Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Minutes 1989-06-14Chairwoman Roberta Cerri Te§lia M I N U T E S Boardmembers: Mark N. Addiego Redevelopment Agency Jack Drago Richard A. Haffey Municipal Services Building Gus Nicolopulos Community Room June 14, 1989 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) 7:37 p.m. Chairwoman Teglia presiding. ROLL CALL: Boardmembers present: Addiego, Haffey, Nicolopulos, and Teglia. Boa rdmembe rs absent: Drago. Clerk Battaya announced that Boardmember Drago was on vacation, and would not be in attendance. AGENDA REVIEW AGENDA REVIEW Executive Director Armas stated that he had nothing to add or delete from the Agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 5/24/89. Approved. 2. Approval of the Regular Bills of ~do~ Approved. 6/14/89. M/S Addiego/Haffey - To approve the Consent Calendar. Carried by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING 3. Joint Public Hearin9 - To consider proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project. Conduct Public Hearing; continue Chairwoman Teglia opened the Public the item to the the 6/28/89 Hearing. meeting. RECESS: Chairwoman Teglia recessed the meeting until the Joint Public Hearing during the Council meeting. The time of the recess was 7:39 p.m. 6/14/89 Page i PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Joint Public Hearin9 - Continued. 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/ 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 6/14/89 Page 3 I · AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Joint Public Hearin9 - Continued. 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 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 (Cassette No. 2) 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. 6/14/89 Page 4 Page 4a PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. 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 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 6/14/89 Page 5 ,,,w RECEIVED DAVID P. UCCELLI SUITE 700 :520 EL CAMINO REAL · SAN MATEO. CALIF~qiA~2q~'20 ~8 a (415) 579-1100 FiCE OF FRANC CO 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 Proiect 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: Portion Proposed For Proiect Funding Estimated Total Cost Amount Percent Area 6a: 1. Increase capacity of sewer lines. 1,200,000 85,000 7% 2. Improve sanitary sewer pump for area. 198,000 49,400 30% 6/14/89 Page 5a I · O289 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, ~he Haskins' property which consists of unimproved land. Table III-l, at page 9, 3 items appear: Portion Proposed For project Fundtna Estimated Total Cost Amount percent Area 6a: 1. 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 be 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 5b I · 0290 South San Francisco City Council -- Re: Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project June 13, 1989 Page Three property in question. In summary, 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 mTrailhead 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. cc: Guido J. Rozzi, Executor 6/14/89 Page 5c 0291 )LYMPIAN OIL COMPANY s MICHELE COU~ ' ~H ~ ~CI~O, ~~ ~~7 ~1~ (415) 87~2~ ' (~) ~2~1~ · TEL~ 171513 ~ODtO oAH Senior Vice President Fiance June 12, 1989 1136FIN 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 Exhibit "C" of the Redevelopment Plan to construct the North Canal Street Overcrossing Project between South l.inden Avenue and Produce/San Mateo Avenue.  nl~eage 4.1-25 of the Draft Environmental I~. paa..Re, port, your own traffic consultant, Fehr ers 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 this 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 llnden Avenue. This costly and unnecessary project should be deleted from the Redevelopment Plan before this Plan is ~.pi}roved I/y the Ci~. Our second concern with the Redevelopment Plan deals with the additional building and land use restrictions which will be imposed 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 ob/ah 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 assurances from you that our current development and improvment fights 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 5d I 0292 Page Two June 12, 1989 Olympian Oil is a long-established business in South San Francisco. Presen_t!y, we feel .threatened by this new Project We do not want the North Canal Overa'ossing Project hanging over our heads nor do we want our current property fights adversely affected by this newRidevelopment Plan and Project. Very Truly Yours, OLYIV[P~ OIL COMPANY George N. Chammas Sr. Vice President - Finance GNC/jh 6/14/89 Page 50 [ SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND UF?LY 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, tn 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 rvlagnolia 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. 6/14/89 Page 5f 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 El 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 5g ^GE,O^ ^CT ON T^KEN 0295 -. - PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. 