n~ud)
~ =~ t~naua)~u~m when the 7 days is passed-...
~'~ : You're certain that (in~ud)
~ compel you to act (~naud)
SAN FrRANC i~CO
433./"~ll
WM. E:. HI='NDE:R$CHEiD & A$$OCIATBs
CERTIFIED SHO"THAND REPORTER~ "&elN COUNTY
105
I
2
~!naud)
-T~AI~ : Well, in any event, apart from what
4
6
7
8
9
10
the Council does on the use permit, the tentative map
(,inaud-) and that's not going to go into effect
R~.b-~ : I don't know what yOu~inau~)
~GL~ ~ : I/~r ' k ~n know that.
~D~-~ : you juat du.' t (fRaud) - under
your/o~dinance / the P%anning Co~ission '~in~ud~ ___
Tlm~ ~&,~ ~,~ A~5-~% R~"' thcy'%~ renaer~ a decision
and they've said no so .they've taken an act_ion
14
15
16
17
but you fail to act now, they've already made the
'7',~6.-L1 ~ : _T~ ' S ~ ~y of '(ina~)
~~'~e addressing~ Use permit (inaud)-
18 _~ (inaud)-
19 : (inaud4~
ZO /~,/.~/~ ~ : SO failure to act tonight
Zl ~T ~ ~/Z ~N ~, in my opinion puts the thing back to the
22
24
next meeting or (iuaud) ~hf~3-
people (~ naud)
'-Ftgt, ' :
~0_.~ have five
Use permit. The (p!anncr'~) map.
The use permit, no problem because it's
SAN FRANCISCO
~3 7766
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
106
I
3
4
?
8
9
I0
Ii
12
13
14
15
17
18
20
:'!
22
23
24
a 60 day. ~i,,~ud)
~kaT ~ ~ ~¥'~
-~&~/~ · Right but it's;~h~ (inaud)
is the tentative map and ~Cs the decision of the Planning
Commission stands.
W~, that was the parcel map, under
the
old' ordinance.
-~-~[~ : Well, this is operating under the old
ordinance you said.
Well, that was the parcel map but-
No one told me that.
(in~ud) ~ within 7 days (inaud)
Okay.
"qaU(1
so tha~ standard p~ocedure says (you will) act within 7
days but (i,a~)' jurisdiction.
-F~6L, ~r :
~o&~ ~ :
Well, within 7 days-
(;nabd) c~me back with
this within 14 days and Linsud~ L~O/~. ~,/RI;
procedure~ (3n~ud) violating the rules but
~D~T~ : Thc C~uncil ~a. a qu~sti~D?
your motion
again so we're all clear on it.
What I was, I said that this Council
by motion approve the use permit as has been issued for a
SAN FRANCISCO
Um-778i
WM. ~'. HENDERSCHI:'ID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERB
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
MARIN COUNTY
~-,L~_ NO., ~-~/" ~ ~7
107
I
3
4
6
'7
8
9
I0
Ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
,2O
,21
22
23
24
one year extension.
Nl~O[op~/~: What are you talking about (i~aud)
from 80 to 817
Well, you would have to set a date from
sometime-
Well, what are we talking about?
-from the time it ran out ~inaud)
keep it running, that's all.
if I
may suggest, the direction your going with your motion
shOuld be a motion to, on the part of the Council, to find
that the use permit is still valid.
/~..0.~'i'/~ : Yes, this is what I'm saying.
~0~o~ : Well, I, you know; (-inaud).'
your stating that it's valid but if (~naud)
is not valid because we, the decision was made two years
ago by a legislative body that~_er-~ decision that
they shouldn't have made. Is that correct?
-~'~L/~ : (~naud) on that.
We made the
decision on the best advice that we had at the time-
Nlg~l-~p~l~: But I'm talking what the law is-
-7-~&~l/~ : -but (inaud) ~ ~kP,*S ~D~'6* a.;
l~-bcon pointed out to us that there is an error and at
that time we made an honest judgement and/this time we are
compounding an error because now we know it's an error.
SAN ~RANCISCO
~3-7768
WM. E. H£NDERSCH£1D & ASSOCIATES
IdARI N COUNTY
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER~
1
3
4
5
6
'7
8
i0
I!
!,2
13
14
15
1'7
18
2O
:'1
22
23
24
108
That's right.
Then we didn't.
That's what I'm talking about.
We were honest then. At this point
N~0~/a~ : That's exactly what I'm talking about.
That's by dilemma and I don't want to do anything that
violates another law. I don't want to magnify or do-~
What we're doing in essence is we're losing
good faith here by this decision, you know.
~O~ : Well, what, Ihave to keep going back
to this thing. What I see as your function initially is
a factual determination, not a legal determination. Once
I find out from you what your factmdetermination is I can
give you my opinion as to whether or not the use permit is
valid and I'm sure that if you find that the three parcels
are three separate units and that that's What you intended
all along and that they're not one integral unit, then my
opinion will differ from Mr. Hamilton's opinion.
~g~l~/~ : But didn't you just get through
telling us that the ordinance reads that we can't treat !
as an individual, they have to be treated as three? Is
that correct? (~%a~get that straight. Is that correct
or not? (inaud)
~~ : Each unit shall be treated as a separate
SAN
WM. I~. HENDER$CHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MAR IN COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTAR'E8 ~,~T~,AL R~O~D~
109
I
2
4
8
9
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
24
unit and shall, it basically says that a use permit has to
be issued on each unit.
~I~D~;~ : All right, that's our ordinance,
that's
our legislative edict.
That's correct.
The only way you could basically
decide that the use permit as issued was properly issued is
if you deCide that 4, 5, and 6 are one unit. That's what
Mr. Chow, I think, has been trying to tell you tonight.
or on /~ h
He feels it's one unit, e/ 't s got, e only divided
it up into 4, 5, and 6 for his own purposes. My understanding
of the facts (~naud) ~-~ ~~ ~'~ ~
w~s-that that's not true.
j~/;~D[~/O~ : NO, but, Mr. Rogers, you miss the
whole point. Now regardless of what Mr. Chow said, is
Mr. ChOw in violation of our ordinance by (~naud) ~
_ ROGERS: Well, no, he's not in violation of our
ordinance by stating that. I mean, that's the fact ~
~e determined, is ~ one unit or is it three
units.
~s~T~ : It is one unit, but three phases.
ROGERS: Well, that's what Mr. Chow is saying.
('~a,~d) Mr. Chow
was saying, rgO I~''~ e~ ~.a/~T.
SAN ~'RANG:ISGO
4~3. 771S
110
ROGERS: That's not the way I came out when I
2 read it. I thought it was 3 units. Mr. Chow says, no, it's
one unit but I'm phasing it, I'm developing it in 3 phases.
4
5
~o~T~ : Well, that's the interpretation I had.
( inaud~ 3 phases.
?
8
9
ROGERS: ~ right.
Tf&&l/% : No other (inaud) ]~$ .~e~- ~ ~dN~that
way, no other parts ~)
~T~ : What did we do with ~
10
r ~hat is one unit for how many phases
!! is this? 21 some odd phases but it is one unit with 21
12
13
14
15
phases
~inaud)
Now, that's a subdivision map ~
which has separate 21 lots/ %~milar
be phase development.
