Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 75-1993 RESOLUTION NO. 75-93 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS OR OBJECTIONS RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33363 WHEREAS, South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has prepared and submitted to the City Council of the City of South San Francisco (the "City Council"), for the City Council's consideration, the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan"); and WHEREAS, in connection with consideration of the Plan, the City Council and the Agency conducted and completed a duly noticed oublic hearing on May 26, 1993 pursuant to the requirements of Health and Safety Code §33355; and WHEREAS, at or prior to the joint public hearing, the city Council and the Agency received certain written comments or objections to the Plan, which written comments or objections are set forth in Part II of that certain document entitled "El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan: Written Findings and Responses Pursuant to Health and Safety Code §33363", which document is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by this reference, and hereinafter referred to as the "Findings": and WHEREAS, Part III of the Findings contains the city Council's and Agency's written findings and responses to the above-described written comments or objections, which written findings and responses have been prepared and considered by the City Council and the Agency in connection with consideration of adoption of the Plan, all in accordance with the provisions of Health and Safety Code §33363. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds and certifies'that the Findings have been prepared in compliance with the provisions of Health and Safety Code §33363; that the Findings adequately address 5he written comments or objections received by the city Council and the Agency in connection with the Plan; and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Findings prior to approving the Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Findings set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are hereby approved and adopted as, and shall constitute, the written findings and responses of the City Council with respect to the Plan required by Health and Safety Code §33363. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San at a requ]ar meeting held on the ?3rd day of June , 1993 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Councilmembers Joseph A. Fernekes, Robert Yee, and Mayor Roberta Cerri Tegl i a None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Councilmembers Jack Draqo, and John R. Penna Findings.ELC RESOLUTION NO. 75-93 EXHIBIT A EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WRITTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSES PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33363 City Council of the City of South San Francisco June 23, 1993 I. PURPOSE The Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco (the "Agency") has prepared, and the city Council of the City of South San Francisco (the "City Council") is considering for adoption, the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan"). On May 26, 1993, the Agency and the City Council opened and conducted a duly noticed joint public hearing which joint public hearing was continued to and completed on June 9, 1993 on the Plan in accordance with the requirements of Health and Safety Code Sections 33355 and 33361.. At or prior to the close of the joint public hearing, the Agency and the City Council received certain written comments or objections to the Plan. Those written comments or objections are set forth in Part II of this document. Health and Safety Code Section 33363 states: At the hour set in the notice required by Section 33361 for hearing objections, the legislative body shall proceed to hear all written and oral objections. Before adopting the Plan, the legislative body shall evaluate the report of the Agency, the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission, and all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the Plan and shall make written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity. The legislative body shall respond in writing to the written objections received before or at the noticed hearing, including any extensions thereof, and may additionally respond to written objections that are received after the hearing. The written responses shall describe the disposition of the issues raised. The legislative body shall address the written objections in detail, giving reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions. The legislative body shall include a good-faith, reasoned analysis in its response and, for this purpose, conclusionary statements unsupported by factual information shall not suffice. This document constitutes the written findings and responses of the City Council, as the legislative body of the City of South San Francisco, prepared and adopted in accordance with the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33363. Specifically, Part III below contains the City Council's written findings and responses to the various written comments or objections set forth in Part II. 63 ! O~8.PSO 06/~7/93 -1- Each substantive comment or objection in Part II has been assigned a reference identification number in the margin next to the comment or objection. The City Council's written findings and responses to each substantive comment or objection are set forth and organized in Part III according to those reference identification numbers. These findings incorporate other documents which are part of the record of adoption of the Amended Plan. These documents are listed below and are incorporated within these findings as supporting evidence by this and subsequent references: A. The Plan; B. The Preliminary Report on the Plan dated January, 1993; Ce The Report to the City Council of the city of South San Francisco on the Plan dated April, 1993; the Supplement to the Report to the City Council of the City of South San Francisco dated May, 1993; The resolution adopted June 23, 1993 (including attached Exhibits) entitled: "A Concurrent Resolution of the city Council of the City of South San Francisco and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco Certifying Review and Consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report, Making Findings Required by the California Environmental Quality Act, and Stating Overriding Considerations in the Approval and Adoption of the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan" (the "Concurrent CEQA Resolution"); The Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") prepared for the Plan, consisting of: (1) the Draft EIR ("DEIR"), and (2) the Responses to Comments on the DEIR ("Responses to Comments"), and (3) the additional mitigations and analysis set forth in Exhibit A of the Concurrent CEQA Resolution; F® Documentary and oral evidence received by the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission, the Agency and the City Council during public hearings and meetings on the Plan and the FEIR including, without limitation, Staff reports submitted to the City Council and Agency at the May 26, 1993 and June 9, 1993 joint public hearing on the Plan; ~10~8.P,~O 06/17/93 -2- Matters of common knowledge to the City Council and the Agency which they have considered, such as the City of South San Francisco General Plan, and prior resolutions and ordinances of the Agency and the City. II. WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS Written comments or objections to the Plan were received directly by the City or Agency from the following persons or entities: ae Letter from Frederick Schlosser of Broadmoor Lumber & Plywood Co. dated May 21, 1993 Be Letter from Donald E. Larramendy, Superintendent of Operations and Maintenance for the San Francisco Water Department, dated May 25, 1993 Ce Land Use and Circulation maps (2) and Combined Balance Sheet for City of South San Francisco submitted by Louis Dell Angela Letter from Lois A. Callahan, Chancellor of the San Mateo County Community College District dated May 26, 1993 Memo from South San Francisco Unified School District (no date) Memo from Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc. dated May 21, 1993 Ge Letter from Richard V. Godino of Bergman & Wedner, Inc. dated June 9, 1993 Letter from Richard V. Godino of Bergman & Wedner, Inc. dated June 9, 1993 Memo from South San Francisco Unified School District dated May 26, 1993 Je Letter from Richard Godino of Bergman & Wedner, Inc. dated February 17, 1993 Letter from 24 residents of Sunshine Gardens Community dated June 2, 1993 63~04~.PS0 06/17/93 --3- ne Letter from Frederick Sclosser of Broadmoor Lumber & Plywood Co. dated June 8, 1993 The above-itemized communications containing written comments on the Plan are set forth in their entirety as Appendix 1 to this Exhibit A. In addition, several letters of comment were received by the City and the Agency regarding the DEIR during the comment period on the DEIR. These comments have been responded to and disposed of in the Responses to Comments. Those responses are hereby adopted by the City Council; constitute the city Council's responses to the DEIR comment letters; and are incorporated by reference in these findings. Certain communications were received from various taxing agencies as part of the fiscal review process for the Plan conducted pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33353 e__t seq. Tkose communications were contained in the fiscal review committee report of May 5, 1993, and were responded to in writing by the Agency by response letter of May 19, 1993, as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33353.7. The fiscal review committee report (contained in Part X of the Report on the Plan), and the Agency's response (contained in Part X of the Report on the Plan) are hereby adopted by and constitute the City Council's response to those taxing agency communications for purposes of Health and Safety Code Section 33363, and are incorporated by reference in these findings. III. WR2TTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSE OF CITY COUNCIL Letter from Frederick Schlosser of Broadmoor Lumber and Plywood Co. dated May 21, 1993 A-1 Comment: The letter expresses concern over the rezoning of property from commercial to residential and whether this rezoning is feasible. Response: There is no doubt whatsoever that the development economics of many kinds of projects, including multi-family residential, are difficult in today's environment. However, the timeline of the Plan is focussed on long-term opportunities rather than the immediate feasibility of specific projects. 63 ] 048.PS0 06/] 7/93 --4-- Be In the Bay Area, and elsewhere, there is a strong and growing emphasis on higher density housing related to transit, in response to environmental and other concerns, and the trend in the marketplace is toward acceptance of higher density by renters and owners. It should also be borne in mind that low/mod housing funds generated through tax increment should be made available to financially assist projects that are not initially feasible. It should be noted that the Agency has received information from a developer interested in developing high density housing in the Project Area. ~indinq: Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds that the redesignation of the property in light of the undergrounding of BART is feasible over the long term time frame of the Plan and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Letter from Donald E. Larramendy, Superintendent of Operations and Maintenance for the San Francisco Water Department, dated May 25, 1993 B-! Commen~: The San Francisco Water Department supports the goals of the Plan. However, the Department is not in a position to abandon its rights-of-way and insists that rights-of-way not only be recognized but that access for maintenance, repair and possible replacement be taken into consideration in any development in the Project Area. Response: The Agency and the City intend for all development which may occur in the Project Area as a result of the Plan respect existing utility easements and ensure that maintenance access to these easements remain. ¥indin~: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that development in the Project Area will respect existing easements and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. 6310~8.P$0 0~/17/9~ --5-- Land Use and Circulation Maps (2) and Combined Balance Sheet for city of South San Francisco submitted by Louis Dell Angela. C-! Comment: Two land use maps were submitted at the Public Hearing on May 26, 1993. The party submitting the maps indicated that one map was the map attached to the Plan approved by the Planning Commission and that the other map was the map attached to the Plan submitted to the City Council for its consideration. In addition a page from the City of South San Francisco's budget was submitted showing the amount of revenue available to the City from the City's three redevelopment areas. The party submitting this document requested that the City use these revenues to purchase property along Mission Road which currently is slated for the BART station site. ~esponse: The map labeled Planning Commission Map was the map originally attached to the Plan submitted to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved the Plan on May 6, 1993 with this map attached. This map was in error and included an incorrect land use designation for property located along Mission Road. On June 3, 1993, the Planning Commission reconsidered the Plan with a correct map attached showing the land use designation as set forth in the General Plan. The Planning Commission submitted its recommendation to the City Council with the correct map. The attachment regarding the City budget is irrelevant to the Plan adoption process. The party submitting this document provided it in support of a request that the City or the Agency acquire property which is slated for the BART station site so that the property owners will not be required to wait the projected five years before BART acquires their property. Any impacts to the properties which are designated for the BART station site are not an impact of this Plan, but rather an impact of the BART line coming through the City of South San Francisco. The City or the Agency is not required to mitigate these impacts. ~,31048.P50 06/17/9~ -6- D® D-1 F~ndinq: Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds that the City Council has before it a Redevelopment Plan with the correct land use map and that impacts to property owners due to the siting of the BART station are not impacts of the Plan, and on this basis the city Council hereby overrules the above objection. Letter from Lois Callahan, Chancellor, San Mateo County Community College District, dated May 26, 1993. Comment: The comment expresses the San Mateo County Community College District's (the "College District") objections to the adoption of the Plan. In addition the comment expresses concern that funding the undergrounding of BART at the expense of the taxing agencies is inappropriate. Response: The College District's objection to the adoption of the Plan is noted. The Community College District's comment that the undergrounding of BART is inappropriate fails to understand the heart of this Plan. Currently the Project Area is blighted and suffers from a number of constraints to development. This is demonstrated by the fact that although the Project Area has been zoned for multi-family housing, to date there has been no development in the Project Area consistent with this zoning classification. The Plan is designed to encourage development of the Project Area by removing those conditions with contribute to the current blighted condition. By undergrounding BART and Colma Creek, the parcels in the Project Area, which currently are not of a suitable size for development will be of such a character as to allow development of multi family residential projects. The fact that this development would not occur without redevelopment means that use of tax increment funding for the undergrounding of the BART line is not taking this money from the taxing entities, since without the undergrounding of BART and the other redevelopment projects, this tax revenue would not exist. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the use of tax increment revenue to underground BART is an appropriate measure to eliminate blight and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. 63 ] O~.P$O 06/~ 7/93 --7-- D-2 06/17/93 Comment: The EIR does not provide for mitigation of the Project's impact on the College District. Response: The EIR indicates that cumulative impacts would be significant on the College District due to an increase in enrollment at the Skyline campus which may exceed capacity. In order to mitigate these impact, the EIR recommends redirecting students to the District's other campuses or methods of raising funds to expand the campuses capacity. These mitigation measures are within the purview of CEQA although they depend upon the action of an agency other than the lead agency. According to CEQA, the EIR should recommend mitigation measures that mitigate impacts to a level of less than significant. Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that a public agency can adopt a project which may have significant environmental effects, if the agency finds that mitigation measures which would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance are within the Jurisdiction of another agency and that such mitigation measure should be adopted by that agency. The city Council as the lead agency and the Agency as a responsible agency have adopted such a finding with relation to the impacts on the College District. It should also be noted that the Agency, in an effort to mitigate the impact of the Plan on the College District, has offered to enter into a fiscal agreement with the College District, which would provide funding to the College District for expansion of its facilities. The College District has rejected the Agency's offer. ¥indin~: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the EIR suggest appropriate and valid mitigation measures to any impacts to be suffered by the College District. In addition, the City Council finds that the Agency has attempted to mitigate any impacts suffered by the College District. On this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Comment: The EIR fails to set out specific mitigation measures for certain impacts and defers their analysis into the future. In particular the comment notes -8- D-4 mitigations for wastewater, sewer system and police service impacts. Response: The mitigation measures recommended by the EIR with regards to wastewater, sewer and police services are appropriate. The EIR in question is a program EIR for a project which is projected to have a 40 year term. Many of the impacts identified in the EIR are dependent upon full buildout of the Project Area. Since the exact nature and timing of this buildout cannot be predicted is would be inappropriate to require specific mitigation measures, which may prove to be unnecessary or inappropriate at that point in the future when actual development occurs. The mitigation measures in question commit the City and the Agency to a course of action in the event the impacts identified in the EIR to be significant come to fruition. For example, on wastewater, the EIR indicates that additional analysis of trunk sewer line capacity should be performed before development proceeds in the area. If this additional analysis shows that additional trunk sewer capacity is needed, the EIR recommends the adoption of a funding and construction schedule for this additional capacity before development occurs. Similarly, with regards to police service, the EIR recommends monitoring the need for additional police service during development of the Project Area. If this monitoring demonstrates a need for additional police service, the EIR recommends additional personnel and facilities to insure adequate police service. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the EIR provides adequate specific mitigation measures which are in compliance with CEQA and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Comment: The EIR does not adequately address recent studies that indicate that economic growth is the primary cause of population growth both historically and today. Response: The EIR includes an extensive discussion of the impacts of the Project on population growth at Section IV.C. The EIR indicates that as a result of 631048.PS0 06/]7/93 -9- D-5 the Plan, the Project Area is expected to experience an increase in population of 7,890. This increase in population is a prime factor in the analysis throughout the EIR with regards to other impacts of the Plan. It should be noted that the goal of the Plan is to provide increased residential development along the BART line, rather than extensive commercial and industrial development. This increased residential development is. designed to allow people to live closer to their place of work and reduce commuting by private cars, rather than to spur additional economic development in the Project Area. FindinG: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the EIR has adequately analyzed the impact of increased population resulting from the adoption of the Plan and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Comment: The EIR does not distinguish between mitigation required by CEQA and the Community Redevelopment Law. Response: Pursuant to CEQA, the EIR is required to include feasible mitigation measures which reduce significant impacts to a level of insignificance. The EIR does provide mitigation measures of this type. The CRL provides for certain mitigation measures that may be suggested by taxing agencies to alleviate any financial burden or detriment resulting from adoption of a plan. These mitigation measures include changes to the plan's projects, and pass through payments of tax increment revenue to impacted taxing agencies. To the extent the EIR identifies service impacts, it would be appropriate to suggest mitigation measures which change the project, although in this instance such mitigation measures were not found to be necessary to mitigate any identified impacts. To the extent that as a result of the fiscal review process the Agency determines that there are impacts on taxing agencies, it is appropriate to identify mitigation measures. To the extent the Agency identified impacts on agencies, it has suggested and attempted to implement mitigation measures. These have included pass through agreements with taxing agencies. It should be noted that nothing in CEQA or the CRL requires that the EIR distinguish between mitigations authorized by any giYen law. 63 ~ O4~8,PSO 06/~?