Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1989-06-14Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia Counci 1: Mark N. Addie§o Jack Drago Richard A. Halley Gus Nicolopul os MINUTES City Council Municipal Services Building Community Room June 14, 1989 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) ROLL CALL: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS Mrs. Scoble's E1 Camino High School German Class Request from the South San Francisco United Soccer Club for assistance on their trip to Italy AGENDA REVIEW ACTION TAKEN 7:39 p.m. Mayor Teglia presiding. Council present: Council absent: Addiego, Halley, Nicolopulos, and Teglia. Drayo. City Clerk Battaya announced that Councilman Drago was on vacation, and would not be in attendance. The Pledge was recited. Rev. Raymond Lockley, Aldersgate United Methodist Church, gave the invocation. PRESENTATIONS Mrs. Scoble and two of her students presented a slide show of their trip to Germany, and presented a plaque to the Mayo r. Mr. Joe Battaglini, Coach of Varsity Soccer at South San Francisco High School, requested financial assistance for 19 youths and two adults for their trip to Italy. Vice Mayor Halley stated that the Council normally gave $25.00 per student for the Close Up Program, and in that this youth group was representing-this City, and the same principle should be applied. M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To authorize an expenditure of $25.00 per student. Carried by unanimous voice vote. AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Armas stated that he had nothing to add or delete from the Agenda. 6/14/89 Page i AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ---ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Sandra Madara, 66 Randolph Ave., expressed concern: about the lack of a compensation plan for residents bothered by the dust generated by the Terrabay Project grading; the lack of a schedule for residents of the grading; the cutting down of trees that the children loved; grading on the point without concern for the wetlands. City Manager Armas stated that citizens should call his office in reference to concerns over Terrabay Project. Mr. Leonard Bonilla, 439 Hemlock Ave., stated that a group called Concerned Citizens of S.S.F. were continuing to fight grading and destruction of wetlands on San Bruno Mountain through all legal means, and intended to become actively involved in the next Council election. He stated that the organization would support those candidates they believed were going to act in the best interests of the will of the people, and not the best interests and the will of the develo- pers of this State. He invited any of the Council to attend their meeting the next night at 7:30 p.m. at Hillside School. He stated that the requirements for mem- bership were that a person be a permanent resident of this City, and a current registered voter. He stated that the organization was not a one issue organi- zation, and intended to address all issues concerning this City which included redevelopment issues, etc. He stated that a meeting was being set up with Congressman Lantos concerning the wetlands issue, because they believed the Army Corps. of Engineers was dragging its feet on this issue. He stated that his group had been video taping the grading on the South Slope, and had watched the Developer encroach 6/14/89 Page 2 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS into the restricted area of the U.S. Army Corps. of Eh§rs. on land that could be designated as possible wetlands, etc. He asked the Council to have the City Engineer analyze the core samples to sup- port or deny the contention that the strata in that development would support the homes to be built. Mayor Teglia stated that the City Engineer had taken note of Mr. Bonilla's comments. Mr. Joseph Stamatis, 269 Avalon Dr., spoke of the new subdivision called Avalon Heights, Case No. SA-89-105, and stated that he had a problem with the installation of 66" storm drain and the filling of Avalon Creek. He cited the background of the creek: in Jan. 1982 he had opposed for safety reasons the exten- sion of approximately 300' of 66" storm drain pipe which was proposed along 6,000 cubic yards of fill; engineering had stated that their calculations had shown that there would not be an impact in the area and would actually help the drainage problem; the pipe was installed and did not help, and actually flooded over the head wall and floated over land and underground down stream; Alida and Ponderosa both flooded; in 1984 a parallel 48" diameter reinforced concrete pipe was installed across St. Veronica's schoolyard which the engineers calcula- tions felt would eliminate the flooding upstream above the filled area and the flooding; it worked fine until both 48" diameter pipes filled with run-off, then Alida and Ponderosa flooded; Ponderosa flooded to a depth of approximately 4' or better, and a woman was trapped in her car; the downstream drainage system is still inadequate now, as it was in 1982, 1984 and 1986; now engineering was saying that with the installation of approxima- tely 300' more of 6" storm drain pipe and filling and killing of Avalon Creek there will continue to be an upstream drainage 6/14/89 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN '3i7 ---ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS problem that will be slightly improved by the subdivision; he believed this not to be true, because the subdivision would have streets, paved roads, sidewalks, and houses contributing to the run-off. He stated that at the Planning Commission meeting of 6/8/89, Standard Builders had stated that the pipe and fill was not crucial to their project, and it seemed that engineering wanted the pipe and fill installed to eliminate maintenance oi: the creek. He stated that if this was done, then the City would have allowed and contributed to the destruction of a natural creek that he believed to be wetlands and comes under the jurisdiction ol: the Corps. He asked the City to contact the Corps. for appro- val and permission to l:ill the creek, and rather to preserve the raccoons and doves watering place in the area. Mayor Teglia questioned if Mr. Stamatis had met with members of staff on this item. Mr. Stamatis stated that he had met with Mr. Wong who had given him the impression that regardless of what he said the pipe would go in there. Councilman Nicolopulos expressed concern that Mr. Stamatis had not been given answers by staff on this matter, and wanted this done in the immediate future. Mr. Stamatis stated that at the Planning Commission meeting he had gone on record requesting the City contact the Corps. of Engrs. to investigate wetlands in the creek that runs in winter and summer. City Manager Armas stated that staff would investigate the points brought up by Mr. Stamatis. Discussion followed: that the Planning Commission had heard this matter last 6/14/89 Page 4 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ~ORAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNITY FORUM CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 4/26/89, Special Meeting of 5/10/89; Regular Meeting 5/10/89; Adjourned Regular Meeting of 5/17/89; Adjourned Regular Meeting of 5/24/89; Special Meeting of 5/24/89. 2. Approval of the Regular Bills of ~a~ 6/14/89. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS week, and the appeal process would expire on Monday; that the Tentative Subdivision Map would go before Council for approval in July, etc. Mr. Mike Callan, 82 Isabella Ave., gave a status report on Carter Park I and II: that plans and working drawings had been submitted yesterday on Carter Park II for plan checking; that Carter Park I will follow in approximately 3 weeks; on Friday would submit to the State of CA Dept. of Real Estate for the pink slip reservations; that he was working on haz- ard and earthquake policies in the DCC&Rs in that the word perpetuity was raising a question in mostly giving the insurance companies a flat rate for any price or the availability for cost or terms, and it was recommended by the insurance company to reword the language and have Mr. Callan present it to Council at a later date - which he agreed to; that the construction was to start in approximately 30 days after the final map was recorded, which was esti- mated to be 5 weeks from now; thanked the Council for their patience and time, because it had taken 8 years to reach this point, etc. COMMUNITY FORUM No one chose to speak. CONSENT CALENDAR Approved. Approved in the amount of $1,527,790.07. 6/14/89 Page 5 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ~CONSENT CALENDAR ® Motion to set a Public Hearing on 7/12/89 to consider the appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission designation of "Previti Palms" which are located along Tennis Drive in Orange Memorial Park. e Motion to adopt two ordinances per- taining to administrative reorgan- ization. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REPEALING VARIOUS SECTIONS WITHIN TITLE 1 "GENERAL PROVISIONS" TITLE 2 "ADMINISTRATION" AND TITLE 4 "REVENUE AND FINANCE" OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO REFLECT ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.12 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE EMPLOYEE SERVICE CLASSIFICATIONS Be Resolution setting salary for the Management and Confidential Employees; Resolution approving a budget amendment. A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 41-86 AND SETTING NEW CONTROL POINTS FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEE GROUP A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT 0-9 TO THE 1988-89 OPERATING BUDGET ® Resolution authorizing the reclassification of a Librarian II to a Librarian III, and Resolution approving Budget Amendment 0-10. A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION PLAN FOR THE POSITION OF LIBRARIAN II (CHILDREN'S SERVICES) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT 0-10 TO THE 1988-89 OPERATING BUDGET CONSENT CALENDAR Public Hearing set for 7/12/89. ~1~o ORDINANCE NO. 1053-89 ORDINANCE NO. 1054-89 ~0o° RESOLUTION NO. 69-89 0 RESOLUTION NO. 70-89 Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Councilman Nicolopulos. 6/14/89 Page 6 A G E N D A A C T I 0 N T A K E N ?~ ~:~ CONSENT CALENDAR Resolution authorizing renewal of agreement with San Mateo County Sheriff's Office to provide pris- oner transportation services through Los Angeles County Statewide Prisoner Transportation Services. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR PRISONER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES ® Motion to accept Phase III of the Aircraft Noise Insulation Project as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. ® Resolution awarding the contract for the Rodent Control Program to Pied Piper Exterminators, Inc. in the amount of $15,700.23 as the lowest responsible bidder. A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR RODENT CONTROL PROGRAM 10. Resolution approving the Sunrise Final Map, accepting dedication of easements, subdivision improvement agreement, and recordation. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL MAP ENTITLED "SUNRISE SUBDIVISION" AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTS 11. Resolution authorizing an agreement with the City of Brisbane for a proposed Oyster Point Blvd/Highway 101 Freeway Interchange. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR PROPOSED OYSTER POINT BLVD/HIGHWAY 101 FREEWAY INTERCHANGE CONSENT CALENDAR RESOLUTION NO. 71-89 ~4So ordered· RESOLUTION NO. 72-89 RESOLUTION NO. 73-89 RESOLUTION NO. 74-89 M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item No. 6. Carried by unanimous voice vote. 6/14/89 Page 7 AGENDA ACT]'ON TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 18. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. REDEVELOPMENT MEETING R~CONVENED: PUBLIC HEARINGS speakers should complete the special form and give it to the City Clerk in order to speak; that those completing the form with a written statement, that do not wish to speak, the statement will be read into the record by the City Clerk, etc. City Manager Armas stated that as part of the noticing requirement, a notice was mailed to every property owner in the proposed project and included a map of the area. Mayor Teglia outlined the procedure: Agency consultants and staff will pre- sent: a) a statement of findings for adoption of the Redevelopment Plan; b) Agency report to the City Council; c) the Redevelopment Plan itself; d) other evi- dence and testimony in support of the Plan. She continued, the Council and Agency would receive any written com- ments; both bodies will then receive any evidence or oral testimony from those present; following the introduction of all evidence and testimony, and upon the conclusion Qf the hearing the Agency will adjourn or consider and act upon all objections, and then act on the Redevelopment Plan and related motions and resolutions. Chairwoman Teglia reconvened the Redevelopment Agency meeting at 8:40 p.m., all .Boardmembers were present. Chairwoman/Mayor Teglia reiterated the purpose of the Joint Public Hearing before the two bodies, which did not include any actions regarding the pro- posed Redevelopment Plan, in that it would be considered at the adjourned meeting on 6/28/89. Agency Counsel/City Attorney Armento stated that the purpose of the hearing was to consider evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/ 6/14/89 Page 9 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 18. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS Central Redevelopment Project. She stated that evidence would be intro- duced for consideration by both bodies in connection with the following findings and determinations that will be made in the ordinance which adopts the Redevelopment Plan. She stated that the findings and determinations were required by Section 33767 of the Health & Safety Code, and proceeded to read same. Assistant Executive Director/Secretary/ Director of Planning Smith outlined the history of the project through its incep- tion (a copy of the staff report is on permanent file in the City Clerk's Office). Ms. Martha Packard, Katz, Hollis, Corin Associates, outlined the history of the project conditions, and the Agency Report to the City Council (a copy of the report is on file in the City Clerk's Office). Assistant Executive Director/Secretary/ Director of Planning Smith presented the Planning Commission report and recommen- dation: the Commission had determined that the proposed Redevelopment Plan was in conformance with the General Plan and adopt a Resolution recommending adoption of said plan by the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency. She proceeded to read the-summary of the Redevelopment provisions: objectives of the Plan; Project will be funded by the sale of bonds that will be paid off with tax increments; the plan would be in effect for a total of 35 years; actual activi- ties will be prioritized later as needed to help stimulate private development; that this would follow the existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in uses allowed; there were no plans for property acquisition, and no residential proper- ties will be subject to condemnation pro- ceedings unless an owner gives prior consent; public improvements and rehabi- litation of existing buildings; that the 6/14/89 Page 10 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS 18. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. (Cassette No. 2) PUBLIC HEARINGS meeting would be continued to the next Agency/Council meeting, wherein all of the written comments will be addressed in writing; there would be a recess after all of the comments have been made, and then staff and consultants would respond to oral comments. Mayor Teglia opened the Joint Public Hearing and stated that comments in favor would be first, followed by written com- ments in favor - would be read into the record; then those people opposed would speak; and then their written comments would be read into the record; and then anyone else wishing to speak. Mr. George Bugnotto, 216 Juniper Ave., stated that the Historic Oldtown Homeowners Assn. had supported this plan since its inception, and that it addressed the goals of the organization to correct blight and other concerns. City Clerk Battaya read the following written comments into the record: Mr. Mark R. Allen, The O'Brien Corp., opposing the Plan (a copy is attached and a permanent part of the record of this meeting). Mr. Dee L. West, 497 Forrestville Ave., stated that he was part owner of a busi- ness on Airport Blvd., and saw no reason for the redevelopment when there were vacant buildings all over the City - some new and other being built. He questioned why the Council sat as the Redevelopment Agency rather than non- elected individuals. Executive Director/City Manager Armas stated that under State Law the Council was permitted to function as the Redevelopment Agency, and this was a com- mon practice throughout the State. Mr. West stated that he had gone through 6/14/89 Page 11 ~r 4h~ ~llo~o,'~ r%sons, 6/14/89 Page lla AGENDA ACTION TAKEN --PUBLIC HEARINGS 18. Joint Public Hearin§ - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS this in San Francisco fifty years ago, with an area two miles wide that went from Bayshore to the waterfront, and it had been a virtual slum every since - which he felt would be the case here. City Clerk Battaya read the following letters into the record: David P. Uccelli, Esq., dated 6/13/89, in opposi- tion on behalf of his client, the Estate of Arthur S. Haskins, Jr.; Mr. George N. Chammas, Olympian Oil Co., dated 6/12/89, in opposition; Mr. John W. Bacon, Sr., South City Lumber, dated 6/14/89, in opposition (copies of the letters are attached and a permanent part of the record of this meeting). Mr. Lou Dell'Angela, Urban & Planning Environmental Consultant, stated that he represented Olympian Oil Co., who wanted two additional points of information added to the record: 1) their ownership consisted of the property located on So. Linden Ave., which was being threatened by the No. Canal Overpass Project; and 2) they have an ownership out on East Grand Ave. and the Gateway Extension and are very concerned over the impacts this pro- ject will have on their property. He stated that one of the improvements con- tained in the Plan was a connector road between East Grand Ave. and Point San Bruno Blvd., and this protective connec- tor road was studied by the environmental consultant and deemed to be not bene- ficial or not feasible to implement and the project was deleted. He stated that with the request of Olympian Oil Co. there was sufficient evidence in the environmental impact report to indicate that the No. Canal Overcrossing Project was a major problem in terms of impact on adjoining properties, and there was a precedent to remove it from the Plan. Mr. Pedro Gonzales, 804 Olive Ave., stated that he approved of the Plan, but suggested that information in Spanish be 6/14/89 Page 12 R'E C E IV E D DAVID P. UCCELLI SUITE ?00 $20 EL CAMINO REAL · SAN MATEO. CALIF~qlA~2~420 A8 *~' 8 (415) 579-1100 . .