HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1981-09-24Mayor Gus Nicolopulos
Vice Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia
Council:
Ronald G. Acosta
Mark N. Addiego
Emanuele N. Damonte
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
Municipal Services Building
Community Room
September 24, 1981
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government
Code of the State of California, that the Joint Special Meeting of the South
San Francisco City Council and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors on
the 22nd day of September, 1981, at 7:30 p.m., in the Community Room of the
Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco was adjourned
to Thursday, the 24th day of September, 1981, at 7:00 p.m. in the Community
Room of the Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco,
California.
Continued purpose of the meeting:
PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of the Concept Plan for the
South Slope of San Bruno Mountain.
Dated:
September 23, 1981
'Barbara A. Battaya, City ~:Yerk
City of South San Francisco
AGENDA
ADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: (Side 1 TF-OO1)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ACTION TAKEN
ADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING
7:20 p.m. Supervisor Ward presiding.
Council present: Damonte, Acosta,
Teglia, Addiego and
Nicolopulos.
Council absent: None.
Supervisors present: Speier, Bacciocco,
Schumacher and
Ward.
Supervisors absent: Gregorio.
Recited.
Supervisor Ward stated that this was
a continued Public Hearing and that
Staff had prepared comments relating
to the alternative fiscal scenario
by Mr. Butler and was available to
the audience and the two Boards.
9/24/81
Page 1
AGENDA
1. Continued Public Hearing.
ACTION TAKEN
He stated that the public testimony
portion of the Public Hearing had
been closed and that the two Boards
would discuss responses to the
questions raised at the last meeting
and focus on Section 1 of the
analysis.
Mr. David Hale stated that the density
appeared to be higher than the General
Plan for the two jurisdictions would
allow, however if the entire site is
looked at the density is only 2.5
dwelling units per acre. He continued,
that if the portion proposed as resi-
dential was looked at, about 200 acres,
the density then becomes 3.5 dwelling
units per acre. He said that the
more meaningful comparison would be
the areas that are clustered, and that
range is from 4.4 dwelling unit per
acre single family on up to 17.1
dwelling units per acre for duplexes.
He said that the overall density per
acre is 8.2 units per acre if a line
is taken of 100 feet around the
clusters and he felt that the density
is well below the density of the
County General Plan and within the
City's range of density.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela said that a question arose
on other projects in the City and that
a comparison of density had been made
between the Stonegate hilly project
and this project and determined tha~
this project was between a half and
a third the density of Stonegate.
He said that a comparison had also
been made between the condos at the
corner of Hillside and Bayshore and that
those at Skyline Village appeared to be
17 units per acre.
Councilman Acosta said that in Mr. Dean's
presentation the figure of 12 units per
acre had been mentioned and that he
did not recall hearing of a 17 unit
figure.
Mr. Dowling stated that the discrepancy
comes from the encompassing area that is
9/24/81
Page 2
1. Continued Public Hearing.
(TF-184)
taken to calculate the units within.
Mr. David Hale said that the area
that the County calculated at 17
units per acre came from the 6
acres shown for 102 condominiums,
which is the promontory between the
hotel and the townhouses.
Mr. Dowling went into a elaborate
description of the method that was
used to calculate the units and used
maps to give graphic demonstration.
A discussion followed on the various
methods of density calculation and
whether the designated open space
on Sign Hill had been considered in
the calculations.
Supervisor Speier stated that she
lived in Stonegate and was concerned
that the units were only a quarter
full in terms of occupancy. She
asked the Director of Community
Development to explain what he meant
in saying that Stonegate was two to
three times more dense than the
fingers shown on the Dean Project.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that Stonegate was
a 60.1 acre project with 418 units,
which divides out to 7 units per acre.
He said that when he compared that
with this particular project he was
using 230 acres, which was a combin-
ation of developed area and sloped
area, and dividing that by the 745
units which was proposed. He said
that net densities had been done
including open areas on four phases.
Vice Mayor Teglia expressed concern
that the condos and terraced townhouses,
the units themselves, appear to be
very dense.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela said that a.%..th~
Specific Plan stage -~ the grading
plans it would then be easier to
look at density, like the space
between buildings and the useable
9/24/81
Page 3
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
1. Continued Public Hearing.
open space. He continued, that the
plan had a great deal of detail but
until there were scale drawings where
the specific grading plan and building
plan can be seen only then can there be
a generalization and the density
lowered.
