Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1990-06-13Mayor Richard A. Haffey Council: Jack Drago Gus Nicolopulos John R. Penna Roberta Cerri Teglia AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) ROLL CALL: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION: AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Armas Requested: - Exclude action on Item 12a.3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY FORUM CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Adjourned Regular Meeting of 5/16/90, Adjourned Regular Meeting of 5/23/90, and Regular Meeting of 5/23/90. 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of~ 6/13/90. MINUTES City Council Municipal Services Building Community Room June 13, 1990 0115 ACTION TAKEN 7:30 p.m. Mayor Haffey presiding. Council present: Council absent: Drago, Nicolopulos, Penna, Teglia, and Haffey. None. The pledge was recited. Rev. Lynn Bowdish, St. Elizabeth's Episcopal Church, gave the invocation. AGENDA REVIEW So ordered. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one chose to speak. COMMUNITY FORUM Vice Mayor Drago commended the positive action taken by Western Cable TV on a 17% reduction for low income users of the basic cable service. He stated that there would be a $25.00 one time fee to install a limiting device for the 14 channel service at an approximately $3.00 monthly savings. He expressed appreci- ation for Western TV Cable's response to Council concerns in the past three years. CONSENT CALENDAR Approved. Approved in the amount of $1,340,156.62. 6/13/90 Page i ^GEND^ ^CT ON T^KEN 0!1G CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR Resolution approving plans and specifications, and authorizing sealed bids for the South Linden Avenue Bridge Rehabilitation Project. e A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR THE SOUTH LINDEN AVENUE BRIDGE REHABILITATION Resolution of award of contract for the Sludge Thickening Redundancy Project to INA Construction in the amount of $267,047 as the lowest responsible bidder. RESOLUTION NO. 60-90 A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE SLUDGE THICKENING REDUNDANCY PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO. 61-90 Resolution approving plans and specifications, and authorizing sealed bids for the Shoreline Landscaping at Haskins Way. A RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICI- CATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT OR SERVICES AND CALLING BIDS FOR SHORELINE LANDSCAPING AT HASKINS WAY RESOLUTION NO. 62-90 o Resolution approving the Terrabay Final Map, accepting offers of dedication, Subdivision Improvement Agreement and related acts. Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Councilman Penna. e A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL MAP ENTITLED "TERRABAY SUBDIVISION FINAL MAP" AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTS Motion to approve the final one- year time extension of Subdivision Approved. Map, SA-85-89, for Carter Park I at 3721 Carter Drive. 6/13/90 Page 2 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0117 CONSENT CALENDAR 8. Motion to approve the final one- year time extension of Subdivision Map, SA-85-90, for Carter Park II at 3851 Carter Drive. ~0 9. Resolution of award of contract for ~ the Quarterly Leisure Activities Brochure for fiscal year 1990-91 to Alonzo Printing Co. as the lowest responsible bidder. CONSENT CALENDAR Approved. A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT (LEISURE ACTIVITIES BROCHURES) 10. Motion to adopt an ordinance on the Personnel Board. AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 2.62 TO TITLE 2 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE SETTING FORTH THE COMPOSITION, PROCEDURES AND DUTIES OF THE PERSONNEL BOARD 11. Resolution authorizing execution of agreement with the City and County of San Mateo for administration of the California Disaster Assistance Program by the County. RESOLUTION NO. 63-90 ORDINANCE NO. 1081-90 12. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE CALIFORNIA DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AGREEMENT Resolutions pertaining to the Shearwater Development Project. a) RESOLUTION NO. 64-90 Shearwater Assessment District: 1) A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO MAKE ACQUISITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SHEARWATER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 2) A RESOLUTION PRELIMINARILY APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT, APPOINTING TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING PROTESTS AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESOLUTION NO. 65-90 RESOLUTION NO. 66-90 6/13/90 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0118 CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR 12. Resolutions - Continued. b) 3) RESPECT TO THE SHEARWATER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT THERETO A RESOLUTION DETERMINING TO /~ Removed from consideration. UNDERTAKE PROCEEDINGS ~ WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION UNDER DIVISION 4 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE SHEARWATER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT S.S.F. Landscape and Lighting ~!~~~ Maintenance Assessment District. A RESOLUTION INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE FOR- MATION OF A LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO RESOLUTION NO. 67-90 13. 2) A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER FORMATION OF A LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENT, PRELIMINARILY APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND PRO- VIDING FOR NOTICE OF HEARING Resolution authorizing an agreement with QED Research, Inc. to conduct a community attitude survey. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONSULTANTS AGREEMENT FOR COMMUNITY ATTITUDE SURVEY RESOLUTION NO. 68-90 RESOLUTION NO. 69-90 M/S Nicolopulos/Drago - To approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item No. 6. Carried by unanimous voice vote with the exception of the vote on No. 12 wherein Councilman Penna abstained. 6/13/90 Page 4 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0119 Resolution approving the Terrabay~Q~w~ Councilman Penna expressed concern over a Final Map, accepting offers of~' potential archaeological indian site on dedication, Subdivision Improvement Unit 9 or 10. He stated that there was Agreement and related acts. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL MAP ENTITLED "TERRABAY SUBDIVISION FINAL MAP" AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTS' supposed to be an archaeological study as part of the environmental impact report, and questioned if that had been done. City Engineer Wong stated that the study was still being conducted at this time. City Manager Armas stated that the Developer had complied with the require- ments stipulated in the tentative map. He stated that a mitigation program, not a separate EIR, called for continued investigation of that site - which was an on-going effort that would result in written documentation. Councilman Penna questioned what would happen if the site proved to be 5,000 years old as was purported, and questioned what type of mitigation would be followed. City Manager Armas stated that approval for development of the east side of the mountain was a subsequent phase of this development that would come to the Council in the near future. He stated that there was an obligation that anytime there were discoveries of archaeologically sensitive material appropriate safeguards would be taken, and have appropriate tribe native Americans involved. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 70-90 Carried by unanimous voice vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ~a~o 14. Motion to receive the traffic study report on the Council request for a four-way stop sign at the Baden Avenue/Eucalyptus Avenue Inter- section. