Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1990-05-23 Mayor Richard A. Haffey Council: Jack Drago Gus Nicolopulos John R. Penna ~--Roberta Cerri Teglia MINUTES City Council Municipal Services Building Community Room May 23, 1990 76' AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) ROLL CALL: 1. Conference Center Board Interviews. ADJOURNMENT: ACTION TAKEN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 7:03 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Drago presiding. Council present: Nicolopulos and Teglia. Council absent: Haffey and Penna. City Clerk Battaya stated that Mayor Haffey and Councilman Penna had informed her Office that they were unable to attend tonight's meeting. Council interviewed the following people: Dennis Rosaia, Robert Canziani, and Christopher Hughes. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment was 7:40 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ~tay~a~ City of South San Francisco APPROVED, / i / / City of South San~a)qcisco 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. 5/23/90 Page I Mayor 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: PRESENTATIONS Proclamation - National Safe Boating Week June 3 - 9, 1990 AGENDA REVIEW ORAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY FORUM CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 5/9/90. MINUTES City Council Municipal Services Building Community Room May 23, 1990 ACTION TAKEN 7:40 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Drago presiding. Council present: Council absent: Nicolopulos, Teglia, and Drago. Penna and Haffey. Scout Troop 281 presented the colors, and the pledge was recited. Reverend Lockley, Aldersgate United Methodist Church, gave the invocation. PRESENTATIONS Councilman Nicolopulos read the Proclamation aloud and presented it to Mr. Robert Craig of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Armas stated that he did not have any modifications to the Agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Douglas Gray stated that he was a candidate for Superior Court Judge and encouraged everyone to vote on 6/5/90 for this important Office after investigation of each of the candidates. Councilwoman Teglia stated that Rosemary Pfeiffer was also running for this posi- tion and was from North County. COMMUNITY FORUM No one chose to speak. CONSENT CALENDAR Approved. 5/23/90 Page i AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ' CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Motion to confirm expense claims 5/23/90. 2. Motion to waive ~ees ~or the San Francisco Police Association Annual Dinner/Dance Fundraiser at the Municipal Services Building Social Hall on 10/29/90. 4. Resolution to approve the San Mateo County Transportation System Management Plan. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5. Motion to approve the goals and ¢4oq market direction for the Conference Center developed by the Conference Center Board. CONSENT CALENDAR Approved in the amount 6f $1,0(16,693.45. gO or~ere~. RESOLUTION NO. 59-90 M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To approve the Consent Calendar. Carried by unanimous voice vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Director of Economic & Community Development Costello related that this was a result of the Conference Center Board meeting on 4/30/90, and documents were before the Council to approve or react to, and guide much of the future work on the design of the Center itself. She listed some of the key goals in the report: that the Conference Center should generate revenue for the City by maximizing occupancy of the City's hotel rooms; should be financially self sustaining; attract people to come back again; not compete with existing hotel meeting room space and restaurants within the City, and be flexible to respond to changing markets. She cited discussions of the Board on markets for the Center to focus on: that primary market should be to compete in the mini convention center market with a focus on state and regional associations; should contain a large ballroom, banquet 5/23/90 Page 2 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5. Motion - Continued. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS and exhibit space with a seating capacity of at least 700-850 people; secondary market aimed at the conference training room market; was not intended for reduced rate community organization use; and was meant to be a profit generating con- ference center. Councilwoman Teglia stated that the Board felt that the main convention center market would bring in the most business for the hotels, and the resultant T.O.T., and the secondary market was really an executive conference type of facility. She requested that staff be directed to work with the business community to explore the alternative means to address the secondary market and report back to Council. She spoke of the importance of the con- ference center itself serving as a marketing tool, and attracting new markets and not competing with the existing S.S.F. hotels and restaurants. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that S.S.F. was a unique City with approximately 56,000 people which still retains its warmth and friendliness, and he demanded quality in anything the City does in the future. Mayor Pro Tem Drago stated that quality was the key word for whatever market the City pursued, because the conference center would be a major factor in this City's economic future. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To approve the goals and market direction for the Conference Center, and with the provi- sion that staff be instructed to work with the business community to explore the alternative means with respect to that secondary market discussed. Carried by unanimous voice vote. 5/23/90 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ....... ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 6. Motion to approve the request for proposals from consultants to pre- pare a City marketing brochure and related inserts. (Cassette No. 2) LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS Motion to waive reading and intro- duce an ordinance detailing the composition, procedures and duties of 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 PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing - Oyster Point ~))~ Interchange and Grade Separation Draft EIR; Conduct Public Hearing; ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Director of Economic & Community Development Costello stated that this was intended to describe the positive aspects of this City as a polished marketing tool after Council direction at a study session, and to find out if this was what the Council wanted. She stated that these efforts would be coordinated with the Chamber and PIBC. She stated that the cost would not exceed $35,000. Councilwoman Teglia questioned the timing of the brochure in reference to the Center to promote its use. Councilman Nicolopulos wanted the process speeded up with a minimum use of con- sultants and redundancies. Councilwoman Teglia stated that the Council Business Subcommittee wanted to have an informal input into the project. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To approve the request for proposals from consultants to prepare a City marketing brochure and related inserts. Carried by unanimous voice vote. LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS City Clerk Battaya read the title of the ordinance in its entirety. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To waive reading and introduce the ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Drago stated that he had asked if this ordinance weakened the authority of the Board, and had been assured that it did not. Carried by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Pro Tem Drago opened the Public Hearing. 5/23/90 Page 4 AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Public Hearing - Oyster Point - Continued. Motion to direct staff to proceed with the final EIR. ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS Director of Public Works Parini stated that this project had been in the planning stages for several years, and tonight's meeting would address the EIR of the Project. Mr. Jourgen Fehr, Fehr & Peers, spoke in detail on the transportation aspects of the EIR; projection of traffic; that the Terrabay hook design was a component of this project; that there would be 21/2 - 3 year construction detours, etc. Mr. Mustapha Jenne, P&D Technology, spoke in detail on the: land use displacement; hazardous waste impacts; attempts to relocate the E & B Motel; that Levitz Furniture would only be impacted in their trucking or packing area; that some hazardous clean-up would be required before construction or project implemen- tation for related costs; a cultural resource survey was required, however, Terrabay did identify those sites and no significant impacts were found. Councilwoman Teglia expressed concern over the length of the construction period, and suggested time schedules of construction be made available to the community. Discussion followed: MTC efforts on transit control measures; to facilitate car pooling, and use of high occupancy vehicles; that MTC had held a seminar three weeks ago in conjunction with Air Quality; fly over as an option; because it was part of the design; that the pro- ject could be implemented in stages if funding was not assured, and only fly over could be delayed as a component. Mayor Pro Tem Drago accepted a letter into the record of tonight's meeting from Koll Company Vice President Douglas A. Thomas dated 5/23/90 (a copy is attached and a permanent part of the minutes of this meeting). 5/23/90 Page 5 'K 0 L L C E N T E May 23, 1990 R Jesus Armas City Manager City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Re: Oyster Point Interchange Draft BIR - Comments Dear Jesus, On behalf of The Koll Company and the Sierra Point project, I had TJKM, our traffic consultant, review the draft EIR and prepare a list of comments. Attached is a letter from TJKM, dated May 23, 1990, that summarizes these comments. I would like them incorporated into the EIR review process. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, THE KOLL COMPANY Douglas A. Thomas Vice President DAT:kmb enc. ~:~bane, CA 04005 :15 a5£-5335 S [ E R R P 5/23/90 Page 5a T TRANSPORTATION CONSUL TANTS May 23, 1990 Mr. Douglas A. Thomas The Koll Company 1000 Marina Blvd., Suite 150 Brisbane, CA 94005 At your request, we have reviewed the doo,ment The Oyster Point Interchange and Grade Separation Draft Environmental Impact Report, (DEll{) dated April 1990 and prepared by P & D Technologies in cooperation with Fehr and Peers Associates, Inc. With respect to the relationship between the DEIR and your properties at Sierra Point, there seems to be insufficient detail related to the access opport-nlties to Sierra Point offered by the proposed improvements at Oyster Point. For e-~mple, the need for improved southbound access from Sierra Point is not fully explored. The DEIR deals with the connection between Sierra Point and Oyster Point as an optional possibility, rather than as the only oppert-nlty to connect the 27-acre South San Francisco Sierra Point parcel with the rest of South San Francisco. Given the nature and status of development at beth Oyster Point and Sierra Point, it clearly appears that now is the time to address the potential connection between the two areas -- not sometime in the future when the Oyster Point access issues are fully resolved. The DEIR doo~ments the plsns to abandon the Truck Weigh Stations along Route 101. This results in a significantly enhanced design for the area, with improvements in circulation, capacity and safety in the area. We think it is very desirable for all traffic in the area for the Truck Weigh Stations to be removed. We have the following specific comments to the text of the DEH{: The DEIR describes the connection with Sierra Point on page HI-14 and subsequent pages. It admits to analyzing the trzffic effects, but not the "engineering and environmental feasibility" of such a connection. Later, the connection is eliminated as a mitigation measure without allaly'zing its potential positive impacts including. 1) providing a second access point to Sierra Point and; 2) allowing South San Francisco emergency and service vehicles to reach the South San Francisco port/on of S/erra Point without having to use both Caltr~n~ and Brisbane facilities. I sm not sure the description of Sierra Point land uses on page IV-10 reflects the current p]sns of your organization. 4637 Chabot Odve, Suite 214, Pleasanton, California 94588 · (415) 463-0611 FAX (415) 4~3-36~0 PLEASANTON · SACRAMENTO · FRESNO · CONCORD 5/23/90 Page 5b Mr. Douglas ~ Thomas In the description of Sierra Point net trip generation rates in Table V-5, it is noted that Sierra Point office trips rates are 2.26 tril~ per 1,000 aq, Are feet in the a.m. peak and 1.67 trips per 1,000 sq-A~e feet in the p.m. peak. These are 100 percent and 57 percent greater, respectively, than comparable land uses in South San Francisco. I know of no reason why such a differential is appropriate; these elevated trip rates seem to be the cause of an overstatement of trips related to the Sierra Point development. On page V-15 it is noted that the mason for the overload of traffic on the northbound Sierra Point off-r~mp is "... the 1.6 million square feet of new office space approved by the City of Brisbane for the Sierra Point Peninsula and the assumed local connection between Oyster and Sierra Points." It is noted that the trip rates assumed for Sierra Po/hr signi6cant]y overstate the peak hour traffic, particularly the am. peak. In addition, although not stated in the DEIR, it appears that a major portion of the off-ramp traffic is related to the Southern Paci~c Brisbane site, which site is not likely to be developed extensively if it must rely on Sierra Point Parkway for its principal access. Also on page V-15, the DEIR states that "The primary reasons for the high traffic vol-roes at the~e two intersections [Oyster Point at Gateway and Dubuque] is the ass-reed local road connection between Oyster and Sierra Points." As noted above, thi.