16
17
~~7/~ : (i_:~d) . Everthing
that came to us was this phase, this phase, this Phase,
18
19
this phase and that's the terminology that was utilized.
'-~-~P-L&/~ : That's not the same, that's not the
same as Stonegate. Stonegate is a number of definable
Z! units and that was part of the Stonega. te plan, all of these
22 units. What's up there now (in~ud) ~That (unit)
2~ do y~u cndorsc?
24 ~ : (~nmgd) .
z5
~ (~)-
SAN FRANCISCO
43:J. '77S6
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
MARIN COUNTY
4
-7
8
9
I0
!!
]2
]7
18
19
20
2!
22
24
25
111
~-~_~LI~ : Okay, and the ordinance that created
that, i~. that correct? required a separate use permit for
each of those units. When Mr. Chow bought, he bought 3
units that had not yet been developed. For his project
purposes he is treating them and considering them as one
project~ ~. ) . That's not the ordinance
~O~~ : (~inaud)- Rigth, but he
handed his maps in separate-
-~},~ : That's right (inaud)
~&~R~ : (in=ud) if I'm not
mistaken, was one tentative map, one final map, to be
allowed to be developed in phases.
~~'~ : Well, was a particular problem with
that (~nau~) property because there had to be an access
road in there, so each one of those parcels, as he called
it, or lots would be separate. Otherwise/you'd (inaud)
and that's another main problem with (inaud)
ROGERS: But ~a~d-~-~-~ the project as one
large subdivision, development and presented you with one
tentative map and one final map as opposed to three.
~D~'~/~: We could not approve the preliminary
for tentative map without that road being (inaud)
-~~P : I think that was (inaud~
if I'm not mistaken /~ ~'~ t-.% ~' .~:-~,~e&'r~'
~D~R~ : That's true.
45'e - 7755
WM. E:. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOClATI~S
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARI E~
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
lC)
12
~5
~6
~7
~8
~9
2O
2!
2~
24
25
112
~-~6 : -and this is a separate thing. It's
a planned, what, unit, planned community. It has its own
ordinance, does it not?
~0~ : Right, this is by ordinance- (!naud)
-~[/~ : +g~;n~v~,s'o~h zon~,~ordinance, ali
by itself.
will require a use permit and we violated that by issuing
one use permit for 3 separate units, which the applicant
NI~O~D~aI"~ : But by question (~naud)
Mr
to . ~ , ah, his interpretation is that way, but
has he interpreted our ordinance differently than it should
be? Has he interpreted our ordinance- ?
~l~ : I can't answer that.
~,~,~/a&: Bob, has Mr. Chow interpreted our
ordinance different that i% actually is?
ROGERS: I think Mr. Chow's interpreting the facts
differently than we see the facts. I think you recognize
his map.
~D~: May I ask something (inaud) ?
Mr. Chow paid $3,000, whatever it was, for that one use
(inaudP'~ +~4.1¢,~ ~ R~A~a/ 't~'o- · '
~i~l~~k states that each unit
SAN lit RANC ISCO
WM. E. HENDER~CHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARIN COUNTY
~L~: ~0., .... ~5.~ 7 ~
113
permit. Now, if that had been broken down into three
2 separate use permits, what would'ye been the fee? Would
3
4
5
6
-/
8
it have been higher?
I don't know what
~dO~T~ : And they would've been approximately
the same amount of money? Mr. Dell'Angela~(i.~ud)
for each one?
I0
I really don't know.
Well, in good faith, he paid $3,000
!i
12
for, I'm using that figure, that's what I heard, I think.
For one use permit for 3 areas. N~~d~)-~ charging
13 too much money.
14
~£1.'~L~: T don't think-
15
~~/~ : We have to charge it by the number of
units or something. You know, it wasn't for 300 feet of
radius that you're going to nail him to that you charged
18
19
him that amount of money for a use permit.
-~--~LIF%- : %~naud) was wrong, there
20
21
22
should've been three separate use permits- (inaud)
~&~/~ : ('?~' I ~gree, I agree, but
you were, I mean, the basis of (inaud~ you charge
~ the man for them,in the sense by the one if you don't have
24 /area-
The square foot area, you-
SAN FRANCISCO
~-7766
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARIN COUNTY
383 - 17~7
DEPOSITION NOTARIES ~,~ .... ~ ~ ~
114
! ROGERS: You don't have a contractual agreement to
2 allow a certain development to go forth, there's no-
3 ~0~ : I know, but Bob, do you understand
4 what I'm saying?
5 ROGERS: I know what you're saying- ~&c~ ~&~ C~~
6 ~8~Lg/~ : Because a square foot-
7 ROGERS: And you were consistent in your error, I
8 mean, the City was consistent in its error. They issued
9 one building permit and charged one fee for the bUilding
~ use permit-
I! 7"~'&'~IA' : (-inaud~ recognize this error.
~Z ROGERS: Well, it's recognized, right, I believe
~3 it was an error to issue that one use permit and-
14 ~/I ~0~'[~ : Bob, my question to you is it's a
15 serious (~~-- ~ it's a legal problem that will
}~ determine by decision because I want to know that if you
17 said that I interpret this an one ( ) ~ I violating
~ that ordinance we have? If my interpretation is that, am
~9 I violating-~ ?
Z~ ROGERS: If you make a factual determination that
21 it's one unit and use permit should (lie) and 4 should .o ·
22 (~na~ .L~ )
23 ~lC,~O~g/g)~ : But how can I make that determination
Z4 when the ordinance says differently? How can I do it?
Z5 How can I?
SAN PRANCISCO
433 - 77&1
WM. Ir. HENDER~CHi=,iD & A$$OClATI~'~
MARIN COUNTY
CERTIFIEDDEPOSiTIoNSHORTHANDNoTARIEsREPORTER' CE~NTRAL R~DS
115
.Spl~l/~-I ~/ : Permit me if I may, what we' re getting
confused on as to the legality of this issue is that we
are using the numbers 4, 5, and 6 for each of our (inaud)
and there were Stonegates 4, 5, and 6. Let's presume
for example if we can that I'll remember 4 is A, I'll
remember 5 is B and I'll remember 6 is C and then there's
Stonegate ~) 4,5, and 6. Stonegate 4,
under the Stonegate ordinance, encompasses all A, 98% of
B and (98%) of C, all of this is Stonegate Lot 4, for which
you issued one building permit.
N~a~k~'/~: Is that correct?
~R;~ : Yes. In addition, there are these
two high density buildings, one of which is designated
Stonegate 5 and one of them is designated Stonegate 6, so
the fact that it was one use permit for one lot with two
(little tail ends) for convenience of assimilation of
design, and we are correct, we have one use permit and it's
~) - ~ ~ Stonegate ordinance and
~ld~L0~u/o~: How do you interpret that, Bob?
ROGERS: I'm not familiar with the old maps so I
don't know what the land ~s)a~ (inau~)
~Ok~[~ : Well, now, just from what he said, now
he gave us a good perspective, he said this whole thing is
SAN IfRANCISCO
433 - 7768
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER8
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
MARIN COUNTY
~ 3 - 77
I
2
3
4
7
8
10
!1
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
2O
21
24
116
one project and there's a certain little finger of it that
we're talking about.
