HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Minutes 1985-12-11 MINUTES
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
December 11, 1985
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Community Room, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San
Francisco, California
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Roberta Cerri Teglia called the Redevelopment .Agency Meeting to order at 7:28 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Roberta Cerri Teglia; Vice Chair Mark N. Addiego; Member Jack Drago; Member Richard A. Haffey; Member Gus Nicolopulos
Also Present: Executive Director C. Walter Birkelo; Deputy Executive Director
Mark Lewis; Assistant Executive Director/Secreatry Jean Smith
~A~NDA Executive Director Birkelo recommended that the three items for adoption of
~ IEW: resolutions be considered after the City Council meeting, depending upon
the Council's action.
APPROVAL OF No bills were submitted for approval.
BILLS:
APPROVAL OF It was motioned by Vice Chair Mark Addiego and seconded by Member Richard Haffey
MINUTES: that the minutes of the meeting of November 13, 1985 be approved as submitted.
The motion, as maded and seconded, was regularly carried.
RECESS (*) There being no objections to the Executive Director's recommendation, the
Redevelopment Agency meeting was recessed at 7:29 p.m.(Copy of the City Council
minutes is attached.)
(*) ITEMS WHICH A resolution adopting findings and statement of facts supporting findings
DEPENDED ON pursuant to adoption and approval of the U. S. Steel Plant Site Redevelop-
CITY COUNCIL ment Project.
ACTIONS:
A resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco
adopting a statement of overriding considerations related to adoption and
approval of the U. S. Steel Plant Site Redevleopment Project.
A resolution authorizing the execution of an owner participation and
development agreement by and between the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of South San Francisco, the City of South San Francisco, and
Neville H. Price and Rosemary C. I. Price.
B I I r I ·
nrCONVENE: Chair Teglia reconvened the Redevelopment Agency meeting at 11:05 p.m.
All members were present.
MLSOLUTION: ~ It was motioned by Vice Chair Addiego and seconded by Member Haffey that
FINDINGS & ~ the resolution be adopted. The motion was carried by majority roll call
STATEMENT OF vote. (Member Drago voted "NO"). The resolution is entitled "A RESOLUTION
FACTS: U. S. ADOPTING FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
STEEL PLANT ADOPTION AND APPROVAL OF THE THE 'U.S. STEEL PLANT SITE REDEVELOPMENT
SITE REDE- PROJECT'."
VELOPMENT
PROJECT:
RESOLUITON: ~ It was motioned by Vice Chair Mark Addiego and seconded by Member Nicolopulos
ADOPTING A ~ that the resolution be approved. The motion was carried by majority roll call
STATEMENT OF vote. (Member Drago voted "NO"). The resolution is entitled "RESOLUTION OF
OVERRIDING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ADOPTING A STATE-
CONSIDERA- MENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO ADOPTION AND APPROVAL OF THE U. S.
TIONS: U.S. STEEL PLANT SITE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT."
STEEL PLANT
SITE REDEVE-
LOPMENT PRO-
JECT:
'-'SOLUTION: It was motioned by Member Haffey and seconded by Vice Chair Mark Addiego that
~ BETWEEN the resolution be adopted. The motion as made and seconded was carried by
--NCY, CITY majority roll call vote. (Member Drago voted "NO"). The resolution is
& NEVILLE H. entitled "RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN OWNER PARTICIPATION
PRICE & ROSE- AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
MARY C.I. OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND NEVILLE H. PRICE
PRICE: AND ROSEMARY C. I. PRICE."
GOOD & Chairperson Teglia invited members of the public to speak on issues related
WELFARE: to the Redevelopment Agency. No one spoke.
ADJOURNMENT: It was motioned by Member Haffey and seconded by Member Nicolopulos that the
Redevelopment Agency Meeting be adjourned to December 18, 1985. The motion
as made and seconded was unanimously carried.
Time of adjournment: 11:12 p.m.
Respectful ly submitted,
ter B1 rKel o -'l~6ber~a cerr! leg/i a, '~ai r
Executive Director The Redevelopment Age,dy of the
City of South San Francisco
.... ~ries of the Redevelopment Agency meeting show the action taken by the Board to dispose of
item. Oral presentations, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape, The tape and
~auments related to the item are on file in the office of the City Manager and are available
for inspection, review and copying.
12/11/85
Page 2
[] I I I ·
Nayor Bo~,erta Cerrt Teglta ~ ! N U T E S U~.i ~
Vtce ~or Mark N. Jm~dtego
Coun¢t 1: Ct ty Count11
-~ 'Jack' Orago
ichard A. Haffey Municipal Services Bulldtng
Js Ntcolopulos
C~muntty Ro~
Dec.ber Il, lg85
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) 7:38 p.m. Mayor Teglia presiding.
ROLL CALL: Council present: Ntcolopulos, Addtego,
Orago, Haffey and
Teglta.
Counctl absent: None.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The pledge of allegiance was recited.
INVOCATION: Mayor Teglia stated that Reverend Solida
was not present this evening and instead
of an invocation requested that a moment
of silence be observed.
PRESENTATION:
~OCLAMATION - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Mayor Teglia presented the Proclamation
HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS' to Coach Ann Stluka and comeended her
VOLLEYBALL CHAMPIONS efforts in leading her team to victory.
AGENDA REVIEW AGENDA REVIEW
City Manager Birkelo requested:
- Add Item 19a. Appointment of
Council representatives to area
comittees and Council subcom-
mittees by the Mayor. So ordered.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No one chose to speak.
COMMUNITY FORUM COMMUNITY FORUM
No one chose to speak.
CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of the Special Meeting of Removed from the Consent Calendar for
~-- 11/22/85 and the Regular Meeting of discussion by Councilman Haffey.
11/27/85.
~g/~/SS
Page 1
I
I
I I' I I i
AGENDA ACT ON TAKEN
CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR
2. Staff Report 12/11/85 reconeendtng So ordered.
by Motion to deny and refer the
following claim to the City's
Insurance Adjuster and the City
Attorney: Claim as filed by
Raymond E. Woo, alleging that the
front and back portions of his
driveway have cracked and that the
sidewalk has been uprooted and
is not level as the result of a
tree planted by the City.
3. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending
adoption of a Resolution to author-
ize the Purchasing Officer to
advertise for the purchase of
vehicles.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFI- RESOLUTION NO. 2~8-85
CATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE
OF SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT OR SERVICES
AND CALLING BIDS FOR ONE MINI VAN,
TWO COMPACT PICKUPS, ONE 3/4 T
PICKUP, ONE 1T CAB & CHASSIS - BID
11702
4. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending Removed from the Consent Calendar for
adoption of a Resolution discussion by Councilman Drago.
approving plans and specifications
and authorizing the Purchasing
Officer to go to bid for the
Brentwood/Buri Burl Park Pathways.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE
WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR
BRENTWOOD/BURI BURI PARK PATHWAYS
PROJECT - PROJECT #PR-82-4 &
PR-83-3
5. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending
adoption of a Resolution to award
the contract for eight vehicles
from National Car Rental in the
amount of $68,016.26 as the lowest
responsible bidder.
A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT RESOLUTION NO. 249-85
FOR EIGHT (8) USED (RENTAL CARS)
VEHICLES BID #1698
12/11/85
Page 2
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
~ONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR
6. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending
adoption of a Resolution approving
plans and specifications and
authorizing the Purchasing Offtcer
to go to btd for the Htckey/Serra
Med t aris.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND RESOLUTION NO. 250-85
SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE
WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR HICKEY/
SERRA BLVD. MEDIAN LANOSCAPE -
PROJECT # PR-85-5
7. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending
adoption of a Resolution accepting
the Grant from the Community Action
Agency for senior day care.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM RESOLUTION NO. 251-85
THE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY FOR
SENIOR DAY CARE
8. Staff Report 12/11/85 reconmnending Public Hearing set for 1/8/86.
by Motion to set a Public Hearing
on 1/8/86 for consideration of a
General Plan Amendment, GP-58-29,
for retail commercial uses.
g. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending
adoption of a Resolution author-
izing execution of a Fourth
Amendment to Agreement for
Professional Engineering Services
for the Gateway Assessment District
No. ST-82-2.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION RESOLUTION NO. 252-85
OF FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR THE GATEWAY ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT - ST-82-2
10. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending Removed from the Consent Calendar for
adoption of a Resolution approving discussion by Councilman Haffey.
plans and specifications, author-
i zing the work and calling for bids
for the Fairway and West Orange
Avenue Sanitary Sewer Construction
Project No. SS-83-7 and Linden
12/11/85
Page 3
i I I i I I
AGENOA ACi ION TAKEN
CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR
10. Staff Report - Continued.
Avenue and Hills1 de B1 vd. Storm
Oratn Project No. S0-85-2.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE
NORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR NORK
AND CALLING BIOS FOR FAIRNAY &
NEST ORANGE AVE. SANITARY SENER
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. SS-83-7
AND LINDEN AVE. & HILLSIDE BLVD.
STORM DRAIN PROJECT NO. SD-85-2;
BID NO. 1701
11. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending
adoption of a Resolution accepting
the offered dedication and to
approve a Subdivision Improvement
Agreement in Parcel Map 85-237 - E.
I. DuPont De Nemours and Company
Parcel Map.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION NO. 253-85
IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT FOR RICHARD
DIODATI, E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS
AND CO. PARCEL MAP AND RELATED ACTS
12. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending Removed from the Consent Calendar for
adoption of a Resolution author- discussion by Vice Mayor Addiego.
izing execution of an Agreement
with Pacific Gas & Electric Company
for rebates on street light conver-
sion on Linden Avenue Street Light
Improvements Project and
Westborough Street Light System.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING STREET
LIGHTING CONVERSIONS FROM MERCURY
VAPOR/INCANDESCENT TO HIGH
PRESSURE SODIUM
13. Staff Report 12/11/85 reco~nending Removed from the Consent Calendar for
by Motion to accept the Civic discussion by Mayor Teglia.
Center Renovation Project - Phase
II, Project No. PB-81-2A as
complete in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications.
14. Hearing - To consider a one year Removed from the Consent Calendar for
extension of time for Tentative discussion by Mayor Teglia.
I 12/1 /85
I Page 4
I
· .~ ~.
~:L~ .jrj
, AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
)NSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR
14. Hearing - Continued.
Subdivision Map SA-83-82 and
Residential Planned Development
Permit RPD-T9-8.
Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending
that the Council continue the item
to its meeting of 1/8/86.
M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - to approve the
Consent Calendar with the exception of
Items No. 1,4, 10, 12, 13 and 14.
Carried hy unanimous voice vote.
1. Minutes of the Special Meeting of Councilman Haffey stated that the minutes
11/27/85. of 11/22/85 and the Regular Meeting of
11/22/85 did not show the title of the
Resolution. He stated that the minutes
__ of the 11/27/85 needed the following
corrections: On page 2, Habitat was
misspelled; On page 4, Lyle Norton's
title was incorrect; That there were some
logic errors.