~ traffic is probably overstated due to the high trip rates assumed in Brisbane. In addition, the traffic distribution process has assigned high t~_ffic volumes to a congested route, (the new southbound on-r~mp) even though a less-congested southbound 101 access exists at the proposed Terra Bay hook rnmp interchange. The DEIR notes that the intersection of Gateway and Oyster Point is overloaded in various scenarios, but fzih to point out that the design of the proposed five-legged intersection is not only unusual and not preferred, but is a major reason for the poor level of service at the intersection. Instead, the DEIR places most of the bl~me for poor traffic conditions on the local street connection with Sierra Point. It would seem that the Project designers and the preparers of the DEIR would search for a design which would incorporate more desirable four legged Please let me know if there are any questions about these observations. Very truly yours, 1990 Chris D. Kin,el 5/23/90 Page 5c AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Public Hearing - Continued. e Public Hearing - To consider ~°~ amendments to the Historic Preservation Commission Ordinance; Conduct Public Hearing; Motion to approve Negative Declaration No. 686; Motion to waive reading and introduce the ordinance. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.58 ENTITLED "HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION" PUBLIC HEARINGS He proceeded to close the Public Hearing. Consensus of Council - To direct staff to proceed with the Final EIR. City Clerk Battaya read the title of the ordinance in its entirety. Director of Economic & Community Development Costello related that there had been a joint study session with the Commission in April to go over their efforts on historic preservation to make it more effective. She stated that tonight's document had one change from that meeting which was to clarify that the certificate of alteration was for exterior changes only, and proceeded to cite the changes in the ordinance. She stated that staff had made a mistake on the format for the negative declara- tion and forgot to attach the initial study. She stated that they had since corrected the mistake, but to make sure the people have the maximum opportunity and all legal requirement met without any questions, staff was asking Council to take no action on the negative declara- tion, introduce the ordinance, and con- tinue the public hearing to the next meeting for public input. She stated that the same recommendation would apply to Item No. 10. Mayor Pro Tem Drago stated that he saw no reason to introduce the ordinance without acting upon the negative declaration, and ordered the item continued to the 6/13/90 meeting. Councilwoman Teglia complimented the Commission for their sensitivity in dealing with the issues that arose. She stated that she was disappointed that nothing spoke to incentives for people to seriously consider the historic designation. Director of Economic & Community 5/23/90 Page 6 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN .--PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Public Hearing - Continued. 10. 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. AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 15.28 ENTITLED "UNREINFORCED MASONRY STRUCTURES" TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE PUBLIC HEARINGS Development Costello stated that that would be addressed in Commission programs during the budget sessions. Mayor Pro Tem Drago invited anyone wishing to speak to step to the dais. Mrs. Helen Price, 350 Myrtle St., Redwood City, stated that she was very proud to have her property become a heritage building, because she and her husband were pioneers in this City. She continued, then had come the URM list and she was made to feel that she had been painted into a corner because they were taken off the heritage list. She felt that special concessions should be made for pioneers in this town. Mayor Pro Tem Drago stated that the Public Hearing would be continued to 6/13/90. Mayor Pro Tem Drago opened the Public Hearing. Director of Economic & Community Development Costello recited background information: on unreinforced masonry building State requirements; Council direction for a draft ordinance on the resultant URM list; buildings that had been removed from the list; time period for engineering analysis; time period for retrofitting; historic URM buildings; direction for guidelines for retro- fitting, etc. Discussion followed: people would be notified of the status of the building and within a year's time from December, they will be required to come up with an engineering plan that should indicate the true state of the building and what the alternatives were for retrofitting; the retrofitting must be done within seven years from 12/31/90 or at point of sale; if property is sold, then before an occu- pancy can be initiated or the present occupancy can be continued there needs to 5/23/90 Page 7 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS be the upgrading; consideration given to historic buildings - such as the City absorbing engineering fees; major con- cerns on the Martin Building - retro- fitting to the UCB or to the State Historic Building Code; the fact that it was a residential building in the redeve- lopment area; provide incentives through 20% set asides; language involving sale of property should be clearly defined; recordation makes known to prospective buyers an obligation associated with the property, etc. Mr. Robert Giorgi, 214 Baden Ave., urged the Council to allow more study on this issue because this was the first time that many people had seen the ordinance. He stated that the economic survival in the old part of town was in many ways tied to the preservation of our historic buildings. He stated that with the passage of this ordinance, many of the historic buildings would be torn down. He stated that he had real problems with the ordinance and wanted further study on the economic impacts that it would cause. Ms. Rivia Christian, 220 Linden Ave., stated that she had a petition signed by 30 of the tenants in the Metropolitan Hotel that do not want the hotel torn down because they felt it was a safe building. She stated that there were many elderly persons living in the hotel, and if they were forced to move it would cause their demise. Mayor Pro Tem Drago stated that the City did not have the authority to tear it down, and was not interested in doing that - only to make the building safe. He stated that the only inkling of such a rumor came from the owner in a letter the Council had received tonight. Councilwoman Teglia stated that it bothered her a lot that rumors were starting. She stated that it was not in 5/23/90 Page 8 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN --PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS the City's best interest to see the building torn down, because it was a residential building that provided low