/93 'lO- D-6 D-7 F~nding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that CEQA and the CRL do not require that the EIR distinguish various types of mitigation measures and on this basis the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. ~omment: The EIR does not identify the manner in which the College District would be able to operate in general or meet its increased need for school facilities without receiving tax revenues generated by the Project. Response: The EIR, at Section IV.G, examined the impacts of the Plan on the College District. The EIR concluded that the College District would suffer a significant cumulative impact and recommended mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. These mitigation measure include redirecting students to campuses which will not experience an impact and methods for raising funds to expand facilities. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the EIR adequately addresses the manner in which the College District will be able to operate and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Comment: The EIR does not adequately examine projections for increased student enrollment by the College District due to the Project. ~esponse: The EIR, at Section IV.G, examined the impacts of the Plan on the College District. This study was based on a review of current enrollment at the College District's campuses and used the College District's own student generation estimates to determine the number of students which could be expected as a result of the adoption of the Plan. Based on a worst case scenario of maximum build out of the Project Area, the EIR estimates that a total of 330 new students could be expected over the life of the Plan. It should be noted that information submitted by the College District to the Agency indicates that, based on the College District's assessments of the demographics of the Project Area at full build out, a total of 119 new students will be generated ("Fiscal Detriment Statement From the San Mateo County Community 63~048.P$0 06/~7/93 --ll-- D-8 D-9 College Distr$ct As a Result of Establishment of the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project, South San Francisco" dated April 15, 1993). Based on this, if anything, the EIR overstates the enrollment impacts of the Plan on the College District. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the EIR adequately examines projections for increased student enrollment and on this basis, the city Council hereby overrules the above objection. Comment: The EIR does not adequately discuss the timing for implementation of the Project. Response: The EIR is a program EIR analyzing a 40 year redevelopment plan. The EIR examines the impacts of the Plan at the end of the life of the Plan when full build out is assumed. Since this is a 40 year Plan it would be difficult to provide exact information regarding the timing of specific projects. Under CEQA, a program EIR is designed to examine a series of interrelated actions at the earliest time in order to provide meaningful environmental review. However, CEQA recognizes that some specifics of a project may be difficult to predicts and provides that impacts that may be speculative are not required to be analyzed at this early date. It should be noted that the Agency has provided the College District with a project timing schedule for development of the Project Area in the Report on the Plan. Although this timing schedule is just on example of how the Project Area might develop, it does provide the College District with sufficient information to anticipate and plan for impacts. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the EIR adequately addresses impacts of the proposed Plan on the College District and on that basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Comment: The EIR does not adequately address the impact of the Project's compliance with low and moderate income housing requirements. Response: The EIR projects increased population resulting from the adoption of the Plan and 631048.P50 O6/]7/93 --12-- implementation of the projects set forth in the Plan on the basis of the number of housing units to be developed in the Project Area. The population projections were based on projections as to the size of the housing units to be developed and standard household size based on these unit configuration. In accordance with the Redevelopment Law, the Agency will require that a certain number of residential units developed in the Project Area be affordable to low and moderate income households. These units will be scattered throughout the Project Area and are not expected to differ in size or configuration from market rate units. On this basis, the EIR does not distinguish between low and moderate income units and market rate units, since both types of units are expected to cause the same types and quantities of impacts. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the EIR adequately addresses the impacts of low and moderate income housing and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D-10 Comment: The EIR does not adequately consider the alternative of permitting private enterprise acting along to develop the Project Area and cure the alleged blight. Response: The EIR, at Section VI, considers alternative to the adoption of the Plan. One of these alternatives is the no-project alternative which is essentially continuation of the status quo. The status quo allows for development of the Project Area by private enterprise. The EIR concludes that although this alternative may reduce some of the environmental impacts, it will also result in continuation of the blighting condition in the Project Area. Since the no- project alternative will continue the blighting conditions in the Project Area the EIR rejects this alternative as not attaining the basic goals of the project. The EIR conclusion that allowing private enterprise to continue to develop the area will result in the continuation of the blighting conditions is based on information contained in the Report on the Plan. The Report on the Plan concluded that reversal of the 631048.P50 current situation in the Project Area could not be achieved by either the public or the private sector alone due to the existing parcel sizes and configuration, the mixture of land uses, the multiplicity of ownership, and the costs involved in eliminating the existing conditions, including separation caused by the tall right-of-way and the drainage channel, which interfere with the depths of parcels. (See Part II of the Report on the Redevelopment Plan for the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project, April 1993.) Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the EIR adequately considers the alternative of permitting private enterprise acting alone to develop the Project Area and, on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Comment: The EIR does not adequately address safety and noise consideration. Response: The EIR, at Section IV.E, considers the impacts of the Project on noise. The EIR determined that as a result of the Project residential development to be developed would be exposed to noise levels which are significant. The EIR recommended mitigations measures which will reduce most of these noise impacts to a level of insignificance. The City and the Agency have adopted these mitigation measures. The EIR also examines safety issues resulting from the adoption of the Plan. In particular, the EIR examines the impact of the Plan on pedestrian, traffic and bicycle safety and recommend mitigation measures to eliminate these impacts. The City and the Agency have adopted these mitigation measures. Finding: Based on the foregoing the City Council finds that the EIR adequately addresses noise and safety impacts and, on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D Comment: The College District does not have sufficient information from which to determine that all notices required by CEQA have been given and on that basis contends that such notices have not been given in the manner required by law. -14- Response: The Agency sent a Statement of Preparation to all the taxing agencies on November 6, 1992. The Preliminary Report was sent to the taxing agencies on January 14, 1993. The City Council called for the formation of the Fiscal Review Committee on January 13, 1993. The Agency met with all interested taxing agencies on January 28, 1993. The Draft EIR and the Plan were sent to the Fiscal Review Committee on February 1, 1993. The Notice of Preparation of the EIR was sent out to the taxing agencies, the State Clearinghouse, and other interested parties on October 14, 1992. The Notice of Completion of the DEIR was published in the Enterprise Journal on January 30, 1993. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on March 4, 1993. This hearing was noticed in the Enterprise Journal. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the General Plan Amendment on May 6, 1993. Notice of this public hearing was published in the Enterprise Journal on April 24, 1993 and marked to all property owners within the Project Area and 300 feet of the Project Area on April 22, 1993. The City Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing on the General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan on May 26, 1993 which was continued to June 9, 1993. Notice of this hearing was mailed to all property owners and taxing agencies in the Project Area by certified mail, return receipt requested. Notice with regards to the General Plan was published in the Enterprise Journal on April 25. Notice with regards to the General Plan was published in the Enterprise Journal on April 25, 1993, May 2, 9, 16, 1993. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that all notices have been given in accordance with law for the EIR, the Plan and the General Plan, and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D-13 Comment: The Project does not provide for alleviation of the Project's impact on the College District. ~10~.~0 06/1~93 -15- Response: The EIR, in analyzing the impacts of adoption of the Plan on the College District determined that the College District would suffer from significant cumulative impacts and recommended mitigation measures to alleviate these impacts. The City and the Agency have adopted these mitigation measures. In addition, the Agency has offered to mitigate any financial impacts to be suffered by the College District as a result of the adoption of the Plan by entering into a Fiscal Agreement with the College District. The Agency's offer was based on a determination of the impacts to be suffered by the College District, taking into consideration the increased enrollment to occur as a result of the Plan. To date the College District has rejected the Agency's offers. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Project does provide for alleviation of the impacts on the College District and, on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D-14 Comment: The Project Does not adequately address recent studies which indicate that economic growth is the primary cause of population growth. Response: See response to Comment D-4. Finding: Based on the information contained in the response to Comment D-4, the City Council finds that the project does adequately address the impacts of population growth and, on that basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D-15 Comment: The Project does not distinguish between mitigation required by CEQA and the CRL. Response: See response to Comment D-5. Finding: Based on the information contained in the response to Comment D-5, the City Council finds that the Agency and the City are not required to distinguish between mitigation required by CEQA and the CRL and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. ' 631048.P50 06/17/9~ -16- D-16 Comment: The Project does not identify the manner in which the College District would be able to operate in general or meet its increased needs for school facilities receiving tax revenue generated by the Project. Response: See Response to Comment D-6. In addition the Report on the Plan examined the impact of the "diversion" of tax increment revenue on the College District. Comparing the total revenue to be diverted over the 40 years life of the Plan to the total property tax revenue to be received by the College District over this same time period. The Report on the Plan concluded that over this time period a total of .44% of the College District's revenue would be "diverted." It should be noted that this analysis overstates the impacts on the taxing agencies since it assumes that without redevelopment all of the taxing agencies would receive a flow of property tax revenue equal to the tax increment revenues. This assumption is invalid, though, since, as the Report on the Plan indicates, without redevelopment much of the projected development in the area will not occur. Finding: Based on the information contained in the response to Comment D-6, the City Council finds that the Project adequately addresses the manner in which the College District will be able to operate in light of the adoption of the Plan and, on that basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D-17 Comment: The Project does not adequately examine projections for increased student enrollment due to the Project and the impact of these increases on the College District. Response: See response to Comment D-7. Finding: Based on the information contained in the response to Comment D-7, the City Council finds that the project adequately addresses the impacts on the College District, and on that basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D-18 Comment: The Project does not adequately discuss the timing for implementation of the Project. Response: See response to Comment D-8. 631048.P$0 06/17/~ -17- 63~.04~,.PS0 06/17/93 Finding: Based on the information contained in the response to Comment D-8, the City Council finds that the Project adequately addresses the timing for implementation of the Project and on that basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D-19 Comment: The Project does not adequately address the impact of compliance with low and moderate income housing requirements. Response: See response to Comment D-9. Findinq: Based on the information contained in the response to Comment D-9, the City Council finds that the Project adequately addresses the impacts of compliance with low and moderate income housing requirements and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D-20 Comment: The Project does not adequately consider the alternative of permitting private enterprise acting alone to develop the Project Area. Response: See response to Comment D-10. Findinq: Based on the information contained in the response to Comment D-10, the City Council finds that the Project adequately considers the alternative of permitting private enterprise acting alone to develop the Project Area and, on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D-21 Comment:. The Project Area is not blighted. Response: The Report on the Redevelopment Plan provides an extensive description and analysis of factors which constitute blight and which have resulted in virtually no development activity in recent years. These factors include defective design and construction of structures; structural obsolescence; deterioration and dilapidation; mixed character and use of buildings and land; inadequate parcelization; street deficiencies; inadequate drainage facilities; visual blight; depreciated property values. These factors have resulted in virtually no development activity occurring on properties in the proposed Project Area in recent years. The BART undergrounding, partial or complete coverage of Colma Creek, and street improvements proposed in the Plan will result in the reversal of deficient conditions in the Project Area by facilitating redevelopment. A significant aspect of these activities will be the ability to create development parcels of significant size and suitable configuration between Mission Road and E1 Camino, in lieu of the currently inadequate parcelizatlon which is not conducive to private sector investment. Essentially, the current situation is one of piecemeal parcelization resulting from the separation of the areas east and west of Colma Creek and the railroad tracks--the proposed public improvements that would be funded through Redevelopment would overcome this key deficiency and allow the orderly development of the Project Area. The Agency is convinced that the Plan represents sound planning and that the development of the proposed residential uses is consistent with the reversal of blight. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Project Area is blighted and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D-22 Comment: The Project improperly includes territory, such as the McLellan Nursery site, solely for the purpose of adding increased tax increment revenue. Response: The McLellan Nursery site was not included in the Project Area for the purpose of increasing tax increment revenue. Rather, the McLellan Nursery site is integral to the overall development of the Project Area and is necessary for effective redevelopment. Additionally, in order for the McLellan site to develop adequate infrastructure must be provided to the site, including sewer service. To date the private sector has been unable to provide this needed service without assistance from redevelopment. Moreover, development of the McLellan site will impact development of the remaining Project Area, including 63 ~ 048.1~0 06/17/9~ -19- traffic impacts, which must be planned for in an integrated fashion. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the McLellan site is blighted and was not included in the Project Area merely to provide tax increment revenue, and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D-23 Comment: The Project is in violation of the CRL in that the alleged blight which exists in the Project Area will not be cured by the undergrounding of BART. Response: In the view of the Agency, the key to creating feasible development opportunities in the Project Area is based on overcoming the physical divisions created by existing infrastructure, as noted in the response to Comment D-21. Merely changing zoning could not accomplish this. It should be noted that the zoning in the Project Area already allows high density residential development and commercial development. However, to date little or no development has occurred in the Project Area. Findinq: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the projects proposed in the Plan will alleviate the blight conditions and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. 63104~ 2.50 06/17/~ D-24 ~omment: The Project does not adequately identify and evaluate the measures stated in Health and Safety Code Section 33353.5. Response: Health and Safety Code Section 33353.5 suggests mitigation measures that a fiscal review committee may recommend if it finds that a redevelopment plan will cause financial burden or detriment. These mitigation measures can be included in the Report of the Fiscal Review Committee. The Report of the Fiscal Review Committee is prepared by the committee itself without input from the Agency. The Agency cannot control the contents of this report. The Report of the Fiscal.Review Committee prepared by the taxing agencies impacted by the Plan did suggest mitigation measures which involved payments to the College District. The Agency has responded to these suggested mitigation measures by agreeing to pass through to the College District a portion of the tax increment revenue generated as a result of the adoption of the Plan. The College District, to date, has not accepted the Agency's offer. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that it is not the Agency's obligation to ensure that the Fiscal Review Committee Report include the mitigation measures suggested in Health and Safety Code Section 33353.5, and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D-25 Comment: The Agency failed to comply with applicable fiscal review procedures and failed to give adequate consideration to the determination and recommendation of the Fiscal Review Committee Report. In addition, the Agency has failed to provide the College District with the information requested. Response: The Agency has complied with all requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law with regards to the Fiscal Review process. The Agency has adequately responded to the determinations and recommendation of the Fiscal Review Committee. The Committee recommended that the Agency pass through to the South San Francisco Unified School District sufficient revenue to cover increased costs resulting from adoption of the Plan. The Agency and the SSFUSD are in the process of negotiating such an agreement which will ensure that the SSFUSD will receive sufficient revenue to mitigate any impacts of the Plan. The Committee recommended that the College District receive all of its share of tax increment revenue. The Agency, in its response to the Fiscal Review Committee Report, disputed the level of impacts to be suffered by the College District and determined that the College District will suffer a much reduced level of impact. Based on the Agency's determination, the Agency has offered to pass through to the College District a reasonable share of its revenue, which will mitigate any impact the College District may suffer. To date, the College District has not accepted the Agency's offer. 