Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1990-07-11Mayor Richard A. Haffey Council: Jack Dra9o Gus Nicolopulos John R. Penna Roberta Cerri Teglia MINUTES City Council Municipal Services Building Community Room July 11, 1990 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) 6:05 p.m. Mayor Haffey presiding. ROLL CALL: Council present: Council absent: Drago, Nicolopulos, Penna, Teglia, and Haffey. None. Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of personnel matters, labor relations, property negotiations and litigation. Council adjourned to a Closed Session at 6:06 p.m. to discuss the items noticed. RECALL TO ORDER: Mayor Haffey recalled the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m., all Council present, no action taken. M/S Penna/Drago - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. ADJOURNMENT: Time of adjournment was 8:01 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ar~a A. Battaya~ City of South San Francisco The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose of an item. Oral communications, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape and documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for inspection, review and copying. 7/11/90 Page i Mayor Richard A. Haffey Council: Jack Drago Gus Nicolopulos John R. Penna Roberta Cerri Teglia MINUTES City Council Municipal Services Building Community Room July 11, 1990 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) ROLL CALL: INVOCATION: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW ORAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY FORUM CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the Minutes of the Adjourned Regular Meeting of ACTION TAKEN 8:03 p.m. Mayor Haffey presiding. Council present: Council absent: Nicolopulos, Penna, Teglia, Drago and Haffey. None. Chaplin Linamen, Kaiser Hospital, gave the invocation. The pledge was recited. AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Armas stated that he did not have any modifications to the Agenda. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one chose to speak. COMMUNITY FORUM Councilwoman Teglia stated that yesterday marked the end of a two year battle with the County for the location of a new jail in S.S.F.. She stated that the Board had selected Redwood City which she felt would better serve the County in the long run. She stated that the County had also announced that it would close the prede- tention center on Mission Rd., but not a date as to when this would be done. She asked that this City take a lead with the County in discussions to find an accep- table alternative to the straight closure. Consensus of Council - That the City take an active role in discussions on the sub- ject. CONSENT CALENDAR Approved. 7/11/90 Page I AGENDA ACTION TAKEN CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion - Continued. 5/31/90; and the Regular Meeting of 6/13/90. 2. Motion to confirm expense claimso~5 of 7/11/90. Resolution establishing tax rate for financing the Municipal Services Building for fiscal year 1990-91. A RESOLUTION FIXING A SPECIAL PROPERTY TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1990-91. Motion to accept the City Entrance Landscaping Project on Airport Blvd. as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. 5. Resolution approving a risk management policy and program. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY ° Motion to accept the City Entrance Landscaping Project on Airport Blvd. as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. CONSENT CALENDAR Approved in the amount of $1,068,042.86. RESOLUTION NO. 96-90 Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Councilman Nicolopulos. RESOLUTION NO. 97-90 M/S Penna/Teglia - To approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 4. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned the pro- cedure before the City took possession in that the site was a mess with litter and papers everywhere. Director of Public Works Parini stated that the site collected debris quickly, however, approval of the project was for the work done. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that the site looked like it had not been attended for many weeks or months; and if the City accept it - it should be cleaned by the contractor, due to the City having a lack of personnel before approving the project 7/11/90 Page 2 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 4. Motion - Continued. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ~Q~ 6. Resolution imposing assessments for unpaid costs of removing abandoned vehicles from private property and directing the City Clerk to cause recordation with the County Clerk. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FOR ABATEMENT OF ABANDONED VEHICLES as complete. He stated that he would approve the project with the stipulation it was cleaned first. Councilwoman Teglia stated that the corner needed a great deal more main- tenance than it had in the past, and the contractor should not be respon- sible for wind and papers on the site. Vice Mayor Drago stated that there was a 10% retention clause for the 30 day lien provision. Director of Public Works Parini stated that that was part of the standard contract provisions for the benefit of unpaid subcontractors to file liens. City Manager Armas stated that it was staff's judgment that the contract had been satisfied, and he would have staff clean up the site. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned when the Council was going to stop accepting mediocre work and being second rate. M/S Teglia/Penna - To accept the City Entrance Landscaping Project on Airport Blvd. as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. Carried by majority voice vote, Councilman Nicolopulos voted no. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Acting Director of Finance Margolis stated that the resolution imposes assessments for unpaid costs for removing vehicles from private pro- perty, and to have those filed on the 1990-1991 tax rolls. She stated that there was a recommended change wherein the property owner of 551 Railroad Ave. had disclaimed responsibility for the vehicles that were there and removed which relieved them from any assessment, and they should be removed from the list; and S.F. Water Co. found it easier to handle an assessment rather than a bill. 7/11/90 Page 3 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 6. Resolution - Continued. e Motion to approve the Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan; and Motion to approve the Orange Memorial Park Master Plan/ Expansion ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS M/S Teglia/Penna - To adopt the Resolution with the exemption of the property at 551 Railroad Ave. RESOLUTION NO. 98-90 Councilwoman Teglia stated that there had been a memo from Councilman Nicolopulos in reference to Tennis Dr. on whether or not public easements could be infringed upon and abated by the City. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Mr. Harris, Callandar Assoc., spoke in detail: importance of the two projects in this City; that the time element was 15 years; meetings and surveys conducted; that the plan was fundable and realistic; that the bay front was under developed; additional space was needed for cultural arts; that there were 22 items in the Orange Park Master Plan; funds were available from the Quimby Grant, General Fund and the Capital Improvement Program, etc. Councilwoman Teglia stated that she did not see reference to a linear parkway in the plan. She stated that when doing the Orange Park Expansion the City should move up the linear piece on Orange and Spruce to blend it together. Mayor Haffey stated that it was the west side of Colma Creek behind So. Canal, and it should be incorporated as part of Orange Park Expansion and the linear park. Consensus - To include it in the Orange Park Master Plan. Discussion followed: that the con- figuration could be changed to put in concession stands; that there was another constraint because of three wells on the property, etc. 7/11/90 Page 4 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 7. Motion - Continued. Be Motion to receive the report and not authorize additional stop signs at Baden/Eucalyptus Avenue inter- section. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Councilwoman Teglia spoke of the Subcommittee work with the Boys Club for a potential joint project in Oldtown for a Boys and Girls Club satellite facility. She stated that with funds from the Boys Club for construction and the use of City land on Hillside for a joint project that the Club could run. She requested that staff be directed to determine the merits of such a plan. Mayor Haffey suggested that the item also be referred to the Recreation Commission for review before any Council action was taken. Consensus of Council - To direct staff to determine the merits of a satellite facility and refer the matter to the Recreation Commission. Mayor Haffey stated that this was one of the most important plans for the next 15 years, and felt that Council and the public would take great pride in its achievement. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To approve the Park, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, and the Orange Memorial Park Master Plan Expansion. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Director of Public Works Parini stated that this had been continued from the 6/13/90 meeting wherein staff after investigation and a traffic and engi- neering analysis had recommended that it did not warrant additional stop signs and Council had directed that more investigation be made. He spoke of the type of investigation made: had looked for significant accident history for right angle types of collisions that occurred; there was only one in the past 31/2 years; traffic volumes were light and did not warrant stop signs. 7/11/90 Page 5 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN -- ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 8. Motion - Continued. Motion to provide direction con- cerning expanded contents of the conflict of interest provisions in the Council Handbook. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS He suggested: add more speed limit signs on Baden; improve markings with 25 mph signs; improve double stripes; ask police for more enforcement measures. Councilwoman Teglia refutted that Baden Ave. was a lightly travelled street, and questioned why Miller had a stop sign when the traffic was the same. She stated that the neighbors see near miss accidents all day long. City Manager Armas stated that the strict reading of the warrants were not satisfied nor were Council guidelines adopted in the past. Motion by Councilwoman Teglia - To receive the report, disagree with it and authorize additional stop signs at Baden/Eucalyptus Avenue intersection. Motion died for lack of a second. City Attorney Armento stated that direction had been given to consider expanding upon the discussion con- cerning conflict of interests in the Council Handbook, and she had provided some language or concepts to use as a starting point for discussion as to what they might want to see included on the subject. M/S Penna/Drago - That any person that has any problem with any Council or Boardmember serving the City - that they bring that information to the City Attorney for the purpose of review of documentation with the intent that if any improprieties be found that it be handed over to the D.A.'s Office for prosecution or review through the Grand Jury. Councilwoman Teglia stated there was no need for that motion to pass, because anyone with that concern can imme- 7/11/90 Page 6 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0t65 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 9. Motion - Continued. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS diately go to those people and did not have to go to the City Attorney for enforcement. City Attorney Armento stated that was correct, and suggested that it would be inappropriate for the City Attorney to go and seek an enforcement action by the District Attorney. Councilwoman Teglia stated that she was concerned over professional activities in the community with knowledge not available to the community, acquired through closed session - then he should abstain or call it out. Councilman Penna stated that the public should be aware of the process, and then discuss the rest in a study session. City Attorney Armento stated that with regard to the Motion - the procedures for dealing with a conflict of interest were already spelled out in statutes. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that because it was spelled out in statutes, any action the Council took was redun- dant and not needed. Vice Mayor Drago stated that he sup- ported the concept, and would like to see it expanded to the Boards, Commissions, and City employees. City Attorney Armento stated that she could amend the conflict of interest code as it applies to employees. She stated that the Council Handbook really related to the Council, and does have some discussion about the Boards and Commissions. Councilman Penna stated that the suggested language was so loosely worded that he would rather see it be discussed in a study session. 7/11/90 Page 7 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 9. Motion - Continued. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Mayor Haffey asked for constructive tightening up of the language. He suggested continuing it to the next meeting so that Councilman Penna could study the language more. Councilwoman Teglia objected to this going to a study session because it would put it off for two months. She again cited concern for people who intend to target an area for pro- fessional activity, and chooses to sit in on the closed session on that area. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that if a person had a doubt - he should go to the City Attorney. Councilman Penna stated that the language makes it easy to see improprieties, and makes it difficult for a businessman to run for Council. Mayor Haffey stated that a prior Councilman who worked, had abstained whenever a subject touched upon his employer. Councilman Penna stated that on many occasions he had abstained on issues, and still felt the language was loose. Motion and Second were withdrawn from consideration. M/S Penna/Drago - The item to go to a study session. City Manager Armas stated that the study session would not occur until September or October. Vice Mayor Drago questioned the penalties and sanctions. He stated that the staff report says he can be removed from office - Council can not remove anyone from office regardless of what they do. 7/11/90 Page 8 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 9. Motion - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Public Hearing - To consider revisions to the Master Fee Schedule; Public Hearing closed on 6/27/90; Resolution approving revisions to planning fees. A RESOLUTION AMENDING CHAPTER i OF THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO (Cassette No. 2) ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Councilwoman Teglia stated that it was important to agendize for a public meeting for the public to understand elected government. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned if this was an item for a closed or an open session. City Attorney Armento stated that there was not a basis for a closed session, because the Brown Act did not have a category for this; and study sessions were not places to take action. Vice Mayor Drago stated that it could be discussed at a study session, then agendize it for action at a regular meeting for a decision in front of the cameras. Carried by majority voice vote, Councilwoman Teglia voted no. PUBLIC HEARINGS City Clerk Battaya related that she had received a 7/9/90 letter from Mr. Dell'Angela protesting the change in planning fees. Mayor Haffey directed the City Clerk to incorporate the letter into the record. Director of Planning Smith stated that staff had been instructed at the last meeting to come back with justification of the changes in planning fees in reference to the Master Fee Schedule. She proceeded to justify each of the planning fees, and stated that this City fell in the general area of fees as those of neighboring cities. She stated that the legislative update in the Chamber Newsletter had been sent to approximately 2,700 businesses since the last meeting, and had con- tained information on this meeting; and had been mailed out last week. 7/11/90 Page 9 kEnvironm~l:Development Group ~ Ju~ 9, 199(~ 1818 Gilbreth Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 TEL: 415-692-9517 FAX: 415-692-2585 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, Ca 94085 RE: Master Fee Schedule, Planning Services (Item 10, 7/11 CC Meeting*Agenda) Dear Mayor Halley and Council I~nbers. It is disturbing tome that the Planning Director's proposal to increase fees is back on your 7/11/90 agenda in almost the identical form youConsidered at your 6/27/90meeting. The only change made is that a variance for single fanilyhomes has been left at $585 while the fee