~aa~YF~ : (inaud) -
"--'m,~,&"M~'~: ~'~ be right with you Sr~ (-inaud~
(~-~ ~ back~ (inaud). How do you interpret Mr. Sprincin's
ROGERS: Well, this is the first time it's been
presented to me and-
N, olop l
Mr. ~' naud) , since you're the planner,
can you comment on this? Better yet, Mr. Christians _~
~ ~ you have a long history in this?
~R~ : Perhaps while he's getting up I can
make one observation of my own.
Okay, Margaret Warren, 790 Stonegate
Drive. Since the appelant has had ample opportunity to
insert his comments throughout the evening, with regard to
Stonegate 4, 5, and 6, whethere it's 4 A, B and C-
~D~7~' : Point of order. There is a motion on
the floor and there has been a second and this is not
privy to the motion. Now this is the first time I've done
it, Mrs. Warren, but I want to go home, you know.
~/~RR/~-~ : ~%o do I. But I've also (inaud)
~9~T~ : ~naud) ~ all o~
again. There is a motion on the floor and I
SAN ~RANCISCO
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
MARIN COUNTY
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS C,~'~/~. ~*~:~;~,~
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
!
2
4
5
6
'7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
of order (i~"~)
117
Ail right, wait a minute.
Mr. Mayor?
~inalld) you don't call me for a point
, , have
Excuse me all right I think we
+'o
a lot of other people (in&ud)' ~lking.- I don't
want to ~inaud) but please get your point
across, Mrs. Warren.
WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. As I say
again, Mr. Sprincin and in all of his correspondence has
referred to Stonegates 4, 5, and 6. He has referred to it
in the City's terms, his own ordinance terms, both verbally
and in writing and I think, in referring to it that way
he has given the inference that it is not Stonegate 4A, B
and C but Stonegate 4, 5, and 6 as seen by the City.
Thank you.
A a'-,,-/'r
: Now we get back to Mr. (Christians)-
: I called for the question.
: ~naud}
~1~o/o~ : We need a definition ¢inaud) We
need one more definition and then we'll go on.
ROGERS: Okay, I would say, Mr. Mayor, that if
the facts as represented by Mr. Sprincin are accurate and if
SAN ~RAN¢I$CO
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
MARIN COUNTY
CERTIFIED
SHORTHAND
REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
6
'7
9
I0
Ii
13
14
15
16
1'7
18
2O
,21
22
23
24
118
that entire project up there with the exception of the two
buildings is one phase under the Stonegate ordinance, that
it would not be out of line, you're asking me how can you
do this legally, what's the legal ramifications and all
this. You could make your factual determination strictly
on the facts as you see them and not worry about the,
about (inaud) the ordinance-
NICOLOPULOS: Don't tell me that because, when you
made the legislative (inaud) you don't change it and
that's what bothers me, Bob. Bothers me a lot. If we
(inaud) , that's the law. Now don't tell me to
cheat, don't tell me to violate the law.
ROGERS: Nobody's telling you to violate the law.
NICOLOPULOS: Well, that's what you're doing in
essence. You are, in essence, telling me to do that and-
(~
ROGERS: I'm asking you to make a factual decision-
NICOLOPULOS: I asked you a question, Bob. Now
look, now, my concern is very serious, it's as legitimate
this Council ~n~ud) J . You're a lawyer, Bob,
I want an answer, really. There's an J~naud) ' set up
like this and this, a resolution or an ordinance, that's
the law in this City, it was passed 3 years ago. I don't
want to magnify it and make that worse by some decision that
I have to make here tonight. That bothers me a lot and that's
SAN FRANCISCO
119
3
4
./
8
I0
!1
12
13
14
15
!1'
18
19
ZO
Zl
22
23
24
25
why I'm asking for a clarification. Now, I don't want to
magnify this by making a decision that I'm violating more
laws. I don't want to do that. If we made a law in error,
it should be rectified and we're going to face a lot of
remifications ~in~, first of all, losing faith in
our operations as a city, now, any wonder people get upset
(~ud~ with the bureaucratic red tape in this
city. Now, it's, this is something we have to address and
it's about time we started addressing it. Now, we're voted
up here as legislators but it gets mighty annoying
sometimes to have to get tied up in a bureaucratic red tape
and I don't want to do that, Bob.
~%~'A/~ : {inaud) may I interrupt ,(inaud)-
I would request at this time ~l~n we have (i~ud)
till (next meeting) ('~__d~
or a special meeting (~naud) -~
some of these points-~ L~.
clarify
NICOLOPULOS: Excuse me, but, now, what are you
talking about? Do we have to go thrOugh an exercise for 4
hours to repeat that?
/~D~-'~d~ : I would hope that we could (inaud)
-q-/~alS~l~ this meeting and we wouldn't have to have
(inaud4 / maybe what we should do is (inaud)
SAN PRANCISCO WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
4.1~ - 77~1 CERTI FlED SHORTHAND REPORTERS MARl N COUNTY
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
I
2
4
6
7
8
lC)
Ii
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
23
24
25
get together with ~iu~ud)
we can
120.
findings that we all agree upon (inaud)
(check) those findings and then (make a) decision on them.
I don't know what to do, I don't know (inaud)
NICOLOPULOS: Well, tell me, (Dan), is anything
going to happen in two weeks to put us any further ahead
than we are tonight? Do you forsee anything? What do
you forsee?
~~ : Excuse me, would you use the mike
over there, you're not registering.
/~~N~ : I forsee that we could meet with the
City Attorney. We could meet, and I guess, we'll really
look into some legal points and at that time I figure
we could probably put a statement of facts before the
City Council.
N ICOLOPULOS:
possible.
been (inaud) · - ·
Well, I would enjoy that, if that's
I'm willing to do that. There's
.CHOW:
530.
L a
We paid to the county tax for 3 parcels
parcel 12 012110610, 1121 10520, 111012110
That's
Three separate
WM. E;. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
/33. ??Il 313.17~7
1
3
4
'7
8
I0
!I
1,2
13
14
15
16
I1'
18
20
,21
22
23
25
121
CHOW: (inaud) let me show you how these
3 separate parcels are (inaud) ~O ~0~ ~,LL ~d~$r/~N
4, 5, 6, the majority in here, all one parcel in here,
this long, (inaud) those two are the two small (lot)
here. These two (inaud) 4,5, and 6 (inaud)
are divided into (,i4a~ ~1~,~ ~'~ ~;~-
~R ~ £ L
amount of money we paid to (inaud) one permit,
$34, $132, estimation of the area of the whole (inaud)
~0~/)- : (~Tr~ ~ Mr. Sprincin was telling
you is a statement of fact.
CHOW: (inaud)
: (inaud)
: (inaud)
CHOW: (inaud) this the area (inaud)
~--~: Right here.
CHOW: Yeah, and then (inaud) these two we put
4, 5, and 6 into one and then separate this into three
phases in here. You see, (inaud)
~~: Yeah, but what about when the ordinance
(inaud)
CHOW:
: What did (inaud) ?
(inaud)
4 is actually 4, 5, and 6.
WM. Ir. HENDE:RSCHEID ~' ASSOClATE:$
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER~
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
4~3 . 77il 313 - 17~7
I!
12
~?
