Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1988-11-30Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia Counci 1: Mark N. Addiego Jack Drago Ri chard A. Haffey Gus Nicolopulos MINUTES City Counci 1 City Council Conference Room City Hal 1 November 30, 1988 AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) ROLL CALL: Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of personnel matters, labor relations, property negotiations and litigation. RECALL TO ORDER: CALL TO ORDER: Joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss items of mutual concern. ACTION TAKEN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 5:37 p.m. Mayor Teglia presiding. Council present: Addiego, Drago, Haffey, Nicolopulos, and Teglia. Council adjourned to a Closed Session at 5:38 p.m. and conducted it at the Leaning Tower Restaurant to discuss the items listed at 5:38 p.m., and the location of the Session was duly noticed. Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., all Council present, no action taken. Council absent: None. Planning Commissioners present: Mantegani, Matteucci, Warren, Wendler, Zellmer, and Terry. Planning Commissioners absent: Boblitt. Mayor Teglia apologized for the tardiness in starting the meeting, and related that it was due to the importance of the Closed Session discussion. Planning Commission Chairman Terry stated that each of the Commissioners would have the opportunity to make individual com- ments in order to avoid long discussions on only a few points. He stated that the Planning Commission was desirous of getting feedback from the Council to facilitate their moving in the right direction for the benefit of the City. He read a letter into the record from Planning Commissioner Boblitt which cited her particular concerns, a copy is attached and a permanent part of the record of this meeting. 11/30/88 Page I November 28, 1988 Mr. Paul Terry 1036 Crestwood San Francisco, Calif. 94080 Dear Paul: As per our telephone conversation, I am unable to attend the joint meeting with the City Council due to a personal comm±ttment. The follow,fig items would be things that coneern me and would like them to be discussed if possible. 1. Private S~reets--I was under the impression that Council and the Planning Commission were in agreement that private streets_~ were to be discouraged and yet most of the projects presented to us recently have been recommended by staff with private streets. I recognize the fact that some projects are better for the developer with private streets hut are they always in the best interest of the city? 2. Im concerned with the additions to homes in the neighborhoods that do not blend in with the area. I fully~believe that the planning commission intended to have any additions that broke the roof line come before us even tho it apparantly was not written that way--(we need to change that). Several very bad examples in the city are easy to point out. Arroyo drive for one. 3. When I first started on this comission we were presented with a full presentation of a completed project~and now it seems that we are requested to approve an adjenda itmm and let staff finalize the other items. 4. I'm angered at the way Pack & Save was handled by staff. If when Orchard Supply left and we requested a moratorium or overlay and a sub committee(which met once) to fully take into consideration the impact of that area, we would not have spent two year of valuable time and effort for nothing. It seems that now a moratorium is possible. I question the ability of staff to tell them "you should have no trouble at all with this application. I hope we can meet again with conncil to keep the line of communication open. Thank you for allowing me to present my concerns Very sincerelyTyours BB 11/30/88 Page la AGENDA ACTION TAKEN - 2. Joint Meeting - Continued. Planning Commissioner Vice Chairman Zellmer stated that one of his concerns was the lack of continuity of the message that went out to the applicants/ businesses/developers from all of the bodies that were involved in an issue. He stated that he was a real believer in giving people an honest opportunity and if they wanted to fight uphill, that was their fight, but they should know what they were up against. Planning Commissioner Mantegani cited the following concerns: parking requirements in reference to private streets, and how the City wanted them applied to public streets with apron parking; that planning appeal items were being sent back to the Commission from the Council based upon supposed new information presented at the Council meeting. He stated that applicants play games by presenting bare bone facts to the Commission, and if it doesn't pass they present Council with full guns which are then sent back to the Commission. He stated that on one occasion a message was received from Council and the Commission approved something that should not have been approved. Planning Commissioner Warren stated that her concern was in not knowing which direction the Council wanted to see the City go in, and that one example had been the barbed wire issue. She stated that the barbed wire issue had come to the Commission as a Council concern, however, it had been non-specific and it was not known whether it was a specific problem. She stated that barbed wire had been used in the City in different areas and was recommended in some cases, and mandated in others. She stated that if the Council