for all other variances have been increased by 120°~ to $850. . I was also surprised that the survey of fees charged'in other cities, which --- you specifically asked for at your last meeting, was not included in~_the staff report and only selected fees from a few cities are mentioned in the report. No justification is given in the staff report for the statement made that "On average, SoUth San Francisco's planning fees, as proposed, are COT~arable with those charged by other San Mateo COnTnunities and COmTunities throughout the My region." Perhaps your relationship with the City Manager.an~ Planni.ng Management staf~ has reached a point where they feel you will vote TOt anythzng they recomnene with little or no support doctrnentation. A c_onl3rehensive report of fees charged in other cities should have been provided you before you were asked to approve such fees. Exhibits A-L, which was provided you and which pres~ne to justify the fees being proposed, is pure fantasy. The grossly-inflated tim~ and hourly figures used in these Exhibits also contain numerous contradictions. The fees charged include: ?p ing, 'zerox~ng g distribution S22/hour or SqS,760/year onsultation (wzth who?) $55/hour or $68,6qO/year Planning Director Review Sq6/hour or $95,680/year Deparbnent Head Review $52/hour or S108,160/year Design Review $67/hour or $159,560/year It is also interesting to note in these Exhibits that while the Department Head, Ms. Costello, requires only ~ hour to review a use permit application, she needs a full 2 hours to review a C Permit sign application. Further, a C sign permit requires 2 hours of design review but a use permit or precise plan only needs 1 hour of review. These are only a few of the contradictions. 7/11/90 Page 9a .~Environmental Development Group Page Two Planning Fees 7/11/90 SSF CC Mtg. July 9, 1990 ]818 Gilbreth Road, Suite 200 Burlin§ame, CA 94010 TEL: 415-692-9517 FAX: 415-692-2585 Other contradictions in the fee proposal include' - Sign programs for Redevelopment Precise Plan has been reduced from $800 to $200while a small businessperson now has. to pay a $800 siqn fee for his sign program. Are we feeling sorry for the poor redevelopment developers? - An applicant's COst to appeal a decision by.the ~lannin9 ConTni~sion 9n a use. permit ~Ould be $550 yet. there would be no Tee charged if an aeja~en~ property owner, City. resident or homeowner association tiled-such an appeal. Remember, 2nd units (mother-in-law units) require a use permit application as does the establisl~nent of many small businesses. ' '. - Precise plans for non-redevelopment projects cost $200more ($1,100) than precise plans for redevelopment projects ($900)? (see comment above) A planned development permit costs only $100 more than a use permit. ($1,200 vs. $1,100) - The fee for a Environmental Assessmenti(negative declaration, etc.) increases by 667~ from $75 to $500! And remember a variance for a single family home als~F-equires a negative declaration to process. - Planning still feels compelled to charge $50/hour for "Research Assistance"? ~ any other City departments charge $50/hour or ?/h. our for assistance? ~nis is ridiculous and an insult to the people of this comTunity. Staff states in their staff report '~ro the extent that planning services provided by the City benefit individual applicants rather than the general public, it is appropriate that those who benefit directly from the service pay the full cost." The City r4anager or Planning Director or whomever else authored this statement requires a drastic attitude adjustment. This narrow-minded attitude that staff is somehow doing the residents and business people a favor by processing their appl. ications and people ought to be made to pay through the nose to get a permit needs to be changed. In conclusion, the proposed planning fee schedule is unfair and unjust and requires a great deal more study and changes before it is adopted. ! urge that you reject this proposal and ask that amore people-sensitive and more business- sensitive fee proposal be brought back to you in the future. Sincerely, Louis De11'Angela, AICP cc. City Clerk 711z/9o Page 9b AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS Councilwoman Teglia stated that the Chamber Newsletter was received right after the 4th of July. Councilman Nicolopulos expressed con- cern that people only had three days notice. Councilman Penna stated that he did not feel that this was a proper way to notify people, because it didn't cover people who would be subject to fees. He reminded staff that we are a service organization, and he saw no reason to increase planning fees. He stated that fees that the public pays to the City are nothing more than an additional tax passed on to the individual property owner who may only want to make impro- vements to their home. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that he wanted to make sure our fees were com~ parable with other cities and the fees offset the salary. Councilman Penna stated that the com- parison to San Mateo was not a good one because they were in a bad financial condition, wherein they have to raise fees to improve revenues. Councilwoman Teglia stated that these were fees that benefitted individual applications, and if they did not, those individual applicants were sub- sidized by the general public of this community. She stated that maybe these are not palatable or maybe the staff needs to make a better defense for the fees proposed. She stated that there was a Council policy that recreation programs were to be 50% cost covering. Vice Mayor Drago stated that the staff survey did not say anything. He stated that when the fees were first calcu- lated in 1983 the number of hours it took to process each project, and if 7/11/90 Page 10 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Public Hearing - Continued. RECESS: RECALL TO ORDER: Public Hearing - Unreinforced masonry buildings - Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARINGS they were applied correctly then in 1990 the only difference would be the cost of living, say 4% per year, times the hours. He stated that the other way was that if that amounted to 12% of the Planning Dept. budget now, then that same principle should have applied in 1983. He felt that the fees were inflated, and also had problems with the appeal fees, wherein anyone should have the right to appeal the Planning Director's decision without paying a fee. He stated that he could not sup- port this and if it could be proven to him what the actual cost was between the last seven years and then apply it to those fees -- which even at the most could only be 35%. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned why Council direction had not been followed at the last meeting. City Manager Armas stated that staff had identified, as an objective all planning fees, and since there is no urgency on this, will come back to the Council. Councilwoman Teglia stated that staff should look at it as the Vice Mayor suggested and apply the formulas, and give that report to Council; and have it at both libraries for the public, as well as readvertise. Consensus of Council - Staff to present formulas as suggested by the Vice Mayor. Council adjourned to a recess at 9:48 p.m. Mayor Haffey recalled the meeting to order at 10:00 p.m., all Council pre- sent. City Clerk Battaya read the title of the ordinance in its entirety. 