Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1985-07-10Mayor Richard A. Haffey Vi ce Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia Counci 1: Mark N. Addiego Emanuele N. Damonte Gus Nicolopulos AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) ROLL CALL: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: INVOCATION: AGENDA REVIEW ~ )puty City Manager/Community Develop- I )nt Administration Lewis requested: - Remove Items 12 and 14 from the Agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MINUTES City Council Municipal Services Building Community Room July 10, 1985 ACTION TAKEN 7:35 p.m. Mayor Haffey presiding. Council present: Council absent: Nicolopulos, Addiego, Teglia and Haffey. Damonte. Councilman Damonte had stated at an earlier meeting that he would be on vaca- tion and would be unable to attend tonight's meeting. The pledge of allegiance was recited. Reverend Bowdish, St. Elizabeth Episcopal Church, gave the invocation. AGENDA REVIEW So ordered. Deputy City Manager/Community Development Administration Lewis stated that the WTC appeal of the Price Company's Planning Commission decision had been withdrawn. Mayor Haffey stated that the City Clerk's memo had requested that that item be scheduled as 18a. (In that a letter was not presented to Council to formally withdraw the WTC appeal, said letter is attached and a per- manent part of the record of this meeting.) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one chose to speak. 7/10/85 Page I AIR FREIGHT July 10, 1985 South San Francisco City Council 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: Appeal. The Price Company. Use Permit (UP-85-729)/ 451 South Airport Boulevard. Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: I hereby withdraw, the appeal which I filed on the above case. My decision to withdraw was based on a resolution of my parking pro- blems by your planning staff, particularly Jean Smith and Bob Shubert. These staff people recognized the parking problems affecting my com- pany which were created by the Price Club project. I am appreciative of their efforts. I am, however, not appreciative of the uncooperative and threatening attitude of your Deputy City Manager, Mark Lewis. His actions creat- ed the atmosphere whereby I felt it necessary to file an appeal on the above case to get City attention directed to my problems. Certain- ly, you will be advised of any retaliation directed to me by Mr. Lewis as a result of these comments. WTC Air Freight has been in business in South San Francisco for over sixteen years. ~e hope to continue to be here for many years to come. I hope that you ~pp~iate that the concerns which our company had about the Price Club project are sincere concerns. Sincerely, ~/Di s ~t Manager/SFO GG:jfa 7/].o185 Page la 140 Belle Air Road · So. San Francisco, CA 94080 · Terrrfinah (415', 871-6252 · Sales: (415) 692-1910 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY FORUM CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 6/12/85 and the Adjourned Regular Meeting of 6/19/85 and the Regular Meeting of 6/26/85. ® Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending by Motion to deny and refer the following claim to the City's Insurance Adjuster and the City Attorney: a) Claim as filed by California State Automobile Assn. on behalf of Charles A. Golick alleging damage to their insured's vehicle when involved in a collision with a City driven vehicle. b) 'Claim as filed by Donald Nix alleging false imprisonment by members of the South San Francisco Police Department. c) Claim as filed by A1 bert E. Ward alleging damage to his son's bicycle as the result of failure by a contractor working for the City to post warning signs in an area where street construction was taking place. ® Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending by Motion to accept the furnishing and installation of carpeting in the Grand Avenue Library Project No. PB 81-2 as complete in accor- dance with the approved plans and specifications. Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution to award the bid for the purchase of one asphalt paving box to Nixon-Egli COMMUNITY FORUM Councilman Nicolopulos requested a moment of silence for Eagle Scout Huddleston who had died while scuba diving in Okinawa at twenty-twoyears of age. CONSENT CALENDAR Approved. So ordered. Approved. 7/15/85 Page 2 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Staff Report - Continued. Equipment in the amount of $15,868.50 as the lowest respon- sible bidder. A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR ONE (1) ASPHALT PAVING BOX BID #1669 Be Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution estab- lishing a tax rate for financing the Municipal Services Building. A RESOLUTION FIXING A SPECIAL TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985-86 ® Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution which amends the current agreement with Records Systems Associates, Inc. to continue the services to 6/30/86. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT (RECORD SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES INC.) Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution approving plans and specifications, author- izing the work and calling bids for the West Orange Library Parking Lot Improvements, Project No. PB-83-4. A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR THE WEST ORANGE LIBRARY PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. PB-83-4 ® Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution approving plans and specifications, author- izing the work and calling bids for the 12kv Primary Feed Replacement Project No. WTP-83-5. A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE CONSENT CALENDAR RESOLUTION NO. 136-85 RESOLUTION NO. 137-85 Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Vice Mayor Teglia. Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Vice Mayor Teglia. Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Councilman Nicolopulos. 7/10/85 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN CONSENT CALENDAR 8. Staff Report - Continued. WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR THE 12KV PRIMARY FEED REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO. WTP-83-5 Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution which awards the contract for the Produce Avenue Widening Project No. ST-83-5 to O'Grady Paving Co. in the amount of $301,682.40 as the lowest responsible bidder. A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE PRODUCE AVENUE WIDENING PROJECT NO. ST-83-5 10. Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution to author- ize Amendment I to the agreement with Earth Metrics regarding the Aircraft Noise Project. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT I FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH EARTH METRICS, INC. FOR THE AIRPORT NOISE INSULATION PROJECT 11. Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending: a) Adoption of a Resolution authorizing execution of an amend- ment to the agreement to provide funds for improvement of the Senior Center in the MSB; b) Adoption of a Resolution author- izing execution of an amendment to the agreement to provide funds for a handicapped access program; c) Adoption of a Resolution author- izing execution of an amendment to the agreement to provide funds for improvement of the Spruce Gymnasium. a) A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE SENIOR CENTER IN THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING CONSENT CALENDAR RESOLUTION NO. 138-85 RESOLUTION NO. 139-85 RESOLUTION NO. 140-85 7/10/85 Page 4 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN CONSENT CALENDAR 11. Staff Report - Continued. b) A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR A HANDICAPPED ACCESS PROGRAM IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO c) A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE SPRUCE GYMNASIUM IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 12. Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution approving plans and specification, author- izing the work and calling bids for the Spruce Gymnasium Renovation Project No. PR-85-1. A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR THE SPRUCE GYMNASIUM RENOVATION PROJECT NO. PR-85-1 13. Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution approving plans and specifications, author- izing the work and calling bids for the Municipal Services Building Expansion Project No. PR-85-2. A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING EXPANSION PROJECT NO. PR-85-2 14. Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending setting 8/14/85 as a date to con- sider Tentative Subdivision Map SA-85-88. 15. Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending by Motion to accept the 1984-85 Street Resurfacing Program Project No. ST-84 as complete in accordance with the .. approved plans and speci- fications. CONSENT CALENDAR RESOLUTION NO. 141-85 RESOLUTION NO. 142-85 Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Vice Mayor Teglia. RESOLUTION NO. 143-85 Removed from the Consent Calendar during Agenda Review by the Deputy City Manager/ Community Development Administration Lewis. Approved. 7/10/85 Page 5 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN CONSENT CALENDAR 16. Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending by Motion to accept the Paradise Valley Lighting Project as complete in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. 17. Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution to award the bid for the liquid chlorine to Jones Chemicals, Inc. in the amount of $187.00 per ton as the lowest responsible bidder. A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LIQUID CHLORINE BID NO. 1671 18. Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution to award the bid for the purchase of Quarterly Leisure Activities Brochures for fiscal year 1985-86 to Alonzo Printing in the amount of $13,457.00 as the lowest respon- sible bidder. A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LEISURE ACTIVITIES BROCHURES BID NO. 1676 ® Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution which amends the current agreement with Records Systems Associates, Inc. to continue the services to 6/30/86. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT (RECORD SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES INC.) CONSENT CALENDAR Approved. RESOLUTION NO. 144-85 RESOLUTION NO. 145-85 M/S Teglia/Addiego - To approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Items No. 6, 7, 8, 12 and 14. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Vice Mayor Teglia questioned what this amendment would entail in additional cost. Finance Director Lipton stated that the current contract would expire in June of 1985 and that this extension would allow Phase 2 to be completed which was already in the budget. