HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1984-05-16Mayor Mark N. Addiego
Vice Mayor Richard A. Haffey
Council:
Emanuele N. Damonte
Gus Nicol opul os
Roberta Cerri Teglia
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1)
ROLL CALL:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
AGENDA REVIEW
City Manager Birkelo stated that he
had nothing to add.
Councilwoman Teglia requested:
- Add as Item No. 1, discussion
of the amendment to the UP-77-413
Macy's which deleted the require-
ment for twice annual sales.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMUNITY FORUM
AGENDA
1. Discussion of the amendment to the
UP-77-413/Macy's which deleted the
requirement for twice annual sales.
5050
MINUTES
City Council
City Council Conference Room
City Hall
May 16, 1984
80
ACTION TAKEN
7:05 p.m. Vice Mayor Haffey presided.
Council present:
Council absent:
Nicolopulos, Haffey,
Damonte, Teglia and.
Addiego.
None.
Planning Commissioners present: Grimes,
Hoyer, Mantegani, Terry
and Getz.
Planning Commissioners absent:
Bertucelli and Martin.
Recited.
AGENDA REVIEW
So ordered.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No one chose to speak.
COMMUNITY FORUM
No one chose to speak.
AGENDA
Councilwoman Teglia stated that the
requirement for the twice annual sales
had been deleted by the Planning
Commission on 2/9/84.
City Manager Birkelo stated that he did
have some general information on the
financial impacts.
5/16/84
Page I
AG E N B A A C T I O N T AK E N 82[
Discussion of the amendment to the
UP-77-413/Macy's which deleted the
requirement for twice annual sales.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that he did not have a
formal staff report but his staff did have
some information to impart on the report.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that the City
Attorney did have a report on the matter.
She stated that at the last Council
meeting she had asked about the Macy's
warehouse sales and had learned by acci-
dent from the Planning Staff that that
had been deleted at the 2/9/84 Planning
Commission meeting. She stated that she
had been surprised because she had been
on the Planning Commission during the
many discussions which had led to the
restriction being put on the Use Permit.
She stated that Council had asked for the
matter to be investigated and researched
because the Council wanted additional
information. She said that she would
defer to the City Attorney except to say
that she had a copy of the Planning
Commission agenda for 2/9/84 wherein it
had been considered under the Consent
Calendar, "A request for deletion of
Special Condition No. 3 of the Use Permit
related to the quarterly sales," She
continued, that the Planning Commission
had approved that deletion on the Use
Permit related to the quarterly sales.
She stated that she questioned the
legality of that because it was on a Use
Permit and that Use Permits require noti-
fication, public hearings, etc. She
stated that it appeared to change or
amend a condition on a use permit and a
similar procedure would have to be
followed. She stated that if the
Commission muffed up on that she believed
that there was a quorum on the Council to
keep that condition and if the Commission
had made a botched up job then the
Council could keep the condition; if the
Commission did a good job that night -
then the Council was in trouble.
City Attorney Rogers stated that con-
ditional use permits, of which UP-77-413
is one, are conditional and the amend-
ments are quasi judicial in nature and
require notice and hearing prior to
5/16/84
Page 2
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
Discussion of the amendment to the
UP-77-413/Macy' s which deleted the
requirement for twice annual sales.
taking action. He continued, Government
Code 65705 requires notices of hearings'
regarding issuance, revocation or modifi-
cation of use permits. He spoke in
detail of the publication, posting and
mailing of notices in accordance with
locally established procedures. He spoke
of the requirements of notices which are
not only for the person applying for the
use permit but also accrues to any pro-
perty owners that may suffer some depre-
ciation of their property rights as the
result of the issuance of the use permit.
He stated that in all cases of the use
permits involving Macy's, except this
last one, notice had been given as
required by Government Code. He stated
that the City had to perform according to
the provisions of Title 20 of the
Municipal Code when modifying the special
conditions of a use permit and anything
issued not in conformance with Title.20
were null and void. He spoke of the
constitutional right for this notice and
suggested that someone tell Macy's that
the action is null and void and would
have to be reconsidered by the Planning
Commission with a properly noticed
hearing.
Councilwoman Teglia questioned whether
the matter had to be agendized to make
the action null and void or could Council
tonight declare the Planning Commission
action null and void.
