HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 95-1986 RESOLUTION NO 95-86
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION ADOPTING REQUIRED FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING THE
ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS DECISION OF THE RPC/ALUC WHICH
FOUND GP-85-28 AND ORDINANCE NO. 996 INCONSISTENT WITH
THE AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN' '
WHEREAS, on December 11, 1985 after conducting properly noticed Public
Hearings and considering the Environmental Impact Report required by the
California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) and the relevant provisions of
the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) adopted byithe Regional Planning Committee
of San Mateo County in its capacity as the body designated to assume Planning
responsibilities of an Airport Land Use Commission {hereinafter "RPC/ALUC"),
the City Council adopted General Plan Amendment No. GP-85-28 {hereinafter the
"General Plan Amendment"); and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 1986, after consi
said hearings and the information contained
dering the evidence presented at
in said Environmental Impact Report
and the relevant provisions of the ALUP, the City Council did adopt Ordinance
No. 996 which added Chapter 20.61 entitled "Shearwater Specific Plan District"
to the South San Francisco Municipal Code {Yereinafter the "Zoning Amendment");
and )
WHEREAS, on January 29, 1986 the City C~uncil submitted the Zoning Amendment
m
to the RPC/ALUC staff for review and findings of consistency with the ALUP, and
m
on February 7, 1986 submitted the General Plan Amendment to the RPC/ALUC staff
for said findings, all in accordance with the provisions of the ALUP; and
WHEREAS, the RPC/ALUC staff found said General Plan Amendment and Zoning
Amendment to be consistent with the ALUP and recommended to the Airport Land
Use Committee, a subcommittee of the RPC/ALUC, that the Committee find the
General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment ko be consistent with the ALUP;
and '
WHEREAS, on March 13, 1986 in the face if overwhelming evidence of the
consistency of the General Plan Amendment aad Zoning Amendment with the ALUP
and in the face of no evidence to the contrary, the Airport Land Use Committee
failed to find that the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment were con-
sistent with the ALUP; and
WHEREAS, on March 27, 1986 in the face of overwhelming evidence of the
consistency of the General Plan Amendment a~d Zoning Amendment with the ALUP
and in the absence of any evidence to the cpntrary, the RPC/ALUC failed to pass
a motion to find consistency between the Geheral Plan Amendment and the ALUP;
but did pass a motion finding the General Plan Amendment and the Zoning Amend-
ment inconsistent with the ALUP; and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 1986 this Council did hold a properly noticed Public
Hearing to consider an override of the arbitrary and capricious decision of
the RPC/ALUC which found inconsistency between the General Plan Amendment and
Zoning Amendment and the ALUP; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b), this Council
now desires to make the findings necessary and to override the arbitrary and
capricious decision of the RPC/ALUC;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco that:
1. Based upon the information presented to it at the Public Hearing
held May 14, 1986, the City Council hereby ~inds:
a) In August, 1983, the RPC~ALUC staff reviewed the draft South
San Francisco General Plan Land Use, Circulation and lransportation Elements
then being considered for adoption, lh~ RPC/ALUC staff found the draft Plan
to be consistent with the Airport Land ~se Plan, provided the Plan and Zoning
Ordinance was amended to:
-2-
(1) Require noise analysis for residential construction
in 65+CNEL areas, and reference to ALUC in-fill criteria for new
residential construction in 70+CNEL areas, and
(2) Incorporate ALUC height restrictions.
The draft Plan designated the area immediately north of Oyster Point
Boulevard and east of Highway 101 formerly (nown as the U.S. Steel Plant Site
(hereinafter "Shearwater") as "Planned Commercial". Said category was defined
as including "high-rise apartment or condominium uses," among other uses in that
area.
b) On June 27, 1984, followlng correspondence between the
RPC/ALUC staff and the South San Francisco staff, the City Council adopted
the Land Use, Circulation and Transportation Elements of the General Plan.
The adopted Elements set a residential density of thirty {30) units per net
acre for "Planned Commercial" areas. In addition, the following policies
were added to the Plan, in response to RPC/ALUC staff's concerns expressed
in their review of the draft Plan:
POLICY 43: The maximum height of commercial buidlings in the
take-off and landing path of the San Francisco Air-
port should be determined by criteria established by
the City, the Airport Land Use Committee, or by FAA
requirements, whichever is more restrictive.
POLICY 44: Buildings near the take-off or landing paths of the
San Francisco Airport should be required to have
additional noise insulation to minimize interior
noise levels.
