Loading...
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