~. "iCE OF :tree 3.3, 1989 CLERK ]I. ~. F~ANCISGO Roberta Cerri Teglia, Mayor Richard A. Halley, Vice Mayor Jack Drago, Councilman Gus Nicolopolus, Councilman Mark Addiego, Councilman City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Members of The City Council of South San Francisco and Members of The South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency: My office has been instructed by Mr. Guido Rozzi, Executor of the Estate of Arthur S. Haskins, Jr., to communicate the Estate's objections to the inclusion of the Haskins' property in the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project. The Haskins' property is located at East Jamie Court and is adjacent to the San Bruno Canal and San Francisco Bay, Assessor's Parcel No. 015-102-250 and 015-102-260, consisting of approximately 6.1 and 14.9 acres, respectively, of unimproved land. The KatzHollis Report dated May 1989, includes the Haskins' property in Area 6A of the proposed redevelopment plan. Part III of the KatzHollis Report of May 1989, relating to the method of financing redevelopment of the Project Area sets forth in Table III-l, at pages 7 and 9, the estimated total cost, and the portion proposed for Project funding regarding Area 6A. Table III-l, at page 7, 2 items appear: Area 6a: Estimated Total Cost Portion Proposed For Project Fundinq Amount Percent Increase capacity of sewer lines. 1,200,000 85,000 7% Improve sanitary sewer pump for area. 198,000 49,400 30% 6/]4/89 Page 12a South San Francisco City Council Re: Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project June 13, 1989 Page Two Neither of these items are located on, nor related to, the Haskins' property which consists of unimproved land. Table III-l, at page 9, 3 items appear: Area Estimated Total Cost Portion Proposed For pro4ect Fundina Amount percent Construct shoreline improvements. 500,000 250,000 50% 2. Correct soil contamination. 2,000,000 200,000 10% 3. Correct mud boils. 2,000,000 200,000 10% As to item 1, shoreline improvements, this appears to be within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (B.C.D.C.). Such improvements will he required by B.C.D.C., at the time the property is privately developed, including a public access path along the Bay front. As to item 2: The Haskins' Estate knows of no toxic waste or contaminants on its property. As to item 3: The mud boil is not on Haskins' property, but rather in the San Francisco Bay waters. This is also within the jurisdiction of B.C.D.C. In any event, even if the conditions referred to in the Report did exist, (which they do not), the Haskins' Estate has the means and equipment at its disposal to correct or remedy any such condition without inclusion of the Haskins' property in the Redevelopment Plan. None .of the conditions which characterize a blighted area as defined in the Community Redevelopment Law, (Health & Safety Code §33000, et. seq.), §§33031 and 33032 exist on the Haskins' property, nor does the property constitute a serious physical, social, or economic burden on the community. Moreover, the Estate and/or the heirs of the Estate, fully intend to develop this property and therefor, even if such conditions did exist, (which they do not), any such conditions could be alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. I doubt anyone would question the Estate's or the heirs' ability to privately develop the 6/14/89 Page 12b South San Francisco City Council Re: Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project June 13, 1989 Page Three property in question. In s-mnary, it is the Estate's position that the Haskins' property is an unblighted, noncontiguous area, which is located several miles away from the Downtown Area. The property should not be included in the redevelopment project as there is no substantial justification for its inclusion. [See Health & Safety Code §33320.2]. The City has also expressed an interest in obtaining 1.72 acres of the Haskins' property for a proposed ~Trailhead Staging Area". This also appears to be within the jurisdiction of B.C.D.C. and has no relationship to the redevelopment of the central downtown area of South San Francisco. The Estate has no intention of relinquishing this or any other of its properties. On behalf of the Estate of Arthur S.'Haskins, Jr., the City Council and the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency are respectfully requested to remove the Haskins' property from the proposed Redevelopment Project and not include said property in the final plan. DPU/nb cc: Guido J. Rozzi, Executor 6/14/89 Page 12c )LYMPIAN OIL COMPANY 260 MICHELE COURT · SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94080-6297 (415) 873-8200 . (800) 682-6100 . TELEX 171513 June 12, 1989 1136HN South San Francisco Box 711 South San Francisco, CA. 94083 RE: Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Dear Mayor Teglia and City Council Members: Olympian Oil Company is very much opposed to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the above Project as presently written. Our opposition is based on several concerns. The first concern deals with a proposal contained in Exlu"oit "C" of the Redevelopment Plan to construct the North Canal Street Overcrossing Project between South Linden Avenue and Produce/San Mateo Avenue. On page 4.1-25 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, your own traffic consultant, Fehr & Peers Associates, points out four (4) major disadvantages of constructing this project. These traffic engineers also conclude on page 4.1-26 of the DEIR that "there appear to be significant engineering and site-specific design problems that place the feas~ility of thi.~ new connection in question-" The proposed North Canal Street Overcrossing Project not only makes little or no sense from a traffic movement standpoint, but it will destroy our valuable fueling facility located at 35 South linden Avenue. This costly and unnecessary project should be deleted from the Redevelopment Plan before this Plan is stpi}roved by the CiW. Our second concern with the Redevelopment Plan deals with the additional building and land use restrictions which will be impo. sed in the future on properties which are located within the project area. We believe that it is unfair for the City to require Olympian Oil to record a covenant of restrictions against our properties just to obiain City permission to make additions, alterations, repairs, or other improvements to our properties. We are particularly concerned about Sections 406, 408 and 42Iof the Redevelopment Plan and would appreciate written assurance~ from you that our current development and improvment rights under the present City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance will not be adversely affected by the proposed Redevelopment Plan and Project. 6/14/89 Page 1 2d Page Two II~6FIN June 12, 1989 Ot~reatelympian Oil is a long-established business in South San Francisco. Presently, we feel ned by this new Project. We do not want the North Canal Overcrossing _Project hanging over our heads nor do we want our current property fights adversely affected by this new Redevelopment Plan and Project. Very Truly Yours, OLYMPIAN OIL COMPANY George N. Chnmmn~ Sr. Vice President- Finance GNC/jh 6/14/89 Page 12e SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND RAILROAD AND SPRUCE AVENUE · SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94080 ' (415) 588-5711 761-1040 June 14, 1989 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 SUBJECT: Redevelopment Plan of Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Dear Mayor Teglia and City Council Members: Thank you for sending our Company notice of your June 14, 1989 public hearing on the above proposed Redevelopment Plan. South City Lumber is very much concerned about the lack of specifics in the Redevelopment Plan. Consequently, it has been very difficult to determine what specific impacts this proposed Plan and Project will have on our business and property in the future. The land use proposals made in the Redevelopment Plan are general in nature and are related to the City's General Plan which can very easily be changed. Further, certain public improvements and facilities projects proposed in Exhibit "C" of the Plan are entirely too vague and require clarification. In particular, we are concerned about the following proposed improvement which is listed on Page Two of Exhibit "C": (Area 3) "2. Remove or improve railroad crossings on Linden, Spruce, and Magnolia Avenues." If it is the intention of the Redevelopment Plan and the City to remove the railroad crossing on Spruce Avenue, it is adjacent to our property and services our company with rail deliveries, we would be compelled to utilize all legal means possible to oppose such a project.