M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To approve the
minutes of the Special Meeting of
11/22/85 and the Regular Meeting of
11/27/85 with corrections made as
indicated.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
4. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending Councilman Drago stated that he had
adoption of a Resolution noticed that the paths being put in the
approving plans and specifications parks were 4' to 6' and wondered if they
and authorizing the Purchasing could be extended a foot to accommodate
Officer to go to bid for the emergency vehicles, such as the paramedic
Brentwood/Buri Buri Park Pathways. van in such'remote areas as Buri Burl.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND Director of Recreation & Community
SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE Services Norton stated that in Burl Buri
WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR there was an existing 8' path and that
BRENTWOOD/BURI BURI PARK PATHWAYS would be extended along the cyclone fence
PROJECT - PROJECT #PR-82-4 & along Westborough Boulevard into the pic-
PR-83-3 nic area.
Councilman Haffey questioned if this pro-
ject had been brought before the Park &
Recreation Commission.
12/11/85
Page 5
[] I I I F I I
AGENDA ACT ~ON TAKEN
4. Staff Report o Continued. Director of Recreation & Community
Services Norton stated that it had and
the Commission had reviewed the project.
Mayor Teglta suggested that Mr. Norton
take Counctlmembers on a tour of the
pathways tn the project.
M/S Orago/Addiego - To adopt the
Resolutt on.
RESOLUTION NO. 254-85
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
10. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending Councilman Haffey stated that this was
adoption of a Resolution approving actually two projects, sanitary sewers
plans and specifications, author- and storm drains, and questioned why they
izing the work and calling for bids were joined together instead of being two
for the Fairway and West Orange separate projects.
Avenue Sanitary Sewer Construction
Project No. SS-83-7 and Linden Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee
Avenue and Hillside Blvd. Storm stated that both projects were small and
Drain Project No. SD-85-2. had been combined to allow a smaller
overhead for the contractor which woul
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND be more economical.
SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING THE
WORK AND CALLING BIDS FOR WORK M/S Haffey/Drago - To adopt the
AND CALLING BIDS FOR FAIRWAY & Resolution.
WEST ORANGE AVE. SANITARY SEWER
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. SS-83-7 RESOLUTION NO. 255-85
AND LINDEN AVE. & HILLSIDE BLVD.
STORM DRAIN PROJECT NO. SD-85-2; Carried by unanimous voice vote.
BID NO. 1701
12. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending Vice Mayor Addiego stated that a portion
adoption of a Resolution author- of the rebate from PG&E was going to
izing execution of an Agreement include Westborough and wondered if that
with Pacific Gas & Electric Company had already happened.
for rebates on street light conver-
sion on Linden Avenue Street Light Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee
Improvements Project and stated that the rebate would only be good
Westborough Street Light System. until 12/31/85 and that in order to meet
the deadline the City had to make an
A RESOLUTION APPROVING STREET application.
LIGHTING CONVERSIONS FROM MERCURY
VAPOR/INCANDESCENT TO HIGH He stated that there was money in the
PRESSURE SODIUM Capital Improvement Budget to do portions
of the Westborough Area, the single
family area between Westborough/Geller
and Oakmont. He stated that the strew.
lights would be converted gradually
12/11/85
I Page 6
I
I
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
.2, Staff Report - Continued, because there were so many to be done,
He stated that not only the lights would
be converted but the electrical system as
well had to be fei nstalled in this area,
M/S Ntcolopulos/Haffey - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 256-85
Carried by unanimous votce vote.
13. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending Mayor Teglta expressed concern over the
by Morton to accept the Ctvic severe leak tn the stde wall of the foyer
Center Renovation Project - Phase from Miller Avenue and thought that was
[[, Project No. PB-8[-2A as supposed to have been taken care of.
complete in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications. Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee
stated that he was aware of that leak and
the leak in the Deputy City Manager's
Office. He stated that he had been
unable to determine the cause of the
,. leaks, however he would determine the
t cost and where the responsibility lay.
Mayor Teglia questioned why the Council
should accept the project as complete
with the above information.
Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee
stated that it was a large project and
the roof was guaranteed for ten years so
he felt there was not need to hold up the
acceptance of the project.
Discussion followed on there not being
glass around the balcony; whether there
was a need for the glass, etc.
M/S Addiego/Haffey - To approve the pro-
ject as complete in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
14. Hearing - To consider a one year Mayor Teglia stated that this item had
extension of time for Tentative been pending for some time and questioned
Subdivision Map SA-83-82 and if it had been discussed with Planning.
Residential Planned Development
Permit RPD-79-8. Director of Planning Smith stated that
when the item came before Council on
Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending 1/8/86 a recommendation would be forth-
12/11/85
I Page 7
I
[] I I ; : I I
AGENDA AC, ION TAKEN
14. Staff Report - Continued. coming from the Planning Commission t
deny the extension.
that the Council continue the item
to its meeting of X/8/86. M/S Addiego/Haffey - To continue the item
to the 1/8/86 meeting.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
APPROVAL OF BILLS APPROVAL OF BILLS
15. Approval of the Regular Bills of M/S Haffey/Addiego - To approve the
12/11/85. Regular Bills in the amount of
$958,187.54.
Carried by unanimous voice vote. Vice
Mayor Addiego did not participate or vote
in the matter of the Brentwood Market
claim.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
16. Shearwater Dev. Supplemental Staff City Clerk Battaya read the title of the
Report of 12/11/85 reconmnending: 1) Ordinance in its entirety.
Adoption of a Resolution of fin-
dings and statement of fact; 2) Mayor Teglia stated that two hearing~ ad
Adoption of a Resolution of state- been held on this item and that the
merit of over-riding considerations; Public Hearing had been closed. She
3) Adoption of a Resolution stated that this evening the Council was
approving the General Plan proposing to have answers to the
Amendment; 4) Adoption of a questions and issues that had been raised
Resolution approving and author- in the Public hearing. She stated that
izing execution of an Participation it would then be turned over to the City
Agreement; 5) Motion to approve the Council for the individual members to ask
Tentative Subdivision Map; 6) questions developed during the examina-
Motion to waive further reading of tion of all of the material presented.
the Ordinance; 7) Motion to intro-
duce the Ordinance. Deputy City Manager/Community Development
& Administration Lewis stated that an
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND additional staff report would be pre-
STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING sented by City Planner Gorney; that each
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CONSIDERATION of the following consultants would
OF THE "FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT briefly emphasize the most important
REPORT FOR THE SHEARWATER points in their disciplines: Juergen
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT" Fehr, Transportation Consultant from
Fehr, Fehr & Assoc.; Charles N, Salter
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT and Anthony Nash, Accoustical Consultants
OF OVERRIOING CONSIDERATIONS from Charles Salter Assoc.; Bill Zeibron,
RELATED TO APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF EIR Consultant from EIP Corporation. He
THE SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT stated that next would be Herman
Fitzgerald, Redevelopment Counsel, w)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN would review the Owner Participation
AMENDMENT GP-85-28 PURSUANT TO Agreement and then City Attorney Rogers
PLANNING CO~I4ISSION RESOLUTION would briefly go through and review the
12/11/85
Page 8
I
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
)MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
16. Shearwater - Continued. actions to be taken by the Council.
NO. 2364 ADOPTED THE lOTH DAY OF City Planner Gorney proceeded to high-
OCTOBER, 1985 light the concerns and issues raised by
the public and Council during the
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND hearings and would respond to each one.
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN OWNER (A copy of the staff report with the con-
PARTICIPATION AND DEVELOPMENT cerns and responses is attached as
AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG THE CITY OF Exhibit A and is a permanent part of the
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, THE record of this meeting.)
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND NEVILLE H. Discussion followed: on the floor area
PRICE AND ROSEMARY C. I. PRICE ratios of the various cities as shown on
page 6 of the staff report; how this pro-
1st Reading/Introduction ject compared with other developments in
AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 20.61 the City; that the project density was
ENTITLED "SHEARWATER SPECIFIC PLAN comparable to the Gateway Project in den-
ZONE DISTRICT" TO THE SOUTH SAN sity but had different components;
FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE establishing a standard of 65 decibels
for single event noise and that for the
ambient noise levels a CNEL of 45 deci-
bels for interior noise levels; how to
mitigate the outside single event noise
1 evel s; the former City employee' s study
on the bigness of the project on suburban
vs. urban developments; when the ratio
was compiled of building space to land
area, then the project was directly com-
parable to the Gateway Project, etc.
Mr. Anthony Nash, Charl es Salter Assoc.
(Accoustical Consultants) addressed the
concerns raised over accoustical issues
and elaborated on: 1) the effect of
quantitative noise levels on people; 2)
explained the concept of average noise
levels vs. single event noise levels; 3)
described the noise exposure project
site; 4) the technical feasibility of
achieving 45 CNEL within dwellings.
Discussion followed on the accuracy of
the study by the Airport to ascertain
noise levels during a six month period
which stated that the noise levels had
F--- gone from 70 down to 45 decibels; that
Mr. Nash had testified that the actual
decibel levels were at the 65 level which
was from a monitor 2,000 feet away from
the site; that the CNELs might fluctuate
because the weather patterns would shift
over a year's time, etc.
I 12/11/85
I Page g
T I' i [ I !
AGENDA AC1 ,ON TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
16. Shearwater - Continued. Mr. Juergen Fehr, Fehr, Fehr and Assoc.
(Traffic Consultants) elaborated on the
traffic and circulation issues: 1) how
the improved Oyster Point Interchange
design would improve the traffic cir-
culation future in that it also related
to the City of Brisbane's traffic;
how the internal streets system proposed
for the Shearwater Project had been
designed to mitigate adverse traffic
impacts.
(Cassette No. 2) Discussion followed on the proposed ramp
system and the number of lanes proposed,
the configuration of which had been
reviewed by the City of Brisbane; the
purchase of the emergency access being in
anticipation of emergency responses by
South San Francisco or Brisbane; that the
connection was a requirement of BCDC for
continued shoreline access where one
could easily go from the southern portion
of Sierra Point into this project; to at
extent the mixed land uses proposed f(
the project would mitigate some of th~
traffic impacts; the site specific impro-
vements had provisions for shuttle buses
and carpools being implemented; that the
site specific mitigation measures would
be designed to maintain the future traf-
fic conditions; that there were stipula-
tions that building will be controlled
prior to the construction of the over-
pass; that the City still had control
over the precise plans for the project;
that a mixed use project made a better
use of the street system and would help
to reduce the overall trip generations,
etc.
Mr. Bill Zeibron, EIR Corp., {EIR
Consultant), responded to the two
questions raised concerning the EIR: 1)
How the project compared to the earlier
project in the EIR with respect to the
environmental impacts; 2) that the post
EIR was inadequate and that a subsequ t
EIR should have been prepared and sub
mitted for public review.