cost housing which was important for the City to retain, but the building had to be made safe. She stated that the City could use redevelopment set aside funds to rehab this type of building to make it safe in the event of earthquakes. She asked that staff send a letter to each of the petition signers indicating that the City did not want to see the buildings torn down, and illuminating the number of strategies to explore; and that safety was a very important factor. Mr. Lou Dell'Angela, Urban Planner, stated that he represented the Martin family, owners of the Metropolitan Hotel, and Mr. Barton was in attendance tonight and would read a letter into the record from Mr. Thomas. He stated that the family believed it was proper for the Council to move forward on an ordinance on seismic safety, however, they felt that this particular draft ordinance was severe, harsh, unreasonable, and had a lot of flaws and interpretations that needed to be worked out. He stated that there had been a process in the past in which the affected owners were brought in and a committee formed to solicit opinions for an ordi- nance. He stated that the owners were not only concerned with the ordinance, but what the City's interpretation would be seven years from now with a new Council, and whether the buildings would be torn down if compliance was not met. Councilwoman Teglia stated that the City could enter into an agreement with the owner to retrofit that residential building within the next seven years. 5/23/90 Page 9 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Dell'Angela stated that the ordinance had grave economic and social impacts that are not addressed, and require further discussions with the owners. He stated that his clients believed there were procedural flaws that deprive the owners due process, and believed that a historic building should be exempt from the ordinance. He proceeded to refute: the City's jurisdiction in attempting to impose its standards on a designated historic resource; the need to require massive upgrades to the buildings without pro- viding any incentives whatsoever to assist property owners in their efforts. He stated that delay in adoption of the ordinance would not create any liability exposure for the City. He felt that the time period for holding hearings for appeals should be made definite. He questioned if there was a Board of Appeals, and if so, who were they. He felt that the recordation time period should be within 30 days after the effec- tive date of the ordinance, and recor- dation before the appeal process was completed was a violation of property owners rights and due process, etc. He urged the Council to redraft the ordi- nance to make it more reasonable and sen- sitive to the owners needs, and did not rob them of their rights. City Attorney Armento responded: an item has been identified as a potentially hazardous building, and the purpose for recordation was to put people on constructive notice for any purchase; the obligation of disclosure under law only relates to residential buildings, not commercial buildings; a lis pendens or notice of concern about a building can be expunged; recordation occurs simulta- neously with the effective date of the ordinance; appeal process could take anywhere between three and four months, 5/23/90 Page 10 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ~PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS and did not agree that this violates anyone's rights or has any negative impact; and proceeded to counter each of the points raised by Mr. Dell'Angela. Discussion followed on the intention of the URM list; that the library and City Hall were on the historic URM list; that the entire State was facing the issue of making URM buildings safe; that South San Francisco had been fortunate during the last earthquake because of its rock and soil foundation; the City waiving the $1,000 engineering analysis fee, and incorporating it into the Master Fee; that the Mayor Pro Tem felt that when it came to a matter of safety, he did not believe any building should be excluded; that the Council had made the decision to include historic buildings within the purview of retrofitting. Mr. Dell'Angela stated that private coun- sel did not believe State Law gave the Council that discretion. City Attorney Armento responded: that the ordinance references the UCB and the UCB contained references that when dealing with historic buildings the State Historic Building Code applies or can be applied; that there was an entire process involving hearings that become triggered if demolishing of a building was to be considered, rather than wait seven years; this ordinance was not intended for immu- nity for the City but had to do with Council concern about the safety and well being of the citizens; that the City does have a Board of Appeals as dictated by the UCB; didn't need to adopt an ordi- nance to deal with incentives; this ordi- nance very clearly focuses on very technical, mechanical type of things related to the retrofit of the buildings, etc. Director of Economic Development & Community Services Costello stated that 5/23/90 Page 11 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN - PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS many people had been involved in this ordinance and with the various workshops held, and staff had addressed citizen concerns. Discussion followed: percentage of citi- zen participation or owners staff met with; twelve properties were removed from the list after giving evidence to the Chief Building Inspector on the construc- tion of their building; this was checked and staff made the determination that a mistake had been made, and there was substantial evidence it was not an URM; that seven owners came to a workshop; that owners and tenants were notified of meetings; that the Martin family had been told by staff that they were not impacted by the ordinance, and had not attended meetings, etc. Mr. William J. Barton, 1111 E1 Sir Way, Sacramento, stated that his family did not want an unsafe building, and had taken steps to make the building seismi- cally as safe as possible, as well as economically. He stated that they did not want to demolish the building, and read a letter into the record from Thomas V. Barton, Jr., dated 5/21/90 (a copy of the letter is attached and a permanent part of the record of this meeting). Councilwoman Teglia suggested Mr. Barton speak to staff about seeking set aside funds from the City to allay the $1,000,000 cost for retrofitting. Mayor Pro Tem Drago was concerned over the language for the sale of URM buildings, and felt that a time factor should be established and more specific language used. He stated that he did not support the sale portion, and a buyer should have the same seven year period. He stated that two weeks was sufficient time for staff to meet with the owners and allay their concerns. 5/23/90 Page 12 MARTIN M TRO, 1T C. 1111 ri. SUI~ WAY * SACRAMIrNTt3, CAI-II~'ORNIA 95864 (916) 4B3-966~! 