- The removal of this railroad track would seriously affect the operation of our business. The item above with regard to the railroad spur affects us directly. In addition to that we would like to make the following general comments on the proposed Redevelopment Plan: On Page 2 of the "Plan," Item One lists as a goal "Expansion of the retail component of the downtown area." I don't see how this is possible since you specifically mentioned the incorporation of major outlets and there is no real estate available for this purpose in that area. 6/]4/89 Page 12f BUILDING MATERIALS ° LUMBER ' MILLWORK ' HARDWARE ° PAINTS Item Two specifies continued support for civic uses in the Redevelopment Area; while at the same time this meeting is being held in the civic services building on Et Camino Real over a mile away, Item Six indicates a goal of a greater pedestrian environment--this in spite of the downtown hilly location. Item Seven concerns itself with emphasizing and "highlighting" the existing architectural style by the rehabilitation and renovation of historic structures. The primary structure legitimately in this category in my opinion is the northwest corner of Grand and Airport, which is probably the only large parcel in the immediate vicinity of the present downtown area that would lend itself to implementing items One and Six above, but which would probably require demolition rather than restoration to effect the goals outlined above in Item Two. While South City Lumber is not opposed to progress or opposed to programs which improve the City, we cannot support or endorse a Redevelopment Plan where there is so much uncertainty about how the Plan will be implemented in the future. We believe the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan should contain more detail and specifics before it is adopted by the City Council. In closing, I would ask that the City provide South City Lumber with a written response to the questions raised in this letter and that this response be provided prior to your .June 28, 1989 meeting, JWB:jdd 6/14/89 Page 12g AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ~-- PUBLIC HEARINGS 18. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. RECESS: RECALL TO ORDER: PUBLIC HEARINGS sent to homeowners and tenants in the area, and have it put in the Spanish newspapers for a better understanding of the Project. Mr. Leonard Bonilla, 439 Hemlock Ave., stated that his organization wanted to be added to the mailing list for notice of any meetings for this Project. He questioned: why the area of Oyster Point Blvd. and the railroad tracks was not included; and why the Plan boundaries included property beyond the motel on Airport Blvd. when that was further than the City's police jurisdiction; the taking of property by eminent domain. Mr. Larry Cochran, Manager Levitz Furniture, requested that the Levitz pro- perty be removed from the Plan. He stated that he wanted to be put on the mailing list for future meetings. Mr..Edward Grant, 512 Poplar Ave., St. Vincent DePaul, questioned if the Project planned a purchase or renewal of any businesses in the target area. Chairwoman/Mayor Teglia recessed the Joint meeting at 9:33 p.m. Chairwoman/Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to order at 9:56 p.m., all Council and Agency Boardmembers present. She stated that staff and the con- sultants would respond to the testimony presented tonight. Clerk/City Clerk Battaya stated that Mr. Bryant had testimony that he wanted included in the record of the proceedings. Agency Counsel/City Attorney Armento stated that it could be included by reference, and suggested that the speaker summarize the nine page letter. 6/14/89 Page 13 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ..... PUBLIC HEARINGS 18. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS Don Bryant, Esq., Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, summarized the attached letter, dated 6/14/89, which is included and a part of the record of this meeting. Ms. Packard, Katz, Hollis, Corin Associates described the procedures for continuing the Public Hearing: that the Public Hearing would be closed and con- tinued to 6/28/89 for actions by the two bodies; effective 1/1/89 new legislation required that the Agency provide written responses to all written objections not later than one week after the Public Hearing; that oral testimony would be responded to at this meeting. She responded to the blight question in the following manner: under the statu- tes, every individual parcel need not be blighted - just the area in general and was included for planning purposes. Assistant Executive Director/Secretary/ Director of Planning Smith responded: that the Plan was following the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance of the City, and would be in effect for 35 years; that all public improvements would be looked at annually in the work program; that Agency funds could not be used for any public improvements not included in the Plan; no residential pro- perty will be taken under eminent domain without the owner's consent; that tech- nically the Agency could go through emi- nent domain for the benefit of the owner of a property; as far as other uses were concerned the Agency did have the power of eminent domain, and can use it with respect to other uses, but has no plans at the present time to use it; if the Agency chose to use it there were very specific requirements in State Law to follow which include plenty of advance notice, paying fair market value, and going through relocation; that in the history of the Agency it had never used eminent domain; that the property at 6/14/89 Page 14 PURER H. RErD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LEGAL AiD SOCIETY OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 29~ FULLER STREET REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 TELEPHONE (415) 36,5..8411 Writer's Direct Line: June 14, 1989 363-4386 Roberta C. Teglia Mayor/Chair, Redevelopment Agency City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: Objections to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan and to the Redevelopment Plan. Dear Mayor/Chairwoman Teglia and Members of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency: The following objections are submitted on behalf of South San Francisco senior citizens and families with low and moderate incomes who desperately need affordable housing. The Final Environmental Impact Report is Inadequate. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) purports to analyze the direct and indirect growth inducing effects of planned public redevelopment activities and resulting private redevelopment. It does analyze the dramatic physical changes in land use and increased worker population that are expected, and the cumulative adverse effects that the Redevelopment Plan and other planned development in the City will have on air quality and traffic congestion. Unfortunately, however, the FEIR fails to discuss the low and moderate income displacement and rental housing loss that the projected private redevelopment will cause, even though they are direct and foreseeable consequences of these physical changes. (These negative impacts are discussed in my comments of the Draft EIR of 2/24/89, which is incorporated herein by reference.) As a result, the FEIR is fatally flawed and must be revised. CEQA is not concerned with only physical changes in the environment, as the FEIR and responses to comments on the FEIR suggests. The FEIR must address the social and economic conse- quences of the physical changes caused by the Redevelopment Plan. 6/]4/89 Page ]4a Roberta C. Teglia June 14, 1989 Page 2 Under CEQA, an effect must be found significant if it will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Public Resources Code §21083. In protecting the environment, decision-makers must act consistently with the State goal of providing a decent home and a suitable living environment for all Californians. §21001. CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR assess changes induced in population dis- tribution and concentration and that related social and economic consequences be considered in assessing the significance of physical effects. 14 C.C.R. §§ 15064, 15126, 15131, 15382. While effects may ultimately be found to be insignificant, they cannot be ignored. Citizens For Oualit¥ Growth v. Mount Shasta, (1988) 198 Cal. App. 3d 346, 243 Cal. Rptr. 727; Citizens Assn. v. County of In¥o (1985) 172 Cal. App. 3d 151, 217 Cal. Rptr. 983. In assessing the significance of an environmental effect, both primary and indirect or secondary consequences of these primary effects must be considered. The latter includes conse- quence "which may be several steps removed from the project in the chain of cause and effectS" §15064. The displacement of a large number of people is presumptively a significant effect. C.C.R Appendix G(m). The loss of rental housing is subject to environmental review. Greenbaum v. City of Los Angeles (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 391, 200 Cal. Rptr.1 237. 