He presented diagrams and proceeded to
12/11/85
Page 10
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
~MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
X6. Shearwater - Continued. describe the changes to public access and
conformance to BCDC; that parking had
been removed from the northern and
southern pier in conformance with BCDC
policy; moving the hotel structure back
away from the pier and eliminating a
yacht club from the plan would provide
continual shoreline access throughout the
site; that 50% of the total land area was
devoted to open space; that bike paths
and public walkways were provided con-
tinuously around the project; rebutted
the allegation that a subsequent EIR
should have been prepared and submitted.
RECESS: Mayor Teglia declared a recess at 9:25
p.m.
RECALL TO ORDER: Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to
order at 9:45 p.m., all Council present.
Mayor Teglia stated that the Council had
previously closed the Public Hearing,
however those people wishing to speak
would be allowed to address the Council
after the various presentations were
completed by the Consultants and the
resultant questioning by Council.
Herman Fitzgerald, Esq., (Redevelopment
Counsel), presented a review of the Owner
Participation Agreement (a copy of the
document is attached as Exhibit B and is
a permanent part'of the record of this
meeting).
Discussion followed: on the contribution
by the Developer of an annual cultural
component for use within the Project;
impact of the project upon the City's
sewer system; that the Council could con-
sider this agreement signed because he
had authorization from Mr. Healy, the
Attorney for the Developer, and that was
a condition of the approval of the OPA.
Councilman Drago questioned if Mr. Healy
agreed with Mr. Fitzgerald's interpreta-
tion of the 15%.
Herman Fitzgerald, Esq., stated that Mr.
Healy did agree and that there had not
I
12/11/85
AGENDA AC ~ ION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATIO!
16. Shearwater - Continued. been a question during the time of the
negotiations between the negotiating team
and the Developer as to the intent of
that 15%. He continued, there was no way
that the densities could be increased
over and above what the Council approved,
without the matter coming back to the
Council.
Peter Healy, Esq,, stated that there had
been numerous meetings on the development
agreement and there had never been debate
on the 15%, specifically whether or not a
greater density could be achieved over
that which had been stated in the OPA.
He stated that Herman Fitzgerald's most
recent interpretations were the interpre-
tations he and his client had always had
and confirmed that which had been
repeated tonight.
Mayor Teglia stated that she would li~
to see flexibility in the Owner
Participation Plan that would allow a
cultural event to be mutually done wi~,
PIBC and the City and perhaps held in
some other area of the City.
Herman Fitzgerald, Esq. stated that the
OPA mentions that the Developer will make
an area available within the project and
would use their best efforts to sponsor
jointly an educational or cultural event
either in cash or in-kind.
Mr. Price stated that the wording in the
agreement was the language put to him and
he had accepted that language. He stated
that he was willing to be flexible with
the City on whatever the City wanted to
do.
Mayor Teglia requested the Attorney to
come up with some language that was more
flexible.
City Attorney Rogers stated that he k
redrafted the second paragraph to rea
"In addition, Developer and City agr( lo
use their best efforts on an annual basis
to sponsor and/or finance (cash or in-
kind services) an annual culture event or
events ."
12/11/85
Page 12
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
16. Shearwater - Continued. Discussion followed: that the owners of
the property were Mr. & Mrs. Price and
that Chiltern Corp. was a California cor-
poration owned by Mr. & Mrs. Price; that
Chiltern Corp. was a development company
that had a management contract with the
owners, Mr. & Mrs. Price, to manage the
development of the project.
Vice Mayor Addiego requested specifics on
the fair market value of the GSA
Building.
Herman Fitzgerald, Esq. stated that there
was no possible way for the City to
receive anything less than what other
properties were being sold for in the
area. He stated that the definition
itself had three or four components,
which was the highest price in terms of
_._ . money, without any duress or extenuating
circumstances.
City Attorney Rogers recommended that
Council adopt a resolution of findings
and statement of facts, which would be
findings i and 3.
Councilman Drago stated that he had a
problem in that not one of the 10 alter-
natives removed the housing element from
the project. He questioned if that meant
that if a Councilman did not approve of
the residential then he could not vote
for the project.
City Attorney Rogers stated that in
answer to the question if he as a
Councilman did not agree with having
residential units in the project, then he
should not vote for the project.
Mr. Zeibron stated that in his view the
reason that elimination of the residen-
tial had not been included as an alter-
native was that under CEQA it was
required that alternatives be feisible or
that they meet the basic objectives of
the original project proposed. He stated
that it was felt that removing the resi-
dential component would substantially
12/11/85
Page 13
I I' I I I
AGENDA ACT ~ON TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
16. Shearwater - Continued. alter that mixed use character that the
Developer was attempting to achieve.
Councilman Drago stated that when the
convention center was eliminated it had
shown the mitigating factors on the
alternatives, yet if the elimination of
the residential units would add to the
congestion of the traffic or eliminate
some of the traffic problems - why had it
not been shown.
He stated that it appeared that what Mr.
Zeibron was saying was that either the
residential properties go or the project
does not go.
Mr. Zeibron said no, that what he was
saying was that it would change the
nature of the project.
Councilman Drago questioned why the ell-
mination of the convention center, hot
or office could change the make-up of e
project.
Mr. Zeibron stated that it was true it
could, however the residential was a very
different type of use from a commercial
or even convention center type use which
was not a 24 hour a day function.
City Attorney Rogers stated that State
Law said that a City cannot as a mitiga-
tion measure on environmental quality
reduce or eliminate housing units from a
project as a mitigation measure unless
all other mitigation measures have been
thought through and would not work. He
continued, certain findings had to be
made before a City could do that.
He stated that the next resolution he
would be discussing concerned a statement
of overriding considerations, and
recognizing the fact that there was a
housing problem statewide, and to not
allow a project with housing to proce,
could cause problems with Government L_~e
sections that talk about reducing or eli-
12/11/85
Page 14
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
16. Shearwater - Continued. minating housing as a mitigation measure.
He stated that it had been pointed out
that some of the impacts of the project
are overridden by the fact that the pro-
ject was actually providing much needed
housing in the area.
Councilman Drago stated that*he had addi-
tional concerns with things that go along
with dwellings, i.e, schools and other
basic concerns in dealing with very low
income units.
(Cassette No. 3) City Attorney Rogers explained the
remaining Council actions to be taken and
stated that before the Development
Agreement could be signed the GP-85~2g
had to be in effect as well as the
Ordinance.
Mayor Teglia requested that the following
protest letters be incorporated into the
record: letter from San Bruno Manager
Minford, attached as Exhibit C; a hand
delivered letter from Director of
Airports Turpen, attached as Exhibit D.
Councilman Halley expressed concern over
letters being hand delivered the night of
a Council meeting without the Council or
Staff having had the opportunity to
review the materials.
Mayor Teglia stated that protest letters
had been received from D. B. Alholm,
Bernard Schnitzer, Mr. VanDewait and Mrs.
VanDewait {which are on file in the City
Clerk's Office for public review).
She then invited anyone in the audience
wishing to speak on the project to step
to the podium.
Mr. Jake Jones thanked the Mayor for the
opportunity to speak and stated that if
others had known they could speak, more
people would have attended the meeting.
He stated that at the last Council
meeting it had been stated that the staff
12/11/85
Page 15
I
AGENDA ACT.ON TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
16. Shearwater - Continued. and the Council would have a study
session, yet tonight the item was on the
agenda for action. He stated that
Councilman Halley had just scolded Mr.
Turpen for bringing forward material at
the last minute and in his opinion not
having a study session was also a last
minute deal.
He stated that he was opposed to housing
in the Project, because it was a big
mistake to mix people in with businesses.
He stated that many City employees did
not live here including some staff mem-
bers. He stated that he intended to con-
tinue living here and if the residential
was included in the project it would
change the flight patterns, wherein the
aircraft would fly over his house.
He spoke of a plane that had dropped part
of a wing and had proceeded to drop
diesel fuel which burned the grass in e
area. He stated that he did not want ,e
Council to compound an existing airpl~..c
noise problem by voting for this project.
He stated that the audience had heard the
expert testimony who were paid by the
Developer. He stated that when the
experts had faltered a staff member had
come forward with assistance to paint a
pretty story.
He stated that because the Terrabay
Project had already been approved with
its many housing units, he did not
believe that the City had to include
housing in this project. He urged the
Council to make the Developer come
back with a workable project and not
approve the project in its present form
with housing.
Mayor Teglia stated that after the
Council had held the Public Hearing over
two meetings with public testimony, i'
would not be proper to hold a study
session out of the public vision. $~
stated that the Public Hearing had been
closed at the last meeting and that
12/11/85
Page 16
I
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
31~IUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
16. Shearwater - Continued. tonight was the first opportunity for the
Council to discuss the project and have
specific questions answered.
She responded to Mr. Jones' remark that
some staff members did not live in the
City and did not care about airport
noise. 5he stated that she lived here
and did care and would not vote for this
if she believed in the assumptions that
had been put forward.
She stated that a question had been
raised as to who was paying the con-
sultants and requested staff explain.
Deputy City Manager/Conrnunity Development
& Administration Lewis stated that the
consultants were hired and retained by
the City of South San Francisco and that
the Developer was responsible for reim-
bursement to the City of the actual cost
of the services.
Vice Mayor Addiego stated that he had
been the one who mentioned a study
session and later had talked to the City
Attorney who had advised that it was not
appropriate. He continued, this was
because the Council had already received
information and the decision process was
already underway.
Mrs. Irene Mann, 103 Fir Ave., stated
that in the public testimony two points
had not been emphasized. She stated that
the first one was that to alleviate the
noise problems the Shoreline Departure
had been established by the Airport which
had made the lives of those living under
the Gap much more liveable.
She stated that she did not see how this
Council could possibly consider delibera-
tely approving the establishment of resi-
dential units directly under a very
heavily traveled flight pattern. She
stated that the Airport could consider
that the City was not concerned about the
residential owners and in order to avoid
confrontation with new owners of valuable
I 12/11/85
I Page 17
[] I I r F I !
AGENDA ACl ~ON TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
16. Shearwater - Continued. waterfront properties, revise the depar-
ture patterns.
She stated that the second factor was
human error and mechanical failure. She
proceeded to recite two incidents that
had occurred: 1) a plane landed on top
of the hills while attempting to go out
over the Gap; 2) a plane went over her
home minus one engine and the wing afire,
then one wing fell off and landed between
two homes on Eucalyptus just south of
Grand Avenue. She stated that the pilot
managed to reach the ocean and dump his
fuel and land at Hamilton Air Force Base.
She stated that that particular flight
pattern included Los Cerritos School,
South San Francisco High School,
Southwood School and the West Orange
Library.
She questioned why the Council would
place people's homes and lives in
jeopardy by deliberately planning resi
dential development under an establisheo
flight pattern. She stated that growth
and subsequent prosperity were essential
to any community but not at the risk of
loss of lives or homes as the lives of
those involved were too high a price to
pay.