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 146-85 Carried by unanimous voice vote. 7/10/85 Page 6 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN e 12. Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution approving plans and specifications, author- izing the work and calling bids for the West Orange Library Parking Lot Improvements, Project No. PB-83-4. A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR THE WEST ORANGE LIBRARY PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. PB-83-4 Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution approving plans and specifications, author- izing the work and calling bids for the 12kv Primary Feed Replacement Project No. WTP-83-5. A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR THE 12KV PRIMARY FEED REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO. WTP-83-5 Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution approving plans and specification, author- izing the work and calling bids for the Spruce Gymnasium Renovation Project No. PR-85-1. A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR THE SPRUCE GYMNASIUM RENOVATION PROJECT NO. PR-85-1 Vice Mayor Teglia stated that she was concerned about what firm would be doing the slurry seal work. Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee stated that the bid would be opened a month from now and only then would the selection take place. Mayor Haffey stated that in selecting the lowest bidder perhaps the City should exercise the word "responsible bidder" in the selection. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 147-85 Carried by unanimous voice vote. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned what this City's share would be vs. San Bruno's. Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee stated that he did not have that infor- mation at the present time. M/S Nicolopulos/Teglia - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 148-85 Carried by unanimous voice vote. Vice Mayor Teglia questioned why Staff had removed this item from the Agenda. Director of Recreation/Community Services Norton stated that he was awaiting docu- ments from the State Architect's Office before proceeding with the bidding process. Mayor Haffey stated that Item No. 25 would be heard before Item No. 24. 7/10/85 Page 7 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN APPROVAL OF BILLS 19. Approval of the Regular Bills of 7/10/85. CITY CLERK 20. Staff Report 7/10/85 providing/)~m%? information as requested on initiatives and referendums. APPROVAL OF BILLS M/S Nicolopulos/Addiego - To approve the bills of 1984-85 for $1,018,297.86 and 1985-86 for $109,389.36 for a total of $1,127,687.22. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Councilman Addiego did not participate or vote in the matter of the claim of Brentwood Market. CITY CLERK City Clerk Battaya stated that this information had been provided by her Office at the request of Councilman Addiego. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 21. Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending: 1) Motion to waive further reading of the Ordinance; 2) Motion to adopt an Ordinance amending the Agreement between the City and the Public Employees Retirement System. 2nd Reading/Adoption AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' .RETIREMENT SYSTEM 22. Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution which amends the City's Employee Classification Plan by adding the position Secretary II - City Manager's Office (Unclassified) and deleting the position Administra- tive Secretary adn add the position Accounting Officer. A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION PLAN BY ADDING JOB SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE POSITIONS OF ACCOUNTING OFFICER AND SECRETARY II - CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND DELETING THE JOB SPECIFICATION FOR ADMINISTRA- IVE SECRETARY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION City Clerk Battaya read the title of the Ordinance in its entirety. M/S Addiego/Nicolopulos - To waive further reading of the Ordinance. Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Addiego/Nicolopulos - To adopt the Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 987-85 M/S Nicolopulos/Teglia - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 149-85 Carried by unanimous voice vote. 7/10/85 Page 8 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending: 1) Motion to Waive further reading of the Ordinance; 2) Motion to introduce the Ordinance to include the position of Secretary II - City Manager's Office (non-competitive) and delete the competitive service classification Administrative Secretary. 1st Reading/Introduction AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 3.12.010A.1 AND B OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE AND SUBSECTIONS 6.A.(1) AND 6.B. OF ORDINANCE 449 AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RECREATING AND RE-ESTABLISHING A PERSONNEL SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND REPEALING ORDINANCE 216 AND ALL INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES _2_5. Public Hearing UP-85-716/Pen-Service Corporation, an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve the use for a residential planned unit development consisting of fifty-four units with related com- mon space, parking, and landscaping on property located on the west side of Galway Drive between Westborough Boulevard and Greendale Drive in the P-C, Planned Community Zone District. Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending: 1) Open the Public Hearing and hear testimony; 2) Close the Public Hearing; 3) Motion to deny the appeal. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION City Clerk Battaya read the title of the Ordinance in its entirety. M/S Nicolopulos/Addiego - To waive further reading of the Ordinance. Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Nicolopulos/Addiego - To introduce the Ordinance. Carried by unanimous voice vote. City Planner Maureen Morton stated that this appeal was based on Ms. Speering's concern that some of the residents views would be blocked. She proceeded to describe the project in great detail and stated that the General Plan had designated this site for Medium Density Residential use with a maximum density of fifteen dwelling units per net acre; that the site contained 4.99 net acres, allowing a maximum of seventy-five units and the project only consisted of fifty-four units; that a Homeowners Association would be established to main- tain the common facilities; that the views from the units on Greendale would be affected by the proposed development. She stated that in regard to the view preservation the staff report did include a cross section analysis done by the deve- loper. She continued, however after the staff report the developer had done some extensive studies on the view corrider and would describe the analysis. Mayor Haffey opened the Public Hearing and invited those wishing to speak 7/10/85 Page 9 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 25. Public Hearing - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION against the appeal, such as the Applicant, to step to the dais. Mr. Robert Falk, appearing on behalf of the Pen-Service Corporation, presented a view corrider study to address the con- cern over the preservation of views by the residents. He described in detail the proposal for consideration of views: drawings showing six single story homes scattered throughout the project to pre- serve the views; introducing a mansard roof rather than a pitched roof; lowering the lots so that the lots toward the Galway side of the street will be below the street instead of above the street; lowering the buildings approximately nine feet which would make the roof line not project up into the view line the neigh- bors presently had. Discussion followed: that this plan was a change from what had been presented to the Planning Commission; whether or not Mr. Falk had reviewed this plan with the residents; the mansard vs. the pitched roof; down grading the lots so the gara- ges were below the street; that there were 8 one-story units out of 54 units; that a one-story condo is five feet wider than a two-story condo; etc. Mayor Haffey invited those wishing to speak in favor of the appeal to step to the dais. Ms. Barbara Sperring, 2264 Greendale Drive, expressed appreciation to the individual councilpeople who had met with herself and the concerned residents at City hall and at the site to view and discuss the situation. She stated that in preparation for this meeting she had spoken to over one hundred of the com- munity who believed the appeal reaso- nable and presented a petition to the City Council. She stated that all of the petition signers had believed that a primary school would be built on the site because the 7/10/85 Page 10 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 25. Public Hearing - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION property was owned by the School District. She stated that the District rezoned the land and sold it to Pen-Service Corporation. She stated that the residents were in favor of the proposed development, but with some suggested redesign. She stated that the project as it now stood was detrimental to the community because it infringed upon the quality of life. She stated that she did not understand the new plan proposed tonight by the Developer, however if the approved old plan was carried out then the condo owners and renters would have their sce- nic view blocked, as well as the sunlight; and would decrease the value of the condos. She stated that the panora- mic view included such sights as the San Francisco Bay, the Airport, Coyote Point, San Mateo Bridge, Mount Diablo and the East Bay Hills. She questioned why the last person to build in this community had more rights; was it fair that the value of their con- dos go down while Pen-Service Corporation increased its profits; does someone have the right to come into an existing com- munity and while developing the proper- ties permanently alter the existing life of the residents; that the developer should develop his project to enhance the community and not to impose its image on the existing community, etc. She stated that she and her neighbors as existing homeowners, taxpayers, registered voters and supporters of the community ask that the Council take the appeal into consideration and contemplate a compromise by placing one story townhouses rather than two story townhouses on the site. She stated that some commissioners at two Planning Commission meetings had requested that the Developer involve the existing community in working up the plans 7/10/85 Page 11 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION · Public Hearing - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION for the project. She stated that on Thursday, June 11, 1985, two days before the crucial meeting, the Developer's representative had rung her doorbell unannounced wanting to present the post project. She stated that she did not let the representative in because he had had a total of 47 days to contact the resi- dents as the Commissioners had suggested. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned whether Mrs. Sperring, in view of the new plans presented this evening, felt that her prepared comments merited the same consideration. Mrs. Sperring stated that yes, because the community did not have any involve- ment in the project and that due con- sideration of the appeal by the Council would be greatly appreciated. She stated that the residents present would be happy to step into the atrium and look at the plans. Mayor Haffey stated that the Council would hear the rest of the speakers and then continue the hearing to a specified time to allow familiarity of the plans. Mr. Jack A. Red, 84 Rockridge, stated that he managed 100 condo units within one block of the proposed construction being discussed tonight. He stated that the homes one block away would not be as adversely affected as those closest to the site. He stated that the people in the area were hard working middle class people trying to maintain their life style and make their families comfor- table. He stated that the new construc- tion distressed the residents who having worked so hard to acquire their homes would now lose their views; be shadowed in a back lot atmosphere; face a loss in property values which will stagnate if not deteriorate; etc. He urged the Council not to tread on these people who pay taxes, have hope, pride and dignity and to consider their 7/10/85 Page 12 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION ;. Public Hearin§ - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION wishes. He stated that if the City must build on that site not to let the profits of a large conglomerate be the Councils guide. He stated that someday the Council could be sitting in the audience and some of these residents could be sitting on the Council and listening to former Council~ appeal. Mrs. Lois Hutchings, 2294 Greendale Drive, President of Westborough Homeowners Association No. 9, expressed concern over a Developer coming in and building new condo units with views without concern for the existing units that are there. She stated that what she had heard tonight was a compromise, however it was unclear whether it satis- fies the needs of the home owners that have a view. She stated that she felt that the request was very fair and logi- cal and hoped the Council would also be fair. Vice Mayor Teglia questioned which of the new townhouses would have a view. Mr. Robert Falk stated that he did not say that all 54 units would have a view, but that those with the view would be prime and would carry a higher price and be used as models. Mrs. Hutchin§s stated that she did not know how the Developer was going to grade the lot to bring it down to street level. She stated that if one stood on the middle of the hill, from any area of the open lot there was a view and the houses were not going to be put underground. She stated that she hoped the Developer built quality homes that did not inter- fere with the existing homes with views. Ms. Warlita B. Songeo, stated that she owned 2278 and 2288 Greendale Drive and that her view would be blocked with the new development and urged Council for a compromise that would prevent the resi- dents views from being blocked. 7/10/85 Page 13 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 25. Public Hearing - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Mr. Leonard V. Songeo, 2288 Greendale Drive, reiterated his wife's concerns and stated that the Council should not constrict the quality of life in the existing development. Mr. Sam Wolfgram, 2272 Greendale Drive, stated that he was not against the contractor building the townhouses, however he wanted the views and land values preserved at the existing townhouses. Mr. Charles Theis, 2601 Donegal Avenue, Vice President of the Westborough Homeowners Improvement Association, questioned the proximity to this develop- ment, right next door to the fire depart- ment, if there had been any consideration as to the caution signs and signals in the event of the fire engines leaving their station. He spoke of the addi- tional amount of traffic generated from the exit streets, particularly from there into Galway, which he presently felt did not exist. He stated that this develop- ment would generate approximately 100 cars with access to two roads coming into Galway, and with an already over-burdened Westborough Boulevard. He stated that a community building or a community area development was set aside for the eventuality of a community building to be built on Westborough and Galway. He stated that he would like to have the developer get together with the survey committee .in the planning stages for the community building so that it would be increased from 6800 feet to 9000 or 10,000 feet. He stated that he would like to see the plans amended to incor- porate the comments voiced tonight. Ms. Joan Hamilton, 2231Greendale Drive, stated that this land had been owned by the School District and knowing that it did not need further school buildings it determined to sell the property. She stated that her wish was that the School District give the City first right'Of refusal and the City find funds to buy 7/10/85 Page 14 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 25. Public Hearing - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION the land to enhance the park by putting a library or pool on the site. She spoke with concern: of the density of the site; burglary and the crime rate in Westborough; that according to a Japanese study the more people you put together the more crime there would be; the congestion on Galway and Westborough; the lack of parking contributed to people parking around the bus stop which created a problem for children crossing the street. She spoke of the traffic congestion on Westborough; lack of parking in the condo blocks; activity at any time at the Fire Station; having taken a traffic survey on that street at 6:00 p.m. for one hour at the end of the commute time and found that there were 318 cars that went past that site; that with the new development there would be over 400 cars; concern over the access to Westborough with the new development; that a study of the easement of the park should be encouraged so the children would not have to go out on the public street, etc. Mr. Albert Waters, 2266 Shannon Drive, representative of Urban Studies Associates, stated that the non-profit organization in the Westborough area had been in existence for two years. He continued, the reason for the organiza- tion was because of the many problems seen in the Westborough area to which the School District and the City Council had not been responsive to the needs of the community. He stated that the purpose of the organization was to encourage the quality of life in the neighborhood and community and to encourage citizen involvement in the political arena. He stated that the organization was against this development: 1) the area is over developed and over built; 2) at pre- sent the traffic congestion is horren- dous; 3) wanted the project site to be preserved as open space; 4) wants the 7/10/85 Page 15 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION ,. Public Hearing - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION land to be preserved as a community center. He stated that one of the members of the organization, Ann Waters, called the Mayor in 1983 when the property adjacent to the Fire Station was put up for sale by the School Board. He stated that Mrs. Waters had told the Mayor that studies were being made, because there were problems with juveniles, and the park was not being used because of the fog and weather; the need to stop the burglaries; stop kids from hanging out at the shopping centers and take pressure off the neighborhood. He stated that the Mayor told Mrs. Waters that land for just such a facility had been set aside in Westborough Parkl that unless the land had proved to be unsuitable for the facility the City would not consider purchasing land on which to build a com- munity center. He continued, the land was then put up for.sale without notifi- cation to the community, when it was the taxpayers who had helped pay for this property. He stated that he learned later that the City could have purchased it for 25% less than the market price. Mayor Haffey stated that cities did have the right to purchase parklands at 25% fair market value, but that those lands were declared surplus school lands - unfortunately this land was not school land with a school on the property, it was just a proposed school site and the Naylor Bill would not apply. Mr. Waters stated that the sale of the land was improper and the citizens of the community should have been notified. He felt that the City should have bought the property and responded to the needs of the community for a community center in Westborough. He stated that the land had been held by the School Board for 20 years and had become a dumping spot for trash and weeds which the Board did not clean up. He stated that the community should have been notified of the sale in 7/10/85 Page 16 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION ~. Public Hearing - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION order to secure funds to purchase the land from the School District for a com- munity center. Ms. Alicia Bulos, 2444 Liberty Court, President of the Philipino-American Democratic Club of San Mateo County, stated that the arguments presented tonight in favor of the appeal were very logical and presented in a very realistic manner. She stated that her concerns were the same as other speakers had iden- tified: greater density of population with the new development; traffic congestion; preservation of peace and order in the neighborhood that would not add to the Police Departments budget if the development was not built; preser- vation of existing property values; that the present community was individuals with substantial earnings, upper middle class, might not be enhanced by the development; deprivation of views which would make the living not as comfortable; that a compro- mise had to be made; and appealed to the Council to consider the concerns of the neighborhood. Councilman Nicolopulos expressed concern that a different plan was presented tonight than what was approved by the Planning Commission and felt the Commission should have been privy to'the new plan. Councilman Addiego stated that in view of the fact that the Planning Commission had already approved the plans and the Developer was moving in a different direction to make the residents more com- f~rtable, he saw no reason to send the matter back to the Commission. He stated that he would like the community to be comfortable with the plan without an undue burden dragging on the time of the Developer and thanked the people for coming out in support of the appeal. Mayor Haffey stated he also appreciated the residents coming forth and providing valid points on this as well as the 7/10/85 Page 17 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 25. Public Hearing - Continued. RECESS: RECALL TO ORDER: 26. Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending by Motion to approve Tentative Subdivision Map SA-85-88 for Pen-Service Corporation to divide a 5.47 acre parcel located on the west side of Galway Drive between Westborough Boulevard and Greendale Drive into fifty-four residential COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Westborough area's problems. He suggested that the Public Hearing be continued in order for the residents to be given the new information pre- sented tonight by the Developer and again hear the matter at the first meeting in August. Deputy City Manager/Community Development & Administration Lewis requested that item 26, which was related, also be con- tinued to the 8/14/85 meeting. Councilman Addiego stated that tonight's meeting was going to be continued to 7/17/85 and perhaps this item could be resolved then. Mayor Haffey stated that Councilman Nicolopulos and Teglia would not be at the 7/17/85 meeting so the first meeting in August would be better in that the Council would probably be cancelling the 7/24/85 Council meeting. Mr. Falk stated that the Applicant agreed to the continuance and hopes the matter could be expeditiously handled. Vice Mayor Teglia stated that the City would have to be a facilitator at a meeting with the Developer and the resi- dents hopefully to get the residents con- currence on this development and then perhaps the appeal could be withdrawn. Mayor Haffey declared a recess at 8:57 p.m. Mayor Haffey recalled the meeting to order at 9:15 p.m., all Council present. Continued to 8/14/85. 7/10/85 Page 18 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 26. Staff Report 7/10/85 - Continued. lots and a common area for the pur- pose of developing a residential planned unit development. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 24. Joint Public Hearing - City Council/Redevelopment Agency on the Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco United States Steel Plant Site Redevelopment Project to consider and act upon same. Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending: 1) Open the Public Hearing and hear testimony; 2) Close the Public Hearing: 3a) Adoption of a Resolution ruling on written and oral objections; 3b) Adoption of a Resolution of findings and state- ment of facts; 3c) Adoption of a Resolution overriding consider- ations related to approval of the Plan; 3d) Adoption of a Resolution finding that the use of taxes allocated for the purpose of improving and increasing the com- munity's supply of low and moderate income housing; 4) Motion to waive further reading of an Ordinance; 5) Motion to introduce the Ordinance that approves and adopts the Redevelopment Plan. 3a) A RESOLUTION RULING ON WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO U.S. STEEL PLANT SITE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 3b) A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS SUP- PORTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CONSIDERATION OF THE "FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE U.S. STEEL REDEVELOP- MENT PROJECT" PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SAID PROJECT (14 CAL. ADMIN. CODE CHAPTERS 15091, 15092 AND 15096) City Clerk Battaya read the title of the Ordinance in its entirety. Mayor Haffey reconvened the Redevelopment Agency and stated that a Joint Public Hearing with the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency would now begin. He declared the joint public hearing open on the proposed Redevelopment Plan and explained the purpose of the hearing; the hearing procedures; that the Redevelopment Agency would act on two Resolutions; that the City Council would act on four Resolutions and the first reading of an Ordinance and presented the Staff. Deputy City Manager Lewis stated that this was a joint public hearing required by the California Redevelopment Law prior to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. He stated that it was to hear public comment on the Redevelopment Plan and although the City was not approving the Shearwater Project tonight it was setting up the procedural mechanics of the Redevelopment Project. He continued, once the Redevelopment Plan and its sup- portive documents were adopted, it would set in place the ability to finance possible mitigation measures for the development that might occur in the area. He stated that such projects might include transportation related improve- ments, low and moderate income housing and other potential public improvements that might be necessarily feasible. He introduced A1Robertson, Consultant, and Herman Fitzgerald, Esq., the legal Counsel who would elaborate further. Mr. Alan Robertson, Katz, Hollis, Corin Assoc., stated that he had worked for many months with City Staff preparing 7/10/85 Page 19 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 24. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. (Cassette No. 2) 3c) A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE U.S. STEEL PLANT SITE REDEV- ELOPMENT PROJECT 3d) A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO U.S. STEEL PLANT SITE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT 4) 1st Reading/Introduction AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, U.S. STEEL PLANT SITE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION the many documents required and going through the legal steps involved in the Redevelopment Plan. He spoke in detail of the Agency's Report to Council: it provides the information, documentation and evidence that is required by Redevelopment Law to be before Council when it considers the Redevelopment Plan to make its deter- minations on whether or not to approve the Redevelopment Plan; that the report was divided into twelve parts as spe- cified in Redevelopment Law. He pro- ceeded to describe each of the twelve parts of the report. Herman Fitzgerald, Esq., stated that he was prepared to render a legal opinion in support of the proposed adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the U. S. Steel Plant Site and requested it be incor- porated into the record. (Legal opinion by Herman Fitzgerald, Esq. is attached herein and a permanent part of the record of this meeting.) Herman Fitzgerald further requested that the rules governing participation by property owners be entered into the record. (The rules governing participation by property owners is herein attached and a permanent part of the record of this meeting.) Herman Fitzgerald stated that there had been a change due to a clerical error on page 6 to reflect that eminent domain proceedings shall not be commenced after twelve years following the adoption of the Plan. Mayor Haffey asked that any written objections be presented by the Clerk. City Clerk Battaya stated that she had a protest letter from Jeremiah I. Lynch, Esq., dated 7/10/85, on behalf of Poletti Trust Properties. She questioned if 7/10/85 Page 20 LAW OFFICES OF HER/VLKN H. FITZGERALD A PKOFESSIONAL COR. PORATION P. O. BOX BUF~LINOAME, CALIFORNIA 94011 TELEPHONE (415) 348-51~J~ City Council City of South San Francisco July 10, 1985 Re: Redevelopment Plan - U.S. Steel Plant Site Honorable Members: As the attorney representing the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, I submit herewith the legal opinion in support of the proposed adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the U.S. Steel Plant Site. I LEGISLATIVE FINDING RE EXISTENCE OF BLIGHT The basis for the implementation of this Redevelopment Plan, as well as all other California redevelopment plans, is contained in the legislative finding of the State of California that there exists within the State certain blighted areas as follows: It is found and declared that there exist in many communities blighted areas which constitute either physical% social, or econommic liabilities * * * requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of such communities and of the state. * * * A blighted * * * area is one which is characterized by one or more of those conditions set forth in Sections 33031 * * * or 33032, causing a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization a serious physical, social, or economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. Health and Safety Code, Section 33030. This memorand.~msets forth by topic the legal requirements ans specific California Code sections pertaining thereto, together with facts supporting compliance by the Redevelop- ment Agency of the City of South San Francisco. ?/lO/85 Page 20a City Council City of South San Francisco -2- July 10, 1985 Blight is generally defined as being either of a physical nature or of an economic nature. Physical blight includes an area characterized by unfit or unsafe buildings due to defective design, overcrowding, obsolescence, deterioration or mixed uses. (Health and Safety Code, Section 33031.) Economic blight is characterized by, inter alia, economic disuse, irregular lot sizes, and inadequate size for development. (Health and Safety Code, Section 33032.) As a result of the foregoing, the State law provides that such "blighted area" are characterized by depreciated values to such an extent that tax receipts are inadequate to cover the cost of public services required. As a consequence, the legislative finding concludes that the proper utilization of blighted areas creates an unproductive condition of potentially valuable land necessary to contribute to the public health, safety and welfare. The Legislature further found that it is difficult to correct the problems of blight by an exercise of the police power and that, as a practical matter, it is impossible for private individuals to undertake redevelopment due to the lack of legal power and involved costs. (Health and Safety Code, Section 33035.) II REMEDY For the above-cited reasons, State policy is declared that it is within the public interest to redevelop the blighted areas by acquisition, clearance and development through public participation and assistance in the interest of health, safety and welfare of the people of the State of California and of the involved communities. (Health and Safety Code, Section 33037.) Redevelopment is defined in Section 33020 of the Health and Safety Code as follows: "'Redevelopment' means the ~lanning, development, re- planning, redesign, clareance, reconstruction, or rehabilitation, or any combination of these, of all of part of a survey area, and the provision of such residential, commerical, industrial, public, or other structures or spaces as may be appropriate or necessary in the interest of the general welfare, including recreational and other facilities incidental or appurtenant to them." 7/10/85 Page 20b City Council City of South San Francisco -3- July 10, 1985 III REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - POWERS AND DUTIES California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 2, provides for the creation of Redevelopment Agencies to implement the legislative policy and determination as established in the above-cited sections of the law. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco has been so created and its powers and duties incident thereto are established by Section 33120, et. seq. of the Health and Safety Code. The activites o]3--the Redevelopment Agency of South San Francisco are carried out by the Agency acting by and through 'the chief executive officer, the Executive Director of the Agency. The City Council sit as members of the Agency Board. PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS OF REDEVELOPMENT Chapter 4 of the Community Redevelopment Law, beginning with Section 33300 of the Health and Safety Code, sets forth the required procedures for redevelopment. 1. GENERAL PLAN AND SURVEY AREA: In order to satisfy the legal procedures for redevelopment of the U.S. Steel Site, there must first have been a General Plan in existence with in the City of South San Francisco containing the following: (a) Location and extent of existing and proposed transportation routes and facilities; (b) A land use plan; (c) Statement of present and future building and population density correlated with the land use plan; and (d) Descriptive maps, charts, etc., indicating existence of blight. (Health and Safety Code, Section 33302.) The above requirement has been fulfilled by the general plan previously adopted for the City of South San Francisco. 7/10/85 Page 20c City Council City of South San Francisco -4- July 10, 1985 Thereafter, Section 33310 requires that a survey are be designated by Resolution containing a finding that an area so designated by described boundaries requires a redevelopment feasibility study. This was satisfied on January 9, 1985 by the Redevelopment Agency. PROJECT AREA DETErmINATION AND FOrmULATION OF PRELIMINARY. PLAN: Based upon the study of the survey area, the determination of the project area is then required by Article 3 of Chapter 4 of the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code, Sections 33320 , e__t. se_~_~.). The term"Project Area" is defined as a blightedarea necessary for redevelopment. As a general proposition, a project area may include land or improvements not necessarily of a detrimental character, but which inclusion is necessary for the effective redevelopment of an entire area. (Health and Safety Code, Section 33321.) After the determination of the project area, the law requires the formulation of a preliminary plan containing the following: (a) Boundary description; (b) Land uses, street layout, population density and proposed standards; (c) Procedures whereby Redevelopment will be accomplished; and (d) Conformity of redevelopment plan to general plan The above was accomplished in concept as and between the Agency and the PlanningCommission of the City of South San Francisco as required by Section 33323 of the Health and Safety Code. 3. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: Upon completion of the survey area, project area and the preliminary plan, the law requires the formulation of a Redevelopment Plan for submission and ultimate approval by the legislative body. The requirements which must be included in the Redevelopment Plan pursuant ot Article 4, section 7/10/85 Page 20d City Counci~ City of South San Francisco -5- Julyl0, 1985 33330, et. ~e~., and the sections wherein said requirements are included in the submitted Redevelopment Plan for the U.S. Steel Plant Site, are set forth as follows: Conformity to Master Plan (Part I, Section 100). e Boundary Description (Part II, Section 200). Open space, building restrictions, public use property, street layout (Part IV, Section 400, et seq.) 0 Proposed Financing (Part V, Section 500, et seq.) 5. Property Disposition (Part III, Section 315). 6. Conformity to Plan (Part IV, Section 406). 7. Nondiscrimination Clause (Part I~. Section ~15)~ Participation by Property Owners (Part III, Section 302 et seq). In addition to compliance with the requirements as above cited, the aforesaid Redevelopment Plan contains certain other provisions necessary in the redevelopment process, all as allowed by the Health and Safety Code, including, among other provisions, the following: Low or Moderate Income Housing (Part III, Section 321, et seq.) Property Development (Part III, Section 318). 4. ADOPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: The Health and Safety Code requires approval of the plan by the Agency (Section 33348) and the legislative body (Section 33360) by way of a public meeting. In the althernative, Section 7/10/85 Page 20e City Council City of South San Francisco -6- July 10, 1985 33355 allows for a joint public meeting, which procedure is being followed in this matter. There must be proper notice given by publication for once a week for four successive weeks prior to the hearing, together with notice mailed to the last known assessee of each parcel of land in the project area. This was accomplished by the Redevelopment Agency and by the City Clerk's office as evidenced by the attached exhibits. In addition to the notice requirements, Section 33346 of the Health and Safety Code requires that redevelopment Plan must be submitted to the City Planning commission prior to submission to the legislative body. On June 13, 1985, the Redevelopment Plan for the U.S. Steel Plant Site was presented to the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco and was approved by unaimous vote. In instances when a joint public hearing is require~, under Section 33359 of the Health and Safety Code the only approval and adoption of the plan necessary is that by the legislative body. Upon the conclusion of the public meeting, the legislative body is authorized by Section 33359 to accept the Redevelopment plan as the official Redevelopment plan for the project area by a majority vote (see Section 33365 and 33366) of the entire legislative body by ordinance containing the following: (a) The purposes and intent of the legislative body with respect to the project area. (b) The plan incorporated by reference. (c) A designation of the approved plan as the official redevelopment plan of the project area. (d) The findings and determinations of the legislative body that: (1) The project area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in this part. (2) The redevelopment plan would redevelop the area in conformity with this part and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare. (3) The adoption and carrying out of the redevelopment ~lan is economically sound and feasible. (4) The redevelopment plan conforms to the master or general plan of the community. (5) The carrying out of the redevelopment plan would promote the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the community and wouldeffectuate the purposes and policy of this part. 7/~0/85 Page 20f City Council City of South San Francisco -7- July 10,1985 (10) (11) (12) (6) The condemnation of real property, if provided for in the redevelopment plan, is necessary to the execution of the redevelopment plan and adequate provisions have been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. (7) The agency has a feasible method or plan for the relocation of families and persons displaced from the project area, if the redevelopment plan may result in the temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the project area. (8) There are or are being provided in the project area or in other areas not generally less desirable in re- gar~ to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons displaced from the project area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to the displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. (9) All noncontiquous areas of a project area are either blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment and are not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of taxes from the area pursuant to Section 33670 without other substantial justification for their inclusion. Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety orwelfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part; that any area included is necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purposed of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from the area pursuant to Section 33670 without other substantial justification for its inclusion. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the project area could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the agency. The effect of tax increment financing will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment on any taxing agency deriving revenues from a project area. This finding shall only be required when the project is financed in part or in whole from revenues derived from the allocation of taxes pursuant to Section 33670. (e) A statement that the legislative body is satisfied that permanent housing facilities will be avaiable within 7/~0/85 Page 20g City Council City of South San Francisco -8- July 10, 1985 three years from time occupants of the project area are displaced and that pending the development of the facilities, there will be available to the displaced occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the community at the time of their displacement. Health and Safety Code, Section 33367 CONCLUSION In conclusion, having examined the record of the proceedings in relation to the legal requirements relative to the Redevelop- ment Plan for the U.S. Steel Plant Site Redevelopment Project, it is my opinion that all proceedings authorized and/or required have been undertaken pursuant to the State and Federal Law and the aforesaid Redevelopment Plan may be adopted as the official Redevelopment Plan for the project area. HHF/aaf Respectfully submitted Law Offices of Herman H. Fitzgerald 7/10/85 Page 20h KatzHollis 021985 RULES GOVERNING PARTICIPATION - BY PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE SOUTH SAN FRANGISGO U.S. STEEL PLANT SITE REDEVELOPMENT PROJEGT Adopted by South San Francisco Redevelopment A~ency June 12, 1985 Resolution No. 62 7110/85 Page 20i KatzHollis II. III. VI. VII. VII. TABLE OF CONTENTS [Section 100] [Section 200] [Section 300] [Section 400] A. [Section 401] [Section 500] [Section 600] PURPOSE AND INTENT DEFINITIONS TYPES OF PARTICIPATION PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES Notice to Owners; Time to Enter into Agreement [Section 402] Participation Agreements 1. [Section 403] General 2. [Section 