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