She stated that the City had incoming
planes that all go through the Gap pat-
tern do to adverse weather conditions
which come in piggy-back and that if one
got caught in a wind shear problem a
large portion of this City could be wiped
out. She stated that the people could
live with that, but the Governing Body
could regulate building patterns that
would enhance the City's prosperity
without deliberately putting lives at
stake.
Councilman Nicolopulos asked for clarifi-
cation on whether the flight pattern'
or was not over the proposed developm, ..
Deputy City Manager/Community Development
& Administration Lewis stated that the
12/11/85
Page 18
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
16. Shearwater - Continued. residential portion of the Shearwater
Project was not directly underneath the
Shoreline Departure.
Discussion followed: that the nominal
flight track for the Shoreline was
1,000 feet from the project, and if
the aircraft followed the flight track it
would reduce the maximum noise levels
approximately 2 - 3 decibels; that the
Shoreline Departure could be directly
over the water or even west of City Hall;
that there was a 10% over-flight in the
City's residential area today from the
Shoreline Departure; that the Shoreline
Departure was established to relieve the
Gap.
Mayor Teglia stated that the Airport was
talking about future plans of taking
traffic from Millbrae, Burlingame, Runway
1 and shifting them down to the Shoreline
which would increase noise in South San
Francisco. She continued, this City
would oppose that irrespective of whether
this project goes in or not. She stated
that there was a presumed right by the
Airport to make noise over this City, and
that most court cases in California have
shown that those Airports don't
necessarily have those rights.
Mrs. Jessie Bracket, 317 San Pablo Ave.,
stated that the airplanes that go out 1L
and 1R are not going over this City's
Shoreline Departure, that the ones taking
the Shoreline are the ones that would be
going through the Gap if they were not
being sent to the Shoreline.
She questioned whether the City had low
income rental prices for the project.
Discussion followed: that Redevelopment
Law required a certain percentage of the
housing be set aside for low and moderate
income people; that regardless of the
construction price, low and moderate
income people could afford the price;
that the repayment of funds for the tax
increment proceeds require the first 20%
12/11/8S
Page 19
T I I ? I i
AGENDA ACl ~ON TAKEN
COI~4UNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
16. Shearwater - Continued. to be in set aside for low and moderate
income housing anywhere in the City;
that 15% of the 300 units in the
Shearwater Project would be set aside for
rent for low and moderate incomes and
would be set by State guidelines for San
Mateo County at the time the housing was
available; that low and moderate housing
had been defined as between $12,000 -
$25,000.
Mr. Dwayne Spense, 3665 Ralston Ave.,
Hillsborough, read his letter into the
record in opposition to the residential
portion of the project (that letter is
attached as Exhibit E and is and incor-
porated as a permanent part of the
record of this meeting).
He stated that if there was a 65 decibel
noise level within a home and if outside
the home was 100 decibels, because deci-
bels were based on a logarithmic scal(
then there was a factor of 50 to 100
times more noise outside. He stated
that if a window or a door was opened
then the person had negated the entire
soundproofing system in his home.
He challenged the peak noise emitted by
aircraft and stated that single event
noise of fly-overs could far exceed the
100 decibels range because of the way it
was monitored.
M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To adopt the
Resolution of findings and statement of
fact.
RESOLUTION NO. 257-85
Carried by majority roll call vote, Drago
voted no.
M/S Addiego/Haffey - To adopt the
Resolution of statement of overriding
considerations.
RESOLUTION NO. 258-85
Carried by majority roll call vote, Drago
voted no.
I
12/11/85
Page 20
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
16. Shearwater - Continued. H/S Haffey/Addiego - To adopt the
Resolution approving the General Plan
Amendment.
RESOLUTION ~. 259-85
Carried by majority roll call vote, Drago
voted no.
M/S Addiego/Haffey - To adopt a
Resolution approving and authori zing exe-
cution of a Participation Agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 260-85
Carried by majority roll call vote, Drago
voted no.
M/S Haffey/Addiego - To approve the
Tentative Subdivision Map with findings 1
.. through 11 as defined in the Staff
Report.
Carried by majority roll call vote, Drago
voted no.
M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To waive further
reading of the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To introduce the
Ordinance.
Carried by majority roll call vote,
Drago voted no.
RECESS: Mayor Teglia recessed the meeting to
reconvene the Redevelopment meeting.
RECALL TO ORDER: Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to
order at 11:42 p.m.
Councilman Drago stated that he had voted
no because he was concerned with the
effect of allowing dwelling units to he
built below a flight pattern. He stated
that the City had encouraged the Airport
to use the Shoreline Departure to relieve
aircraft noise over the neighborhoods and
12/11/85
Page 21
I
T i i : ! !
AGENDA AC1 .ON TAKEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION
16. Shearwater - Continued. he would like to see the Airport conti~,ue
increasing the number of airplanes using
the Shoreline Departure to alleviate the
noi se.
POLICE POLICE
17. Staff Report 12/11/85 recommending: City Clerk Battaya read the title of the
1) Motion to waive further reading Ordinance in its entirety.
of the Ordinance; 2) 'Motion to
adopt the Ordinance on tow cars. M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To waive further
reading of the Ordinance.
2nd Reading/Adoption
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 6.64 Carried by unanimous voice vote.
OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
MUNICIPAL CODE AND ORDINANCE NOS. M/S Nicolopulos/Haffey - To adopt the
763 AND 841 ENTITLED "TOW CAR Ordinance.
SERVICES" AND ADDING CHAPTER 6.64
ENTITLED "TOW CAR SERVICES ORDINANCE NO. 995-85
REGULATED"
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
ITEMS FROM STAFF ITEMS FROM STAFF
18. Request that the Council by Motion M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To direct th£
direct the City Clerk to cancel the City Clerk to cancel the Regular Meeting
Regular Meeting of 12/25/85. of 12/25/85.
19. Staff Report 12/11/85 setting forth City Manager Birkelo stated that he had
Council options for appointment to given Council a staff report which
fill the office of City Treasurer. outlined the options for the vacant posi-
tion, as well as the duties both statu-
tory and those performed by the late City
Treasurer John Bonalanza. He stated that
the Council basically had two options: 1)
to make an appointment to the vacant
position which would be for the remaining
term of the elected office; 2} to call a
Special Election to fill the remaining
term of the office which would be held in
April, 1986. He stated that in either
event it was his strong recommendation
that the Council first revise the job
specifications and the compensation for
the position reallocating the paying
agent duties to private financial insti-
tutions which would be the basic teas
for the change in duties and
compensation.
12/11/85
Page 22
I
I
I
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
,TEMS FROM STAFF ITEMS FROM STAFF
19. Staff Report - Continued. He stated that a Ctt~ employee or a
non-City employee could be appointed and
he assured the Council that the City
staff could handle the functions of the
office at a minimal cost.
He explained that the paying agent func-
tions that the City Treasurer performed
were for old assessment districts in the
present aggregate of $5,000,000 which
would be descending in volume over the
years. He stated that in the Gateway
Assessment the Bank was the paying agent
rather than the City Treasurer and to
transfer the other functions should cost
$3,000 the first year and less each year
thereafter.
Discussion followed: that there had been
a substantial front end cost for
..... accepting the bond paying duties for the
Gateway; having the duties and compen-
sation well defined for the new City
Treasurer position which would be pre-
sented at the next regular meeting;
whether there would be discussion of
changing the job description if Hr.
Bonalanza had lived; that if the Council
was going to call an election there was
no need now to change the job descrip-
tion; putting a ballot question before
the people to appoint the City Treasurer
rather than have it be an elective offi-
ce; that the City Attorney was to speak
to the District Attorney to see if the
Special Election could be held in June
rather than April of 1986 to conserve
costs; that an appointment could only be
for the length of the elected term even
if there was a ballot measure two years
from now to make the position appointive;
Councilmembers Addiego, Orago and
Nicolopulos were in favor of calling a
Special Election; Councilmembers Teglia
and Halley were in favor of appointing a
City employee and in two years putting a
ballot question to make the position
appointive.
12/11/85
Page 23
I
i T I i I !
AGENDA ACl ,ON TAKEN
ITEMS FROM STAFF ITEMS FROM STAFF
1ga. Add appointment of Council represen- Consensus of Council: The following
tatives to area committees and appointments were made: Airport Land Use
Council Subcommittees by the Mayor. Committee (ALUC) Member Orago, Alternate
Teglia; Airport Community Roundtable -
Member Teglia, Alternate Orago; San Mated
Operational Area Emergency Services
Organization - Member Drago; Legislative
Committee (San Mated County Council of
Mayors) - Member Addiego; San Mated
County Visitors & Convention Bureau -
Member Haffey; Oyster Point Advisory
Committee - Member Nicolopulos, Member
Addiego; School District/City Advisory
Committee - Member Haffey, Member Teglia;
Liaison Committee to the New Chamber of
Commerce - Member Teglia, Member
Nicolopulos; Magnolia Subcommittee -
Member Haffey, Member Nicolopulos; City
Reorganization Subcommittee - Member
Drago, Member Haffey; Finance Audit
Subcommittee - Member Nicolopulos; Noise
Insulation Subcommittee - Member Teglia:
Surplus Property Subcommittee - Member
Addiego; Goals & Objectives Subcommitt
- Member Haffey, Member Drago; City
Entrance Subcommittee - Member Teglia,
Member Addiego.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
No one chose to speak.
GOOD AND WELFARE GOOD AND WELFARE
Mr. Jake Jones stated that he was disap-
pointed in the four Councilmembers who
voted for the housing element in the
Shearwater Project. He expressed concern
that the residents had been let down. He
said that big money talks and that it
would divert the flight patterns and
allow more planes to fly over the gap.
He expressed concern over the signs used
on the Grand Avenue Over-crossing and felt
that they were confusing and misdirec
motorists. He suggested that the Cou
give thoughts to his concerns and mak
the environment one that the residents
could live in.
12/11/85
Page 24
I
A G E N 0 A A C T ! 0 N T A K E N ui~I~;
OOO AND WELFARE GOOD AND WELFARE
Vice Mayor Addtego stated that the
Oowntown Merchants were dtsmayed at the
lack of signs from the overpass to indi-
cate direction to the downtown business
district. He suggested that Staff sub, it
a report to the Council on correcting the
situation.
Mr. Dick Battaglia stated that tn the
November election he had been the only
challenger to the incumbent, yet the
Council was choosing to take the easy way
out by calling for another election.
He stated that as far as making it an
appointed office perhaps the Council
could learn from his experience five
years ago when he had ran on that premise
and the people of this City had turned
that down.
He stated that he believed that the
people of this City wanted to have an
elected person handle their money - not
an appointed person who is a member of
Staff and does not necessarily have to be
a resident of this City to handle their
money. He stated that this could also be
a means for a person who is power hungry
to take away the rights of the people to
elect their officials. He stated that
this time it could be the Treasurer's
Office and the next time it could be the
Clerk's Office, so he thought it would be
wise to let the people elect their
officials.