404] Contents ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT OF RULES PAGE 1 1 7/10/85 Page 20j KatzHollis RULES GOVERNING PARTICIPATION BY PROPERTY OWNERS IN TH2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO U.S. STEEL PLANT SITE REDEVELOPMENT PROJEOT [Section 100] PURPOSE AND INTENT These rules are adopted to implement the provisions of the Redevelop- ment Plan for the South San Francisco U.S. Steel Plant Site Redevelopment Project regarding participation by-property owners-within the Project.' These- rules set forth the procedures governing such participaMon. The California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et__~, seq.) requires the adoption of these rules by the Agency to permit participation in the redevelopment of the Project Area by owners of real property within the boundaries of the Project Area to the maximum extent consistent with the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. II. [Section 200] DEFINITIONS As used herin, the following definitions apply:. (1) "Redevelopment Plan" means the Redevelopment Plan for the South San Francisco U.S. Steel Plant site Redevelopment Project as adopted by theCity Council of the City of South San Francisco. (2) "Project Area" means the project area described in Section 200 of the Redevelopment Plan and shown on Exhibit "A," Redevelopment Plan Map,' attached thereto. (3) "Agency" means the South San Francisco Redevelopment A~ency. (4) "Owner" means any person, persons, corporation, association, partnerhip, or other entity holding title of record to real property in the Project Area on the date of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the City Council. [Section 300] TYPES OF PARTICIPATION Participation includes remaining in substantially the same location either by retaining all or portions of the property, or by retaining all or portions of the property and acquiring adjacent property from the 'Agency. Participation R~o include the Agency buying land and improvements at fair market value from existing Owners and offering other parcels for purchase by such Owners. Participation opportunities Shall necessarily be subject to and ]~m~ted by factors such as the following: (1) The elimination and changing of some land uses; 7/]0/S5 Page 20k KatzHollis (2) The construction, realignment, abandonment, widening, opening and/or other alteration or elimination of public rights-of-way; (3) The removal, relocation, and/or installation of public utilities and public facilities; (4) The ability of participants to finance the proposed acquisition, development or rehabilitation in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan; (5) The ability and experience of participants to undertake and complete the proposed development; (6) Any reduction in the total number of individual parcels in the Project Area; '(7) The construction of expansion of public improvements and facili- ties, and the necessity to assemble areas for such; (8) Any change in orientation and character of the Project Area; (9) The necessity to assemble areas for public and/or development. ~/~ VI. [Section 400] PARTICIPATION PROOEDURES private A. [Section 401] Notice to Owners; Time to Enter into Agreement If the Agency determines that an Owner of real property within the Project Area shall be required to enter into an Owner Participation Agree- ment as provided in Section 500 of these rules, the Agency shall notify the Owner in writing of its intention to require an Owner Participation Agree- ment and shall provide the Owner with a copy of the proposed Owner Participation Agreement. An Owner presented with an owner Participation Agreement by the Agency must enter into the Agreement within a reasonable period of time as determined by the Agency, and must submit proof of his/her qualifications, including financial responsibility, to carry out the terms and provisions of the Owner Participation Agreement. B. [Section 400] Participation Agreements I. [Section 403] General Owners wishing to develop or improve their properties within the project Area may be required, as a condition to Agency approval of such development~ to enter into a Participation Agreement with the Agency if the Agency determines it is necessary to impose upon such property any of the standards, restrictions and controls of the Redevelopment Plan. 7/10/85 Page 20'k -2- KatzHollis 2. [Section 404] Contents A Participation Agreement shall obligate the Owner, his/her heirs, and successors and assigns, to develop and devote the property to the uses specified in the Redevelopment Plan and abide by all provisions and conditions of the Redevelopment Plan for the period of time that the Redevelopment Plan is in force and effect, excepting those provisions related to non-discrimina- tion and non-segregation which shall run in perpetuity. A Participation Agreement shall contain such other terms and conditions which,--in the discretion-of the Agency, may .be necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Redevelopment Plan. Each Participation Agreement will require the participant to join in the recordation of such documents as the Agency may require in order to insure the proeprty will be developed and used in accord with the Rede,,elopment Plan and the Agreement. Participation agreements will be effective only if approved by a rn~jority vote of the members of the Agency. VII. [Section 500] ENFORCEMENT In the event a property is not developed or used in conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and ,Participation Agreement, then the Agency is authorized to (1) purchase the property, (2) purchase any interest in the property sufficient to obtain conformance, or (3) take any other appropriate action sufficient to obtain such conformance. The Agency sh~]] not acquire real property retained or developed under an approved Participation Agrement if the participant fully performs under the Agreement. VIII. [Section 600] AMENDMENT OF RULES The Agency may amend these rules at any regular meeting or duly called special meeting held after their adoption, but only after notice to the Agency members and the public. The text of the proposed change shall be furnished along with the notice of the meeting. 'Such notice shall be delivered at least fourteen (14) days before the date of the meeting at which the proposed amendment will be considered. The method of notice is at the discretion of the Agency. No such amendment shall retroactively impair the rights of any parties who have executed Participation Agreements with the Agency in reliance upon these rules as presently constituted. 7/10/85 Page 20m -3- LAW OFFICE: OF JEREMIAH J. LYNCH ATTORN~--Y AT LAW 1~O HOWARD AVENUE, ~Ul'r'E ~O BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-4211 July 10, 1985 City Council City of South San Francisco City Hall 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: Final Environmental Impact Report for the U.S. Steel Plant Site Redevelopment Project Dear Councilmembers: The undersigned represents the Poletti Trust Properties. The Poletti Trust Properties objects to the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the U.S. Steel Plant Site Redevelopment Project in the following particulars. 1. The Final EIR is materially and substantially inadequate in that it does not discuss the cumulative substantial adverse traffic impact the Subject Project will have on the Gateway Redevelopment Project and, in particular, at the intersection of Mitchell Avenue, South Airport Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard extension. 2. The Final EIR fails to discuss the substantial adverse impact the Subject Project will have on ingress and egress to existing businesses, including the Poletti Trust Properties, located in the Gateway Redevelopment Project. 3. The Final EIR fails to discuss substantial and potential adverse impact to propery values of existing land and businesses, including the Poletti Trust Properties, located in the Gateway Redevelopment Project as a result of impaired access to properties and businesses occasioned by massive traffic jams which would result from the Subject Project as conceived. 4. The Final EIR fails to discuss or consider what effect the Subject Project will have on median strip openings, including left turns and U turns, on the Gateway Boulevard Extension in the Gateway Redevelopment Project. 5. The Final EIR is inadequate in that it does not discuss the conflict with the City's general plan which establishes a 30 units per acre density maximum on 7/10/85 Page 20n AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 24. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION the Mayor wished the letter to be read into the record or incorporate the letter into the record. Mayor Halley requested that the Clerk incorporate the letter into the record. (The above mentioned protest letter is herein attached and a permanent part of the record of this meeting.) Mayor Haffey invited those wishing to speak in favor the Redevelopment Plan to step to the dais. Mr. David Russell, Vice President Chiltern Development, stated that he represented Mr. Price, the owner of the property in question. He stated that his firm was entrusted with the management of the proposed project on the site. He stated that Chiltern Development comple- tely supports the Redevelopment Plan which will rejuvenate an area in need of redevelopment because it is an abandoned industrial area. He commended the part- nership of public and private enterprise that would extend beyond the site with mitigation measures becoming possible. Mayor Halley then invited those wishing to speak against the Plan to step to the dais. Mr. Ronald Wilson, San Francisco Airport, stated that the Airport had a noise miti- gation flight procedure that tracks directly over the proposed residential portion of that project, the entire pro- ject, however the residential area was the only part that the Airport opposed. He stated that aircraft could be in excess of 200 - 300 a day would be tracking over that area at an elevation of 1200 feet creating noise; quite objec- tionable noise in the neighborhood single events of 105 decibels or less and interim noise levels could be dropped to some degree but there was no way a building could be constructed to reduce the noise levels of 105 decibels, etc. 7/10/85 Page 21 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 24. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Discussion followed: on future technology of aircraft construction to reduce noise; making a quieter propeller for airplanes; that the action before Council tonight was only to approve the Redevelopment Plan rather than the Shearwater Plan. Jeremiah J. Lynch, Esq., stated that he was appearing on behalf of the Poletti Trust properties in the Gateway. He stated that he had presented a letter of protest to the City Clerk and Redevelopment Agency and asked that t'he letters be entered into the record. Mayor Haffey stated that the letters had been entered into the Council and Redevelopment records. Lynch, Esq., stated that his client's property was located on Mitchell at the corner of the Gateway Extension and Airport Boulevard when the EIR had been approved. He stated that that intersec- tion had been given a F rating as far as the traffic impacts were considered, yet now with the U.S. Steel project the Council was talking about putting 6,000 employees, 9,000 visitors a day, office space and the EIR does not address the impact of the subject property on the Gateway Redevelopment area. He con- tinued, that once the massive project was underway there would not be sufficient letters in the alphabet to address the traffic ratings. He stated that the purpose of planning was to enhance the public health, safety and welfare of a community. He stated that this project if implicated as con- ceived by the two bodies, then his clients health and safety, as far as traffic, noise and pollution, is going to be totally destroyed. He stated that he thought the project, insofar as it would impact the Gateway Project, violated every principle of decent traffic engineering and traffic design as far as his client was concerned 7/10/85 Page 22 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 24. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION and the properties adjacent to the Trust property. He urged the Council and the Redevelopment Agency to postpone action and have a supplemental EIR to address the items he had spoken of tonight and the concerns stated in the letter that was incorporated into the record. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned the comment - violates every issue of traffic. Lynch, Esq., stated that in the Gateway EIR approved by the Redevelopment Agency there was a condition when it hadn't been built yet, which gave an F to the traffic situation at the intersection at peak hours which was directly in front of his client's property - without regard to the U.S. Steel property. He con- tinued, once the additional traffic is superimposed on that pre-existing F rating his client would not be able to get in and out of his property. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that the City was trying to mitigate the traffic problems by alternate means of transpor- tation such as car pools, ferries or helicopter pads. Fitzgerald, Esq., stated that the client's property was situated in an unrelated project, the Gateway Extension, a portion of which would be acquired for the Gateway Extension which was felt would have a beneficial impact on the Poletti Trust properties. Lynch, Esq., stated that the City wanted to take the property for twenty-five cents on the dollar. Ms. Sylvia Gregory, Coordinator of the Airport Impact Reduction Force, stated that she had crossed swords with Mr. Wilson since 1970 to try to make the air- port be a better neighbor. She stated that she had seen the project and it was very beautiful with expensive 7/10/85 Page 23 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 24. Joint Public Hearin§ - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION homes involved. She iterated the problems in the area with airplane noise and the efforts to have the airplanes use the quiet depar- ture, Runway 28 with an immediate right turn and fly right over this area, so they will not go out through the gap which affects South San Francisco, San Bruno and Daly City. She stated that the problem was in putting housing under an area that had been negotiated as a quiet departure, this was asking for a catch 22. She stated that the people who buy the homes under that airline take-off route are going to be well educated, very rich people able to exert pressure on the air- port, equally as strenously as her group had done for 10 years. She stated that one Resolution would increase the amount of low and moderate income housing for other places in the City, but it would not be for the people who are impacted by this develop- ment. She felt that the impact should be addressed much more thoroughly. Deputy City Manager Lewis stated that the questions related to airport noise would be addressed when the City received the actual project. Mr. Douglas Butler, 133 Adrian Avenue, stated that he had problems with the EIR on the project and complained that the documents for the Redevelopment were not available to the public on the project. He felt that the Redevelopment Plan was a separate issue but seemed to be tied to the Shearwater Plan. He stated that he had come across so many negatives in the EIR and that to approve the plan would be a disservice to the community. He stated that BCDC had raised some con- cerns regarding the fill on the site, and land fill 'could only be used according 7/10/85 Page 24 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 24. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. Redevelopment Agency: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION to specifications for water related acti- vities. He continued, it could not be used for a hotel residence or for parking and had prohibited marinas in areas that need frequent dredging and could contain toxic material from the leftover U.S. Steel site; insufficient shoreline access to this property, and it would create a visual wall to the bay. He stated that the Air Quality Management District raised questions about traffic pile ups. He stated that he lived in an area under- neath the gap and when planes fly over the house conversation stopped and the TV was meaningless. He stated that he would hate to see the Airport say they could not use Runway 28, and instead use the gap which was over his house. He stated that this project would generate 38,000 trips during evening peak hours causing more traffic congestion. He stated that this project was too dense and these issues had to be addressed in the project. He stated that the General Plan's inten- tion had not been to put such construc- tion so as to rot the community or the bay, the access or the view. He urged the Council not to approve the plan in its present form but scale it down, eliminate the wall and work out the traffic problems before consideration of the project. Mayor Haffey closed the Public Hearing. M/S Addiego/Teglia - To adopt the Resolution certifying the Final EIR for the U.S. Steel Plant Site. RESOLUTION NO. 68 Carried by unanimous voice vote. 7/10/85 Page 25 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 24. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. City Council: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION M/S Addiego/Teglia - To adopt the Resolution for the use of taxes for low and moderate income housing. RESOLUTION NO. 69 Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Teglia/Addiego - To adjourn the Redevelopment Agency meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Addiego/Teglia - To adopt the Resolution on written and oral objections. RESOLUTION NO. 150-85 Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Teglia/Addiego - To adopt the Resolution of findings and statement of facts. RESOLUTION NO. 151-85 Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Teglia/Addiego - To adopt the Resolution of overriding considerations. RESOLUTION NO. 152-85 Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To adopt the Resolution on the use of taxes for low and moderate income housing. RESOLUTION NO. 153-85 Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Nicolopulos/Teglia - To waive further reading of the Ordinance. Carried by unanimous voice vote. - To introduce M/S Nicolopulos/Teglia the Ordinance. 7/10/85 Page 26 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 24. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. 27. Public Hearing - To consider an application for Amendment to the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending: Open the Public Hearing and hear testimony; 2) Close the Public Hearing; 3) Adoption of a Resolution adopting findings and statement of facts; 4) Adoption of a Resolution adopting a statement of overriding considerations related to approval of an Amendment to the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan; 5) Adoption of a Resolution approving and author- izing execution of an Amendment to the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan to Permit Site-Specific Geotechnical Repairs. a) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION b) Carried by unanimous voice vote. c) Mayor Haffey opened the public hearing. City Attorney Rogers stated that there was a Resolution adopting findings and statement of fact pursuant to the Final EIR for the Conservation Plan for San Bruno Mountain, which appears as the third item but should be the first Resolution adopted. He stated that Council may recall that some months before a similar Resolution was placed before them which discussed the potential impacts of the Amendment to the Habitat Conservation Plan and that this resolu- tion was essentially the same except that it now considers accumulative impacts of two amendments pending upon the mountain. He stated that those impacts were negli- gible, however further comment would come from the environmental people. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SUPPLEMENT, AND THE ADDENDUM THERETO, FOR THE SOUTH SLOPE GEOTECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN (14 CAL ADMIN. CODE SECTIONS 15091, 15092 AND 15096) A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AND SECTION lO(A) PERMIT TO PERMIT SITE-SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL REPAIRS (14 CAL. ADMIN. CODE SECTION 15093) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN AREA HABITAT He stated that the second resolution adopted a statement of overriding con- siderations related to approval of the Habitat Conservation Plan Amendment and sets forth the reasons why some of the effects can not be mitigated and it was still important to make this amendment to the plan. He stated that the third resolution approves and authorizes execution of an amendment to the Habitat Conservation Plan to permit site specific geotechnic repairs outlining the changes to be made by the Developer. City Planner Gorny stated that Staff was recommending that the Council adopt the three Resolutions as summarized by the City Attorney. He stated that the adden- dum to the Supplemental EIR/EA addressed the cumulative environmental affects of the proposed South Slope Geotechnical Amendment and two other proposed amend- ments in the Habitat Conservation Plan. He spoke in detail on: the three years or window amendment; the Rio Verde 7/10/85 Page 27 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 27. Public Hearing - Continued. Staff Report 7/10/85 - Continued. c) - Continued. CONSERVATION PLAN TO PERMIT SITE-SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL REPAIRS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION Heights A~nendment