7/11/90 Page 11 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0!,92 PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. Public Hearing - Continued. closed on 6/13/90; Motion to approve Negative Declaration No. 687; Motion to waive reading and introduce the ordinance; Motion to obtain a contract engineer to sub- mit a collective bid for analysis of URM buildings; Motion to refer the issue of changes to the zoning ordinance to address URM buildings to the Planning Commission. AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 15.28 ENTITLED "UNREINFORCED MASONRY STRUCTURES" TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE (Councilman Penna Left the Podium) PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Haffey stated that the Public Hearing had been closed, but should there be members of the public who would like to speak - they may step to the dais. Councilman Penna stated that he repre- sented a Client at 115 Grand Avenue and would step down from the podium due to a conflict of interest, and not take part in Council proceedings. He stated that he would address Council as Property Manager to relate the owner's remarks, rather than be construed as his remarks as a Councilman. Director of Economic & Community Development Costello gave highlights of her staff report: an explanation of why a negative declaration was used; explanation of the State Historic Building Code; obtaining a mechanism for a group engineering analysis; con- cern over moving ahead with mandatory retrofit without the benefit of an engi- neering analysis; incorporating a review of the results of the engi- neering analysis after it was completed into the proposed ordinance, including problems and required solutions for Council reassessment with a May 1992 date; flexibility of the ordinance was not coming across to property owners; ordinance will apply to all URM buildings; comparison with other San Mateo cities. Mr. John Penna, 435 Grand Ave., related comments from the owner of the property he manages: the building was built in the 1940s of concrete steel and all reinforced with a brick veneer face with stucco and plywood above the foun- dation line with a full basement; that staff had felt it was in the URM cate- gory, and the Chief Building Inspector had thought he had seen some brick in the basement area, but would go again tomorrow to take another look; concern 7/11/90 Page 12 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0193 PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS that once the building gets put on the list by visual inspection, there was a difficulty getting it off the list because he is going to have to pay for a study to prove that it was not on the list by visual inspection; across the street is an old wooden structure with a history going back prior to the City's beginnings; that the hotel building was brought in by barge when the bay still came onto Grand Avenue, and was floated onto an existing pier with the ground filled in around it; without a foundation it had survived the earthquakes; concern over other buildings built at the turn of the cen- tury not on the list; a problem with public safety on buildings built prior to 1973 in the warehouse area on bay mud; giving permits to people building up in the Westborough area right on the San Andreas fault. Mr. Robert Rogers, Esq., 66 Bovet Rd., presented his letter to be incorporated into the record with attachments from Mr. Brian Fischer on non-ductile concrete frame constructed building with URM walls or petitions; and a letter from Mr. Dell'Angela. He spoke in detail on behalf of his Clients, the owners of the Metropolitan Hotel: seismic ordinances that did not take into account the way buildings take stress from bearing walls; not offering flexibility in retrofittings; concern that if a URM building was not upgraded by 1996 the building would be demolished, etc. Mayor Haffey directed the City Clerk to incorporate the letter from Mr. Rogers into the record. Mr. Lou Dell'Angela Urban Planning Consultant, spoke on behalf of Martin Metro and other Grand Ave. building owners: questioned why this was on 7/11/90 Page 13 ROBERT K. ROCEi $, JR RECE!VE ATTORN£Y AT LAW 66 BOVET ROAD, SUITE 300 SAN ~ATE0, CA 9440a-3128 (415) 578-8181 FAX: (415) 34~-1777 ~uly 5~ 1990 AUBURN. CA 95603 (916) 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 renew its objection 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 objection is based upon the matters raised during the public hearing in this matter, including without limitation my letter to the Council dated June 13, 1990. At the June 13, 1990, city council meeting, Councilman Nicolopulos stated his unwillingness to vote for the approval of the negative declaration and adoption of the ordinance without first resolving the environmental issues raised during the public hearing. Those issues have not been resolved, except that you have undoubtedly learned that the "categorical exemption" to which reference was made during the hearing is not available to this project. Councilman Drago also requested that the staff determine the cost of funding an inspection of all unreinforced masonry structures by a single engineer, and that property owners be given an opportunity to participate in such a program. Mr. Drago voiced his support for an ordinance after the inspection and report is completed and the problem of retrofit properly defined. Clearly, the issues raised by Mr. Nicolopulos and Mr. Drago have not been resolved, ~nd it is premature for this matter to be back before the Council ~r action. \~ours truly,~ RKR: ng 7/].]./90 Page 13a Robinson Meier Juilly & Associates Attenti on: Gus Nicolopulos July 10, 1990 City Council City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Re: Unreinforced Masonry Building Ordinance Applied To Metroplitan Hotel Linden & Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: We have reviewed portions of the proposed Unreinforced Masonry Building Ordinance - Chapter 15.28 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and its accompanying staff report. Our review evidenced that an additional building type has been added to the ordinance which is composed of non-ductile concrete frame and exterior unreinforced masonry non-bearing walls. This type of building does not relate in many instances to the criteria contained in the proposed ordinance which was originally promulgated by the City of Los Angeles Division 88 Standard for URM Buildings to mitigate existing hazards in unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings. The City of Los Angeles is currently preparing hazard mitigation standards which relate to unreinforced masonry non-bearing wall buildings. Unfortunately, the development of these standards is about two years away from completion. The Metropolitan Hotel is a concrete frame building with unreinforced masonry non-bearing walls. Therefore, some of the criteria contained in the proposed ordinance does not apply or requires revision and is delineated as follows: the h/t ratios contained in Table No. A1-F need to be revised to reflect non-bearing wall building type, Table No. A1-G and A1-H need to allow for additional shear elements and structural elements other' than those indicated, Section 15.28.090(b) calls for anchors at 6 foot on center which applies to wood frame roof and floors this should not apply to the subject project which has concrete structural slab roof and floors. Structural Engineers Principals Curtis Met~ gE. Paul L. Juill.~: ~£. Brian L. Fischer PE. Corporate Consultant L.E Robinson, gE. 103 EndenAvenue So. San Francisco, CA - 9~080. ~15 8P1.228~ 7/11/90 Page 13b . Unreinforced Masonry Building uralnance Metropolitan Hotel July 10, 1990 Page 2 It is requested that it be acknowledged that the Metropolitan Hotel is a concrete frame unreinforced masonry non-bearing wall building. Additionally, it is requested that the hereinbefore indicated revisions and deletions be incorporated into the subject ordinance and that the ordinance contain sufficient flexibility to allow for changes as the development of appropriate design criteria for unreinforced masonry non-bearing wall buildings evolve. Very truly yo~rzs-Q / Brian L. Fischer Vice President BLF/kf/rmj 17 cc: Bill Barton Tom Barton 7/11/90 Page 13c ROBer t K. Rocep, s, ~6 BOVET ROAD, SUITE 300 (4~5) 578-816I July 11, 1990 0! 1:~23 HIGH STREET AUBURN, CA 95603 (916) 865-7744 PLEASE REPLY TO SAN MATE0 HAND DELIVER 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 request that certain provisions contained in the proposed ordinance be deleted or amended, and to respond to issues raised in the staff report on this matter, which I received on Monday, July 9, 1990. I request that this letter and the accompanying letters of Mr. Dell'Angela and Mr. Fischer be made a part of the administrative record in this matter. Without Any Rational Basis, the Ordinance Was Amended to Apply to Structures with Non-Ductile Concrete Frame Construction, and the Ordinance Should Be Amended to Delete Reference to Such Buildings. The ordinance should be amended to delete the newly added language of § 15.28.020(a) which reads: ". . . or non-ductile concrete frames with unreinforced masonry walls or partitions . . ." The addition of the foregoing language in the "6/29/90" version of the ordinance is a clear attempt to make the ordinance apply to one building, the Metropolitan Hotel, without any rational basis therefor. The uncontroverted testimony of an architect, taken during the public hearing on this matter was that the regulations contained in the ordinance are appropriate for one limited class of buildings (i.e. those with unreinforced masonry bearing wall construction). As Mr. Reiss stated in his testimony, experts in the field are currently working on appropriate regulations to govern the non-ductile concrete frame construction of buildings like the Metropolitan Hotel which do not react to seismic stress in the same manner as buildings having unreinforced masonry bearing walls. 