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS City Engineer Wong staged that this item was in response to Council direction on 4/25/90 for staff to investigate installing stop signs at the intersection of Baden and Eucalyptus. He stated 6/13/90 Page 5 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 14. Motion - Continued. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS that staff findings did not require stop signs, and requested that no action be taken. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned if the Police Dept., had evidence of accidents at this site - reported or unreported. Police Chief Datzman stated that the Engineering Department had the same information available to them on the incidence of traffic accidents. Mrs. Edna Harks, 210 Eucalyptus, stated that 21/2 years ago her car had been totalled at this intersection, and it had been reported to the Police Dept. She stated that cars were parked so closelyto the intersection one could not see across the intersec- tion to see where traffic was coming from. She stated that City Engineer Yee had the four sides of the street red zoned which she felt was not enough. She stated that Miller had more stop signs than Baden, yet it had less traffic. Discussion followed: if Miller, Commercial and Baden were all of the same width; traffic volumes on each of the three streets; why there were stop signs at the same location at Miller and at Commercial. Mayor Haffey stated that the council agreed that at this time it would not authorize any additional stop signs being installed, but would refer it back to the Engineering Dept. to work with the Police Dept. to see if there are other things to do to control that particular intersection. Vice Mayor Drago stated that lengthen- ing the red zone had worked in other areas to alleviate the view blockage. Councilwoman Teglia stated that if staff was going to study that inter- section, she wanted answers to the 6/13/90 Page 6 ACTION TAKEN AGENDA ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 14. Motion - Continued. 15. Consideration of Petition from Hillman Properties to establish an Assessment District for Pointe Grande Business Park, and to include Pointe Grande Business Park in the Landscape and Lighting Maintenance Assessment District. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS questions raised on the intersections mentioned - both on Commercial and Miller as to the rational used. City Engineer Wong explained that this was before Council because of the Hillman Properties request to form an assessment district for the acquisi- tion of public improvements required as part of the development. Councilman Penna questioned why a one ownership wanted to have an assessment district formed. City Manager Armas stated that it would permit the sale of bonds to finance the improvements over a long period of time for which the Developer would be responsible for all costs. Councilman Penna felt that if the City was doing this for the commercial com- munity, it should also be done for the residential community. Discussion followed: this had been done in the Pecks Lot area; that Shearwater was the first; what benefit the City would receive from allowing this to proceed; Councilwoman Teglia wanted to go on record as being against forming any lighting and landscaping district that would tax residents; that creation of the district was to recover expenses, and not put a demand on the general tax- payer; Vice Mayor Drago was concerned over this being a first - to have incorporated overpass costs into an assessment district and a landscape maintenance district; this was done because of the magnitude of $3,000,000 wherein an assessment district was entertained; that the benefit to the Developer was an amortization over 15 years; possibility of changing the overpass formula. 6/13/90 Page 7 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 15. Petition - Continued. 16. Resolution inviting City of ~)~t Kishiwada, Japan, to become a Sister City of South San Francisco. A RESOLUTION INVITING CITY OF KISHIWADA, JAPAN, TO BECOME A SISTER CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC HEARINGS 17. Public Hearing - To consider the ~° request by the S.S.F. Scavenger Company for renewal of Franchise and a rate increase; Conduct Public Hearing; Adopt Resolution. 18. Public Hearing - To consider ~oo~ amendments to the Historic Preservation Commission Ordinance; Conduct Public Hearing; Motion to ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To agree with the petition request to form an assessment district. Mayor Haffey commented, that he felt this item should have been a Consent Calendar item. Carried by unanimous voice vote. City Manager Armas stated that there had been on-going visits and discussions with representatives to explore a sister city relationship, and a delegation from Japan would visit So. S.F. a week from tomorrow. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 71-90 Carried by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Haffey opened the Public Hearing, and questioned why there was a request for continuance. City Manager Armas stated that some expected information with respect to financial data had not been received in time to forward to the Council, and recommended the item be continued. Councilwoman Teglia requested that the public hearing be readvertised, and that copies of the new franchise be in each library. Consensus of Council - To continue the item to 6/27/90. City Clerk Battaya read the title of the ordinance in its entirety. Mayor Haffey opened the Public 6/13/90 Page 8 A G E N D A A C T I O N T A K E N r~,~ i22 PUBLIC HEARINGS 18. Public Hearing - Continued. approve Negative Declaration No. 686; Motion to waive reading and introduce the ordinance - continued from the 5/23/90 meeting. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.58 ENTITLED "HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION" PUBLIC HEARINGS Hearing. Director of Economic & Community Development Costello stated that this item had been continued from the 5/23/90 meeting to allow more study by the public, and proceeded to highlight key changes: require owner consent for designation of an historic resource; to set up a 3 month window period after adoption of the ordinance for reconsideration of the previous designation; clarifications of cri- teria for designation wherein cer- tificates of alterations are required for exterior improvements only; a 60 day stay on demolition permits for structures on the potential list. She stated that the meetings had allowed the public many opportunities to discuss their concerns with the Commission, and many changes had been developed to address their concerns over the ordinance. Councilman Penna questioned if there was a difference between the potential resources list and the survey list. Director of Economic & Community Development Costello stated that it was, Councilman Penna stated that he would abstain on the vote, because one of his structures he owns was included on the list. Mayor Haffey invited those wishing to speak for or against the item to step to the dais - no one did, and he closed the Public Hearing. M/S Teglia/Drago - To approve Negative Declaration No. 686, and waive reading and introduce the ordinance. 6/13/90 Page 9 AGENDA ACTTON TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 18. Public Hearing - Continued. 