4600 Numaga Pass Road, Carson City, NV 89703 (702) 882-6717 May 21, 1990 Mr. Jesus Armas, City Manager Attn: City Council City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: proposed URM Ordinance Gentlemen, (We request that this letter be read to the City Council at its meeting on May 23, 1990.) Our family is the owner of the Metropolitan Hotel Building located at the southeast corner of Grand and Linden and has been the owner since our grandfather, W. J. Martin, built it in 1914. The building has been designated a historic resource by the South San Francisco Historic Resource Commission and has been qualified for a block grant under the Downtown Commercial Rehabilitation Program. In conjunction with this Program, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed by ourselves and the City Manager in September 1989. Since that time, and in compliance with the terms of the MOU, we have spent approximately $20,000 of our own funds in the architectural design of the exterior and seismic engineering of certain structural improvements as part of an estimated $200,000 remodeling program, a program which which was instigated by the City and the Historical Resource Commission in anticipation of a mitigation program providing for the preservation of structures designated as historic resources. We were assured repeatedly by these sources that the City's pending mitigation program would not cause condemnation of the building because of its historic value and service to the community (as well as iLL qualifyin~ a= ~ hisLoric property in accordance with Section 37602 of the Health and Safety Code which excludes it from consideration under Senate Bill 547). Instead, the City has proposed an URM Ordinance which dictates that all URM buildings, regardless of their historical designation, must be structurally upgraded - or be demolished. Anticipating just such a possibility, in August 1989, we '--- 5/23/90 Page 12a Mr. Jesus Armas, City Manager May 21, 1990 Page 2 engaged the structural engineering firm of Robinson, Meier, Juilly & Associates, at the recommendation of the City, to conduct a preliminary study of the building to advise us of the extent of the work that might be required if the building had to be brought up to code. It is important, at this point, that the City Council fully understand the cost to the owner of a building that will result from the enactment of an ordinance such as the one being proposed. Brian L. Fischer, Vice President of RMS & Associates, estimated that the engineering phase of the structural rehabilitation of the Metropolitan Hotel Building would cost approximately $100,000. The actual rehabilitation could exceed $1 million. The cash flow of the building cannot service the debt on such an expenditure and an alternative higher and better use for the building does not exist. The result, under the proposed ordinance, is demolition, a serious loss to us as well as other owners of similarly affected buildings, including, possibly, the City Hall, not to mention the community. In consideration of these factors, we beseech the Council to suspend the proceedings on the proposed ordinance until further study has been conducted to determine (1) the true impact, both economic and social, on the URM buildings affected by the ordinance and (2) the necessity for the City to deviate from the state's waiver of Senate Bill 547 as it applies to "historic properties". Sincerely yours, MARTIN METRO, INC. Thomas V. Barton, Jr. Vice President cc: W. J. Barton M. B. Johnson 5/23/90 Page 12b 4600 NUMAGA PASS ROAI~) * CARSON CITY, NEVADA B9'703 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mrs. Helen Price asked that a letter from her attorney, Marcus M. Kauffman, be read into the record in her behalf. Councilmembers Nicolopulos, Teglia, and Mayor Pro Tem Drago read the letter into the record (a copy is attached and a per- manent part of the record of this meeting). City Attorney Armento made the following points on the Attorney's letter: only the negative declaration required a 21 day notice period, and the ordinance discussion only required that it be included on an agenda at least 72 hours beforehand - which was done; recommen- dation was made to continue the hearing because the initial study did not accom- pany the negative declaration form; first draft of the ordinance was produced by the Chief Building Official in conjunc- tion with the Director of Economic & Community Dev. and was dated 4/16/90; this was followed by a number of revi- sions and a reformulation of the ordi- nance into standard ordinance form by the attorney; original study was dated 4/18/90; because of confusion - all of that was redone today and are in the file; felt the classification was reas- onable, and proceeded to refute other items in the letter. Mrs. Price requested that the City Attorney respond in writing to her Attorney. Councilwoman Te§lia stated that the letter contained statements - not questions, however, he could get a copy of the record. City Clerk Battaya stated that a transcript was an expensive document, and all Mrs. Price wanted was a written dialogue that the City Attorney has just given. 5/23/90 Page 13 Post Office Box 8508 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Nay 17, 1990 The City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue Post Office Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 RECEIVED PLANNING Re: Proposed Ordinance to add Chapter 15.28 to the Municipal Code entitled "Unreinforced Masonry Structures" and Negative Declaration pertaining thereto: Mrs. Helen Price. Ladies and Gentlemen, This letter is written on behalf of Mrs. Helen Price who is the owner of the building at 409 Grand Avenue which is asserted by the City's Chief Building Official to be an "unreinforced masonry structure" within the meaning of the proposed ordinance identified above. I request on Mrs.Price's behalf that this letter be made part of the record of the public hearing on the above identified ordinance and the negative declaration pertaining to it. I have received and will receive no compensation for assisting my aunt in this matter. Mrs. Price has forwarded to me the notices of hearing furnished her, and on May 11, 1990 Mr. Baca courteously mailed to me a copy of the draft ordinance completed, apparently, on May 10, 1990. The Scope and Timeliness of the Hearing Scheduled for May 23, 1990 Mr. Baca's letter to me dated May 11, 1990 (copy attached) reminded me the draft ordinance of May 10, 1990 would be brought before the City Council on May 23 for "review" and stated that this would be the appropriate forum in which to express comments or concerns. If that is so, it is contrary to both notices Mrs. Price has received (copies attached), both of which indicate that the matters to be examined at the May 23 hearing are: the approval of the negative declaration pertaining to the ordinance adding Chapter 15.28, the approval of a negative declaration pertaining to another ordinance to add Chapter 2.58 to the Municipal Code and the introduction of the latter ordinance. No notice whatever has been given indicating the introduction of the draft ordinance completed ~ay 10 would be considered on May 23. Aside from the lack of appropriate notice, I suggest it is entirely inappropriate to set a hearing at which the public is 5/23/90 Page 13a The City of South San Francisco Re: Chapter 15.28 Page Two expected to present its comments and concerns only 13 days after the completion of a lengthy and complex ordinance destructive of many ownership rights of a number of property owners in your jurisdiction. You and I are both aware that contentions and concerns not expressed at the public hearing may be waived for failure to exhaust remedies. And your determination to proceed to hearing on this ordinance without proper notice suggests the. City is determined to proceed with this draconian measure irrespective of what is brought out at the hearing. Any such predetermined result is clearly inconsistent with the requirement that there be a public hearing. A proper hearing requires an informed public and a legislative body willing to act on the basis of what is developed at the hearing. This problem is even worse with respect to consideration of the negative declaration pertaining to the enactment of Chapter 15.28. The Environmental Quality Act and the promulgated regulations provide a specified period of notice be given during which the initial study leading to the negative declaration be available to the public. This was not true in this case. ~¢nile the notice dated April 24, 1990 (copy attached) stated, "A copy of the initial study may be obtained at the Planning Division, City Hall...," Mrs. Price and I both attempted several times to obtain the initial study, we were told by both the Planning Division and Mr. Baca, alternatively, that no such study existed or that none was available. Further, I am convinced from the sequence of events that, contrary to the statement in the notice of April 24, 1990 that the Planning Division "considered" "the project" identified as the "Ordinance adding Chapter 15.28 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code entitled "Unreinforced Masonry Structures," it never considered the draft ordinance completed May 10, 1990. I have repeatedly requested a copy of the draft the Planning Division did consider prior to the April 24 notice without success. The Planning Division says it has no such draft ordinance. Mr. Baca says he doesn't either. So what did the Planning Division consider or or before April 24? Obviously not the draft ordinance completed May 10. In the event you nevertheless proceed to consider the draft ordinance of May 10, 1990 and the negative declaration pertaining to it, allow me to state for the record the following. The Negative Declaration In addition to the fact that the initial study was not, indeed still has not been made available during the notice period, I suggest that either no initial study was made at all 5/23/90 Page 13b The City of South San Francisco Re: Chapter 15.28 Page Three or that it is legally insufficient. When the ordinance-will obviously result in extensive "retrofitting" or demolition or both, it could not have been reasonably concluded there would be no significant environmental effects in the form of noise, dust, and traffic congestion. The mere unsupported conclusion that "The project will not have a significant effect on the environment" is arbitrary, capricious and without factual foundation. Thus the negative declaration cannot lawfully be approved by the City Council. The Ordinance The draft ordinance contains a number of provisions that are in all likelihood unconstitutional under the federal and California constitutions. Why the City of South San Francisco would want to treat property owners of many years, some of them elderly and income dependent on their property,in such a brutally confiscatory manner is beyond my ken, but in any event the City Council should not adopt this ordinance of highly questionable legality and which will involve the City of South San Francisco in lengthy and very expensive litigation. 1. The scope of the chapter (section 15.28.020) discloses the chapter is violative of due process and equal protection of law. While the chapter purports to apply to all buildings constructed prior to 1946 which have unreinforced masonry bearing walls, it does apply to'"Detached one or two family dwellings and detached apartment houses containing less than five dwelling units and used solely for residential purposes" or "warehouses and similar buildings with few occupants..." The purpose of the chapter as stated in section 15.28.10, "to promote public safety and welfare by identifying those buildings in the City which exhibit structural deficiencies in their capacities for earthquake resistance and by determining the severity and extent of those deficiences in relation to their potential for causing injury or loss of life" is not rationally served by excluding residential buildings with up to 5 units and potentially 20 to 25 residential occupants for up to 14 or 15 hours a-day and excluding warehouses and "similar buildings with few occupants" (whatever that means) and yet including commercial buildings which may have no occupants and even few users during the 8 to 10 hours a day they are open. 2. The vagueness of the exclusion for "Warehouses and similar buildings with few occupants..." presents the substantial possibility the chapter is void for vagueness. That language, for example, would seem to describe Mrs. Price's building precisely, but your Chief Building Official thinks otherwise. I am aware the same language is found in the state legislation, but that legislation requires only identification of property to the State 5/23/90 Page 13c The City of South San Francisco Re: Chapter 15.28 Page Four unless it has been designated an historical landmark. In any event, in this regard, the State legislation is subject to the very same criticism. 3. The chapter apparently contemplates that the determination that a building comes within the scope of the chapter is to be made by "the chief building inspector" (section 15.28.050) but standards as to how and by what tests that determination is to be made are entirely absent and the determination is apparently left to the unbridled discretion of the chief building inspector. (See also section 15.28.080 subdivision (d) (1).) 