Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Minutes 1986-12-17 Mayor Mark N. Addiego --. ~-I N U T E S Vi ce Mayor John "Jack" Dr J Counci 1: (ii ty Counci 1 Richard A. Haffey Gus Nicolopulos Municipal Services Building ~ Roberta Cerri Teglia Community Room ~v~NUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WERE RECORDED AND TRANSCRIBED BY THE CITY CLERK BARBARA BATTAYA December 17, 1986 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN JOINT MEETING WITH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JOINT MEETING WITH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) 7:33 p.m. Chairman Addiego presiding. ROLL CALL: Boardmembers present: Drago, Halley, Nicolopulos, Teglia and Addiego. Boardmembers absent: None. AGENDA REVIEW AGENDA REVIEW Executive Director Birkelo stated that he had nothing to add to the Agenda. 1. Approval of the Regular Bills in M/S Haffey/Drago - To approve the Regular the amount of $12,086.92. Bills in the amount of $12,086.92. Boardmember Nicolopulos stated that he thought there was a contract with the former City Attorney, yet the current bills seemed to be going above the monthly rates. He stated that July had been $6,000, August $9,000 and a current bill of $12,000 - he questioned what business necessitated these charges. Executive Director Birkelo stated that the billings were related to the hearing on the variance that was proposed to be held, but was later settled by the Council and the Airport. He stated that the contract the Boardmember was referring to was the one while Mr. Rogers served as Attorney from the date of his resignation. Boardmember Nicolopulos stated that he realized that the Shearwater litigation - - was very expensive, however he did not understand these bills from Mr. Rogers every month. 12/17/86 Page 1 I A G E N D A ~-. A C T.~-~ 0 N T A K E N 1. Approval of the Regular Bills - Executive Director Birkelo stated that he "' Continued. could compile a report breaking down the charges in Mr. Rogers' bills. Chairman Addiego stated that the matter could be discussed later in a Closed Session. Carried by unanimous voice vote. 2. Approval of the Annual Report for Executive Director/Secretary Smith stated Fiscal Year 1985-86 and authorize that it was recommended that the submittal to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency approve the subject transmittal to appropriate State report and authorize its submittal to the and County Agencies. City Council, and the transmittal to appropriate State and County Agencies. She stated that the annual report was required by State law and must contain four particular items: the independent financial audit; a fiscal statement con- taining amounts of outstanding indebted- ness: tax increment and other financial transactions; activities of the Agency affecting housing, especially low and moderate income housing; and any other useful information on Agency activities. She stated that the independent financial audit would be forwarded by the auditor the fourth week of December, and the report to the State Controller was being completed by Finance and would be distri- buted prior to 12/31/86. She stated that the activity for the Agency affecting housing -- the Gateway Redevelopment did not expend any funds this year, and the account amounted to $243,000. She stated that there were no funds collected for the Shearwater and U. S. Steel Redevelopment Projects, so there was no housing fund at this time. M/S Teglia/Haffey - To approve the report; authorize its submittal to the City Council, and transmittal to appropriate State and County Agencies. Councilman Halley stated that the $243,000 would be discussed in the 12/17/86 Page 2 A G E N D A ~-~, A C T''O N T A K E N 2. Annual Report - Continued. Council meeting, which was to be used for either the purchase or lease of units for low and moderate income housing - as related to the senior center at Magnolia. Executive Director/Secretary Smith stated that there were two requirements in the Redevelopment Law having to do with housing, and that one pertained if there were housing units within the project. She continued, but regardless of that, 20% was required of the total tax increment. Councilman Halley stated that that money had been building for some number of years since the Redevelopment Project began, and would continue to build over the next few years. Councilwoman Teglia stated that those two redevelopment areas, with the tax incre- ment and 20% set-aside, hopefully would generate the money to expend in payment for the strategies being developed to rebuild the older parts of the community. Councilman Halley questioned if the money could only be spent on low and moderate income housing - and if that money was not spent, what would happen to the Redevelopment Agency. Executive Director/Secretary Smith stated that the State did not have a time limit on how soon the money had to be spent, but the concern was that at some time it had to be spent. Chairman Addiego stated that if there was a large scale project and the Agency com- mitted money to be spent in a particular fashion, then the money could be ear- marked in anticipation of having the revenue to do a large scale project. Carried by unanimous voice vote. CITY COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION CALL TO ORDER: 7:33 p.m. Mayor Addiego presiding. 12/17/86 Page 3 I I AG E N D A ~-~ A C T-~ 0 N T A K E N ROLL CALL: Council present: Drago, Haffey, Nicolopulos, Teglia and Addiego. Council absent: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The pledge of allegiance was recited. AGENDA REVIEW AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Birkelo stated that he had nothing to add. