Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1985-12-11Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia Vice Mayor Mark N. Addiego Counci 1: John "Jack" Drago Richard A. Haffey Gus Nicolopulos AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) ROLL CALL: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: INVOCATION: PRESENTATION: PROCLAMATION - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS' VOLLEYBALL CHAMPIONS AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Birkelo requested: - Add Item 19a. Appointment of Council representatives to area committees and Council subcom- mittees by the Mayor. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY FORUM CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of the Special Meeting of 11/22/85 and the Regular Meeting of 11/27/85. MINUTES City Council Municipal Services Building Community Room December 11, 1985 ACTION TAKEN 7:38 p.m. Mayor Teglia presiding. Council present: Council absent: Nicolopulos, Addiego, Drago, Haffey and Teglia. None. The pledge of allegiance was recited. Mayor Teglia stated that Reverend Solida was not present this evening and instead of an invocation requested that a moment of silence be observed. Mayor Teglia presented the Proclamation to Coach Ann Stluka and commended her efforts in leading her team to victory. AGENDA REVIEW So ordered. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one chose to speak. COMMUNITY FORUM No one chose to speak. CONSENT CALENDAR Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Councilman Haffey. 12/~/85 Page I AGENDA ACTION TAKEN CONSENT CALENDAR e Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending by Motion to deny and refer the following claim to the City's Insurance Adjuster and the City Attorney: Claim as filed by Raymond E. Woo, alleging that the front and back portions of his driveway have cracked and that the sidewalk has been uprooted and is not level as the result of a tree planted by the City. ® Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution to author- ize the Purchasing Officer to advertise for the purchase of vehicles. A RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFI- CATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT OR SERVICES AND CALLING BIDS FOR ONE MINI VAN, TWO COMPACT PICKUPS, ONE 3/4 T PICKUP, ONE I T CAB & CHASSIS - BID #1702 ® Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution approving plans and specifications and authorizing the Purchasing Officer to go to bid for the Brentwood/Buri Buri Park Pathways. A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR BRENTWOOD/BURI BURI PARK PATHWAYS PROJECT - PROJECT #PR-82-4 & PR-83-3 Be Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution to award the contract for eight vehicles from National Car Rental in the amount of $68,016.26 as the lowest responsible bi doer. A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR EIGHT (8) USED (RENTAL CARS) VEHICLES BID #1698 CONSENT CALENDAR So ordered. RESOLUTION NO. 248-85 Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Councilman Drago. RESOLUTION NO. 249-85 ~2/11/85 Page 2 A G E N D A A C T I O N T A K E N ~,~ CONSENT CALENDAR ® Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution approving plans and specifications and authorizing the Purchasing Officer to go to bid for the Hi ckey/Serra Medians. A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR HICKEY/ SERRA BLVD. MEDIAN LANDSCAPE - PROJECT # PR-85-5 ® Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution accepting the Grant from the Community Action Agency for senior day care. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM THE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY FOR SENIOR DAY CARE Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending by Motion to set a Public Hearing on 1/8/86 for consideration of a General Plan Amendment, GP-58-29, for retail commercial uses. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution author- izing execution of a Fourth Amendment to Agreement for Professional Engineering Services for the Gateway Assessment District No. ST-82-2. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXCCCTION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE GATEWAY ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - ST-82-2 10. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution approving plans and specifications, author- izing the:work and calling for bids for the Fairway and West Orange Avenue Sanitary Sewer Construction Project No. SS-83-7 and Linden CONSENT CALENDAR RESOLUTION NO. 250-85 RESOLUTION NO. 251-85 Public Hearing set for 1/8/86. RESOLUTION NO. 252-85 Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Councilman Haffey. 12/11/85 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN CONSENT CALENDAR 10. Staff Report - Continued. Avenue and Hillside Blvd. Storm Drain Project No. SD-85-2. A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR FAIRWAY & WEST ORANGE AVE. SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. SS-83-7 AND LINDEN AVE. & HILLSIDE BLVD. STORM DRAIN PROJECT NO. SD-85-2; BID NO. 1701 11. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution accepting the offered dedication and to approve a Subdivision Improvement Agreement in Parcel Map 85-237 - E. I. DuPont De Nemours and Company Parcel Map. A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT FOR RICHARD DIODATI, E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND CO. PARCEL MAP AND RELATED ACTS 12. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution author- izing execution of an Agreement with Pacific Gas & Electric Company for rebates on street light conver- sion on Linden Avenue Street Light Improvements Project and Westborough Street Light System. A RESOLUTION APPROVING STREET LIGHTING CONVERSIONS FROM MERCURY VAPOR/INCANDESCENT TO HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM 13. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending by Motion to accept the Civic Center Renovation Project - Phase II, Project No. PB-81-2A as complete in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. 14. Hearing - To consider a one year extension of time for Tentative CONSENT CALENDAR RESOLUTION NO. 253-85 Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Vice Mayor Addiego. Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Mayor Teglia. Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Mayor Teglia. 12/11/85 Page 4 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN CONSENT CALENDAR 14. Hearing - Continued. Subdivision Map SA-83-82 and Residential Planned Development Permit RPD-79-8. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending that the Council continue the item to its meeting of 1/8/86. 1. Minutes of the Special Meeting of 11/27/85. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution approving plans and specifications and authorizing the Purchasing Officer to go to bid for the Brentwood/Buri Buri Park Pathways. A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR BRENTWOOD/BURI BURI PARK PATHWAYS PROJECT - PROJECT #PR-82-4 & PR-83-3 5o CONSENT CALENDAR M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Items No. 1,4, 10, 12, 13 and 14. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Councilman Haffey stated that the minutes of 11/22/85 and the Regular Meeting of 11/22/85 did not show the title of the Resolution. He stated that the minutes of the 11/27/85 needed the following corrections: On page 2, Habitat was misspelled; On page 4, Lyle Norton's title was incorrect; That there were some logic errors. M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of 11/22/85 and the Regular Meeting of 11/27/85 with corrections made as indicated. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Councilman Drago stated that he had noticed that the paths being put in the parks were 4' to 6' and wondered if they could be extended a foot to accommodate emergency vehicles, such as the paramedic van in such remote areas as Buri Buri. Director of Recreation & Community Services Norton stated that in Buri Buri there was an existing 8' path and that would be extended along the cyclone fence along Westborough Boulevard into the pic- nic area. Councilman Haffey questioned if this pro- ject had been brought before the Park & Recreation Commission. 12/11/85 Page 5 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 10. 4. Staff Report - Continued. 12. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution approving plans and specifications, author- izing the work and calling for bids for the Fairway and West Orange Avenue Sanitary Sewer Construction Project No. SS-83-7 and Linden Avenue and Hillside Blvd. Storm Drain Project No. SD-85-2. A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND~r~O~'} SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE ~]~ WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR WORK ~/ AND CALLING BIDS FOR FAIRWAY & WEST ORANGE AVE. SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. SS-83-7 AND LINDEN AVE. & HILLSIDE BLVD. STORM DRAIN PROJECT NO. SD-85-2; BID NO. 1701 Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution author- izing execution of an Agreement with Pacific Gas & Electric Company for rebates on street light conver- sion on Linden Avenue Street Light Improvements Project and Westborough Street Light System. A RESOLUTION APPROVING STREET LIGHTING CONVERSIONS FROM MERCURY VAPOR/INCANDESCENT TO HIGH ~0%~ PRESSURE SODIUM Director of Recreation & Community Services Norton stated that it had and the Commission had reviewed the project. Mayor Teglia suggested that Mr. Norton take Councilmembers on a tour of the pathways in the project. M/S Drago/Addiego - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 254-85 Carried by unanimous voice vote. Councilman Haffey stated that this was actually two projects, sanitary sewers and storm drains, and questioned why they were joined together instead of being two separate projects. Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee stated that both projects were small and had been combined to allow a smaller overhead for the contractor which would be more economical. M/S Haffey/Drago - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 255-85 Carried by unanimous voice vote. Vice Mayor Addiego stated that a portion of the rebate from PG&E was going to include Westborough and wondered if that had already happened. Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee stated that the rebate would only be good until 12/31/85 and that in order to meet the deadline the City had to make an application. He stated that there was money in the Capital Improvement Budget to do portions of the Westborough Area, the single family area between Westborough/Gellert and Oakmont. He stated that the street lights would be converted gradually 12/11/85 Page 6 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 12. Staff Report - Continued. 13. 14. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending by Motion to accept the Civic Center Renovation Project - Phase II, Project No. PB-81-2A as complete in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. 0 Hearing - To consider a one year extension of time for Tentative Subdivision Map SA-83-82 and Residential Planned Development Permit RPD-79-8. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending because there were so many to be done. He stated that not only the lights would be converted hut the electrical system as well had to be reinstalled in this area. M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To adopt the Resol uti on. RESOLUTION NO. 256-85 Carried by unanimous voice vote. Mayor Teglia expressed concern over the severe leak in the side wall of the foyer from Miller Avenue and thought that was supposed to have been taken care of. Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee stated that he was aware of that leak and the leak in the Deputy City Manager's Office. He stated that he had been unable to determine the cause of the leaks, however he would determine the cost and where the responsibility lay. Mayor Teglia questioned why the Council should accept the project as complete with the above information. Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee stated that it was a large project and the roof was guaranteed for ten years so he felt there was not need to hold up the acceptance of the project. Discussion followed on there not being glass around the balcony; whether there was a need for the glass, etc. M/S Addiego/Haffey - To approve the pro- ject as complete in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Mayor Teglia stated that this item had been pending for some time and questioned if it had been discussed with Planning, Director of Planning Smith stated that when the item came before Council on 1/8/86 a recommendation would be forth- 12/11/85 Page 7 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 14. Staff Report - Continued. that the Council continue the item to its meeting of 1/8/86, APPROVAL OF BILLS 15. Approval of the Regular Bills o .~ 12/11/85. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION ¸16. Shearwater Dev. Supplemental Staff Report of 12/11/85 recommending: 1) Adoption of a Resolution of fin- dings and statement of fact; 2) Adoption of a Resolution of state- ment of over-riding considerations; 3) Adoption of a Resolution approving the General Plan A~nendment; 4) Adoption of a Resolution approving and author- izing execution of an Participation Agreement; 5) Motion to approve the Tentative Subdivision Map; 6) Motion to waive further reading of the Ordinance; 7) Motion to intro- duce the Ordinance. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CONSIDERATION OF THE "FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT" A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-85-28 PURSUANT TO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION coming from the Planning Commission to deny the extension. M/S Addiego/Haffey - To continue the item to the 1/8/86 meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. APPROVAL OF BILLS M/S Haffey/Addiego - To approve the Regular Bills in the amount of $958,187.54. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Vice Mayor Addiego did not participate or vote in the matter of the Brentwood Market claim. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION City Clerk Battaya read the title of the Ordinance in its entirety. Mayor Teglia stated that two hearings had been held on this item and that the Public Hearing had been closed. She stated that this evening the Council was proposing to have answers to the questions and issues that had been raised in the Public hearing. She stated that it would then be turned over to the City Council for the individual members to ask questions developed during the examina- tion of all of the material presented. Deputy City Manager/Community Development & Administration Lewis stated that an additional staff report would be pre- sented by City Planner Gorney; that each of the following consultants would briefly emphasize the most important 'points in their disciplines: Juergen Fehr, Transportation Consultant from Fehr, Fehr & Assoc.; Charles N. Salter and Anthony Nash, Accoustical Consultants from Charles Salter Assoc.; Bill Zeibron, EIR Consultant from EIP Corporation. He stated that next would be Herman Fitzgerald, Redevelopment Counsel, who would review the Owner Participation Agreement and then City Attorney Rogers would briefly go through and review the 12/11/85 Page 8 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 16. Shearwater - Continued. NO. 2364 ADOPTED THE lOTH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1985 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND NEVILLE H. PRICE AND ROSEMARY C. I. PRICE 1st Reading/Introduction AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 20.61 ENTITLED "SHEARWATER SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE DISTRICT" TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION actions to be taken by the Council. City Planner Gorney proceeded to high- light the concerns and issues raised by the public and Council during the hearings and would respond to each one. (A copy of the staff report with the con- cerns and responses is attached as Exhibit A and is a permanent part of the record of this meeting.) Discussion followed: on the floor area ratios of the various cities as shown on page 6 of the staff report; how this pro- ject compared with other developments in the City; that the project density was comparable to the Gateway Project in den- sity but had different components; establishing a standard of 65 decibels for single event noise and that for the ambient noise levels a CNEL of 45 deci- bels for interior noise levels; how to mitigate the outside single event noise levels; the former City employee's study on the bigness of the project on suburban vs. urban developments; when the ratio was compiled of building space to land area, then the project was directly com- parable to the Gateway Project, etc. Mr. Anthony Nash, Charles Salter Assoc. (Accoustical Consultants) addressed the concerns raised over accoustical issues and elaborated on: 1) the effect of quantitative noise levels on people; 2) explained the concept of average noise levels vs. single event noise levels; 3) described the noise exposure project site; 4) the technical feasibility of achieving 45 CNEL within dwellings. Discussion followed on the accuracy of the study by the Airport to ascertain noise levels during a six month period which stated that the noise levels had gone from 70 down to 45 decibels; that Mr. Nash had testified that the actual decibel levels were at the 65 level which was from a monitor 2,000 feet away from the site; that the CNELs might fluctuate because the weather patterns would shift over a year's time, etc. 12/11/85 Page 9 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ~:~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 16. Shearwater - Continued. (Cassette No. 2) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION Mr. Juergen Fehr, Fehr, Fehr and Assoc. (Traffic Consultants) elaborated on the traffic and circulation issues: 1) how the improved Oyster Point Interchange design would improve the traffic cir- culation future in that it also related to the City of Brisbane's traffic; 2) how the internal streets system proposed for the Shearwater Project had been designed to mitigate adverse traffic impacts. Discussion followed on the proposed ramp system and the number of lanes proposed, the configuration of which had been reviewed by the City of Brisbane; the purchase of the emergency access being in anticipation of emergency responses by South San Francisco or Brisbane; that the connection was a requirement of BCDC for continued shoreline access where one could easily go from the southern portion of Sierra Point into this project; to what extent the mixed land uses proposed for the project would mitigate some of the traffic impacts; the site specific impro- vements had provisions for shuttle buses and carpools being implemented; that the site specific mitigation measures would be designed to maintain the future traf- fic conditions; that there were stipula- tions that building will be controlled prior to the construction of the over- pass; that the City still had control over the precise plans for the project; that a mixed use project made a better use of the street system and would help to reduce the overall trip generations, etc. Mr. Bill Zeibron, EIR Corp., (EIR Consultant), responded to the two questions raised concerning the EIR: 1) How the project compared to the earlier project in the EIR with respect to the environmental impacts; 2) that the post EIR was inadequate and that a subsequent EIR should have been prepared and sub- mitted for public review. He presented diagrams and proceeded to 12/11/85 Page 10 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 16. Shearwater - Continued. RECESS: RECALL TO ORDER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION describe the changes to public access and conformance to BCDC; that parking had been removed from the northern and southern pier in conformance with BCDC policy; moving the hotel structure back away from the pier and eliminating a yacht club from the plan would provide continual shoreline access throughout the site; that 50% of the total land area was devoted to open space; that bike paths and public walkways were provided con- tinuously around the project; rebutted the allegation that a subsequent EIR should have been prepared and submitted. Mayor Teglia declared a recess at 9:25 p.m. Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to order at 9:45 p.m., all Council present. Mayor Teglia stated that the Council had previously closed the Public Hearing, however those people wishing to speak would be allowed to address the Council after the various presentations were completed by the Consultants and the resultant questioning by Council. Herman Fitzgerald, Esq., (Redevelopment Counsel), presented a review of the Owner Participation Agreement (a copy of the document is attached as Exhibit B and is a permanent part of the record of this meeting). Discussion followed: on the contribution by the Developer of an annual cultural component for use within the Project; impact of the project upon the City's sewer system; that the Council could con- sider this agreement signed because he had authorization from Mr. Healy, the Attorney for the Developer, and that was a condition of the approval of the OPA. Councilman Drago questioned if Mr. Healy agreed with Mr. Fitzgerald's interpreta- tion of the 15%. Herman Fitzgerald, Esq., stated that Mr. Healy did agree and that there had not 12/11/85 Page 11 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 16. Shearwater - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION been a question during the time of the negotiations between the negotiating team and the Developer as to the intent of that 15%. He continued, there was no way that the densities could be increased over and above what the Council approved, without the matter coming back to the Council. Peter Healy, Esq., stated that there had been numerous meetings on the development agreement and there had never been debate on the 15%, specifically whether or not a greater density could be achieved over that which had been stated in the OPA. He stated that Herman Fitzgerald's most recent interpretations were the interpre- tations he and his client had always had and confirmed that which had been repeated tonight. Mayor Teglia stated that she would like to see flexibility in the Owner Participation Plan that would allow a cultural event to be mutually done with PIBC and the City and perhaps held in some other area of the City. Herman Fitzgerald, Esq. stated that the OPA mentions that the Developer will make an area available within the project and would use their best efforts to sponsor jointly an educational or cultural event either in cash or in-kind. Mr. Price stated that the wording in the agreement was the language put to him and he had accepted that language. He stated that he was willing to be flexible with the City on whatever the City wanted to do. Mayor Teglia requested the Attorney to come up with some language that was more flexible. City Attorney Rogers stated that he had redrafted the second paragraph to read, "In addition, Developer and City agree to use their best efforts on an annual basis 9qponso~ an~/or finance (cash or in- lno services} an annual culture event or events." 