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