7/11/90 Page 13d The quick, easy "fix" suggested by staff ignores the substance of the stress and construction standards in the ordinance and is not based upon any substantial evidence that those standards should, or even can be applied to non-ductile concrete frame structures. Mr. Brian Fisher, an engineer who testified at the June 13th public hearing, also received the revised ordinance Monday and is preparing a letter requesting further changes to the ordinance which provide necessary flexibility for non-ductile concrete frame structures. The ordinance lacks a rational basis for including the Metropolitan Hotel in the definition of "unreinforced masonry buildings", and as it is currently written the ordinance places an unequal burden on my client, is discriminatory and a violation of its constitutional and civil rights to equal protection and due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Article I, §7 and Article IV, § 16 of the California Constitution. The Ordinance Should Be Amended to Provide the Statutorily Required Exemption for Historic Resources· The ordinance should be amended to 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 hazardous buildings; inventorying potentially (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 which states very specifically and clearly that "potentially hazardous building" does not include, for purposes of identification, inventorying and establishing fees to recover the costs of such activities, any building which qualifies as historical property as determined by an appropriate governmental agency under § 37602 of the Health and Safety Code. The reference to "recordation" contained in subsection (c) is included for use only in the event that the ordinance is adopted with section 15.25.050(c) in place. Assuming solely for the sake of argument that recordation is lawful in this context, the 7/11/90 Pa§e 13e exception provided for historical properties in Government Code § 8875 certainly requires the proposed language. Several Other Changes to the Ordinance Are Necessary to Bring It Into Compliance with Btate Law or to Clear Up Ambiguities. (a) Delete § 15.28.050(c) (Recordation). There is no authority in the empowering statute for recordation of a certificate such as that identified in the ordinance, and 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. (b) Amend Subsection 15.28.020(b)(2) to read: "warehouses or similar structures not used for human habitation, unless used for emergency services equipment or supplies." (c) Amend the second paragraph of Section 15.28.030 to read, in part: ". . . the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, substantially equivalent to that prescribed in this chapter in suitability . . ." e The Council Should Not Adopt Negative Declaration No. 687. In order to justify the adoption of the negative declaration and to minimize the importance of the CEQA review, the staff report argues that the project qualifies for a categorical exemption as a regulatory action to ensure the maintenance, enhancement and protection of the environment. If the project qualified for an exemption based upon that description, it would qualify under 14 Cal.Admin. Code § 15308, which reads: "Class 8 consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption." The foregoing exemption could not apply to this ordinance for several reasons. First, regardless of its characterization, the ordinance is not adopted within a regulatory process which involves procedures 7/11/90 Page 13f for protection of the environment. The program provides no requirement for environmental review of building or demolition permits. The argument in the staff report concerning historic buildings is disingenuous. The ordinance creates a mandatory demolition of buildings which are on the list and which the owner refuses to retrofit. In that specific instance, the Historic Preservation Commission will have no jurisdiction to apply its discretion to issue or deny a demolition permit for such a building. Second, the ordinance mandates construction activities in the form of retrofit or demolition. Thus, it is specifically excluded from class 8 exemption status. Third, regardless of whether or not the ordinance might otherwise qualify for a class 8 exemption, it can not be exempted if "there is any reasonable possibility that [it] may have a significant effect on the environment." Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal.3d 190, 205, 206 and International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union v. Board of supervisors (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 265. Ultimately the decision to approve the negative declaration must be based upon a finding that no substantial evidence was presented that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the enviro-ment. Certainly evidence in the form of expert opinion was adduced at the June 13, 1990, public hearing that the construction/demolition activities mandated by this ordinance are likely to have a significant negative impact on traffic and circulation, noise and housing during the implemen- tation phase. Once the City as lead agency is presented with a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, it must prepare an environmental impact report even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68 and Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988. Aside from the "categorical exemption" argument, the staff report argues that the negative declaration is proper because the negative impacts of the project are temporary and minor compared to the safety benefit gained from retrofit. While that may be an argument in favor of passing a seismic retrofit ordinance, it does not justify the adoption of a negative declaration as opposed to an EIR. The standards set forth in No Oil, Inc. and Friends of "B" Street, above, still apply. Based upon the foregoing, it would be arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of the Council's discretion to approve negative declaration 687. 7/11/90 Page 13§ CONCLUS[ON~ The ordinance as proposed is a shortsighted attempt to deal quickly and simplistically with complex issues that call for careful analysis. As stated in the staff report, the City has no obligation to act beyond compiling a list of URM buildings, submitting the list to the state and notifying building owners of the potential hazard. Mr. Dell'Angela's letter and accompanying survey chart show that the vast majority of cities in the San Mateo County area do not have an ordinance which mandates retrofit on an inflexible schedule. Given the $500,000 or more cost that a complete retrofit of the Metropolitan Hotel is likely to require, the attached pro-forma demonstrates that the property will clearly not support a retrofit within the seven year period proposed in the ordinance. At the June 13, 1990, council meeting, Mr. Drago suggested a cooperative effort to implement a voluntary program of inspection and engineering analysis of the nature and extent of the actual hazards, if any, that exist in the identified structures. Consideration of a retrofit ordinance is premature until that measure is taken. You ar~e~_urged to table this matter and to take a more reasoned approach to seismic safety. Y~rs truly, R~ K. ROGERS, JR. RKR:ng Enclosures 7/11/90 Page 13h 5 0202 Council Meeting - SSF 7/11/90 UNREINFORCED MASONRY BUILDINGS ORDINANCE SUGGESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Produce a realistic Negative Declaration. Incorporate into the ordinance the incentives that you have stated you felt were good ideas, ie: changes in bldg use, exemption from setbacks and parking requirements for bldgs that must be demolished, and increased square footage for replacement buildings. Involve the Planning Department in the draft aspect of the ordinance, so that those concerns are addressed before the ordinance becomes law and the clock starts running on it. Have staff provide the public with complete reports and draft ordinances early enough so that we have time to read them and submit comments prior to the meeting where the ordinance is to be introduced. 