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Kimberly Rantissi, 312 A St., ~6, stated that her complaint was that on Saturday, 12/13/86, her car was towed in error. She stated that she filed a claim with the City and was told it would take 45 days - she questioned why. She stated that her car was returned on Saturday evening, after the City had taken care of the towing charges. She stated that she was denied the use of her vehicle for a couple of hours, had undergone aggravation, and had to stay home until the vehicle was returned. City Attorney Armento stated that the claim had been received today; and it had been sent to the Claims Adjuster; that a claimant was always advised that they would hear something within 45 days, as that was the statutory time allowed for the City to examine and analyze the claim and respond; that it was entirely likely that they would get a response sooner than 45 days, however that was the stan- dard time frame within which the various people had to act. Mr. Brian Gaffney, 100 San Bruno Ave., Brisbane, stated that he was speaking for the Bay Area Mountain Watch in relation to the Shearwater proposal for plans for the valley and the bayside, he stated that he wanted to appeal to the Board for a bayside people's park. Mayor Addiego stated that Shearwater 12/17/86 Page 4 I I ORAL COI~MUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS was an item on the agenda, and Mr. Gaffney should continue his remarks to the appropriate time during the meeting. COMMUNITY FORUM COMMUNITY FORUM No one chose to speak. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTIONS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTIONS 1. Joint Public Hearing - To consider Mayor Addiego opened the Joint Public certain findings, actions and land Hearing. use approvals affecting that real property located north of Oyster City Attorney Armento stated that the Point Blvd. and east of U.S. purpose of this combined special meeting Highway 101 formerly known as the was to consider the various actions that U.S. Steel Plant site and General the City Council and Agency should take Services Administration warehouse in connection with the Shearwater Project. site (hereinafter "Shearwater") in the City - pursuant to Peremptory She summarized the history of the Writ of Administrative Mandate. approvals of the Shearwater Project and the subsequent litigation by the City and Staff Report 12/17/86 recommending: County of San Francisco, essentially the a) adoption of a Resolution of fin- Airport. She stated that the Court dings; b) adoption of a Resolution concluded that this City had acted pro- certifying the Final E.I.R; c) perly in all respects with only one adoption of a Resolution authorizing exception, the Court concluded that the an Owner Participation and EIR was inadequate for failure to include Development Agreement. in the alternatives discussion of a pro- ject alternative that did not contain a a) A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS residential component. She continued, in CONCERNING THE RESIDENTIAL regard to the Shearwater litigation the q~%b COMPONENT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT Court observed that the only significant PROJECT KNOWN AS THE U.S. STEEL issue in the case concerned the effect of PLANT SITE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT the aircraft noise upon the residential (SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT component of the Shearwater Project. She PROJECT). stated that the Court concluded that the aircraft noise impacts upon residences b~ A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE could not adequately be addressed unless FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT the EIR contained a study of a project REPORT FOR THE U.S. STEEL PLANT alternative, including everything but the SITE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT residential component. (MODIFIED SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT) She stated that the Court decided that the significance of the environmental c). A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE cost of the residential component could EXECUTION OF AN OWNER PARTICI- not truly be assessed unless one could ~' PATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT compare the objectives to be achieved by BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT constructing the housing against the AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN study of a lesser impact on a project without housing, and the Court issued 12/17/86 Page 5 I I A G E N D A --~, A C T~O N T A K E N REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTIONS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTIONS 1. Staff Report - Continued. its Writ requiring preparation of a supplemental EIR to consider a non- FRANCISCO, THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN residential alternative for the FRANCISCO, AND NEVILLE H. PRICE Shearwater Project. She stated that CEQA AND ROSEMARY C.I. PRICE required that when a Court finds an EIR (MODIFIED SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT inadequate it must direct that project PROJECT) approvals taken on the basis of that EIR be set aside - therefore, the Writ directed all approval actions with res- pect to the Shearwater Project be vacated pending preparation of the supplemental EIR. She stated that in this case the Court explicitly recognized in its sta- tement of decision, judgment order and Writ, and in oral remarks from the Bench, that consideration of a no residential alternative could affect only the resi- dential component of the project. She continued, the Court made clear that its finding was not intended to affect the remainder of the project if the Council and Agency find the residential com- ponent, a severable and not indispensible component of the project as a whole. She stated that it found that the EIR was entirely adequate and all other actions taken by the City were entirely approp- riate in the eyes of the Court with respect to all portions of the project other than the residential component. She stated that the Court's Writ required the City to take two actions, and the Writ allows the City to take a third series of actions. She stated that the Council and Agency were required to vacate all the approvals previously granted with respect to the Project, and order preparation of a supplemental EIR to consider the non-residential alternative - after allowing input by the public. She continued, it allows the City to then reinstate the Shearwater approvals after two findings were made. She proceeded to read the Writ: prior to certification of the SEIR the City may reinstate the vacated actions and reso- lutions with respect to all portions of the project other than the residential 12/17/86 Page 6 I I ! ! AG E N D A ~-~.