City Manager Birkelo spoke of the
12/18/85 adjourned meeting and that he
had not received confirmation of the
School Board's availability to have a
joint meeting w~th the Council on that
date.
Hayor Teglia stated that there was an
...... item to be discussed with reference to
the bungalow site and an offer that m~ght
not be available for much longer.
12/11/85
Pa§e 25
{
{
I I I I I !
AGENDA ACT,ON TAKEN
GOOD AND WELFARE GOOD AND WELFARE
City Manager Birkelo stated he would se~
aside an hour for a joint meeting with
the School District next Wednesday as
part of the agenda.
CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION
20. Closed Session for the purpose of Council adjourned to a Closed Session at
the discussion of personnel mat- 12:18 a.m. for the discussion of
ters, labor relations and litiga- litigation case No. 283579, Amavisca vs.
tion. South San Francisco and a personnel
matter pursuant to Government Code 54957.
RECALL TO ORDER: Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to
order at 12:28 a.m., all Council present,
and stated that direction had been given
to the City Attorney on litigation and
that a letter of resignation had been
received from City Attorney Rogers effec-
tive 4/1/86. She stated that he and the
Assistant City Attorney would be going
into private practice together.
21. Request that this meeting be M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adjourn ti
adjourned to Wednesday, 12/18/85, meeting to Wednesday, 12/18/85, at
at 7:30 p.m., at the Municipal p.m. at the Municipal Services Building
Services Building, Community Room, Community Room.
33 Arroyo Drive, South San
Francisco. Carried by unanimous voice vote.
ADJOURNMENT Time of adjournment 10:49 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, APPROVED.
Barbara A. Battaya, City Roberta Cerri Teglia, Mayor
City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco
The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose
of an item. Oral communications, arguments and comments are recorded on tape. The tape
and documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are
available for inspection, review and copying.
12/11/85
Page 26
EXHIBIT
December 11, 1985
~e Honorable City Council
SUBJECT: Continued City Council Deliberations on the
Shea~-aater Develol~ent Pro~ect.
~ION: 1, No,ton to ~dop~ Resolution, ~SOL~ION
~ING FI~INGS ~ STA~S OF FACTS
SUPPORTING FI~INGS P~SU~ ~
CONSID~TIONS OF ~E FIN~ ~IRO~T~
I~ACT ~RT ~R ~E SHE~WAT~
D~P~ PR~E~.
2. Motion to Adopt Resolution, RESOL~ION
~ING A STAT~ OF O~IDING
CONSIDE~TIONS RE~TED ~ ~PROV~ ~D
~ION OF ~E SHE~WATER D~P~
3. Mo~ion to Adop~ Resolution, ~SOLUTION
~ING G~~ P~ ~~ GP-85-28
~DING ~ ~E DEFINITION OF ~E PLIED
CO~RCI~ DESIGNATION IN ~E L~ USE
EL~ A ~SID~I~ D~SI~ OF FOR~
(40) ~ITS P~ AC~ FOR ~E U.S. STEEL
~~P~ ~A ( SHE~WATER PR~ECT).
4. Mo~ion ~o waive'~r~'er Rea~g of the
Ordinance Adding Chapter 20.61 Entitled
"SHE~WAT~ SPECIFIC P~ ZONE DIS~ICT"
~ ~ SO~ S~ ~CIS~ ~ICIP~
CODE.
5. Motion to Intr~uce the Ordinance wi~h
Correct,on Page.
6. Motion to Adopt Resolution, ~SOL~ION
A~ORIZING ~EC~ION OF ~E O~ ~ONG
~ CI~ OF SO~ S~ F~CISCO,
~D~P~ AG~ OF ~ CI~ OF SO~
S~ ~CISCO, ~ N~IL~ H. PRICE ~
ROS~Y C.I. PRI~.
7. Mo~ion to Approve Tentative S~ivision
Map SA-85-91. S~Jec~ to all S~cial
Conditions i through 59 as ~nded and
__ bas~ on the fo11~ing findings=
1. ~e Tentative S~iv~sion Map is consistent with
the ~neral Plan, as ~nd~, and wi~h the Shea~ater
S~cific Plan, s~]~t to the adoption of the
Ordinance Establishing ~he Shea~ater S~cific Plan
Zone D~s~rict.
2. ~e desi~ and ~prov~nts are consis~en~ with
~he ~neral Plan, as ~nded, and wi~h the Shea~ater
Staff Report
Tot The Honorable City Council
Subject= Continued City Counct! Deliberations on the
She&mater Development Project
December 11~ 1985
Page 2
Ordinance Establishing the Shearwater Specific Plan
Zone Distr~ct. The General Plan designat~on for the
site is Planned Commercial which allo~s this mixed use
development. The project is consistent with the
regulations established by the Shea~ater Specific
Plan Zone District.
3. The site is physically suitable for the type of
development proposed. The site is virtually flat and
adjacent to San Francisco Bay and major transportation
systems which allow the site to be used for
conwercial, office, residential and water related
activities as proposed.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed
density of the development. The site can accommodate
a residential density of forty (40) units per acre and
hotel and office densities which have floor ratios
(FAR) generally less than 3.9 FAR and these standards
are consistent with the regulations established by the
Shearwater Specific Plan Zone District.
5. The design of the subdivision and proposed
improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or will not substantially injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat. Potential impacts
on the environment are stated in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Shearwater
Development Project certified by the City Council on
May 8, 1985. Mitigation measures are designed into the
project, are made Special Conditions of Approval, and
are also required in the Owner Participation Agreement
(OPA).
6. The design of the subdivision and improvements is
not likely to cause serious public health problems.
There are no known serious public health problems.
Hazardous waste removal on the site is a requirement
of the project and a required mitigation measure.
7. The design of the subdivision and improvements
will not conflict with easements for access to or
through the site or for use of property within the
proposed subdivision. The project was designed to
accon~>date existing and proposed easements. The
project design includes public access to the San
Francisco Bay in accordance with requirements of the
San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission 12/11/85
(BCDC). Pa~ ~
~a£f Report
Tot The Honorable City Council
Subject: Continued City Council Deliberations on the
She&Pater Development Project
December 11, 1985
Page 3
$. Pursuant to Section 19.16.200 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code, the City requires & loop
water system and approves an exception to the length
of the cul-de-sacs on the site.
9. Pursuant to Section 19.20.010 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code, the City grants an exception
to the design criteria for the street cross-sections
in the project and approves alternate street designs
as presented in the Tentative Subdivision Map and
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
10. Pursuant to Sections 19.24.040 through 19.24.120
- of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the City
requires payment of in-lieu park fees in accordance
with the requirements of the Quimby Act, commencing
with Section 66477 of the California Government Code.
11. Pursuant to Section 19.16.110 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code, the City grants an exception
to lots which have frontage on more-th&n one' street.
RECOMMENDATION=
That the City Council adopt the four (4) Resolutions referred to
above, introduce the Ordinance establishing the Shearwater
Specific Plan Zone District and approve the Tentative Subdivision
Map with all findings and Special Conditions. (General Plan
Amendment GP-85-28~ Zoning Amendment ZA-85-32~ Rezoning RZ-85-5.
Tentative Subdivision Map SA-85-91~ and Specific Plan SP-85-5.)
DISCUSSION:
City Council deliberation on the Shearwater Development Project
was continued from the meeting of November 27, 1985. The Mayor
had closed the public hearing.
Concerns expressed by the public and by the city Council are
.... noted below. Responses follow each concern.
12/11/85
Page ~.~/
If i I I
Staff Report
To~ The Honorable City Council
SubJect~ Continued City Council Deliberation on the
Shear~ater Development Project
December 11, 1985
Page 4
Concern: What is the Planning Commission's role in the process?
Response: The Planning Commission has recommended approval of
the project. Its role is limited to General Plan
changes, Specific Plan changes, or revisions to the
Subdivision Map. The Planning Co~ission does not
participate in further development decisions. As in
the case of the Gateway, the Redevelopment Agency is
the sole authority for projects within a redevelopment
area.
Concern: What type of housing will there be in the residential
area?
Response: The housing will be condominium ownership units. Some
investors buy units and then rent them out, however.
The developer will retain units in the project for low
and moderate income residents.
Concern: What is the character and type of residential structure to be built?
Response: The residential portion of the project forms an
integral component of the mixed-use character of the
development. Residential uses are included to balance
the commercial uses and to provide for an environment
which is active and enjoyable throughout the day and
evening. This kind of "critical mass," in which the
presence of residential uses actually strengthens the
market for use of the commercial and recreational
facilities, is not possible with solely a commercial
project.
Three hundred multi-level attached residential units
are proposed. These units differ substantially from
single-family attached dwelling in their configuration
and construction. The differences are summarized
below:
Shearwater Units Single Family Units
o Attached o Detached
o Multi level, mid-rise o Single or two story
o Two Exposed Walls o Five exposed walls
including roof
o Concrete construction o Generally wood frame
including floors
o Double-wall insulation; o Little insulation
glazed windows with two unless retrofit
layers of glass and air 12/11/85
~o Page ~0
.Calf Report
To~ ~he Honorable City Council
Sub:Ject: Continued C~y Council ~li~r~ona on the
$hea~a~er ~velo~en~ Pro~ec~
~ce~r 11, 1985
~age 5
concern: ~a~ ~s ~he d~ference ~n sound a~enua~on for a
s~ng~e f~ly d~ell~ng v. h~gh r~se cond~n~
S~FUC~UFe?
Res~nse: I~ ~s d~ff~cu~ ~o reduce sound ~n an existing single
f~y dwelling. Mu~p~e ~ndo~s and an ~ncrease ~n
wa~l surfaces exacerbate ~he problem. I~ ~s much eas~er
~o a~enua~e sound ~n a ne~ mu~-s~o~ building ~here
~here are fe~er ex~sed v~s~on pane~s and fe~er ex~er~o~
~a~s ~r un~. M~ern construction ~echn~es and
advanced ~echno~ are available ~o ~he new building.
--Concern: Can the single event noise be mitigated?
Response: Yes. The City*s acoustical consultant indicates that an
interior noise level of CNEL 45 dba can be easily
achieved. This noise standard is set by Title 25,
Article 4,28(3)2 of the California Government Code.
Furthermore, the single event can be mitigated to 65 dBa.
This standard is reasonable given no State criteria for
single event.
Staff recommends that Special Condition No. 24 be amended
by adding the following sentence: "The buildings shall be
designed and constructed to achieve an interior noise
level of CNEL 45 dba. The single event noise shall be
mitigated to 65 dba."
Concern: How is the project designed differently?
