Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1982-11-15Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia Vice Mayor Mark N. Addiego Council: Ronald G. Acosta Emanuele N. Damonte Gus Nicolopulos M I N U T E S CITY COUNCIL Municipal Services Building Community Room November 15, 1982 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of California, that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Monday, the 15th day of November, 1982, at 7:00 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Public Hearinq - Federal Section 10(a) in relation to Habitat Conservation Plan for San Bruno Mountain - continued from the 9/15/82, 10/6/82, 10/20/82, 10/27/82 and 11/3/82 meetings Staff Report 11/15/82 recommending: l) Resume Public Hearing and hear evidence and close the Hearing; 2) Adopt a Resolution to authorize execution of an Agreement; 3) Adopt a Resolution to execute and submit an application to the Department of Interior. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN AREA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Dated: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF LICENSE/PERMIT APPLICATION TO DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO TAKE MISSION BLUE AND SAN BRUNO ELFIN BUTTERFLIES AND SAN FRANCISCO GARTER SNAKES ~oberta. C'~rri Tegl~a~Mayor~'M~yor C~ty of South San Francisco November 4, 1982 A G E N D A SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ACTION TAKEN SPECIAL MEETING 7:12 p.m. Mayor Teglia presiding. Council present: Acosta, Nicolopulos, Addiego, Damonte and Teglia. Council absent: None. Recited. 11/15/83 Page 1 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Public Hearing - Federal Section 10(a) in relation to Habitat Con- servation Plan for San Bruno Mountain - continued from the 9/15/82, 10/6/82, 10/20/82, 10/27/82 and 11/3/82 meetings. Staff Report 11/15/82 recommending: l) Resume Public Hearing and hear evidence and close the Hearing; 2) Adoption of a Resolution to authorize execution of an Agreement; 3) Adoption of a Resolution to execute and submit an application to the Department of Interior. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN AREA HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF LICENSE/PERMIT APPLICATION TO DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO TAKE MISSION BLUE AND SAN BRUNO ELFIN BUTTERFLIES AND SAN FRANCISCO GARTER SNAKES Mayor Teglia resumed the Public Hearing and asked if there was further testimony from Staff. City Manager Birkelo requested that Council move on the recommendations in the Staff Report and that Mr. Reid, who prepared the EIR, and the City Attorney were present to answer any further questions, City Attorney Rogers stated that the main problem with the agreement had been the enforcement provision whereby third parties were not authorized to enforce the agreement. He stated that the cities involved now agreed that third parties could enforce the agreement and that it was stated in six or seven different ways that cities were not allowed to be sued. He stated that he was satisfied that all protection measures had been utilized in the agreement for the protection of the parties involved. Mayor Teglia closed the Public Hearing. M/S Acosta/Damonte - To adopt the Resolution. Vice Mayor Addiego questioned if the initial document under "Third Party Enforcement" allowed the third party to sue for a compliance of any of the signatories to the document. City Attorney Rogers stated that yes, it specifically said that there were third party beneficiaries that could enforce the agreement by litigation. Vice Mayor Addiego stated that the document had then been rewritten by the City Attornies of Daly City, Brisbane and South San Francisco which deleted all rights for third parties from the agreement. City Attorney Rogers stated that he had been concerned about the third party beneficiary clause and that 11/15/83 Page 2 AGENDA 1. Public Hearing - Continued. ACTION TAKEN was the reason the forty-seven page document was very detailed on the responsibilities the various agencies and individuals have in this plan. He continued, individuals have the right to sue if there is a violation of the endangered species act and that the agreement had been rewritten to protect against nuisance suits. He stated that it was important to the County for this agreement to be finalized even if it exposed the County to possible litigation through nuisance suits. He spoke in detail of the work Tom Adams, Esq. had done with the major environmental nation- wide groups to address their concerns. Vice Mayor Addiego spoke in detail of the operation of the conserved habitat technical advisory committee, composed of representatives from each of the bodies involved in the agree- ment, and questioned who had hired the plant operator. City Attorney Rogers stated that the plant operator was San Mateo County, who in turn would hire a technician to operate the plant. Vice Mayor Addiego questioned: the additional endangered species that might be found in the future on the mountain; mitigation measures to be taken by land owners; grading within three hundred feet of boundaries before fencing is erected; who was to pay for the fencing; interim funding by landowners being approximately $50,000 per year; whether this was an arbitrary amount of money to be assessed against the land owners; in-kind support; why there were three consultants to assess the biological survey; why the survey did not encompass more than one year. He stated that he would vote no on the Resolution because there was a real possibility that the facts were distorted, as there appeared to be a manipulation of the endangered species act because of the limit of the study. 