~ A C T~O N T A K E N REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTIONS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTIONS 1. Staff Report - Continued. component, if the City was able to find that: a) the residential component was not an integral and indispensible part of the project; b) approval of all portions of the project without approval of the residential component will not prejudice full and fair consideration of the resi- dential component, alternatives to the residential component, additional mitiga- tion measures in accordance to the terms of the Writ after preparation and cer- tification of the SEIR in light of the information therein contained. She stated that the purpose of this Public Hearing was to consider evidence to determine whether or not the Bodies could make these findings. She continued, after conclusion of the hearing it was up to the Agency and Council to determine whether or not to reinstate the appro- vals with respect to the non-residential component, and if so whether or not the findings necessary to comply to the Writ could be made. City Planner Gorney reiterated the actions to be taken, by both Bodies. Councilmember Teglia requested that a letter, dated 12/17/86, from Louis A. Turpen, Director of S.F.I.A, be incor- porated into the record (a copy is attached and a permanent part of the record of this meeting). Mayor Addiego invited those wishing to speak for the Project to step to the dais. Mr. Neville Price, Owner of the Shearwater Project, stated that the resi- dential component had been considered to be a good part of the Project, however it could be isolated from the project in compliance wi th the Writ. He explained the problems he was experiencing to secure financing because of the litiga- tion, however there was now an investor interested in investing without the resi- 12/17/86 Page 7 I I AIRPORTS COMMISSION CITY AND COUNTY OF ~ FRANCISCO DIANNE FEINSTEIN, MAYOR RECEI¥ MORRIS BERNST.EIN DEcl7 31 ~S,O~N~ December 17 1986 J. EDWARD FLEXSHELL ' OFFICE. OF v~E~'~£S,Oa~T CITY C/~.~I~s A. TURPEN DR. Z. L. (~OOSeY SO. SAN ATHENA TSOU(~ARAK~S C~N ~CHAF~S STEPHENS City Council City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco. CA 94080 Subject: Shearwater Project Honorable Members of the City Council: Tonight the South San Francisco City Council will consider whether to adopt the recommendation of the South San Francisco Planning Commission that the Sheatwater Project proceed pending the completion of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). The Honorable Harlan K. Veal, Judge of the San Mateo County Superior Court has ordered that you may adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation only if you can make the following findinqs: 1. The Residential Component is not an integral and indispensable part of the [Sheatwater] Project; 2. Approval of all portions of the Project without approval of the Residential Component will not prejudice full and fair consideration of the Residential Component, alternatives to the Residential Component and additional mitigation measures in accordance with the terms of this Writ after preparation and certification of the SEIR in liqht of the information therein contained. In its letter dated December 11, 1986 to the Planning Commission, the Airports Commission stated its position that the SEIR must be completed and certified prior to proceeding further with the Shearwater Project. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your convenience. We hereby affirm our position as stated in our December 11, 1986 letter. In addition, the Airports Commission objects to the City Council's consideration of whether the commercial portion of 12/17/86 Page 7a TELEX' 509520 TEL. (415) 761-O800 SFO AIRPORT Honorable Hembets of the City Council 2 December 17, 1986 the Shearwater Project should proceed pending the conpletion and certification of the SEIR because such conside£ation is premature in light of the requirements o! the peremptory writ of aandate issued by order of Judge Veal. The agenda for tonight's City Council meeting indicates that you will not be considering the matters setting aside the following actions you took in December 1985: Zoning Ordinance ZA-85-320 Specific Plan No. SP-85-$, and the Tentative Subdivision Map for the Shearwater Project. The writ specifically commands you to vacate all your actions with respect to all of those matters. Failure to vacate them before reinstating the commercial portions of the Shearwater Project is a clear violation of the writ. Furthermore° the City Council's agenda indicates that you will be considering whether to amend Ordinance No. 996-86, which added chapter 20.61, "Shearwater specific plan zone distriCto" to the South San Francisco Municipal Code. That amendment is in effect an amendment to the Shearwater Specific Plan. California law requires that a local government located with the boundary of an airport land use plan must submit proposed amendments to a specific plan to the Airport Land Use Commission prior to the enactment of the proposed amendment. Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b). South San Francisco has not submitted the proposed amendment to the Airport Land Use Commission; therefore° your adoption of the proposed amendment to the Shearwater Specific Zone District would violate state law. Likewise in the event that you vacate and re-adopt Zoning Ordinance ZA-85-32o Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) requires that the City Council refer the proposed re-adoption of that zoning ordinance to the Airports Land Use Commission. The Airports Commission also wishes to address the clearly insufficient basis on which the Planning Commission made the findings required by the writ of mandate. The basis of the Planning Commission's findings are set forth in the Planning Director's Staff Report to the City Council/Redevelopment Agency, dated December 12o 1986, as follows: The Commission based its findings on both knowledge of the project and on testimony received. The Commission noted that although the housing component of the project was interdependent by design it is independent by economics. Each of the uses that exist in the project can do (sic) exist separately in South San Francisco. The £esidential component is not indispensable and in function it does not appear to be integral since it can exist separate and apart. Page 7b Honorable Nembers of the City Council 3 DeceBber 17, 2986 Whethe£ the Shearwater Project Ray be economically viable vithout the proposed residential couponent is vholly unrelated to the environmental impacts of the residential component and the non-residential alternative. Indeed, the fact that Shearvater's residential component "vas interdependent by design" demonstrates that the environmental impacts of the non-residential alternative cannot be studied in piecemeal fashion vhile the conuuercial portions of the Shearwater Project proceeds. Similarly, the finding that each of the proposed uses in the Shearwater Project "exist separate and apart in South San Francisco" fails to support the conclusion that the residential component is not an integral and indispensable part of the Shearwater Project. It is of no consequence that houses, office buildings, hotels as veil as the other proposed uses in the Shearwater Project already exist in South San Francisco. California law clearly and unequivocably mandates that the environmental impact report of a proposed project address the environmental impacts of a project as a vhole before the local agency allows the project to proceed. & reasoned, thoughtful analysis of the environmental impacts and appropriate mitigation measures of the Shearvater Project cannot take place if each of the proposed uses is considered "separate and apart" from all the other proposed uses in the Shearwate£ Project. Finally. California courts have consistently held that administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions may not base their findings on their own information or knowledge. Traditional notions of fair play require that interested persons have the opportunity to rebut evidence presented to such bodies. If the decision-maker relies on its own knowlege or information. the public is denied the opportunity to rebut. The above-quoted findings of the Planning Commission admit that that body improperly based its finding on just its "knowledge of the project." For all the above reasons, the Airports Commission strongly urges the City Council to require that the SEIR be completed and certified prior to proceeding further with the Shearwater Project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. LOUIS A. TURPEN Director or% Airports 12/17/86 Pa§e 7c Planning Commission City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco. CA 94080 Subject: Agenda Item #umbe£ Five on the South San Francisco Planning Commission Calendaz for Decembez 11. 1986 (Sheatwate£ Project) Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: The South San F~ancisco Planning COmmiSsion will consider et its meeting on December 11o 1986. whether to ~ecouuend to the the South San Francisco City Council that the Sheatwatet Project proceed pending the completion of the Supplemental Environment&! Impact Report (SEIR). In order to make the foregoing recommendation, the Planning Commission must make the following findings, as set forth in the Peremptory Mtit of Mandate issued by 0udge Ha£1an E. Veal: 1. The Residential Component is not an integral and indispensable part of the [Sheatwatet] Project; 2. Approve! of all portions of the Project without app£ova! of the Residential Component will not prejudice full and fait consideration of the Residential Component. alternatives to the Residential Component end additional mitigation measures in accozdance with the terms of this M£it after preparation and certification of the SEIR in light of the information therein contained. The Airports Commission has opposed the residential po£tton of the Shea=vatet Project based on the noise impacts on futu£e Sheatwatet residents. The complete deletion of the residences is the only way to eliminate those noise impacts. 