City Attorney Rogers stated that it
should be based on some facts and
Community Development input but the
Council could declare the action null and
void and Staff tell Macy's this is going
to happen.
Vice Mayor Haffey stated concern for the
potential loss of revenue to the City and
questioned why Staff did not properly
notice the matter before the Planning
Commission and asked who was responsible.
Director of Community Development
Del l'Angela stated that it had been an
oversight on Staff's part - himself, the
5/16/84
Page 3
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
Discussion of the amendment to the
UP-77-413/Macy's which deleted the
requirement for twice annual sales.
planner and the clerical people were all
involved and shared the responsibility.
Councilwoman Teglia questioned why this
item had been put on the Consent Calendar
for an amendment to a use permit and
noted that when she was on the Commission
there had not been a Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Haffey questioned who made the
decision that an item would be placed
on the Consent Calendar.
Director of Community Development
Del l'Angela stated that the Staff pre-
pared the original draft agenda and that
non-controversial items would be placed
on the Consent Calendar as a shared deci-
sion and then he ultimately made the
decision of what went on the agenda.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that there had
been a request from Macy's for the dele-
tion of the use permit condition.
Director of Community Development
Del l'Angela stated that a staff report
was being prepared for the next regular
City Council meeting and he had not
realized the subject was going to be
discussed this evening.
Vice Mayor Haffey asked, why was it
that there was a complete report from the
City Attorney and nothing this evening
from Community Development when both
department heads were at the last meeting
when reports had been requested.
Councilman Damonte pointed out that this
item had been added this evening by
Councilwoman Teglia to the agenda.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that she had
asked for the legal report tonight
because it was her understanding that the
subject would come up tonight.
City Attorney Rogers stated that his
report this evening had responded to a
memo from Councilwoman Teglia.
5/16/84
Page 4
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
Discussion of the amendment to the
UP-77-413/Macy's which deleted the
requirement for twice annual sales.
Chairman Getz stated that he had a copy
of the February 9, 1984 Planning
Commission agenda and spoke of the value
of the Consent Calendar. He stated that
that particular night the big fight had
been over Mr. Chow, Bayland Properties,
and the request for an extension and the
item had been taken off the Consent
Calendar and a hearing had been called to
explain the need for the extension. He
apologized for getting caught up in the
discussion of the Bayland item to the
exclusion of giving more scrutiny to the
Macy's item. He stated that he had made
the notation "Okay if legal" next to the
Macy's item at the beginning of the
meeting and had not questioned it later
on the commercial use.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that two of
the three items on the Commission's
Consent Calendar were controversial.
Chairman Getz stated that the suggestion
in the City Attorney's memo to develop
and publish procedural rules for the con-
duct of Planning Commission meetings and
a procedural manual should be developed
by the Commission. He continued, also to
be included would be items proper for the
Consent Calendar; and suggested that
under discussion on staff reports it
should state the pros and cons of
approval or disapproval of the item and
any economical impacts.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that when she
was on the Commission frequently when
matters came forward with economical
impacts they had been sent to the Council
as they were responsible for the income
and outgo of money for the City.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that he and his staff
had looked back at the staff report for
the prior use permit and to their
knowledge could not find any mention of
revenue sharing aspects as being a factor
in the staff report.
Councilwoman Teglia stated that it may
5/16/84
Page 5
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
Discussion of the amendment to the
UP-77-413/Macy's which deleted the
requirement for twice annual sales.
2. Discussion of the Housing Element.
not have been part of the written docu-
ment but it had come up in oral
discussions and she remembered the
discussions wherein the Commission had
been adament for not only two sales per
year but more for the extension permit.
Commissioner Mantegani stated that the
Commission was under the impression that
they were not forcing Macy's to have the
sales when they requested that that
condition be deleted and had granted the
request.
Discussion followed: that the condition
had been deleted to ease traffic
congestion; amount of revenue the City
received from the sales; that there had
not been any quarterly sales for the last
few years; that there were two sales in
1982; that the financial aspect of the
condition should be considered; that it
is unfortunate that department heads look
for scape goats among their employees;
etc.