11 / 15/83 Page 3 AGENDA 1. Public Hearing - Continued. ADJOURNMENT: ACTION TAKEN Mr. Tom Reid, San Mateo County Consult- ant, stated that he had performed a biological study and had assisted in the preparation of the Habitat Conser- vation Plan. He stated that at the request of the Fish and Wild Life Services, California Department of Fish and Game and the County three scientists had been asked to review and assess the biological study. He continued, biological systems are extremely complicated and there are fluctuations from year to year. He stated that the study in 1980-81 had been of the Callippe Butterfly and that a further study had been done in 1982, however it had been done on a more limited scale then observed previously. He stated that the fog and the wind on the mountain tended to act as a buffer in environmental changes and it consequently would not have the same extreme fluctuations of conditions. He stated that a great deal of time had been expended in looking at the biological and land use issues on the Mountain. RESOLUTION NO. 139-82 Carried by majority roll call vote, Addiego voted no. Board of Supervisors Chairman Ward stated that the there would be a Closed Session for the discussion of litigation for the Board of Supervisors before the start of the Joint Meeting with the City Council. M/S Acosta/Damonte - To adopt the Resolution for Application to the Department of Interior. RESOLUTION NO. 140-82 Carried by majority roll call vote, Addiego voted no. M/S Acosta/Admonte - That the meeting be adjourned. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment 7:46 p.m. 11/15/83 Page 4 ^GEND^ ^CT ON T^KEU RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, a ~~ ttaya, City ~erk City of South San Francisco APPROVED: '~9~berta Cerri Teglia, 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. ]]/]5/83 Page 5 Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia Vice Mayor Mark N. Addiego Council: Ronald G. Acosta Emanuele N. Damonte Gus Nicolopulos MINUTES CITY COUNCIL Municipal Services Building Community Room November 15, 1982 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Government Code 54956 of the State of California, that the South San Francisco City Council and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors will hold a Joint Special Meeting on Monday, the 15th day of November, 1982, at 7:30 p.m., in the Community Room of the Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting a Public Hearing: 1. To consider adoption of the Terrabay Specific Plan for the lower southeastern slopes of San Bruno Mountain. Dated: Consider proposed prezoning of the property hereinafter described, and amendment of Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, entitled "Zoning" and of Zoning Ordinance No. 353, as amended, in particular Sections 2.1 and 2.2 thereof. (Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District - Proposed Prezoning of Cross Hatched Area to Terrabay Specific Plan District). R~berta. Cerri Teglia,. M~Ky. oror City of South San Francisco November 1, 1982 AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette 1) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ACTION TAKEN SPECIAL MEETING 8:05 p.m. Mayor Teglia presiding. Council present: Acosta, Nicolopulos, Addiego, Damonte and Teglia. Council absent: None. Supervisors present: Speier, Ward, Schumacher and Gregorio. Supervisors absent: Bacciocco. Vice Chairman Gregorio explained that Chairman Bacciocco was in the hospital in San Francisco and would remain there for several more days. Recited. 11/1 5/82 Page 1 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN To consider adoption of the Terrabay Specific Plan for the lower south- eastern slopes of San Bruno Mountain. Consider proposed prezoning of the property hereinafter described, and amendment of Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, entitled "Zoning" and of Zoning Ordinance No. 353, as amended, in particular Sections 2.1 and 2.2 thereof. (Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District - Proposed Prezoning of Cross Hatched Area to Terrabay Specific Plan District). Mayor Teglia opened the Public Hearing on the Specific Plan, the EIR and Prezoning combined Public Hearing with the Board of Supervisors. Vice Chairman Gregorio stated that the Board of Supervisors also opened the combined Public Hearing. Director of Community Development Dell'Angela stated that he would make initial comments and recommendations from his staff report and then David Hale, San Mateo County Planning Director, would give the County Staff's comments