Response: The revised development plan would not change most of the
project's land uses to a measurable degree. Although
some modifications are proposed, the basic concept of a
master-planned, mixed-use community with a strong water
orientation would be retained. Minor modifications would
-- result in a slight.increase in marina berths, a slight
decrease in residential units and modifications to the
mix of office/retail/restaurant space resulting in a
greater amount of retail and restaurant use, with a
corresponding reduction in office use. In addition, the
conference center would be reduced in capacity from 3,000
to 1,700 seats; an aquarium also would be added. The
most noticeable change is in hotel use, where 750 rooms
are no~ proposed in comparison to 450 in the earlier
plan. Finally, the yacht club contained in the earlier
'-- '-- ~.- -~-,~.,~a (-~e~ 'r';,b½e 1.) ~/~/~
I I I
Staff Report
To~ The Honorable City Council
Sub~ect~ Continued City Council Deliberations on the
Shearwater Develol~ent Pro~ect
December 11, 1985
Page 6
Concern= The pro:Ject is "big to~m" not suburban and is a sellout
to skyscrapers.
Responset The Shearwater Pro~ect has a floor area ratio (FAR), or
ratio of total building space to land &rea, of 1.0. This
is significantly lower than downtown San Francisco, which
has an average FAR of 13. Other co,~unities in the area
also have higher densities. For instance, the City of
San Nateo's central business district has an FAR of 4
with bonus credits that allow for an FAR as high as 8.
In Burlingame along Hotel Row, the FAR is approximately
2.
Concern: Views and access to the Bay are cut-off.
Response: This is highly inaccurate and misleading. The project
creates new opportunites for public access that have not
existed for 50 years under the previous industrial use of
the site by U.S. Steel Corporation. The plan provides
for approximately 4000 linear feet of continuous public
shoreline access. In addition, approximately 25 acres,
or nearly 50% of the total dryland, is devoted to public
open space. In comparison to the earlier plan studied in
the EIR, the current project is in substantial
conformance with BCDC policies for the provision of
public access. To comply with BCDC policies, the yacht
club has been removed, the hotel has been relocated back
from the water's edge, and parking has been removed from
the piers. A public walkway and bike path connect the
site to Sierra Point, and three public vista points
accessible by authomobile are provided.
Concern: Would the airport redirect flights over peninsula cities
and through the gap in favor of the project's residential
area?
Response: Highly unlikel¥. It is more likely that the airport
would increase flights using the shoreline departure.
The threat of redirected flights over peninsula cities is
a weak tactic with ultimate adverse political
consequences.
Concern: Why did the convention center change? Why is an aquarium
added?
12/11/8~
Paae
~¢aff Report
Toz The Honorable City Council
Subject: Continued City Council Deliberations on the
Shearwater Development Project
December 11, 1985
Page 7
Response: The square footage of the convention center component of
the project remains the same (100,000 square feet) but
now an aquarium is added. The aquarium serves as an
educational/cultural facility which further serves to
integrate the uses in the project. The-aquarium could
function independently as an activity center.
Concern: A concern was raised about whether adequate guarantees
can be made for the provision of wastewater treatment
facilities to serve the project.
Response: The Draft and Final EIRs pointed out that current
-- capacity of the wastewater treatment plant is more than
adequate to serve the project. However, mitigation
recommendations are incorporated in the Final EIR (p. 2-
36) to provide for improvements to local wastewater sewer
flows from the project. Specifically, the developer will
be entirely responsible for funding the provision of a
parallel sanitary sewer line for most of the distance
between the site and Ptb~p-Statton No~--4.-- tn addition,
the costs of necessary improvements to Pump Stations 2
and 4 will be borne by the developer.
In accordance with Special Condition 48g, these
mitigations will be required of the developer.
Concern: What is the status of the GSA property?
Response: The City's GSA property is under the auspices of the
City's Surplus Property Authority. The Redevelopment
Agency may lease the property and may sublease it to the
developer under terms and conditions consistent with the
Agency's lease. If the developer purchases the property,
developer shall pay fair market value of the property at
the date of tranfer.
Concern: What is the definition of "substantial change" and what
does it mean relative to the project limit?
Response: Substantial change is defined in Section 10(c) of the
OPA. The maximum limits of development are set forth in
both Exhibit 7 to the OPA and ~n Section 20.61.075 of the
Shearwater Specific Plan Zone District. These limits
shall not be exceeded unless amendments to the Specific
[] ...... ,- "-
Staff Report
Tot The Honorable City Council
Subject: Continued City Council Deliberations on the
Shearwater Development Pro~ect
December ll, 1985
~age 8
Concern: Why does Section 20.$1.180(a) contain the word "may"
instead of "shall"?
ResDonse: The word "may" is appropriate here in regard to precise
plan submittals. The following section, Section
20.61.190 clearly states that no building permit can be
issued without a precise plan approved by the
Redevelopment Agencyr
Concern: Why is there proposed a residential density increase?
Won't this set a precedent in other areas of the city?
Response: The increased residential density was requested by the
developer at 50 units per acre and was negotiated and
recommended at 40 units per acre. Reasons for granting
the increase include provision of low and moderate income
units; the site is a redevelopment area; the site is
isolated and unique; there is a need for increased
housing in South SanFrancisco. The-City already allows
higher densities under certain circumstances such as
senior citizen housing.
Concern: One of the speakers quoted that the Shearwater Project
will generate 30,000 daily vehicle trips.
Response: This statement is incorrect. At the land use densities
currently before the Council, the Project will generate
about 18,500 daily vehicle trips. This represents a 13%
reduction from the 21,300 daily trips analyzed in the
(Page IV-82) which was based on slightly higher land use
densities.
Concern: A representative of the City of Brisbane refereed to the
new northbound off-ramp system proposed by Caltrans as a
"frontage road."
Response: This term is misleading in so far as it implies a local,
low-speed facility. Actually, the new "collector ramp"
will be part of the freeway, operated and maintained by
Caltrans, a high-speed (45-55 mph} extended ramp that is
similar to collector ramps at major freeway-to-freeway
interchanges such as at Route 101/1380 or Route 101/Route
92. t2/tl/85
· Pa~$¥
The collector ramp concept has been proposed by Caltrans
..... ~ ~ ----4 --6~---- ~.~..,~,, ~1~ 4 ~ ~4 ~
:af£ Repor~
To: The Honorable City Council
Subject: Continued City Council Deliberations on the
ihearwater Develop~en~ ProJec~
December 11, 1985
Page 9
area. There will be no signals along this collector ramp
and drivers headed for Sierra Point and Bayshore
Boulevard will encounter actually fewer weaving and
merging problems than exist today.
The enclosed schematic map shows how the collector ramp
would function and how it would be signed to d~rect
dr£vers.to Sierra Point and Brisbane.
Concern: The question was raised how the future traffic impacts
will be mitigated.
Response Numberous traffic mitigation measures that were
identified in the EIR have been incorporated into the
about 60 special conditions for the project such as:
widening of Airport/Bayshore Boulevards to 6 lanes,
widening of Oyster Point Boulevard to 6 lanes, travel
reduction measures in the form of shuttle buses, carpool
programs and complementing land uses, and an annual
monitoring of the traffic conditions. The greatest
improvement will come from replacing the narrow, two-lane
Oyster Point Bridge and at-grade railroad crossing with a
new elevated interchange which may have seven lanes
across the freeway.
The freeway capacity will be improved by the addition of
auxiliary lanes between on and off ramps on both sides,
provision of new on and off ramps, and elimination of
unsafe weaving maneuvers and potential relocation of the
southbound CHP truck scales (see also letter from Fehr &
Peers Associates to Phil Gorny, City of South San
Francisco, dated November 18, 1985).
The EIRs for this new interchange and the new Terrabay
Hook Ramps (on Bayshore Boulevard) are currently in
preparation. Although traffic in this region will,
without doubt, increase as a consequence of the various
proposed development projects, the roadway improvements
are designed to maintain future traffic conditions at
approximately today's levels.
Concern: Several speakers referred to and quoted from the 1983
Oyster Point Grade Separation Feasibility Study by George
S. Nolte and Associates.
Response: This study is obsolete and has been superseded by an
improved Caltrans-design of the Oyster Point interchange
[] T [
Staff Report
To~ The Honorable City Council
Subject: Continued City Council Deliberations on the
Shea~ater Development Project
December 11, 1985
Page 10
Concern: Clarification was requested on the amount of parking that
can be saved because of the mixed land use of the
Shear~ater Project.
Response: Many uses, especially the hotel, conference facilities,
restaurants, and retail stores will rely on customers
that are already on the site and do not need additional
parking. In addition, the number of parking spaces for
office employees can be reduced fro~ standard rates to
account for carpooling, shuttle bus use and other
transportation system management (TSM) programs.
Overall, the total parking requirement can be reduced by
30% as a consequence of mixed use and TSM.
The enclosed table (Table 2) provides more detail on the
parking estimate and the applied discounts.
Concern: The comment was made that the internal Shearwater road
circulation system is inadequate.
Response: The EIR process resulted in an improved internal road
concept that replaced the inverted U-shaped road with a
H-shaped road system. This new design has been
incorporated into the latest Shearwater Plan (see
Planning Application, July 1985) and will provide
convenient and direct access to the parking structures.
C. WALTER BIRKELO
City Manager
MARK LEWIS
Deputy City Manager
~?an T. Smith
Planning Director
CWB:ML:JTS:PG:sp
Attachments
12/11/85
Page
LAW OFIrlCW~, OIf
I"'. O. BOx ~3B
BU~UNOAI4~.~ CALIIrOI~'NIA ~4OII
II. FrrzG£
^ tss o ,u . EXHIBIT
August 29, 1985
Redevelopment Agency of khe
City of South San Francisco '
P. O. Box 711
South San Francisco, Ca. 94080
Re= Owner Participation and Development Agreement (O?A)
by and between the City of South San Francisco, the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco
and Neville H. Price
Dear Honorable Members=
As the attorney for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
South San Francisco, I submit herewith a summary of the above
entitled proposed Owner Participation and Development Agreemenl
I
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Representatives of the Agency and the developer have been
negotiating towards what has been called "Owner Participation
and Development Agreement" (hereinafter "OPA"), an agreement
which would contain the terms and conditions under which the
developer would be willing to develop property which he owns
to a mixed use development in the area formerly occupied by
the U.S. Steel Plant and now a Redevelopment Project adopted
by the City and the Redevelopment Agency.
The negotiating team of the City and the Agency has therefore
attempted in these particular negotiations, within the scope
of the City and Agency policies and objectives, to have the
developer commit himself fully to the terms and conditions of
a complete disposition agreement, even though that agreement
might not be effective until certain contingencies or condi-
tions to the developer's performance were satisfied.
II
SUMMARY OF OPA AGREEMENT
(Full Agreement Must be Read)
Parties: The City, the Agency and Neville Price.
12/11/85
Page
Redevelopment Agency of the
City of South San Francisco
.... August 29, 1985
Page 2
Effective Date: Date of execution by the parties.
RECITALS= Sets forth the basic facts upon which the
agreement is premised.
DEFINITIONS: Sets forth the definitions which control the
terms used within, the agreement.
Sec. 1 (a) states that the parties entered into the
agreement based upon the developerts
qualifications, experience and expertise.