14 Since low and moderate income displacement and rental housing loss are direct and foreseeable consequences of the land use changes, worker population increase, changes in population distribution and concentration, and other physical impacts of the Redevelopment Plan, they must be considered in assessing the significance of these impacts, needed mitigation and project alternatives. Since the FEIR does not do so, it presents the public with incomplete and inaccurate information about these matters. As a result, they will not be able to make fully informed decisions about the Plan, in contravention of the fundamental purposes of CEQA. In addition, the air quality analysis with respect to both the Plan and its cumulative effects is flawed for similar reasons. Traffic, congestion and resulting pollution is a regional problem caused by job growth in some areas and housing growth in other areas. Therefore, the most significant thing that a locality like South San Francisco can do to address this imbalance is utilize a land use strategy that will mitigate traffic by balancing jobs and affordable housing. A portion of the projected 30,000 new employees in the development induced in the project area by the Redevelopment Plan, and in other cumulative development in the City, will have 6/]4/89 Page ]4b Roberta C. Teglia June 14, 1989 Page 3 incomes in the low to moderate range. To the extent that existing low and moderate income housing in the area is elimina- ted by land use changes due to private redevelopment, or prices are driven beyond the reach of these workers by new employee generated housing demand, they will not be able to live in South San Francisco. Instead, they will have to commute, and thereby aggravate existing air quality problems. In addition, a portion of the iow and moderate income households displaced from the project area by these impacts will have to move to localities further from their places of employment in order to secure affordable housing. Their commute to will be increased and will further negatively impact air quality. Instead of analyzing these impacts, the FEIR merely sets forth a gross comparison of jobs and housing in South San Francisco and San Mateo County. This has little meaning. It should have analyzed the effects of the Plan, the private redevelopment that it will induce, and cumulative development, on affordable housing for current residents and new employees, and especially those with low and moderate incomes. It should analzyze low and moderate income displacement and rental housing loss, pay levels for the projected new jobs, housing prices and rents that the new employees can afford, and then compare this with the housing supply broken down by type, price or rent, and size. It should also discuss the impact of reasonably foreseeable neighboring development in this manner. San Franciscans For Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco, 151 Cal. App. 3d 61, 198 Cal. Rptr. 634. For example, the FEIR for San Bruno's Community Improvement Plan projects that it will generate 10,000 new jobs and lists the foreseeable cumulative development elsewhere in northern San Mateo County. (State Clearinghouse No. 88122007, 5/89, Table 6, which is attached hereto and incor- porated herein, along with the entire FEIR, which is not attached due to its length.) Such information is readily available and must be included in light of its adverse implications for affordable housing for Project area residents, new South San Francisco employees and the resulting need for them to commute and thereby aggravate traffic and air quality impacts. While the cumulative impacts succussion identifies decreased air quality and increased traffic congestion as significant, adverse effects, potential housing mitigation is not discussed at all. No jobs-affordable housing mitigation is proposed. No measures to mitigate low and moderate income displacement and rental housing loss are included. As a result, the~analysis of the Plan's air quality cumulative impacts is inadequate and must be revised. 6/14/89 Page 14c Roberta C. Teglia June 14, 1989 Page 4 The foregoing impacts and mitigation must be addressed even though there are not specific development proposals for the entire project area. Uncertainty about the precise nature of future development does not insulate it from review, although the analysis and mitigation may be of a more general nature in the absence of specific proposals. It is impermissible under CEQA to await specific development proposals and then analyze their impacts and potential mitigation. City of Antioch v. City of Pittsburq (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1328, 232 Cal. Rptr. 507. In view of the foregoing, the FEIR does not fully and accurately analyze the adverse physical impacts that it iden- tifies because it does not analyze the directly related and foreseeable social and economic impacts of low and moderate income displacement and rental housing loss. The air quality analysis with respect to the Plan, its cumulative effects, and the jobs/affordable housing balance is similarly flawed. Mitiga- tion measures and alternatives regarding these impacts are absent. As a result, the FEIR impermissibly understates the Plan's true impacts and thereby undermines the ability of the environmental review process to produced adequate mitigation. CEQA requires that this information be brought to the attention of the public and decision-makers that sound decisions can be make about the Improvement Plan. Consequently, the FEIR should not be approved and must be revised in light of the foregoing. The Project Area Is Not Blighted and Is Not Predominated by Social and Economic Ills. A prerequisite to adopting a redevelopment plan is a finding of blight, Health and Safety Code §33030, §33367, which must satisfy a two-pronged test: (1) the area must constitute a serious social or economic burden on the community, which cannot be alleviated by private enterprise alone, and (2) one or more of the characteristics of blight listed in §33031 or §33032 must exist. The blighting conditions must predominate and must injuriously affect the entire area. The finding must be based upon existing land uses, and not potential alternatives. Blight sufficient to justify redevelopment does not exist unless the statutory characteristics have resulted in serious social and economic ills. Emmin~ton v. Solano County Redevelopment A~encv (1987) 195 Cal. App. 3d 491, 237 Cal Rptr 872. The Report on the Redevelopment Plan concludes that social "maladjustment" is prevalent in the project area, citing the ethnic composition, income and employment levels, and housing conditions in the area. However, the higher concentration of non-whites in the area as compared to the city as a whole does not in and of itself reflect maladjustment. Instead, it may 6/]4/89 Page ]4d Roberta C. Teglia June 14, 1989 Page 5 evidence that the area is better integrated than the City as a whole. The higher concentration of low and moderate income households is not necessarily detrimental either. Low and moderate incomes for a household of four can range up to $32,400 and $51,000, respectively. These levels include the salaries of many occupations that are essential to South San Francisco's vitality (e.g. mid-level managers, City employees, secretaries, etc.) For the same reasons the higher level of blue collar workers, and the lower level of white collar workers, living in the area is also not detrimental. The fact that the project area contains a higher proportion of affordable housing than the City as a whole is a positive factor, given the dire need for such housing in the City. Finally, the area's housing is concentrated in one small portion of the project, and only seventeen percent of that housing needs major rehabilitation of reconstruction. Consequently, social maladjustment does not predominate or injuriously affect the entire area. In addition, even though the area arguably contains some blighting factors, the area's present economic use must have ended in order to justify redevelopment. An area that is marginally profitable does not meet this standard. Sweetwater Valley Civic Assn. v. City of National City (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 270, 133 Cal. Rptr. 589. The Report on the Plan shows that the area's productivity is far from over. Property values, retail sales, and building permits have all increased. The public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report show that it contains many productive businesses. There is no evidence that population is decreasing or that business is leaving and that buildings are vacant. In view of the foregoing, the Downtown/central area is not blighted as defined by the redevelopment law. At the very least, it is marginally profitable and does not constitute a serious social or economic burden on the community. Enhancing the Area's Commercial Desirability Is Not A Proper Basis for Redevelopment. When the principal objectives of a plan are to develop the land profitably, bring in more private enterprise, raise land values, and promote commercial and industrial development, redevelopment is not justified. "[I]t is not sufficient merely to show that the area is not being put to its optimum use, or that the land is more valuable for other uses." Regus vs. City of Baldwin Park (1977) 70 Cal. App. 3d 968, 977-78, 139 Cal. Rptr 196. 