decided to make a change, such as the case of the use of barbed wire, it would be helpful to the Commission to have that information. She reiterated Commissioner Mantegani's 11/30/88 Page 2 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Joint meeting - Continued. concern over games played at Council meetings by appl i cants appeal i ng P1 anning Commission decisions. Planning Commissioner Wendler recited her concerns: that most homeowners have three or four vehicles and a lot of deve- lopers were not providing sufficient parking; that Council direction on pri- vate streets left a great deal of con- fusion at the Commission level; that better developments could be demanded and effected by the City; house additions on very small lots; need for more code enforcement, etc. Planning Commissioner Matteucci stated that most of his concerns had been voiced by other Commissioners, however, he was for housing additions when they conformed to the neighborhood. He stated that additions should be watched closely with some approved, and others not approved when they were not an asset to the neighborhood. He stated that he believed in a good quality of living for the citizens of South San Francisco with a business growth done properly, and he wanted to work with the Council and staff to better understand some of the City's probl ems. Planning Commission Chairman Terry cited the following concerns: home additions with roof lines of a different design than the neighborhood; a flaw in the Code wherein an individual could knock out the ceiling of the front room, and extend the ceiling and the roof line which was not figured in the square footage of the addition; an Arroyo Drive and Sunshine Gardens addition; code enforcement abuses on signs; industrial parks with outside storage; no true defi- nition of outside storage. Discussion followed: that some home additions were out of line and character for the neighborhood; why the home addi- tion on Arroyo was out of line with the 11/30/88 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Joint meeting - Continued. neighborhood; the home addition in Sunshine Gardens very nicely fit into the neighborhood, but there was concern on why it had not been completed; that over built homes were not necessarily a problem for a neighborhood, because dif- ferent style homes were interesting in a neighborhood; that Councilman Drago had asked the city Manager to amend the Building Code to make individuals finish their projects, and that the exterior should be completed before the interior was finished; that Council was not aware of additions unless a complaint was received from a neighbor; that there should be some City control; that the Design Review Board makes a recommen- dation to the City Planner, and there were City controls; that when these applications came before staff they should be cognizant of the neighborhood to see if the addition fit in with the houses around it; wanted an explanation from staff on how some additions had been allowed when they did not conform to the neighborhood; that building permits had been applied for before the ordinance had come into being; that this was an example on why home additions go through design review, etc. Mayor Teglia stated that she failed to see how Sunshine Gardens had been damaged by the home addition. Planning Commission Chairman Terry stated that he believed that part of the design process was flawed because the planning staff had not checked the square footage, and had taken the word of the applicant - which was off 300'. He stated that in the design review guide- lines it spoke of the neighbor's view, light, air and so on, and when a 21/2-3 story addition was added it eliminated the south sun from the individual's backyard. Discussion followed: that the City should encourage people to invest in their neighborhoods through these home 11/30/88 Page 4 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Joint meeting - Continued. improvements; that 1,800 sq. ft. of living space required a one car garage in the zoning ordinance; that the Planning Commission intended to request a change in the General Plan for roof line defini- tions; on whether the Commission had suggestions to make the design review process work; if a home exceeded 2,500 sq. ft. or went over 5 bedrooms, then the home required a 3 car garage; that some applicants remove a bedroom by calling it a den; that the planning process was horrendous for an applicant; suggestion was made that the Commission have a full review of the Design Review Board agenda; that the Commission appointed the Design Review Board, and it was an advisory body that should meet together to set common goals; suggestion that a member of each Body attend the other Body's meetings to establish better communication and direc- tion; suggestion that written recommen- dations be given to the Commission from the Board, independent of staff recommen- dations; that original applicants were not sent to the Planning Commission, instead they received applications with the Board's modifications; that minutes were not made of the Board's meetings, only staff's translation of their recom- mendations to the Commission; that the Design Review Board now had the final authority on signage, and home additions; that the Board meets in the morning, which was inconvenient for Planning Commissioners to attend. City Manager Armas stated that he had met with each of the