7/11/90 Page 13i AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0203 PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS the agenda when Council had given clear direction to staff a month ago to get a contractor to cost out the engineering and to get the cooperation of the owners, and a handle on costs; do the research, and then prepare an ordi- nance for adoption. He had asked if a survey was to be done on approaches taken in other cities in San Mateo County on how they were addressing this very sensitive issue and had been assured one would be done, however, when the staff report was distributed no such detailed report was attached or made for comparison. He took it upon himself to call the building officials throughout the county, and had made a chart of 12 cities in San Mateo County, and related information on his findings (a copy of the document is attached). He stated that he didn't understand why this ordinance was being ramroded through without getting input from the Planning Commission on incentives, and why the Council didn't reject the ordi- nance. He suggested putting off an ordinance until the engineering cost estimate, retrofitting and incentives could be brought back to the Council. Mr. Franklin Price, 700 Bantam Way, Petaluma, questioned: why apartments, homes, and warehouses were excluded from the URM list; a building is pre- sumed to be structurally inefficient or unsound without having been examined in any way such as 409 Grand Ave.; officials came around after the earth- quake and placed a sticker on the building saying it was safe, then again using two eyes, the City is now saying that it is an unsafe building; the bur- den of solving this problem is being placed on a small group of commercial owners rather than being spread throughout the entire community; why 7/11/90 Page 14 Environmental Development Group 1818 Gilbreth Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 TEL: 415-692-9517 FAX: 415-692-2585 July 10, 1990 City of South San Francisco City Council P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 RE' Proposed Unreinforced Masonry Building Ordinance, 6/29/90 Draft July 11, 1990 City Council Agenda Item# 11. Dear Mayor Haffey and City Council Members. I am surprised that the Unreinforced Masonry Building (URMB) ordinance has been brought back for introduction at your July 11, 1990 meeting without first obtaining an engineering analysis of the URM buildings in the City and without having the other detailed information which you requested staff to obtain at your June 15th meeting. It appears that an attempt is being made to ramrod this severe and unreasonable ordinance through with incomplete information on the impact which such an ordinance will have on affected properties. You should not allow this to happen. This letter provides you with detailed information on how other cities in San Mateo County and how the cities of Palo Alto and Sunnyvale, cities mentioned at your prior public hearings, are dealing with the unreinforced masonry building issue. I was assured by staff weeks ago that a compar- ative survey was being prepared and would be available with. the staff report for examination by the public. Unfortunately, such a detailed report was not prepared or attached to the staff report. It is obvious now why a chart comparing different cities approaches to this issue was not prepared. Such a survey and chart would undermine the ordinance's hard line approach. Since no detailed comparative survey was prepared by staff, I decided to prepare such a survey for you with:the:infohnation which'I had:obtained: from building officials in San Mateo County and in the cities of Palo Alto and Sunnyvale. This survey which is in chart rom is dated July 9, 1990. I would ask that this letter and attached survey chart be made part of the actninistrative record for your July 11, 1990 meeting. SUMI~RY OF SURVEY INFORMATION Of the 12 cities in San Mateo County, excluding South San Francisco, which have unreinforced masonry buildings (URMB) in their com~Jnities, 9 cities or 75% of this total either have not yet adopted ordinances or have an ordinance with no specitic time deadlinest'or URRB owners tO retrofit their buildings. 7/11/90 Page l~b Environmental Development Group 1818 Gilbreth Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 TEL: 415-692-9517 FAX: 415-692-2585 SSF City Council UP~B Ordinance July 10, 1990 Page Two The cities of Burlingame, t4enlo Park and Colma have not adopted an URt4B ordinance. The cities of Brisbane, San Bruno, Millbrae, San Carlos, Redwood City, and Half ~on Bay have adopted ordinances which require a "letter of intent" but contain no specific deadline dates for building retrofitting if that is the intent of the building owner. This is a reasonable approach which allo~s both the City and the building owner the necessary flexibility to schedule retrofitting dates on the basis of varying social, economic (capitalization schedules, availability of financzng, etc.), and other considerations. 2 of the 3 cities in the County which have a mandatory ordinance, Belmont and Daly City, have very few unreinforced masonry buildings in their connJnities. Belmont has only 5 buildings and Daly City has only 5 buildings. Due to the small nunber of URr4 buildings located in these cities, they are not good cities to make comparisons with South San Francisco. The social and economic impacts are totally different. Redwood City with its 28 UP~B and residential hotels such as the Sequoia Hotel, might be a better comparison city for South San Francisco. It should be noted that Redwood City has a voluntary-type ordinance with no mandated retrofit dates. The 5rd mandatory ordinance city is San Mateo. San ~teo's ordinance is less severe zn its approach than th~ proposed South San Francisco ordinance in that it does not include non-ductile concrete frame buildings with unreinforced masonry wails" in its ordinance. This. type of building was recently added as Section 15.28.0~(b) of the South San Francisco ordinance and no~ includes the ~tropolitan Hotel type of building which the San ~ateo ordinance does not include. Further, the San ~ateo ordinance uses a flexible, staged retrofitting approach which gives bonus time to building o~ners to retrofit if anchors are installed in the buildings within a 2 year period. It is interesting but not surprising that the 7/11/90 staff report presented to you on this subject makes specific mention of the San ~teo, Belmont and Daly City .ordinance requirements but fails to mention any other specific cities and their voluntary-type approach to the UP~B issue. The city of Sunnyvale, ~hich has 60 U~lbuildings on its list, has not adopted an URt~ ordinance. In addition, historzcal buildings have not been included on its inventory of unreinforced masonry buildings. 7/11/90 ,Page Environmental Development Group 1818 Gilbreth Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 TEL: 415-692-9517 FAX: 415-692-2585 SSF City Council URI~B Ordinance July 10, 1990 Page Three - The city of Palo Alto, which had 51URMbuildings On its list, has had a voluntary-type URMB ordinance since 1986. In the last q years, qO% of these buildings have Voluntarily been brought into compliance With the city's retrofitting standards. Further, building incentives have been instituted to encourage owners of URM buildings in the downtown area to retrofit. One incentive allows building owners to add 2,500 sguaFe feet o~ floo[ space or 1~ of the. exis~in9 building sRace, wnicnever is less, to their building without having to provioe any additional off-street parking. This and other incentive approaches should be included in a South San Francisco URMB ordinance before it adopted by the City Council. I hope that the information contained in this letter and attached chart is helpful to you in your deliberations on this very sensitive and importanT subject., Thi§ letter 9iyes you a more balanced reRo. rt on what other cities are ooing to deal w~th the issue of unreinrorceomasonry buildings. There are still many unanswered questions which you need specific answers before a reasonable and effective URMB ordinance can be adopted in South San Francisco. I hope that you will again insist that your staff provide you with these answers before you allow a URMB ordinance to be placed on any of your future meeting agendas. I will be in attendance at your July 11, 1990meeting and would be glad to answer any questions or otherwise assist you in your deliberations. Sincerely, Louis Dell'Angela, AICP cc. City Clerk 7/11/90 Page 140 MARTIN METRO, INC. 1111 EL ~UR WAY · ~A~RAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95B64 4600 Numaga Pass Road, Carson City, NV 89703 (702) 882 - 6717 0 08 METROPOLITAN HOTEL (MARTIN) BUILDING Proforma Schedule of Rents (latest tenancy) 261 Grand (vacant) 265 Grand (vacant) 216 Linden 218 Linden 220 Linden