Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1991-03-20 Mayor Jack Drago Council: Richard A. Haffey Gus Nicolopulos ~John R. Penna ' Roberta Cerri Teglia AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) ROLL CALL: Closed session for the purpose of discussion of personnel matters, labor relations, property nego- tiations and litigation. Councilman Penna joined the Meeting. ---RECALLED TO ORDER: 2. E1 Camino Real Corridor Study. MINUTES City Council City Council Conference Room City Hal 1 March 20, 1991 ACTION TAKEN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 4:08 p.m. Mayor Drago presiding. Council present: Council absent: Haffey, Nicolopulos, Teglia, and Drago. Penna. Council adjourned to a Closed Session at 4:08 p.m. and conducted the meeting at the Radisson Inn Executive Room to discuss the items mentioned. Councilman Penna joined the Closed Session at 4:20 p.m. Mayor Drago recalled the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m., all of Council present with the exception of Councilman Haffey no action was taken. Director of Economic & Community Development Costello presented her staff report with action options on the E1 Camino Corridor: 1) direct staff to con- tinue the E1Camino Corridor Area Plan; 2) Adopt policy to require additional information for developments in the E1 Camino Corridor while the Area Plan is being prepared. Discussion followed: that the use permit process allows the City to review all projects; for staff to proceed with the Area Plan; that all applications on vacant land will come to the Council; a proposed use must be consistent with City plans so as to not create another Westborough; that each use should be looked at on a case by case basis; that the key issue was BART, and until it was completed the property owners would not know how it would affect their proper- ties; why staff could not do the Area Plan instead of hiring a consultant; 3/20/91 Page I AGENDA E1 Camino - Continued. Councilman Penna Left the Podium: Priorities for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project. ~o~i ACTION TAKEN whether the study could be done rather quickly; that a pending application called for a more intense residential use close to BART; that development would not be stopped in the corridor; that BART would submit their engineering analysis for the roadway at grade for the station, and would describe the impacts of a Chestnut Station; the burden was on the City to prove that another location was cost effective; undergrounding the sta- tion; in July information would be available from BART on the two stations, the traffic impacts and the economic impacts on the land area; a stipulation that there would not be a moratorium; that the applications in process would be processed; Council wanted to see the applicants within two weeks of the Planning Commission review; that there were only two applicants, Jiffy Lube and the 94 unit condo, etc. Councilman Penna left the podium at 8:00 p.m., and did not take part in any discussion or action taken by the Council on Item 2. Director of Economic & Community Development Costello stated that the priority listing was lengthy, however, she would respond to any questions, and noted that the lawsuit had been settled. She spoke in depth on: the actual tax increment being lower than the projec- tions; there was insufficient tax incre- ment revenue to issue bonds until 1995-1996; there would not be enough money to spend in the next couple of years; having money for a parking struc- ture and street improvements; strategy was to increase the tax base; a retail parking structure and its three options; revenue a parking/retail structure would produce; that parking structures do not increase the tax structures, etc. Discussion followed: Vice Mayor Nicolopulos felt that this had started as an in-house study, and when the con- 3/20/91 Page 2 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ~3. Priorities - Continued. --~Councilman Penna Returned to the Podium: sultants were brought in they had made it very costly and killed the joy of pursuing it further; he related that ori- ginally there had been a retail use that would utilize 20,000 sq. ft. for retail below the parking; having a public/ private venture; that parking and retail uses were feasible; acquiring the E&B Motel; that the State was going to take some of the E&B Motel land for the Oyster Point Overcrossing; that the residents had to be relocated; that regardless of what level of funding was used for the parking structure, it would require a subsidy; negotiations for more land by the Price Club; for staff to find some creative financing; Caltrans guidelines require the residents to be relocated; redevelopment could not fund the retro- fitting of City Hall; revolving loan fund to help businesses expand and improve business; if Caltrans property becomes available - the City should buy it; letting the redevelopment increment fund build; using low and moderate funds to improve commercial property with residential units above, like the Sundial, etc. Consensus of Council - To approve the proposed priorities. Mr. Dell'Angela felt that the public should be involved in this prioritizing. He stated that he had a problem with the City giving the Price Club redevelopment funds, and it was a fact that the Overpass Project depended on the Shearwater Project. He felt that the redevelopment project belonged to everyone, and he did not think the Price Club recommendation was clear. City Manager Armas stated that it would be on the next agenda with options in the redevelopment budget. Councilman Penna returned to the podium at 9:00 p.m. 3/20/91 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 4. Redevelopment Housing Fund Program. Senate Bill 226. Chief Planner Solomon spoke of the 2/23/90 Settlement Agreement between the SSF Housing Action Committee and the City of SSF with respect to housing needs of low and moderate income persons as chro- nicled in his report. Discussion followed: staff directed to investigate the Community Reinvestment Act; that banks are mandated to reinvest money back into the community; that programs with banks charge 3% to reinvest in the community; how passively or aggressively should the City pursue low and moderate income housing; that subsidy programs work better with leasing, such as San Francisco' South Beach with its 120 units to the area; develop land as the City had for Magnolia Center; that residential hotels for seniors needed help to get rid of their shabbiness; the City's three mobile home parks should be modernized - maybe do a pilot program and subsidize; that a private property owner had to agree to keep the units affordable; staff should identify areas that could