12/11/85 Page 12 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 16. Shearwater - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION Discussion followed: that the owners of the property were Mr. & Mrs. Price and that Chiltern Corp. was a California cor- poration owned by Mr. & Mrs. Price; that Chiltern Corp. was a development company that had a management contract with the owners, Mr. & Mrs. Price, to manage the development of the project. Vice Mayor Addiego requested specifics on the fair market value of the GSA Building. Herman Fitzgerald, Esq. stated that there was no possible way for the City to receive anything less than what other properties were being sold for in the area. He stated that the definition itself had three or four components, which was the highest price in terms of money, without any duress or extenuating circumstances. City Attorney Rogers recommended that Council adopt a resolution of findings and statement of facts, which would 6e findings I and 3. Councilman Drago stated that he had a problem in that not one of the 10 alter- natives removed the housing element from the project. He questioned if that meant that if a Councilman did not approve of the residential then he could not vote for the project. City Attorney Rogers stated that in answer to the question if he as a Councilman did not agree with having residential units in the project, then he should not vote for the project. Mr. Zeibron stated that in his view the reason that elimination of the residen- tial had not been included as an alter- native was that under CEQA it was required that alternatives be feisible or that they meet the basic objectives of the original project proposed. He stated that it was felt that removing the resi- dential component would substantially 12/11/85 Page 13 T ~ [ AGENDA ACTION TAKEN --COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 16. Shearwater - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION alter that mixed use character that the Developer was attempting to achieve. Councilman Drago stated that when the convention center was eliminated it had shown the mitigating factors on the alternatives, yet if the elimination of the residential units would add to the congestion of the traffic or eliminate some of the traffic problems - why had it not been shown. He stated that it appeared that what Mr. Zeibron was saying was that either the residential properties go or the project does not go. Mr. Zeibron said no, that what he was saying was that it would change the nature of the project. Councilman Drago questioned why the eli- mination of the convention center, hotel or office could change the make-up of the project. Mr. Zeibron stated that it was true it could, however the residential was a very different type of use from a commercial or even convention center type use which was not a 24 hour a day function. City Attorney Rogers stated that State Law said that a City cannot as a mitiga- tion measure on environmental quality reduce or eliminate housing units from a project as a mitigation measure unless all other mitigation measures have been thought through and would not work. He continued, certain findings had to be made before a City could do that. He stated that the next resolution he would be discussing concerned a statement of overriding considerations, and recognizing the fact that there was a housing problem statewide, and to not allow a project with housing to proceed could cause problems with Government Code sections that talk about reducing or eli- 12/11/85 Page 14 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN --COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 16. Shearwater - Continued. (Cassette No. 3) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION minating housing as a mitigation measure. He stated that it had been pointed out that some of the impacts of the project are overridden by the fact that the pro- ject was actually providing much needed housing in the area. Councilman Drago stated that he had addi- tional concerns with things that go along with dwellings, i.e, schools and other basic concerns in dealing with very low income units. City Attorney Rogers explained the remaining Council actions to be taken and stated that before the Development Agreement could be signed the GP-85~2g had to be in effect as well as the Ordinance. Mayor Teglia requested that the following protest letters be incorporated into the record: letter from San Bruno Manager Minford, attached as Exhibit C; a hand delivered letter from Director of Airports Turpen, attached as Exhibit D. Councilman Haffey expressed concern over letters being hand delivered the night of a Council meeting without the Council or Staff having had the opportunity to review the materials. Mayor Teglia stated that protest letters had been received from D. B. Alholm, Bernard Schnitzer, Mr. VanDewait and Mrs. VanDewait (which are on file in the City Clerk's Office for public review). She then invited anyone in the audience wishing to speak on the project to step to the podium. Mr. Jake Jones thanked the Mayor for the opportunity to speak and stated that if others had known they could speak, more people would have attended the meeting. He stated that at the last Council meeting it had been stated that the staff 12/11/85 Page 15 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 16. Shearwater - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION and the Council would have a study session, yet tonight the item was on the agenda for action. He stated that Councilman Haffey had just scolded Mr. Turpen for bringing forward material at the last minute and in his opinion not having a study session was also a last minute deal. He stated that he was opposed to housing in the Project, because it was a big mistake to mix people in with businesses. He stated that many City employees did not live here including some staff mem- bers. He stated that he intended to con- tinue living here and if the residential was included in the project it would change the flight patterns, wherein the aircraft would fly over his house. He spoke of a plane that had dropped part of a wing and had proceeded to drop diesel fuel which burned the grass in the area. He stated that he did not want the Council to compound an existing airplane noise problem by voting for this project. He stated that the audience had heard the expert testimony who were paid by the Developer. He stated that when the experts had faltered a staff member had come forward with assistance to paint a pretty story. He stated that because the Terrabay Project had already been approved with its many housing units, he did not believe that the City had to include housing in this project. He urged the Council to make the Developer come back with a workable project and not approve the project in its present form with housing. Mayor Teglia stated that after the Council had held the Public Hearing over two meetings with public testimony, it would not be proper to hold a study session out of the public vision. She stated that the Public Hearing had been closed at the last meeting and that 12/11/85 Page 16 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 16. Shearwater - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION tonight was the first opportunity for the Council to discuss the project and have specific questions answered. She responded to Mr. Jones' remark that some staff members did not live in the City and did not care about airport noise. She stated that she lived here and did care and would not vote for this if she believed in the assumptions that had been put forward. She stated that a question had been raised as to who was paying the con- sultants and requested staff explain. Deputy City Manager/Community Development & Administration Lewis stated that the consultants were hired and retained by the City of South San Francisco and that the Developer was responsible for reim- bursement to the City of the actual cost of the services. Vice Mayor Addiego stated that he had been the one who mentioned a study session and later had talked to the City Attorney who had advised that it was not appropriate. He continued, this was because the Council had already received information and the decision process was already underway. Mrs. Irene Mann, 103 Fir Ave., stated that in the public testimony two points had not been emphasized. She stated that the first one was that to alleviate the noise problems the Shoreline Departure had been established by the Airport which had made the lives of those living under the Gap much more liveable. She stated that she did not see how this Council could possibly consider delibera- tely approving the establishment of resi- dential units directly under a very heavily traveled flight pattern. She stated that the Airport could consider that the City was not concerned about the residential owners and in order to avoid confrontation with new owners of valuable 12/11/85 Page 17 T f I AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 16. Shearwater - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION waterfront properties, revise the depar- ture patterns. She stated that the second factor was human error and mechanical failure. She proceeded to recite two incidents that had occurred: 1) a plane landed on top of the hills while attempting to go out over the Gap; 2) a plane went over her home minus one engine and the wing afire, then one wing fell off and landed between two homes on Eucalyptus just south of Grand Avenue. She stated that the pilot managed to reach the ocean and dump his fuel and land at Hamilton Air Force Base. She stated that that particular flight pattern included Los Cerritos School, South San Francisco High School, Southwood School and the West Orange Library. She questioned why the Council would place people's homes and lives in jeopardy by deliberately planning resi- dential development under an established flight pattern. She stated that growth and subsequent prosperity were essential to any community but not at the risk of loss of lives or homes as the lives of those involved were too high a price to pay. She stated that the City had incoming planes that all go through the Gap pat- tern do to adverse weather conditions which come in piggy-back and that if one got caught in a wind shear problem a large portion of this City could be wiped out. She stated that the people could live with that, but the Governing Body could regulate building patterns that would enhance the City's prosperity without deliberately putting lives at stake. Councilman Nicolopulos asked for clarifi- cation on whether the flight pattern was or was not over the proposed development. Deputy City Manager/Community Development & Administration Lewis stated that the 12/11/85 Page 18 AGENDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 16. Shearwater - Continued. ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION residential portion of the Shea'rwater Project was not directly underneath the Shoreline Departure. Discussion followed: that the nominal flight track for the Shoreline was 1,000 feet from the project, and if the aircraft followed the flight track it would reduce the maximum noise levels approximately 2 - 3 decibels; that the Shoreline Departure could be directly over the water or even west of City Hall; that there was a 10% over-flight in the City's residential area today from the Shoreline Departure; that the Shoreline Departure was established to relieve the Gap. Mayor Teglia stated that the Airport was talking about future plans of taking traffic from Millbrae, Burlingame, Runway i and shifting them down to the Shoreline which would increase noise in South San Francisco. She continued, this City would oppose that irrespective of whether this project goes in or not. She stated that there was a presumed right by the Airport to make noise over this City, and that most court cases in California have shown that those Airports don't necessarily have those rights. Mrs. Jessie Bracker, 317 San Pablo Ave., stated that the airplanes that go out 1L and 1R are not going over this City's Shoreline Departure, that the ones taking the Shoreline are the ones that would be going through the Gap if they were not being sent to the Shoreline. She questioned whether the City had low income rental prices for the project. Discussion followed: that Redevelopment Law required a certain percentage of the housing be set aside for low and moderate income people; that regardless of the construction price, low and moderate income people could afford the price; that the repayment of funds for the tax increment proceeds require the first 20% 12/11/85 Page 19 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 16. Shearwater - Continued. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION to be in set aside for low and moderate income housing anywhere in the City; that 15% of the 300 units in the Shearwater Project would be set aside for rent for low and moderate incomes and would be set by State guidelines for San Mateo County at the time the housing was available; that low and moderate housing had been defined as between $12,000 - $25,ooo. Mr. Dwayne Spense, 3665 Ralston Ave., Hillsborough, read his letter into the record in opposition to the residential portion of the project (that letter is attached as Exhibit E and is and incor- porated as a permanent part of the record of this meeting). He stated that if there was a 65 decibel noise level within a home and if outside the home was 100 decibels, because deci- bels were based on a logarithmic scale, then there was a factor of 50 to 100 times more noise outside. He stated that if a window or a door was opened then the person had negated the entire soundproofing system in his home. He challenged the peak noise emitted by aircraft and stated that single event noise of fly-overs could far exceed the 100 decibels range because of the way it was monitored. M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To adopt the Resolution of findings and statement of fact. RESOLUTION NO. 257-85 Carried by majority roll call vote, Drago voted no. M/S Addiego/Haffey - To adopt the Resolution of statement of overriding considerations. RESOLUTION NO. 258-85 Carried by majority roll call vote, Drago voted no. 12/11/85 Page 20 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 16. Shearwater - Continued. RECESS: RECALL TO ORDER: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION M/S Haffey/Addiego - To adopt the Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment. RESOLUTION NO. 259-85 Carried by majority roll call vote, Drago voted no. M/S Addiego/Haffey - To adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing exe- cution of a Participation Agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 260-85 Carried by majority roll call vote, Drago voted no. M/S Haffey/Addiego - To approve the Tentative Subdivision Map with findings 1 through 11 as defined in the Staff Report. Carried by majority roll call vote, Drago voted no. M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To waive further reading of the Ordinance. Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To introduce the 0 rdi nance. Carried by majority roll call vote, Drago voted no. Mayor Teglia recessed the meeting to reconvene the Redevelopment meeting. Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to order at 11:42 p.m. Councilman Drago stated that he had voted no because he was concerned with the effect of allowing dwelling units to be built below a flight pattern. He stated that the City had encouraged the Airport to use the Shoreline Departure to relieve aircraft noise over the neighborhoods and 12/11/85 Page 21 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 16. Shearwater - Continued. POLICE 17. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending: 1) Motion to waive further reading of the Ordinance; 2) 'Motion to adopt the Ordinance on tow cars. 2nd Reading/Adoption OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE AND ORDINANCE NOS. 763 AND 841 ENTITLED "TOW CAR SERVICES" AND ADDING CHAPTER 6.64 ENI'ITLED "TOW CAR SERVICES REGULATED" ITEMS FROM STAFF 18. Request that the Council by Motion direct the City Clerk to cancel the Regular Meeting of 12/25/85. 19. Staff Report 12/11/85 setting forth Council options for appointment to fill the office of City Treasurer. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION he would like to see the Airport continue increasing the number of airplanes using the Shoreline Departure to alleviate the noise. POLICE City Clerk Battaya read the title of the Ordinance in its entirety. M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To waive further reading of the Ordinance. Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To adopt the Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 995-85 Carried by unanimous voice vote. ITEMS FROM STAFF M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To direct the City Clerk to cancel the Regular Meeting of 12/25/85. City Manager Birkelo stated that he had given Council a staff report which outlined the options for the vacant posi- tion, as well as the duties both statu- tory and those performed by the late City Treasurer John Bonalanza, He stated that the Council basically had two options: 1) to make an appointment to the vacant position which would be for the remaining term of the elected office; 2) to call a Special Election to fill the remaining term of the office which would be held in April, 1986. He stated that in either event it was his strong recommendation that the Council first revise the job specifications and the compensation for the position reallocating the paying agent duties to private financial insti- tutions which would be the basic reason for the change in duties and compensation. 12/11/85 Page 22 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ITEMS FROM STAFF 19. Staff Report - Continued. ITEMS FROM STAFF He stated that a Citx employee or a non-City employee could be appointed and he assured the Council that the City staff could handle the functions of the office at a minimal cost. He explained that the paying agent func- tions that the City Treasurer performed were for old assessment districts in the present aggregate of $5,000,000 which would be descending in volume over the years. Ne stated that in the Gateway Assessment the Bank was the paying agent rather than the City Treasurer and to transfer the other functions should cost $3,000 the first year and less each year thereafter. Discussion followed: that there had been a substantial front end cost for accepting the bond paying duties for the Gateway; having the duties and compen- sation well defined for the new City Treasurer position which would be pre- sented at the next regular meeting; whether there would be discussion of changing the job description if Mr. Bonalanza had lived; that if the Council was going to call an election there was no need now to change the job descrip- tion; putting a ballot question before the people to appoint the City Treasurer rather than have it be an elective offi- ce; that the City Attorney was to speak to the District Attorney to see if the Special Election could be held in June rather than April of 1986 to conserve costs; that an appointment could only be for the length of the elected term even if there was a ballot measure two years from now to make the position appointive; Councilmembers Addiego, Drago and Nicolopulos were in favor of calling a Special Election; Councilmembers Teglia and Haffey were in favor of appointing a City employee and in two years putting a ballot question to make the position appointive. 12/11/85 Page 23 'T T I AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ITEMS FROM STAFF 19a. Add appointment of Council represen- tatives to area committees and Council Subcommittees by the Mayor. ITEMS FROM STAFF Consensus of Council: The following .~/appointments were made: Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Member Drago, Alternate ,Teglia; Airport Community Roundtable - ~Member Teglia, Alternate Drago; San Mateo ~",~Operational Area Emergency Services ~yOrganization - Member Drago; Legislative Committee (San Mateo County Council of Mayors) - Member Addiego; San Mateo ~County Visitors & Convention Bureau - ~ljLMember Haffey; Oyster Point Advisory Committee - Member Nicolopulos, Member Addiego; School District/City Advisory Committee - Member Haffey, Member Teglia; ~gLiaison Committee to the New Chamber of Commerce - Member Teglia, Member ~,Nicolopulos; Magnolia Subcommittee - Member Haffey, Member Nicolopulos; City Reorganization Subcommittee - Member .~?Drago, Member Haffey; Finance Audit Subcommittee - Member Nicolopulos; Noise ]~nsulation Subcommittee - Member Teglia; ~Surplus Property Subcommittee - Member Addiego; Goals & Objectives Subcommittee - Member Haffey, Member Drago; City Entrance Subcommittee - Member Teglia, Member Addiego. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL GOOD AND WELFARE ITEMS FROM COUNCIL No one chose to speak. GOOD AND WELFARE Mr. Jake Jones stated that he was disap- pointed in the four Councilmembers who voted for the housing element in the Shearwater Project. He expressed concern that the residents had been let down. He said that big money talks and that it would divert the flight patterns and allow more planes to fly over the gap. He expressed concern over the signs used on the Grand Avenue Over-crossing and felt that they were confusing and misdirected motorists. He suggested that the Council give thoughts to his concerns and make the environment one that the residents could live in. 12/11/85 Page 24 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN GOOD AND WELFARE GOOD AND WELFARE Vice Mayor Addiego stated that the Downtown Merchants were dismayed at the lack of signs from the overpass to indi- cate direction to the downtown business district. He suggested that Staff submit a report to the Council on correcting the situation. Mr. Dick Battaglia stated that in the November election he had been the only challenger to the incumbent, yet the Council was choosing to take the easy way out by calling for another election. He stated that as far as making it an appointed office perhaps the Council could learn from his experience five years ago when he had ran on that premise and the people of this City had turned that down. He stated that he believed that the people of this City wanted to have an elected person handle their money - not an appointed person who is a member of Staff and does not necessarily have to be a resident of this City to handle their money. He stated that this could also be a means for a person who is power hungry to take away the rights of the people to elect their officials. He stated that this time it could be the Treasurer's Office and the next time it could be the Clerk's Office, so he thought it would be wise to let the people elect their officials. City Manager Birkelo spoke of the 12/18/85 adjourned meeting and that he had not received confirmation of the School Board's availability to have a joint meeting with the Council on that date. Mayor Teglia stated that there was an item to be discussed with reference to the bungalow site and an offer that might not be available for much longer. 12/11/85 Page 25 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN GOOD AND WELFARE CLOSED SESSION 20. Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of personnel mat- ters, labor relations and litiga- tion. RECALL TO ORDER: 21. Request that this meeting be adjourned to Wednesday, 12/18/85, at 7:30 p.m., at the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco. ADJOURNMENT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Barl~ara A. Battaya, City ~l'erk City of South San Francisco GOOD AND WELFARE City Manager Birkelo stated he would set aside an hour for a joint meeting with the School District next Wednesday as part of the agenda. CLOSED SESSION Council adjourned to a Closed Session at 12:18 a.m. for the discussion of litigation case No. 283579, Amavisca vs. South San Francisco and a personnel matter pursuant to Government Code 54957. Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to order at 12:28 a.m., all Council present, and stated that direction had been given to the City Attorney on litigation and that a letter of resignation had been received from City Attorney Rogers effec- tive 4/1/86. She stated that he and the Assistant City Attorney would be going into private practice together. M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, 12/18/85, at 7:30 p.m. at the Municipal Services Building Community Room. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment 10:49 p.m. --~r~berta erin Teg ia, MaWr City of South San FranciS'co 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. 12/11/85 Page 26 ! I December 11, 1985 EXHIBIT SUBJECT ACTION: The Honorable City Council Continued City Council Deliberations on the Shearwater Development Project. 1. Motion to Adopt Resolution, RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND STATEMENTS OF FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CONSIDERATIONS OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. 2. Motion to Adopt Resolution, RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. 3. Motion to Adopt Resolution, RESOLUTION ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-85-28 ADDING TO THE DEFINITION OF THE PLANNED COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF FORTY (40) UNITS PER ACRE FOR THE U.S. STEEL REDEVELOPMENT AREA (SHEARWATER PROJECT). 4. Motion to Waive Further Reading of the Ordinance Adding Chapter 20.61 Entitled "SHEARWATER SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE DISTRICT" TO THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE. 5. Motion to Introduce the Ordinance with Correction Page. 6. Motion to Adopt Resolution, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE OWNER AMONG THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, AND NEVILLE H. PRICE AND ROSEMARY C.I. PRICE. 7. Motion to Approve Tentative Subdivision Map SA-85-91. Subject to all Special Conditions 1 through 59 as amended and based on the following findings: 1. The Tentative Subdivision Map is consistent with the General Plan, as amended, and with the Shearwater Specific Plan, subject to the adoption of the Ordinance Establishing the Shearwater Specific Plan Zone District. 2. The design and improvements are consistent with the General Plan, as amended, and with the Shearwater Specific Plan, subject to the adoption of the 12/11/85 Page ---Staff Report To: The Honorable City Council Subject: Continued City Council Deliberations on the Shearwater Development Project December 11, 1985 Page 2 Ordinance Establishing the Shearwater Specific Plan Zone District. The General Plan designation for the site is Planned Commercial which allows this mixed use development. The project is consistent with the regulations established by the Shearwater Specific Plan Zone District. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The. site is virtually flat and adjacent to San Francisco Bay and major transportation systems which allow the site to be used for commercial, office, residential and water related activities as proposed. 4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. The site can accommodate a residential density of forty (40) units per acre and hotel and office densities which have floor ratios (FAR) generally less than 3.9 FAR and these standards are consistent with the regulations established by the Shearwater Specific Plan Zone District. 5. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or will not substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Potential impacts on the environment are stated in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Shearwater Development Project certified by the City Council on May 8, 1985. Mitigation measures are designed £nto the project, are made Special Conditions of Approval, and are also required in the Owner Participation Agreement (OMA). 6. The design of the subdivision and improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. There are no known serious public health problems. Hazardous waste removal on the site is a requirement of the project and a required mitigation measure. 7. The design of the subdivision and improvements will not conflict with easements for access to or through the site or for use of property within the proposed subdivision. The project was designed to accommodate existing and proposed easements. The project design includes public access to the San Francisco Bay in accordance with requirements of the San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC). 12/11/85 Page ~ ~aff Report _~= The Honorable City Council Subject= Continued City Council Deliberations on the Shearwater Development Project December 11, 1985 Page 8. Pursuant to Section 19.16.200 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the City requires a loop water system and approves an exception to the length of the cul-de-sacs on the site. 9. Pursuant to Section 19.20.010 of the South San Francisco-Municipal Code, the City grants an exception to the design criteria for the street cross-sections in the project and approves alternate street designs as presented in the Tentative Subdivision Map and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 10. Pursuant to Sections 19.24.040 through 19.24.120 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the City requires payment of in-lieu park fees in accordance with the requirements of the Quimby Act, commencing with Section 66477 of the California Goverrument Code. 11. Pursuant to Section 19.16.110 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the City grants an exception to lots which have frontage on more than one street. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the four (4) Resolutions referred to above, introduce the Ordinance establishing the Shearwater Specific Plan Zone District and approve the Tentative Subdivision Map with all findings and Special Conditions. (General Plan Amendment GP-85-28; Zoning Amendment ZA-85-32; Rezoning RZ-85-5. Tentative Subdivision Map SA-85-91; and Specific Plan SP-85-5.) DISCUSSION: City Council deliberation on the Shearwater Development Project was continued from the meeting of November 27, 1985. The Mayor had closed the public hearing. Concerns expressed by the public and by the City Council are noted below. Responses follow each concern. 12/11/85 Page £9 Staff Report To: The Honorable City Council --Subject: Continued City Council Deliberation on the Shearwater Development Project December 11, 1985 Page 4 Concern: What is the Planning Commission's role in the process? Response: The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the project. Its role is limited to General Plan changes, Specific Plan changes, or revisions to the Subdivision Map. The Planning Commission does not participate in further development decisions. As in the case of the Gateway, the Redevelopment Agency is the sole authority for projects within a redevelopment area. Concern: Response: What type of housing will there be in the residential area? The housing will be condominium ownership units. Some investors buy units and then rent them out, however. The developer will retain units in the project for iow and moderate income residents. Concern: Response: What is the character and type of residential structure to be built? The residential portion of the project forms an integral component of the mixed-use character of the development. Residential uses are included to balance the commercial uses and to provide for an environment which is active and enjoyable throughout the day and evening. This kind of "critical mass," in which the presence of residential uses actually strengthens the market for use of the commercial and recreational facilities, is not possible with solely a commercial project. Three hundred multi-level attached residential units are proposed. These units differ substantially from single-family attached dwelling in their configuration and construction. The differences are summarized below: Shearwater Units o Attached o Multi level, mid-rise o Two Exposed Walls Concrete construction including floors Double-wall insulation; glazed windows with two layers of glass and air space Single Family Units o Detached o single or two story o Five exposed walls including roof o Generally wood frame Little insulation unless retrofit 12/11/85 Page SO Staff Repot= To= The Honorable City Council Subject: Continued City Council Deliberations on the Shearwater Development Project December 11, 1985 Page 5 Concern= What is the difference in sound attenuation for a single family dwelling v. high rise condominium structure? Response: It is difficult to reduce sound in an existing single family dwelling. Multiple windows and an increase in wall surfaces exacerbate the problem. It is much easier to attenuate sound in a new multi-story building where there are fewer exposed vision panels and fewer exterior walls per unit. Modern construction techniques and advanced technology are available to the new building. Concern: Response: Can the single event noise be mitigated? Yes. The City's acoustical consultant indicates that an interior noise level of CNEL 45 dba can be easily achieved. This noise standard is set by Title 25, Article 4,28(3)2 of the California Government Code. Furthermore, the single event can be mitigated to 65 dba. This standard is reasonable given no State criteria for single event. Staff recomends that Special Condition No. 24 be amended by adding the following sentence: "The buildings shall be designed and constructed to achieve an interior noise level of CNEL 45 dba. The single event noise shall be mitigated to 65 dba." Concern: Response: How is the project designed differently? The revised development plan would not change most of the project's land uses to a measurable degree. Although some modifications are proposed, the basic concept of a master-planned, mixed-use community with a strong water orientation would be retained. Minor modifications would result in a slight.increase in marina berths, a slight decrease in residential units and modifications to the mix of office/retail/restaurant space resulting in a greater amount of retail and restaurant use, with a corresponding reduction in office use. In addition, the conference center would be reduced in capacity from 3,000 to 1,700 seats; an aquarium also would be added. The most noticeable change is in hotel use, where 750 rooms are now proposed in comparison to 450 in the earlier plan. Finally, the yacht club contained in the earlier plan has been removed. (See Table 1.) 