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Commission decision had been withdrawn.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