12/17/86 Page 7d TELEX 509520 [] 1 I I Hono~&ble Membe£$ o~ the Planning Commission 2 Z)ece~ber 11.. i.,~l& Howeve£, the agenda ~o~ the Planning Contssion nearing of Docenbe£ Il, 1986. indicates that you will not be considering uhethe£ to cozpletely eliuinate the residential portion of the 6hea£wate£ Project. Rather, the agenda indicates that the Planning Conmission rill conside£ only whether it should recomuend that the non-residential portions of the Shearwate£ P£oJect Bay proceed pending the conpletion and certification of the SZlR on the residential component. The &irports Counission strongly urges that the South San Francisco Planning Commission recomaend to the South San Francisco City Council that the 5EIR be completed and certified befoEe p£oceeding Eu£theE with the Shearwater Project. The pieceneal analysis of environnental lnpacts of the residential portion of the Shearwater Project, while perBitting the conercial aspect proceed, violates fundamental concepts of environmental review. The Califo£nia courts £ecognize the inpoEtance of a complete and accurate project description to the envtronnental review process: A curtailed or distorted project description Bay etulttfy the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project Bay affected outsiders and public decision-riskers balance the p£oposal's benefits against its environmental cost, consider nittgation neasures, assess ~he advantage of teEninating the proposal (i.e., the 'no-project' alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An accurate, stable and finite pro~ect description is the sine ~ua non o~ an infoEnative and legally sufficient EIR. County of lnyo v. City of Los Anoeles (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 192-93. The Shearwater Project, leon its conception, has been described as a 'nester-planned, nixed-use conunit¥' (~£aft EIR at p. III-~). The residential conponent played an integral pact in both the developnent and review of the Shearvater P£oject. Indeed, neither the Draft nor the Final EIR of the Shea~vate£ Prelect considered any alternative to the residential portion of the p£oJect. Therefore, a recomnendation to proceed with the non-£esidential portions of the Shea£vater p£oJect pending the conp~etion of the SEIR would ~esult in an inaccucate and p£oJect desc£1ption of the kind condenned by the Court in County pf lnyo, No£eove£, the mixed-use character of the Shea£wate£ P£oJect fo£ned the bas~s fo~ certain aseuuptions in the analysis of traffic lnpacts. For exanple,'the D£af~ EIR discounted the potential t£afftc lnpacta on Highway IO1 and the roadways leading the£eto by 40% based on the assunption that residents of the ~/~?/S~ , Page 7e 'T T r I ! · Honorable #embers of the Planning Commission 3 Deceubez ~1, ~986 SheaEvateE condominiums would week et the ShearvateE businesses (Tables IV-l? through 1V-10 of the Draft EIR). Additionally, the zesponses to the #etzopolitan TEanspo£tation Commission*s (l,~C) cements in the Final SIR based on the internal trip reduction resulting from residents wo£king at the businesses located at the SbearwateE Project. In this regard, the lfrc commented et page 2-82 of the Final EIR that the inte£nal trip reduction foe peak hour traffic set forth in the Draft SIR was too high. The response to the WrC comment defended the internal trip reduction based in part on the internal "re-capture" of the proposed residences: Response to Comment 138. The peek hour internalization factor for residential units is based on a Caltrans 1081 TEiD Ends Generation Research Counts et the #ateEgate Condominiums in EmeEyville. These units are located in a complex containing high-rise offfice, retail, hotel, and marina, and they generate 0.34 pa peek trips per d.u. This is about less than the unadjusted trip rates foe gimilar units in isolated settings. At #ateEeate the Drosortton of residential units to office, retail and hotel ssace is hiqhe£ then slanned at SheaEvateE. Therefore. a sliqhtly hiqher internal ca~ture rate (40%) is appropriate for Shea£water residential units. (Emphasis added.) The Draft EIR states that the service level of two-thirds of the intersections surrounding the Shearwater Project will be at Level of Service F, the worst g£ade possible on the service level scale foe traffic congestion. That worst-case level assumed the internal trip discounts discussed above; therefore, the residential component Bust be considered an integral and indispensable portion of the SheaEwateE Project, es previously approved. Furthermore, the traffic impacts discussed above cannot be viewed in a vacuum. As the Draft EIR pointed out, the peak rush hours also affect air quality. Consequently, in view of the changes in traffic impacts which may result teen al~eEnatives ~o the residential component, impacts on air quality must also be re-analyzed. In order to make an informed decision regarding the environmental impacts resulting fEaR the SheaEwateE Project and the measu£es necessary to m~tigate those impacts, the Planning Commission must re-analyze the development as a whole. The California Supreme Court disapproved the practice of splitting a la£geE project into smaller projects for the purposes o~ Page 7f Honorable Members of the Planning Commission 4 December ~l. ,986 environmental review, noting that "[it iii the mandate of CBOA [California Environmental Quality Act] that environmental considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project" into smaller components . . . "which cumulatively lay have disastrous consequences." Bozuno v. Local Aoency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283-84. Hence. a reconnendation to proceed with the non-residential portions of the Shearvater project pending the completion of the SEIR is in effect chopping the Shearwate£ Project into two smaller ones, a non-residential project and a residential project. The re-analysis of the non-residential component of the Shearwater Project must consider the impacts on the Shearwate£ Project as a whole. For example, any use of the acreage designated for Shearwaterts residential component, other than the proposed residences, may create additional environmental impacts which will require additional mitigation measures or changes to the project description. Even a park in that location could create a traffic magnet which would require further analysis of the traffic and air quality impacts on the environs surrounding the Shearwater Project. In order to comply with the mandate of C~OA as articulated by the Bozuna Court, supra, the public and the