22
~,~ ~T~-: ( inaud )
CHOW: This is 4 (inaud)
122
the one parcel (inaud)
we combine these two (inaud)
: (inaud)
: (inaud)
(inaud)
condo, these two (inaud)
Mr. Seyranian
CHOW: (inaud) all
modifications to the original Stonegate (inaud)
this is the apartment zone, these 3 lot
is zoned for apartments (inaud)
is zoned for townhouses-
: (Dan), we'll have to (inaud)
CHOW: And these two (inaud) Stonegate (inaud)
: (inaud)
: (inaud) like 3 separate (inaud)
CHOW: This is not (inaud)
: No, it's not all one. It is not.
3 separate things (inaud)
3 separate (inaud).
: (inaud) all of this,
WM. ir. H£NDERSGH£1D & A$~OGIAT£~
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
43~ - 7741 313 - I
I
2
3
4
6
8
10
!1
12
13
14
15
16
!'7
18
20
2.1
23
24
25
123
lot 4, Stonegate Lot 4.
we called (inaud)
: (inaud)
: (inaud)
: (inaud)
One parcel, one tax (inaud)
Dan, so what about (inaud)
4, 5, and 6 and
: (inaud)
: Yeah, I know. (inaud)
: What we're talking about is (inaud)
~~'" : (inaud)
what we're talking about is 3 different units of development,
aren't we,
( in aud ) ?
a ~o~ :
:
:
One unit of development in three phases.
( in aud )
(inaud)
No, (inaud)
Unit 4?
these two, these two
were in fact purchased at the same time (inaud)
saying (inaud)
Stonegate 4, so what I'm
4, 5, and 6 are in (inaud)
one use permit
part of my lot was Stonegate (8) and part of
my (legal entity)
was Stonegate 4. (inaud)
WM. E. HENDER$CHE~D & ASSOCIATES
GERTI FI ED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
433. 7784
124
I
2
3
4
5
6
'7
9
I0
!!
12
13
14
15
16
!'7
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
~D~: Why don't we just take the vote and
if it ends up 2 to 2 or (in~ud)
parcel (inaud)
(inaud)
(inaud) one legal
a use permit (inaud)
The fact that they're doing it in three phases (inaud)
it is one unit. (inaud)
: I can't hear-
: (inaud)
: (inaud)
: (inaud)
: (inaud)
NICOLOPULOS:
we make of this situation.
I really don't-(inaud)
it's one unit.
the question, (what do)
: (inaud)
: (inaud)
-~O~ERS: COuncilman (Addiego) is not sure why we
sat through this if the staff and the appelant were not
prepared to make their case.
ROGERS: Why don't we tell them that?
ROGERS:
on this issue?
How many hours (inaud)
WM. E:. HENDERSC:HEID & A$$OClATWS
CERTIFII"'D SHOI~THAND REPORTERS
DI~'PO$1TI ON NOTARIES
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
4.13 . 7764 3e3 - 17~'7
I
3
4
7
8
9
1,2
13
14
17
,21
22
24
(inaud)
(inaud)
changed.
:
125
: 2, 3. Three hours.
: (inaud)
: What are we doing now?
: (inaud)
: (Don't) want to continue?
: (inaud) 4, 5, and 6 to be
the original Stonegate 4, 5, and 6?
(inaud) the numbers (inaud)
No, the numbers are the same, the
You want to conitnue.
~_~: (inaud) if my request is
still there, I indicated that we would talk to the City
Attorney and I request that, I, it's your (inaud), what's
the (inaud) ?
: (inaud)
City Attorney and that's (inaud) and
Mr. Christians to get together and to dig out the original
Stonegate and find out what the heck you bought when you
bought it and what you're developing now, how that compares,
facts, I don't find this true
(inaud)
at all.
ROGERS: Well, I think that this(inaud)
is an important thing to work out in terms of looking at
the maps and I think too that it requires some discussion
WM. ~r. HENDER$CHEID & ASSOCIATES
CiRTII=II=D SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARI E8
SAN FRANCISCO
433-77~ MARIN COUNTY
126
!
2
3
4
8
9
I0
I!
14
17
19
20
22
24
between me and perhaps other members of the staff and
~~~ attorneys for the developer (inaud)
-~~ : I don't mind admitting I've made a
mistake but, you know-
-~u~D: Was this plan ever brought up before or is
this something totally new now. Let me ask the Committee.
RO~ : The question was asked, (inaud)
point was not brought up by the developer (inaud)
~l~ : The developer just thought of (this).
ROGERS: This is the first time I've heard of it.
(inaud) in this issue before.
~~0 : Right, I know you have.
But I never came up with this answer-
: You haven't gotten this twist until
ROGERS:
tonight.
ROGERS: I never have gotten anyone to tell me that
these 3 phases were one ~ig phase under the old ordinance.
It's always been (inaud) that it's been pretty much
the same as it appears on the map, that's what (inaud)
this is the first time (inaud)
I think it does require some research over the next couple
of weeks and based upon what we find if we cOuld also
required some disCussion with the developer-
NICOLOPULOS: (~Da,,~) ~&A~ ;r
so let's,
WM. IE:. HENDI='R$CHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARIE~
~IAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
4~3 - 77EI 313 - 17~.7
127
I'll talk my (inaud) second back-
N, T b'l ....
'~ ~/~_ : (~uaud)
!i
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
2.1
2.2
2.4
~ : (inau~) IF ~a~ ~4~Tcontinue on this
(inaud)
~/,d~/op~. I'd like to direct at the (inaud)
staff people that we have a (inaud) where there's
not repititous dialogue coming in here.
~L/'~g~: Just a point of clarification. Not
to give you the impression the staff has not done anything
(~) ~ o~t of the engineering department 3 old
maps on Stonegate and they're dated 65 and I think early
65, late 65 and I think, 63 or 66 someplace. I think what's
important, I think we need to do our homework and find a
map that existed at the time Mr. Chow bought the land. What
we need to know is when Mr. Chow bought that land so that
we can come back (inaud)
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER~ MARIN COUNTY
DE~SITION NOTARIE~ ~13 . 17~7
SAN FRANCISCO
433 - 7761
!
2
3 NICOLOPULOS: I'll take my second back (inaud)
4 ROGERS: (inaud) there is an indication that
~ ~ the zoning map doesn't indicate (inaud)
6 NICOLOPULOS: (inaud) I have now withdrawn
? motion (inaud) Bob? Second (~ withdraw
8 motion (inaud) withdrawn. I'd like to -
9 '7"~LI~ : (';i.D.a~Ot~ I~ jeopardized ~k,~-
10 /'~ ~ ~e~/~ffe~ till the next meeting. Is that correct?
I
3
4
'7
8
0
I0
I!
12
13
14
15
16
1'7
18
2O
,21
22
23
24
b .LL All right, would you please?
did you buy the land, Mr. Chow?
CHOW: 78
:
:
:
:
NICOLOPULOS:
78.
78
128
When
78?
Oh, 78.
Oh, Mr. Dell'Angela right now we've
made a, we've taken back the second and the motion's
been taken back and then we're going to refer this to the
next meeting two weeks from now '+~£ /S~A, Is
that time sufficient for your-
~LL~&~ Yes, it will be. Could Mr. Chow
indulge us once more and tell us the month in 78 that he
purchased it?
NICOLOPULOS: What month?
CHOW: (inaud)
u.
NICOLOPULOS:
NICOLOPULOS:
/I,lob :
NICOLOPULOS:
MODENA:
SAN FRANCISCO
4.1:S. 77~,S
November, December?
Don't our records-?
