HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Minutes 1990-04-11 Chairman Richard A. Haffey M I N U T E S
Boardmembers:
J ack Drago Redevelopment Agency
Gus Nicolopul os
John R. Penna Municipal Services Building
Roberta Cerri Teglia
--- Community Room
APRIL 11, 1990
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) 7:10 pJmJ Chairman Haffey presidingJ
ROLL CALL: Boardmembers present: Nicolopulos,
Penna, Tegl ia,
Drag0 and Haffey~
Boardmembers absent: None.
AGENDA REVIEW AGENDA REVIEW
Executive Director Armas stated there
were no modifications to the AgendaJ
CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approval of the Minutes of the ApprovedJ
Regular Meeting of 3/28/90~
2. Motion to confirm expense claims ~t Confirmed in the amount of $8,881J63J
of 4/11/90.
M/S Nicolopulos/Teglia - To approve the
Consent Calendar.
Carried by unanimous voice votei
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
31 Resolution reaffirming approvals ~q,!~ Agency
Counsel
Armento
stated
that
this
for the Shearwater Development item and the companion item on the City
ProjectJ Council agenda related to the Shearwater
Development approvals. She proceeded
A RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING APPROVALS to relate the contents of her staff
IN SUSPENSION FOR THE NON- report that supported the recommendation
RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS OF THE to ratify and reaffirm the granted prior
SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT approvals (a copy of the staff report
is attached and a permanent part of the
record of this meeting).
Boardmember Teglia questioned when the
changes to the approved.plan would come
before the City Council.
Executive Director Armas stated that
there was a need for the Applicant to
submit the Precise Plan, and this would
4/11/90
Page 1
I
DATE: April 11, 1990
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council/Redevelopment Agency
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Shearwater Development Approvals
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency each adopt a
resolution ratifying and reaffirming the prior approvals granted for the
Shearwater project, and that the City Council also waive reading and introduce
the related ordinance. The approvals now stand suspended, subject to
reconsideration as a result of a decision of the Court of Appeal.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In response to a suit filed by the City of San Francisco acting through its
Airport Commission, the Superior'Court for San Mateo County in 1986 entered a
writ of mandate requiring the City to vacate the approvals for the Shearwater
project, and to prepare a supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) to
'consider nonresidential alternatives. The writ, however, authorized the
Council and Agency to reinstate the approvals for the nonresidential
components of the project upon a finding that those components could be
-severed from and were not dependent upon the residential component. The City
Council/Redevelopment Agency duly readopted and reaffirmed the approvals for
the nonresidential components and ordered preparation of the, SEIR. The
Superior Court judgment and the City/Agency actions were appealed by the
Airport and in 1989 the Court of Appeal determined that the Superior Court
should not have allowed reinstatement of the non-residential components prior
to completion of the SEIR. The Court of Appeal vacated the Superior Court
judgment and suspended further development of the Shearwater Project pending
completion of the SEIR.
The Court of Appeal decision suspended all of the approvals for Shearwater.
In the meantime, however, on May 24, 1989 the SEIR was duly certified. The
developer is preparing to go forward with the first phase of the project. The
Council and Agency are now in a position to address the suspended approvals in
the'light of the Court of Appeal decision and environmental documentation and
the SEIR and take such action as the Council and Agency consider appropriate,
including reaffirmation of some part of the suspended approvals.
4/11/90
Page la
Honorable Mayor and City Council
April 11, 1990
Page 2
The Council and Agency should not take any action, however, without first
determining that the environmental documentation is adequate. Given the
passage of time since the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was
completed, staff has had an independent environmental consultant analyze the
environmental documentation. A copy of the consultant's summary cover letter
to his report is attached.
The report finds that the environmental documentation is accurate and complete
in the light of the current circumstances. In fact, the consultant found that
in many respects the 'original FEIR and the SEIR overstated the environmental
impacts because development has not occurred at the predicted pace.
The consultant concludes.that the environmental documentation is adequate for
any action the Council or Agency might take to approve a projec~ that is not
materially different in its environmental impacts from the project
alternatives described in the FEIR and SEIR. Thus, the documentation would be
sufficient for reaffirmation of some or all of the suspended approvals that
were previously adopted with respect to Shearwater.
CONCLUSION
Reaffirming all the approvals for the nonresidential components in the same
form as adopted in December 1986 would allow the developer to go forwarded
with the nonresidential components in a manner that the outside consultant has
found fully supported by the environmental documentation. This would allow
the developer to move ahead with the first phase offices expected to come
forward in a few months. It also would enable the City and Agency to return
to Superior Court and seek discharge of the writ.
Project modifications, such as what might replace the convention center, would
be dealt with at a later time. Any discussion of reactivating the residential
component likewise would be postponed. The City Council and Redevelopment
Agency would have full discretion to deal with those issues when they arise
without prejudice to any action they might take.
Valerie J.-~rmento Jesus Armas
City Attorney City Manager
VJA/jh
attachment 4/11/90
Page lb
AGE.DA ^CTIO.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
3~ Resolution - Continued~ be coming before the Council within the
next four to eight weeks. He stated that
the Applicant will be having discussions
with the property owners, in his role as
manager of the project, to discuss some
of the ideas that had been raised,
He stated that direction had also been
given to staff to have discussions on the
possibility of developing a financing
mechanism with the full responsibility
resting with the project - not the City:
M/S Nicolopulos/Teglia - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO; 1-90
Carried by unanimous voice vote;
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
the discussion of personnel Session.
matters, labor relations,
property negotiations and
litigation.
M/S Teg!ia/Penna - To adjourn the
meeting.
Carried by unanimous voice vote~
ADJOURNMENT Time of adjournment was 7:20 p~m~
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, APPROVED.
B~taya, Richard A. F~affey,' ~Kai~n
Redevelopment Agency Redevelopment Agency ~/_
City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco
4/11/90
Page 2
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
The entries of this Agency meeting show the action taken by the Redevelopment Agency to
dispose of an i temJ Oral communications, arguments, and comments are recorded on tapeJ
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 copyingJ
--~ 4/11/90
Page 3