Vice Mayor Teglia said that she wanted
to go on record stating the concern of
the density and have the Developer
address the problem.
Mr. Dean said that the design is
economics and that he had started with
900 plus units but that had been scaled
to 745 units. He said that on the
promontory he had about 10.9 per acre
and he did not feel that was highly
dense. He said that there was a lot
of fine tuning to be done on the plan
and the density could be changed.
Councilman Acosta said that the Task
Force had dealt with the Concept Plan
and not in specifics and that the two
bodies were considering the concept
plan and that other considerations
would be given when the Specific Plan
stage was addressed.
Vice Mayor Teglia expressed concern
with the wall being considered on
the promontory in that Stonegate also
had retaining walls and it was not
an attractive sight.
Mr. Dowling said he had not tried to
create high density and had tried
to make it attractive to young people
with planted space. He described in
detail the series of terraces within
the clusters.
Further discussion ~ollowed on some
guidelines to be established so that
another Stonegate would not be esta-
blished.
Supervisor Schumacher said that the
issue was units because some areas
that were quite dense, like the Marina,
were quite desireable.
9/24/81
Page 4
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
1. Continued Public Hearing.
(TF-568)
(TF-419)
A discussion followed on the various
densities of different projects in
South San Francisco; the concept of
density versus the amenities of the
design and the living conditions;
heavy density impacting the quality
of life, etc.
Mr. David Hale stated that he was very
impressed with the overall design
by the designer and thought it would
preserve the integrity of the
mountain.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela,in response to Vice Mayor
Teglia;described in detail the
elevation of the houses in relation
to Hillside Boulevard.
Mr. David Hale next addressed the
question of open space and what would
be done to ensure that the general
area would be preserved as open space.
He stated that the intent was that it
would be maintained as open space
but that the mechanism for managing
the open space had not been worked
out. He said that the County was
presently responsible for the mainten-
ance of the mountain, which was pri-
marily for fire protection.
A discussion followed on the ground
covering to be used for fire breaks
and maintenance, fire resistant green
belts being planted, etc.
Mr. David Hale stated that the next
question was the cost of the Hillside
extension and the assumption that
the inflation factors had not been
considered. He traced the history
of the cost factor from 1975 to the
present which was now estimated to
be $3,000,000 and that figure did not
include signals and lights.
A discussion followed on the what the
additional figure would be to include
the signals and lights; the concern
of the citizens backing out of their
driveways onto Hillside on the south
side and thought that could be
9/24/81
Page 5
AGENDA
Continued Public Hearing.
(TF-736)
(TF-760)
ACTION TAKEN
included in the extension.
Supervisor Bacciocco said that when
the Task Force met the importance
of having a frontage road was discussed,
the question of who was going to
pay for the road had not been
resolved.
Mr. Eppler stated that the extension
of the road was through County land
and that the plan had been agreed
upon and addressed by Mr. Dean and
the County. He stated that this
did not address that piece of Hillside
Boulevard that is presently developed.
He stated that the Developer in
responding to the concern of backing
out of driveways had had a preliminary
study of what could be done and said
that a parallel frontage road could
be done. He continued, that identi-
fying the cost had not been done,
however he thought that if the project
was developed in South San Francisco
that this could be made a condition
in the specific plan process by the
City Public Works Staff.
Councilman Damonte spoke of a plan
of extending Hickey Boulevard to
Hillside and whether that would
affect traffic congestion on Hillside.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela said that before a
Specific Plan is proposed or concurrent
with the Specific Plan a full scale
E.I.R. will have to be done together
with a comprehensive traffic study.
Mayor Nicolopulos asked why Brisbane
was not included in the traffic study.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela said that Brisbane had
been given a copy of the concept plan
map, however a response had not been
received. He said that the traffic
9/24/81
Page 6
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
1. Continued Public Hearing.
portion was done in the specific
plan stage and that adjoining affected
communities would have input at
that time.