Well, we'll get that information.
Our records must (inaud)
We'll provide (inaud)
May I make one request?
Yes, Mr. (Modena) .
Since we've gone and I would like, I think
WM. E. HENDERSCHEID ~, ASSOCIATES
MARIN COUNTY
CERTI F I ED SHORTHAND REPORTER~11 '~8:~ - 17~7
DEPOSITION NOTARI il
129
4
-/
8
10
I!
1,2
13
14
15
18
ZO
Zl
23
24
25
it would benefit all of us if we have a transcript of this
meeting. (i~w~0-1~ ~w ,~ possible because there's a
lot a questions were answered and I think we could at
least address ourselves to those questions.
: And when do you want that transcript
?
MODENA: Middle of next week?
NICOLOPULOS: 3~eD, yOU got a
(inaud) you-
logistics problem
I think you can get a copy of the tape and
make your own transcript, can't they?
~i%TTA~h : (inahd)
~a ~ ~*~ logistics
NICOLOPULOS: -(~ na~ ~
When do you think it's feasible for you to accomodate this?
~7~ : I myself don't think I can do it
without ~)
NICOLOPULOS: / Can we get together with Barbara and
work out a solution that will-
Well, the solution is we hire a court
reporter-
NICOLOPULOS: Well, that's
~7-7'~r~/[ : There's money in the budget for that.
It's an [{naud)-aN-~-~,N~- ~X~-N~'.
NICOLOPULOS: Would you take care of doing this?
: Allright, are we (inaud)
WM. EL H~'NDE:RSCH~rlD & AS$OCIATWS
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARIES
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY'
4.1'~. ??~
I
2
3
4
6
?
8
10
I!
12
13
14
15
16
1'7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
130
NICOLOPULOS:
:
:
yesterday-
NICOLOPULOS:
Well, there's one more item we got on-
(inaud) paramedic.
(inaud)
(inaud)
(inaud)
Barbara, will you introduce that,
that next item, Barbara?
BATTAYA: Item Number 16 recommending adoption of
resolution authorizing execution of an agreement with the
County of-
END OF TAPE (SIDE 3)
WM. E. HENDER$CHEID & ASSOCIATES
SAN FRANCISCO MARIN COUNTY
4,1~ - "7~14 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTERS
DEPOSITION NOTARIES ]1] - 17]!7
SUPPORT OFFICE SERVICES
41 SUTTER STREET
SUITE 306
SAN FRANCISCO, CA, 94104
391-4578
INVOICE DATE:
TYPING
* WORD PROCESSING
* WORD PROCESSING
SET-UP CHARGE
* COPIES
POSTAGE
PICK-UP
DELIVERY
PROOFREADING
SUPPLIES
OTHER (DESCRIBE)
DATE WORK RECEIVED
DATE WORK DELIVERED
TRANSCRIBING
AT
PER HOUR
AT
AT
AT
SUBTOTAL:
SALES' TAX:
*(ALWAYS TAXABLE)
TOTAL
PREVIOUS BALANCE:
TOTAL NEW BALANCE: .........
NOTE: FINAL PROOFREADING IS ALWAYS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY!!
WE ACT SOLELY IN A CLERICAL CAPACITY IN YOUR BEHALF AND
WE MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES AND ASSUME NO
RESPONSIBILITY REGARDING ACCURACY,
ANY ERRORS OR CHANGES R'EQUIRED SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO OUR
ATTENTION FOR OUR CORRECTION,
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
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF 7/15/81
Item 9: Public Hearing - SA-81-70 Bayland Dev. Corp. appeal of the Planning
Commission decision on 5/14/81 denying approval of the Tentative
Subdivision Map SA-81-70 (Stonegate Ridge Unit No. 5).
Item 10: Public Hearing - UP-78-440 (Mod. 1) Bayland Dev. Corp. appeal, etc.
NICOLOPULOS: Staff Report, please.
DELL'ANGELA: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I would like the Council to
consider 9 and 10 somewhat together because they are very closely related.
You will recall at the last Council meeting the question of the Subdivision
Map and the Modifications to the Use Permit, one of the issues which had to be
resolved is whether or not the Use Permit that was approved in 1978 was still
a valid Use Permit. Since the last meeting we've had discussions and done
research on the map that was in existence at that time, the Assessors Map
and the lotting arrangement; and it is currently our opinion or at least it
is the opinion of the City Attorney that the Use Permit is a valid Use Permit
at this point in time. However, that only resolves one of the issues, the
other issue obviously is the Tentative Subdivision Map, which is the tentative
Subdivision for Unit 5. I think the applicant is here tonight and recognizes
the concerns of Planning Commission Staff and the residents of the Stonegate
community and I think the applicant will be requesting a referral of both
items be sent back to the Planning Commission and Staff for additional study
and redesign; and we would support that recommendation if it is so made. We
would, of course, also ask the applicant to waive any time requirements in
connection with the Subdivision Map, so that we do not get into a legal
problem during the planning and redesign process. So that is essentially
our Staff Report on both items at this point in time.
NICOLOPULOS: In order to clarify the record, what we have before
us is not exactly what you said Lou. To make it proper and know what we are to
address -- how may we approach this Staff Report Bob?
-1 -
CENTRAL RECORi::J
FILE NO., k~'"'~ /~F'
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
ROGERS: What I suggest that you do Mr. Mayor is ask the
Developer for his comments and any requests he may wish to make and act on
them. You will be dealing with the issues in the Staff Report. It wasn't
possible to get all of it into the report because we were negotiating all
through last week. I suggest that you do what Mr. Dell'Angela said, which
is open it for the Developer's comments to let him make his presentation
to you and I also support Mr. Dell'Angela's recommendation that if the
Developer comes forth with this proposition and he does waive time on the
record, that you allow Staff, the Planning Staff, a chance to deal with the
Developer's Project on its merits.
NICOLOPULOS: Mr. Modena, would you like to speak? Will you
announce your name for the record, please?
MODENA: Yes Mr. Mayor, I represent the applicant in this
matter, C. N. Chow, who is the owner and I also represent Mr. Sprincin who
is the Developer on this Project.
NICOLOPULOS: Dan, maybe if you can raise the mike a bit, it
might help!
MODENA: My name is Daniel J. Modena, I reside -- not
reside, my office is at 421 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco. Mr. Rogers
did put forth to the Council that we have been negotiating and we have been
negotiating in good faith. I have to commend your Staff at this time for
their efforts and their diligence in arriving at what we think is a settle-
ment or a compromise type of settlement whereby both the City and we can go back
and further negotiate this; and for that I commend them. We are willing to
put this down as our position, that upon a finding by this Council that
UP-78-440 is a valid Use Permit for Phases 5 and 6 of the Stonegate Planned
Community. We, and I am speaking of Mr. Chow, the owners and applicants of
the Project, hereby request the following: We request that this matter be
C~~ ~T~/~,~ Fi~ Z:Z ~.~
- 2 -
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
referred back to the Planning Commission for the first meeting in October --
and I understand that meeting is on October 8, 1981. We will then withdraw
this matter without prejudice from the consideration tonight. In the
meantime, from this time till the time of the October 8th meeting we will
work with Staff to find a mutually accepted basis for introducing a new
Tentative Map for both phases, that is 5 and 6. At the first meeting in
October the Planning Commission will consider either one of these two alter-
natives: the new Tentative Map, that I have already indicated that we would
propose, 5 and 6 with Use Permit Modifications thereof or if we can not
arrive at a new Tentative Map, then the nine findings that are before you
tonight on the modifications that will be sent back will be considered by
the Planning Commission on -- and that is the Tentative Map on 5 and the
modification of the Use Permit on Unit 5. I do want to make it clear that
the validity of the Use Permit is a consideration for all of this and
then finally as Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dell'Angela requested we will waive any
time requirements that are necessary for processing this to the first
meeting of the Planning Commission in October 1981. This will be followed
up by a written communication tomorrow to the City Staff.