19. Public Hearing - To consider a new ordinance regulating unreinforced masonry buildings; Conduct Public Hearing; Motion to approve Negative Declaration No. 687; Motion to waive reading and introduce the ordinance - continued from 5/23/90 meeting. AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 15.28 ENTITLED "UNREINFORCED MASONRY STRUCTURES" TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE Councilman Penna left the podium. PUBLIC HEARINGS Carried by majority voice vote, Councilman Penna abstained. City Clerk Battaya requested clarifi- cation on the abstention in that the Government Code stated that if there was a dissenting vote the entire ordi- nance had to be read aloud. Mayor Haffey stated no, that was only if he opposed the waiving. City Attorney Armento stated, only if he opposes the waiving of a reading would it be necessary, and previously when it was reviewed - when he is abstaining on an item, it is because of the substance and not because of a desire for the ordinance to be read. City Clerk Battaya read the title of the ordinance in its entirety. Mayor Haffey stated that the Public Hearing had been previously opened, and called for the staff report. City Attorney Armento stated that she understood that Councilman Penna would be abstaining on the item, and it would be appropriate for him to descend from the podium. Councilman Penna left the podium, and did not take part in the discussion or vote on this item. Director of Economic & Community Development Costello chronicled the various meetings on this item, Council direction, the latest meeting to address the public's concerns, and cited the resultant suggestions. Mayor Haffey felt that the idea of giving bonuses or enticing owners to get the same kind of density they 6/13/90 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS 19. -Public Hearing - Continued. (Cassette No. 2) PUBLIC HEARINGS might have had before, actually even rebuilding, he found an interesting way to do redevelopment through the private section; and looked forward to the Planning Commission investigating that. Mr. Alan Asker, 7071/2 Linden Ave., related: that the Council should have Planning Commission input before accepting this ordinance; that Palo Alto had a voluntary retrofit program, and as an inducement allowed the owner to replace the building or add an additional 25% sq. footage or 2,500 sq. ft. - whichever was greater to help offset the cost; there was not mention of warehouse use in the ordi- nance; the negative declaration should not be adopted because it had at least one fundamental fatal flaw; no one had made a survey of the owners to deter- mine how many properties will need to be demolished because retrofitting was not economically viable; without a use permit for exempt warehousing his building would have to be demolished; insufficient money for retrofitting, and the owners will have to demolish buildings; he refitted the items in the negative declaration, etc. Robert Rogers, Esq., stated that he represented owners of the Metropolitan Hotel who were opposed to adoption of the negative declaration which they felt was flawed. He asked that his letter be incorporated into the record (a copy is attached and a permanent part of the record of this meeting). Mr. William J. Barton stated that his family owned the Metropolitan Hotel and was against the adoption of the ordinance. He stated that he felt this ordinance would impose a terrible financial hardship on property owners. He spoke of the impact on the elderly 6/13/90 Page 11 Ro rt-r K. Roo rts, ATTORNEY AT LAW 66 BOVET ROAD~ SUITE 300 SAN MATE0~ CA 94402-3128 (415) 578-818~ FAX: {415} 349-I777 June 13, 1990 ~223 H~3H STREET AUBURN, CA 95603 (91{5) 885-7744 PLEASE REPLY TO SAN MATE0 City Council City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Re: Unreinforced Masonry Building Ordinance Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: This letter is written on behalf of my client Martin Metro, Inc., to object to the approval of negative declaration No. 687 and to request that the adoption of the ordinance adding Chapter 15.28 entitled "Unreinforced Masonry Structures" to the South San Francisco Municipal Code be tabled. The staff report for this item recommends that the council conduct a public hearing, approve the negative declaration and refer the issue of changes to the zoning ordinance to address URM buildings to the Planning Commission. The entire matter should be referred to the Planning Commission for further review, and a more detailed environmental assessment should be conducted to determine whether or not an environmental impact report is required for this project by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Commencing at Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21000) and the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (Guidelines) (Commencing at 14 Cal.Admin. Code § 15000). The Council should not adopt Negative Declaration No. 687, because the initial study is inadequate The proposed negative declaration's finding that the "project will not have a significant effect on the environment" is based upon a flawed initial study and is not supported by substantial evidence. Notwithstanding the fact that an attachment to the staff report identifies 21 buildings to be included in the program within a four block area on Grand, Baden and Linden Avenues, the initial study finds that the ordinance which mandates retrofitting or demolition of those buildings will not: (a) result in increases in existing noise levels or exposure of people to severe noise levels; (b) affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing; 6/13/90 Page 11a (c) result in generation of substantial additional vehicular movement, effects on existing parking facilities or increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. (d) have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. (e) have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Contrary to the conclusions of the initial study, the construction and/or demolition required by the ordinance will greatly increase noise levels, traffic and parking problems in the downtown area and may displace residential and commercial occupants while the construction/demolition is ongoing, as will be shown during the hearing. The "Reasons Supporting Findings" portion of the negative declaration states that an estimated 1,600 occupants are exposed to the potential risks associated with unreinforced masonry buildings each day. The City's inventory list of buildings includes a total daily occupancy of 1435 persons, of which an unknown number are residential occupants. Despite the fact that the ordinance requires retrofitting of buildings or their demolition by December 31, 1997, the initial study finds that the project will not affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing. In fact, an affect on housing may occur as a direct result of the adoption of the ordinance, because residential occupants may be displaced regardless of whether reconstruction or demolition occurs (as will be shown during the hearing). CEQA and the Guidelines require that a negative declaration be approved for a project only when an agency determines, after preparing an initial study, that a project "does not have a significant adverse impact on the environment". If the agency is presented with any substantial evidence that supports a "fair argument" that impacts may occur, an EIR must be prepared for the project. No Oil. Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 118 Cal.Rptr. 34. Further, once such substantial evidence has been presented, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an EIR and adopt a negative declaration, because it could be "fairly argued" that the project might have a significant environmental impact. Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002, 165 Cal.Rptr. 514. The impacts created by the ordinance if viewed cumulatively with other development or redevelopment projects in the same area are certainly considerable. Thus, based upon the facts before the council, substantial evidence exists that supports a "fair 2 6/13/90 Page 11b argument" that negative environmental impacts may occur, and an EIR should be prepared for this ordinance. In addition to an inadequate review of the potential impacts of the ordinance, the initial study fails to provide an identification of the environmental setting of the project as mandated by Guidelines § 15063(d)(2). Clearly the rush to adopt this ordinance has resulted in a hurried and incomplete environmental review. The adoption of the negative declaration at this point would be an abuse of the council's discretion, and I urge the council not to allow itself to be put in that position. The ordinance should be returned to staff with instructions to provide the council with creative alternatives which contain flexible and cost effective standards and methods for retrofitting various tyDes of unreinforced masonry buildings. The staff report's recommendation that the ordinance be referred to the Planning Commission to consider the issue of changes to the zoning ordinance does not go far enough. The council should table this matter pending a more thorough review of alternatives to the approach used in the proposed ordinance. Members of the council have previously received a copies of a letter to Mr. Jeff Baca, Senior Building Official, from Ronald B. Reiss of Architectural Resources Group dated May 31, 1990, which points out that the ordinance is unnecessarily prescriptive, internally inconsistent and in need of more flexibility. Mr. Reiss informed Mr. Baca that a task force of engineers and building officials in Southern California are currently studying buildings constructed in the manner of the Metropolitan Hotel and will be preparing a draft ordinance to cover such buildings. From the information presented to the council to date, it should be clear that this issue is not simple. The solution to the problem of safety of unreinforced masonry buildings will probably prove to be very complex, and should be given a great deal of consideration before legislation is adopted. The ordinance proposed takes a simplistic "fix it or raze it" approach that is counterproductive and shortsighted. It should be tabled until a fair and cost-effective program can be drafted which sets flexible standards and provides financial incentives as well as burdens to the property owner. Based upon the foregoing, the council is requested to refrain from approving negative declaration No. 687 and to return the proposed ordinance to staff with instructions to provide the council with creative alternatives which contain flexible and cost 3 6/13/90 Page 11c 129 / effective standards and m~thods for retrofitting various types of unreinforced masonry buil&~n.qs. YoUrs truly, R~B~..RT K. ROGERS, JR. 6/13/90 Page 11d AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 19. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS tenants of the hotel, and the poten- tial suicides if the people had to leave. Mr. Lou Dell'Angela, Urban Planner, stated that he was representing the owners of the Metropolitan Hotel, and requested that the following be incor- porated into the record: his 6/11/90 letter with its 6/4/90 suggested ordi- nance changes, and a 5/31/90 letter from Ronald B. Reiss, AIA (the docu- ments are attached and a permanent part of the record of this meeting.) He stated that San Francisco was going to do a full E.I.R. on this issue, and had done a social economic study which this City should do before going for- ward with this ordinance. Mr. Brian Fischer stated that he was the Engineer for the Metropolitan Hotel, and spoke of costs for an engi- neering soils study of the hotel: that it would be at least $50,000; that mitigating construction documents would cost another $50,000. He stated that the cost to upgrade the hotel to a standard shown in the ordinance would be from $300,000 to $500,000, and would impact traffic noise and the tenants. Mr. Ronald Reiss, Architect, stated that the ordinance was simplistic in its approach to a whole variety of buildings, and treated them as one type - which was not the case. He proceeded to explain the various types of masonry buildings and how they reacted to different stresses. Mrs. Helen Price, 350 Myrtle St., Redwood City, read a letter into the record from Mr. Marcus M. Kaufmann (a copy is attached and a permanent part of the record of this meeting). 6/13/90 Page 12 Environmental Development Group June 11, 1990 460 Gardenside South San Francisco California 94080- 5995 (415) 583-9230 FAX: {415) 589-7327 Mayor Richard A Halley & Members of the City Council City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA9~085 RE: Ordinance Regulating Unreinforced Masonry Buildings Dear Mayor Halley & City Council Members' William Barton, President of ~rtin-Retro, Inc., has asked me to send to you copies of two doc~nents which relate to the above URRB issue and which you might find useful in dealing with this issue at your June 15th meeting. The first doctment is the June 4, 1990written proposal submitted to City staff by Martin-Metro, Inc. at the June 4th meeting with suggests specific changes which could be made to the 5/25/90 draft of the URMB Ordinance. This doctment should have but was not made part of the June 15th staff report sent to you. The second docLment is the May 31, 1990 letter sent by Ronald Reiss, AIA to your Senior Building Official, copy to Elaine Costello, which outlines specific problems which a severe and unreasonable URRB ordinance could cause, in Sou~h .San Francisco..This .letter also suggests specific econ(~nic incentives wnicn could be considered to tessen the ~mpact of such an ordinance on affected property owners. Approaches to the ordinance used in other cities is also discussed in this letter as well as the City of San Francisco's EIR and Socio-economic study which considers five alternative approaches to a URRBordinance. Sincerel~.__.,_ Louis De11'Angela, AICP cc. City Manager City Clerk Wi111amBarton %3/90 Page 12a Suggested Changes to Ordinance Adding Chapter 15.28 Entitled "Unreinforced Masonry Structures" to the South San Francisco Municipal Code 0132 1. Either eliminate or amend the process for recording certificates that buildings are potentially earthquake hazards. There is no authority in the empowering statute for recordation of a certificate such as that identified in the ordinance. In fact, the issue is preempted by Government Code § 8875.2(c) which mandates that all information regarding potentially hazardous buildings be filed with the Seismic Safety Commission. If recordation is not omitted, the ordinance must provide that: (a) Property owners should be notified that their property is on the "list" and should be told of their appeal rights; (b) The appeal period (i.e. 60 days) should be allowed to run; (c) Certificates should be recorded only on properties: (1) for which the appeal period has run with no appeal having been filed; or (2) for which appeals were filed, the appeal process is exhausted and the determination "final". The recording of a certificate will create a significant cloud on any future sales or leases of the property and should not be undertaken without first affording property owners due process, which is sorely lacking in the current version of the ordinance. The ordinance exempts residential properties of less than five dwelling units, which would be the key area for "disclosure" of the "condition", and current law protects buyers and lessees from negligent or intentional deceit. 2. Amend Subsection 15.28.050(b) to require the "Board of Appeals" to conduct a hearing on the.appeal within 30 days of the filing of the appeal. 