(b) prohibits developer from transferring the
Project before completion (except as allowed
under conditions set forth below) unless
the proposed transferee has sufficient
qualifications and the financial ~responsi-
bility to fulfill the obligations of this
agreement and specifically assumes all the
obligations of the original developer. The
Agency has the right to review transfer
documents. The original developer remains
obligated unless released by the Agency.
The purpose of this Section is to discourage
land speculation.
(c) developer has a right to transfer fifty (50)
percent of the Project at any time provided
developer maintains management control in
the Project. The new transferee must satisfy
financial criteria of $20,000,000.00 net worth,
possess sufficient experience and a good business
reputation otherwise the transfer is subject to
approval by the City. The transfer restrictions
do not apply to a transfer to a holder of any
security instrument.
Sec. 2: PARTICIPATION BY DEVELOPER
(a) Agreement will be subject to ~a Declaration of
Restrictions to be approved by the parties and
thereafter recorded in order to give notice.
(b) provides that covenants run i.e. pass with the
land upon transfer.
Sec. 3: OYSTER POINT SEPARATION CONSTRUCTION, CONTRIBUTION
AND PAYMENT, INCLUDING RELATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
(a)(1)defines the Oyster Point Separation Project.
12/11/85
(
Redevelopment Agency of the
City of South San Francisco
August 29, 1985
Page 3
(2) defines what is included in the "cost
of construction" of Oyster Point
Separation Project.
(3) defines "ADT" of the Project
(b) Developer will advance i.e. loan $15,000,000.00.
(This language is being revised to clarify the
conditions as to a use of a letter of credit
as securityl)
(c)(d) Agency will repay developer from cash
increment funds as they become available
$6,400,000.00 of the $15,000,000.00 and the
balance of $9,100,000.00 is developer's
contribution to the Oyster Point Separation
Project.
(e) Developer will make the following additional
contributions:
(1) Funds for plan review and inspections.
(2) Agency Project Administration costs.
(3) An annual cultural component contribution
for use within the Project.
(4) An engineering analysis and an improve-
ment, if necessary of existing storm-
drain and sewer ~mprovement serving the
Project.
(5) A $190,000.00 contribution for fire
protection.
(f) (1) 'Developer will pay the contribution in
cash or will use as security a letter
of credit and will provide an advance
to commence design and construction.
(2) Construction of the Oyster Point Separation
Project must commence by December 1991 or
any developer advance contribution is
reimbursed to the developer.
(3) The contribution shall be deposited in
a separate fund with all interest cre-
dited to the fund.
(4) The developer's obligation to make con-
tributions is not effected by any failure
12/11/85
Page ~
Redevelopment Agency of the
City of South San Francisco
-- August 29, 1985
Page 4
of the City to collect other developer
contributions and plan processing is
delayed until a contribution is received.
PRIORITIES: (g) Tax increment shall be used to repay Agency
loans as follows:
(1) principal and interest on tax increment
bonds, other third party loans and
developer advances.
(2) Advances by the City.
(3) Advances by the City for administration
costs.
(h) No other advances or contributions shall be
required from developer or successors for
traffic mitigation purposes arising from
...... development of the Oyster Point Project.
(i) The agreement will be recorded and the
obligations will run with the land but the
developer remains secondarily liable for
any contributions due on any portion of the
property conveyed to a third party.
(j)Developer agrees to develop a parking for a
fee facility.
[k) The parties agree to the undergrounding of
utilities (pursuant to P G & E Rule 20) but
the amount of the developer's contribution
is not as yet agreed upon by the parties.
(1) (m) The City agrees to consider the establish-
ment of an assessment district and/or a
parking district.
Sec. 4: This section contains a standard financing agree-
ment language that the Agency will consider and
FINANCING: cooperate with the developer to utilize tax
exempt bond financing with a specific reservation
-- that the credit assets and revenues of the Agency
shall not be pledged or .used or relied upon in
such financing except as expressly provided herein.
Sec. 5: Any transfer of the property by the developer shall
be subject to the Redevelopment Plan, the Declaration
of Restrictions and all public easements and rights-
of way, etc. The Agency agrees to make every effort
12/11/85
p~p~ ~ ~,
Redevelopment Agency of the
City of South San Francisco
August 29, 1985
Page 5
to sublease the GSA site to the developer.
Sec. 6= Provides the time for commencement and completion
of' construction.
Sec. ?~ Provides the time for specified other action.
Sec. 8: Provides that the covenants pertaining to the
uses of the property remain in effect for a
period of twenty (20) years.
Sec. 9: Notices provide the method of giving notice and
demands.
Sec. 10: (a) General provision re scope of development.
(b) Progress report.
(c) prOvides for and defines substantial ,changes
in approved plan.
(d) Provides for architectural review of the City.
Sec. 11: (a) Provides for ~he standard nondiscrimation
clause.
(b) Provides for developer's obligation to take
out and maintain during the life of the
agreement certain policies of insurance as
required by the City Attorney.
(c) Requires that developer obtain building
permits and other permits as necessitated
by the City.
(d) Provides for the standard conflict of interest
provision.
(e) & standard provision providing that there
shall be no individual liability of the
Agency officials, employees and agents to
the developer.
(f) Provides for no merger with grant deeds.
(g) standard language relating to titles of
the agreement.
(h) provides for the hold harmless clause for
the benefit of the Agency.
12/11./85
Page ~'9'
Redevelopment Agency of the
City of South San Francisco
August 29, 1985
Page 6
(i)(j)(k)(1) & (m)= Standard Provisions as to
the rights of the parties,.the severability of
the agreement, the obligations upon the successors
in interest, warranties and that the parties are
not partners, etc.
Sec. 12: Additional definitions.
Sec. 13: Provides that eachof the parties have remedies
for any default.
Sec. 14: provides that the agreement will.'be effective
upon approval and execution with the exception
that should the Redevelopment Plan be invalidated
to the extent effecting the ability of the Agency
to perform its obligations this agreement would
be suspended until the parties ~each a further
solution.
Very truly yours,
HHF:cj '~
12/11/85
Page
itp of
5~,? EL CAMINO
S~ BRUNO. ~UFORNIA 9q6
City of SouZA San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
Sou~ San Francisco, Ca. 94080
Dear Hr. Btrkelo:
~e City Council has directed me ~o prepa:e ~hts le~er, ~o indicate San
Bruno's serious conce~ .relaXin8 ~o ~he Shea~a~eg Developmen~ Pro]ec~.
San B~no ts opposed ~o any action ~htch ~oul~ inter~ere ~t~ ~he
or ~panded use o~ ~he Shoreline Departure.
City s~a~ has reviewed ~he Dra~ gnvtgo~ental Impac~ Repor~ [or CAe p~o]-
ec~. I~ appears ~ha~ your s~a~ and consultant have p~epaged ~he doc~en~
tn a pro~esstonal ~er, tn appagenk compliance ~t~h CEQA.
~e DEIR con~ends ~ha~ ~e~, t~ any, o~ the proposed 300 residential units
vtll be vt~t~ ~he 70 CNEL noise contours, and therefore the project vtll
no~ be stgnt~tcan~1y ~pacCed by no/se.
Su~tctenc pro~ec~ton ~rom noise ~tll purportedly be built /nco the
ec~ ~hrough proper insulation and construction metAods. Some pro~eccton
~rom la~sut~s ts ~hough~ ~o supposedly come ~rom avtsa~ton eas~en~s.
Unfortunately, avigatton eas~en~s do no~ preven~ la~sut~s under all
c~s~ances, nor ts ~here any o~her me~hod o~ ~tch ~ am a~are ~a~
give such assurance. ~a~ ts even more ~hgea~entng ts ~he decr~sed use
~hac ~hts project or any ocher project could cause co ~he Shorel~e De-
parture.
Because ~he Shorel~e Departure does 1~tt the number of alrcra[~
~ly ~hrough ~he Gap, t~ reduces the no/se ~pacc upon San B~no. ~e Ct~
o~ San B~o opposes any act/on ~ich ~ould 1~i~ ~he curren~ or ~panded
use o~ ~he ~oreltne Departure. Even ~hough ~he Shea~a~er Departure
Pro]ec~ app~rs ~o be ~ c~pltance ~th CEQA and s~ace no/se-iai, ~here
ts grave conce~ ~a~ ~he ne~ residents vtll sc111 ~tnd so~ ~y ~o pre-
ven~ use of ~he ~oreltne Departure, ~hroush legal action or o~her means.
~e urge ~he C1~ o~ SouZA San Francisco ~o continue ~o coopera~e
tn ~e resolution o~ nolse probl~s.
or Page
"AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER"
AIRPORTS COMMISSION ~
CiTY AND COUNT~ OF SAN FRANCISCO
OlANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR
~i,N FI~IANCI~CO INT~I~IATIONAL AIRI~OIqT
~AN FRANCISCO, CAUFORNIA ~412~
IVIOFIFIIS BERNSTEIN
WLMAMK. COI~.ENTZ Decembe£ 11, 1985
VtCEd=FIESIOENT LOUIS A. TURPEN
OFt. Z. L. GOO~BY D~ECTOR OF A~IPORTS
J. EDWARD FLE~HELL HAND DEL IVERY
^ E T IS EXHIBIT
City Council
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco. CA 94083
Subject: Shea£wate£ Pro)ect
Honorable Council Members:
I have reviewed the November 13. and November 27. 1985.
transc£ipts of the hearings before the City Council with respect
to the Shearwater Pro)ect. At the conclusion of the hearing on
the Shearwate£ P£o)ect on November 27. 1985. Vice-Mayor Addiego
expressed anger "at the Airport and [Airport Community Affairs
Director] Eon Wilson, who came here with what would appear to be,
unless we hear otherwise, some misinformation." Although
Vice-Mayor Addiego did not state the nature of the
"misinformation," he appears to be referring to statements Mr.
Wilson made at the November 13, 1985, hearing regarding CNEL and
SENEL levels at the Shearwater site. In order to_permi~
Vice-Mayor Addiego and the enti£e City Council to "hear
otherwise" and to clarify the record, I would like to respond to
his comment.
During the course of Mr. Wilson's remarks to the Council on
November 13. 1985. he stated that the Shea£water site was within
the 70-75 decibel level. As Mr. Wilson indicated in his remarks.
the source of his information was the staff report to the
Council. The first page of the staff report to the South San
Francisco Planning Commission dated October 13. 1985. which
report was attached to the staff report to the City Council dated
November 13. 1985. states that the noise level is within the
70-75 CNEL level.
~t Mayor Teglia's request. Mr. Wilson agreed to send the
Council the most recent San Francisco International Airport CNEL
contours map. Mr. Wilson did send a reduced-size copy of the
most recent contours map to the Council on November 15. 1985. At
the request of the Chief Planner. Phil Gorny. M£. Wilson also
12/11/85
Page ~E
TEL. (415) 761-O800 TELEX 509520
SFO AJRPORT
[] I [
City Council 2 Decembe~ 11. 1985
p£ovided the City of South San F£ancisco. the o£iginal ove£sized
copy of the CNEL noise contouzs map on Novembe£ 21. 1985. The
noise contours map clearly indicates that a portion of the
Shearwater Project site is located in the ?0-75 decibel range.