6/]4/89 Page 14e Roberta C. Teglia June 14, 1989 Page 6 The Report demonstrates that the Plan's primary purpose is to increase the economic productivity of the Downtown/Central area by promoting commercial development that will increase City revenues and jobs. At least nine of the fifteen goals of the Plan relate to this objective (e.g. develop the area as a financial hub, develop sites with more desirable uses, provide increased tax revenues, and reduce the cost of governmental services, etc.) "Lost opportunity costs", and the City's lagging behind the County-wide growth rate for municipal sales taxes and building permits, are cited as justifications for the Project. Consequently, redevelopment is not justified on this ground as well. ® The Project Does Not Further the Purposes of Redevelopment Law. The proposed use of redevelopment may be examined to determine the validity of the Plan. Sweetwater, supra, 118 Ca1 3d at 28, fn. 6. A fundamental purpose of redevelopment is to expand the supply of low and moderate income housing and employ- ment opportunities for the jobless, underemployed and iow income people. (§33071) A plan's failure to specifically provide for the achievement of these purposes is evidence that the project area is not in fact blighted, particularly when the proposed redevelopment is in reality a master list of expensive public works projects, as they are in the case of the Downtown/Central Plan. In contrast to redevelopment's housing purposes, the Plan's avowed purpose is to set in motion private redevelopment. This in turn, with cumulative development is South San Francisco, will reduce the Iow and moderate income housing supply, as is dis- cussed above regarding CEQA. While monies are available that could be used to expand the housing supply, the City's housing element stresses rehabilitation, which will not provide more housing. The Plan's goals does not include increasing employ- ment opportunities for the groups that redevelopment targets. Instead, the Plan seeks to promote commercial development that requires a higher skilled work force than currently exists. Measures against the above legal principles, the project area is not truly blighted and the proposed redevelopment activities are not designated to fulfill the purposes of redevel- opment. Instead, the Plan seeks to enhance the commercial desirability of an already productive Downtown/central area and to increase revenues to the City. 6/]4/89 Page ]4f Roberta C. Teglia June 14, 1989 Page 7 5o It Has Not Been Demonstrated That The Alleged Blight Cannot Be Eliminated By Private Enterprise ~nd Without The Assistance of RedeveloDment. The Report concludes, without any supporting facts, that private enterprise cannot bear the cost of any of the various public improvements proposed by the Plan. It ignores prior developer agreements to provide extensive public improvements of the type contemplated by the Plan elsewhere in South San Francisco, such as in the nearby Terra Bay development. (The various City approvals for the Terra Bay project are hereby incorporated by reference.) It also ignores alternative funding sources for these improvements, including assessment districts and similar mechanisms available under state law, whereby the costs would be paid by property owners who would benefit from the proposed improvements, and funds from the recent San Mateo County voter approved tax increase for transit purposes. 0 The Redevelopment Agency May Not Waive Any Tax Increment Allocable To It. It has been suggested the the Agency may waive the alloca- tion of tax increment that would have otherwise been distributed to the County of San Mateo or other affected taxing agencies and allow such increment to be disbursed directly to such agencies instead of the Redevelopment Agency. The net effect of such a waiver would be that this increment would not be considered to have been received by the Agency and would not be subject to the 20% set aside into the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. Any such waiver violated the Community Redevelopment Laws. Tenants Were Not Given Leqallv Sufficient Notice of Hearing On The Redevelopment Plan. Owners of property in and adjacent to the Project Area were given personal notice by mail of the various public hearings on the Plan. Tenants in these areas are similarly situated. They have property rights by virtue of their rental agreements. They may be affected by the Project since they may be displaced by Agency or by private development caused by the Project. However, tenants were not given comparable notice by mail or other method equally likely to reach them and apprise them of the hearings and their right to be heard. This disparate treatment is unfounded and a denial of the tenants' rights to due process and equal protection. Scott v. City of Indian Wells, 6 Cal.3d. 541, 99 Cal. Rptr. 745 (1972); Pillsbury v. South Coast Regional Commission, Cal.App.3d. , 139 Cal.Rptr.760 (1972). 6/14/89 Page 14g Roberta C. Teglia June 14, 1989 Page 8 In view of the foregoing, the FEIR and Redevelopment Plan are legally inadequate and cannot be approved. Sincerely, DON BRYANT Attorney for D. Garcia and E. Lipps DB:bc cc: Mr. D. Garcia Miss E. Lipps 6/14/89 Page 14h CITY OF SAN BRUNO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE SAN BRUNO COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AREA PLAN State Clearinghouse No.88122007 May 1989 ! ROBERT M. STEWART ASSOCIATES One Market Plaza 1400 Steuart Tower San Francisco, California 94105 6/]4/89 Page 14i REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT: ~sidentl&l: Points Pacific ]26(C) M~"---~n Mills S* monte Highlands 2~0(C) CG,,,IStofle S(~Jace Saddlebeck Condominiums 228(C) Compass Point 65(C) Blossom Valley Unic 2S ?(S) Victoria Comions ?O(D) Crocker Avenue Subdivision 4(S) st. Francis Subdivision 20(S) South Hills Estates 47(S) Linda Vista l&l! Subdivision l~9(S) Bay Pacific EstaCee 10(S) Silcor Terrace 4(D) Linda Vista Iii Subdivision 201(S) ' mmercial: $erramonCe Ridge Phase Z Phase Pacific Vier Center ?St complete 40% complete 12 unite complete ?Or cosplete Approved 3-24-89 Approved 6-t9-89 Approved 3-2?-87 Prezoninq Approved Tent. Map Approved proposed proposed 120,000-180,OOO sq. ft. of offices, 396 spt.. 55% completed, apartments finished. 150,000-740,000'Sg. ft. of offloes, 175 apt. 43,400 sq. ft. Burgess Honda Addition ~801 Mission Street Mr. Space Storage 6755 Mission Street Home Savings and Loan Vi~Grende Office Building 60,000 sq. ft. 30% complete Se tones Park Plaza ISI,000 sq. ft. approved 86 25,000 sq. ft. approved 2-23- 87 6,LO0 sq. ft., il apt., approved 3-2~-88. 117,255 sq. ft., approved 25-88 5,700 sq. ft., 12 apt., approved 8-8-88. 5,727 sq. ft., approved 88. Hotel Sierra 59 romm hotel, proposed. Gaavhiller industrial ~uilding 12 unit, 19,925 sq. ft. industrial, proposed. Home Sveet Home Expansion 3~907 sq. ft., lO room elderly care facility, proposed. Condouiflium Ouples Single-family-residence Multi-family (apartments) CURRENT AND PROPOSED ~!TY OF SiX HATED Residential: 102 S. Zdaho Gatevay Housing Rotat-~ Hacienda Sterling Court Stratford Commercial: 4060 SO. E1Camzno Marina Plaza ~912 O'Farrell St. 4th & B office 337 So. Norfolk St. 28 North S Street 1850 Gateva¥ El Camino Crossroads Hurley CITY OF PACIFZCA Residential: 2355 Beach End of ~evis ~ane 207 Clifton 512/517 Monterey 750 Odds,ad 36(M) 42(M) 9(C) 12(M) 104(M) 34(M) 541 Montere~ 8(M) S24 Monterey 8(M) Winwood G Waterford 70(S) ?Il Acguello SO(S) Mori Point aD(S) Corner of Sharp Park /College Drive 112(M) ~7OO Skyline IlO(C) Commercial: Mori Point Corner of Sharp Park/Colege Drive IS(M) 15 units-apartments, 98% complete. 96(C) under consCz~Jction. 82(M) senior housing, u~der 150(M) senior housing, proposed. ll?(M) senior housing, proposed. vklla retail, under construction. Retail building, under construction. 3 StOry office building, under construction. $ story off[ce building, proposed. Warehouse, proposed. Resturant, proposeed. 7 story off[ce building, proposed. Retail shopping center, proposed. Warehouse, proposed. apartments, pro)ecl complete. tovnhouses,pro~ect complete. Senior housing, approved. Affordable housing, approved. apartments, approved. apartments, approved. approved. apartments, proposed. tovnhomes, proposed. approved. tO9,O00 sq. Et. industrial 33,000 sq. ft. retail, proposed. 6/]4/89 Page 143 Radar Honueent Shop Northoas~ Ridge 6Oo(s/~) Hitachi Building r. W. Spencer Expo-Tech approved Res~urant, approved 7-X3-68. 0,oeo sq. rt. office space, approved 2-6-89. approved 3-9-89. o~tice/varehouse, approved 11-9-88. TABLE 6 (cent.) Resideflt La I: ZsZand Park e/x/mum buildout Island Park recently submitted application for a single/multi, family unit development. 12 stoz-y office building, completed. multi-tenant office-varehouse building, completed. office/warehouse building, recently approved. Residential: various 220 units proposed. 604 units. 686,000 sq. tr. offices 10,0o0 sq. it. retail 330 room hotel t¢(s) 300 flurchiGon ?2(HI 210 Broadway 6(HI Elder 5(H) Hazel )(M) Milibrae 4(Hi Chadbourne Commercial: 51Millbrae 210 Broadway approved in 1989, various Locations throughout the city. apartment complex, approved. apartments, approved. apartments, approved. approved. townhouses, approved. tovnhouses, approved. 