-3-
POLICY 79: A noise analysis should be required for sound atten-
uation for new residential construction in 65+CNEL
areas, I
POLICY 80: All in-fill projects iq 70+CNEL areas shall comply
with the criteria established by the Airport Land
Use Committee,
c) The General Plan Amendment adopted on December 11, 1985,
made no change in Land Use allowed in t~e "Planned Commercial" areas desig-
nated in the General Plan. The sole amendment to the General Plan effected
by the General Plan Amendment was an increase in residential density on
the Shearwater site from thirty 130) unfts per net acre to forty (40) units
per net acre.
d) None of the policies set forth in subparagraph (b) herein
were amended by the General Plan Amendment.
e) On March 5, 1986 the Federal Aviation Administration issued
a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation which described the "Shear-
water" project and concluded that "the proposal would not have a substantial
adverse affect on the safe and efficient use of the navigable air space and
would not be a hazard to air navigation."
f) The ALUP standard for building height is based primarily on
FAA Regulations, Part 77 Standards and sets no other articulable standards
therein. I
g) The height restrictions imposed by the City of South San
Francisco on projects in the airport environs areas is based on a 62.5:1
glideslope as opposed to the 40:1 glideslope set forth in Federal Aviation
-4-
regulations. That standard is more string~
standard. Neither the General Plan Amendm,
sidered herein lessened that standard.
)nt than the FAA recognized
)nt nor Zoning Amendment con-
h) Section 20.61.130 of Chapter 20.61, added by the Zoning
Amendment, states "All measures necessary
shall be implemented as set forth in the f
i) The Shearwater site is situ
protect environmental quality
nal Environmental Impact Report."
~ted in the "65 to 70 CNEL" contour
area. The residential portion of the Shea~water site is located at the
65 CNEL contour line. i
j) The Airport Land Use Plan s~ates that residential multi-family
development within the 65 to 70 CNEL range should "be undertaken only after
an analysis of noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise in-
sulation features included in the design." The foregoing is the only
articulable criterion relevant to airport )oise when comparing the General
Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment with t~)e ALUP for consistency.
k) As a result of the foregoing facts, and in accordance with
Section 20.61.130 and the Shearwater Specific Plan regulations, the City
Council has required that, before any building permits may be issued for
the project, the following must occur:
(1) A noise study and assessment must be conducted on the
project site to determine the level of insulation necessary to
achieve adequate sound attenuation within the residential
structure.
(2) Measures must be included in the design of the struc-
ture to attenuate noise levels within the structure to a CNEL
of 45dbA and a single event nois~ equivalent level of 65dbA.
l) The standards set forth in (k)(2) above exceed the standards
required by State noise regulations and are consistent with the ALUP
standards for noise compatibility.
m) All of the foregoing information was presented to the RPC/
ALUC at its March 27, 1986 meeting and was uncontradicted by any evidence
presented by any opposing party at that hearing.
n) The RPC/ALUC's finding that t~e General Plan Amendment and
Zoning Amendment were inconsistent constituted a violation of its minis-
terial duty to compare the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment
with the ALUP and, if those documents were consistent, to find consistency
between them.
o) Assuming for the sake of argument that the RPC/ALUC's find-
ings required some exercise of discreti}n by that body, the finding of
inconsistency constituted an abuse of discretion and was arbitrary and
capricious in that the record before the RPC/ALUC provided no substantial
evidence upon which the RPC/ALUC could )roperly or lawfully make a finding
of inconsistency. The Council has directed its legal counsel immediately
to commence legal proceedings to have t~e determination of inconsistency
set aside and to have the Court direct ~he RPC/ALUC to find the General
Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment consistent with the ALUP.
p) The General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment are consistent
with the ALUP and provide for orderly development of the area surrounding
the San Francisco International Airport in a manner consistent with pro-
motion of the overall goals and objectives of the California Airport Noise
Standards, adopted pursuant to Public U~ilities Code Section 21669 and the
prevention of the creation of new noise and safety problems, because those
Land Use decisions do not create new uses incompatible with airport
operations, and said Land Use decisions incorporate strict height and
noise regulations that minimize the public exposure to excessive noise
and safety hazards within the area around San Francisco International
Airport. Thus, the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment are con-
sistent with the purposes set forth in PJblic Utilities Code Section
21670.
q) The Council further finds that the General Plan Amendment
and Zoning Ordinance are consistent with and promote the objectives of the
other requirements of the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California,
specifically, but without limitation, the objectives of Government Code
Sections 65580 and 65581.
r) In making the decision to over~ide the findings of the RPC/ALUC in
conjunction with the decision to seek judicial review of the findings, the
Council does not accept the sanctions imposed by Public Utilities Code
Section 21678 in the case of an override and will seek a declaration that
such section should not be applicable where action to override is undertaken
for protective purposes and in conjunction with a contest of the validity of
the RPC/ALUC's findings of inconsistency.
2~ The City Council does hereby override the March 27, 1986 finding
of the RPC/ALUC which found General Plan Amendment 85-28 and Ordinance No. 996
inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Plan.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced
and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a
-7-
rpgulnr meeting held on the' 141~h day of ' May , 198 6 , by
the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mark N. Addiego,. Jo'~n "Jack" Drago,-Richard A.-Haffey,
Gus Nicolopulos and Roberta Cerri Tegli'a
NOES: None ' ' J
ABSENT: None
ATTEST: ~k z~~
-8-