3. Add Subsection 15.28.020(c) to read: "The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any building which qualifies as "historical property" as determined by an appropriate governmental agency under Section 37602 of the Health and Safety Code for the purposes of: (a) identifying and inventorying potentially hazardous buildings; 1 6/13/90 Page 12b (b) payment of fees to recover the costs of identifying potentially hazardous buildings and carrying out this chapter; (c) recordation of certificates identifying the property as a "potentially hazardous building" within the meaning of this chapter." This change is the minimum required by the empowering statute. 4. Add Section 15.28.100 to read: "(a) The Chief Building Official may allow alternative methods of reconstruction or retrofitting to be used in achieving the purposes of this chapter when said methods are certified by a structural engineer as substantially equivalent to the methods required by this chapter. (b) In the case of historical buildings, whenever the standards or methods set forth in this chapter conflict with the standards or methods for rehabilitation of historic buildings as set forth in the State Historical Building Code (Commencing at Government Code § 18950) and the regulations adopted thereunder, the property owner's structural engineer may elect which standards to apply." 5. Add Section 15.28.101 to read: "Any building included in the requirements of this chapter which is reconstructed or retrofitted in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and properly maintained, shall not, within a period of 15 years, be required to be reconstructed or retrofitted as a potentially hazardous building pursuant to standards adopted after the date of the building's reconstruction or retrofit unless such building no longer meets the standards of this chapter under which it was reconstructed or retrofitted." 6. The chapter should be amended to include provisions for grants and loans to assist property owners' efforts to reconstruct or retrofit in accordance with the chapter. The amendment needs to be drafted before the ordinance is adopted. The City has been "getting around to" development of similar incentives for .owners of historical resources for nearly two years, with no significant progress having been made. State law provides a framework for seismic rehabilitation financing commencing at Health and Safety Code § 55000, and a framework for historic rehabilitation commencing at H/S § 37620. At a minimum bond counsel should be consulted and those programs should be thoroughly researched and adapted to South San Francisco's needs before adoption of this ordinance. 6/13/90 Page 12c ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP JJ~.~ ~). J~dd, Saephef% J. I"a,,uxl~, May (Nty ~ SGuth San Frarmi~ Buidin$ Dept. . Attention: Jeff Baca, Senior Bu{Jdln{i 0tt~ial P,O. Box 711 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: l~lmsefl URlVi Ou~lnanc~ Dear left: Both Bruce and I enjoyed yesterday's m~Atng. It ~.~mcd to be very produ.ctivo, and I especially appr~iat~ your thoughtt~i and wetl-presenteg appmKh to mecunl{ meismio safety concerns while uudcrstandla~ ~he owner's persl~ctive, As we mentioned m the meeting, our eom;em, while prtmM'ily for tho Mettupolitan Hotel, ia also for tho effects of thc propo~d ordinance on other ownen of unreinforcod masonry buildings in the City of South San Frmn~lp,;o. We ~ yom' concern for tho potential thr~at to public m~fety .{~d by unr~infot~.~d ~ry buildings, and ~he ~lief that they should be made safe. tsowever, we are ooncornod that th~ costs ~ rehabilitate unr¢inforced nm,~onry buildinl~ may be too prohibitive for som~ owners to absorb on their own, If passed on to tenants thmush rent tncreu~es, these costs may result in the , displacement of low-income t~nants and exacerbate an air. dy ~rlous commercial v~nncy dtu,,tion in the downtown arca. In thc worst cuc. owners may bo forced to demolish their buildings, which would result in the loss of irrcplacable older bulldinja, the lo~s of a cohesiw downtown and tho erosion of thc City's u~x baso. When a downtown ia not economically strong, commercial rents frequently too low to provide a sufficient rate of return to j.'ustlfy ~building, in which caso the dtcs remain vacant, accclerattnfl tho flowntown's dct. cnoration. One example la thc city of Whittier, where following the 1987 earthquake, the cfly ordered the demolition of damaged brick buildings, and thc majority of ~esc lots ~c stiU vacant today, While I fe~l that there is no present danger of th~ Mctfopo|llan Hol~l's inua~diate demolition, the same may not bo true of other unrehlforced masonry buildings. ~er 9 · Tho Embarcadero Sin Francisco, CA 9411 I (415) 42 I' 1680 J,'~ ","%' fA J q ~ J ') I .Ii I 7;'1 6/13/90 .................................................. l~d .................. k~. ~eff Baca City o~ South San Francisco 31 May, 1990 Paso 2. Th~ ¢i~ should provide ~onora~c in, enliven to mdst propmy o~cn tn comply~g~th ~ ~~ ~ mtiga~ its ~a~ ~ff~=. A ~~ of ~~ ~tves, whlk a~ n~ssmly p~ of ~o ~ o~~ sho~ ~ ~nsi~ at ~o sa~ u~ a~ ~e USuO~fo~ ma~ b~dmg o~~. T~ fo~g ~c sugs~ons ~ ciF ~y with to ~n~: Property Ta~: Exempt a rehabilitated building from all or part of its property taxes, establish credits towaxds property taxes, or "froze" the building's as~es~.d valuation so thc improvements do not resuh tn increased mn liability. This approach would not requite th~ city to pay any "up front" cost, and thc 1o~ of property tax r~vcnuo should b¢ less than thc loss in tax revenues (incl0dln$ sales, use, .l~,rking, and tho like) if the building wcr~ vacated or demolished. Admlnl.~trative Fees ami R~qulrements: Waive building l~nnit or other fees, We understand that the city is conskicring waiving thc fees f6r reviewing engineering reports for historical buildings. A.s an additional incentive, thc city might also consider watvhig othcr requirements, such as parking. Panini Funding: Thc City rellim pa'dally fund design and enginc¢rln$ act'vices, or part of th~ oonstmction cost for scistmc rchabilita6on work, by using tan incrimcnt funding os' using existing programs like CBDO Block Orant funds. 5taffA$$1~tance: Thc city might provide staff in the capacity of grant coordinators to assist prol~rty owners in obtaining funding ,fi'om other ~outccs, such as Mills Act property tax reduction, Marks Historical Rchalailltauon Bond Act monies, or federal tax inccntiv~ such as the 20% tax credit allowed under the Tax Reform Act of 1986 for rchabifilatioa of htatmic buildings, or tax dcductton~ for conservation casements. Community Efforts: The City might consider ac~na, in cooperation with thc Chamber of Gotnmcr~ or or.her bush~css groups, to encourage local lenders to.create a pooled loan program to provtdc below market-rate lop. ns for ~L~mic rehabilitauon. South San Francisco is one of thc fast cidcs in C, alifornia to go beyond the minimum rexluirc, mcnta of SB 547 by adopting a seismic safcty ordinance. The ordinance, in its present form, prescnts sorr~ pwblctns. Thc ordinancc's major flaw. as articulated in ' yesterday's me, fins, is that it is unneaccsarlly prescriptive in nature, by nmndating specific mensures to achieve seismic mitigation goals. While. its scoi~ is very inclusivc,.its design criteria se~m$ to be based upon unreinforced masonry bern-lng wall structures wlth wood framed floor and roof ~ystems. This t~itm'nai tnconsistcncy makes some of its requirements inappropriate for buildlflg$ of other cons.trucdon types (such as thc Mctropolltan Hotel), yet n~ndat~ their usc nonetheless. The ordinan~ should bc rnodlfl~l to allow more fleaibillty in evaluating existing nuttcrial.s, and assemblies, and more descretion on the part of the building official. A more flextbilc appro~h would provide an equivalent degree of public safety while greatly reducing thc potential costs to property owners. 6/13/90 Page 12e 31 May, 1990 Pa e 3. It may be imercsting to not~ th~ approachcs of odr. r cities in similar circumstanccs: $~yval¢: TI~ City of Sunnyvalc's ordinance ia b&scd on volunuu-y complhnc~, but spccitkally sl.l. ows for ~e city to takc more stringent steps to requirc prope~ owners to buildings tam c. ompllanoc aft~ or~ year. Monrovia: Mom'ovia's PrOL~O~cd Chaptcr $8 ~cs ~c ~c ~ofit of u~inf~ ~y ~i~ngs, but app.