13,372 sq. ft. resturant, approved. 2,298 sq. ft. retail, approved. C - Condominium D - Duplex S ' Sinqle-famil¥-residence H - Hulti-family (apartments) 6/]4/89 Page ]ak Residential: NeqnoL~a $c. Bo~sincJ Cectec Peck Z Tort&bay Tecribsy Village Teccebey Peck Shee~eCec ALids Apt. Gatevay Gaceva¥ Comfort Suites £~&ssy Suites Hampton Znn Oyster Point 8us. Center Oyster Point Village ASSOC. Oyster Point Inn Sheervater Z~lQuinta Motor [hnS & Lyons Rest. Price CLub L2S(M) completed. SO(C) approved. IS(C) approved. 721(#) approved. L68(T) 1 eppco~ed. 12S(S) approved. )O0(C) approved. 38(H) completed. 236,000 sq. ft. high rise office building, completed. 320,000 sq. ft. high rise office building, completed, L67 ro~e hotel, completed. 313 cool hotel & rescucant, completed. I40 room hotel, approved. 260,000 sq. ft. office, sales, phase completed. 450,000 sq. ft. offices, completed. 350,000 sq. ft. vsrehouse, completed. 20,000 sq. rte retail and offices, Zst phase completed. 30 room hotel end resturent, approved, 750 FOOl hotelo 100,00 Sq. ft. convention center, 15,o00 sq. ft. theatre, 1,3L0,875 Sq. ft. ott£ces, 122°ooo sq.[t, retail 74,600 Sq. tr. cestursnC, sXL in various stages , all approved 174 room motel, SOOO sq. ft. rest., CQmpleted. 109,840 sq. ft. commercial buildinq, completed. (cont.) Tecrehay Shopping Center DonaLd Soyranian Creation Ouiidinq GoldiLocXs Cambie Invest. CO. Industrial: No~andy Assoc. Shay Bus. Center 400 room hotel; 286,000 sg. ft. trade center; 'll'~000 iq. ft health oXub; S?.,000 sq. rt. offices, aJ~ approved. 1l. O0 sq. ft. expansion, inder 4,L35 sq. ft. rest., under const. 7.500 sq. ft. comm.b/dq., ~pproved. 6.900 sq. ft. bakery, approved, 74,000 Sq. tr. grocery store 15,000 sq. Ct. retail, approved. 6,000. sq. ft. retail bldq., approved. Richard Dlo~ati Spece Sin I! Grandviev Tech. Business Park Pointe Grand Svinerton & WaLdberq Rich Diodati J[.q Rec. Storage ~ - Condominium O = Ouplex 56,100 sq. ft. ~atehouse, completed. 181,300 sq. ft. varehouse0 office bldg., approved. 200,000 sq. ft. office/industrial, under coflstcuction. 58,840 sq, ft. office/indust., completed. 104,203 sq. ft. offices/vhse., completed. )43,000 sq. ft. office~ ILqht ind., under ~onst. 45,200 sq. ft. office/ind., approved. 36,600 sq. ft. office/vhse., under const. 4 acre vehicle storage yard, approved. Single-family-residence (apartments) 6/14/89 Page 141- PUBLIC HEARINGS 18. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 12. Report from the Planning Commission in relation to the request from the Club Park Committee to ~ Country oppose the care facility at 201 Alta Vista Drive; Resolution in support of the opposition of the facility. A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE PROPOSED FIFTEEN (15) BEDROOM CARE FACILITY AT 201 ALTA VISTA DRIVE (SAN MATEO COUNTY USE PERMIT UP-89-5) PUBLIC HEARINGS Oyster Point Blvd. and the railroad tracks was within the Shearwater Redevelopment Project and would have a portion of the overcrossing facilities; the roadway past the motel on Airport is within the City limits of Brisbane and the land itself outside the roadway was in the S.S.F. City limits; that the suggestion to put notices in Spanish speaking newspapers was a very good one. Chairwoman/Mayor Teglia stated that it would be better to target the Spanish speaking tenants and homeowners, rather than using the newspapers with their very wide circulation. She stated that the written questions would be responded to prior to the next meeting. She then closed the Joint Public Hearing, and continued the item to the 6/28/89 meeting. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Planning Director Smith read the staff report which recited the background of the request from the Country Club Park Committee to oppose the care facility at 201 Alta Vista Drive (a copy of the report is on permanent file in the City Clerk's Office). Mr. Ron Brown, 217 Country Club Dr., spoke in favor of the resolution and against the use on behalf of the Country Club Committee and residents. He stated that as people they were not opposed to care facilities. He stated that Country Club Park was an island community located in South San Francisco and was governed and regulated by San Mateo County. He stated that over the years the residents had worked with the City to develop a rural estates zone which would go into effect if Country Club Park was annexed into this City. He stated that if they 6/14/89 Page 15 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 12. Resolution - Continued. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS had already annexed into South San Francisco he believed the rural estates zoning would protect the residents on this issue, rather than being at the mercy of the County with their imposed saturation of churches in the area. He urged support from the Council against this use and maintain the rural residen- tial character of Country Club Park, and help stop any more intrusion of these kinds of uses in the neighborhood. Mr. Bob Vasquez stated that he repre- sented the owner, who wanted this use approved for a home for the elderly, which was consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. He felt that the area should be annexed to the City, and looked forward to assisting with drainage problems in the area. He felt that this use was consistent with a rural zone - a quiet home for the frail and elderly which would enhance the neigh- borhood. He urged the Council to support this use at the corner of Alida and Alta Vista Drive, and would submit copies of the site plan and elevations for suggestions to enhance its rural character. Mr. Pat Nobis, 616 Larch Ave., stated that he owned and operated 3 residential care facilities for the elderly, two in San Francisco and one in South San Francisco. He stated that a year ago he had purchased a home at 505 Palm Ave. and had considerable concern from the neigh- borhood over the use. He stated that he had responded to the complaints, and today the residents know that the use is an enhancement to the neighborhood. He spoke in great detail on the need for these homes because the elderly were the fastest growing population in the United States. 6/14/89 Page 16 /~. AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 12. Resolution - Continued. (Cassette No. 3) ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Mr. Andy Rodondi, 623 Miller Ave., spoke on behalf of the elderly and their need for dignity in their later years in a residential care facility that was well regulated by the State. Mr. Lou Dell'Angela, Urban Planner, stated that he represented the Country Club Park Committee. He stated that the care facilities that Mr. Vasquez spoke of in South San Francisco were six bed faci- lities that were allowed in R-2 and R-3 zones - which was not the case in Country Club Park, wherein the facility would be for 15 beds. He stated that Country Club Park was surrounded by South San Francisco, and would be impacted by traffic coming and going from the proposed care facility. He asked the Council to honor and protect the rural zoning of the area, and adopt the Resolution. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that he was not apathetic to the use, but was emphatic after listening to the com- pelling and interesting testimony tonight. He stated that the problem lay in jurisdiction - which did not rest with the City. Mayor Teglia asked if she had a conflict of interest due to the fact that there was a care facility on her street, however, she did not have any financial interest in the home. City Attorney Armento stated that there was not a conflict of interest for the Mayo r. Councilman Addiego questioned what the negative impacts would be from the pro- posed facility, because to just say the residents were opposed to institutional uses - was not enough of an argument. Vice Mayor Haffey stated that there was 6/14/89 Page 17 A G E N D A A C T I O N T A K E N ?` ~.~ ..... ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 12. Resolution - Continued. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS an emotional appeal to Council hearts to support his because it was for seniors, and if the Council does not support it - it is against seniors. He stated that the City had done a great deal in support of seniors, including agenda item #14, wherein the City was going to borrow over $500,000.00 to complete the Magnolia Senior Center Adult Day Care Center. He stated that it was obvious to him that this use does conflict with the rural estates zone. He stated that if the operator wanted to come into that area, he certainly could do that with a six bed facility or less, but they were choosing to have a 15 bed room facility that would have more of an impact than a six bed facility. He stated that it was a business use in a rural estates zone, which the Council had prezoned because of the fear of the resi- dents and the surrounding neighborhoods in both Brentwood and Avalon for the kinds of development that the County would be looking towards, etc. Discussion followed: size of the proper- ty; number of rooms; what remodeling was planned; how the place was going to be run; that the site was an acre in size; with four clusters of rooms; with 15 individual rooms; that the present struc- ture was Spanish adobe with 700 sq. ft.; when completed it would be 5,000 sq. ft.; that only two issues were being addressed by the Council, etc. M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adopt the Resolution. Mayor Te§lia stated that the County was being very insensitive to the residents, and she did not have a problem with the 6 bed facility near her home. She stated that she did not feel that the 15 bed facility would be intrusive to Country Club Park, and felt that the County should put some restrictions on the use permit so that down the road the use can 6/14/89 Page 18 ....... ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 12. Resolution - Continued. 13. Status Report concerning Terrabay. _, 14. Resolution authorizing execution of documents pertaining to the ~,o0(~ California Health Facilities Financial Authority Revenue Bonds for construction of an Adult Day ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS not change. Councilman Addiego agreed with the Mayo r. Motion and Second failed by the following roll call vote: Councilman Nicolopulos and Vice Mayor Halley voted yes; Councilman Addiego and Mayor Teglia voted no. Vice Mayor Halley requested that the item be reagendized at the next meeting for consideration by the full Council. City Manager Armas related that he had talked to the Colonel in charge of the U.S. Corps. of Engrs. this afternoon, and had been advised that a decision had not been made as to whether wetlands exist or whether the Corps. had jurisdiction. He stated that yesterday a Corps. staff member was at the site conducting some field observations which will be eva- luated within the next day or so, and a decision was anticipated by Friday. Mr. Dan Shattuc, 907 W. Cardinel Dr., Sunnyvale, recited the history and background of wetlands, and expressed his concern over their loss throughout the State and the Corps. of Engrs. being responsible for same. He stated that he suspicioned that the grading had removed evidence of wetlands on the South Slope of San Bruno Mountain Terrabay Project, and was concerned with the procedural process. Mayor Teglia stated that the Council needed a formal determination from the Corps. of Engrs. before any action would be taken. Director of Recreation & Community Services Jewell explained that adoption of the Resolution would facilitate the processing of the loan. 6/14/89 Page 19 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 14. Resolution - Continued. Care Facility at Magnolia Senior Center. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH FACILITIES FINANCING AUTHORITY REVENUE BONDS (MAGNOLIA SENIOR CENTER) 15. Abatement of abandoned sign at 1045 Airport Boulevard; Resolution declaring the sign a public ~) nuisance, calling for its abate- ment, and scheduling a Public Hearing for 7/12/89. A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE ON- PREMISES ADVERTISING DISPLAY AT 1045 AIRPORT BOULEVARD TO BE ILLEGAL, AND CALLING FOR ITS ABATEMENT AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE 16. Resolution authorizing issuance of bonds; Resolution awarding sale of bonds; Resolution awarding construction contract for the E1 Camino Plaza Assessment District to James Chalmers in the amount of $415,180 as the lowest responsible ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 75-89 Carried by unanimous voice vote. Mayor Teglia announced the retirement of Chief Building Inspector Wittwer, and complimented him on his service to the City. Chief Building Inspector Wittwer recited the history of the public nuisance, the unsuccessful attempts to contact the owner to abate the nuisance, and the necessity for adoption of the Resolution to set the abatement process in motion. Mayor Teglia questioned if the City had exercised all legal proceedings to con- tact the owner to abate the nuisance. City Attorney Armento replied in the affi rmatived. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned why staff had not taken action before this when the sign had been empty since March of 1987. M/S Haffey/Addiego - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 76-89 Carried by unanimous voice vote. Acting Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Wong cited the background information on this Assessment District which had led to the actions to be taken tonight to award the bonds which had come in under low bid. 6/14/89 Page 20 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ~ AOMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 16. Resolutions - Continued. bidder. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF THE SERIES 1989-A IMPROVEMENT BONDS FOR THE EL CAMINO PLAZA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BOND PURCHASE OFFER FOR THE SERIES 1989-A IMPROVEMENT BONDS FOR THE EL CAMINO PLAZA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF THE SERIES 1989-B IMPROVEMENT BONDS FOR THE EL CAMINO PLAZA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE EL CAMINO PLAZA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS 17. Motion to waive reading and intro- duce the ordinance on curbside recycling. AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 8.28 TO TITLE 8 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM FOR THE COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adopt the Resolution on the issuance of Series 1989-A Improvement Bonds. RESOLUTION NO. 77-89 Carried by unanimous roll call vote. M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adopt the Resolution accepting the bond purchase offer. RESOLUTION NO. 78-89 Carried by unanimous roll call vote. M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adopt the Resolution authorizing issuance of the bonds. RESOLUTION NO. 79-89 Carried by unanimous roll call vote. M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 80-89 Carried by unanimous roll call vote. LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS City Manager Armas stated that this ordi- nance would serve as the enabling legislation to develop and provide for regulation of recycling programs. He spoke in detail of the County Solid Waste Management Plan that dealt with the waste generated in San Mateo County, and the decreasing amount of landfills and need for the ordinance to provide a mechanism for a recycling program. He stated that at the next meeting a pro- posal from the Scavenger Co. would be submitted for a curbside recycling program which included rates. He stated that the Council subcommittee had reviewed and approved the proposal. 6/14/89 Page 21 A G E N D A A C T I O N T A K E N .,~ --- LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS 17. Motion - Continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS 18. Joint Public Hearing - To consider proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project. Conduct Public Hearing; continue the item to the 6/28/89 meeting. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL GOOD AND WELFARE ADJOURNMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING: ADJOURNMENT: CLOSED SESSION 19. Closed Session for the purpose of discussion of personnel matters, labor relations, property nego- tiations and litigation. LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To waive reading and introduce the ordinance. Carried by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing held and closed, and con- tinued to the 6/28/89 meeting. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL No one chose to speak. GOOD AND WELFARE Mr. James Elmore, 1051 Airport Blvd., related the following: that it had taken seven months to get a use permit; that 15 people had approved it in seven months; that he had cut down the fence that had been earlier approved; questioned if the Council's word was good; etc. Mayor Teglia stated that the Council's word was good, and that Mr. Elmore should not feel that he was being singled out. M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adjourn the Redevelopment meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment was 11:56 p.m. CLOSED SESSION Council chose not to hold a Closed Session. 6/14/89 Page 22 A G E N D A A C T I 0 N T A K E N ~.'i:L,~J~ Motion to adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, 6/21/89, 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Conference Room, City Hall, for the purpose of: request from the Chamber of Commerce for a waiver of fees for the use of the Social Hall in the MSB for their annual Gourmet Deli event to be held Tues., 9/12/89; and a study session on the Budget. ADJOURNMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING: M/S Nicolopulos/Addiego - To adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, 6/21/89, 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Conference Room, City Hall, for the purposes stated. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment was 11:57 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED , ~atta~ya~ City of South San Francisco VJ~bberta Cedi Teglia,~M~or JCity of South San Fran6lsco The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose of an item. Oral communications, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape and documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for inspection, review and copying. 6/14/89 Page 23