631048.1~0 06/17/93 -21- In response to the District's comments regarding receipt of information requested, see the response to letter J. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the city Council finds that the Agency has complied with the fiscal review process and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D-26 Comment: The Project does not comply with Health and Safety Code Section 33401. Response: Section 33401 provides that a redevelopment agency may, if its owns property in a project area, pay to a taxing agency, an amount of money in lieu of the taxes from the property. The Agency does not own any property in the Project Area at this time, so this section is not applicable. Section 33401 also provides a mechanism whereby agencies can pass through to taxing agencies a portion of tax increment revenue to alleviate any financial burden or detriment suffered by the taxing agencies. The Agency has offered to enter into an agreement with the College District pursuant to section 33401, whereby the Agency would pass through a portion of the tax increment revenue to the College District. To date the College District has not accepted the Agency's offer. ~indina: Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds that the Agency is in compliance with Section 33401, and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D-27 Comment: The College District does not have sufficient information from which to determine that all reports and notices required by the CRL have been prepared and given, and on that basis alleges that they have not been prepared or given in the manned required by law. Response: See Response to Comment D-12 Finding: Based on the information contained in the response to Comment D-12, the City Council finds that all notices have been prepared and given in accordance with law and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. 631048.P50 06/17/93 -22- D-28 Comment: The College District is in favor of the goals of the City of South San Francisco in adopting the Plan; however, the College District is concerned with the impacts of the Plan on the District. Response: The EIR examined the impacts of the adoption of the Plan on the College District and provided mitigation measures designed to reduce or eliminate these impacts. The Agency also examined the impacts of the adoption of the Plan on the College District in the Report on the Plan and as part of the Fiscal Review process. The Agency determined that over the life of the Plan, the amount of property tax revenue that the College District would forego would be .44% of the College District's total property tax revenue. The Agency determined that this would be an insignificant impact. The Agency also reviewed the College Districts projections of the increased costs to the District which will result from the increased enrollment. The Agency, on this basis determined that the College District would suffer from minimal impacts as a result of adoption of the Plan and on this basis offered to mitigate these impacts by passing through to the College District a portion of the tax increment revenue. The College District, to date, has not accepted the Agency's offer. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the city Council finds that with the mitigations measures listed above, including the pass through of tax increment revenue recommended by the Agency, the impacts of the Plan on the College District will be mitigated in full. On this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D-29 Comment: The Agency's Response to the Fiscal Review Committee Report questions the College District's assertion that the District could lose as much as $16 million over the life of the Plan as the result of reduced property tax revenues. The Agency Response seems to indicate that, without the Plan, very little growth will occur in the Project Area. The District believes otherwise. Response: The matter of potential future development in the Project Area was reviewed and evaluated in the EIR, 631048.?$0 06/17/93 --23-- and the Agency's response to the District's initial letter, in the Supplement to the Report to Council (May 1993), contained the same assumptions regarding future development as in the EIR. The comment assumes that the future development of the area, including the McLellan property and Macy's warehouse, would occur without redevelopment due to the demand for residential units, abetted by construction of BART, regardless of whether BART were undergrounded. The ability to develop, however, depends not only on economic feasibility, but upon the community's willingness to accommodate development. It is the view of the Agency that without the undergrounding of BART, with consequent reduction in noise and visual impacts, development of high density housing in the E1 Camino Corridor would be inappropriate from a planning standpoint. Additionally, without undergrounding of BART, sites which could accommodate a substantial amount of development will only be suited for limited development due to parcel sizes and proximity to noise and vibration caused by BART. Finding: Based on the foregoingl the City Council finds that the Project Area will not develop in the manner anticipated under the Plan if the Plan is not adopted and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. · 30 ~omment: The Agency's Response indicates a lack of understanding about the way community colleges are financed. Community colleges operate under an enrollment cap which effectively.limits growth within the system. Currently the Community College District has more Full Time Equivalent Students than the State will fund. Response: In the April 15, 1993 Fiscal Detriment Statement, the College District states that the Project will cause an increase of 119 Full Time Equivalent Students (FTES) to the College District. Based upon a current annual cost of $3,381 per full time student, the District estimates a "real loss" of $402,339 for each year of the Project. Over the 40 year life of the Project, the College District claim~ that the total cost from these added students would be approximately $16 million. In the May 25, 1993 Rebuttal of the Agency's Response to the Fiscal Review Committee Report, the District states that the estimated added cost will not be compensated by State apportionments due to existing apportionment formulas which contain certain revenue limit and FTES cap provisions. The District's "real loss" estimate is overstated because of the following considerations: Increases, if any, in FTES caused by the Project will occur incrementally over time as the residential component of the Project is built out. The College District's estimate of $16 million appears to be based upon an assumption that the 119 FTES increase occurs immediately at the inception of the Project. The College District determined the 119 FTES based upon 358 project students x i FTES/3 project students. Given that a number of the proposed residential units are likely to be for senior citizen housing, the College District's estimate may be overstated. In addition, no information was provided by the District within the time frame of this analysis, to confirm the appropriateness of using a I FTES/3 student ratio. The existing State apportionment formula for community college districts generally provides that a district's Base Revenue for the current year will equal the prior year revenue apportionment. The State apportionment formula is net of a district's allocation of local property tax revenues and student fees, but also contains certain limiting provisions on increases caused by growth in FTES. The Base Revenue can be augmented by additional funding from: (1) Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), if authorized by the State Legislature, and (2) Growth Revenue allocations computed by applying the greater of either (a) the percentage change in adult population or (b) the growth of 1% (the rate which will provide at least 100 total FTES and 150 total credit enrollment) to specific base workload measures. For each workload measure, a State-determined rate is applied to convert 631048.P50 06/17/93 --25-- to dollars and then an amount added for institutional support. These dollars are aggregated for each workload measure and the District will receive this aggregated amount, up to the amount computed for the adult population change or 1% (whichever is greater). The District's concern that the potential FTES increase caused by the Project will result in fiscal detriment to the District will be alleviated by the following considerations: The COLA is subject to authorization by the State Legislature and is available, under the existing State apportionment formula, for implementation in future fiscal years. The District estimated that the Project Area will cause an increase of nearly 5,800 adults. While the District maintains that this increase could result in an additional 119 FTES, some or all of the increased costs will be offset by the Growth Revenue allowances permitted under the existing State apportionment formulas (which are directly associated with annual increases in the adult population of the District). The California Community Colleges report that for 1992-93 the State FTES funding cap is 401 FTES below the District's actual 18,419 FTES. However, the present FTES funding gap is not caused by the Project. As stated previously, potential increases in FTES caused by residents in the Project should be offset by the Growth Revenues allowances which incorporate increases in the adult population. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Agency response correctly applied doctrines of Community College financing and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D-31 Comment: The College District questions three statements in the Agency's Response ~o the Fiscal Review Committee (1) The College District restates its claim that there would be $16 million impact in 6310~.P50 06/17/93 -26- operations costs due to additional students; (2) It reiterates its claim that the Agency does not understand how the College District if funded; (3) It disputes the claim that there would be little impact from the average annual addition of three full time students. Response: In respect to the first point: In its initial response to the District, the Agency did not choose to question any of the underlying assumptions of the District in respect to student generation, operating costs, and other factors. What the Agency merely did was to project students and costs based upon the project buildout of the residential developments that could occur in the Project Area, and then discount to present dollars what the impact would be. This approach takes into account inflation (included in the Agency's analysis), the rate of buildout, and other factors, and is standard methodology in financial analysis. The result, included in the May response, is that the detriment to the District was far less than indicated by the District. In respect to operating costs, the District chose not to respond to specific issues raised by the Agency, including documentation for the annual cost of educating students and analysis of fixed versus variable costs. In respect to capital costs, the District chose not to consider in its response specific matters raised by the Agency in its earlier letter, including whether new students could be accommodated in existing facilities and whether the District could lease space at a lower cost than building new space. In respect to the second and third concerns, see Response to Comment D-30. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the College District's concerns are without merit and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. D-32 Comment: The Agency's Response also questions the assumption about residential growth and occupancy 631G48.PS0 06/]7/93 -27- leYels within the Project Area used by the District to calculate the impact of the Project on the District. Response: The Agency used all of the College District's assumptions in responding to the Fiscal Review Committee. However, the Agency questions these assumptions and to date has not received any information demonstrating the validity of these assumptions including proof of the cost to the College District of each new student and enrollment capacity for the campuses affected by the Project. The Agency's calculation of possible detriment to the College District differs from the College District's because the College District failed to factor in the timing of development in the Project Area, although the timing information was available to the College District. In addition, the College District misstated the true impacts of increased enrollment by failing to include in its calculation the impact of any State revenue increases. Finally, it should be noted that the College District also did not include the impact of any student fees in its calculation. Findinq: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Agency used appropriate assumptions in its Response to the Fiscal Review Committee and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Comment: The Agency Report on the Plan failed to identify bond financing as a feasible method of financing the activities of the Plan. Response: The Report analyzes the possible use of CDBG Funds, City Assistance, Assessment Districts, Developer Participation payments and miscellaneous sources. It does not analyze the possibilities for bonding, which would require a two-thirds vote of the electorate because that possibility has virtually never proved feasible for funding of comparable infrastructure improvements in California communities in recent years. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that bond financing, which requires a 2/3 vote is not a feasible method of financing the activities of the Plan and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. ~,104~.P$0 --28-- D-34 Comment: The Agency is required to make a finding that the effect of tax increment financing will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment on any taxing agency deriving revenues from the Project Area. The College District does not think that the Agency can make this finding. Response: The Agency, in the Report on the Plan and in the EIR, analyzed the impacts that may be suffered by the College District as a result of the Plan. These impacts were considered to be minimal and mitigatable. The EIR recommended the adoption of a variety of mitigation measures to deal with these impacts and determined that if these mitigation measures were adopted, the impacts would be insignificant. The Report on the Plan also looked at the fiscal impacts to be suffered by the College District. The Report identified minimal impacts. In order to mitigate these impacts the Agency has offered to enter into a pass through agreement with the College District which would provide the District with revenue over the life of the Plan. The District has failed to accept the offer. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Agency has mitigated any financial burden or detriment to be experienced by the College District as a result of the Plan and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Memo from South San Francisco Unified School District Comment: The SSFUSD is concerned that implementation of the Plan will result in a burden on the SSFUSD, which it cannot bear given funding cuts. Response: The EIR and the Report on the Plan both examined the impacts to be suffered by the SSFUSD as a result of the adoption of the Plan. The EIR determined that these impacts, although significant, could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The Report on the Plan also determined that the SSFUSD would suffer some impacts. The Agency, in order to mitigate these impacts has recommended the adoption of a fiscal agreement which will pass through to the SSFUSD a portion of the Agency's tax increment revenue in order 63]04&.PSO 06/17/93 -29- E-2 E-3 to provide funds to the SSFUSD to meet any increased costs resulting from the Plan. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the impacts of the Plan on the SSFUSD have been mitigated by the mitigation measures in the EIR and the pass through payment proposed by the Agency and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Comment: The impacted schools are currently at capacity and there are limited opportunities to place students where space might be available. Response: The EIR examined the impacts of the Project on the individual schools that might be impacted. The EIR concluded that although these schools were at capacity, other schools in the District were not at capacity. The EIR recommended changing attendance boundaries as one method of alleviating overcrowding. Although the City recognizes that busing may not be a solution, a change in attendance boundaries may not always result in busing. Rather, by changing all boundaries students may be redirected to schools that are farther from their homes but still within walking distance. Also, the EIR recommended other mitigation measures that would be suitable to alleviate any overcrowding, including using relocatable classrooms and reopening closed schools. These measures, used in a combination that best meets the SSFUSD's needs, will mitigate any impacts to a level of insignificance. ~inding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the SSFUSD has numerous means available to it to mitigate any impacts resulting from the Plan, and on this basis, the city Council hereby overrules the abowe objection. Comment: The SSFUSD will receive development fees from new development in the Project Area, but even with the maximum fees the SSFUSD will still suffer an impact. Response: The Agency has recognized that development fees collected by the SSFUSD will not fully alleviate the impacts to be suffere4. In order to fully alleviate these impacts the Agency has proposed to offer the SSFUSD a pass through agreement whereby the Agency will pass through to the SSFUSD a portion of the -30- F® F-1 tax increment revenue. The proceeds of this pass through, which will continue throughout the life of the Plan, in combination with any development fees to be collected, will mitigate any financial burden or detriment the SSFUSD may suffer. ~indinq: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Agency has mitigated any financial burden or detriment to be suffered by the SSFUSD and on this basis the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Memo from Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc., dated May 21, 1993. Comment: The memo provides a technical study of enrollment projections based on subsidized and non- subsidized housing. Response: The Final EIR disputed the School District's student generation multipliers, which were provided by the District and found to be excessively high because they were based on the characteristics of the existing stock in South San Francisco rather than on the characteristics of the housing that would be built in the Project Area. The Agency does not disagree with the estimate of student generation in the demographic report but wishes to point out the following: On the one hand, the report appears to accept the student generation rates for "non-subsidized" housing reported in the EIR, but indicates that generation rates for "subsidized" housing would be much greater. This distinction appears fallacious and is not based on any factual information showing that low and moderate income households produce more children. It should be noted: Of the 15% of dwelling units that are required for low/moderate income households, 60% would be for moderate income households. Under current income guidelines, a moderate income household is one with an income of up to $49,050 for one person households and up to $56,100 for two person households. These incomes are highly representative of those in South San Francisco as 63104-8.P50 06/*~7/93 -31- 06/17/93 a whole and typify those of renters who would occupy the market rate units. Essentially, the characteristics of the moderate income market segment is identical to those for the market rate units. Of the 15% of dwelling units for low/moderate income households, 40% (six percent of total units) would be for very low income households. Under current income guidelines, a very low income household is one with an income of up to $20,450 for a one person household and up to $23,350 for two person households. The report does not take into account the physical characteristics (namely, size) of the units which will be constructed. For the most part, all of the units will be studios and one and two bedrooms, and the unit size as measured by number of rooms and square footage will be much less than the typical unit size in the community. Units occupied by low and moderate income families will be identical to the market rate units in terms of size and locations. These units will not be suitable for families, and there will be no requirement on the part of owners to target families. The predominant household type will be single persons and couples. ~indinq: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Agency's projections of student enrollment were accurate and that the SSFUSD has presented not evidence to support their assumption that low and moderate income households will generate more students. On this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Letter from Richard V. Godino, Bergman & Wedner, Inc., on behalf of the San Mateo County Community College District, dated June 9, 1991. Comment: The Agency has never provided the College District with a copy of the final draft of the EIR and the College District is therefore unable to further identify deficiencies therein. Response: The Final EIR has been available to the public and taxing agencies upon request since April, -32- G-2 H-1 1993. Prior to this letter the Agency had not received a request from the College District for a copy of the Final EIR. The Agency has delivered to the College District a copy of the Final EIR in response to this letter. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Agency has provided the College District with a copy of the Final EIR upon their request and on this basis the City Council hereby rejects the above objection. Comment: The College District did not receive a copy of the Supplement to the Report on the Redevelopment Plan until after it had presented the May 26, 1993 letter to the Agency. It therefore has not had sufficient time to further identify deficiencies therein. Response: The Agency provided the College District with a copy of the Supplement to the Report on the Redevelopment Plan upon its request. The Agency also provided the College District with the Agency's response to the Fiscal Review Committee Report, which was the main section of the Supplement on May 19, 1993. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Agency had provided the College District will all relevant information in a timely fashion and on this basis, the City Council hereby rejects the above objection. Letter from Richard V. Godino, Bergman & Wedner, Inc., on behalf of the South San Francisco Unified School District, dated June 9, 1993. Comment: The South San Francisco Unified School District ("SSFUSD") protests the certification of the EIR and the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan because of the burden which will be placed on the District if the project is funded through the use of tax increment funding. Response: The Agency has examined the impacts of the Plan on the SSFUSD in the EIR and the Report on the Plan. The EIR concluded that although there would be significant impacts on the District, there impacts -33- }{-2 could he mitigated to a level of insignificance with a combination of mitigation measures. These mitigation measures included increasing development fees to the statutory maximum, using relocatable classrooms and adjusting the attendance boundaries for individual schools. In addition the Report on the Redevelopment Plan analyzed the amount of revenue to be foregone by the SSFUSD as a result of adoption of the Plan. In comparison to the SSFUSD total revenues, these amount over the 40 year life of the Plan was 2.41%. Such a diversion of revenue does not indicate a significant impact. However, recognizing this minimal impact, the Agency is prepared to enter into an agreement to pass through to the SSFUSD a portion of tax increment revenue to alleviate this impact. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the city Council finds that the impacts of the Plan on the SSFUSD will be minimal and can be mitigated by the measures set forth in the EIR and the pass through offered by the Agency and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Comment: A tentative agreement was reached with the Agency staff and SSFUSD staff setting out mitigation measures for any fiscal impact the SSFUSD may suffer. The SSFUSD adopted the agreement. The Agency has not adopted the agreement and as of the date of these letter has not approached the SSFUSD for further discussion on the proposed agreement. Response: The Agency on June 9, 1993, rejected the tentative agreement between SSFUSD and the Agency and directed staff to enter into further negotiations with the SSFUSD to come to mutual agreement on mitigation measures. The Agency staff has set up a meeting with the SSFUSD in an effort to reach an agreement. The Agency has prepared and approved an offer to SSFUSD which mitigates the impacts to be suffered by the SSFUSD. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Agency is attempting to reach an agreement with the SSFUSD and has made an offer which mitigates impacts to be suffered by the SSFUSD and on -34- H-3 }{-4 H-5 this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Comment: The EIR does not provide for mitigation of the projected impact on the SSFUSD. Noting ideas whereby the District may act is not a valid approach. Response: The EIR does suggest valid mitigation measures for the impacts identified. Section IV.G of the EIR discusses a variety of mitigation measures that can be implemented by the SSFUSD in order to reduce any impacts to a level of insignificance. These mitigation measures include use of relocatable classrooms, reopening closed elementary schools, raising the existing development impact fee to the statutory maximum, selling surplus property to raise funds, and issuing general obligation bonds. The EIR suggest that a combination of these measures will mitigate any impacts to a level of insignificance. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the EIR provides adequate mitigation measures and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Comment: The EIR does not adequately address the impact of the Project's compliance with low and moderate income housing requirements and the yield factors for student enrollment from subsidized housing. The Lapkoff Demographic Report projects enrollment from the Project Area to be from 700 to 1,300 new students. ~esponse: See response to letter F and response to comment D-9. In addition, it should be noted that the projections for student enrollment in the Lapkoff study are will within the worst case scenario projections in the EIR which estimated a total of 1700 new students over the life of the Plan. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the EIR adequately analyzed the impacts on the SSFUSD and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objections. gomment: The EIR does not adequately consider the alternative of permitting private enterprise to develop the Project Area. 06/17/93 -35- H-6 H-7 Response: See response to Comment D-10. Finding: Based on the information contained in the response to Comment D-10, the City Council finds that the EIR adequately considers the alternative of permitting private enterprise acting alone to develop the Project Area and, on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Comment: The EIR does not adequately address safety and noise considerations. Response: See response to Comment D-11. ~inding: Based on the information contained in the response to Comment D-Il, the City Council finds that the EIR does adequately address noise and safety considerations and, on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Comment: The Project does not identify the manner in which the District would be able to deal with the loss of property taxes for general operating purposes at such time when the District becomes basic aid. Response: The Agency has proposed a pass through agreement with SSFUSD which would provide the SSFUSD with revenue sufficient to mitigate all impacts of the Plan, including any impacts that may occur once the SSFUSD is Basic Aid, if such an event occurs. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Agency has adequately provided for the District's continued operation and on this basis, the City Council overrules the above objection. Comment: The Project does not adequately identify and evaluate the measures stated in Health and Safety Code Section 33353.5. ~esponse: See response to Comment D-25. Finding: Based on the information in the response to Comment D-25, the City Council finds that it is not the Agency's obligation to ensure that the Fiscal Review Co~mittee Report include the mitigation measures suggested in Health and Safety Code Section 33353.5, 631048.P$0 06/17/93 -36- and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. H-9 Comment: SSFUSD did not receive the Supplement to the Redevelopment Plan until May 26 and has not had an opportunity to respond to any changes therein. ~esponse: The Agency provided copies of the Supplement to the SSFUSD upon their request. It should be noted that the Response to the Fiscal Review Committee Report, which is the primary change to the Report on the Plan contained in the Supplement, was provided to the SSFUSD on May 19, 1993. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Agency has provided the SSFUSD with information in a timely fashion and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. H-10 Comment: The SSFUSD incorporates those deficiencies noted in the letter from Lois Callahan, Chancellor of the San Mateo County Community College District to the Agency dated May 26, 1993. ~esponse: See responses to letter D. Finding: Based on the information contained in the responses to letter D, the City Council finds that the above objections are without merit and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. H-11 Comment: The use of tax increment financing will reduce the property tax revenue available to the SSFUSD. The SSFUSD is moving toward basic aid status. When basic aid status is attained, in 12-15 years, it will annually sustain a direct dollar loss which will continue throughout the remaining life of the 40 year project. ~esponse: The SSFUSD has not provided the Agency with any revenue projections which indicate the basis upon which it believe that it will go basis aid. In addition, basic aid status is dependent upon many factors including enrollment and tax revenues. Any change in these factors would mean that the SSFUSD basic aid status would change or never be reached. 63104.8.P$0 06/17/93 --:37-- 06/17/93 It should also be noted that the Agency has agreed to enter into a pass through agreement with the SSFUSD that takes into account any impacts the SSFUSD might suffer as a result of basic aid status sometime in the future. The pass through offer increases the amount of revenue provided to the SSFUSD over time, which will mitigate any basic aid impacts. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Agency has mitigated any impacts that may result from the SSFUSD's future basic aid status, and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. 2 Comment: As a result of the new housing and new residents which the Project will generate, the SSFUSD will be required to provide additional classrooms and other facilities. Developer fees will not provide the full funding for needed classrooms and support area. Response: The Agency has provided for the fact that developer fees will not provide the full amount of revenue needed to mitigate the financial burdens to be suffered by the SSFUSD, by agreeing to pass through to the SSFUSD a portion of the tax increment revenues generated by the Agency. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Agency has mitigated any financial burden or detriment suffered by the SSFUSD and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objections. Comment: The SSFUSD requests that the Agency not certify the EIR or approve the proposed Plan until the deficiencies cited above are corrected. According to the Health and Safety Code, the Agency must make a finding that the effect of tax increment financing will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment on any taxing agency deriving revenues from the Project Area. Response: See responses to comments H-1 through H-12 regarding the alleged deficiencies in the Plan and the EIR. The Agency has determined that the SSFUSD will suffer a minimal impact as a result of the adoption of the Plan. In order to mitigate this impact, the Agency is prepared to enter into a fiscal agreement with the -38- I-1 SSFUSD which will pass through a certain portion of the tax increment revenue. The amount of this pass through was determined after examining the impacts to be suffered by the SSFUSD, taking into account all other sources of revenues that the SSFUSD will have available to alleviate some of the impacts. Based on this offer, the Agency has determined that the effect of tax increment financing will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment to the SSFUSD. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that Agency has mitigated any financial burden or detriment to be suffered by the SSFUSD as a result of adoption of the Plan and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Comments on City's Response to Fiscal Review Committee Report, Janice B. Smith, South San Francisco Unified School District, dated May 26, 1993. Comment: Table A in the Response to the Fiscal Review Committee Report includes the base year tax amounts and the amount of the proposed tax sharing agreement in the comparison of the property taxes generated with and without the Plan. Response: The Response to the Fiscal Review Committee Report included an analysis of the amount of revenue the SSFUSD would receive if the Plan were adopted and the amount received if the Plan were not adopted. These calculations took into account the offer the Agency had made to pass through to the SSFUSD a portion of tax increment revenue. Both of the calculations included the base year amount, so that the total impacts could be compared. It should be noted that the amount of funds the SSFUSD would receive without the Plan would be offset against the SSFUSD's State aid. However, the amount the SSFUSD will receive as a result of the pass through agreement will not be offset, and thus, in real terms is worth more money to the SSFUSD. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the impact of the Plan on the SSFUSD have been mitigated and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. 06/~7/93 -39- I-2 Ke Comment: The SSFUSD will receive, if an agreement is approved, the 2% increment beginning in 1994 - a total of $224,000 present value dollars over the 40 year period of the project and, starting in year 16, subject to the BART payment reaching 3.1 million dollars and debt on the Colma Creek Improvements serviced, an additional 3% for a total of 5%- present value dollars of $1,941,000. Response: The Agency does not dispute the terms of the offer as set forth by the SSFUSD. However, it should be noted that in addition to the amounts set forth by the SSFUSD, the Agency has also offered to pass through to the SSFUSD $50,000 per year beginning in 1994-95 and continuing until the SSFUSD begins to receive the 5% pass through. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Agency has agreed to pass through to the SSFUSD the sums set forth above and on this basis, the City Council overrules the above objection. Richard Godino, Bergman & Wedner, Inc., February 17, 1993, on behalf of the South San Francisco Unified School District, San Mateo County Community College District and the San Marco County Office of Education. Comment: The letter requests a variety of information. Response: The Agency responded to this letter on March 1, 1993 (See Attachment 1) and provided the letter writer with the information that was available at that time. Since that response the Agency has provided the letter writer will all reports as they have been prepared, including the Draft EIR, the Preliminary Report on the Plan, the Report on the Plan, the Agency's Response to the Fiscal Review Committee Report and the Supplement to the Report on the Plan. These reports included the information requested by the letter writer. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Agency has responded to the request for information in a timely fashion and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objections. Letter from 24 residents of Sunshine Gardens Community dated June 2, 1993 048.1)50 -40- K-1 K-2 L-1 Comment: The letter requests %hat a permit parking program be established for the area surrounding the BART station in order to minimize many parking and traffic obstacles the area will suffer as a result of the BART station. In addition, the community requests that such a parking program be established at no or minimal cost to the residents. Response: The EIR examined the impact of the BART station as well as development in the Project Area on parking in surrounding communities. In order to mitigate any adverse impacts from parking that may result from adoption of the Plan, the EIR recommends instituting permit parking at such time as needed. The City and the Agency have adopted this mitigation measure. In addition, the city and the Agency agree that in the event permit parking is warranted, it should be at minimal cost to the residents in the area. The city and the Agency are committed to finding ways to pro¥ide permit parking at minimal cost, including requesting that BART pay any costs. Finding: Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the establishment of permit parking in surrounding neighborhoods is an appropriate measure for eliminating parking conflicts and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. Letter from Frederick Schlosser, Broadmoor Lumber & Plywood Co., dated June 8, 1993 Comment: Broadmoor Lumber is in favor of the Plan if it is feasible, but they are concerned that, in light of current economic times, the Plan will not be feasible. They are requesting that the zoning of their property be flexible so that they can continue commercial development. Response: See Response to Letter A. Findinq: Based on the information set forth in the response to Letter A, the City Council finds that the redesignation of the Project Area to high density housing is feasible and on this basis, the City Council hereby overrules the above objection. 63104~.P50 06/~7/93 -41- LETTER A BROADMOOR LUMBER d~ PLYIVOOD 13~)O E1 CAMINO RE. AL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA g40~O Plan lng Commission City )f South San Francisco 400 }rand Avenue P.O. lox 711 So. tn Francisco, Ca 94083 {415) 761-1515 c ECE. IVF-D pLANNING May 21, 1993 Atte ~tion: Mrs. Maureen K. Morton Dear Mrs. Morton, .As ~e owners of 1350 El Camino Real So.S.F. (Broadmoor Lumber Co.) we :re requesting ,that in your study of the El Camino Corridor you con inue to allow the classification of our property to be zoned for .ned Commercial Density Designated (PCL) Our recent feasibility study has given us serious reason to doubt the pos ibiIity of an economically viable housing development on this as we as other properties in our area (See attached exhibits). Th( cost of the type of construction that the city would like to see on thi~ land is so enormous that a return on the investment is unlikely. Giv :n the relatively cool climate, and other factors such as socio- nomic mix in the area, we are doubtful that the rental income ne(ded to break even could be had. It would not be possible to att :act potential investors in this scenario. would like to go on record as requesting that the existing zoning of Commercial (PCL) be continued, so that we are not pr(:cluded from commercial development of the sight in the future, if ho is not economically viable. A-1 Thank You Sincerely, ~~r~'~Schlosser owner $. ~an ~anc~mco, Califoznt~ 3.~7 Acres Zoning at ~0 unitm per acre- 170 units~ 1~5,830 sq.ft. For this purpose I have used 170 units with spp oxi~ately 120,000 gq. ft. of rental space at $1.62 per sq ft. for rental Monthly incoae vould be $19~,&00. - $2,332,$00 per annum Expenses based on average of 38[ including vats' cy factor of gross tacoma- $ 886,66~ Net Income 1~443,360 Cost of construction based on $7}.00 per sq, ft plus land value lOIA~!~sLtncubsti°n ~eriod of 18 months $9,000. 000. ~,000,000. Loan of $10,202,500. at IO~X per annu~, a~oziti:ed over a 20 year period. $1,019.229 per ~onth Annual loan payments $ 1~22~,07&. ANNUAL INCOME EXPENSES LESS LOAN PAYMENTS C&SH FLOW Return on Invested Capital approx. 2~332,800. 886,664. 1,223,07~. 223,262. ~pprox. 6.89I These figures are only esti~atee, Property Value ts based on eight (8) ti~es the a ,nthly gross City & County of San Francisco Public Utilities Commlsslon Ms. Patricia E. Mattel Acting Executive Director Office of tI'e Redevelopment Agency City of Sotth San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue, P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 LETTER B May 25, 1993 San Francisco Water Department Water Supply Division Dear Ms. Mattel: While I personally applaud the City of South San Francisco's desire to "promote the alleviation of blighting conditions .... consistent with it's General Plan" as Superintendent of Operations and Maintenance for the San Francisco Water Department, I feel compelled to raise an issue possibly overlooked. The San Francisco Water Department currently owns property or easements used for rights-of-ways for several of our transmission pipelines that run through South San Francisco. Specifically several of our rights-of-ways are located on the proposed area slated for re&velopment. The San Francisco Water Department is not in the position to abandon these rights-of-way and in fact must insist that our rights-of-way not only be recognized but access for maintenance, repair, and possible replacement of sections of our pipeline, be taken into consideration in any redevelopment plan that would change building and population densities adjacent to our pipelines. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any assistance to you or your agency. Sincerely, ~ i ' Donald E. Larra~ffendy Superintendent Operations & Maintenance DEL\m C. Davis /I. 2omani Chron File - $SF 93 (415) 872-5900 P.O. Box 730 Millbrae, CA 94030 3.57 ^crea Zonin8 at 50 units per acre- 170 units~ 155,830 sq.ft. For this purpose I have used 170 units with appl)xi~ately 120,O00 sq. ft. of rents! space at S1.62 per sq, ft. for rents! Monthly income would be S194,400. - $2,332,800, per annum !xpenses based on average of 52% including vaca~ :y factor of gross income- $1,213.056. ~et Xncome $1,319.76&. Cost of construction based on $75.00 per sq. ft, p]u~ land value s incubation period of 18 months OTAL $9,000.000. 5,000.000. °' Loan of $10,202,'500. at IO~X per annun, a~oritl~ ~d over 20 year period. SI~O19.229 per ~onth Annua! loa'n payments $ 1,223,07&. Ag~UAL IECO~IE EX~EgSES LESS LOA~ PAY~ESTS CASH FLOI~ Return on ~nvested Capita! approx. would be negative ~ssed on these figures These figures are only esttmates~ Property Value ts based on eight (8) times the I~nthly gross S 2,332,800. 1,213,056. 1,019,229. (103,330.) PLANNING COMMISSION MAP 0 LEGEND LAND USE AND ClRCULATION MAP HbSlu~N'[IAL Low Medium High COMMERCIAL ~ Retail [~t Planned '.-, :. c.':. ~,~ INDUSTRIAL l.~:~ -'.:~q Light ..