and recommendations. He stated that this would be followed by a brief slide presentation which outlines the Concept Plan and then discuss the EIR with Doug Donaldson, EIR Consultant, to summarize the overall project impacts and the mitigation measures that are being recommended. He stated that those areas dealing with economic impacts, traffic impacts and geotechnic impacts he would like the three consultants to discuss. He suggested that at that point Council and the Board might wish to question Staff and the Consul- tants in terms of specifics on the project and the EIR - then have a break and then public testimony. He stated that at the 10/28/82 joint meeting of the South San Francisco and San Mateo County Planning Commissions they adopted Resolutions recommending approval of the Specific Plan. He stated that the County Planning Commission approved the Environmental Impact Report and the City Planning Commission adopted a Resolution approving the Prezoning. He stated that the recommendation to Council was to adopt a Resolution approving the Terrabay Specific Plan subject to the forty-three amendments contained in the staff report and subject to the seven findings contained i the staff report. He stated that both Commissions approved the Specific Plan with the same forty-three amendments and that the only issue where the two 11/15/82 Page 2 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN To consider adoption of the Terrabay Specific Plan - Continued. Consider proposed prezoning - Continued. Commissions differed was in the forty- fourth amendment dealing with affordable housing. He stated that after the Public Hearing the recommendation was that the Board of Supervisors certifY the final EIR, the City Council then approve the Specific Plan~ the Board then approve the Specific Plan and then that the Council continue action on the Prezoning to the 12/15/82 meeting based on the need for continued Staff and the City Attorney to prepare the final Prezoning Ordinance for Council consideration. County Planning Director David Hale stated that the City and County staff were in agreement, however the recommendation from County Staff was approval by Resolution which had been drafted for Board approval. He stated that there was a list of amendments to the Specific Plan as presented by the Applicant and that if he referred to them as conditions of approval it was essentially the same thing except for the added condition by the County for affordable housing Mr. Doug Dahlin, Project Architect and Land Planner for W. W. Dean, and Mr. Bob Eppler, Engineer gave a slide presentation of the Project and spoke in detail of the Concept and Specific Plan area by area; changes in road configuration; modification to the recreation center; changing the pool from twenty-five meters to twenty- five yards; enlarging the parking; technology trade center; sizes of the townhouses; child care center, common recreational facilities; geology soils during the Project phases; subsurface drainage system; water tank for the water system; landscaping; cluster development; roads and minimum street standards; proposed Hillside Boulevard extension; traffic buffer zone, etc. 11/15/82 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN e To consider adoption of the Terrabay Specific Plan - Continued. Consider proposed prezoning - Continued. Mr. Doug Donaldson, Environmental Impact Planning Corporation, stated that the EIR process started last February in a scoping meeting, which was a public meeting to identify key issues to be brought to the attention of people that would draft the EIR. He stated that the concerns that came up in that meeting were: geology, hydrology drainage and concerns regarding traffic. He stated that the EIR had been published in draft form last August and circulated to State and Local Agencies and that two public hearings had been held with the Planning Commissions of the Agencies. He stated that comments had been heard from citizens at those meetings which had been responded to both verbally and in writing. He stated that the EIR dealt with the Project as it now stands to the General Plan Amendment of San Mateo County, the South San Francisco General Plan and the Habitat Conservation Plan. He stated that in the areas of impacts the visual impact would be the first in the EIR on the regional scale and the local scale. He stated that the most visible impacts would be in the commercial areas on US 101 and the point on the promontory above US 101 and I280 and would represent a very large change in the lower slope of San Bruno Mountain. He spoke of mitigation measures that were recommended in local designs in roof issues and facades of buildings which had been adopted by the Developer and had been made conditions by the Planning Commission. He spoke in detail of geology and hydrology, slope instability; air quality; land use change; that the project would aid in the current housing demands; the vegetation and wildlife uses were tied in with the Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation measures; police, fire and school services; recreational facilities; the Project would not be