Commissioners to reach an understanding of what the planning problems were all about, and the topic of the Design Review Board was dear to each one. He stated that what had evolved was that the Body that had the final juris- diction no longer worked, and the Commission seemed to want to have authority in other areas - with an end result of everyone being dissatisfied with the final product. He stated that the Commission had decided to spend time with the Board at a joint meeting, and in future would be coming to Council with 11/30/88 Page 5 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 2. Joint meeting - Continued. (Cassette No. 2) 3. Study session to review and discuss the business development program. ~og suggestions around areas that rightfully should be its jurisdiction. Discussion followed: that perhaps the Design Review Board meetings should be changed to evening hours; to determine what was expected of the Design Review Board; educating applicants on the design review process; parking requirements; apron parking; that the Council should discourage private streets, and encourage public streets in new developments; con- cern over whether Council approved pro- jects had sufficient parking; that a second Code Enforcement Officer had been hired; outside storage and its abuses not being enforced sufficently; that Council was addressing the traffic concerns in Westborough; that the Commission was not being apprised of activity in the City other than through the press; that the Commission did not know the direction being taken for the downtown to address parking concerns; that documents would be presented to the Council at the 12/14/88 meeting on the Downtown that would be shared with the Commission, and a joint meeting would follow; that staff should be receptive to what the Commission wanted, and should submit their recommen- dations to Council; sales tax revenue from auto sales, etc. Mayor Teglia thanked the Commission for their candidness and sincerity, which had made this such a productive meeting. M/S Terry/Mantegani - To adjourn the Planning Commission meeting to Thursday, 12/8/88, at 6:30 p.m., Municipal Services Building Community Room for a study session. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment was 9:00 p.m. City Manager Armas stated that the reports for consideration included staff comments on an analysis prepared by the Stanford Alumni Group and an intern 11/30/88 Page 6 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Study session - Continued. on attracting businesses and focusing on areas to increase sales tax dollars. He stated that both reports pointed out that the City was relying on sales tax for its revenues, and the following represented suggestions made in the reports: for the City to develop a strategy to attract high sales tax paying businesses; establish a position to oversee the deve- lopment and implementation; reanalyze the Oyster Point Formula - which at the pre- sent time was a deterrent; City needs to take a proactive approach, etc. He stated that he believed that the City needed to retain the businesses in the City, and the employment they offered. he stated that he hardily endorsed a need for someone to represnt the City and spearhead this program. He suggested that the funding a new position be by the Redevelopment Agency, and the focus would be on the revitalization of the downtown and redevelopment; and was a legitimate use of redevelopment funds. He stated that the Subcommittee members were in concurrence with the recommendations. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that as a subcommittee member he concurred, and felt that the suggestions were well taken in attracting and retaining businesses. He spoke in detail of attempts in San Francisco for business expansion and the retention of existing businesses. Councilman Haffey stated that as a sub- committee member he agreed with Councilman Nicolopulos on the validity of the suggestions that he felt were long in coming. He stated that the position would be included in the next budget. He stated that the previous Mayor had recom- mended this, and he was happy to see it moving forward. He stated that the City Manager was suggesting a go slow on items one and three, and was firm on adding the position. 11/30/88 Page 7 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN -- 3. Study Session - Continued. ADJOURNMENT: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Barbara A. Battaya, cl~y c~ City of South San Francisco Discussion followed: promoting new busi- ness in the City; maintaining good rela- tions with businesses in the City; that the position should be given sufficient staff support to function; assisting small businesses in the marketing of their products through an educational process or have it be done by the Chamber; the way the joint venture was being handled in San Francisco; that the City had funded PIBC and the Chamber of Commerce; that perhaps the City could facilitate applications for loans to small businesses. M/S Haffey/Addiego - To adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, 12/7/88 at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Conference Room, City Hall, for a Closed Session, and a study session for the review of the 1988-89 Capital Improvement Program. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment was 9:35 p.m. 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. 11/30/88 Page 8