Percentage excess Gross Rents 9,228 24,000 3,936 6,000 9,000 38,987 91,151 Expenses - January 1 to December 31, 1989 G & A (less: Depreciation, Maintenance, Debt Service & Management) 18,210 Depreciation 7,074 Maintenance 960 Debt Service 0 Management 0 Total Expenses Net Proceeds 26,244 64,907 TVB 6/18/90 7/11/90 Page i4e AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0, 09' '-' PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS the city was placing a financial and emotional burden on the owners. Mr. Alan Askar, 7031/2 Linden Ave., expressed concern: that the staff report had not been made available to the public until 1:00 p.m. today; at comments made by Council and staff after closure of the Public Hearing, that Council should be reminded that they were charged to represent all of the people - not just the ones that do not appear at meetings; that Council should be made aware that staff was aloof to the public; questioned who was making public policy, and why elected officials intentionally or uninten- tionally acquiesce that responsibility; that it was time to insist on an open forum with full disclosure; it was time to say a negative declaration with all boxes marked no - was both unbelievable and unacceptable; over adopting the ordinance without issues being resolved, etc. He presented a list of suggestions: 1) produce a realistic negative declaration; 2) incorporate into the ordinance the incentives that you have stated you felt were good ideas, i.e., changes in building use, exemption from setbacks and parking requirements for buildings that must be demolished, and increased square footage for replace- ment buildings; 3) involve the Planning Dept. in the draft aspect of the ordi- nance, so that those concerns are addressed before the ordinance becomes law and the clock starts running on it; 4) have staff provide the public with complete reports and draft ordinances early enough so that we have time to read them and submit comments prior to the meeting where the ordinance is to be introduced. Mr. Ed Rodondi, 225 Wildwood Dr., stated that he represented the 7/11/90 Page 15 AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. Public Hearing - Continued. ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS buildings at 213, 219 Linden and 336 and 338 Grand Ave. He stated that when the buildings were designated URM buildings, it appeared that they were designated for having been built prior to 1946. He stated that one of his buildings was built before 1946, however, it was reinforced with concrete steel with the exception of a rear wall made of brick which was not accessible to the public. He felt that this ordinance would be better utilized by first obtaining engineering reports to determine exactly, the extent of retrofitting, and whether it was subject to retro- fitting. He stated that the ordinance had the State Historic Building Code included which was flexible regarding making acceptable levels of safety, etc. Councilman Nicolopulos opined that the ordinance was not ready to go yet because of unresolved issues: disputes on safety and economic issues; that economics should not be minimized; that an unresolved ordinance was not needed; that the Council had directed staff to review mechanisms; that safety vs. eco- nomic development needed a high focus; that the negative declaration did not address housing effects as an EIR would have; that an ordinance should be held off for a year until a structural engineer had completed his findings on the URM Buildings; that staff's idea was just a pie in the sky; that the City had complied with the State by identifying the URM buildings, and any supplemental action was up to the local jurisdiction, etc. Vice Mayor Drago stated that he had asked staff what other cities were doing in the County, and the response was that we were going to be the last city to act. He stated that in reading 7/11/90 Page 16 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Dell'Angela's survey he had found staff's response not to be true. He found that this concerned him because Council made decisions based on what staff said, and there had only been 40% of the cities that had acted on and only 15% had set completion dates. He stated that the State did recognize that there was a reasonable risk that we all accept, and there were things to decide in the future - such as basing all URM buildings on the State Historic Code. He again urged the Council to not vote on the ordinance; obtain a structural engineer for the analysis; determine the costs, and get together with the property owners to see if they wanted to share the costs; set a date for review of the analysis by February 1992; and decide the extent of the man- datory retrofitting; and decide the completion date which may not be the suggested seven years, and then look at an ordinance. He questioned if the Metropolitan Hotel would have been exempt if the Council had voted on the ordinance two weeks ago. City Attorney Armento stated no, that the ordinance as it stood would apply but based on the comments that argue that it would not apply - staff had included the language that they claim includes it for the first time. Vice Mayor Drago questioned if the con- fusion was on the URM non-bearing walls. City Attorney Armento stated that she did not have the technical expertise to answer that question, and proceeded to speak on the definitions in various City ordinances of URM buildings that cities have adopted. 7/11/90 Page 17 PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. Public Hearing - Continued. 12. Public Hearing - To consider ~$ ~ setting assessment rates for the Willow Gardens Parks and Parkways Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 1990/91; conduct Public Hearing; Resolution setting the rate of $209.00 per unit per par- cel. A RESOLUTION FIXING THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE REQUIRED IN THE WILLOW GARDENS PARKS AND PARKWAYS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 AND IMPOSING THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PUBLIC HEARINGS Discussion followed: that the ordi- nance had been taken from several City ordinances and put together by the Director of Economic Development, the Chief Building Inspector, and the City Attorney; on whether or not the owner had the option to use the Uniform Building Code or the State Historic Code; whether to building in incen- tives; referring the zoning issue to the Planning Commission; having an overall schedule for the engineering analysis; find out the problem and mitigate it; and referring zoning issues to the Planning Commission. City Manager Armas redefined the direc- tion given by Council: draft an ordi- nance that includes Option 2 and increasing the general time frame for the analysis only; and referring the zoning issues to the Planning Commission. M/S Teglia/Drago - To direct staff to draft an ordinance incorporating Option 2, increasing the general time frame for the analysis only, and refer the zoning issues to the Planning Commission. Carried by majority roll call vote, Mayor Haffey voted no. Councilman Penna returned to the podium. He stated that he would again leave the dais in that he managed pro- perty in the area, had sold property in the last twelve months, and had received a commission. Mayor Haffey opened the Public Hearing. Director of Recreation & Community Services Jewell presented a slide show showing graffiti, litter and debris, and the general disrepair of the area. He stated that the area needed play 7/11/90 Page 18 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. Public Hearing - Continued. (Cassette No. 3) PUBLIC HEARINGS equipment which had worn out and had been removed. He stated that he had met with property owners, and it was agreed that some capital improvements were needed, i.e., $9,000 for main- tenance and $35,000 for improvements. He stated that there was concern that spending major dollars in this area was a waste of time, and would not be there long. Mr. Jim Brusco, 635 Palm Ave., complained that many people had left the meeting earlier, and now it was midnight and the Council would hear the item. He suggested filling the holes in the playyard with concrete and putting a rubber mat down so the children will not get hurt. He also suggested fixing the roots of the trees because they were beautiful, and putting a cage around the water outlets so they would not be vandalized. He thought that $109 per unit for the assessment was out of line. He stated that he had originally owned the pro- perty and had donated it to the City for common greens - and now