City Manager Birkelo said that when
the Council granted Brisbane extra-
territorial jurisdiction to establish
the assessment district on Sierra
Point, that Brisbane had agreed to
relinquish their interest in the
right-of-way to Old Bayshore Road to
South San Francisco.
Mr. Butler raised a point of order
and asked if the audience could
respond to the testimony being given.
Chairman Ward said that the public
testimony portion of the meeting
had been closed, however when the
two bodies were on the question
the public would have an opportunity
to speak.
Mr. David Hale said that the question
that was raised on the landscaping
and maintenance costs was premature
unless the Developer wanted to
address that question at this time.
He responded to the question on
drainage and run-off and that the
interior road system would channel
all the drainage for the entire slope
away from Colma Creek. He said the
drainage from the South Slope would
be taken off to the east and drained
to the Bay which would have an over-
all positive effect.
Mr. Eppler said that the design
parameters used to come up with the
preliminary designs were based on
design standard of San Mateo County
that call for minor channels or
storm drain and are defined as water
sheds less than one square mile to
be based on a ten year storm design
9/24/81
Page 7
1. Continued Public Hearing.
(TF-993)
average standard. He spoke in detail
of the elevation of the pipes and
said that they could adequately
handle more than a 50 year design
standard under a pressurized condition.
Mayor Nicolopulos asked that the
question on the spongy areas of the
mountain be addressed.
Mr. David Hale said that the spongy
areas were those that were presently
built below the development.
The site itself is not a spongy area
as evidenced by the dryness and that
the specific design would incorporate
a system of subdrains that would
intercept water coming from the hill
and would alleviate some of the
problems of the existing homes that
are down slope of the development.
He said that if the project proceeds
under the City's jurisdiction that
the Public Works Department has a
requirement for silt basins to be
constructed to trap silt during
the construction period and that
with the completion of the project
that water would be going into the
Bay rather than Colma Creek.
A discussion followed on the control
by the B.C.D.C. and the Regional
Water Quality and title effects.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela said that City Manager
Birkelo would address the question
of whether or not the fiscal impact
study presented true service costs.
He said that the second issue dealt
with passage of the Initiative and if it
would preclude development from taking
place on the mountain.
Supervisor Schumacher said that there
were two issues: l) The Concept Plan
that was being addressed by both
bodies; and 2) If the Initiative
passes what the Board of Supervisors
plans would be.
9/24/81
Page 8
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
1. Continued Public Hearing.
RECESS: (TF-1034)
RECALL TO ORDER:
(TF-1163)
(TF-1400)
Chairman Ward suggested that the
feasibility analysis be presented
as to whether or not the County
has the capacity to provide services
and how it would provide those
services.
Chairman Ward declared a recess at
8:48 p.m.
Chairman Ward recalled the meeting
to order at 9:05 p.m., all Council
and Board members in attendance.
Vice Mayor Teglia spoke of the
recreational facility as proposed
by Mr. Dean and strongly urged that
a 50 meter pool be built to accomo-
date the need by this City and the
County for an aquatic competitive
pool.
Mr. Dean said that if the City felt
the 50 meter pool should be a
condition for approval then he most
certainly would consider the 50
meter pool.
Councilman Addiego expressed concern
that with all the recreational
facilities being offered there were
only 31 parking spaced slotted.
A discussion followed on the impact
on the schools from the project on
registration; the potential vandalism
in the recreational facility and
whether this would be minimized
because of the proximity to the
new fire house; whether the term
fully equipped fire house would
include a generator; will the
property taxes collected from the
development after Proposition 13
is applied, provide for services
at the same level that they are
being provided now in the City, etc.
Vice Mayor Teglia expressed concern
at the proposed office buildings
and asked flexibility be reserved
for the possibility of more hotels
in light of other office developments.
9/24/81
Page 9
COMMENTS RELATING TO
ALTERNATIVE FISCAL SCENARIO
PRESENTED BY MR. BUTLER.
~tr. Butler's scenario suggests that the Fiscal Impact Study projected revenues
($750~000) should be reduced by the Hotel Tax component ($280,000) to produce a
"true revenue" of $470,000. This is based upon the premise that the hotel develop-
ment is speculative in nature.