~ Planned FROM: OPEN SPACE; LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; MEDIUM DENSITY RF-~IDENTIAL TO: HIGH D,E,N$1T'Y RF. SJDF._J~rrb~L EL CAMINO CORRIDOR SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO OPEN SPACE ~;?,~ Existing ';:.:;:,.:': t Proposed TRA~IT ORI~D FROM: PLANNED COMI~ TO:. TRANSIT ORIENTED RESIDENTIAL FROM: MEDIUM DENSFrY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CIRCULATION MajorArterial MinorArterial Collector ~! -- BART Station ' '"'" LEGEND RESIDENTIAL I Low Medium High COMMERCIAL ~ Retail [;~] Planned INDUSTRIAL ~;~! Light ~ Planned OPEN SPACE I~-~,.~ Existing ','.. 5 ', ?; I.,,.;,-., 1 Proposed CIRCULATION MajorArterial .MinorArterial Collector BART Station CITY COUNCIL MAP LAND USE AND CIRCULATION MAP El Camino Corridor South San Francisco N FROI~ OI"EN SPACT4 IOw DENSITY RESJDE. NTIA L; MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO:. IlIGH DENSITY RF-.SID~I. RF.~IDENTIA~ l:~ !FROM: MEDIUM DENSITY TO:. RESIDENTIAL IIJGJI DENSJT~ RF..,~IDENTIAL FROM: PLANNED COMMERCIAl TO:. TRANSIT OR IEJCTI~D RF~IDENTIAL C-2 SUBMITTED INTO RECORD OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPY, ENI AGENCY HEELING OF MAY 26, 1993 SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ' ''? ....... --- -- .... '-" ~' ' - ~'~ ' ..... " .- ,--_- _.~_-.~: -~ ........... D~'-:'3E O~_- · '.- '-'._ ~., F.-- C2,'TZD o 8 E&GD DEPT. LETTER D May 26, 1993 Council Members South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency city of South San Francisco City Hall 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 County Con.unity coll~ge ~s%riot Dear Council Members: This letter is written on behalf of the San Ma%eo Coun=y Community College District ("College Dietric~"). We arm writing to protest the certification of the Environmental Impact Report on the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project and the adoption of the Redevelopnent Plan for that project. While the undergrounding of the Bay Area Rapid Transit tracks through the City of San Francisco may be a commendable project, it is not proper to fund much a proJec~ at the expense of and to the detriment of other taxing entities such as the College District. We believe that =he Certification of =he EIR an~ the approval of the proposed Redevelopment Plan by your Agency would be improper for tbs following reasons: The specific deficiencies of the £IR appear to include, but are not limited, to the following~ A. The EIR does not provide for mitigation of the Project's impact on the College District. It is not sufficient to identify impacts as significant But fail to provide adequate mitigation. Merely noting ideas whereby other a~encies nay act themselves to mitiqate the results of the ProJec~ is not a valid approach. D-1 D-2 BOARD OF IRUS]'EES' Helen Hausman. President; Tulho Bertini. Vice P, esident-Clerk; Thomas t. Constant,no; W, lham E. Jo,clan. M D.; James R To, me~: J' 3401 CSM Drive, San Mateo. California 94402 (415) 574-6550 Council Members May 26, 1993 Page 2 B. The EIR identifies certain Bignificant impacts bu~ fails to set ou~ specific mitigation measures and defer, their analysis into the future. See, for instance, the references to wastewater, (pg. 333), sewer system (pg. 233) and police services (pg. 238). Such an approach to mitigation is invalid under S~ndstr~m v. County of ~endociDc, (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 248 Cal.Rptr. 352. D-3 C. The EIR does not adequately address recent studiesI which indicate that economic growth is the primary cause of[ D-4 population growth bo~h historically and today. D. The EXR does required by the California Community Redevelopment Law. not distinguish between mitigation Environmental ~uality Act and the E. The EIR does not identify the manner in which the College District would Be able to operate in general or meet i~e increased need for school facilities withouu receiving tax revenues generated by the Project. D-6 F. The EIR does not adequately examine projections for increased studen~ enrollment by the College District due to the Project. Even as of this late date, the Agency does not have adequate demographic information. ~. The EXR does not adequately discuss the timing for implementation of ~he Project. The consequential financial and environmental impacts cannot be properly anticipated or planned for by the College District. D-8 H. The EIR does not adequately address the impact of the Project's compliance with low and moderate income housing requirements. ~. The EIR does not adequately consider the alternative I of permitting private enterprise acting alone to develop the ProjectID-10 Area and cure the alleged "bliqh~." J. The EIR does not adequately address safety and noise [ D-Il considerations. K. The College District does not have sufficient information from which to determine that all notices required By CE~A have Beer. given and on that Basis contend that such notices have not Been given in the manner required By law. D-12 Council Members May 26, 1993 Page 3 The specific deficiencies of the Project appear to include, I but are not limited to, the following: A. The Project does not provide for alleviation of the[ Project's impact on the College District. . B. The Project does not adequately address recent studies which ~ndicate that economic growth ia the primary cause populatmon growth, both historically and today. C. The Project does not distinguish between mitiga~lon~ required by the California Environmental Quality Act ann the community Redevelopment Law. D. The Project does not identify the manner in which the College District would be able to operate in general or meet its increased needs for school facilities receiving tax revenues generated by the Project. E. The Project does no~ adequately examine proJec~ions for increased studen~ enrollment due to the ProJec~ and the impac~ of these increases on the College District. In fact,the plam l~dica~es a complete inability on the part of the Agency to understand the method by which California community college dis=ricts ara financed and the adverse effects on the District by reason o~ the increase in student population generated by the Project. F. The Project does not adequately discuss the timing for implementation of the Project. The consequential financial and environmental impacts cannot be properly anticipated or planned for by the College District. ~. The ProJec~ ~e~not adequately address the impac~ of the Project's c0mpl~&nce low and moderate income housingI requirements. H. The Project does not adequately consider the, alternative of permitting private enterprises acting alone to develop the Project Area. I. The ProJec[ Area is no~ blighted. A redevelopment project is Justified under California law only if its purpose is to cure the "bligh~" which exists in the preJect area. ~eal=h an~ ~afetv Co~e Sections ~0~1 and ~0~2. A Redevelopment Plan is not proper unles~ its primary purpose is to cure a blighted condition which exists in the area. In the proposed project it is clear tha~ D-13 D-14 D'15 ' D-16 D-A7 D-18 D-19 D-20 D-2] Council Members May 26, 1993 ~age 4 the sole and overriding purpose of the proposed project is to provlde the necessary funds to place the BART tracks underground. It is clear that the inclusion of the property within the Project Area is merely to create the opportunity for the development of tax increment monies to fund the cost of the undergrounding. This is allegedly on the basis of the under-utilization of properties in the area and of the need to recreate a small number of parcels in a more useable form. To establish that a proposed redevelopment area is bllghted, it is not sufficient to merely show that the area is not being put to its optimum use or that the land is more valuable for other uses; it requires a showing that there exists a situation where blight exists to the extent that it constitutes a real hindrance to development, and that %his hindrance cannot be eliminated or improved without public assistance through redevelopment. Sweetwater Valley Civic Assoc~'ation v. City of National City, (1976), 18 Cal.3d. 270, 555 P.2d. 1099, 133 Cal.Rptr. 859. The reason for the inclusion of the properties within the proposed project area Is clear from statements made by staff that the development of this area would not be permitted by the city unless it were included within the project area, i.e., the proposed density is not good planning but would be approved because it would produce tax increment monies to fund th~ undergrounding. U. The Project improperly includes territory, such as the McLellan Nursery mite, within the Project Area solely for the purpose of adding increased tax increment revenues. Such properties are not blighted and would not be improved by reason of the improvements to be constructed by the Agency. K. The Project is in violation of the Health and Safety ~ in that the alleged "blight" which exists in the Project Area, /~_~_~, alleged inadequate parcelization and improper utilization of the area will not be "cured" by the undergrounding of BART or the undsrgrounding of Colma Creek. These two projects comprise $27.4 million dollars (in 1992-92 dollars) of the monies estimated to be spent to cure the "b~ght" by the Agency while only $1.2 mill~on (in 1992-93 dollars) is proposed for infrastructure improvements. (All other redevelopment monies go for Agency administration and low and moderate ~ncome housing.) It is, therefore, clear that almost all of the tax increment monies will go for the BART and Colma Creek undergrounding while very little actually goes to cure the alleged "blightS. If "blight" does exist in the Project Area as alleged, the elements of blight noted in the Plan could readily be resolve9 by private enterprise if the CityWould be willing to give appropriate zoning to those parcels even if this Project is not approved. D-21 (cont'~ D-22 D-23 Council Members May 26, 1993 Page 5 L. The Project does not adequately identify and evaluate the measures stated in Health and Safety cod~ section 33353,5 which would~ (1) Modify the total amount of tax increment to be received by the Agency. (2) Modify the duration of the Project plan. (~) Modify the size of the Project area. (4) Modify the number of specific projects proposed to be undertaken by the Agency (5) Include specific actions for projects to be undertaken by the Agency which would reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects on the College District. District. (6) Involve payments by the Agency to the college M. The Agency has failed to comply with applicable fiscal review procedures and failed to qive adequate consideration to the determinations and recommendations o£ the Fiscal Review Committee. see the attached portion of the Fiscal Review Committee Report relating %o the College District, the Agency's response that Report and the rebuttal by the College District to the Agency's response. It should be further noted that the Agency has failed to fully provide the information requested by the College D~etrict in its letter of February 17, 1~3 to Elaine Costello, a copy of which is enclose4. The failure of the Agency to provide the College District with this information has hampered the College District in its r~spon~e to the A~ency regarding the proposed project and the College District requests additional time after the receipt of the reques%e~ information within which to augment this record. N. The Pro~ect does not comply with Health an~ Sa~etYl Code Seotion 33401, O. The College District does not have sufficient information from which to determine that all reports and notices required by the CommunAt¥ Redevelopment Law have been prepared an~ given, and on that basis allege that they have not been prepared or given in the manner require4 by law. D-24 D-25 D-26 D-27 Council Members May 26, 1993 page 6 The San Mateo County Community College District is in favor of the goal of the city of South San Francimco to underground the BART tracks through the City, however, the Di.trict is concerned that a major burden will be placed on the District if this goal lmplemerted through the use of the Community Redevelopment Law. The School Dl~tr~ot, already hard hit by cuts in state funding which in the pas~ several years have resulted in major reductions in the school 'budget and educational programs, cannot bear additional burdens imposed by the proposed redevelopment project. It is clear from the Community Redevelopment Law that schools must be given primary attention. Section 33680(a) "The Legislature finds and declares that the effectuation of the primary purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law, including job creation, attracting new private commercial investments, the physical and social improvement of residential neighborhoods, and the provision and maintenance of low-and moderate-income housing is dependent upon the existence of an adequate and financially solvent school system which is capable of providing for the safety and eduction of students who live within both redevelopment project areas and housing assisted by redevelopment agencies. The attraction of new businesses to redevelopment project areas depends upon the existence of an adequately trained work force, which can only be accomplished if education st the primary and secondary schools is adec/uate and general education and job training at community colleges iS available. The ability of communities to build residential development and attract residents in redevel°pmen~ project areas depends upon the existence of adequately maintained and operating schools sex-ring ~he redevelopment proJeot area. The development and maintenan~e of Iow- and moderate-income housing both within redevelopment project areas and throughout the community can only be successful if adequate schools exist to serve the residents of this housing." D-28 Council Members May 26, 1993 Page 7 Therefore, the College District requests that the Agency not certify the EIR or approve the proposed Redevelopment Plan until the deficiencies cited in this letter are corrected and measures to mitigate the impact of this Project on the College District are adopted. Sincerely, Chancellor San Mateo County Community College District Fiscal Detriment Statement from the San Mateo County Community College District As a Result of Establishment of the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project, South San Francisco April 15, 1993 While the San Mateo County Community College District supports the general goals of the proposed E1 Camino Corridor Project, we strongly believe that community development goals must not be achieved by means that create financial burdens for other public agencies. The City's goal to underground the BART project and make other infrastructure and street improvements is laudable; however, we believe that there are more appropriate ways to pay for these improvements which will not impact other taxing agencies. For example, the City could use City tax revenues, form an assessment district, and/or ask the residents of the City to approve a bond measure to finance the proposed projects. Any one of these three methods will not result in a loss of revenue to other taxing entities. According to the Health and Safety Code, the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency must make a finding that "the effect of tax increment financing will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment on any taxing agency deriving revenues from a project area." In order to make such a factual finding, in light of information presented in this report and other oral and written communications from the College District, your agency must first establish that mitigating measures have been implemented. Such action will be consistent with Mealth & Safety Code Section 33353.3 which requires consultation with affected taxing entities and requires that your City "...suggest provisions in the redevelopment plan which would alleviate or eliminate a financial burden or detriment." While we have completed a number of discussions with the City involving the scope of the project, the potential impact on the College District, and possible mitigation measures, to date, .an agreement on mitigation measures has not been reached. Relationship of Colleqe District to Proposed Prodect The College District is a public school district organized and functioning under the laws of the State of California, with operations, ia the County of San Mateo. The College District now provides and will continue to provide public educational services at the community college level in the County of San Mateo. The College District has and will continue to receive property tax revenues from real an4 personal property located within the propose4 project area. The proposed project area falls entirely within the boundaries of the College District and is n~t served by another public agency with similar or duplicated services. The College District administration believes that the proposed project will cause significant fiscal detriment to the College District as detriment is defined in Health & Safety Code Section 33012. To fulfill its public obligations and meet its legally required duties, the College District must object to the Preliminary Report, the Redevelopment Plan and Draft EIR and request that revisions be made before the City of South San Francisco adopts the proposed plan. lI. ~tatement of Fiscal Detriment The following discussion identifies specific examples of fiscal detriment to be imposed on the College District as a result of the redevelopment project. 1. Loss of General Funds The use of tax increment financing will reduce property tax revenues available to the College District and thereby cause a significant financial detriment to the District. Such impact is not adequately addressed in the Report and Plan. Failure to address this potentially significant impact renders the Report and Plan incomplete and therefore inadequate. In San Mateo County, more than a dozen redevelopment projects have been established and the cumulative impact of these projects on the College District's local property tax revenues is significant. Continued erosion of local property tax sources cannot be allowed. Currently, the College District receives approximately 17 percent of its total general fund revenue from the State. The balance is derived from local property tax revenues, student fees, lottery and miscellaneous income. Two factors have contributed to a rapid decline in the proportionate share of general fund revenues received from the State for our College District: the lack of State COLAs for the past several years and rapidly increasing student fees which are mandated by the State. Both these factors have the effect of moving our College District more rapidly towards "self-support" status; i.e., the point at which the College will no longer receive any State funding and will be totally reliant upon local property taxes, student fees and miscellaneous income to fund our programs and services. When that event occurs, the College District will not be able to tolerate any loss of local property tax dollars generated within San Mateo County. Because the College District is close to attaining self- support status, and because the Redevelopment Plan will be in existence for 40 years, the District is very concerned about the establishment of this redevelopment project which utilizes tax increment financing. The diversion of tax dollars as a result of this financing method will cause a direct, long- lasting and significant adverse impact on us. When we attain ~elf-support status -- currently estimated to occur within the next five years -- the College District will annually sustain a direct dollar loss as a result of the South San Francisco Redevelopment Project which will continue throughout the remaining 35-year life of the project. This amount is estimated to total approximately $16 million over the life of the project (assuming the tax increment cap is $230 million). 2. Additional Services Costs As a result of the new housing and new residents which the redevelopment project will generate, the College District will be required to provide additional educational programs and services to these new residents. Under the current method of funding community colleges, the District will not receive any additional funding to support these new students. This constitutes a direct and significant fiscal detriment to the College District. At present, the College District operates with a combination of local property taxes and State revenues. Due to enrollment growth limits for community colleges which are part of State law, additional students entering the College District as a result of the proposed project may bring no new State revenues. The College District must educate any of these students who request services, causing an increased financial burden without offsetting revenues. When the College District becomes fully funded by property tax revenues (i.e., "self- supporting") it will no longer receive State dollars for Operations. After that time, more students with nominal increases in' property tax revenues will result in fewer dollars per student, which will be a direct and significant fiscal detriment to the College District. At present, the College District serves approximately I of every 16 adults residing in San Mateo County each semester. Enrollment in the College District is available to California residents seeking to attend, irrespective of place of residence. Potential impact on the College District can be determined by the number of new students associated with the proposed project. Assuming 3,185 new housing units with 0.53 children and 0.2 pre-school children, there are about 1.8 eligible adults per unit or about 5,800 eligible adults (based on Project El12). One in 15, or 358, will attend one of our three. C~lleges. Every three students generally creates one Full-Time Equivalent Student (FTES), the basis upon which State support is calculated. Therefore, the 358 students created by the project will create 119 FTES. The current cost of educating a full-time student is estimated to be $3,381 per student per year. Because the College District is capped off from receiving additional State funding for these added students, this will constitute a real loss to the District estimated to equal $402,339 for each year of the project. The total cost for these added students and services over the 40 year life of the project would be approximately $16 million. An additional service cost that the redevelopment project will cause the College District to incur is hard to quantify. In our review of the Plan and EIR, it appears that the high density housing which is part of the Plan is not adequately supported by additional City services and may in fact not be consistent with the City General Plan. Our particular concerns are in the areas of libraries and park and recreation services. An additional 5,800 adults generated by the project will undoubtedly place strains on City library and park and recreation facilities. Without adequate City services, the new residents may turn %o our Colleges, particularly Skyline College, as an alternate provider of library or park and recreation services. An unknown cost is associated with this additional service. 