a contributor to noise levels; wind and climate had been assessed; traffic impacts; the alternative section with the four alternatives, etc. 11/15/82 Page 4 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN To consider adoption of the Terrabay Specific Plan - Continued. Consider proposed prezoning - Continued. Mr. Richard Recht, Recht Hausrath & Associates, stated that his firm had prepared a study of the problems, if the Project should impose additional service costs upon the City in the future. He stated that the Police worked out of a central station and had indicated that there would not be anything but insignificant expenses to service the Project. He stated that the Fire Department had indicated that there should be a fire station located on Hillside Boulevard to provide access to the development. He stated that there was an agreement between the County and the Developer to improve Hillside Boulevard and that the interior roads would be maintained by the homeowners association. He stated that the Developer had agreed to build a water runoff system as a mitigation measure. He spoke of the $600,000 new revenue to the City from the Hotel Occupancy Tax from the projected 400 room hotel and Technical Center, in addition to the new property tax revenue, etc. Mr. Jurgen Recht, Recht Hausrath & Associates, spoke of the traffic impacts: Hillside Boulevard Extension; the buffer zone at Hillside; hook ramp at Airport Boulevard; pedestrian crossings and paths; flexible work hours; car pools, etc. Mr. Peter Chan addressed the geotech- nical impacts of the Project; soils research, trenching, geology - cut and fill to correct future landslides - proper compaction - siltation and catch basens to mitigate problems, etc. Director of Community Development Dell'Angela, that within the Staff Report was a list of issues, thirty- seven exhibits, raised at prior meetings by the public which had been addressed by Staff. He stated that Amendment 4 established the requirement of a development agreement would have 11/15/82 Page 5 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 1. To consider adoption of the Terrabay Specific Plan - Continued. 2. Consider proposed prezoning - Continued. to be entered into by the Developer and the City Council to control the billed out schedule of the project and guaranty that the City will not be burdened financially by service costs that are excessive or that the public improvements will not be on line before need. He stated that the City had retained the firm of Harding-Lawson and that Mr. Taylor, Consultant, did a geo-technical analysis of the EIR and concurred that the EIR was feasible. Mayor Teglia thanked Staff and the Consultants for their presentations and asked the Board of Supervisors if they had questions for the speakers. Supervisor Speier stated that she had questions on the geo-technical areas that had been raised, such as: the storm drainage and water run off had been calculated for a ten year rain. She stated that the January 4th rain had been a 30 or a 100 year rain, depending on who one spoke with, and questioned why a 30 or 100 year rain had not been calculated in storm drainage run off. Mr. Steve Yeager, Project Engineer, stated that the ten year rain criteria had been used during the concept phase of the Project, however after consider- ation of public imput and the problems which occurred on the site during the January storm it was revised. He stated that the Specific Plan uses as criteria for the hydrology and hydrolic design in which the storm drain facili- ties and the catchment facilities are designed to handle the worst storm of record to prohibit any danger or hazard to any structure. He stated that the storm drainage facilities were designed to handle storms of a magnitude witnessed in January. Vice Mayor Addiego questioned what the over flow system consisted of. Mr. Yeager stated that the catchment bas~ns would be located at the heads of the ravines that consist of a 11/1 5/82 Page 6 A G E N D A A C T I 0 N T A K E N ? ~'i 1. To consider adoption of the Terrabay Specific Plan - Continued. 2. Consider proposed prezoning - Continued. (Cassette 2) concrete head wall a pipe structure and that the siltation basin was constructed of a natural rock material. He made reference to two slides and continued in great detail and stated that the head wall was constructed to handle in excess of the 100 year storm. He stated that it was constructed to funnel any over flow that happens into the City street system and away from areas where it could cause some damage. Mayor Teglia questioned the subsurface drainage system in terms of materials to be used and its life expectancy. Mr. Yeager stated that there were many materials available for the under surface drainage and generally were placed at the interface between the cut and fill, etc. He stated that the City Engineer would be reviewing the under drain plans and the grading plans and the choice of materials involved. Councilman Acosta made reference to the agreement between the Project Sponsor and the City and questioned the maintenance for the siltation and catch basins. Mr. Eppler, Project Engineer, stated that the system had been designed to collect debris that runs off County owned land. He continued, the material would be collected in siltation basins to prohibit the material from moving down the pipe to deposit in the low areas before the water is trans- ported out to the bay. He stated that there had been concern by County and City Staff over the jurisdiction possibilities on the responsibility of maintenance. He stated that he felt an equitable agreement could be worked out for a cost sharing basis for the maintenance on an annual basis among the County, City and the Developer. Councilman Acosta requested explanation of the word "slumps." 