It also suggests that the "true cost" of development is the total recommended expen-
ditures by some departments who view the incremental expansion of the community as
an opportunity to provide service to the new area and improve services to adjacent
areas (and, in some cases, to the entire community). It, therefore, concludes that
the "true development costs" are about $588,000 and~further concludes that the
$118,'000 difference in the revenue and expenditure figures would make the South Slope
Development proposal "less than cost effective."
This scenario overlooks several significant considerations:
The Fiscal Study draws very conservative conclusions concerning the City/ County
~fiscal agreement required to impl~ement any annexation (II.6). Given the substan-
tial road mantenance costs associated with the County's share of Hillside Boule-
vard Extension which would be transferred to the City upon annexation, it is
quite possible that $40,000 to $50,000 in added revenue could be secured for
that purpose. Likewise, the study does not anticipate gas tax subvention
increased arising out of the recently-enacted SB 215 (Foran) which will become
e~TeC~lve in1983.
The Fiscal Study does not make any comments on another negotiated matter between
the City and County. Staff discussions have indicated that the County might be
asked to share in the speculative aspects of the potential Hotel Tax Revenue
by trading added front-end Property Tax Revenue to the City for some share of
the T.O.T. when realized. No exact estimate of such possibilities can be made
at this.time.
if no hotel is eventually built in the development, some revenue estimated should
~h~ alternate commercial use which would occupy the site.
be made to,reflect ~ ~
$!5,000 in Sales Tax Revenue would be a conservative estimate for this purpose.
The scenario assumes that the City Council will have to accede to department
desires, to improve service levels outside of the project area at the same time
+~-+~,~ they are instituted for the new area. In reality, the City can regulate
most of its expenditures to roughly correspond to available revenues. For
example, it must be conceded that four patrolmen could provide a better-than-
average level of police protection to the South Slope for a cost of approximately
$165,000. Likewise, the legislative body could reduce conservative street and
park maintenance costs, given the realities of the budgetary process -
(90% x $183,000 : $165,000)
9/24/81
Page 9a'
ALTERNATIVE'SCENARIO NO. I1
(WithoUt HOtel)
Total EStimated Revenue
Less Hotel Tax
Plus Fiscal Agreement
Plus Hotel Replacement Revenue
TOTAL Estimated Revenue
$750,000
28o,oo~
470,000
40,000
15~000
$525,o0o
Total Estimated ExpenditUres
Police' (4 Officers) (64%)
Fire (100%)
Roads
P/R (90%)
General (100%)
$165,000
140,000
84,000
81,000
lO,O00
$480,000
~u=u.ted from Fiscal Report
9/24/81
Page 9b
A PROBABLE SCENARIO (Without Hotel)
'REVENUE
South Slope
Other Sources
$525,000 = 88.5%
68,000 = 11.'5%
$593,000 100
Police
Fire *
Roads
P/R
General
EXPENDITURE
South Slope
$116,000
140,000
49,000
60,000
10,000
$375,000
63%
Other Areas
$144,000
44,000
30,000
0
$218,000
37%
Total
$260,000
140,000
93,000
90,000
10,000
$593,000
100%
9/35/81
Page 9c
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
1. Continued Public Hearing.
(TF-1830)
(TF-OO1 Side 2)
(TF-202)
A discussion followed:revenue from
hotels; occupancy levels being down;
the need for additional office space;
revenue from utilization of office
space; the progress of the general
plan update and the land use element,
etc.
Mr. Recht rebutted the alternative
fiscal scenario on revenues antici-
pated for the project and the
additional service costs.
City Manager Birkelo made comments
from a report relating to the alter-
native fiscal scenario that was
presented by Mr. Butler. He spoke
of the total estimated revenue and
total estimated expenditures with
and without a hotel. (The report
is attached as an official part of
the minutes). He concluded by saying
that the construction of a hotel
with tax revenues is not required to
ensure to the City that expenditures
required to provide adequate services
to the South Slope need not exceed
the revenues generated by the
development itself.
A discussion followed on how many
more officers would be on the street
at any given time; the ratio of the
patrol officers to the population;
the additional officers that would
be needed for the Homart Project, etc.
Chairman Ward asked that Section 2
of the fiscal analysis be discussed.