3. Additional Facilities Costs The College District does not and is not entitled to collect school facility fees from new development. 'The District needs 100 square feet of school space for each Full-Time Equivalent Student (FTES) at a cost of approximately $155 per square foot or approximately $15,500. Therefore, the project-related YTES will require about $1.8 million. Another $46 per square foot is needed for necessary'equipment, or an additional $547,000. Therefore, the College District will need approximately $2,347,000 to mitigate both of these problems. All costs related to expansion of capital facilities due to redevelopment activities are currently unfunded by the various State programs, and there is no reason to believe that this condition is likely to substantially change in the near future. III. Summary And Recommendations For the Agency to provide for the impacts of the proposed project upon the College District, the following funding is needed: Additional Services Requirements General Fund Losses College Construction and Equipment $ 16,000,000 16,000,000 2,347,000 Total $ 34,347,000 ~t would ~ppear that the District's share of the tax increment revenues accruing over the term of the project will be approximately $16 million (assuming a cap of $230 million). Because the ultimate detriment to the District far exceeds its share of the tax ~ncrement, it is recommended that the District receive all of its share of the tax increment revenues for the term of the project. IV. Conclusion Based on the preceding analysis and discussion, the College D~strict offers for the record and submits under Health & Safety Code Section 33353.5 that it will suffer fiscal detriment from the project. Measures to mitigate impacts on the College District have been suggested above and must be established prior to further action on the project. The District will very soon become entirely self- supporting and cannot tolerate the loss of the increment from this project. The College District is available to work with City representatives and is anxious to reach agreement on mitigation measures. Office of the Redevelopment Agency 415/8'/7-8500 FAX 8?2-3269 May 19, 1993 Paul Scannell Assistant County Manager County of San Mateo .401 Marshall Street County Government Center Redwood city, CA 94063 Dear Paul: Attached is a revised response to the Fiscal Review Committee Report for the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan. The response sent to you yesterday was the administrative draft prepared for staff review, which was inadvertently sent to you. Please disregard the previous copy sent to you. Patricia E. Martel Interim Executive Director San Mateo Community College District South San Francisco Unified School District 400 Ora,zd Avenue · P.O. Box 71! · 940~3 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESPONSE tO Fiscal Review Committee Report E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project Area May 18, 1993 Response to the South San Francisco Unified School D~rict: Staff of the Agency and the School District have reached agreement as to a sharing of revenues fi.om tax increment to mitigate the impacts noted by the District. Therefore, no extended response to the District's letter is provided. Please refer to the accompan~,ing Table A, which indicates that, pursuant to the tax-sharing agreement with staff of the District, the property taxes which will be received by the School District over the life of the Project with the Plan will total an estimated $10.8 million (1993 dollars), versus a receipt of $6.6 million without the Project -- a benefit to the District of more than $4 million to fund operating costs. In respect to capital costs, the School District could receive more than $4 million in developer impact fees stemming from the residential development, at the current charge per square foot, which is subshanfially less than the maximum rate that could be imposed by the Dislrict to fund these costs. Response to the San Mateo County Community College District: The District, in its letter of April 15, makes the following points: Comment: There are "more appropriate ways lo pay for these improvements which will not impact other taxing agencies. For example, the City could use City tax revenues, form an assessment district, and/or ask the residents of the City to approve a bond measure to finance the proposed projects" (page 1). Response: The Report on the Redevelopment Plan (pp. 39-42) specifically identifies alternative funding sources for the Project, and concludes that none are feasible. Comment: The Project will result in the loss of approximately $16 million in property tax revenues to the District throughout the life of the Project (page 2). Response: This claim appears to be fallacious. In order to test it, the Agency's economic consultant, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) created two financial scenarios, shown on the accompanying pages. The first .scenario (Table B) indicates the receipt of property tax revenues to the District with No Project, as identified in the Project EIR. In this scenario, the District continues to receive its mandated share of the property taxes generated in the Project Area; this scenario involves little new development. The present worth of the receipts for the life of the Plan, with these assumptions, would be $1.1 million, with a discount rate of 7% per year. The second scenario indicates the receipt of property tax revenues to the District with the Project, also as identified in the Project EIR. In this scenario, it is assumed that the District would share in property taxes in the same manner as would the School District, under the agreement between the staff of the District and the Agency; this scenario involves substantial new development. The present worth the receipts for the life of the Plan, with these assumptions, would be $1.8 million, with a discount rate of 7 % per year. Therefore, it appears that the District will receive more property lax with the Project than without it. Comment: The Project would engeinder substantial additional service costs to the District due to the generation by the project of additional students. The cost to the District of this impact would be approximately $16 million (pp. 34). Response: Even with acceptance of all of the District's assumptions, the estimate of impact appears substantially overstated. However, a number of the District's assumptions appear highly questionable, and it does not appear reasonable that substantial detriment will occur. As a first step in evaluating the fiscal impact on the District, the Agency's economic consultant, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. developed a financial evaluation of service costs to the District based on the proposed build-out of the residential uses proposed in the Project and incorporating all of the assumptions of the District in regard to the varia31es affecting cost (Table C): (1) number of adults per dwelling unit; (2) number of students and Full Time Equivalent ('FTE) students; (3) cost of educating each student. The result of this analysis -- granting all of the assumptions indicated by the District in their letter -- is that the cost to the District would be $5.9 million in Present Value dollars. With a deduction for increased property taxes to the District, the net effect with the District's assumptions would be $5.2 million. The differential between this estimate and the District's estimate of $16 million is largely due to the fact that the District failed to take into account that any impacts of the project would be felt gradually, as the project is built-out; all of the units would not be in place at one time, as implied in the District's analysis. There are, however, substantial reasons why the estimate provided above - based entirely on the District's assumptions -- may be misleading and may greatly overestimate the detriment to the Distri~:t, as follows: The District does not provide any documentation for the annual cost of educating students -- it is not clear what cost items are included in their analysis; The District's analysis does not take into account the fact that some costs, such as for Administration, may be fixed rather than variable, and, therefore, are largely unaffected by an insignificant increase in the number of students; The District's analysis also does not appear to take into account revenue that would be generated by additional students. Categories of increased revenue that could accrue to the District include the following: enrollment, health services, student records, parking services, and other student fees and charges. In FY 1991-92, these sources of income accounted for more than $4 million in revenue to the District; The accuracy of the District's assertion that "the College District is capped off from receiving additional state funding for these added students..." (page 3) is by no means self-evident, given the method by which College Districts are funded; generally, for community college districts, the primary impact from :'edevelopment will occur only if the redevelopment project is responsible for an increase in ADA that goes beyond the 2 1/2% increase covered by the state; it appears that for redevelopment to seriously impact a community college district, the increase in ADA must exceed 2 1/2% per year, which is substantially less than the additional number of students generated by the project. Above all, it strains credulity that the addition of an average of 3 full-time students per year over the life of the project, on an existing base of 30,565 students who lg352~0001,038 ~ attend District schools, would have more than a minimal impact on the District's operating costs. Comment: The Project would place strains on City library, park and recreation facilities that could Tesult in an additional service burden on the District (page 4). Response: These issues ate addressed in the ErR, which identifies measures that could be implemented to mitigate these impacts. Comment: The l:h'oject would impose additional facilities costs on the District, totalling $2,347,000, stemming from the increased enrollment. Response: Based on the District's assumptions regarding the cost for space, the Present Value of the cost for new facilities would be $1.5 million, assuming a timing of development in tandem with increasing enrollment, as the Project continued to be built out (Table D). However, as with the District's assertions regarding on-going operating costs, their statements regarding capital cost burdens appear overstated: The District does not demonstrate that the few new students generated by the Project creates incremental needs that could not be accommodated in existing facilifies~ The District's comment does not address alternative possibilities to the high cost of new construction, such as accommodating students at existing facilities at the Skyline campus, redh'ecting students to other campuses, use of excess space at minimal cost from other entities such as the School District - their solution to accommodating additional students by building new facilities appears to be the most expensive course that could be envisaged. In respect to the first possibility (accommodation at the Skyline campus), it is noted that enrollment has recently declined and that the student base numbers more than 9,000 persons; within this context, the burdens that would be imposed by the Project appear minimal. In sum, the burden to accommodate 119 students at full build-out of the Project (many years hence), out of an existing base of more than 30,000 students appears minimal. ~,as2xooo~.oaB 61 °° ~ ° °° ~ ° °° ~ ° °° ~ ° °° ~ ° oo ~ o oo ~ o oo ~ o oo ~ o oo ~ o oo ,~ o °° ~ ° oo ~ o Rebuttal of the Agency's Response to the Fiscal Review Committee Report South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency May 25, 1993 The College District would like to make the following points regard;ng the Agency's Response to the Fiscal Review Committee's Report: 1) The Agency's Response questions the College District's assertion that the District could lose as much as $16 m;llion over the life of the Project as the result of reduced property tax revenues. The Agency Response seems to indicate that, without the Redevelopment Project, very little growth will occur within the Project Area. The College District believes otherwise. Because of its prime inner-Bay Area location, the Project Area, we believe, will eventually be developed-with or without the Redevelopment Project. The BART extension alone will increase the demand for both housing and retail and commercial space in South San Francisco. Although City officials now state that the McClellan and Macy's warehouse properties will "never' be developed without a Redevelopment Project, we do not believe that is a reasonable assumption. Growth pressures brought about by the BART line and station will eventually force development of all areas not currently zoned for open space. The location of this Project Area and the prime parcels within it will, we believe, be developed to- accommodate the inevitable growth in the North County. D-29 2) 3) The Agency's Response indicates a lack of understanding about the way community colleges are financed. At each of the Fiscal Review Committee meetings, College District representatives explained that community colleges are not funded like K-12 districts, where additional students bring in additional dollars. Community colleges operate under both a 'revenue limit" and an "enrollment cap," which effectively limits growth within the system. Currently, the San Mateo County Community College District has more Full Time Equivalent Students (FTES) than the State will fund. For 1992-93, the District estimates that student FTES will be 2.8% above the State cap. The State does not provide funding for any of the students above the cap. Therefore, any new growth related to the South San Francisco Project is a direct detriment to the District because no new dollars -- not even enrollment fees, which are part of the State's revenue limit -- will be received by the District. In the Agency's Response to the Fiscal Review Committee's report, the following statements are made: "...the burden to accommodate 119 students at full build-out of the Project (many years hence), out of an existing base of more than 30,000 students appears minimal.' D-30 D-31 '...it appears that, for redevelopment to seriously impact a community college district, the increase in ADA (sic) must exceed 2..5% a year..." '...it strains credulity that the addition of an average of 3 full-time students per year over the life of the project" will impact the District significantly. All three statements are absolutely false. The Agency fails to acknowledge that, as a result of the fully built out project, the College District will receive an additional 1 19 full time equivalent students annually for which no additional state funding will be available. In information given to the Fiscal Review Committee on March 1, 1993, the Agency estimated the dates at which new residential units will be built in the Project Area. Substantial numbers of new dwellings are projected by the Agency to be built in the early years of the Project, with full build-out achieved in the year 2013. The College District assumes that, for each year following full build-out, 119 full-time students from the Project Area will come to the College District, which represents an annual detriment of $402,339. Prior to that time, the additional service cost is somewhat less than the $402,339 annual cost, however; the total impact on the College District easily equals or exceeds the $16 million cited in the Fiscal Review Committee Report. The statement claiming that redevelopment will not affect community colleges until a 2.5% increase in ADA (sic) is experienced is also false. The College District cannot determine how this supposed "fact" was derived. First, the District is funded by FTES, not ADA. Secondly, as explained earlier, the District already exceeds its state-imposed cap of 17,943 FTES by 2.8% (477 full-time students). Each additional FTES beyond the cap incurs additional costs by the District which are not funded by the State or by enrollment fees. D-31 (cont ' ~ It is also untrue that the additional students generated by the Project Area can be accommodated at Skyline College, as was suggested in the Response. Even though Skyline's student population dropped slightly this year, the College continues to turn away hundreds of students each semester because of closed classes. 4) The Agency's Response also questions the assumptions about residential growth and occupancy levels within the Project Area used by the District to D-32 calculate the impact of the Project on the District. These assumptions (3185 housing units; .53 children and 1.8 adults per unit) are taken directly from the I Project EIR provided by the Agency. 5) The Agency Response states that "The Report on the Redevelopment Plan (pp. 39-42) specifically identifies alternative funding sources for the Project, and concludes that none are (sic) feasible." This is incorrect and misleading. D-33 There is no analysis of whether or not a Citywide bond measure could be used to finance the improvement which are included in this Redevelopment Project. These improvements will benefit the entire City, not just the Project Area. Therefore, the College District believes that a bond measure should be explored. If residents of the City were fully informed about the long-term negative impact of tax increment financin9 on their schools and the College District, we believe residents might favorably consider a bond measure to finance the improvements the Agency staff believes are necessary. Requiring a vote of the citizens on a bond measure or on an assessment district rather than diverting revenues from school districts and other public agencies, we believe, represents the very best way of financing improvements in the Project Area, D-3 (cont CONCLUSION: As stated in the Report of the Fiscal Review Committee, according to the Health and Safety Code, the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency must makeaflndingthat "the effect of tax increment financing will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment on any taxing agency deriving revenues from a project area." When considering both the Report of the Fiscal Review Committee and this Rebuttal of the Agency's Response to the Fiscal Review Com~nittee, the College District believes that the Agency Board cannot make this finding. The signi'icant financial detriment caused by the South San Francisco El Camlno Corridor Redevelopment Project for the San Mateo County Community College District is not adequately addressed in the Preliminary Report, the Redevelopment Plan or in the Agency;s Response to the Fiscal Review Committee's Report. Failure to address the significant impact of this Pro'ect on the College District renders the Report and the Plan incomplete and therefore inadequat.e. D-34 LETTER E SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Fiscal Impact on E1Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project E-1 E-2 The Board of Trustees is concerned that implementation of the plan will result in a burden on the School District. The District, already hard hit by cuts in funding which in the past three years have resulted in major reductions in the school budget and educational programs, cannot bear additional financial burdens imposed by the proposed redevelopment project. The schools of attendance for the additional students, generated by the approximately 3,086 new residential units, will be Sunshine Gardens Elementary, Buri Buri. Elementary, E1 Rancho Elementary (would require re-opening), Parkway Heights and Alta Loma Middle Schools and El Camino High School. Estimates of the number of additional K-12 students range from 700 by the year 2015 to 1,300 in the year 2040 and beyond. (Lapkoff and Gobalet Demographic Research, Inc. The impacted schools are currently at capacity and the District (bisected by a freeway and E1Camino Real) does not prow busing. This means that there are limited opportunities to adj, attendance boundaries and to place students where space might be availal ~ in other areas of the School District. The costs to reconstruct E1 Rancho School for re-opening and to construct additional classrooms and support service areas at Alta Loma Middle School, Parkway Heights Middle School and E1 Camino High School are estimated from $7,000,000 to $9,000,000, depending on the extend of reconstruction on E1 Rancho, and the number of new middle school and high school students. The School District will receive about $4,000,000 in developer fees at the current rate of $1.50 per square foot or $4,400,000 if the allowable $1.65 per square foot rate is adopted ~y the Board of Trustees. The State's voters in November 1994 will determine if the interim additional $1.00 per square foot fee will be allowed to continue. The Board of Trustees may authorize the required study necessary to support an increase in developer fees to the amount allowed by the State; however, this amount can be changed or eliminated by the legislator or voters during the life time of the 40 year project. Even with the imposition of fees and a possible smaller number of students, the impact on the School District Just for providing additional facilities, classroom furniture and equipment will be substantial. 