12/11/8 Page Staff Report TO: The Honorable City Council Subject= Continued City Council Deliberations on the Shearwater Development Project December 11, 1985 Page 6 Concern: The project is "big town" not suburban and is a sellout to skyscrapers. Response: The Shearwater Project has a floor area ratio (FAR), or ratio of total building space to land area, of 1.0. This is significantly lower than downtown San Francisco, which has an average FAR of 13. Other co~nunities in the area also have higher densities. For instance, the City of San Mateo's central business district has an FAR of 4 with bonus credits that allow for an FAR as high as 8. In Burlingame along Hotel Row, the FAR is approximately 2. Concern: Response: Views and access to the Bay are cut-off. This is highly inaccurate and misleading. The project creates new opportunites for public access that have not existed for 50 years under the previous industrial use of the site by U.S. Steel Corporation. The plan provides for approximately 4000 linear feet of continuous public shoreline access. In addition, approximately 25 acres, or nearly 50% of the total dryland, is devoted to public open space. In comparison to the earlier plan studied in the EIR, the current project is in substantial conformance with BCDC policies for the provision of public access. To comply with BCDC policies, the yacht club has been removed, the hotel has been relocated back from the water's edge, and parking has been removed from the piers. A public walkway and bike path connect the site to Sierra Point, and three public vista points accessible by authomobile are provided. Concern: Response: Would the airport redirect flights over peninsula cities and through the gap in favor of the project's residential area? Highly unlikely. It is more likely that the airport would increase flights using the shoreline departure. The threat of redirected flights over peninsula cities is a weak tactic with ultimate adverse political consequences. Concern: Why did the convention center change? added? Why is an aquarium 12/11/85 page ~. ?o: The Honorable City Council Subject: Continued City Council Deliberations on the Shearwater Development Project December 11, 1985 Page 7 Response: The square footage of the convention center component of the project remains the same (100,000 square feet) but now an aquarium is added. The aquarium serves as an educational/cultural facility which further serves to integrate the uses in the project. The-aquarium could function independently as an activity center. Concern: Response: A concern was raised about whether adequate guarantees can be made for the provision of wastewater treatment facilities to serve the project. The Draft and Final EIRs pointed out that current capacity of the wastewater treatment plant is more than adequate to serve the project. However, mitigation recommendations are incorporated in the Final EIR (p. 2- 36) to provide for improvements to local wastewater sewer flows from the project. Specifically, the developer will be entirely responsible for funding the provision of a parallel sanitary sewer line for most of the distance between the site and Pump Station No. 4. In addition, the costs of necessary improvements to Pump Stations 2 and 4 will be borne by the developer. In accordance with Special Condition 48g, these mitigations will be required of the developer. Concern: Response: What is the status of the GSA property? The City's GSA property is under the auspices of the City's Surplus Property Authority. The Redevelopment Agency may lease the property and may sublease it to the developer under terms and conditions consistent with the Agency's lease. If the developer purchases the property, developer shall pay fair market value of the property at the date of tranfer. Concern: Response: What is the definition of "substantial change" and what does it mean relative to the project limit? Substantial change is defined in Section 10(c) of the OPA. The maximum limits of development are set forth in both Exhibit 7 to the OPA and in Section 20.61.075 of the Shearwater Specific Plan Zone District. These limits shall not be exceeded unless amendments to the Specific Plan are made by the Planning Commission and City 12/11/85 Council. Page 33 S~aff Repor~ ~o= The Honorable City Council Subject= Continued City Council Deliberations on the Shearwater Development Project December 11, 1985 Page 8 Concern: Response: Why does Section 20.61.180(a) contain the word "may" instead of "shall"? The word "may" is appropriate here in regard to precise plan submittals. The following section, Section 20.61.190 clearly states that no building permit can be issued without a precise plan approved by the Redevelopment Agency~ Concern: Response: Why is there proposed a residential density increase? Won't this set a precedent in other areas of the city? The increased residential density was requested by the developer at 50 units per acre and was negotiated and recommended at 40 units per acre. Reasons for granting the increase include provision of low and moderate income units; the site is a redevelopment area; the site is isolated and unique; there is a need for increased housing in South San Francisco. The City already allows higher densities under certain circumstances such as senior citizen housing. Concern: Response: Concern: Response: One of the speakers quoted that the Shearwater Project will generate 30,000 daily vehicle trips. This statement is incorrect. At the land use densities currently before the Council, the Project will generate about 18,500 daily vehicle trips. This represents a 13% reduction from the 21,300 daily trips analyzed in the EIR (Page IV-82) which was based on slightly higher land use densities. A representative of the City of Brisbane refereed to the new northbound off-ramp system proposed by Caltrans as a "frontage road." This term is misleading in so far as it implies a local, low-speed facility. Actually, the new "collector ramp" will be part of the freeway, operated and maintained by Caltrans, a high-speed (45-55 mph) extended ramp that is similar to collector ramps at major freeway-to-freeway interchanges such as at Route 101/I380 or Route 101/Route 92. t2/tl/85 The collector ramp concept has been proposed by Caltrans to solve some of the existing freeway problems in this Staff Report TO: The Honorable City Council Subject= Continued City Council Deliberations Shearwater Development Project December 11, 1985 on the Page 9 area. There will be no signals along this collector ramp and drivers headed for Sierra Point and Bayshore Boulevard will encounter actually fewer weaving and merging problems than exist today. The enclosed schematic map shows how the collector ramp would function and how it would be signed to direct drivers.to Sierra Point and Brisbane. Concern: The question was raised how the future traffic impacts will be mitigated. Response Numberous traffic mitigation measures that were identified in the EIR have been incorporated into the about 60 special conditions for the project such as: widening of Airport/Bayshore Boulevards to 6 lanes, widening of Oyster Point Boulevard to 6 lanes, travel reduction measures in the form of shuttle buses, carpool programs and complementing land uses, and an annual monitoring of the traffic conditions. The greatest improvement will come from replacing the narrow, two-lane Oyster Point Bridge and at-grade railroad crossing with a new elevated interchange which may have seven lanes across the freeway. The freeway capacity will be improved by the addition of auxiliary lanes between on and off ramps on both sides, provision of new on and off ramps, and elimination of unsafe weaving maneuvers and potential relocation of the southbound CHP truck scales (see also letter from Fehr & Peers Associates to Phil Gorny, City of South San Francisco, dated November 18, 1985). The EIRs for this new interchange and the new Terrabay Hook Ramps (on Bayshore Boulevard) are currently in preparation. Although traffic in this region will, without doubt, increase as a consequence of the various proposed development projects, the roadway improvements are designed to maintain future traffic conditions at approximately today's levels. Concern: Several speakers referred to and quoted from the 1983 Oyster Point Grade Separation Feasibility Study by George S. Nolte and Associates. Response: This study is obsolete and has been superseded by an improved Caltrans-design of the Oyster Point interchange and the new Shearwater EIR. ,/KUll/8~ Pa'ge J5 ~taff Report tO= The Honorable City Council Subject= Continued City Council Deliberations on the Shearwater Development Project December 11, 1985 Page 10 Concern= Clarification was requested on the amount of parking that can be saved because of the mixed land use of the Shearwater Project. Response: Many uses, especially the hotel, conference facilities, restaurants, and retail stores will rely on customers that are already on the site and do not need additional parking. In addition, the number of parking spaces for office employees can be reduced from standard rates to account for carpooling, shuttle bus use and other transportation system management (TSM) programs. Overall, the total parking requirement can be reduced by 30% as a consequence of mixed use and TSM. The enclosed table (Table 2) provides more detail on the parking estimate and the applied discounts. Concern: The comment was made that the internal Shearwater road circulation system is inadequate. Response: The EIR process resulted in an improved internal road concept that replaced the inverted U-shaped road with a H-shaped road system. This new design has been incorporated into the latest Shearwater Plan (see Planning Application, July 1985) and will provide convenient and direct access to the parking structures. C. WALTER BIRKELO City Manager MARK LEWIS Deputy City Manager ~/~_ean T. Smith /Planning Director CWB:ML:JTS:PG:sp Attachments 12/11/85 Page S& > 0 0 12/~LJ./85 Page O0 0 0 I., t. I. C 4'*4.* · 0 e e 0 I. 0 0 I-- I LAW OFFICE.~ OF I-IERNL H. FITZGERALD A PR.OFESSIO'NIAL COR.POR. A.TION F~. O. BOX 13~ BURLINGAI'4E, CALIFORNIA 94011 TELEPHONE [415) 348-5195 EXHIBIT August 29, 1985 Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco P. O. Box 711 South San Francisco, Ca. 94080 Re: Owner Participation and Development Agreement (OPA) by and between the City of South San Francisco, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Neville H. Price Dear Honorable Members: As the attorney for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, I submit herewith a summary of the above entitled proposed Owner Participation and Development Agreement. I INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Representatives of the Agency and the developer have been negotiating towards what has been called "Owner Participation and Development Agreement" (hereinafter "OPA"), an-agreement which would contain the terms and conditions under which the developer would be willing to develop property which he owns to a mixed use development in the area formerly occupied by the U.S. Steel Plant and now a Redevelopment Project adopted by the City and the Redevelopment Agency. The negotiating team of the city and the Agency has therefore attempted in these particular negotiations, within the scope of the City and Agency policies and objectives, to have the developer commit himself fully to the terms and conditions of a complete disposition agreement, even though that agreement might not be effective until certain contingencies or condi- tions to the developer's performance were satisfied. II SUMMARY OF OPA AGREEMENT (Full Agreement Must be Read) Parties: The City, the Agency and Neville Price. 