At the South San Francisco Council meeting on Novembe£ 27. 1985.
the Council received as pa£t of the record, a lette~ from Charles
N. Salter Asssociates. The Saltez letter stated that the last
quarterly £eport gene£ated by the Airport indicates that the CNEL
level from Nonitor 15 ranges from 65 to 67 dB. Nonitor 15 is
located app£oximately 2000 feet from the Shearwater project site
at 460 Carlton Cou£t in South San Francisco.
The Airpo£t has not attempted to mislead the City Council by
p£ovidin9 the CNEL noise contou~ map rather than the raw CNEL
data from Nonito£ 15. Nonitor 15 located at a distance of 2000
feet from the Shearwate£ p£oject site 9ives an app£oximate noise
level fo£ the area around the monito£. The noise contours map.
howeve£, p£ovides a picture of the noise levels of the region
su~roundin9 the Ai£port and demonst£ates that the Shea~wate£
Project site falls within the noise contour levels of 65-75 dB.
Contra£y to the opinion of Nr. Nash of Salte~ Associates. the
daily CNEL levels f£om the Nonitor 15 do not £ep£esent the "best
available longterm data base fo~ the site." Nonitor 15. as
previously noted, is at some distance from the p£oject site and
therefo£e cannot provide an accu£ate noise measurement for the
p£oiect area. No£eover. the CNEL levels measu£ed by Nonito£ 15
fo£ the last qua£ter are not intended to be. and do not
constitute p£o)ections fo£ the futu£e. The Ai£po£t is committed
to the inc£eased use of the Shoreline Depa£ture Path which will
likely increase the CNEL noise level over Nonitor 15 and over the
Shearwate£ Pro)ect site.
Further. while the qua£terly noise readings from Nonitor 15 when
ave~aqed indicate that the CNEL level is 65 to 67 decibels.
These figures obscure the fact that daily ave£age readings have
been ~ecorded at a level as high as 74.5 dB and that the high
readings are offset by such occasional very low daily CNEL
figures as 46.0 dB. See the attached Noise qua£terly report fo£
April through June 1985: £eadings from Nay 11. 1985 and Nay 25.
1985. The reason fo~ the wide differences in the daily CNEL
levels reco£ded at Nonito£ 15 is the Ai£port's ability to use the
Sho£eline Departure Path. On days when wind conditions and
weathe£ dictate take-offs f£om Runway 28. approximately half of
those take-offs will utilize the Shoreline Departure. Hence. the
noise level will vary f£om day to day depending on the extent to
which the Sho£eline Departure can be used.
In addition, the quarterly £eport of the CNEL ~eadings i£om
Nonito£ 15 p£ovide only ave£age noise levels and not the single
noise events. ~onito~ 15. however, does measure single noise
12/11/85
Page ~g
City Council ~ Decembe£ 11. 1985
events. These measurements confirm that single noiss svents of
105 dB and highe£ occu£ over the Monitor 15 site. Not every
single noise event reaches the 105 decibel level, and the Airport
has not made any representation to that effect. Howeve£0 it
should be noted that even the developer's noise consultant stated
that he calculates that "there could . . be 5 to 10 of these
daytime [105 dB] events or one at night." See letter from
Charles M. Salter Associates, dated November 20° 1985. In the
absence of a noise analysis supported by data acquired from the
project site. the City Council has no basis for determining the
actual environmental impact of overflight noise on residential
development in the Shea:water Project. The Al:port's position is
simply that the noise analysis should be performed and subjected
to review and comment by the public before the City Council
approves the project so that the Council can make the soft of
informed decision contemplated by CEQA.
Whethe£ the residential units are within the 70-75 dB contour or
merely in close proximity to the 70-75 CNEL contour, there is
still cause for concern about the developer's ability to insulate
to a 45 decibel level. While the consultant from Charles M.
Salter Associates indicated in his letter to the Council and in
his remarks before the Council on November 27. 1985. that it is
"technically straightfo£wa£d to achieve an interior CNEL of 45
decibels if the exterior CNEL is 65 to 70 decibels." a noise
analysis performed prior to the Shearwater project's approval
would either confi£m or £efute his opinion and thus provide the
Council with accurate and up-to-date facts about the actual
exte£io£ noise level for the Shes:water site and the feasibility
of insulating the proposed £esidentials units to the 45 dB level.
I note that the staff report to the Council. dated December 11.
1985. proposes to modify Condition 24 to add the requirement that
"single event noise shall be mitigated to 65 dBa." The record
before you. however, contains no evidence that such noise
reduction is feasible.
Additionally. the At:port is concerned about the exterior noise
level surrounding the proposed residential units. The tenants of
the office buildings on the east side of Highway 101 who have
addressed the noise issue in letters and remarks to the Council
are only speaking about airport noise as it affects them in an
interior work environment. Residents. however, will likely want
to utilize the balconies of their units as well as the open space
planned by the developer for the project area. Noise levels of
even 6S-70 decibels will certainly disrupt the residents' outdoo£
activities.
Based upon our review of the data that ME. Wilson has
presented to the Council as well as other materials and testimony
before the Council. the Airport strongly urges the Council to
disapprove the residential uses from the Shes:water project. In
12/11/85
Page ~/~]
[]
City Council ¢ December 11. 198~
the event the Council still wishes to approve the Shearwater
project including the residential units, the Airport must insist
that the developer and the City of South San Francisco grant the
Airport a noise easement prior to the project's approval. The
developer at the City Council meeting of November 27. 198~.
stated that he had offered the Airport a noise and vibration
easement. As of the date of this letter, no such offe£ has been
conveyed to the Airport. In o£der to insure that the developer
and the City of South San Francisco grant the Airport an easement
which will insure that the Airport will be able to continue to
utilize the Shoreline Departure Path and to increase the use of
this departure route in the future, the Council must condition
the project's approval upon the recording of the noise and
vibration easement, which condition must expressly state that the
developer voluntarily agrees to grant the noise and vibration
easement to the Airports Commission. The City Council's
condition must also expressly state that the prior to recordation
of the easement, the developer shall submit the legal documents
related to the easement to the Airports Commission for its review
and approval.
In light of the deeds of trust in excess of $31.8 million
recorded against the Shearwater site and the pendency of a $10
million lawsuit (Melvin A. Welch, et al. v. Neville Price. et
al.. and related actions: San Marco Superior Court No. 284161)
alleging breach of contract and fraud in the developer's
acquisition of the Shearwater site from the U.S. Steel
Corporation. the Airport has grave concerns about the ability and
willingness of the developer to indemnify the City and County of
San Francisco and the Airports Commission from claims by Shear-
water residents arising from overflight noise and vibration.
Hence, the Airport must also insist that prior to approval of the
Shearwater project, the City of South San Francisco, the
developer, and each of the institutions which have financed the
developer's purchase of the U.S Steel site enter into a contract
with the Airport whereby each of the above-named parties and
their assigns agree to defend and hold the Airport and the City
and County of San Francisco harmless from any and all claims and
losses arising from aircraft flights over the Shearwater site.
The Airport also stands firm on the position we took in our
letter to the City Council dated November 13, 1985 regarding the
inadequacy of the analysis of the environmental impacts and the
response to the comments from the public and governmental
agencies in the Environmental Impact Report for the Shearwater
Project. The Airport. in addition, stands on its position that
recirculation of the Environmental Impact Report is required
because of the substantial changes in the Shearwater
development. The South San Francisco Planning Department's
conclusions in its staff report to the City Council dated
November 27, 1985, notwithstanding, the CEQA guidelines require
that the substantial changes in the Shearwater Project be
12/11/85
Page Sm
City Council 5 December 11, 1985
analyzed and that an oppo£tuniCy for public review and comment of
the analysis be provided.
Lastly, the &i£port wishes to address the South San Francisco
Planning Depa£ment's response to the concern regarding
redirecting flights through the Gap in favor of the Shearwater
Project residents that appear8 on page 6 of the Staff Report
dated December 11, 1985. The Airport is not threatening to
redirect flights over the Gap. Throughout the review process of
the Shearwater Project, the Airport has outlined the problems of
placing residential units under the Shoreline Departure Path.
The Airport has stated publicly that the Shoreline Departure Path
will continue as a significant noise mitigation measure for the
Peninsula cities previously impacted by aircraft taking off
through the Gap. The Airport, however, has no control over
future residents of the Shearwater project who may sue the
Airport and may obtain legal redress compelling a limitation on
the Airport's use of the Shoreline Departure Path. That
possibility cannot be termed a "threat" by the Airport. Hence,
the Airport has u£ged and continues to urge the City Council to
delete the residential component of the Shea£water Project as the
best means for preserving the viability of the Shoreline
Departure Path.
The Airports Commmission respectfully requests that this letter
and the attached document be made part of the record of the
proceedings on the Shearwater Project.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Attachment
1157S
12/11/85
Page -~'1
EXHIBIT
E
December 9, 1985
Ctty Council of South San Francisco
488 Grand Avenue
South San Franctsco~ CA 9408~
Dear Counctl Members:
I am writing you to express my concerns regarding the
Shearwater Development Project. I have serious
misgivings that the inclusion of residential units as
part of that development would be in the best interests
of those new residents~ the developers, or the city of
South San Francisco. I base my objections on the
following facts.
I have been a partner in a business-located in the Cabot,
Cabot & Forbes industrial park for almost three years.
During this time I have been subjected to noise impact
from over-flights by aircraft using the Shoreline
Departure from San Francisco International Airport. The
decibel levels from these flights can be endured in a
business environment, but they far exceed the tolerance
of anyone experiencing them on a daily basis in the
privacy of his own home, yards or neighborhood.
As you know, the Shoreline Departure procedure was
designated by the 1~78-1~80 Joint Land Use Study as a
viable noise mitigation measure to relieve noise due to
Runway-28 departures. Since its creation in 1~80, the
Airport-Community Roundtable has been encouraging its
expanded use. The net effect is enormous in reducing the
noise impact on residents who live in a large portion o~
South San Francisco as well as in Pacifica, Colma~ and
Daly City. At present most departures with destinations
to the North or East use the Shoreline. Coupled ~ith the
growth of air traffic expected at SFIA, the Shoreline
Departure promises to remain a major procedure for noise
mitigation.
I am sure that anyone who should move into a ne~ East
Grand neighborhood would find the quality o~ li{e
12/11/85
Page $$
severely diminished by the continuous nuisance of
aircraft noise. I urge the Council to remove private
dwellings from the Shearwater plan, and to require that
it conform to a more appropriate compatible land use.
I will try to be present at your Dec. 11th meeting, and
would appreciate being allowed to speak to this matter at
that time. In any event, may I ask that this letter be
made a part of the City Council record?
yoUrs truly,
Duane A. Spence
Vice President
12/11/85
Pacje