and the County Parks/Colma Sandpit Amendment; which would be subject to environmental review and hearings at a later date; cumulative impacts, the eleven alternatives for slide repair; environmental impacts; geological conditions on the site; visual impacts; environmental mitigation, etc. Mr. Tom Reid, EIR Consultant for San Mateo County, presented slides showing the three amendments: Rio Verde Heights Amendment, Hillside Amendment and the County Park Amendments. He stated that there would be 8/10 of 1% population decrease of mission blue butterflies. He stated that in his opinion biologically turning the three year phasing into one year phasing would not increase the impact on the mission blue to any significant level. He spoke in detail: of the biological impacts, studied impact, geological impact stand exactly as the Council con- sidered them and were not changed in degree or severity by the fact that two other amendments were being proposed for the Habitat Conservation Plan in 1985. Mayor Haffey invited those wishing to speak in favor of the Amendment to step to the dais. William Sterling, Esq., stated that he represented W. W. Dean & Associates and was speaking in support of the Amendment. He spoke of the four hearings on the Supplemental EIR; the non-impact of the County Park Project and the Rio Verde Heights Project; prior consideration of the biological, geological and visual impact of the project; and urged that Council continue to follow through with the project. Richard Diodati, Owner and Developer of the Oyster Point Business Park, stated that he was in favor of the project and spoke of the need for housing in the City; and stated that he hoped the pro- 7/10/85 Page 28 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 27. Public Hearing - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION ject would be approved. Mayor Haffey invited those wishing to speak in opposition to the Amendment to step to the dais. Mr. Kenneth Floyd of Daly City spoke of the four problems related to the benching on the slope: cannot hide the benching; benching is inadequate to prevent slides; that the benching is only temporary and that further action would be necessary in the future to prevent slides; and the liability in the event of landslides. He stated that that the reasonable course of action would be to move the houses away from the landslide areas, so that there wouldn't be any benching and have safe housing. He commented "that it takes very little effort to destroy the quali- ty of life and an extraordinary amount of effort to restore it i.e., pesticides and toxic dumps, etc." He urged Council to vote no on this matter and request that the developer redesign his project. Mr. Douglas Butler, 133 Adrian Avenue, spoke on behalf of himself and the South San Francisco Citizens for Our Mountain, stating that the community was concerned about the mountain; liability in the event of landslides; requested that Council have the same concern for the community in regard to the South Slope issue as it has for other areas of the City; loss of life and property in Pacifica as the result of benching; the effect the benching would have on the mountain; regular occurrence of slides on the slope; and that the slopes would remain ugly, denuded and offensive as a result of the benching. He stated that the matter was basically a land use issue in that the land should not be made to conform to development, but that the development should conform to the land; that there was a need for sensitivity to the land; that the project should be redesigned in order to elimi- 7/10/85 Page 29 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 27. Public Hearing - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION nate the benching, retaining walls, intrusion in the HCP, and the loss of endangered species. He spoke of the petition which had been submitted previously in opposition to the project and stated that if the amendment was approved a referendum would be filed on the issue and assured Council that the referendum would be successful. He commented on the previous initiative which would have prevented the City from pro- viding services to the slope; the amount of funds spent by the developer against the initiative and the confusion of the voters due to the wording of the initiative. He urged Council to vote no on the amendment and support the community in their endeavor to have the development redesigned. Mayor closed the Public Hearing. Councilman Addiego stated "In my five years on this City Council I have found the City of South San Francisco community to be tremendously tolerant of a good deal of development, and as we saw this evening in regards to the Westborough development they are tolerant unless they are going to lose something; unless some thing that they have is going to be spoiled. In this case it was a view from their windows towards the east bay, towards San Bruno Mountain, and its the reluctance to lose something that you already have. There is a certain weari- ness in the community in regards to coming and speaking to this particular City Council and it's a weariness that ! share right now at this moment, and I'm not sure if it's the extensive amount of hearings that the Council has held in regards to this matter or the issue itself or the charm of the developer, but there is a feeling in the community that in regards to the issue that the Council has become a little bit numb and a lot more deaf. There have been some signifi- cant issues raised as far as the safety and the visual impacts and Council seems 7/10/85 Page 30 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 27. Public Hearing - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION completely unwilling to get back into the project. We have been involved with this for a good deal of time and its almost as if the Council just wants to wash their hands of it and let it go and be done with it. There is a danger there for elected officials. A group of people who I met with in the last few weeks are finding new energy and I applaude that, given the odds. It is unfortunate that the Council cannot be as responsive on this issue as they were earlier this evening. The numbers are much greater and there is a good deal more at stake. I haven't found the key to the Council's rationale to not accommodate the citizens in the same way - asking the Developer as Mr. Butler so aptly put it, to conform his development to the land instead of trying to make the land conform to the development. We have gotten ahead of ourselves on this project and I believe that was extremely well orchestrated by the Developer and County Staff and now we find ourselves all alone and its in our ball park. I think that it is time the community started speaking to itself and exploring other options to deal with this issue. I applaude their efforts in that direction." M/S Nicolopulos/Teglia - To adopt the Resolution adopting findings and state- ment of facts. RESOLUTION NO. 154-85 Carried by majority roll call vote, Councilman Addiego voted no. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To adopt a Resolution adopting a statement of overriding considerations. RESOLUTION NO. 155-85 Carried by majority roll call vote, Councilman Addiego voted no. 7/10/85 Page 31 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 27. Public Hearin§ - Continued. M/S Nicolopulos/Teglia - To adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing exe- cution of an Amendment. RESOLUTION NO. 156-85 Carried by majority roll call vote, Councilman Addiego voted no. TECHNICAL AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES 28. Hearing - Show Cause Hearing ~~ regarding violations of Chapters 14.04 and 14.08 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code occurring at 1410 E1Camino Real South San Francisco, California - continued from 5/8/85, 5/13/85, 5/22/85 and 6/12/85 and 6/26/85 meetings. TECHNICAL AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES Deputy City Manager Lewis requested that the matter be continued to 8/14/85, stating that the City was continuing to work with the property owner to resolve the problem. Consensus of Council - To continue the item to 8/14/85. 29. 30. Staff Report 7/10/85 recommending: 1) Motion to waive further reading of the Ordinance; 2) Motion to adopt the Ordinance establishing_O4Y~ sewer charges for 1985-86. ~~'---'5 2nd Reading/Adoption AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SEWER CHARGES AND PROCEDURES RELATED THERETO AND AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 396, AS AMENDED, AND CHAPTER 14.12 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE City Clerk Battaya read the title of the Ordinance in its entirety. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To waive further reading of the Ordiance. Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To adopt the Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 988-85 1 ~ Carried by unanimous voice vote. Staff Report 7/20/85 recommending M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To adopt the adoption of a Resolution approving Resolution. the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 1985-86. RESOLUTION NO. 157-85 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR 1985-86 Carried by unanimous voice vote. ITEMS FROM STAFF ITEMS FROM STAFF 31. Report on the Slurry Seal Project. Vice Mayor Teglia asked if the written report could be accepted without comment. She stated that she was not opposed to the slurry seal program, but indicated that she would like to see better control and application. 7/10/85 Page 32 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ITEMS FROM COUNCIL ITEMS FROM COUNCIL M/S Te§lia/Nicolopulos - To cancel the 7/24/85 meeting, the second regular meeting in July. Carried by unanimous voice vote. GOOD AND WELFARE GOOD AND WELFARE (Cassette No. 3) No one chose to speak. CLOSED SESSION 32. Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of personnel mat- ters, labor relations and litiga- tion. Council adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:58 p.m. RECALL TO ORDER: Mayor Halley recalled the meeting to order at 11:25 p.m., all Council present, no action was taken and that the litiga- tion case discussed was Katz vs. the City of South San Francisco. 33. Request to adjourn the meeting to 7/17/85 for the second reading of the Ordinance on the Redevelopment Project. M/S Nicolopulos/Teglia - To adjourn the meeting to 7/17/85 at 5:30 p.m., in the City Council Conference Room, City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California. Carried by unanimous voice vote ADJOURNMENT Time of adjournment 11:27 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Barbara A. Battaya~ City of South San Francisco APPROVED: Ric ard~,~~~~ City of South San Fran /~op 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 are available for inspection, review and copying. 7/10/85 Page 33