handle higher density; that the R-3 area of Orange/Railroad/Airport/ Hillside Blvd. was degenerating and should be improved; that people did not want higher density, and Willow and Grand was the catalyst; staff should study and include parking and infrastructure; the restriction of 35 years of maintaining low income rentals; staff to develope a village concept and focus on the area of Linden and Airport; look at major transportation corridors, etc. Mayor Drago read a letter into the record from Director of SFIA Turpen, dated 3/10/91, on the City's endorsement of SB 226 (a copy of the letter is attached and a permanent part of the record of this meeting). He asked if the Council wanted the letter agendized for a meeting. Discussion followed: that Mr. Turpin could use the City's action against it; hate to be extorted; that Senator Kopp 3/20/91 Page 4 Airports Corxmlsslon City and County of San Francisco Art Agno$ '"'""'~or , ris Bernstein President [)[ ZL1 Goosby Vice President Sharon B. Duvatl Patrick A. Murphy J. Stanley Mattison Louis A. Turpen Director of Airports San Francisco International Airport GATEWAY TO THE PACIFIC March 20, 1991 Honorable Jack Drago Nayor City of South San Francisco Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Nayor Drago: As a follow-up to our conversation today, I understand that the City Council of South San Francisco has taken a position in favor of S.B. 226. I had hoped to either be personally present or have a representative present to explain to the Council why this legislation is not in the best interest of the Peninsula community. Unfortunately, that offer (made at the Airport/Community Roundtable) was made in the absence of your representative. I am concerned that the Council acted without full understanding of the issues spawned by this legislation. Let me begin by saying, the Airports Commission on March 19th voted unanimously to oppose this legislation. Their reasons were two: SFIA has since 1983 enjoyed immunity from noise nuisance lawsuits under federal law and . Although this bill offers nothing to the Airport, it appears to pave the way for residential development along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay, north of the Airport, directly under the "Shoreline Departure", a noise mitigation flightpath with which I know your City is most familiar.The Commission is sensitive to the potential for rerouting aircraft to the Gap Departure if, in fact, homes are constructed under the Shoreline Departure -- a situation which clearly would not serve the people of South San Francisco· 3/20/91 Page 4a SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94128. TELEPHONE (415) 761-0800. FAX (415) 878-7875 Hon. Jack Orago -2- Narch 20, 1991 We have worked for years to maximize the use of the Shoreline. Every single airplane that takes the Shoreline is one less airplane which flies over South San Francisco. I can say with certainty that pilots prefer a straight-out departure through the Gap as opposed to the Shoreline and, if there is a residential impact regardless of route, I am sure pilots would elect the more traditional Gap departure. The position of your City Council has created a dilemma for me. As you know, South San Francisco and the Airport were pioneers in the home insulation program. The vote by your Council would suggest that the Council endorses residential development under the Shoreline Departure. On the other hand, I know your Council endorses an active noise insulation program to mitigate against the impact of overflight. I cannot, in good conscience, continue to recommend to the Airports Commission the expenditure of significant sums of money for home insulation, particularly in a community where the policy would appear to be the encouragement of residential development under flight paths. I recognize the pressures on municipalities to increase revenues and enhance the tax base and am sympathetic to the dilemmas many of our communities face in the regard. However, I have a definite obligation to insure that all of our resources go to support noise mitigation whenever possible. I am prepared to, either personally or through a member of my staff, share our concerns with your City Council. Unfortunately, miscommunication may have caused the Council to go forward thinking the Airport was in support of this legislation. I can tell you most emphatically, we are not. ~1 er I , ~rpen Oirector of Airports cc: Airports Commission 0167 3/20/91 Page 4b AIRPORTS COMMISSION CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO RESOLUTION NO. SI--OO :~ 4 WHEREAS, State Sen&tor-Qqentin Kopp has Introduced SB 226. & bm which creates & framework for local communities and developers to requi~,e a~.tion: easements from the owners of newly developed residential property neat an airport, and WHEREAS. SB 226 wou~.~ not offer San Francisco International Airport any greater protection from noise lawsuits than that which the Airport now has under federal law, and WHEREAS, this bUl appg.~a~s to encourase the development of a new residen~al, cpp~u~,tmity north of San Francisco International Airport and directly beneath an active noise mitigation flight path, and WHEREAS. said development would create a new residential noise constituency, now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that since SB 226 provides San Francisco International Airport with no greater legal protection than that which it has under federal law. this Commission finds it to be redundant and unnecessary, and, be it further RESOLVED. that since SB 226 could result In a new residential noise constituency, this Commission does hereby oppose enactment of SB 226. I hereby certify that the foregoillg resofittion was adopted by the Airports Co,,t.tissio. at its meeti.g of AGENDA ACTION TAKEN had amended the bill twice to satisfy concerns; the Council made a motion of support and should not change its posi- tion; not changing the City's position could jeopardize the 20% insulation funds; to agendize and invite Mr. Turpen and Senator Kopp for the next meeting. M/S Nicolopulos/Teglia - To adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, 3/27/91, 6:30 p.m., Municipal Services Building Community Room for a Closed Session. Carried by unanimous voice vote. ADJOURNMENT: Time of adjournment was 10:15 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ~aya, Ci~ City of South San Francisco APPROVED.~ ~ /~Drago, M~ (._Ayof South Sa~/Francisco .-_The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose of an item. Oral communications, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape ~and documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are ~available for inspection, review and copying. 3/20/91 Page 5