4. The provision for the recordation of a certificate clouding the title and threatening any continued tenancy or profitable use of buildings within 30 days of the adoption of the chapter, apparently even without notice to the owner, but certainly before the disposition of the appeal authorized by section 15,28.050, constitutes a clearly unlawful taking of property rights without notice of hearing, that is without due process of law. 5. The requirement that an owner "upon service of an order" must obtain the very extensive and expensive structural engineering testing and reporting described in section 15.28.050 in the absence of any evidence of an actual dangerous condition is arbitrary, capricious, officious and confiscatory and violates an owner's constitutional right to due process of law. Neither the determinations of the Seismic Safety Commission nor the state legislation declare a building built in part of unreinforced masonry is an actual danger. The Commission determined only that unreinforced masonry buildings are more likely than others to be damaged in earthquakes and are %potentially hazardous." Potential hazard without a showing of actual danger is not sufficient to support a requirement that the owner spend vast sums of money for tests that may approach the value of the property. Manifestly, such a showing would be entirely insufficient to support an order for vacation of the building or demolition of the building as provided in section 15.28.050, subdivison (e). The chapter in this regard is confiscatory and violates both the due process provisions and the provisions requiring just compensation for governmental takings of property found in both the California and federal constitutions. 6. The provision in section 15.28.060, subdivision (d) requiring the owner to repay the City for the cost of reviewing the structural engineering report constitutes a special tax on real property in violation of the taxing limitations adopted into the California Constitution by Proposit$on 13. 5/23/90 Page 13d The City of South San Francisco Re: Chapter 15.28 Page Five 7. The requirement that the owner obtain and provide to the City extensive and expensive engineering studies and reports to prove or disprove the City's standardless determination a building may be hazardous is unconstitutional for the same reason specified in 6 above. 8. While obviously no investigative study could be made in the time given by the City's short and defective notice, Mrs. Price believes and on information and belief states that the City's designation of buildings as "potentially hazardous" thus far under the State legislation were selected in a discriminatory, partial manner, with favoritism to persons prominent in city politics and affairs and, indeed to the City's own property. I realize this letter is overly long, but the proposed ordinance is seriously unconstitutional in a large number of respects and, as you know, it is necessary to assert all contentions on pain of being unable to raise them in the court proceedings certain to result from this ill conceived, ill advised and pernicious legislation. CERTIFIED MAIL cc: Mrs. Helen Price Mr. Jeffrey Baca Mr. Franklin Price Mr. Stanton Price Very truly yours, M. Kaufman l // _ if of Mrs. Hefl~{ Price 5/23/90 Page 13e 415/e77.8S35 PAX e71-7318 DRAFT DA'I~: Apr~l 24, 1990 X.D. NO. 68? The Planning Division o! the City o! South San Francisco considered the £ollovinq proposed project, and has prepared the following 'Negative D~claration' · ~zoposed ~zoJeot: Ordinance adding Chapter 15.28 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code entitled 'Unreinforced Nasonry Structures" which requires UR~ building owners to submit an engineering analysis within one year and to complete a retro-fit within seven years or at time of sale. -Megative Declaratiom- Yindings: The project will not have a significant effect on the --environment. i Reasonl Supporting /indinGs: The provisions of this ordinance ensure the safety of the occupants and the General public from unreinforced masonry buildings which are defined as "potentially hazardous' by providing certain mitigation measures. It has been estimated that approximately 1,600 occupants are exposed to the potential risks associated with these buildings each day. AlthouGh in some cases the costs of retro-fittinG the buildings may be high, the protections afforded the citizens and the public are a benefit to the community. No potential environmental impacts have been determined. XmAtial Itud! I, ropared b~: / A¢~py cf thc initial study may ~ obtain_-d at the Planning Division, City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, 94080. X, Jean T. Smith, hereby certify that this "Negative Declaration' vas prepared in accordance wi~h the provisions of the California Environ- mental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and applicable state and city Guidelines. T. Smith lng Director JTS:~:ab ~c: City Clerk Case File 400 Grand Avenue - P.O. Box 711 - 940~3 5/23/90 Page 13f NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, California, will hold a public hearing on the 23rd day of Hay, 1990 at ?:30 p.m. in the Xunicipal Services -~uilding, etc., on the following items at which time and place ~ny and all persons interested ~ay appear and be heard thereon: Negative Declaration No. 686 San Francisco Hunicipal Code Preservation Commission." for an ordinance amending South Chapter 2.58 entitled "Historic Negative Declaration No. 687 for an ordinance adding Chapter 15.28 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code entitled -Unreinforced Masonry St=uctures.u Cop%es of the negative declarations and draft ordinances are /~ available in City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco. Haureen Morton Senior Planner (published once in the Enterprise Journal 5/23/90 Page 13g ~ay 11, 1990 OFFICE OF THE BUILDING INSPECTION (41S) 877-854S Marcus Kaufman P. O. Box 8508 Newport Beach, CA Dear Mr. Kaufman: 92660 Enclosed you will find a copy of the draft URM Ordinance proposed by the City of South San Francisco. We know that you are very interested in this issue, so we are sending you this copy for you to review at your convenience. If after reviewing the draft ordinance you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Just a reminder; the draft ordinance will be brought before the City Council on May 23, 1990 for review during a public hearing. If you have any comments or concerns that you would like to express before the Council, this would be the appropriate forum in which to do so. The meeting begins at 7:30 pm in the Municipal Services Building at 33 Arroyo Dr. in the City of South San Francisco. If I can be of any further assistance, I may be reached at 877- Sincerely, J~ffery G. Baca; Chief Building Official 5/23/90 Page 13h 400 GRNiD AVf.14JE - P.O, BOX 711 - 940e3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Donald Arndt, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission, stated that the California Preservation Commission does not want the buildings on the historic list not to be considered for life safety purposes - that is not the intent, the intent is to bring these out as separate items and be more sen- sitive to them. He stated that the four buildings, which included City Hall and the Library, were unique and something was needed to be done either incentive-wise or in some other manner. He spoke of the various methods of retrofitting that the Historic Preservation Commission was monitoring, and would stay abreast with technology in the next six years to further assist the Council on URM buildings. Councilwoman Teglia spoke of the $1,000 review fee and wanted it to be set aside if there was a consensus, and put it in the ordinance. City Manager Armas explained that the suggestion made is that following the receipt of the engineering analysis, the City would retain