dectson-makers must have a complete understanding of all the environmental impacts resulting from all components of the Shearwater Project and the measures necessary to mitigate those impacts prior to proceeding with the commercial portions of the Shearwater Project. Accordingly, the Airports Commission again urges the Planning Commission to £ecommend that the $EIR be completed and certified before proceeding further with the Shea£water Project. Thank you for your attention to this very impo£tant matter. Very truly.yo~rs. i£ector of A~por~s 23026 12/17/86 Page ?g - A G E N D A --- A C T~" 0 N T A K E N REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTIONS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTIONS 1. Staff Report - Continued. dential component. He stated that the Shearwater Project was a fine one, and could stand on its own merit with the residential component. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned what would be added to the Project in place of the residential component. Mr. Price stated that the landscaping agreement covered the whole project, and that the use of the site that had been reserved for residential would be left clean and appropriate for future generations. Mayor Addiego stated that according to Mr. Price, all public improvements would be made, but he did not know what he was going to put on the site. Mr. Price stated that there would be clean up of the waterfront, and cleaning the access for a road and sewage to be site ready. Councilmember Teglia stated that in the interim period, while the rest of the project was moving forward, the paper work was going to address all of the allegations and the environment; and all issues with respect to housing should be laid to rest. Discussion followed on the lessened trip impacts through the removal of the resi- dential; the study of alternatives equal to the residential. Mr. Ronald Wilson, S.FoI.A., stated that the letter received from Mr. Turpin asked that the Bodies not allow the Project to proceed pending the completion and cer- tification of the EIR. He stated that if the Bodies allowed the Project to proceed, it would have violated the judgment order. 12/17/86 Page 8 A G E N D A --. A C T~O N T A K E N --' REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTIONS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTIONS 1. Staff Report - Continued. City Attorney Armento responded to Mr. Wilson's co~nents: that the first Motion was to vacate all actions; that the Court specifically said the Bodies have the option to consider this deletion of the residential component; disagreed that the action by the City was prema- ture; that she believed that the actions before the Bodies were proper, and if the Airport disagreed that was for them to take up with the Court; that she believed that all of the documents before the two Bodies conformed to the judgment order. Discussion followed: that the two Bodies were sitting to implement the order of the Court; that Mr. Wilson had not pre- viously had a problem with the office or hotel use of the project; the difference of opinion between the City Attorney and Mr. Wilson on the Judge's ruling. Mr. Brian Gaffney addressed the commer- cial aspects of the plan which would pro- vide jobs and homes for the community. He stated that the needs of the com- munity's children in the year 2000 should be addressed, in reference to what will be left of the bayside, valleys and the Mountain. He stated that presently there were mollusks and clams on the bayside, as well as rabbits on the marshes, and requested the Council to give con- sideration to the future needs when the EIR was developed, because those things mentioned were the large remnants of nature that would be made extinct by pro- jects such as this. Councilmember Teglia stated that no one had asked the Airport if they wanted to preserve the site or purchase the site. Mr. Gaffney made mention of Senate Bill 1717 which would was a bond act to purchase State land, such as San Bruno Mountain, to preserve the open space with its natural habitat. 12/17/86 Page 9 I A G E N D A --. A C T--~O N T A K E N --' REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTIONS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTIONS 1. Staff Report - Continued. Mr. Jake Jones, 12 E1 Campo Dr., stated that he was not against the Project, but wanted the Council to rule against the residential component. Mayor Addiego closed the Joint Public Hearing. M/S Haffey/Teglia - To vacate all approvals previously granted to the Project. Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To adopt the Resolution certifying the Final EIR. RESOLUTION NO. 9-86 Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Teglia/Haffey - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 10-86 Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adopt the Resol uti on. RESOLUTION NO. 11-86 Carried by unanimous voice vote. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS 1. Staff Report 12/17/86 recommending: City Clerk Battaya read the title of the a) adoption of a Resolution adopting Ordinance in its entirety. findings; b) adoption of a Resolution rescinding General Plan M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To vacate all Amendment GP-85-28; c) adoption of a approvals previously granted to the Resolution certifying the Final Project. E.I.R.; d) adoption of a Resolution adopting findings and a Statement Carried by unanimous voice vote. of Facts; e) adoption of a Resolution adopting a Statement of M/S Haffey/Teglia - To adopt the Overriding Considerations; f) adop- Resolution adopting findings. tion of a Resolution authorizing 12/17/86 Page 10 AG E ND A ~-,~ A C T~'O N T A K E N CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS 1. Staff Report - Continued. RESOLUTION NO. 195-86 execution of an Owner Participation Carried