1.) 2.) Summary of Proposed Agreements Amendment to E1Camino Project The District will receive 2% of the District's share of the "frozen" base year taxes each year for 40 years. (A total of $224,000 in present value dollars for the life of the project.) An additional 3~ wil' be added for a total of 5% beginnin~ in year 16, subject to certain conditions. (A total of $1,941,000 in present value dollars for the life of the project.) Amendment to Downtown Redevelopment Project The District will receive $100,000 each year for 12 years and $50,000 for an additional 6 years. (A total of $1,000,000 in present value dollars.) The Second Agreement - Amendment to Downtown Redevelopment Project - will provide an income stream, along with developer fees, which would allow the District to borrow the amount of funds necessary to construct classrooms and support facilities for projected student enrollment. 617193 -3- LETTER F LAPKOFF & GOBALET DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, INC. Memorandum To: Ianice Smith, Business Manager, South San Francisco Unified School District From: Shelley Lapkoff, Ph.D. Subject: Enrollment Forecast for the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan Date: May 21, 1993 This memorandum discusses the number of new SSFUSD students that are likely to result from housing construction proposed for the El Camino Corridor near the proposed South San Francisco BART station. A total of 3,225 high density apartments and condominium units are proposed. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project suggests enrollment would number between 406 and 808 students at buildout (Final EIR Attachment, page 51). Our analysis suggests that approximately 700 students will live in the E1 Camino Corridor by 2015. For the District, it is important that redevelopment projects are legally required to set aside 20 percent of redevelopment revenues to provide.for very flow, low, and low moderate income housing. This means that approximately $10 million will be devoted to subsidized housing in the project area. According to the EIR, approximately 340 units would receive an average $30,000 subsidy in one form or another. This is important because student yields (the average number of students per housing unit) are almost always substantially higher in subsidized housing. Evaluation of EIR Enrollment Forecast The EIR uses a study by Kcyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) indicating that student yields in high density apartments and condominiums range from .10 to .35 per unit. These yields are based on a survey of comparable high density (40 or more units per acre) residential projects constructed in proximity to BART stations in Richmond, Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creek. At this drne, we luzve been unable to obtada background data or documentation for this study, but our investigation of student yields in other communities suggest that the KMA yields are reasonable for non-subsidized housing units. Lapkofl Office: 155 Filbert St.. Suite 254 Oakland, CA 94607 (510) 763-7218 Fax (510) 763.7508 LGD: Enrollment Forecast We ,eloped an enrollment forecast for the project area using KMA student yields for non-st bsidized housing and developed a separate estimate for the subsidized units. For non-st ousing, we assume the average yield suggested by KMA for each · For subsidized units, we assume one student for every two units (.$ student yield). The timing of the housing forecast is based on the table by KMA (page :51). Housirg construction is assumed to occur evenly through the range of dates l~rovided. In the housing in each apartment complex will be available at one time, and not ;ntally. Because the range of dates indicates an uncertainty about when the will be completed, we have spread the additional students over the time span indicat, The timing of the enrollment forecast should be revised when the consl~ction date of ;ach projects becomes known. Table I presents a housing forecast based on the time table presented in the EIR Final page 51. A total of 3,225 new units are expected by 201:5. Table 2 presents our basex:l on this housing forecast. A total of 712 students are forecasl at buildout. F-1 (cont'd) It shoul( ~ the in the yields ),ear be stressed that enrollments from multi-f~aKly units vary a great deal ove:' time age sl~'ucture changes. During periods when there are more children ~ulafion, yields will be high; when a smaller share of the population is young, be Iow. In addition, there can be wide random variation in yields from year to high mobility of renten. It is possible that the total number of students generated by the redevelopment project will be as low as 300 and as high az different time periods. In particular, as the housing units age and if fill, unit will become more affordable to families with children. It is most likely that yields I be greatest (toward the 1,300 range) in 2040 and beyond.'~ 01:5-2040, the large ~ World W~ II baby boom will be retired and ~ expect that ma~y ill live ia ~pmmenu and condominiums. As ~ generation fuel, Om dcm,md for multi. ~inI co~ld fall drsmafic~ly, lowcrlnl prices. If lower income fL, nilie4 coetinue ~o have ~lti.fa~ily units may show high s~nt 3 (C013' LETTER G [.AW OFFICES OF BERG~MAIx' & ~,¥EDNEI~, INC. .% Ut T E: 50~.0 ~AN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA ~4111 June 9, 1993 OUR FILI' NO. Council Members South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Council Members: This office represents the San Mateo County Community College District. In addition to the deficiencies noted in the letter to the Agency dated May 26, 1993 from Lois Callahan, Chancellor, San Mateo County Community College District, we would like to add the following: 1. The Agency has never provided the College District with a copy of the final draft of the Environmental Impact Report and the College District is therefore unable to further identify deficiencies therein. 2. The College District did not receive a copy of the Supplement to the Report on the Redevelopment Plan until after it had presented the May 26, 1993 letter to the Agency. It therefore has not had sufficient time to further identify deficiencies therein. Very truly yours, RICHARD V.~ GODINO RVG:nem G-1 G-2 cc: Lois Callahan June 9, 1993 Council Members South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Dear Council Members: This letter is written to protest the certification of the Environmental Impact Report on the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project and the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for that project. The South San Francisco Unified School District supports the goal of the City of South San Francisco to underground the BART tracks; however, the District is concerned that a major burden will be placed on the District if the project is funded through the use of Community Development Law and no agreement is reached with the District. It is clear fron the Community Redevelopment Law that schools must be given primary a:tention. A Tentative Agreement was reached between the Agency staff and District staff setting out specific mitigation measures relating to the fiscal impact of projected increases in student enrollment and the impact of the loss of local property taxes when the School District becomes self-supporting (property taxes equal the State Basic Revenue Limit amount). This agreement, referenced in the City's response to the District's report contained in the Fiscal Review Report, was adopted by the Board of Trustees on May 27, 1993. The council took no action on the agreement on May 26, 1993. To date, the District has not been contacted for further discussions on the proposed agreement. In the absence of an agreement, the District must report the following deficiencies relating to the operation of the School District: c: \doc\rvg [ t r s\SS FCI~CL .MBR Council Members June 9, 1993 Page 2 Environmental Impact Report (1) The Environmental Impact Report does not provide for mitigation of the projected impact on the School District. Noting ideas whereby the District may act, i.e., pass an election requiring 2/3rds votes for general obligation bonds to supplement developer fees, to mitigate the results of the Project is not a valid approach. (2) The Environmental Impact Report does not adequately address the impact of the Project's compliance with low and moderate income housing requirements and the yield factors for student enrollment from subsidized housing. The Lapkoff Demographic Report shows projected enrollment from the Project areas to be from 700 to 1,300 new students -- a 7% to 13% increase in student enrollment. (3) The Environmental Impact Report does not adequately consider the alternative of permitting private enterprise to develop the Project area. (4) The Environmental Impact Report does not adequately address safety and noise considerations, especially in the area of E1 Camino High School. Project (1) The Project does not identify the manner in which the District would be able to deal with the loss of property taxes for general operating purposes at such time when the District becomes a "basic aid" District. The District receives 43% of property taxes to offset State Revenue Limit Income. When the property tax amount equals the State Revenue Limit, projected to be in 12 to 15 years, the District's share of property taxes is available to fund the District's General Fund Budget. (2) The Project does not adequately identify and evaluate the measures stated in the Health and Safety Code's Section 33353.5 which includes specific actions for projects to be undertaken by the Agency which would reduce or eliminate the detrimental effects on the School District. (3) The District did not receive Supplement to the Redevelopment Plan until May 26 and has not had an opportunity to respond to any changes therein. H-3 C: \doc\rv9 [ t rs\SSFC#Cl..MaR Council Members June 9, L993 Page 3 In addition to the above deficiencies with regards to the EIR and the Project, the South San Francisco Unified School District incorporates those deficiencies noted in the letter from Lois CaLlahan, Chancellor, San Mateo County Community College District to the Agency dated May 26, 1993. Statement of Fiscal Detriment The following items identify specific examples of fiscal detrimen~ to be imposed on the School District as a result of the project: (1) Loss of General Funds. The use of tax increment financing will reduce the property tax revenue available to the School District. Currently, the District receives approximately 18.5% of its total General Fund Base Revenue Limit from the State. The balance is derived from local property tax revenues. Two factors have contributed to the decline in revenue received from the State: The lack of State C.O.L.A.'s and the increase in property taxes collected in the School District. The School District is moving towards "basic aid" status. In approximately 12-15 years, the District will receive a "basic aid" amount of $120.00 per student plus local property taxes and will no longer have a State limit on the amount to fund the Operating Budget. For this reason, the District is very concerned about the establishment of this project which utilizes tax increment funding. When the District attains "basic aid" status, it will annually sustain a direct dollar loss which will continue throughout the remaining life of the 40 year project. (2) Additional facilities Costs. As a result of the new housing and new residents which the project will generate, the District will be required to provide additional classrooms, rest rooms, multi-purpose rooms and other supporting service area facilities. While the District will receive approximately $4,000,000 in developer fees (or $4,400,000 if the fee is increased to $1.65 per square foot) at full build-out of the project, developer fees will not provide the full funding for needed classrooms and support areas. H-10 H-Il H-1 c: \doc\rvg ! t r$\SSFC#CL Council Members June 9, 1993 Page 4 The School District staff requests that the Agency not certify the Environmental Impact Report or approve the proposed Redevelopment Plan until the deficiencies, cited in this letter, are corrected and measures to mitigate the impact of this project on the District are adopted. According to the Health and Safety Code, the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency must make a finding that "the effect of tax increment financing will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment on any taxing agency deriving revenues from a project area". sincerely, RICH~RD/V. GODINO H-13 RVG:nem cc: Dr. Richard J. Rigg c: \doc \rvg ( t rs\SSFC#CL .HBR ..... JUq-09-1993 FROr~ LETTER I ]ga. ?atricfa E..Martel Interim Executive Director City o! South $~ ~raucl~¢o Jantce ~. ~mith :~ Table A, tefe~red to in tbs Response to the South San Frsucisco Unt~ted tax amounts a~d tbs a~ou~C o[ the tax-sba~e iu the agreement c0~?art~ou b~-~een prop~rt~ taxes I~euue with an~ ~o~ Redevelo~ac. ~e Dtsttlct t~ not receive the tax Juc~e fr~ the proj~t area amd abo~the ~o~t of ~se Revenue L~it fr~ the S~ce of C~llfo~ia. ~e tax l~nc~e ge~ersted fr~ the ploject a~ea tot the ~c~l (~3~) is an offset to the ~mount the O/strict receives fr~ the ~e District will receive, ti an agre~nt is ~ppr~ved, the:2~ ~gt~l~.in lgg~ - · total of $224,0~ ptes~t value doll~rm ~e~ 40 y~ ~eCiOd Of tbs pruJ~c~ ~ng, ~tart~m~ Ip y~ I~, subJ~C tO the se~ced,~ au additi~sl 32 for a total of 5% preseut value ~Oilar~ I- [r~ tbo ~proJect are8 ~ttl, subject to the proposed arrestor, yea~ 16[ LETTER J 0 w [ O Oillv A GAlL S. COOP£1~'~OLI) D&VIO I. CANIER LAW OrFIcr5 OF' B~Ra~'~ & WEDNE]~, INC. February 17, 1993 Elaine Costello Director of Economic and Community Development City of South San Francisco City Hall 400 Grand Avenue P.O. Box 711 ' South San Francisco, CA 94083 RE: E1 Camlno Corridor Redevelopment Project Dear Ms. Costello:' .This office represents the South San Francisco Unified School District, San Mateo County Community College District and the San Mateo County Office of Eduction with regards to the proposed E1 Camino corridor redevelopment project. Enclosed is a request for information from the City Redevelopment Agency with regards to this project. This information will be extremely helpful'to the s~h0ol agencies and the Fiscal Review Committee and in our discussions with the city regarding the impact of this proposed project on the schools. Thank you for your assistance. RVG:nem Enclosure BUT NOT R~AD CC: Janice Smith Barbara Christiansen Jim Hooley INFORMATION REOUESTED FOR FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A copy of the City's current General Plan. A copy of any and all feasibility studies considered, received and/or prepared pertaining to the project. A copy of all consultant and/or staff reports and studies considered in selecting the proposed project area particularly those related to substantiating blight. The projected impact on each affected taxing agency in terms of increases or decreases in the level of services provided and the costs of those services. Please specify which services will be affected, and in what manner, and supply the FRC with all information and studies considered in making these projections. A listing of the parcels with their current ownership and usage in the proposed project area. A copy of any agreement entered into with any affected taxing J-1 entity pertaining to this project. (COnt ' Please provide the following information for the project area. The "projected" data should be over the life of the project. a. Existing residential population. be Projected residential population both with and without the redevelopment project. Ce Projected population growth by reason of the expenditure of 20% of the tax increment for low and moderate income housing. d. Existing residential dwelling units by type. Projected residential units by type both with and without the redevelopment project. f. .Existing commercial/office floor area (square footage). ge Projected commercial/office floor area (square footage) both with and without the redevelopment project. h. Existing number of people in commercial employment. Projected number of people in commercial employment both with and without the redevelopment project. J. ~xisting commercial acreage (gross). ?roJected commercial acreage (gross) both with and without ~he redevelopment project. tvs( t r s%m- z\SSFFRC. S-005 2 1 -- q. The same data for industrial uses as for commercial uses ("f" through "k") Percentage of buildings constructed before 1940, by type, in area and in remainder of city. Se Percentage of poverty in project area and in remainder of city. Percentage of substandard buildings in area and in remainder of city. Number and value of building permits, by type, taken out in each of the last 5 years in project area and in remainder of city. Number of business licenses issued in each of the last 5 years in project area and in remainder of city. We Vacancy rates in each of the last 5 years of rental properties by type (residential, commercial and industrial) both in project area and in remainder of city. Business failures in each of the last 5 years in project area and in remainder of city.' ye Number of Building and Health and Safety Code violation citations issued in project area and in the remainder of the 'city during the last 12 months. 13. City revenues in each of the last 5 years by type (sales tax, property tax, business licenses, bed tax, etc.) and projected revenues, by type, both with and without the redevelopment project. 14. Reasons for inclusion of public improvements and why these can not be accomplished through other public or private means. Include efforts made in last 5 years regarding the funding of such improvements, i.e., special districts formed or attempted to be formed, grants sought, etc. 15. A de~crip~ion of other program? the city is operating or administering in the project area Including the amount and source of funds committed to such programs. The city's budget history for the last 5 years, including budget curtailments or increases, reduction or increases In work force, salary increases, available reserves, efficiency and economy measures, changes in fees charged, and changes in sources of revenue. J-I ( .~ . ~ryg! ~ rs\m- z\SSHrRC. S- 005 2 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. For the other redevelopment projects in the city, copies of the last 3 years annual financial statements, statements of indebtedness, work programs, and budgets. Schedule of public meetings to be held regarding the project. Listing of agency or co~unity officers or employees who have made written disclosures pursuant to Section 33130 of the Code. Names and addresses of all consultants who have performed work for the Agency with regards to this project. Minutes and agenda of all meetings of the Agency at which this proposed project was discussed. Copies of: All correspondence from the city to the consultants regarding this project; b. all correspondence to the city from such consultants regarding this project; Notes and agendas of meetings held between such consultants and city staff and/or members of the Agency Board. de Copies of all memorandum and correspondence from city staff .or consultants to the Agency Board and/or to the City Manager; What is the Justification in or rationale for the inclusion of the McLellen property within the project boundaries? The preliminary report lists a number of existing conditions which constitute "blight" in the project area. Specifically, which of these conditions will be alleviated by: (a) the underground of the BART System; and how will the undergrounding alleviate these blighted conditions? (b) The covering of Colma Creek and how will this covering alleviate such blighted conditions? (c) Which properties will have the existing "blight" alleviated by the undergrounding of BART and by the covering of Colma Creek? J-1 (cont NOTE: If any of the information requested is contained in the plan, environmental impact report or preliminary report, please give specific reference. LETTER K June 2, City of S~uth San Francisco City Hall 400 Grand Avenue south San ~ran~.~sco, CA 94080 ! Dear Mayor Tegli~ and Honorable Coun¢tlmembers: I We respectfully request this letter become part of ~e "El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project", as well as p~rt of the public record. ' The undersigned are long standing members of the tit? of South San Francisco, and of the "Sunshine Gardens" community ..'in particular. As residents of this co,unity, we are extremely ¢onqerned about the BART "Bay Area Rapid Transit" project and ~he potential impact it could have on the "Sunshine G~rd~n~".! area. The traffic and p~rklng ~ituation i~ the "Gardens" i~ now manageable.:. To maintain the manageability, along wi~h the safety and stability of the community, the Sunshine ~ardens School, Parkway, Mater D~lorosa, and E1 Cam~no H~g~; !w~ ara requesting a Parking Pro¥~sion be ~n effect as an integral par~ of the RedeYelopzent Project. This provis~on w~11 hopefully mlnlmi~e many of the parking and traffic :ha% "sunshine Gardens" will be encountering with th~ origination of B..ART. As concerned citizens who will be impacted, we r~que~t hays in place a ~Permit Parking Program" at no or mirimal ~harge to the residents in our area. Such a pro, ram was effectively initiated at the Daly City Bart station signs stating "~o Parking 7-10 AM. excep~ yehicles w~th p~r~t~s". T~Xs was a soli~ and workable $olu:lon fo~ residents w~thin~walk~ng d~stance of .the Daly City station, Again, we request this prov~sion be in effe~:t prior ~o ~ne initial building of ~e South san Francisco station. K-I (continued) 30 789~99~ P.~2 ~aqe. 2 Signature , ~l~natu=e Signature ~ Address , Si~natuxe . 