11/15/82 Page 7 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN e To consider adoption of the Terrabay Specific Plan - Continued. Consider proposed prezoning - Continued. Mr. Chan stated that it was an earth movement that involves very shallow depths and very small amount of soil. He stated that this was caused by certain soil that is being lubricated because of excessive moisture and that there is certain kinds of soil that is not of sufficient strength or cohesive- ness to enable the soil to move; so certain soil will slump and certain soil will not. He stated that one of the solutions proposed is a horizontal drain that will be drilled into the slump area that will let the water out so it will not cause movement of the earth. Councilman Damonte stated that Mr. Chan had stated that some of the places would be graded out-and then compacted. Mr. Chan said that certain of the landslide areas would be removed to the native soil that has not been disturbed and replace that with proper compaction. He stated that most of the areas had been identified and that he would go back and verify the areas and identify others for mitigation measures to be taken. Councilman Damonte questioned if there would be enough soil after the grading work was done to have a complete fill and were planing to import soil to complete the fill. Mr. Yeager stated that the analysis of the earthwork balance indicated there is approximately 50,000 cubic yards of material that will be required to complete the fills on the Project beyond material that is available from the cuts on the Project. He stated that there had been conversations with the County Engineers that are developing plans for the Hillside Boulevard Extension to use the excess material from the roadway and use that for the fill. 11/15/82 Page 8 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 1. To consider adoption of the Terrabay Specific Plan - Continued. 2. Consider proposed prezoning - Continued. RECESS: RECALL TO ORDER: Discussion followed on the HCP Agreement in connection with geology and slumps if a new criteria was to be used; buttress fill type of arrangement; the specific process on the dirt and fill; identify the depth of landslides; the construction phasing schedule; etc. Mayor Teglia declared a recess at 9:50 p.m. Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to order at lO:14 p.m., all Council and the Board present. Supervisor Ward stated that page 4 of the Specific Plan Amendment, condition no. 5, was important and that after talking to District Attorney Byers he wanted to suggest that if the EIR was subject to a legal attack, and tied up in Court, that the ten year time period would not start running until after a Court resolution had taken place. DeputY District Attorney Byers stated that he had specific language to address Supervisor Ward's concerns and that he would show it to City Attorney Rogers for his concurrence in the matter. Supervisor Ward stated that to him it appeared that any residential develop- ment within the environment of the over flight area should have consid- eration of an avigation easement to make the potential buyers aware of possible noise impacts from over flights from the shoreline departures. He stated that he understood that there was going to be a requirement condition for noise attenuation accoustical installation for aircraft flying over the area and questioned when this would be incorporated into the Project. Discussion followed on noise measure- ments; noise mitigation; state of the art for aircraft noise insulation; etc. 11/15/82 Page 9 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN To consider adoption of the Terrabay Specific Plan - Continued. Consider proposed prezoning - Continued. Discussion followed on the mitigation measures developed by the Project Sponsor; energy conservation measures; traffic noises; avigation easements; exceeding the California noise standards in noise insulation of the homes and making making it a condition of approval; standard of 45 decibels being imposed on the Project with a silent consensus of the Board and the City Council; giving notice to the home buyers of the avigation easements and noise levels; Staff to compile new language to address the avigation easements, etc. Supervisor Gregorio stated that the South San Francisco Planning Commission was recommending 43 Amendments and the County Planning Commission added an additional Amendment for affordable housing. He questioned what would happen