12/11/85 Page ~o Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco August 29, 1985 Page 2 Effective Date: Date of execution by the parties. RECITAL$: Sets forth the basic facts upon which the agreement is premised. DEFINITIONS: Sets forth the definitions which control the terms used within-the agreement. Sec. 1 (a) states that the parties entered into the agreement based upon the developer's qualifications, experience and expertise. (b) prohibits developer from transferring the Project before completion (except as allowed under conditions set forth below) unless the proposed transferee has sufficient qualifications and the financial?responSi- bility to fulfill the obligations of this agreement and specifically assumes all the obligations of the original developer. The Agency has the right to review transfer documents. The original developer remains obligated unless released by the Agency. The purpose of this Section is to discourage land speculation. Sec. 2: (c) developer has a right to transfer fifty (50) percent of the Project at any time provided developer maintains management control in the Project. The new transferee must satisfy financial criteria of $20,000,000.00 net worth, possess sufficient experience and a good business reputation otherwise the transfer is subject to approval by the City. The transfer restrictions do not apply to a transfer to a holder of any security instrument. PARTICIPATION BY DEVELOPER (a) Agreement will.be subject to ~a Declaration of Restrictions to be approved by the parties and thereafter recorded in order to give notice. (b) provides that covenants run i.e. p~s with the land upon transfer. Sec. 3: OYSTER POINT SEPARATION CONSTRUCTION, CONTRIBUTION AND PAYMENT, INCLUDING RELATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS (a)(1)defines the Oyster Point Separation Project. 12/11/85 Page ~! · < <' Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco August 29, 1985 Page 3 (2) defines what is included in the "cost of construction" of Oyster Point Separation Project. (3) defines "ADT" of the Project (b) Developer will advance i.e. loan $15,000,000.00. (This language is being revised to clarify the conditions as to a use of a letter of credit as security%) (c)(d) Agency will repay developer from cash increment funds as they become available $6,400,000.00 of the $15,000,000.00 and the balance of $9,100,000.00 is developer's contribution to the Oyster Point Separation. Project. (e) Developer will make the following additional contributions: (1) Funds for plan review and inspections. (2) Agency Project Administration costs. (3) An annual cultural component contribution for use within the Project. (4) An engineering analysis and an improve- ment, if necessary of existing storm- drain and sewer improvement serving the Project. (5) A $190,000.00 contribution for fire protection. (f) (1) 'Developer will pay the contribution in cash or will use as security a letter of credit and will provide an advance to commence design and construction. (2) Construction of the Oyster Point $~Daration Project must commence by December 1991 or any developer advance contribution is reimbursed to the developer. (3) The contribution shall be deposited in a separate fund with all interest cre- dited to the fund. (4) The developer's obligation to make con- tributions is not effected by any failure 12/11/85 Page Yin. Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San FranCisco August 29, 1985 Page 4 of the City to collect other developer contributions and plan processing is delayed until a contribution is received. PRIORITIES: (g) Tax increment shall be used to repay AgenCy loans as follows: (1) principal and interest on tax increment bonds, other third party loans and developer advances. (2) Advances by the City. (3) Advances by the City for administration costs. (h) No other advances or contributions shall be required from developer or successors for traffic mitigation purposes arising from development of the Oyster Point Project. (i) The agreement will be recorded and the obligations will run with the land but the developer remains secondarily liable for any contributions due on any portion of the property conveyed to a third party. (j) Developer agrees to develop a parking for a fee facility. The parties agree to the undergrounding of utilities (pursuant to P G & E Rule 20) but the amount of the dew-eloper's contribution is not as yet agreed upon by the.parties. (1) (m) The City agrees to consider the establish- ment of an assessment district and/or a parking district. Sec. 4: FINANCING: This section contains a standard financing agree- ment language that the Agency will consider and cooperate with the developer to utilize tax exempt bond financing with a specific reservation that the credit assets and revenues of the Agency shall not be pledged or 'used or relied upon in such financing except as expressly provided herein. Sec. 5: Any transfer of the property by the developer shall be subject to the Redevelopment Plan, the Declaration of Restrictions and all public easements and rights- of way, etc. The 'Agency agrees to -make every effort 12/11/85 Page ~L~ Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco August 29, 1985 Page 5 Sec. 6: Sec. 74 Sec. 8: Sec. 9: Sec. 10: Sec. 11: to sublease the GSA site to the developer. Provides .the time for commencement and completion of construction. Provides the time for specified other action. Provides that the covenants pertaining to the uses of the property remain in effect for a period of twenty (20) years. Notices provide the method of giving notice and demands. (a) General provision:re.scope ofdevelopment. (b) Progress report. (c) Provides for and defineS substantial.~changes in approved plan. (d) Provides for architectural review of the City. (a) Provides for ~hel. standard nondiserimation clause. (b) Provides for developer's obligation to take out and maintain during the life of the agreement certain policies of insurance as required by the City Attorney. (c) Requires that developer obtain building permits and other permits as necessitated by the City. (d) Provides for the standard conflict of interest provision. (e) a standard provision providing that there shall be no individual liability of the Agency officials, employees and agents to the developer. (f) Provides for no merger with grant deeds. (g) standard language relating to titles of the agreement. (h) pro~ides for the hold harmless clause for the benefit of the Agency. 12/11/85 Page 'V~ Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco August 29, 1985 Page 6 (i) (j)(k) (1) & (m): Standard Provisions as to the rights of the parties, the severability of the agreement, the obligations upon the successors in interest, warranties and that the parties are not partners, etc. Sec. 12: Additional definitions. Sec. 13: Pro~ides that each of the parties have remedies for any default. Sec. 14: PrOvides that the agreement will.'be effective upon approval and execution with the exception that should the Redevelopment Plan be invalidated to the extent effecting the ability of the Agency to perform its obligations this agreement would be suspended until the parties ~each a further solution. Very truly yours, HHF: cj 12/11/85 Page ~/5' Office of City Manager "'-~ERALD D. MINFORD (415) 87'7-88E~ Citt of runO 567 EL CAMINO REAL SAN BRUNO. CALIFORNIA 94066 December 1!~ 1D85 Mr. Walter Birkelo City Manager City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, Ca. 94080 EXHIBIT Eec II :-' :- 5tSCr I~ER,DO[4~:~EB OFFICE 877;8855 Dear Mr. Birkelo: The City Council has directed me to prepare this letter, to indicate San Bruno's serious concern.relating to the Shearwater Development Project, San Bruno is opposed to any action which would interfere with the current or expanded use of the Shoreline Departure. City staff has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proj- ect. It appears, that your staff and consultant have prepared the document in a professional manner, in apparent compliance with CEQA. The DEIR contends that few, if any, of the proposed 300 residential units will be-within the 70 CNEL noise contours, and therefore the project will not be significantly impacted by noise. Sufficient protection from noise will purportedly be built into the proj- ect through proper insulation and construction methods. Some protection from lawsuits is thought to supposedly come from avigation easements. Unfortunately, avigation easements do not prevent lawsuits under all cir- cumstances, nor is there any other method of which I am aware that would give such assurance. What is even more threatening is the decreased use that this project or any other project could cause to the Shoreline De- parture. Because the Shoreline Departure does limit the number of aircraft which fly through the Gap, it reduces the noise impact upon San Bruno. The City of San Bruno opposes any action which would limit the current or expanded use of the Shoreline Departure. Even though the Shearwater Departure Project appears to be in compliance with CEQA and state noise law, there is grave concern that the new residents will still find some way to pre- vent use of the Shoreline Departure, through legal action or other means. We urge the City of South San Francisco to continue to cooperate with us in the resolution of noise problems. Si ,n~" or 12/11/85 Page "AN EQ UAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER" MORRIS BERNSTEIN PRESIDENT WILLIAM K. COBLENTZ VICE-PRESIDENT DR. Z. L. GOOSBY J. EDWARD FLEISHELL ATHENA TSOUGARAKIS AIRPORTS COMMISSION CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94128 December 11, 1985 HAND DELIVERY LOUIS A. TURPEN DIRECTOR OF AIRPORTS EXHIBIT City Council 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 b Subject: Shearwater Project Honorable Council Members: I have reviewed the November 13, and November 27, 1985, transcripts of the hearings before the City Council with respect to the Shearwater Project. At the conclusion of the hearing on the Shearwater Project on November 27, 1985. Vice-Mayor Addiego expressed anger "at the Airport and [Airport Community Affairs Director] Ron Wilson, who came here with what would appear to be. unless we hear otherwise, some misinformation." Although Vice-Mayor Addiego did not state the nature of the "misinformation," he appears to be referring to statements Mr. Wilson made at the November 13, 1985, hearing regarding CNEL and SENEL levels at the Shearwater site. In order to permit Vice-Mayor Addiego and the entire City Council to "hear otherwise" and to clarify the record, I would like to respond to his comment. During the course of Mr. Wilson's remarks to the Council on November 13, 1985, he stated that the Shearwater site was within the 70-75 decibel level. As Mr. Wilson indicated in his remarks, the source of his information was the staff report to the Council. The first page of the staff report to the South San Francisco Planning Commission dated October 13, 1985, which report was attached to the staff report to the city Council dated November 13, 1985, states that the noise level is within the 70-75 CNEL level. At Mayor Teglia's request, Mr. Wilson agreed to send the Council the most recent San Francisco International Airport CNEL contours map. Mr. Wilson did send a reduced-size copy of the most recent contours map to the Council on November 15, 1985. At the request of the Chief Planner, Phil Gorny, Mr. Wilson also 12/11/85 Page TEL. (415) 761-0800 TELEX 509520 SFO AIRPORT City Council 2 December 11, 1985 provided the City of South San Francisco, the original oversized copy of the CNEL noise contours map on November 21, 1985. The noise contours map clearly indicates that a portion of the Shearwater Project site is located in the 70-75 decibel range. At the South San Francisco Council meeting on November 27, 1985, the Council received as part of the record, a letter from Charles M. Salter Asssociates. The Salter letter stated that the last quarterly report generated by the Airport indicates that the CNEL level from Monitor 15 ranges from 65 to 67 dB. Monitor 15 is located approximately 2000 feet from the Shearwater project site at 460 Carlton Court in South San Francisco. The Airport has not attempted to mislead the City Council by providing the CNEL noise contour map rather than the raw CNEL data from Monitor 15. Monitor 15 located at a distance of 2000 feet from the Shearwater project site gives an approximate