~es only w ~ngs n~ ov~ two st~cs in ~t u~nfo~ m~o~ bc~s w~s. I ~u~ ~t u~f~ m~o,.-y bulldogs ~]ler ~ two st~o$ do not e~s~ in Mo~a. It ts in~s~g m notc d~ut th~ Mo~via st~s wou~ not apply ~ ~ Me~p~i~ H~I, b~u~ m~r than I~avln~ u~i~ ~o~ ~ng wgls, it is a con~ f~c ~il&ng with u~inf~ m~ infiH ~d vcn~. An cng~c~ f~ John ~mia and Asking, P~n s~al ~n~$ ~n who ~1~ ~ ~c ~&nnme, explain~ ~ctc t~c buil~o ~ u~nf~ ~~ ~ we~ s~iflc~l~ exclud~ from · ~ or&~cc, ~au~ ~y r~} cliff, chOy to se~o fo~ ~ng wall ~ngs. was fclt ~at wl~le ~es~ buffings ~ h~dous, do ~t p~nt th~ ~ dele of ha~d ~s u~i~cd m~o~ ~g wgl ~ildings. A m~ fore ~f cngincc~ bui~g officios la Sou~m ~f~a ~ e~c~tly studying ~is ~&ng ty~. ~d shmdd have a ~t ordinan~ for ~ck t~flgan~ m a~ut t~ yc~s. Sa~! Bucnaventura: Like the proposed .M. onrovhs ordi,ance, San Bucnavcntura's proposed ordinance is based o.n Los Angeles' Division 88 ordinancc and specifically applies to buildings with unremforced masom'y .l~ln~w~s. Addilionally, the ordinance spells out allowable values for cxistln$ construction. ~5~ attache). San Francisco: San Francisco produccd a preliminary report, in preparation for an Environmental Impact Report nad a Socio-~onomi¢ study, which pro. scs five altcmativc seismic mitigation programs (sec attachcd), These rani~c from "no project," through v~ous degrees of rctrofit, to full 1988 UBC compliance. I hope this information is helpful. Please call if you have eny questions .or coma}cats. Wc k)ok forw0.rd to sccing further d~vcloprncnt of this ordinance and its impluncnmtton. Shmcrcly, gonald B. Rclsa, CC: Eleinc Costollo. SSP Economic and Community Dcvclopmcnt Dlrecwr Tom Barton. Martin M¢~'o 6/13/90 Page 12f Post Office Box 8508 NewportJune 8, Beach, 1990 CA 92660 OFFICE CF T;IE CITy MANAG£~ '-,OUTH SAN F~ANCi$c¢ The Mayor, City Council and City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue Post Officr Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Proposed URM Ordinance and Negative Declaration: City Council meeting of June 13, 1990; Mrs. Helen Price Ladies and Gentlemen~ On behalf of my aunt, Mrs. Helen Price, owner of the allegedly affected building at 409 South Grand Avenue, I hereby request that my previous letter of May 17 and this letter be made part of the record of the hearing on the proposed URM Ordinance and the Negative Declaration pertaining to it now scheduled for June 13, 1990 and any and all subsequent hearings. I do thank you on behalf of Mrs. Price and all affected persons for continuing the hearing on the Negative Declaration to June 13. I think the problem of lack of proper notice has thereby been substantially eliminated. On behalf of Rrs. Price, however, I continue to question the propriety of the Negative Declaration and the sufficiency of the initial study leading to it, which must be characterized as perfunctory at best. I have no doubt the planning department employee who prepared it is a lovely person and well intentioned, but on the basis of a number of her answers I would have to question her qualifi- cations to make judgments on some of the pertinent considerations and her conclusions. A great deal of testing by drilling, x-ray or other means is required by the ordinance,very likely a considerable abount of repair and reconstruction will be required and probably some demolition. All this will have impacts on the environment in respect to noise, dust, traffic congestion and possibly change in the character of the neighborhood on Grand Avenue. Whether or not these impacts can or should be mitigated is another matter, but that there will be significant environmental impact is apparent. Thus, a Negative Declaration is inappropriate. Turning to the proposed ordinance itself, the changes made since the Council Meeting on May 23 have improved the ordinance in a few particulars. Nevertheless in my view the ordinance remains seriously flawed from a constitutional standpoint, and to save your time and effort and mine, I hereby incorporate by reference and repeat the numerous objections 6/13/90 Page 12g 0138 The Mayor, City Council and City of Sough San Francisco Page Two set forth on pages 3 to 5 of my letter dated May 17, 1990. I would like to emphasize two points, without meaning to minimize the others. That is that the property owners are to be required to expend very substantial sums of money to prove their buildings are not actually dangerous without any evidence or proof by the City that they are. I have explained in my letter that I do not believe the assumption a building is "potentially hazardous" is sufficient to support requiring an owner to expend the large sums necessary for the exhaustive engineering studies the ordinance requires, much less payment to the City for hiring another engineer to check out the owner's engineering report. The owner is not attempting to alter, remodel, or otherwise change the existing structure, so these costs cannot be likened to fees for a building or alteration permit. These costs imposed on owners only on the preumption their buildings are "potentially hazardous" is in my view a violation of due process of law and a violation of Proposition 13 and the provisions it added to the California Constitution. Now, if the City were to perform the engineering tests at its own cost and the results showed an actually dangerous condition, few could quarrel with an order to the owners to do corrective work. And what would that cost the City? There are only 20 to 25 buildings that appear to be involved. Assuming a cost of as much as $7,500 per engineering study, the total cost would be only $150,000 to $187,500. I suggest to you that the monetary cost to the City of litigating the issues I have raised is apt to exceed that amount, so that it would cost the City no more to go about this in a fair and lawful manner. Second, if protection of the public is the real objective of the proposed ordinance, how can it exempt apartment buildings of up to 5 units (or is it 6 units-see descriptions of changes dated June 4, 1990). Wouldn't you agree that a "potentially hazardous" 5 unit residential building where upwards of 25 occupants could be present almost 24 hours a day is of greater concern than a building like Mrs. Price's in which perhaps 30 customers a day spend a few minutes each at various times? This brings me finally to the change departing from the state legislation's exemption of warehouses and "Similar structures which have few occupants." I have previously mentioned the possible ambiguity in the statute's language, but in my view the City has applied the state legislation to structures not contemplated by the Legislature and that the elimination of the exemption for "similar structures having few occupants" is improvident and very likely illegal. 