if the City adopts one Specific Plan and the County adopts another Specific Plan. Deputy District Attorney Byers stated that it would be permissible, however the jurisdiction that approves the Tentative Map which under the scenario would be South San Francisco because the land is going to annexed to South San Francisco, that would be the jurisdiction that would be making the conditions that would appear in the Development. He stated that after San Mateo County approves the Specific Plan, given that the land annexes to South San Francisco, San Mateo County would not be exercising any further land use jurisdiction over South Slope. He stated that if the land were to be developed in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County, in that it was not to be annexed to South San Francisco and San Mateo County was to approve the Tentative Map then there would have to be a finding that the Tentative Map was consistent with the General and Specific Plan of San Mateo County. 11/15/82 Page 10 A G E N D A A C T I 0 N T A K E N ~Ei ~ To consider adoption of the Terrabay Specific Plan - Continued. Consider proposed prezoning - Continued. Supervisor Gregorio questioned the substance in Amendment 44 and asked for an explanation. Mr. David Hale, County Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission felt very strongly about recommending to the Board the inclusion of the Amendment for affordable housing for the County General Plan and for the Housing Element. Mr. Koenig, Director of Environmental Management, stated that the wording had come from the 1976 General Plan Amendment, wherein 20% of the units to be built must be set aside to be made available for low and moderate income purchases on San Bruno Mountain. He stated that it had recently been defined as low and moderate income for the Mortgage Revenue Bond Program - which is a high of $45,000 income to qualify. Supervisor Gregorio questioned if the County Planning Commission required in all cases that the Developer provide 20% of low and moderate income units. Mr. Koenig stated that its says that the Developer shall make them available and make them a part of the program. He stated that the language was vague in that it did not say the Developer has to proceed and that he had worked up some new language with the City Attorney, to wit, "No Tentative Subdivis- ion Map shall be approved within the unincorporated area of San Mateo County included within the Specific Plan until the Developer submits for the approval of the Board of Supervisors a program which ensures no less than 20% of all the dwelling units to be built within the unincorporated area shall be made available to low and moderate income purchases as such purchases are defined by the San Mateo County Division of Housing Community Development." He 11/15/82 Page 11 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 1. To consider adoption of the Terrabay Specific Plan - Continued. 2. Consider proposed prezoning - Continued. (Cassette 3) stated that the following would also be added, "The foregoing provisions may be waived by the Board of Supervisors if the Board finds that no public or private programs available which would make the provision of the above mentioned low and moderate income housing infeasible.~' Supervisor Speier stated that the language seems to link low and moderate income housing with the purchaser's income, which may or may not address low and moderate income housing. She stated that a purchaser with an income of $45,000 may opt to buy a home of $250,000 and he is helping to meet the low and moderate housing based on purchase. Mr. Koenig stated that the language could be worked out to be "shall be made available at a sales price within the guidelines.." Discussion followed on the definition of low and moderate income approximately $16,000 to $45,000; the size of the condos in relation to sales price; Mortgage Bond Programs; the South San Francisco Housing Element had a definition of low and moderate income for a family of four goes up to $28,080 per unit based on 1980 income limits for San Mateo; moderate income being 120% of the median; request to Staff to look at the figures again, etc. Mr. Douglas Butler, 133 Adrian Ave., expressed the following concerns: with the instability of the soils and a 100 year storm; density; traffic; the Oyster Point Interchange fiscal analysis; that a hotel was out of character with San Bruno Mountain; rebuttal of a need for doubling the size of a hotel, etc. Mrs. Doris Agee expressed the following concerns: catchment basins and their maintenance; unexpected expenses for homeowner association; the need for tenant meeting rooms, etc. 11/1~/82 Page 12 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN To consider adoption of the Terrabay Specific Plan - Continued. Consider proposed prezoning - Continued. Mr. W. W. Dean, Developer, stated that Amendment 42 spoke of the recreational facility and the private day care center and suggested one of those could be used as a meeting room. He stated that by law the Homeowners Association had to have one meeting per year and that the Board meets once a month with perhaps four