the City wanted him to pay for its maintenance. Mr. Richard Lyons, 30 Inverness Way, Hillsborough, stated that he owned 4 4-plexes, and spoke of the neglect of the area by the tenants and property owners. Mr. de Casare, 389 Heather Way, stated that he owned 312 Susie Way and also complained after the lateness of the hour for this meeting. He also felt that $800 for a 4-plex was too high, and the City should go out to bid for a new contractor which City staff should monitor to make sure they do the work. Mr. Ernie Gomes, 153 Shipley, Daly 7/11/90 Page 19 '-~ PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS City, stated that he owned 979 Sandra Court and complained that the City did not cover the sprinkler heads which created mud in winter and dust in summer. He questioned how much money the City was going to spend before the residents see results. Mr. Sylvester Sharma, 6 San Felipe, stated'that he owned 987 Sandra Court and protested any assessment when the land had been donated to the City. Ms. Karen Trask, 395 Susie Way, complained of the City meeting that had been set over a holiday weekend. She stated that the property was owned by a retired minister who needed the rent to live. She stated that he had put up a fence to shield the unsightly common greens, and had been told by the City that it was the owners responsibility to maintain the trees and fences. She stated that the agreement stated that this was part of the contract for the common greens, yet Code Enforcement Officer Harris had told them to clean up the garbage on the common greens. Reverend Linamen, 832 Larch Ave., stated that Ms. Trask had spoken of his property, and commended that he was not satisfied with the lack of harmony in City government. He asked how the public could trust their elected offi- cials when they can't get their admi- nistrative people working along with the community leaders we elect. He stated that he did not trust the leadership, because in the past 20 years the contract for the common greens had not monitored. Mr. Lyons suggested putting Willow Gardens out to bid by itself with a local contractor who would not be an absentee landscaper. Councilwoman Teglia stated that the 7/11/90 Page 20 ^GE,O^ ^cTIo, T^KE, 02i5 PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. Public Hearing - Continued. Councilman Penna Returned. 13. Public Hearing - To consider the renewal of franchise agreement and request by S.S.F. Scavenger Co. for a rate increase; conduct Pub)ic Hearing; Resolution - Continued from the 6/13/90 meeting, and PUBLIC HEARINGS Council had realized for ten years that the area was bad, and should have brought in the owners. She stated that they had consolidated the common greens with one contractor, but had not made any capital improvements and the resultant condition was that of blight. She stated that the City had to repair the sidewalks and handle the existing dangerous conditions. Motion by Councilman Nicolopulos - to continue the item. Motion died for lack of a Second. Vice Mayor Drago stated that if it did not bother the surrounding area he would let the matter go, and felt the neighborhood should be part of the decision making for the area. Councilwoman Teglia stated that repair of the sidewalks, railings, and steps were a must and the City should move forward with the safety factors and have staff work with the owners. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To adopt the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-90 Carried by majority voice vote, Councilman Penna abstained. Mayor Haffey asked that the protest letters be incorporated into the record of the meeting, and they are on file in the Clerk's Office. Councilman Penna returned to the podium. Mayor Haffey opened the Public Hearing. City Manager Armas outlined the terms of the ten year Franchise: City will review Company's financial records; Company to provide once a year cleanup; 7/11/90 Page 21 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 13. Public Hearing - Continued. 6/27/90 meetings. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGAREEMENT AND APPROVING A RATE SCHEDULE FOR THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE REFUSE ITEMS FROM COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS 10% residential increase and an 11% commercial increase, etc. Mr. de Cesare stated that in San Bruno the Scavenger Co. provided quite large cans which could help the problem in Willow Gardens. He stated that the building next to his did not have gar- bage pickups at 308 Susie Way, and he called the Scavengers and they told him to call the City. He stated that Code Enforcement Officer Harris had said that she would take care of it this morning, and yet it was still there this evening. Mayor Haffey closed the Public hearing. Councilwoman Teglia guaranteed that the Code Enforcement Officer would do something about the problem because the service was mandatory. She stated that the City had an agreement with the Scavengers for large cans and had backed down in 1986 because adequate landfill existed. She stated that in 1990 there was not space to dump garbage at Ox Mountain and they had raised their fees - so larger cans were not the answer. M/S Penna/Teglia - To adopt the resolu- tion; to approve a rate increase effec- tive 7/1/90; to direct staff to initiate a financial review of the com- pany's operations. RESOLUTION NO. 100-90 Carried by unanimous voice vote. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL Mayor Haffey stated that in reference to Councilman Penna's request to cancel the 8/8/90 meeting - it could not be done because three members of the Council would be visiting a sister city 7/11/90 Page 22 ITEMS FROM COUNCIL ITEMS FROM COUNCIL on 8/22/90. Councilman Penna requested comments and direction for the ALUC meeting to- morrow in reference to the Kopp bill and the Airport Land Use consistency. Vice Mayor Drago stated that the City stand was no opposition, but not all out support. He stated that Daly City was not satisfied with the bill and did not support it at this time. Councilman Penna stated that parcel 9 in the Terrabay Project had an archiological site that was a natural artesian well that supplied a lot of water which will be pumped into the sewer pipe and into the bay, and requested that it be used for the hotel. He complained of insufficient infor- mation on toxic site in reference to the convention center site. Mayor Haffey stated that construction contracts were put out in Closed Session. City Manager Armas stated that the prior use of the site involved fuel tank, and there had been a pre- cautionary retention of a firm for ana- lysis. He stated there had been a meeting with the landlord to determine the responsible party, however, without information staff was unable to evaluate. Councilwoman Teglia stated that her concern was whether or not the owner was to take care of it. Councilman Penna did not think that the Council should vote on it without things being complete. He cited con- cern: over seismic safety; whether the building should be demolished; that 7/11/90 Page 23 ^GE,D^ ^CTIO, T^XE, 0S'!8 .... ITEMS FROM COUNCIL GOOD AND WELFARE CLOSED SESSION Closed session for the purpose of discussion of personnel matters, labor relations, property nego- tiations and litigation. ADJOURNMENT ITEMS FROM COUNCIL this information should be shared with the Council. Mayor Haffey stated that there would be full information before the Council voted on the matter, and so far there had only been a cost estimate to expand the building. GOOD AND WELFARE Mr. Prouty, 705 Hill, felt that Kopp's bill was onerous to S.S.F., and the Board of Realtors was looking at it closely. He stated that it had passed out of the Senate. He stated that it impacts the Brentwood area, and CNEL areas that Councilmembers Drago and Teglia had been working on, etc. CLOSED SESSION Council chose not to hold a Closed Session. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To adjourn the meeting to Friday, 7/13/90, at 12:00 p.m., at City Council Conference Room, City Hall, 400 Grand Ave., for a Closed Session for labor relations. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment was 12:45 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Barbara A. Battaya,~._C_l_'t_.y._C_!~l~ City of South San Francisco APPRO~VE~. ~ . ~ ~i:;a;f ;u fSanfeY sco The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose of an item. Oral communications, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape and documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for inspection, review and copying. 7/11/90 Page 24