Loading...
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