M/S Teglia/Haffey - To find the action by
the Planning Commission on UP-77-413 as
null and void and send the matter back
to the Planning Commission.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that he would briefly
go over the document and turn it over to
Mr. Martin and the two would respond to
any questions. He stated that the
Council was reviewing the draft General
Plan Housing Element dated April 11,
1984. He continued, in 1981 the City
Council adopted the current Housing
Element and that according to State Law
the cities are required to adopt an
updated housing element by July 1, 1984.
He stated that there was a Planning
Commission hearing scheduled for May 31,
1984 to consider the draft of the housing
element and that a Council hearing was
going to be requested to be held on the
27th of June to meet the July 1st
deadline. He stated that previously the
5/16/84
Page 6
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
2. Discussion of the Housing Element.
City Council had approved funds to retain
Martin Carperter Associates to assist
Staff in preparation of an updated
housing element, which had been done and
Staff was satisfied that it was a very
sound, very good housing element that
would stand up to any challenges from an
outside group or the state. He stated
that tonight Staff would respond to any
questions from Council and the Commission
so that modifications could be made prior
to the official public hearings.
Mr. Martin stated that he had helped pre-
pare the first housing element in 1969
and the one in 1981 that had been
rejected by the State Department of
Housing which had been adjudicated and
found adequate in Superior Court. He
explained that the attempt was to update
and revise the housing element to try to
make it as tight and fit as closely as
possible to the State Law. He stated
that the Statute numbers had been
identified; the requirement of the
statutes; and described how South San
Francisco meets those state requirements.
He stated that there were four basic
requirements of the statutes that are
included in the Housing Element; that
there must be an assessment of housing
needs in the community; that there must
be an inventory of resources and
constraints; a statement of goals, objec-
tives and policies; and a housing program
which consists of programs the community
has for providing housing and making
housing available; a five year program
which identifies and summarizes the next
five years. He stated that one of the
key issues that was glossed over in the
1981 housing element and that he recom-
mended be included was the ABAG needs
number and the determination that the
total number applies to South San
Francisco and the income breakdown. He
spoke in detail of the reasons why these
items should be included in the Housing
Element and included the reasons why it
had been previously rejected. He stated
that the numbers do add up to meet the
needs of sufficient housing that are pro-
5/16/84'
Page 7
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
2. Discussion of the Housing Element.
jected by ABAG.
Councilman Nicolopulos stated that the
courts found that the City was proper in
its figures and asked if that meant the
City did not have to conform to the ABAG
figures.
Mr. Martin stated that no, it meant that
the housing element in 1981 was found to
be adequate. He continued, there was
another portion of the law that says you
have to review that which was stated in
1981. He stated that the numbers should
be put in the element so that there would
not be further challenges. He stated
that the new document includes a formula
of overpaying for housing in the
community; needs through over crowding
which was defined by the census.
Discussion followed on the U.S. Steel
property not being included in the docu-
ment as future residential development,
a mixed use; that the document should
speak to the potential of residential
development east of 101; that the
Commission was on record as favoring
residential development east of 101; the
more potential residential developments
listed in the documents the more a City
had to adhere to the State and Federal
20% mandates; mixed uses in general
developments; consensus of both bodies to
add to the element "potential residential
development east of 101"; substandard
housing conditions i.e., no heating,
plumbing, kitchen facilities; substandard
unit conditions in older homes; inventory
of land suitable for residential
development; land use controls related to
geotechnical hazards; noise incom-
patability of noise use conflicts; addi-
tional house insulation; concern over the
upper slopes of San Bruno Mountain in
relation to mud slides that might impact
housing or future housing; adding a
paragraph on landslides to the element on
Page 25; land use conflict; goals, objec-
tives and policies; the program section;
housing for low and moderate income
people; Redevelopment tax increment funds
5/16/84
Page 8
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
2. Discussion of the Housing Element.
(Cassette No. 2)
RECESS:
RECALL TO ORDER:
3. Further discussion of the General
Plan Policies.
to be used for housing, that redevelop-
ment housing on the east side of 101
would have to have 20% low and moderate
income housing; Section VIII housing in
the City; density bonus plans; that the
document had to be consistent with the
land use element plan and taking out the
second sentence; discussion of density
bonuses for developers in the City; and
seismic zones; special needs groups,
i.e., large families, handicapped units
projected needs; that Page 52 "$1,000,000
in funds for noise insulation" should
show as a minimal application; housing
referral; that the Housing Authority had
authorization to build twenty additional
units; protecting the character of
Miller/Grand Avenue as single family
residential and the element lowered;
looking closely at developers who would
be employing employees that could impact
the housing shortage; attracting future
employees to live in this City; that the
State Department of Housing and Community
Development could take as long as 90 days
to review the element to as few as 45 days.