NICOLOPULOS: Thank you Mr. Modena. There are people in the
audience who wish to speak, do those people still wish to speak at this
time? Mrs. Warren, will you state your name for the record, please?
WARREN: Margaret Warren, 790 Stonegate Drive, South San
Francisco, and I would like to express my support of the referral back for
further redesign and for units 5 and 6 of Stonegate, and I commend the
Developer and the Owner for taking that kind of action. I think that way
we can attempt to arrive at a mutually acceptable development up on Stonegate.
Joan Grant, do you wish to speak?
No.
NICOLOPULOS:
GRANT:
-3-
C~P~!'f~AL. RECORD~
FILE NO.:
1
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
NICOLOPULOS: Mrs. Agee, you do not wish to speak?
AGEE: Doris Agee, 819 Ridge Court, it is a little like
going to the hospital and then finding out you don't have to have an
operation - I came ready to do battle and I appreciate that they are going
to consider redesign because we have never wanted to hold them up. We
only wanted the right thing at Stonegate and I hope this will lead to it.
NICOLOPULOS: Thank you Mrs. Agee. Any comments from Council?
TEGLIA: Yes.
NICOLOPULOS: Yes, Roberta.
TEGLIA: What I heard from Mr. Modena was map, I did not hear
redesign. What I am hearing from the residents is an impression of redesign
and I guess I would like to know that everybody is saying exactly the same
thing, so maybe Mr. Modena can address that point.
NICOLOPULOS: Do you wish to address that, Mr. Modena?
MODENA: Yes, whether they are acceptable or not we are
going back to discuss design, there is no question about it, that is why
we are going back to Staff. I don't know if you want to use the word redesign,
but to bring forward new plans and new design features.
TEGLIA: I wanted to make very sure we are saying about
the same thing. I don't want residents going out thinking one thing is
happening - and it is not.
that.
NICOLOPULOS:
DELL'ANGELA:
We are all saying the same thing - I would support
Any further comments form Council?
Mr. Mayor, just a point of clarification.
Mr. Modena, there was reference to the Tentative Map, I am not sure there was
reference to the next item which is the modification to the Use Permit. I
think that particular item ought to be Withdrawn or sent back. I am not
sure Dan said that!
-4-
CENTP,.AL
! MODENA: All sent back.
2 DELL'ANGELA:
And the last point I have is, reference was made to
3 meetings with Staff to try to resolve - to work with redesigns and such
4
5
to try to solve the problems. I should state that it is our intention to
have meetings with the residents of the Stonegate community so that we are
not talking just to the Developer and Staff, that we are including the
7
residents of the community as well in terms of some of the alternatives that
8 we are going to be considering.
9 TEGLIA:
10 DELL'ANGELA:
1! NICOLOPULOS:
]3 further?
Through the Chair -- I would certainly hope so.
I just wanted to make that clear for the record.
Thank you. Mr. Modena, you have something
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MODENA: No, that is fine. We indicated inour negotiations
and in our discussions with Staff that we would take those steps.
TEGLIA: I would be happy to move...
NICOLOPULOS: Just a moment -- in order that the audience and
ourselves can be clear -- Lou can you synopsize this so that we know exactly
what we voted on.
DELL'ANGELA: They are requesting that they be allowed to
withdraw without prejudice the Tentative Subdivision Map and also the
modifications for the Use Permit which is the next item on the agenda; and
they are waiving the time limits in terms either or both of those items
that may be required by law. They are requesting that based on a finding
of the Council that the Use Permit for previously approved 4, 5 and 6 is
a valid Use Permit and also they are requesting that this item be reconsidered
at the October 8th Planning Commission Meeting for a decision whether it
be a positive or a negative decision. Is that correct?
MODENA: Yes, the time waiver is up until the first
-5-
CENTRAL R~.(~ORDg
~LE NO.~.~id9 ~ %
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
meeting in October.
NICOLOPULOS: Everyone is in agreement? Is the Council also
aware, also -- any questions by Council? May I have a motion.
TEGLIA:
ACOSTA:
NICOLOPULOS:
UNANIMOUS:
MODENA:
I will move.
I will second it.
All in favor say I.
Aye.
Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, does that include a
finding that the Use Permit is valid in that motion?
NICOLOPULOS: Yes sir, that is correct.
and 10 taken care of in this here...
DELL'ANGELA:
NICOLOPULOS:
/ / /
Lou were both 9
Yes, as far as I am concerned.
Next item Barbara.
/ / /
-6-
Ju].y 1, 1981
The Honorable City Council
APPLICATION:
Appeal by Bayland Development Corporation (C. N. Chow) of Planning Com-
mission's ~y 14, 1981 Decision to Disapprove SA-81-70, a Tentative Sub-
division l~ap to Create 79 Air Space Condominium and Towhnouse Units in
Stonegate Ridge No. 5 Property Located Westerly of the Southern Terminus
of. Ridgeview Court in the PC Planned Commmity Zone District.
ACTION:
1. Open Public Hearing and Receive Public Testimony
2. Close Public ttearing
3. Nlotion to Deny Appeal Based on Ten (10) Findings Listed Below
RECO~f~T !ON:
I~ is reca~r, ended that the City Council uphold the decisica of the Planning Conntission
and deny ~he appeal based on the following findings:
1. ~ne proposed nmp is not consistent with the General Plan of the City.
l,,e sz~e is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development.
The proposed land project, together with the provisions for its desi~a and improve-
.mens is not consistent with the density and open space requirements of the specific
pi.ma for the area.
- -~.~ is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed.
5. ~£e proposed land project violates the Zoning Ordim0mce of the Ci'ty relatino~ to
required off-street parking.
In~afficient geological information has been presented to properly address questio,ns
of ~=~ ~ '
=~_,z~c safety, erosion, slope stabilization, flooding, and other g~!ogical
n,~za~as which would be associated with the proposed ].and project.
7. 2Y~s~re is insufficient usable open space in the develoDment as required by Section
6.03 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
$. ~ne pro~.osed land project ~ould have adverse enviro~urmntal effects on properties in
~he surrounding area.
9. The proposed 39 unit condominium building is not in character with residential
~e~.lo~..~.~t in the s,urrotunding area.
~J~-Z,~ Yt~AL REGOi~D~
START ~RT
TO: The Honorable City Council
APPLICATIfkN: Bayland Development Corporation Appeal/SA-81-70
July 1, 1981
Page 2
RECO.X~NDATION: (cont.)
10. No valid Use Permit is in effect for the proposed, project:
(a) Pursuant to Section IV A (8) of Ordinance 528
(b) Use Permit Phase 5 and 6 not used within one (1) year from date of approval
pursuant to 6.51 of Zoning ordinance.