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 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. RECESS: Chairwoman/Mayor Teglia recessed the Joint meeting at 9:33 p.m. RECALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman/Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to order at 9:56 p.m., all Council and Agency Boa rdmembe rs 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 6/14/89 Page 6 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0296 PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. 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. 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 6/14/89 Page 7 I i 0297 LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SAN MATEO COUNTY PETER H. RF. ID ~ FULLER STREET EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 T£1~PHON; (4~) ae~-~-84H Writer's Direct Line: 363-4386 June 14, 1989 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. 1. 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 7a 0298 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 Ouality 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 effect." §15064. The displacement of a large number of people is presumptively a significant effect. 14 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. 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 6/14/89 Page 7b 0299 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 low 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 Iow 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/]4/89 Page 7c I II 0300 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 Pittsburg (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. 2. 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. Emmington v. Solano County Redevelopment Agency (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 7d 0301 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. 3. Enhancing the Area's Commercial Desirability Is Not A Proper Basis for RedeveloDment. 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." Requs vs. City of Baldwin Park (1977) 70 Cal. App. 3d 968, 977-78, 139 Cal. Rptr 196. 6/] 4/89 Pa§e 7e oao 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. 4. 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 Cal 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 low 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 low 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 7f 0303 Roberta C. Teglia June 14, 1989 Page 7 5. It Has Not Been Demonstrated That The Alleged Blight Cannot Be Eliminated By Private EnterDrise And Without The Assistance of Redevelopment. 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. 6. The Redevelopment A~ency May Not Waive ~ny 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. 7. Tenants Were Not Given Legally 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/]4/89 Page 7g { {{ 0204 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/]4/89 Page 7h 0305 CITY OF SAN BRUNO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE SAN BRUNO COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT State Clearinghouse No.88122007 May 1989 ROBERT M. STEWART ASSOCIATES One Market Plaza 1400 Steuart Tower San Francisco, California 94105 6/]4/89 Page 7i { {{ REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT: CURRENT AND PROPOSED :TY OF DAL, CITY CITY DP SA~ ~ATZO ~sidehtial: Residential: Pointe~ Pacific 326(C) 75% complete 102 S. Idaho IS(M} M on Hills 259(C) 40% complete complete. S, monte Hiqhlefldm 210(C) 62 unite complete Ge~ewe¥ Houeir~j 96(C1 under construction. Cugu~estone S~ate 7~(S) ~0t complete nota~ Hacie~a 82(.) senior houBing, u~et ~addle~ac~ Condominiums 228(C) 35t c~mple~e cons~ruction. Compass Point 65(C) Approved 3-24-89 Sterling Court 150(H) senior housing, pFoposed. Blossom Valley Unit 2B 7(S) Approved 6-19-89 S~Fatford llT(H) Sefl~or housing, ptopoled. ViC:Dele Commons ?0(D) Approved 3-27-87 Commercial: CFocker Avenue Subd~visLo~ 4(S) under 4060 So. E1 reminD Villa retail, undet construction. ~t. Francis Su~ivision 20(S) Hap Approved 2-22-88 Marina Plaza Retail building, undeF South Hills Estates 47(S) P~ezonlng Approved cons:ruction. Glnda Vista l&II Su~ivisLon 1~9(S) Ten:. Hap Approved L912 O'Farrell St. 3 story office building, under O4y Pacific Es~a:es 10(S) under constructioa cons:ruction. Silcor Terrace 4(D) proposed 4th & B Office 5 s:ory office building, pcoposed. Linde Vista ~I Su~ivision 20~(S) ' proposed 337 So. Norfolk st. Warehouse, proposed. 28 Horth B Street Restura~c, proposeed. :erramomte Ridge Phase I 120,000-180,000 sq. ft. of ~850 Gatevay 7 story o~ftce build~nq, p~oposed. o~f~ces, 396 apt.. El Cam~no C=ossFoads Retail shopping center, proposed. completed, apartments Hurley Warehouse, propose. finished. Phase II 150,000-740,000sq. ft. of CITY OF PACIFICA offices, 175 apt. Residential: Pacific Vie~ Center 43,400 sq. ft. 2355 Beach 3&(M) apartments, pro)act compAete. End of ~is ~ne 42(M) apartments, under comet. vi" 'Grande Office Building &o,000 sq. ft. 30% complete 207 Clifton 9(C) to~nhouses,pro)ect complete. Se ~onte Park Plaza 151,000 sq. ft. approved 8-25- 86 512/517 Monterey 12(N) apartments, under const. 