someone to evaluate it and advise us as to the adequacy of that analysis. He stated that the staff report estimates that it would cost in the neighborhood of $1,000, and Councilwoman Teglia was suggesting that for historic buildings that fee should be waived, however, he did not feel that it should be put in the ordinance. City Attorney Armento stated that it would normally be put in the master fee schedule. Director of Economic & Community Dev. Costello suggested a staff meeting with the owners on 6/4/90 at 4:00 p.m. in the MSB to meet with property owners to go through their concerns on the ordinance, and notices would be sent out. 5/23/90 Page 14 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS Councilwoman Teglia requested that the notices be followed up with telephone calls to the property owners. Mr. Alan Asner stated that the building at 701 Linden Ave. was owned by his mother. He stated that the issue he had not heard come up was an assessment of the real risks involved with these URM buildings, and by that he meant the pro- bability of personal injury that the pro- posed ordinance was trying to minimize. He stated that there were crossing guards at one or two intersections at primary schools to protect the children, but we don't have them at every intersection the child will cross on his way home - we don't do that because of the lower risks and higher cost involved. He presented statistics on the level of risks: pedestrian passing his building during an earthquake - sidewalk is occupied only 1.35% of the time during the busiest 16 hours of the day; how often an earthquake occurs - probability of a major quake in the next 30 years, etc. He stated that by requiring an owner to pay the several thousand dollars for a seismic engineering report, then another $100,000-200,000 or more dollars for retrofitting for a miniscule possibility that it might save someone from injury is a cruel and unjustifiable punishment against them. He stated that by the Council adopting this ordinance - you are inflicting a catastrophic loss on the owners of these buildings. He stated that in the case of his elderly mother retrofitting her building could cost a quarter of a million dollars, assuming we use the cost figures stated in these public meetings. He stated that he had been to three lending institutions who had told him that there is no money for this retrofit work because even after 5/23/90 Page 15 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS such work an earthquake could cause enough damage to require that the building be torn down anyway. He con- tinued, the mortgage payment for such retrofitting would be more than the full occupancy rents, and there is already a mortgage from when his mother bought the building. He stated that the bottom line is that this ordinance is going to take away her building, home, income, and send her further into debt because she is going to have to take out a loan to pay for the demolition and removal costs of the building. He recommended the following: notifica- tion only approach with voluntary retro- fit as Palo Alto has done; bond issue in Hayward to retrofit public buildings was soundly defeated by the voters who are saying that the benefit is not worth the cost; consider the economic impacts on the owners; suggested City share some of the cost of the engineering study; allow the owners to convert the use to low occupancy warehousing, especially in cases of low commercial activity, and with 5 or fewer residential units as the State now permits; where the retrofit is too costly, allow the owners to replace the building with another with the same cubic size - waiving new parking and set back requirements at time of retrofit or rebuild and allow the owners to add an additional 25% square footage or 2,500 sq. ft. whichever is more as Palo Alto does; join other cities to petition the State and Federal Government for funding assistance; extend the engineering study due date to 3 years, and the retrofit due date to 10 years to spread the cost out; require lesser retrofit measures such as only tying the ceilings and floors to the walls; make the retrofit voluntary, etc. Discussion followed: that the URM buildings were small in number; that the retrofit estimates were not well founded; $25-40 per sq. ft. was the cost of retro- 5/23/90 Page 16 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0'"06 --PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Public Hearing - Continued. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 11. Request from Councilwoman Roberta Cerri Teglia to consider scheduling a public hearing to discuss improvements to Willow Gardens Park & Parkways Maintenance District. PUBLIC HEARINGS fitting in L.A.; that the Asner building provided 5 residential units to low and moderate income people, and there were two commercial low income units; that this building could also qualify for set aside funds; converting the building to a warehouse by the owner; increasing the density of the building could provide additional low income housing; that retrofitting will only save the person on the street, however, the building could collapse. Mayor Pro Tem Drago continued the Public Hearing to 6/13/90. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL Councilwoman Teglia requested that this District be handled alone and set a Public Hearing for the residents to deal with the matter. City Attorney Armento questioned if the Council wanted to consider imposing an assessment for this coming year and basi- cally advertise it as was done the last time. Councilwoman Teglia requested a fact sheet be sent with the notice of the Public Hearing covering all questions pertinent to the assessment. City Manager Armas stated that it would indicate that the Council was con- templating a $209.00 per unit assessment for Willow Gardens, and residents would have the opportunity to speak to the issue. Councilwoman Teglia requested a discussion of conflict of interest be agendized at the next meeting. She stated that she had hoped to speak of this in Closed Session, but the law does not allow that. 5/23/90 Page 17 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 13. Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of personnel matters, labor relations, property negotiations and litigation. Request to adjourn the meeting to Thursday, 5/31/90 at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Services Building Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, for the purpose of a joint meeting with the Park & Recreation Commission on the Master Plan. ADJOURNMENT: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Barbara A. Battaya, City ~l;~rk City of South San Francisco Council chose not to hold a Closed Session. M/S Te§lia/Nicolopulos - To adjourn the meeting to 5/31/90 at 7:00 p.m. at the Municipal Services Building for the stated reasons. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment was 11:15 p.m. APPROVED.~ / ~ /~ l Richard A. Eaffey',/~r City of South San F~n¢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. 5/23/90 Page 18