APPLICATION DESCRIPTION:
This is an application to create 79 air space condominium and tovmhouse units on the
Unit 5 Phase of the Stonegate Ridge PlannedConnmnity. A large 39unit condominiUm
building is proposed adjacent to RidgeviewCourt at the highest elevation of the site.
Three to%cs (40units) of townhouseunits are to be located at the lower elevations.
Parking for 151 vehicles is proposed on the site.
A 7.1 acre tract of land (Lot D), located directly east of the Unit 6 Phase, is pro-
posed to be dedicated to the City prior to the approval and recordation of the Final
~p for Stonegate Unit No. 5. This land, located imnediately adjacent to Sign Hill
Park contains slopes in excess of 60 percent. Because of its steepness and location,
this land is, for all practical purposes, unusable. It would not satisfy open space
and recreation needs of Unit 5 or Unit 6 residents and is contrary to the intent of
the Stonegate Plan.
HISTORY:
In the early and middle 1960's, the City's Zoning Ordinance was amended and Ordinance
528 was adopted, which created the Stonegate Ridge Planned Om~manity (PC) Zoning District.
Ordinance 528 was made part of the Zoning ordinance of the City. (Copy of Ordinance
528 attached). This specific Ordinance contains provisions governing the development
of the S~onegate Ridge Planned connmmity. Approval of projects in the Stonegate area
are also subject to the current Zoning ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, General Plan
and State Map Act. ..
The Stonegate Ridge ConTmmity was subsequently developed in phases or units. To date,
Stonega~e Units 1, lA, 2, 3, 4, and 8, consisting of 251 Welling units, have been
constructed.
On June 13, 1978, b~-78-440, a Use Permit application to construct a 224 unit air
space condominium and townhouse development on 15.74 acres of land, was approved by
the Planning ConTaission. This application included Units 4~ 5, and 6 of the Stonegate
Ridge Project. Up-78-440 also required that 7.1 acres of land (Parcel D), adjacent
to Sign Hill Park be dedicated to the City for open space.
ST~LFF REPORT
TO: 'Ihe Honorable City Council
APPLICATION: Bayland Development Corporation Appeal/SA-81-70
July 1, 1981 ~
Page 3
HISTORY: (cont.)
On October 17, 1979, the City Council granted a one year time extension to the developer
to begin construction of these units. At that time, Staff expressed concern that this
developm~.nt likely conflicted with the General Plan of the City in regard to building
density and other factors. Construction of a 50 unit project on Unit 4was started prior
to October 17, 1980, the expiration date of UP-78-440. The Unit 4 Phase is nowsubstan-
tially completed. .
It is the position of Staff that, pursuant to Section
valid Use Permit exists for the Unit 5 and 6 Phases.
Planned Cofmmlnity District states the following:
.040, A.8 of Ordinance528, no
This Section of the Stoneg~teRidge ·
Planned Unit - Plans; Use Permit; Time for Filing. The residential single family
zone, residential duplex family zone, residential multiple family zone and conmer-
cial zone shall be planned and developed as planned units. A Use Permit shall be
required for each of the planned units, the application for which shalI be filed
within one year after the adoption of the Ordinance codified herein. The Planning.
Comnission may extend the time for filing said Use Permit application, which exten-
sion shall not exceed one year.
STAFF CfkNCERNS:.
1. The net 'density 0f the project is excessive considering the steep terrain of the
prope~cy. Unit 5 is proposed to contain 79 dwelling units on 3.08 acres of land,
which is in excess of 25 units/acre. The General Plan of the City indicates that
this site should be developed for mediumhighdensity residential uses or at a
density of 10-15units/acre.
2. There is a lJ/r~ted amount of usable open space on the project site. The average
cross slope of the Unit 5 site ranges from21 to 32.percent grade. Further~ approx-
irrztely 63 percent of the site is covered with buildings, Parking lots, or driveways.
3. The design of the site is somewhat unimaginative. The continuous rowsof town-'
house and condominium buildings give an appearance of a solid building mass wit~'
little or no open space visible from a distance.
4. The northerly two-thirds of the 39 unit condominium building in~nediately adjacent
to P~dgeview Court extends %yell above the ridge line of the hillside located to
the rear of the project site. This is a massive structure (235 feet in length)
which Staff feels is not in character with the existing buildings in the Stone,re
Ridge Planned Cogngmity. The condominium.building, including the garage level,~
is 54 feet in height. The top of the building extends 38 feet above th~ pavement
elevation of RidgeviewCot~t.
CENTRAL RECORD~
~L.;~ NO., i~'~9 77
STAFF REPORT
~0: The Honorable City Council
APPLICATION: Bayland Develolmnent Corporation Appeal/SA-81-70
July 1, 1981
Page 4
STAFF C~NCERNS: (cont.)
· Off street parking on the site is less than the curren% 2 spaces/unit required
in the Zoning Ordinance. Sixty-three (63) covered and twenty-two (22) uncovered
spaces are located within and im~e~ately adjacent to the 39 unit condominium
building and the highest most row of townhouse structures which contain 12 units.
This is a ratio of 1.66 spaces/unit. Fifty-six (56) covered and ten (10) uncovered
spaces are located within' and inmediately adjacent to the two lower rows of town-
house structures. There a~e 28 dwelling units located in this area. The parking
ratio in this area is 2.35 spaces/unit.
6. The StateSubdivisionMap Act, Government Code Section 66474 requires the City
Council to deny a Tentative N~p if~___zof seven listed findings, is made. AttachedI
is a copy of this Co~e Section. ~taff aha the Co~isSion believe that findings
(a) through (d) of this code SectiOn-can-be'made, and,ktherefore,-'the~ap shouldSe
denied.
DISCUSSION:
The above application was scheduled to be considered at the 5~arch 12, 1981 Corm~ssion
meeting. At the request of the Applicant, this item was continued off calendar to
allow the Applicant additional time to discuss the application with Staff.
Staff has, since the above application was filed, met with the Applicant/landowner
(C. N. Chow), the developer (Charles Sprincin) and the Applicant's architect (Albert
Seyranian) to discuss the application. At these meetings, Staff informed the Applicant
and developer that they could not support approval of both the Units 5 and 6 projects
as presently designed. A major redesign was suggested. The developer and Applicant
suggested that an informational meeting be held in April by the Corrmission to determine
the reaction/concerns of both the Planning Conmission and area residents to the project
Staff agreed that such a meeting would be beneficial provided that no formal action
be tmken by the Conrnission at the April meeting. Staff also agreed to withhold any .
formal reconm~ndations on these applications until this informational meeting was con-
cluded and these items again scheduled for a public hearing in the future.
The Luformational meeting on this application was held on April 23, 1981. At this
~eeting, a large number of Stonegate residents objected to the Unit 5 plan. Specific
concerns discussed included excessive building density, the appearance and visual im-
pact of the 39 unit condominium building, lack of usable open space, inadequate off
street parking, traffic congestion and safety, and personal safety.
After the April 23 hearing was concluded, the-Con~ission allowed the Applicant the
discretion of continuing the application to the 5~y 14, 1981 meeting or continuing the
application off calendar to allow the project to be redesigned to better address con-
cerns expressed by the Conmission, Staff, and residents of the StonegateC(xrmunity.
STAFF ~ORT
.TO: The Honorable City Council '
APPLICATICkN: Bayland Development Corporation Appeal/SA-81-70.