Mayor Addiego declared a recess at 8:47
p.m.
The meeting was ~ecalled to order at 9:05
p.m., all Council present; the Planning
Commission did not return to the meeting.
Director of Community Development
Dell'Angela stated that in prior
discussions of the General Plan Council
had skipped over Section 9 and had picked
up on the Borba policy. He suggested
that they discuss any questions on
Policies 9-1 through 9-11 and then Buri
Buri, Winston, Sierra and Westborough.
Councilman Damonte stated that Policy
8-10 should not include Southwood which
is an operating school.
Consensus of Council - Policy 8-10 should
be restated as Policy 10 without mention
of operating schools.
Director of Community Development
5/16/84
Page 9
AGENDA ACT]'ON TAKEN
Further discussion of the General
Plan Policies.
Dell'Angela stated that after
discussion of the Policies was finished
Council had asked for a level use study
of the high density areas in the area
westerly of City Hall which his Staff had
done and a report was before Council.
Consensus of Council - That language be
the same for Policy 9-1 as Policy 8-10.
Consensus of Council - To strike
"Preference should be given for a manu-
factured housing development on this
site" from Policy 9-2.
Discussion followed on Policy 9-3: that
the City Attorney should look into the
matter of cleaning up the Shopping
Center; that the market should not be
opened; that 200 feet of residential area
is subject to use permit procedures after
the market is closed for 6 months.
Discussion followed on Policy 9-4.
Consensus of Council - To delete Policy
9-5.
Discussion followed on Policies 9-6, and
9-7.
Consensus of Council - To reword Policy
9-8 to read "The treasure Island Trailer
Court should be allowed unless the entire
park is substantially upgraded.
Discussion followed on Policy 9-9.
Consensus of Council - To delete "by
1987" from Policy 9-10.
Discussion followed on Policy 9-11: that
the County owns the property and whether
the City could zone the area.
Discussion followed on Policies 9-12 and
9-13.
Discussion followed on Policies 10-1 and
10-2 regarding density of Callal proper-
ti es.
Mr. Michael Callan stated that Policy 10-3
5/16/84
Page 10
AGENDA ACT Z ON TAKEN
e
Further discussion of the General
Plan Policies.
e
Discussion of retaining single ~f'~!
family homes on Miller/Grand
(Cassette No. 3)
Closed Session for the purpose of
discussion of personnel matters,
labor relations and litigation.
RECALL TO ORDER:
had been rezoned by the City and
requested that he be allowed to build at
least 15 units rather than the property
being down-zoned to 8 units.
Councilwoman Teglia requested that the
City Attorney investigate the violations
at Skyline Village, open space that is
not open space.
Discussion followed on Policy 10-4: the
need for access and parking; possibility
of locating various merchants in the
area.
Consensus of Council - To strike
"neighborhood" from Policy 10-4.
Discussion followed on Policies 10-5,
10-6, 10-7, D-l, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, and
D-6.
Consensus of Council - To strike Policy
D-7.
Discussion followed on Policies D-8, D-9,
D-lO, D-11, D-12, D-13, D-14, D-15 and
D-16.
Consensus of Council - To strike "yearly"
from Policy D-17.
Discussion followed on Policy D-18 and
D-19.
Consensus of Council - City Attorney to
prepare an Urgency Ordinance for the
5/23/84 meeting with a moratorium for
Miller and Grand Avenues to Magnolia
School and include Spruce to Orange
Avenue to limit the area to single family
dwellings that may include second units.
Council adjourned to a Closed Session at
10:35 p.m.
Mayor Addiego recalled the meeting to
order at 11:08 p.m., all Council present,
no action taken.
M/S Nicol opul os/Tegl i a - That the meeting
be adjourned.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
5/16/84
Page 11
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 9i
ADJOURNMENT:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
City of South San Francisco
The meeting was adjourned at 11:09 p.m.
APP ROVED:
Mark kt. Addie~', ~
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 communications, 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
available for inspection, review and copying
5/16/84
Page 12