Councilman Addiego asked if the Board
of Supervisors would insist on low
and moderate income housing subsidies
in the South Slope development which
would lower assessed values.
Mr. Koenig, Director of Environmental
Management, said that the intent of
the policy is that the 20% would be
provided if Federal programs were
available. He said Federal money was
not available at this time and that
there was no money being provided for
the construction of affordable housing
9/24/81
Page 10
AGENDA
1. Continued Public Hearing.
(TF-441)
ACTION TAKEN
but there was money for rent subsidy.
He said the requirement did not have
to be hard and fast and could be
negotiated.
Vice Mayor Teglia stated that if
this was not available it should not
be included in the document and felt
it was a matter for decision by the
Council, not the County.
Supervisor Speier stated that if
the property is annexed to South San
Francisco the County would not have
jurisdiction to impose any of its
Ordinances upon the City.
Consensus of the Board - The Board
would not impose inclusionary zoning
in regards to this Project if annexed
to South San Francisco.
Discussion followed on the real
property transfer tax being $1.10 @
$1,000; added revenue from sewer
hookups; probable passage of the
Foran Bill increasing gas tax
revenue; the projection of sales
and use tax revenue being based
on full occupancy in the project;
debt service fund, fire engine
response time and proximity to
other stations, etc.
Chairman Ward asked Mr. Gellert to
explain the cost benefit for County
development, maintenance and operation.
Mr. Gellert gave an in-depth analysis
of the costs entailed if the County
was forced to take over the project
by providing services. He concluded
by saying that with the hotel it
would be simple to accommodate the
project and without the hotel the
County would have a number of options
and the County would have the capacity
to meet the needs of the project.
9/24/81
Page 11
AGENDA
1. Continued Public Hearing.
(TF-642)
(TF-700)
ACTION TAKEN
Chairman Ward said that the County
had an $11,000,000 investment in
San Bruno Mountain, in terms of
public Ownership that must be
protected. He stated concern in
the need for adequate fire protection
to protect this resource.
A discussion followed to the effect
that if the County developed the
project there would not be funds
to set aside for park and recreation;
greater density if the project is
developed by the County; fiscal
impact and financial feasibility in
the collection of taxes; grant monies
used to build the sewage treatment
plant - could that force the City
to provide sewer services to the
County developed project; library
services being provided through the
County program, etc.
Chairman Ward said that this project
could not be severed from the total
picture on San Bruno Mountain. He
said that he had been a part of the
3 to 2 vote that cut the overall
density by two-thirds and put the
saddle into open space. He said
that he was committed to carrying
out.the General Plan Amendment to
protect the open space and was
prepared to support the Concept Plan
and the development. He said it
was preferred that the City be the
lead agency and retain control, since
any development on the Slope would
affect South San Francisco.
Supervisor Schumacher said that he
was impressed with the proposal and
that the concept was quite attractive.
He said that if the County took it
over he would be sorry to see the
loss of a swimming pool and increased
density - however if necessary he
would go ahead with the project.
Chairman Ward said the County had
resisted many requests from cities
for the County to provide parks
in unincorporated areas.
9/24/81
Page 12
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
I. Continued Public Hearing.
(TF-769)
Mayor Nicolopulos asked for an
explanation of Mr. Eubanks statement
regarding the mandate for development.
Mr. David Byers, Deputy District
Attorney, said that land held in
private use has certain development
rights and the only way to preclude
development is to purchase land.
He said that the County has a General
Plan for this particular area which
would allow 985 housing units and
that when a subdivision and zoning
was processed it should be in con-
formity with the General Plan. He
said that the Board of Supervisors
had the authority for the approval
of subdivisions and was obligated
to initiate the proceedings of the
development.
Chairman Ward asked the host city
to proceed and stated that if any
action was taken it must be taken
separately.
Councilman Acosta said that a lot
of testimony had been heard from
the public and staff and that it
is of paramount importance that
the citizens know what is going to
take. place on October 6th and the
ramifications. He said that he was
going to make the motion that the
City of South San Francisco adopt the
Concept Plan and its seven findings.
He said that concern had been
expressed:the hotel versus an office
structure, in-lieu fees in place of
a swimming pool, a parimeter road,
fully equipped fire station, study
the parking in relation to the
recreation center, that perhaps
Council would like to add to the
motion.