7O LETTER L (415) 761-1515 P. 03 City or South San Francisco City Council M~mbers: Roberta Cerrl Teglia, Mayor Joseph A. Fernel~es, ¥1ce-Mayor John R. Penna, Cquncilperson Jack Draso, Count. il person Robert Yee, Council person Barbara A. Battaya, City Clerk Parr'cia E. Martel~ Intern City Manager Beverly Bonalan~,a, Ford City Manager Michael J. O'TooI~., City Attorney June B. '.993 Dear Sirs. As the owr/er of Broadmoor Lumber Co., 1350 E1 Camin~ Real. So. San Francisco, we would like to again bring your attentlor to our concern about our property, which is located in the "El Camir. o Corridor Develop~nent Plan" We are in ravor of your development plan if it is feasikle, but we have great coi~cerns and reservations that it may not be practicable,, and thai not enough adequate study has been dc[ne regarding Its economic feasibility, especially in light of lhe ct)trent r~c~s~ion and tll(~ inaJor chanBe~ predicted for the Bay area ~nd the Stare of California in general over the next few decades. We feel that yoL r plan should allow the current property owners to have the flexibility to use their property for planned commercial (PCL preser~Ily zoned ) as well as housing development, thereby giving them mo.~e versatility In the potential improvement of their property. We fee. that rezoning the property for housing only will cause u~due economic hardship on the pr¢~cnt owners, thereby making ' impossible for rheem to develop it at some future date. We would like to ~o on record as officially protesting the prdposed restrictive zoning as potentially not economically '~iable and unduly limiting. c.c. Planning Commission Sincerely, L-1 ATTACHMENT 1 1993 Mr, Paul Scannel~ A~sistant Count¥'Manager San M&teo County 40L M&r~hall Strqet Redwoo~ C~ty, CA 94063 SUBJECTI INFORM~.TION REQUESTED BY FI$CAL REVIEW COMMITTEE · Dear Mr. Scannellt As dicou~ced during the February 22 Fiscal Review Comm[ttee meeting, the Redevelopment Agency has received a request for tnfom~ation from Richard Codino of Bergman & Wedner regarding the E1 Camino Corridgr RedevolopmQn~ Pro, ecSc. As we discussed ot the meeting, the Redevelopment Agency wants to respond in a timgly manner to this request by ~endtng !lnancis! information, more inforaation about BART's line extension, and correspondence regarding the County Fiscal officer's R~por~. Enclosed, you will find financial projections related :o the Project, a schedule of public meetings, a listing of p~rcels in the Pro~o¢~ Area with current ownership, · copy of the. City's Mid-Year Budget Report, a fact sheet and project schedule from BART about their proposed l~ne extension, and correspoadence re~arding the Co.~n%y Flees1 Officer's Report. Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questior~ about the enclo~ed~aterials and the Agency looks forward ~o ~g you Dn March 29 for the next Fiscal Review Committee meeting. Very truly Elaine Costello' Assistant Executive Director EC:S~o Cot RlcherdGodl~o, Berqman & Wodner Jack Nagle, ~old~arb & Lipman Cai Hollis, Keyser ~arston Associates ~ ~ud A~nus · f.O. ~c~ ~it -9408} DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJE The antic deta part Close February 17, 1993 Honorable Mayor and City Council Director of Finance Mid-Year Report on 1992-93 Budget 1992-93 finances generally are proceeding as had been lpated when the budget was adopted. As discussed in the more led status ,review below, there has been variation in cular items, but with little effect on the bottom line. of 1991-92 The ~eneral fund closed 1991-92 with a fund balance of $9,386,568. The net loss for the year was $770,002, about $1,$00,000 better than/the goal established at mid-year. This improvement was due to the ~ome improvement in revenue in the last part of the year, notably in sales tax, and an overall expenditure ~avtngs of about lO%./Expenditures finished the year more than $1 million below the reduced spending level established in February last year. The add~tional savings occurred in almost all departments. Rev~Dues As ~hown in Attachment 1, for the most part ~ ~ revenues are being received as anticipated this year. However, because the budget was~not amended after the property tax reductions imposed by the State, we are pro~ecting a decrease of about $400,000 from the adopted budget. ActUal property tax lost as a result of the State action will be $72/1,000. This is higher than the $630,000 figure previously used because one facet of the State budget imposed an additional property tax reduction of-$1,6$--per--capita on-a one-time-basis~ This amount was supposed to be made up through an increase in vehicle license fee payments. To date this increase has not been se~, and ! am not anticipating it in these pro~ections. Further de~.reases in property tax result from smaller assessed value in~:reases and ver~ low supplemental tax receipts. Therefore, bu~ ~rall property tax revenue is anticipated to be $850,000 below lget. Mid-Year Rel~rt on 1992-93 Budget February 17, 1993 Page 2 Helping to offset this decrease to some extent are higher than anticipated sales tax revenues, which are now expected to produce $200,000 more than budgeted. The actual rate of increase anticipated last Hay of about 5.5% continues to hold. However, because the growth started earlier than anticipated, in payments received in June of last year, the increase is calculated on · higher base, producing additional funds. The final significant revenue increase shown does not produce any net change in budget status. During the fall, the City Council approved the agreement for the East of 101 study. The $300,000 in reimbursements anticipated to be received this year, which are included as charges for services, are offset by an equivalent increase in expenditures. Although there is not a large dollar increase, it is noteworthy that building p~rmit revenue is expected to exceed budget. Host building activity is still in the for~ of improvements, either residential additions and remodels or tenant improvements to commercial buildings. However, about $100,000 of revenue is anticipated to be generated by large projects, notably those at Genentech. Zxpenditures Expenditures are projected to be about $1,000,O00belowthe adopted budget at year end. With an additional $1,055,000 in spending authority available to departments due to encumbered funds being carried forward, the actual savings rate would be about 7% of budget. Huch of this savings occurs as a result of attempts by departments to achieve the non-pro~ranmatic budget reductions that were proposed in October. Even though the City Council decision was not to ispose cuts at that time, most reductions that did not involve · direct reduction in service levels were implemented. Further savings occur due to the usual factors, including turnover. Additionally, $200,000 of the $500,000 appropriated fort. he East of 101 study is anticipated to carryover as an enc-~hr·nce to 1993-94 and not be spent this year. Fund Balance The net result of the above factors along with budgeted transfers is a $1,053,000 decline in fund balance. These results may be seen in Attachment 2. This is slightly better than where we anticipated being when the budget was adopted In August. In other words, on the most basic level, the State budget reductions were covered by expenditure savings. A further reduction in undesignated fund balance occurs, however, due to the need to reserve those funds advanced to the Redevelopment Agency for development of the E1 Camino Corridor Project. Mid-/Year Report on 1992-93 February 17, 1993 Page 3 Budget With changes in reserves and the decision to use the funds designated for economic contingencies this year, the undesignated fund balance at the end of the year will be $1 million less than at the~end of 1991-92. While this is an improvement from when the budget was prepared, the decline in fund balance that we have been experiencing for the last few years is continuing. ~arly projections for 1993-94 show fund balance more than halving again. Policy alternatives for addressing this issue will be discussed in a separate report. By: ATTACHMENT 1 GENERAL FUND REVENUE COMPOSITION RANK' 1 SALES & USE 2 PROPERTY TAXES 3 TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX 4 MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEE ,5 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 6 FRANCHISE TAXES 7 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 8 BUSINESS LICENSES 9 INVESTMENT INCOME 10 BUILDING PERMITS ALL OTHER INCOME SUBTOTAL ACTUAL APPROVED 1991-92 1992-93 9,480,251 9,700,000 7,120,389 .. 7,324.(XX) 2,181,665 2,300.000 1,880,480 2,000.000 1,961,697 1.527.374 963,950 1.297.000 982,428 987.082 765,093 730.000 939,412 550.000 545,905 540.000 ESTIMATED PROJECTED 1992-93 1993-94 9,900,000 10,395,000. 6.485,000 6,973,000 2,300,000 2,468,000 1 o900.000 1,900o000 1,832,300 1.783,000 1,357,000 1,395,000 980,000 960,000 720,000 740.000 525,000 550,000 590,0OO 590,000 1,711,897 1,862.510 1 ,~42,070 1,729,000 28.533,167 28.817,966 28,431,370 29,483,000 INTERFUND TRANSFERS: GAS TAX (NET) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT CDBG SEWER LEASE PROCEEDS MISCELLANEOUS TOTALTRANSFERS TOTAL GENERAL FUND 814,680 767,780 ,033,280) (80,000) 32,400 31.830 (8,85o) ,85o) 111,393 65,453 (18,2134) 710,760 m~,~H ,~ _ 28,514,963 29,528.726 767.780 750,000 (80,0O0) (340,000) 31,830 31,830 (8,8S0) (8,850) 710,760 432,980 29,142,130 29,915,980 unmm am ~ -- · Revenues ere ranked by 1992-93 t)ud~et ~ures. REVENI EXPENI EXCES~ INTERF~ EXCES~ AFTEI FUND FUND FUND reserv~ ENC ADV INV desig~ WOI ECC UND °Am~ expe~ that s Impe¢ ATTACHMENT 2 COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF REVENUES. EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE-GENERAL FUND ACTUAL APPROVED ESTIMATED PROJECTED 1991-92 1992-93 1992-93 1993-94' * ES ITURES OF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURE IND TRANSFERS OF REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURE TRANSFERS 28,533,167 28.817,966 28,431.370 29,284,965 31,202,982 30,195.249 31.470.0<)0 (751,798) (2,385,016) (1,763,879) (1,987,000) (18,204) 710,760 710,760 432,980 (770,002) (1,674.256) (1,053.119) (1,554.020) iALANCE. BEGINNING OF YEAR tALANCE. END OF YEAR IALANCE: d loc LJMBRANCES & CARRYOVERS' ~.NCES TO OTHER FUNDS/AGENCIES NTORY & OTHER ~ted loc ENTIAL CATASTROPHIC EVENTS ~KING CAPITAl. ~NOMIC CONTINGENCIES [SIGNATED 10.1 56.570 9.387.785 9,386.568 8,333.449 9,386,56~ 7,713,529 8,333,449 6,779,429 684,752 663,283 750.000 750,000 2,348,251 2,773,251 2,775,000 2,775,000 81,334 80.000 eO,O00 80.000 1,50<),000 1,50<:),000 1,500,000 1,500,000 500.000 600,000 5(X),O00 500,000 500,000 0 0 0 3,772,231 2,196.995 2.728.449 1,174.429 9,386,568 7,713,529 8,333,449 $,779,429 ~nt reapixoFiated fo~ encumbrances is shown as at reserve to Fo',ride comparat>~Te/of revenue over diture calculations. This method of ~esentation changes the undesignated fund bafsnco figure from ~own tn the budget. t3-94 revenue figures do not take into account further reductions by the State. Expenditure figures lo 3% growth after deletion of certain one-time costs. The $500.000 transfer to the CapttM vements Fund has not been included. The Law Offices of 3OLDFARB & LIPMAN One MonLgomery Street Telesis To~r Twe nty-Third Floor California 04104 February 25, 1993 Slex'en H. Goldfarb Bart)' R. Lil,man .%1 Daxid ICrom Lee C. Rose m hal Roger A. Cia): Jr. Pa,,.d, S. Cr...w John T. Polly %: Marshall Natalie L G::bb Lynn F1 ichard A. Judd eter rra:s":n $~.4: R B..: Karer..V. ..... . .... R.C. m,~:.:l r B..!um,~ R R,.-~.*-e G~ 'vet A~.dre~' Z $::agrin bsa L. Lat. Ddvi4 M. Mr. Roland Gtanntni San Mateo County Assessor County Office Building 2200 Broadway Redwood City, CA 94063 Re: County Fiscal Officer's Report for the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment ProJegt Dear Mr. Gi~nnini: This office represents the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency as its special legal counsel in connection with the adoption of the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan. Your office recently prepared the report required by Health & Safety Code Section 33328 pertaining the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the Project Area. Upon review of the report, it appears that the information required by subsections.(b), (c), (d) and (e) of Section 33328 were not contained in the report. These subsections pertain to informatJon'with respect to the taxing entities which levy taxe within the Project Area boundaries. ! note from your 1 :ter to Jesus Armas dated January 27, 1993, you indicated that any questions with regard to these sections should be directed to the appropriate State and/or County offices. However, Section 33328 clearly states that the county officials charged with the responsibility of allocating taxes shall prepare and deliver to the redevelopment agency and each of the taxing agencies a report which shall contain all of the information outlined in subsections (a) through (f) of Section 33328. It is not the responsibility of the Redevelopment Agency to ascertain and compile this information independently· ~an I~rnnci~-o 1 IR Tt~.~-,C-' ;.-'. 415 Tbb-t .~,,e FAX 213 62';-~ · Roland Giannini February 25, 1993 Page 2 We look forward to the receipt of this information as soon as possible. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, KAREN M. TIEDEMANN cc: G.R. Trias, County Controller Distribution List Our File: 63'1-03 BART Extensions Program ANgnment: M~eage: ~opose. d Parldng Spaces: Proposed Budget: Status of Project: Rider~hip: Project Fact Sheet San Francisco Airport (SFO) The Locally Preferred Alternative aUgnment, selected in June 1992 begins at the future Colma BART Station turnback track, then follows the abandoned Southern Pacific Transportation Company ra~road fight- of-way to the Tanforan Station. South of the Tanforan Station, the route parallels 1-380 and proceeds east and south along the easterly San Bruno city limits to the Ah'port Intermodal Station, serving BART and CalTrain, located opposite the Airport and west of Highway 101. 'A light rail system, constructed and operated by the Airport, would connect the Intermodal Station with SFO terminals and employment sites. 6.4 rages Hi'key.Boulevard (in South San Francisco); Tan~oran Station (at the South San Francisco/San Bruno dty line); and the Ah'port Intermodal Station (in San Bruno on the west side of Highway 101). I-Nckey- 1,300 Tanforan - 650 (subject to further review) Airport Intermodal - 2,325 $757 million (1991 dollars); subject to adjustment after preliminary engineering is completed. Following the completion of the Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Report (AA/DIES/DEIR) in April 1992, the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) was selected and the LPA report and preliminary engSneering grant application were sub,tied to FTA. In October 1992, FTA approved the initiation of the prellmlnary engineering and continuing environmental work on the LPA; award of the grant is anticipated for early February 1993. BART service is scheduled lo begin in 2001-2002. Estimated total da~ly fidership is 55,500. 'DRAFT [~~~ ~B~_. _.M~. T SFO Extension Project Schedule ~ Conventionai ~r0c~em~t ........... Colma to San Francisco International Airport 1990 1991 1992 [ 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 /LPADEIS ~ BART/FrA PE Application Final Design Construction. Test & Stm't-Up :DRAFT ·' COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ROLAND E. GIANNINI ASSESSOR  W. BRUCE SHAFER, CAE CHIEF DEPUTY ASSESSOR COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER · REDWOOD CITY · CALIFORNIA 94063-8070 · TELEPHONE (415) 363-4500 · FAX (415) RICHARD D. NICEWON~ OFFICE SERVICES KAYLENE D. KELLER PERSONAL PROPERT~ STANLEY G, PLANTE REAL PROPERTY TERRENCE R. FUNN FebrUary 18, 1993 Jesus Armas City Manager City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue P. O. Box So. San Francisc6, CA 94083 Dea~ Mr. Armas: Upor'. further review of the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Project certain revisions have been made. The changes were made before the Controller's office developed the incremental values. Therefore, thi~ letter is informational only and does not require action from your agency. The revisions are reflected on the enclosed: 2. 3. 4. Attachment Page 1 of Secured Values Page 2 of Secured Values Page 5 of Secured Values If ~ou have any other questions regarding these changes, please con~act Mr. Dennis Mann, Supervising Drafting Technician. Very truly yours, Honorable Gerry Tria$ Dennis Mann, Supv. Drafting Technici&n ATTACHMENT "A" ~?; CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJEC~ 1992-93 Secured and Unsecured Roll totals in accordance with Section 33328 (a) of the Health and Safety Code. Total's of the 1992-93 Secured Values Totals LAND IMPS PERS PROP EXEMP NET VALUE 26,229,785 63,561,056 11,463,206 57,055,843 44,138,204 Totals of the 1992-93 Unsecured Values 289,743 1,420,095 1,886,615 -0- 3,596,4!_ Grand Totals 26,519,528 64,981,151 13,289,819 57,055,843 47,734,655 PARCEL NUMBER olo-430-o40 OlO-4~o-o6o o10-430-110 010-430-130 010-4~0-160 010-4,30-170 010-~30-200 o o- 11-o7o 011-}11-130 011-~02-250 011-~22-030 011-~22-090 011-326-030 011-327-040 093-312-050 093-312-060 011-322-140 TOTAL SOUTH SAN ~RANCISCO REQEVELOPMENT PROJECT EL CAMINO CORRIDOR 1992-93 S-ECURED VALUES LAND IMPS PER. PROP. EXEMP. 480,974 213,004 87,323 266,309 129,890 411,324 169,793 732,233 61,477 239,528 170,000 150,000 68,448 311,839 216,485 -0-- 117.321 44.469 --0-- --0-- 305,022 913,802 280,000 36.000 16.617 29.366 37.820 223,756 988.628 288.795 19,760 1,506,465 3,373,314 CODE 637, .134 13-019 REVISED 2,18/~J ?age 1 o~ 5 NET YALUE 693,978 853,632 541,214 902,026 301,005 ...320,000 380,287 216,485 --0-- 161,790 --0-- --0-- 1,218,82~ ; 310,00< 45,98 37,82 223,75 1,277,42 1,526,2 9,010, PARCEL NUMBER 010-171-1¢0 010-171-210 010-171-220 010-111-230 SOUTH SAN EL CAHINO LAND 148,938 160,242 153,223 60,982 ~RANC1SCO REpEVELOPMEN'f r~=v, CORRIDOR ~992-93 ~ECURED YALUE$ 33viPS 226,320 4,260 454,621 PER. PROP. 23,032 EYdCMP. Page 2 of 5. .. NET VALUE 402,550 160,242 153,223 5~,603 010-171-240 011-311-110 011-312-0t0 011-312-200 011-312-210 123,875 198,679 41,593 55~441 844,296 --0-- 7,000 240,261 41,593 55,441 TOTAL · }42,.,973 1., $ 71., 085 13-020 23,032 7,000 .2,530,09r CODE 13-019 13-020 13-021 AREA SOUTH SAN EL CAMINO LAND 3,373,314 942,973 20,875,.558 ].,037,940 FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CORRIDOR 1992-93 SECURED VALUES IMPS PER. PROP. EXEMP. 5,637,134 1,571,085 23,032 7',000 .55,680,581 11,380,174 57,04~,843 672,256 REVISED Page 5 of · ' NET YALUE 9,010,448. 2,530,090 30,887,470 1,710,196 TOTAL. 26,229,785 63,56i,056 11,a03,206 ; 57,055,843 ! [ 4~138,20 ,, SCHEDULE FOR EL C-AMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Upco -ning Activities: 3/17/93 4/9/93 Draft Redevelopment Plan, Draft General Plan Amendment and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Available for public review. Propert~ Owner/Community Meeting sponsored by El earning Corridor Sub- Committee** Planning Commission holds public hearing on Draft EIR - 7:30 p.m., Municipal Services Building. Community Room Conclusion of 45-day review and comment period for Draft FIR. Final Redevelopment Plan, Final EIR and Report on Redevelopment Plan available for public review. $/26/~3 Planning Commission holds public heating on Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment Agenc~t/Council .loint public heating on Final FIR, Redevelopment Plan, and General Plan Amendment. 7:00 p.m. Municipal Sen, ices Building. Community Room City Council takes action on General Plan Amendment and on ccni~ng Final FIR City Council takes action on reconfirming Final EIR for Redevelopment Plan 6/23193 7/14/93 City Council introduces ordinance adopting Redevelopment Plan City Council holds second reading and considers ordinance adopting Redevelopment Plan If yo: have questions or you'd like more information, please call City staff members Susan McC'ue at 8T/- 3990 ot Mau~een Morton at 877-8535. Copies of the Draft EIR ~nd Draft Red~elopment Plan will be available for review at the Februa~/~2 meeting. Copies are also ava~ble now at the West Orange Libra~ and Grand Avenue h'brs~. SUM,V,A RY TABLE FISCAL LMPACT ON TAXING AGENCIES: R~DEVELOPME.Nq' VS. NO REDEVELOPMENt[' EL CAMINO CORRJDOR REDEVELOPME.N~ PROJECr AREA i're.~nt Value of Properly T~es (Discounted (~ '/~)(2) Rv. dcveJopment No Project Alt. S5.43 SSF Utxifie. d School Di~t. Cocrm~uni~ College D~"t. Oilers To~! gcdc~lopm~nt A~ l&6'~b S3.~? ~_~_ 43.22~ $9.2~ $6.115 $1.55 7.48~ $1.60 100.00~ S21.4o (3) $14.oo (6) ney (Property Tax Incren~nt) Total New Housing Units 3,185 164 ~ scenancs capttalize property, tax ~n~es to bc gcc~vzd by tzxing agencies in Ye.~' 41 (end of l~dc~iopn~ot Plan) at (3) Properly tax ~en~ allocatcd to ez~sting tax a/Tccied &gct~'~ rcl~ct~ propcrt~ t&xet generated from t~ _of t~¢ project &ze, a escalated at 2% aflnua]ly and the caj~talb, cd value of ibc pn:)'jex'ted pro~crt~ t,txc~ zexch~.d ia ¥ca~ 41. (4) rrop~rty tax I~wenucs a~catcd tO thc gr..Aevelopmen! Agetscy lzpre.~:nl~ 100~ of tl~ lax increment revenu~ attn"outed to the usessed val~ of new devz_k~me nt, c~er and above tl~ bas~ ~ assessed v~Jue.. I_No Projecl AILA sc~txario assumes ~64 l~mxing ualts and 34,000 sq. fl. of commercial gefle, c~ Altcmallvz A of .F?perty tax trvznues tllocatexl to existing tax a/fex~ed i~nlo:s ~zflec~ pro~_ fly taxes generated by the total assessed vtlue u~ a~a del'mOd ts tl~ projecl area and the capitalized value ~ thc ps~d properly lazes rec~iv~l in Yc&r 4L ' .. ; .. o| · · o · 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 o o o : o o 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 o o o o 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 · 0 o 0 0 0 0 : : e**o · · · o o o o o oeo o ; ~: o ~ o o ~: o ~ o o V: o · V 0 0 0 0 0 o| o o o o o| · o o o o: e o e e 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'* 0 O O 0 o: o o · o : : 0 0 0 0 0 0 : : : o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o : o 0 o 0 o 0 : : : : : : o:o o 0 0 O* 4* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O*O 0 O, 0 O* 0 0 : !!il i? :i :--'i o i o si i.si!.