Loading...
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