750 ~dstad ~Oa(M) Senior housing, approved. Burgess Honda Addition 25,000 sq. ft. approved 2-23- 87 34(H) Affo[dab[e housing, approved. ~80~ Mission Street 6,~00 sq. ft., ~ apt., 54~ Montere~ 8(M) apartments, approved. approved 3-28-88. 524 Monterey 8(M) apartments, approved. ~r. Space Sto~aqe ~1$,255 sq. ft., approved 1- Winvo~ & Waterford 70(S) under construction. 25-88 7~ Arquello 50(S) under construction. &755 Mission Street 5,700 sq. ft., 12 apt., Mori Point 60(S) approved. approved 8-8-88. Corner of Sharp Park Home Savin~5 and ~an 5,727 sq. ft., approved 4-25- /College Drive Zl2(H) apartments, proposed. 88. .2700 Skyline IlO(C) tovnhomes, pro~sed. Hotel Sierra 59 romm hotel, proposed. Co~rcial: Gaevhil~ec Industrial Ouildinq 12 unit, ~9,925 sq. ft. Mori Point Hotel, Conference Center, and Resturant, industriaZ, proposed, approve. IIome S~eet Home Expansion 3,907 sq. ft., ~0 room elderly Corner of Sharp care facility, proposed. Park/Colege Drive 109,o00 sq. ft. industrial 33,000 sq. ft. retail, pro~sed. C - Condominium D - ~plex S - Single-family-residence "' Multi-family (apartments) 6/]4/89 Page 7j TABLE 6 (cont. OP COI~h CI?Y OP BEU~Old? Nildabrand t3(M! approved 2-4-~8. t. 3ra~ ~.lOO sq. f~. oe[lce s~ce. Co~rciat: approved 2-8-69. Island Park 686,000 sq. ~. offices Radar Koflumeflt Shop ~pproved 2-9-89. 10,000 ~ca office/~arehouse, approved 11-9-~8. Residential: Residential: Northeast Ridge 6GO(S/N) recently submitted application various 14(s) ~pprov~d in 1989, varies got · single/multi. unit development, 100 ~urchison 7Z(~} apartment complex, approved. ~o~ercial: 210 Broadv4y 6(H) apartments, approved. co=pieced. Hazel 1(~) approved. F. W. S~ncet Ouildin9 multi-tenant of Cice-varehouse Hillbrae 4(N) tovnhouses, approved. buildinq, completed. Chad~urne 21~) tovnhouses, 4pprov~. approved. 51Nillbrae 11,172~. [~. restura~t, approX. 210 Broadvay 2,298 ~. ft. retail, approve. Condominium Single-family-residence Multi-family (apartments) -- 6/14/89 i Page 7k : ,,: I (cont.) ResidentiaL: ~aqnolia Sr. Houeinc/ L~S(M) completed. ?ecraha¥ 400 room hotel; carter Park ! SO(C) approved. 286,000 sq. ft. trade center: Tart&bay ?2l(g) approved. 'll'~000 sq. Zt health club; ?errab&y VLZZa~e ~68(?), apprOved. S~,000 sq. ~. of~L~ee, aZ~ Approved. Terrabay PaF~ 12S(S) approve. James Rusher Shea~aCeF 300(C) approved. ~LflsCon A~ida Ap~. 38(~) compZeC~. Shopp~nq Cen~er ~,00 sq. ~C. expans~ofl, iflder Gatevay 236,000 sq. ft. high rise office Denny's Restu~ant 4,135 Sq. ft. res%., under Coffer. buiZd[nq, Completed. Donald Soyranian ~,600 sq. ft. office b[dq., undo~ comet. Gatevay 320,000 sq. ft. hiqh ~ise office Croatton Bu[Ldinq 7,500 sq. ft. comm.bldq., approved. bu~ldi~, comp~eted. Go~di[oc~5 6,900 sq. ft. bakery, approved. Comfort Suites 167 r~m hote%, Colp~lted. Pek ' g Save 74,000 sq. ft. qroGery Sto~e E~assy Suites 313 r~m hote~ & re~tu[ant, completed. 15,000 sq. ft. retail, approved. Hampton ~nfl ~40 room hotel, approved, ramble Znves~. Co. 6,000. sq. ft. retak~ ~Zdq., approved. Gatevay Bus. Park 260,000 sq. ft. Office, sales, phase Z Zndustrial: completed. Ho~andy Assoc. 56,100 sq. Oyster Point Bus. Shay Bus. Center 18~,300 sq. Center 450,000 sq. ft. Offices, completed, approve. 350,000 sq. ft. varehouse, comp[ete~. Richard Di~ati 200,000 sq. ft. office/industrial, under Viliaqe Ass~. 20,0~ ~. ft. retail and offices, Let Space Stn Il S8,840 sq. ft. offLce/ifldust., phase completed, completed. oyster Point Inn 30 r~m hotel a~ Festurant, approved. G~a~viev Tach. ~00,00 sq. ~t. convention center, .' B~siness Pack ~04,203 sq. ~. o~rices/vhse., iS,ooo sq.~t, theatre, completed. ~22,0Q0 sq.~t, retail Business Pa~ 3~,000 sta~es , ail approved Svinezton & ~Quinca Motor Wa~dbeFq 4~.200 sq. ft. office/ind., approved. Inns & ~yon5 Rest. ~74 ~m mote~, 5OOO sq. ft. ~est., Rich Di~at~ 36,600 sq. ft. office/vhse., under complete, comet. P~ice CLub 109,840 sq. f~. comrciaA buiZdi~, ~ Rec. Storaqe 4 acre vehicle sCoraqe yar~, ~ppFoved. compZet~. ~ - Condominium O ~ ~pZex M ' MuZ~i-fam~Zy (apa~C~nCs) 6/14/89 Page 71 AGENDA ACT]~ON TAKEN 0309 - PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. 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 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 meet i ng. She then closed the Joint Public Hearing, and continued the item to the 6/28/89 meeting. GOOD AND WELFARE GOOD AND WELFARE No one chose to speak. CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION 4. Closed Session for the purpose of The Agency chose not to hold a Closed discussion of personnel matters, Session. labor relations, property nego- tiations and litigation. ADJOURNMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adjourn the MEETING: Redevelopment meet i ng. Carried by unanimous voice vote. ADJOURNMENT: Time of adjournment was 11:56 p.m. 6/14/89 Page 8 0310 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, D. . Barbara A. Battaya, Clerk R/~berta Ce~ri Tegl ia, C~}~'irwoman Redevelopment Agency /Redevelopment Agency ~/ City of South San Francisco / City of South San Francisco The entries of this Agency meeting show the action taken by the Redevelopment Agency 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 9