Loading...
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