6/13/90 Page 12h The Mayor, City Council and City of South San Francisco Page Three 01o9 Appended hereto is a letter from me to Mr. Jeffrey Baca explaining my absence from the June 4 study meeting. Please make that a part of the record also. Thank you for your attention. Original by Certified Mail cc:Each Council Member Vice Mayor City Manager Mrs. Helen Price Mr. Franklin Price Mr. Stanton Price · Kaufman o~ ~alf of M~s. Helen Price ~ ~-~ 6/13/90 Page 12i 40 Post Office Box 8508 Newport Beach, CA. 92660 June 8, 1990 Mr. Jeffrey G. Baca Chief Building Official City of South San Francisco Post Office Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Proposed URM Ordinance: Mrs. Helen Price Dear Mr. Baca, I very much appreciated your notifying me of and inviting me to attend the June 4 study meeting concerning the proposed URM ordinance. Unfortunately I was away from Newport Beach on business and your letter dated May 29 did not reach me until June 4, the day of the study meeting and I was therefore unable to attend. In any event my letter of May 17 on behalf of my aunt, Mrs. Helen Price, set forth in some detail my analysis of and Mrs. Price's objections to the proposed ordinance and hopefully those views and problems were considered at the study meeting. I must say I was somewhat bemused to note the date of the document entitled "ORDINANCE MODIFICATIONS .MADE AFTER 5/23/90 CITY COUNCIL MEETING." It is dated June 4, 1990, but the study meeting, one purpose of which was to elicit the suggestions of affected owners and tenants, was not held until 4:00 P.M. on June 4. Obviously whatever changes were made had been pre- determined and any suggestions made at the study meeting were given little attention. I would infer that my presence at the study meeting would have been of no consequence even if I had ~_~dequat~..notice and was able to attend. ~=. I will be writing separately to the City about the proposed !~rdinance for consideration at the scheduled June 13 hearing. · trust you will be furnished a copy by the City if you desire one. I am however sending a copy of this letter to the City to be made part of the record of the hearings on the proposed ordinance. Very truly yours, Monar~eU~a~ Ko~U~mr~n. ~el~en Price cc: The Mayor, City Council and The City of South San Francisco 6/13/90 Page 12j AGENDA RECESS: RECALL TO ORDER: PUBLIC HEARINGS 19. Public Hearing - Continued. ACTION TAKEN Council declared a recess at 9:20 p.m. Mayor Haffey recalled the meeting to order at 9:30 p.m., all Council present. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ms. Olga Gavidia, 223 Grand Ave., stated that the City a few months ago had offered her a $25,000 loan to paint the front of her building - and now they were doing this, and she feared that if this passed she might be on the street in a few months or years without a home and a business. Mr. Rick Tipton, 609 Oregon, Palo Alto, stated that he manages the Metropolitan Hotel, and had managed a hotel in Watsonville until last October and the earthquake which shut down the building. He stated that he had been involved in discussions in Watsonville and Whittier on URM, and felt that the staff had over reacted and had run out and told people to tear down buildings for FEMA funds. He stated that there had been a lot of pressure on Council from the staff to take action that may or may not be wise, and felt that a slow course of action in both cities could have saved buildings if they had moved slowly. Councilwoman Teglia stated that it would be seven years before anything was required. Mayor Haffey closed the Public Hearing. Chief Building Inspector Baca spoke of the amount of flexibility that was built into the ordinance to deal with unreinforced masonry bearing walls, such as those in the Metropolitan Hotel. City Attorney Armento refutted com- 6/13/90 Page 13 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 19. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS ments made by speakers on: the appropriateness.or inappropriateness of a negative declaration, and whether or not it should be done; citizen fear that there would be an undue assess- ment by the county after retrofitting. Councilman Nicolopulos spoke of clean air and transportation gridlock being important issues that needed to be addressed. He stated that staff and tonight's speakers had contrary opi- nions on a negative declaration, and this was the first one he had seen with all noes. Discussion followed: if the public had opportunity to object to the nega- tive declaration; staff justification of the negative declaration; Councilman Nicolopulos was not pre- pared to make a decision tonight, based on what he had heard; he felt this was a situation of safety vs. economic development or destruction - which needed to be balanced to find the cause and effect, etc. Vice Mayor Drago stated concern with the study and retrofitting costs cited by the Engineer for the Metropolitan Hotel. He proposed the following as cost effective: that the City admi- nister the process by hiring a struc- tural engineer for the analysis and divide the cost between the various buildings including City buildings falling under the criteria. He stated that then the council could sit down and see where next to go. He did not favor seeing historic buildings being retrofitted to a lesser degree of safety than other buildings. He stated that every earthquake had been responsible for changes in the Building Code and the next one would create more changes, so the Council 6/13/90 Page 14 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 6143 PUBLIC HEARINGS 19. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS can abide with the newer buildings but to go back would be virtually impossible. He stated that he had quoted one night that every fire chief would love a fire safe building made out of concrete and under water, but you have to be a reasonable person and accept a reasonable degree of risk. He stated that he appreciated some of the comments by the first gentleman for the very realistic approach in his conversation which had opened his eyes to a lot of areas. He thought it was great to look at incentives such as tax redevelopment money and such, but the first thing was to find out if there is a problem. He stated that he was working on a figure of $144,000 to take care of the engineering study, but when the hotel people said $100,000 he didn't know where he stood with his figures. He stated that he did not appreciate the owner of the Hotel speaking of a petition with 30 signatures and a threat of suicide, etc. He stated that he was not prepared to vote on the negative declaration tonight, and felt it did need refining based on the testimony. He stated that he was prepared to go out and solicit a structural engineer to make the analysis and procede from there. Councilwoman Teglia stated that she did not have a problem with the City paying for the structural engineer and suggested incorporating that into the ordinance, but she did have a problem in walking away from the ordinance and investigating for an indefinite time. She strongly stressed her con- cern for the safety of the people. Vice Mayor Drago stated that he was 6/13/90 Page 15 AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS 19. Public Hearing - Continued. ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS basing his judgment calls on quite a few years of experience dealing with emergencies as Fire Chief/Fire Marshal, and had at~ended many many seminars and conferences on earthquake preparedness. He stated that this ordinance or any ordinance that can possibly be man made was not going to predict the safety of anybody in any building at any time. He felt the ordinance should be put in limbo for a year until the City gets a structural engineer to go and survey these buildings. He felt that $100,000 was obscene to study a building to see if it was structurally sound. Mayor Haffey stated that the ordinance itself was defining the problem by having the engineering study, and he did not see a problem with having a back up enforcement ordinance to deal with properties not reinforced. Vice Mayor Drago hypothesized that during the analysis the City discovers that the application of the historical Code compliance would better fit our buildings, rather than the 1988 Uniform Building Code, and apparently the historical buildings were given a certain laxity in certain areas. Director of Economic & Community Development Costello stated that there was more flexibility in the Historical Building Code. Chief Building Inspector Baca stated that the historic buildings would not be brought up to the same levels as listed in the ordinance. .Mayor Haffey felt the two should be treated equally because of the safety issue, and was shocked at the money 6/13/90 Page 16 AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS 19. Public Hearing - Continued. ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS spent on consultants to make presen- tations tonight, rather than use the money for the building. He stated that he heard a consensus of Council to continue the item and require more information in regard to: equality of historic buildings as opposed to other standards; question about environmental determination. He stated that he personally felt that the City should have gone catagori- cally exempt as opposed to a negative declaration. Councilman Nicolopulos felt that the Mayor was out of order on telling the people what they should do with their money which should not be questioned by this Body. He stated that he too felt strongly about the issue of safety. Vice Mayor Drago questioned the hasti- ness in handling this matter. City Manager Armas stated that the State required the identification of buildings - which had been satisfied, and that any supplemental action was up to the local jurisdiction. Discussion followed: that S.S.F. was one of the last cities to adopt an ordinance on URMs; whether the cities adopting ordinance in San Mateo County had put conditions similar to this ordinance for retrofitting buildings to the 1988 UCB within a seven year period; the City Attorney is to supply a summary of all information requested by Council; how many cities have retrofitting on a voluntary basis; the Vice Mayor wanted to proceed with Phase I to get a structural engineer to come in and survey the 24 buildings; the Mayor would vote against that because he would not 6/13/90 Page 17 A G E N D A A C T I 0 N T A K E N [~i.~'~G PUBLIC HEARINGS 19. Public Hearing - Continued. Councilman Penna returned to the podium. 20. Public Hearing - General Plan ~o~l Amendment GP-89-39 to revise and update the City's Housing Element; Conduct Public Hearing; Motion to approve Negative Declaration No. 684; Resolution approving GP-89-39. A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN (HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE) 21. Public Hearing - Amendment to Title 20 to regulate political signs onto public and private property; Conduct Public Hearing; Motion to approve Negative Declaration No. 683; and waive reading and intro- duce an ordinance on temporary signs. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTION 8.20.170 AND AMENDING PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 20.76 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TEMPORARY SIGNS PUBLIC HEARINGS expend public funds for the purpose of improving private property without a contract of reimbursement; the Vice Mayor wanted a simple comparison of the two Codes; Councilwoman Teglia wanted some wording in the collective bid for the engineering survey that catches those property owners that do not want to be part of the bid, etc. Councilman Penna returned to the podium. Mayor Haffey opened the Public Hearing. Councilman Penna stated that the report was just received on Friday, and requested a continuance to better study the document. Consensus of Council - To continue the Public Hearing. City Clerk Battaya read the title of the ordinance in its entirety. Mayor Haffey opened the Public Hearing. Director of Planning Smith stated that this item came from a Council request and would do the following: ban all temporary signs on public property; limit the size of political signs to 16 sq. ft. per sign, and 80 sq. ft. per property; and require that such signs be removed 10 days after an election. Discussion followed: on how County and State candidates would be made aware of the ordinance; that the Clerk would forward a copy of the ordinance to the Election Dept. for inclusion in candidate packets. M/S Drago/Teglia - To approve Negative 6/13/90 Page 18 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 21. Public Hearing - Continued. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 22. Appointments to the Conference Center Board. PUBLIC HEARINGS Declaration No. 683. Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Drago/Teglia - To waive reading and introduce the ordinance. Carried by unanimous voice vote. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL The Council, by written vote, appointed Christoper Hughes as the airline representative, and Robert A. Canziani as the resident represen- tative to the Conference Center Board. Mayor Haffey stated that he was to vote for the City on the reorganiza- tion of the Council of Mayors, and wanted to be sure that the Council would trust his judgment. Councilman Penna stated that some people had a problem in the merging of the Council of Mayors with the Peninsula Division of the League of Cities. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that in the past the Council had always honored the Mayor's judgment. Councilwoman Teglia stated that the No. County Council of Cities was never taken seriously, but if there was a problem it was there to call a meeting, and suggested having only quarterly meetings. Mayor Haffey stated that he supported the consolidation because the Peninsula Div. of the League of Ca. Cities has been less than effective, and the council of Mayors has been somewhat more effective, and the No. Council of Cities the least effective; and perhaps brought together it could 6/13/90 Page 19 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ITEMS FROM COUNCIL GOOD AND WELFARE CLOSED SESSION 23. Closed session for the purpose of discussion of personnel matters, ITEMS FROM COUNCIL be effective. Consensus of Council r Agreement with the exception of the consolidation. Mayor Haffey made reference to a newspaper article that stated Fremont will not pay for the tunnel for the BART extension. He expressed concern that with the election approvals and the extension going to the Airport and if the the County says, if you want it underground you have to pay for it; this City will be in the same position as Fremont. He requested a letter be written restating the City's position that when and if BART comes through that it is not a trestle and not cutting our community in half. City Manager Armas stated he planned a study session in the Fall with BART representatives present. Councilwoman Teglia stated that she and the Vice Mayor had met with the Philippino American Assoc. of S.S.F. that had recently incorporated and had passed a resolution indicating why it had been formed. She stated that they wanted to pursue a sister city in the Philippines. She had communicated that the City was desirous of moving slowly because it had taken two years to pursue the City in Japan, and this could take as long. She stated that there were major concerns with Manila, such as citizen attitudes about Americans in general. GOOD AND WELFARE No one chose to speak. CLOSED SESSION Council chose to not hold a Closed Session. 6/13/90 Page 20 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN CLOSED SESSION 23. Closed session - Continued. labor relations, property nego- tiations and litigation. 24. Request to adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, 6/20/90 at 7:00 p.m., City Council Conference Room, City Hall, 400 Grand Ave., South San Francisco for a study session on the 1990-91 Operating Budget. ADJOURNMENT: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Barbara A. Battaya, City~erk City of South San Francisco CLOSED SESSION M/S Nicolopulos/Drago - To adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, 6/20/90 at 6:30 p.m., City Council Conference Room, City Hall, 400 Grand Ave., S.S.F. for a study session on the 1990-91 Operating Budget; and the draft citizen survey. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment was 10:40 p.m. Ri cha/~ ~A~a'~;yl !~ay~~ City of South San F,~a);r~:isco 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. 6/13/90 Page 21