July 1, 1981
Page 5
DISCUSSION: (cont.)
The Applicant requested that the application be considered at the ~ay 14,
ing. (See attached letter dated April 9~9, 1981).
1981 mee~-
Attached are copies of project maps, reports from other Departments,:mad other material
relating to the application,
C. ;?ALTER BIRJCErO
City ~gnaEer
Louis Dell 'AnEela
Director of Co~,~nity Development
C,%B: .LD'A:PG: js
Attachments
~J~,~']~RAL REC;ORD~
F1LENOJ ~::~ ~7
APPLICATION:
ACTION:
The Honorable City Cotmcil
Appeal by Bayland Development Corporation (C. N. Chow) of Planning Com~
mission's 5~ay 14, 1951 Decision to Disapprove 51edification No. 1 of Use
Permit UP-78-440 for Stonegate Ridge No. 5 Property Located Westerly of
the Southern Terminus of Ridgeview Coua-t in the PC Planned Con~r'~ity
Zone District.
1. Open Public tIearing and Receive Public Testimony
2. Close Public Hearing
3. 5{et ion to Deny Appeal Based on Findings
It is rec~.~ended that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Con~/ssion
and deny the appeal based on the finding that no valid Use Permit exists fox' Unit No. 5
pursusm~ -to:
1. Section 6.51 of the Zoning Ordinance (Ordinmnce 353), and
2. Section .040,A,8 of the Stonegate Planned Co,~namity District (Ordinance 528).
APl L!Cn~ ~ DESCRIUPION:
Ti~is is sm application to modify a Use Permit application approved June 13, 1978, for
Units '~ 5 and $ of Stonegate Ridge Planned Conn~mity. Specifically, Unit 5 is pro-
posed zo be modified in the following ways:
~ne height of the large condorainit~building has been reduced from five (5) stories
in height (including a parking level) to four (4) stories iii heJ. ght (including a
parking level).
~ne nm~Der of ~,ellinguni'ts in the large condom~nhm~ building has been changed from
n~,e (9) one be~h~om units and thirty (30) t%%o
ferny-eight (48) one bedroom units to
be~JL~cxom units.
3. The fot~ story condom, init~', building has J.ncreased from 185 feet in length to approx-
bnate]_y 235 feet in length.
4. The ,nin driveway into the condominium building has shifted from the north end of
the building to the southemst corner adjacent to RJdgeview Co~rt.
The percentage of lot cx>verage of ali. buildings, driveways, and parking spaces has
increased from about 61 percent to about 63 Fercen't.
STAFF R~RT
'1~): ]he Honorable City Council
APP]~i~ATION: Bayland Development Corporation Apl~al/UP-78-440 Mod. 1
July ]., 1981
Page 2
APPLICATIfIN DESCRIPTION: (cont.)
6. The total nt~mber of parking spaces for Unit No. 5 is 151, which is similar' 'to that
originally proposed.
The exterior elevations for the four story condominium buildings have been revised but
have not been approved by the Design Review Board.
DISCUSSION/HISTORY:
On June 13, 1978, UP-78-440, a Use Permit application to construct a 224 unit air
space condominium and townhouse development on 15.74 acres of land was approved by the
Planning Co,~nission. This application included Units 4, 5, and 6 of the Stonegate
Ridge Project. Up-78-440 also required that 7.1 acres of land (Parcel D) adjacent to
Sign Hill Park be dedicated to the City for open space.
On October 17, 1979, the City Council granted a one (1) year time extension to the
developer to begin construction of these units. Subsequently, Tentative'and Final
Subdivision Maps were filed and approved by the Commission for Unit 4. Construction
commenced on the Unit 4 Phase prior to October 18, 1980, the expiration date of
UP-78-440. No action was undertaken by the Applicant to begin construction on Units
5 ~nd 6 p~ior to the above expirgtion date.
Section 6.51 of the Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 353) states the following:
"6.5! Zoning Permit, Use Permit Any zoning permit, use pe~i-t, or variance granted
in accordmnce with. the terms of this ordinance shall aut~mtically expire if not used
within one (1) year from the date of approval."
Section .040,A,8 of Ordinance 528 states the following:
"8. Piapmed Unit - Plans; Use Permit; Time for Filing. The residential single family'
zone, residential duplex family zone, residential multiple family zone and con~nercial
zone shall be plamned and developed as planned units. A use permit shall be require~.
fox' each of the planned %mits, the application for which shall be filed within one
year after the adoption of the ordinmnce codified herein. The planning co.~mission may
extend Zhe time for filing said use permit application, which ext~tsion shall not ex-
ceed cne year."
Since the City Council's one year 'time extension for UP-78-440 ex~ired on October 17,
1980, the Applicant's application for a modification-to said Use Permit is not valid.
C,',~: ID 'A: js
Attachn~n ts
May 14, 19~1
App 1 ic ~ t:
~pplicat ion Reque_s~:
Planning Ccm~ission
Bayland De~eloi~nent Corporation
I~-78-440 (.Modification No. l)
Proposed modifications to site plan, floor plm~s and elavalions
for Stonegate Ridge Unit No. 5 lccat~! at the westerly terminus
of Ridge~iew Corot in the PC Planned Cxmmunity Zone District.
Reccrm~endat ion'
It is recounended that the above ;.'..edification to LP-78-4.40 be disapproved based on the
findil~g ..: tb~t no valid use permit exists for the Unit 5 project.
Application Description:
~is is an application to modify a use permit app].ication approved on June 13, 197S
for Units 4, 5 and 6 of Stonegate Ridge Planned C~-m~ity. Specifically Unit 5 is
I~'oposed to he modifie~ in the followi~g
!. ~ne applicant h~,~ r~¢is~l his elew~tion plans of the larvae cond~wniniu-n
~ngs' fra'a havir~ up to 5 stories on a t~rtion of each s'tr~ct.~u-e, to h-m,,~'.~',',,-
a m~ux~¢~Jm of 4 stories. Also, he h~ re~c~ the overall nmnber of units
4o one
~n these ~l]uzng~ frei b~h-o~ units to .,, one ~d t~o be~n units.
2. %ae exterior el6¢ations for the 4 story ~nd~d. ni~n ~ildings have been
revis~ bzt ~ve not yet been apProv~ by the Design R~iew ~ard.
3. ~';e 4 sh3ry condomini~a ~ildi~ has increas~l fr~ 1S5 feet ~n leng[h to
2¢prox~nately 235 feet in Jet, th.
4. ':~:e main ~ivev,~y into the condomin~t~ ~i]ding lt%s shi.Pt~ fr~n the north
end of the Us. ii.ding to the southeast corner ?zljacen~ to Ridgeview C~urb.
5.The percent~3~e of lot coveraDe of all ~]dings, drive~t.ys and ps_rki~,g
:-:~ increas~ frQn a~ut 61% to a total o'[ a~3ut
6. ~,~'. total mr:her of I~rkir~ si)aces [o.~ Ui~_~ No. 5 is ]51 l~.~lloh is s~milar to
that oz'~inally propos~].
Cor¢:ios of project maps ret;~ri's frc~n other ~q)ara%~::n~s and other material, re].a'ta~t to
azCp~ ....... ~on are a~tac~,~l to the ro].at~ St~r[f Re~['t for SA-SI-J0.
ID' A: cd