M/S Acosta/Damonte - To adopt the
Concept Plan and its seven findings.
Councilman Addiego stated that if
it was the will of the Council to
approve the Concept Plan he wanted
9/24/81
Page 13
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
1. Continued Public Hearing.
(TF-954)
to make the plan as good as possible
and made the following observations:
1) the neighborhood retail/commercial
area was included by the County but
was not in the plan - feels it is not
consistent; 2) uses along Bayshore
are not consistent with the City's
General Plan; 3) feels that the
degradation of the mountain near
habitation was endangering open space;
4) the range of house prices do not
serve the needs of future project
office workers; 5) if the development
was compatible with the land use that
2,000 people would change that com-
patibility; 6) active and passive
recreational needs are not being
ensured~ 7) negative impact of the
project is unknown and the concepts
are premature. He suggested that
Council drop the findings and in their
stead consider all of the mountain,
including Juncus Ravine as mentioned
by Ellie Larsen, in the Concept Plan.
He further believes the findings are
unsubstantial. He said that do to
the many questions on the commercial uses
of the hotel he would like to see that
precede the residential development.
He said he viewed himself as an
environmentalist and a conservationist
and could not agree with a Concept Plan
that takes away an existing resource
for future generations and develops
it instead of keeping it as open space.
Chairman Ward said that even with the
development,two-thirds of the mountain
would be left in open space. He
asked if the findings needed to be
adopted at the Concept Plan stage.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela said that the findings
had been made by the South San
Francisco Planning Commission because
they believed they were valid. He
believed it was a good idea to adopt
findings provided that the bodies
believed the findings were valid.
Vice Mayor Teglia questioned joint
staff on the seven findings at
length and why the findings were
9/24/81
Page 14
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
1. Continued Public Hearing.
attached to the Concept Plan rather
than the Specific Plan. She suggested
that Councilman Acosta amend his motion
to only include findings 2, the first
half of number 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Motion and Second were withdrawn from
consideration.
M/S Acosta/Damonte - To approve the
Concept Plan with the following conditions:
1) That the development proposal indicated
on the Concept Plan is generally con-
sistent with South San Francisco's
General Plan adopted in 1969 and/or
development goals expressed by the City;
2) That the development proposal would
permanently preserve additional open
space on San Bruno Mountain~ 3) That
the housing which is proposed on the
Concept Plan is necessary to serve the
needs of workers in the South San
Francisco Gateway Redevelopment Project,
the Sierra Point Office/Industrial Park
Complex, and other existing and future
employment centers in both the City and
County; 4) That the development proposal
is compatible with and will not adversely
affect properties and land uses in the
surrounding area; 5) That active and
passive recreation needs of residents
of the City will be enhanced by the
park and open space proposals contained
in the Concept Plan. Further conditions:
1) Flexibility on a swimming pool agree-
ment for in-lieu gift; 2) A fully
equipped fire station; 3) A frontage
road; 4) Flexibility of the bowl in
regards to the hotel or office complex;
5) Total picture of the mountain should
include Juncus Ravine if there are any
options to purchase or there is an
intent to develop.
Councilman Addiego said he did not
believe the City had control over the
project from the inception of the
Task Force and the subsequent meetings.
He said that Supervisor Bacciocco
had commented early on, which was
tonight reiterated by the Board, that
if the City did not want control of
the project then the County was prepared
to take over the project. He compared
9/24/81
Page 15
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN SS
1. Continued Public Hearing.
(TF-1134)
(TF-1233)
the proposed Slope annexation with the
Westborough annexation and the result-
ant problems on Olympic Drive which
the County had refused to be a party
to any responsibility in the matter.
Mayor Nicolopulos invited anyone who
wished to speak on the matter to
step to the dais.
Ms. Jane Lee, 1321 Hillside Blvd.,
said that the issue of local control
was being taken on by the County
which she did not believe was correct.
She said she did not think the Board
had the right to state before any
further study was done~and it was
clearly stated~that there was no
foundation for it and yet Mr. Schumacher
and Mr. Ward had already stated what
their vote would be.