members. Mr. Conrad Pavelles, 62 Third Ave., Daly City asked that the homes for low and moderate cost housing be protected with a subjunctive mode wording. Mr. Don Bryant, Legal Aide Housing Coalition, spoke in favor of Amendment 44 and requested that the following be entered into the record: imple- mentation of affordable housing, excerpt from: "Affordable Housing: A Comprehensive Strategy for Meeting San Mateo County's Housing Needs," and "Does Local 'Red Tape' Slow Housing." Mayor Teglia stated that because there was not a concurrence of the Board and Council on this request - it was denied. Mr. Wayne Thomas, Union Local 617, spoke in favor of Amendment 44 and stated that the average home in 1977 was $76,000 and that today's price was $170,000. Ms. Sylvia Gregory, Airport Noise Impact, questioned whether the avigation easement was mandated. Supervisor Ward stated that direction would be given to Staff when the attorneys had finished their review. Ms. Gregory stated that she felt that all new projects in this area should have avigation easements. She asked if the 18' hotel had been discussed with the FAA or the Airport. 11/15/82 Page 13 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN To consider adoption of the,Terrabay Specific Plan - Continued. Consider proposed prezoning - Continued. Director of Community Development Dell'Angela stated that before the Precise Plan was approved all agencies would have to sign off on height limits. Ms. Gregory stated that CALTRANS did not have the money to make expenditures that were mandated and questioned if the grading was going to be done for the whole project before anything was built Director of Community Development Dell'Angela stated that there would be two phases of grading and that these would each be a subject of discussion with the City Engineer and the City Council. Mayor Teglia closed the Public Hearing. Supervisor Gregorio questioned the procedural requirements and said that there were several changes that were pending; Council had stated that those changes must be referred back to the Planning Commission after the changes were adopted by the Board of Supervisors. City Attorney Rogers stated that it would be appropriate to deal with the EIR, but that the two bodies had identified many changes to amendments to be put in the Specific Plan before it is adopted. He stated that Staff had enough direction for the specific language and that it should be referred back for a report. He continued, that the Planning Commission then had 40 days in which to respond to the Board and Council at regular meetings. Supervisor Gregorio stated that it then appeared that the Board should act on the EIR tonight but wait for another public meeting to act on the amendments. Deputy District Attorney Byers stated that there was one question with the EIR in reference to noise insulation and avigation easements which might require supplementing of the EIR. 11 / 15/82 Page 14 AGENDA To consider adoption of the Terrabay Specific Plan - Continued. Consider proposed prezoning - Continued. ACTION TAKEN He stated that because of that he did not feel that the Board would take steps tonight to certify the EIR. He stated that referring the matter back to the Planning Commission was a requirement in the State Law, in that when the Board made a change in the Specific Plan it had to be referred back to the Commission. He recommended that it be referred back to the Commission for action at their next meeting. He stated that this Hearing could be continued to a specific date. Director of Community Development Dell'Angela suggested that the Board and Council continue the Public Hearing to 12/2/82 which would give both Staffs an opportunity to discuss the changes with the respective Planning Commissions and would prepare wording for action at that meeting at 7:30 p.m. Supervisor Ward made mention of a letter from W. W. Dean requesting clar- ification of Amendments 9, ll, 42, 43 and the concept of the Development Agree- ment for the Terrabay Specific Plan as adopted by the Planning Commissions. He stated that Mr. Dean was proposing to make some early units accessible, if people ask that the units be made accessible, and suggested that number be 49. Councilman Acosta suggested that the suggestions in the letter be held over to the 12/2/82 meeting for discussion. Consensus of both bodies to hold over to the 12/2/82. Supervisor asked Staff to look at the possibility of scaling down the cost of the units in the area. Supervisor Speier stated that a 500 square foot unit at $95,000 was about $190 per square foot and compared that to the average price per square foot in San Mateo County. l 1/l 5/82 Page 15 AGENDA To consider adoption of the Terrabay Specific Plan - Continued. Consider proposed prezoning - Continued. ACTION TAKEN She stated that this was too great a price for a first time buyer to be able to afford. Councilman Damonte stated that if the Development was built in an unincorpor- ated area then the County should dictate the pri ce. Supervisor Ward stated that there should be a density bonus for a low price unit. Mayor Teglia stated that the Council felt that the density should be less and better and that the Board was saying more and cheaper. Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Takis read a letter into the record from Chairman Edward Bacciocco who was confined to a hospital (that letter is attached and is a permanent part of the minutes of this meeting) and requested the Board have South San Francisco vote first and then defer to their judgment. Deputy District Attorney Byers reiter- ated the additional conditions that Staff was to take back to the Planning Commission: 1) noise insulation; 2) airport easement; 3) litigation extension; 4) affordable housing condition as an amendment to No. 43. Director of Community Development Dell'Angela requested that Mr. Dean's proposal be sent back to the Planning Commission for clarification. He Stated that the City Attorney would like to discuss the clarification of Item No. 4 which dealt with the issuance of grading permits. City Attorney Rogers stated that there were several provisions in the amend- ments that refer to a mandatory enter- ing into a Development Agreement between the City and the Developer that could not be done and requested that it be sent back to the Planning Commission for less mandatory language. 11/15/82 Page 16 Board of Supervisors COUNTY O.F SAN MATED COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER REDWOOD CITY CALIFORNIA 94063 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EDWARD J. BACCIOCCO, JR. ARLEN GREGORIO WILLIAM J. SCHUMACHER K. JACQUELINE SPEIER JOHN M. WARD Minerva L. Takis CLERK OF THE BOARD (415) 363- 4566 November 15, 1982 The tyranny of circumstances prevents my joining you tonight. Confined to a hospital bed, I am Geprived of enjoying with you the supreme satisfaction of knowing that unprecedented cooperation among the County, South San Francisco, the developer, conservationists and interested citizens has culminated in a specific plan we can all point to with pride. I stress cooperation, especially as you address the question of low and moderate income housing. At the concept stage, the Board and Council agreed in joint session to defer to the wishes of the annexing jurisdiction. Tonight, however, this subject will inevitably be resurrected. I respect the advocates of affordable housing and share their philosophy. The Board, however, does not have to take responsibility for the vote that it casts. We will turn our backs, walk away and leave the problems and responsi- bilities of governing to South San Francisco and South San Francisco alone and this, of course, includes the workability of affordable housing in this project. Therefore, I hope the Board, after arguing vigorously for its respective positions, will follow the earlier precedent that South San Francisco vote first and then defer to their judgment. If not, Hr. Chairman, I have asked our Deputy District Attorney David Byers to explain to those present the legal consequences of a split vote. Let me conclude by thanking publicly the City Attorney of South San Francisco ~Dbert Rogers, in particular; Walter Birkelo, City Manager and the members of the Council for working with me and the Board over the past 2% years to attain a model of compromise among all concerned that is characterized by excellence and is assured of posterity's approval. E~:b~ EDWARD J. BACCIOCCO, JR. 1 ]/] 5/82 Page 17 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 1. To consider adoption of the Terrabay Specific Plan - Continued. 2. Consider proposed prezoning - Continued. ADJOURNMENT Supervisor Speier questioned who was to have responsibility for the oper- ational maintenance on the storm drainage and asked if a decision was not reached tonight - did that mean it could not go to the Planning Commission by 12/2/82. She then asked if at the meeting of 12/2/82 the Board would not be in a position of further refining or making additional amendments without again going back to the Planning Commission. Deputy District Attorney Byers stated that that was not an issue involved with the Specific Plan, there was a condition drafted that allowed the Specific Plan to be adopted without determining which jurisdiction would have control. Mayor Teglia stated that further revisions to the amendments would be dealt with in the negotiations prior to annexation. M/S Acosta/Damonte - To adjourn the meeting for discussion of the EIR and the Specific Plan to 12/2/82 at 7:30 p.m. at the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive and that the Prezoning and Public Hearing would be considered at the Regular Meet- ing of 12/15/82. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment 12:20 a.m. M/S Ward/Schumacher - To continue the Public Hearing to 12/2/82 at 7:30 p.m. at the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive and refer those items previously enumerated to the Planning Commission. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment 12:21 a.m. 11/15/82 Page 18 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, City of South San Francisco APPROVED: ~lqj~f~erta Cerri Tegl ia, M.a2~Sr City of South San Franc~'sco 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. 11/15/82 Page 19