noise level for the area around the monitor. The noise contours map, however, provides a picture of the noise levels of the region surrounding the Airport and demonstrates that the Shearwater Project site falls within the noise contour levels of 65-75 dB. Contrary to the opinion of Mr. Nash of Salter Associates, the daily CNEL levels from the Monitor 15 do not represent the "best available longterm data base for the site." Monitor 15, as previously noted, is at some distance from the project site and therefore cannot provide an accurate noise measurement for the project area. Moreover, the CNEL levels measured by Monitor 15 for the last quarter are not intended to be, and do not constitute projections for the future. The Airport is committed to the increased use of the Shoreline Departure Path which will likely increase the CNEL noise level over Monitor 15 and over the Shearwater Project site. Further, while the quarterly noise readings from Monitor 15 when averaged indicate that the CNEL level is 65 to 67 decibels. These figures obscure the fact that daily average readings have been recorded at a level as high as 74.5 dB and that the high readings are offset by such occasional very low daily CNEL figures as 46.0 dB. See the attached Noise quarterly report for April through June 1985: readings from May 11, 1985 and May 25, 1985. The reason for the wide differences in the daily CNEL levels recorded at Monitor 15 is the Airport's ability to use the Shoreline Departure Path. On days when wind conditions and weather dictate take-offs from Runway 28, approximately half of those take-offs will utilize the Shoreline Departure. Hence, the noise level will vary from day to day depending on the extent to which the Shoreline Departure can be used. In addition, the quarterly report of the CNEL readings from Monitor 15 provide only average noise levels and not the single noise events. Monitor 15, however, does measure single noise 12/11/85 Page ~ City Council 3 December 11. 1985 events. These measurements confirm that single noise events of 105 dB and higher occur over the Monitor 15 site. Not every single noise event reaches the 105 decibel level, and the Airport has not made any representation to that effect. However, it should be noted that even the developer's noise consultant stated that he calculates that "there could be 5 to 10 of these daytime [105 dB] events or one at night." See letter from Charles M. Salter Associates, dated November 20, 1985. In the absence of a noise analysis supported by data acquired from the project site, the City Council has no basis for determining the actual environmental impact of overflight noise on residential development in the Shearwater Project. The Airport's position is simply that the noise analysis should be performed and subjected to review and comment by the public before the City Council approves the project so that the Council can make the sort of informed decision contemplated by CEQA. Whether the residential units are within the 70-75 dB contour or merely in close proximity to the 70-75 CNEL contour, there is still cause for concern about the developer's ability to insulate to a 45 decibel level. While the consultant from Charles M. Salter Associates indicated in his letter to the Council and in his remarks before the Council on November 27, 1985, that it is "technically straightforward to achieve an interior CNEL of 45 decibels if the exterior CNEL is 65 to 70 decibels," a noise analysis performed prior to the Shearwater project's approval would either confirm or refute his opinion and thus provide the Council with accurate and up-to-date facts about the actual exterior noise level for the Shearwater site and the feasibility of insulating the proposed residentials units to the 45 dB level. I note that the staff report to the Council, dated December 11, 1985, proposes to modify Condition 24 to add the requirement that "single event noise shall be mitigated to 65 dBa." The record before you, however, contains no evidence that such noise reduction is feasible. Additionally, the Airport is concerned about the exterior noise level surrounding the proposed residential units. The tenants of the office buildings on the east side of Highway 101 who have addressed the noise issue in letters and remarks to the Council are only speaking about airport noise as it affects them in an interior work environment. Residents, however, will likely want to utilize the balconies of their units as well as the open space planned by the developer for the project area. Noise levels of even 65-70 decibels will certainly disrupt the residents' outdoor activities. Based upon our review of the data that Mr. Wilson has presented to the Council as well as other materials and testimony before the Council, the Airport strongly urges the Council to disapprove the residential uses from the Shearwater project. In 12/11/85 Pape ~ $ City Council December 11, 1985 the event the Council still wishes to approve the Shearwater project including the residential units, the Airport must insist that the developer and the City of South San Francisco grant the Airport a noise easement prior to the project's approval. The developer at the City Council meeting of November 27, 1985, stated that he had offered the Airport a noise and vibration easement. As of the date of this letter, no such offer has been conveyed to the Airport. In order to insure that the developer and the City of South San Francisco grant the Airport an easement which will insure that the Airport will be able to continue to utilize the Shoreline Departure Path and to increase the use of this departure route in the future, the Council must condition the project's approval upon the recording of the noise and vibration easement, which condition must expressly state that the developer voluntarily agrees to grant the noise and vibration easement to the Airports Commission. The City Council's condition must also expressly state that the prior to recordation of the easement, the developer shall submit the legal documents related to the easement to the Airports Commission for its review and approval. In light of the deeds of trust in excess of $31.8 million recorded against the Shearwater site and the pendency of a $10 million lawsuit (Melvin A. Welch, et al. v. Neville Price, et al., and related actions; San Marco Superior Court No. 284161) alleging breach of contract and fraud in the developer's acquisition of the Shearwater site from the U.S. Steel Corporation, the Airport has grave concerns about the ability and willingness of the developer to indemnify the City and County of San Francisco and the Airports Commission from claims by Shear- water residents arising from overflight noise and vibration. Hence, the Airport must also insist that prior to approval of the Shearwater project, the City of South San Francisco, the developer, and each of the institutions which have financed the developer's purchase of the U.S Steel site enter into a contract with the Airport whereby each of the above-named parties and their assigns agree to defend and hold the Airport and the City and County of San Francisco harmless from any and all claims and losses arising from aircraft flights over the Shearwater site. The Airport also stands firm on the position we took in our letter to the City Council dated November 13, 1985 regarding the inadequacy of the analysis of the environmental impacts and the response to the comments from the public and governmental agencies in the Environmental Impact Report for the Shearwater Project. The Airport, in addition, stands on its position that recirculation of the Environmental Impact Report is required because of the substantial changes in the Shearwater development. The South San Francisco Planning Department's conclusions in its staff report to the City Council dated November 27, 1985, notwithstanding, the CEQA guidelines require that the substantial changes in the Shearwater Project be 12/11/85 Page City Council 5 December 11. 1985 analyzed and that an opportunity for public review and comment of the analysis be provided. Lastly, the Airport wishes to address the South San Francisco Planning Deparment's response to the concern regarding redirecting flights through the Gap in favor of the Shearwater Project residents that appears on page 6 of the Staff Report dated December 11, 1985. The Airport is not threatening to redirect flights over the Gap. Throughout the review process of the Shearwater Project, the Airport has outlined the problems of placing residential units under the Shoreline Departure Path. The Airport has stated publicly that the Shoreline Departure Path will continue as a significant noise mitigation measure for the Peninsula cities previously impacted by aircraft taking off through the Gap. The Airport, however, has no control over future residents of the Shearwater project who may sue the Airport and may obtain legal redress compelling a limitation on the Airport's use of the Shoreline Departure Path. That possibility cannot be termed a "threat" by the Airport. Hence, the Airport has urged and continues to urge the City Council to delete the residential component of the Shearwater Project as the best means for preserving the viability of the Shoreline Departure Path. The Airports Commmission respectfully requests that this letter and the attached document be made part of the record of the proceedings on the Shearwater Project. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Ve~ t r u Director y yours, )eh of Airports Attachment 11575 12/11/85 Page ~-! t2/11/85 page ~. Z 12/11/85 Page .) EXHIBIT December 9, 1985 City Council of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Council Members: I am writing you to express my concerns regarding the Shearwater Development Project. I have serious misgivings that the inclusion of residential units as part of that development would be in the best interests of those new residents, the developers, or the city of South San Francisco. I base my objections on the following facts. I have been a partner in a business located in the Cabot, Cabot & Forbes industrial park for almost three years. During this time I have been subjected to noise impact from over-flights by aircraft using the Shoreline Departure from San Francisco International Airport. The decibel levels from these flights can be endured in a business environment, but they far exceed the tolerance of anyone experiencing them on a daily basis in the privacy of his own home, yard, or neighborhood. As you know, the Shoreline Departure procedure was designated by the 1978-1980 Joint Land Use Study as a viable noise mitigation measure to relieve noise due to Runway-28 departures. Since its creation in 1980, the Airport-Community Roundtable has been encouraging its expanded use. The net effect is enormous in reducing the noise impact on residents who live in a large portion of South San Francisco as well as in Pacifica, Colma, and Daly City. At present most departures with destinations to the North or East use the Shoreline. Coupled with the growth of air traffic expected at SFIA, the Shoreline Departure promises to remain a major procedure for noise mitigation. I am sure that anyone who should move into a new East Grand neighborhood would find the quality of life 12/11/88 Page 55' severely diminished by the continuous nuisance of aircraft noise. I urge the Council to remove private dwellings from the Shearwater plan, and to require that it conform to a more appropriate compatible land use. I will try to be present at your Dec. llth meeting, and would appreciate being allowed to speak to this matter at that time. In any event, may I ask that this letter be made a part of the City Council record? Yours truly, Duane A. Spence Vice President 12/11/85 Page I I