Supervisor Schumacher said it was the
Board's duty to inform the voters
before the election of what would
happen if the initiative passes.
Chairman Ward stated that he had voted
on the General Plan Amendment in 1976
and that before the Specific Plan was
approved that the issues of density
and other items of concern would be
addressed.
Ms. Lee said she hoped that Juncus
Ravine would be included for considera-
tion of the Specific Plan.
Mr. Butler stated that he was happy
with the 1976 vote for open space but
sorry that South Slope had not been
included in the vote as open space. He
spoke of the LAFCO report that stated
residential development did not pay
its own way and spoke of the resultant
hiring of extra police and required
sewer hook-ups.
Mr. A1 Savery, 6 Iris Court, said that in
earlier meetings with the Joint
Planning Commissions he had asked if
the County would push the development
if it was not annexed to the City -
the Planning Commissions said no the
9/24/81
Page 16
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
1. Continued Public Hearing.
(TF-1436)
County would not.
Chairman Ward said that the County's
Planning Commission is appointed from
Supervisorial Districts by the Board
and is advisory only to the Board.
Mr. A1 Savory said the citizens depend
on the advisors of the County when
at a public meeting to give accurate
information.
Mr. David Hale said that the discussions
involved comments from a few individual
commissioners without a consensus.
Mr. Savory said that the citizens
had worked hard on the initiative and it
appeared the Board of Supervisors had
been considering developing the project
for a long time without informing the
citizens.
Mr. Gellert said that the figures
derived for services and revenue had
been developed in a week's time.
Councilman Acosta called for a point
of order and called for a vote on
the Motion and Second.
Carried by majority voice vote,
Councilman Addiego voted no.
M/S Schumacher/Bacciocco - To approve
the Concept Plan and find that it is
consistent with the General Plan
Amendment of 1976 and accept finding
number one only of the seven conditions;
and accept the five condions as con-
tained in the Council motion.
Supervisor Speier read notes she had
made by Mr. Savory at a Task Force
meeting saying that an E.I.R. and a
financial impact study should be
begun immediately because it was
important to know the figures. She
said the citizens should know that
the report had been done in compliance
with a citizen's request for information.
9/24/81
Page 17
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
1. Continued Public Hearing.
She said she would support the
Concept Plan because in her opinion
it was a very well thought out plan.
She said her vote did not commit her
on the Specific Plan at some other
point in time until she felt that the
problems with traffic, density and
other issues were resolved. She
said that by judicial decision, case
after case brought before the courts
have held that local government
entities have the obligation not to
arbitrarily or capriciously refuse
to provide services to a specific
location. She said under no circum-
stances does she want to see this
property developed under County
auspices and that local control was
a benchmark and the inequities that
would result from the division of
South San Francisco and the County
service area along Hillside Boulevard
would be severe. The Initiative
would prevent City services to the
project but would not prevent devel-
opment. She spoke in-depth of the
legal ramifications of down-zoning
of land and inverse condemnation.
Supervisor Bacciocco said that five
years ago the land owner had proposed
to have 2,500 units on the South
Slope, the Board decided to have
60% less units. He said that now the
project is recommended at 25% of
what had originally been proposed and
he felt that Juncus Ravine should
remain as open space. He related
that Visitation Associates could
retain ownership of the land if the
project failed and try again with a
new project before a new Board of
Supervisors and have the General Plan
Amendment over turned. He spoke in
detail of the Specific Plan phases
and resolving the funding of the
frontage road. He said should the
project proceed to the Specific Plan
stage he would work with the citizens
to improve the project and make it
a community project.
9/24/81
Page 18
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
1. Continued Public Hearing.
ADJOURNMENT:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Carried by unanimous roll call vote
by the Board of Supervisors.
Vice Mayor Teglia asked Mr. Dean
if he would have his public relations
firm reflect the modifications to
the citizens.
M/S Damonte/Acosta - To adjourn the
meeting.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Speier/Schumacher - To adjourn
the meeting.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at
12:10 a.m.
APPROVED:
· Barbara A. Batta~rk
City of South San Francisco
Gus Nicolopulo%, 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 tape and documents related to the items are on file in the office of
the City Clerk and are available for inspection, review and copying.
9/24/81
Page 19