by unanimous voice vote. and Development Agreement; g) a Motion reconfirming approval of the M/S Teglia/Haffey - To adopt the Tentative Map for the Shearwater Resolution rescinding General Plan Subdivision; h) Motion to waive full Amendment GP-85-28. reading of the Ordinance; i) Motion to introduce the Ordinance. RESOLUTION NO. 196-86 a) A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS Carried by unanimous voice vote. CONCERNING THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE SHEARWATER M/S Haffey/Teglia - To adopt the DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Resolution certifying the Final EIR. b) A RESOLUTION RESCINDING GENERAL RESOLUTION NO. 197-86 PLAN AMENDMENT GP-85-28, AS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 259-85 Carried by unanimous voice vote. (SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT) M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To adopt the c) A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE FINAL Resolution adopting findings and a state- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ment of facts. THE MODIFIED SHEARWATER PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. 198-86 d) A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF FACTS Carried by unanimous voice vote. SUPPORTING FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE "FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL M/S Haffey/Teglia - To adopt the IMPACT REPORT FOR THE U.S. STEEL Resolution adopting a statement of REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT" (MODIFIED overriding considerations. DEVELOPMENT PROJECT) RESOLUTION NO. 199-86 e) A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Carried by unanimous voice vote. RELATED TO APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE MODIFIED SHEARWATER M/S Teglia/Nicolopulos - To adopt the DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Resolution authorizing execution of an Owner Participation Agreement. f) A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN OWNER RESOLUTION NO. 200-86 PARTICIPATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE Carried by unanimous voice vote. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY M/S Nicolopulos/Teglia - To reconfirm OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, AND approval of Tentative Map for the NEVILLE H. PRICE AND ROSEMARY Shearwater Subdivision. C.I. PRICE (MODIFIED SHEARWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT) Carried by unanimous voice vote. g) MOTION reconfirming approval of M/S Teglia/Haffey - To waive further the Tentative Map for the reading of the Ordinance. 12/17/86 Page 11 1 I F I ! A G E N D A -- A C T.-~O N T A K E N CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS 1. Staff Report - Continued. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Shearwater Subdivision. M/S Teglia/Haffey - To introduce the Ordinance. h) 1st Reading/Introduction AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER Carried by unanimous voice vote. 20.61 (SHEARWATER SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE DISTRICT) OF THE SOUTH SAN Consensus of Council - To direct staff to FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO prepare a Supplemental EIR. DELETE THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT Vice Mayor Drago stated that it was a shame that it had taken a Court order to override the residential aspects of this Project. Councilwoman Teglia stated that the Council decision on this Project had been based on facts and the careful weighing of evidence. CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION Council adjourned to a Closed Session at 8:40 p.m. to discuss the following: questions on the Shearwater bills from Mr. Rogers, and Shearwater litigation. RECALL TO ORDER: Mayor Addiego recalled the meeting to order at 9:01 p.m., all Council present, no action taken. M/S Haffey/Teglia - To adjourn the Redevelopment meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. REDEVELOPMENT ADJOURNMENT: Time of adjournment was 9:02 p.m. CITY MANAGER CITY MANAGER 2. Staff Report 12/17/86 recommending: City Clerk Battaya read the title of the a) Motion to waive full reading of Ordinance in its entirety. the Ordinance; 2) Motion to intro- duce the Ordinance concerning the City Manager Birkelo stated that this duties and responsibilities of the item had been carried over from the last City Manager. meeting due to questions from the Vice Mayor. He stated that the item arose in 1st Reading/Introduction discussions of the vacant City Manager AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS position and the recruitment of the 2.36, 3.04, 3.24, AND 3.28 OF THE position. 12/17/86 Page 12 '1 I I I ! · . AG E N D A -- A C T-~O N T A K E N CITY MANAGER CITY MANAGER 2. Staff Report - Continued. He stated that in the past the City Council had retained the authority to SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE hire and fire department heads, but the CONCERNING THE DUTIES AND RESPON- Ordinance would provide for that SIBILITIES OF THE CITY MANAGER authority being given to the City Manager as his sole responsibility. Vice Mayor Drago stated that with what was going on in Washington at this time he would hate to give up the authority to hire and fire department heads. He stated that this was another check and balance of the system. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that he agreed with Vice Mayor Drago. He stated that there was a difference of opinion wherein if the Council had the power to hire and fire it would tie the City Manager's hands where he could not function. He stated that in a City Manager form of government that should not happen, and the City fathers should analyze the situation. He stated that twice in his six years on Council he had given direction to a subordinate of the City Manager, and had been informed that that was the City Manager's function. He stated that there was an Ordinance on the books that said that the City Manager shall control all employees, which included the employees the City Council selects and fires. He stated that based on his experience he agreed with Vice Mayor Drago, wherein by turning the power over to the City Manager it would take away from the check and balance system. Mayor Addiego stated that unless there was a recognizable problem, a need or justification for a change, he was not enthusiastic over this ordinance. Councilman Halley stated that obviously this was a losing cause even though the 12/17/86 Page 13 ,, AG E N D A --- A C T'~'O N T A K E N ¢I1¥ ~ANAG£R CI1¥ MA~AG£R 2. Staff Report - Continued. staff had felt that there was a majority in support of this ordinance. He stated that he was in favor of this ordinance to give the City Manager control without interference from the Council. He stated that Mr. Birkelo had survived with the present arrangement, however if the City moved forward and advertised for a new City Manager under this system he would only be a City Administrator. He stated that the dif- ference was very exact in the new ordi- nance, and that it was a misnomer when the Council controls the subordinates. He stated that with the present system a department head could gain three Council votes and overrule the City Manager. He stated that with this ordinance the Council could hold the City Manager accountable. He stated that he was disappointed, because he had been prepared to compro- mise on this ordinance so the City could progress. Discussion followed: that the firm handling the recruitment would be inter- viewing Council and could expound on the differences between the City Manager and City Administrator position, Councilman Halley stated that after working so hard to set up the evaluation system for the department heads, he had become very disappointed with it after three sessions. He stated that he had come to the realization that it was not working, and thought that the adoption of this ordinance would help. He stated that the concession he spoke of was for the Council to ratify the selection of department heads by the City Manager. Consensus of Council - To continue the item to a January 1987 meeting. 12/17/86 Page 14 A G E N D A --. A C T~-~O N T A K E N COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION 3. Staff Report 12/17/86 recommending Deputy City Manager/CD&A Lewis stated the Council review and approve the that Council in its goals and objectives concept of Bridge Housing's prop- had indicated a desire to have the former osal for the development of a Baden School site developed as senior senior housing project located housing to maximize and use the site's at the old Baden School site and compatibility with the proposed Magnolia give staff further direction on Senior Center. the preparation of final purchase and lease documents for Council He spoke: of the master site plan for the approval, site; discussion with developers regarding the feasibility of developing (Cassette No. 2) senior citizen housing on the site; the interest indicated by Bridge Housing Corp., Inc. in assisting the City in its goal for the site; Bridge receiving an option to purchase the site, and applying for and receiving a use permit to construct 125 units of senior citizen housing from the Planning Commission, with the condition that 50% of the units in the project be for low and moderate income seniors; discussion of the City using a portion of its redevelopment low .. and moderate income housing set-aside to assist Bridge; Bridge asking the City to consider using its 20% low and moderate income set-aside to purchase the Magnolia site and lease it back to Bridge; advan- tages to the City would be to maintain long term control while recouping its investment in the project; Council giving direction to staff to proceed to develop a proposal with Bridge; the presentation to Council of a purchase and lease back proposal. Mr. Turner, Bridge Housing, spoke of the new tax law change in 1987 that would facilitate financing with Wells Fargo Bank through community lending. He stated that State financing had been secured, and requested favorable action from the Council on the lease agreement. Discussion followed on the cost of the buy-back; whether the City was in a posi- tion to take advantage of the buy-back through the 20% set-back which had to be used for low and modern income housing. 12/17/86 Page 15 ,, A G E N D A -- A C T ~-0 N T A K E N CO~NIIY DEYE[OP~ENI & AD~INISIRAIION C08~NIIY DEYEkOP~ENI & ADSINISIRAIIO~ 3. Staff Report - Cont~nuedo ~/S ~ffey/Tegl~a - 1o approYe the con- cept and §~¥e staff d~rect~on on the pre- parat~on of flnal purchase and lease documents, Carried by unanimous voice vote, 4. Staff Report 12/17/86 - an Annual Consensus of Council - To accept the Report to the Legislative Body from report, the Redevelopment Agency for Fiscal Year 1985-86. Councilman Halley requested that in future, staff give detailed information on Redevelopment Agency bills. FIRE FIRE 5. Staff Report 12/17/86 recommending Fire Chief Feuerstein stated that this adoption of Resolution that sets was in response to Council direction to forth a policy changing the modify the paramedic fees to lessen the paramedic service transport fees impact on low income residents. He for residents with low incomes, stated that he and the City Attorney had developed the following to implement the A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A POLICY Council desires: Accepting Medicare ..... WITH REGARD TO CHANGES FOR PARA- payment as payment in full for patients MEDIC FIRE SERVICE TRANSPORT without supplemental insurance; Accepting half the fee charged as payment in full for non-insured, low income persons; Accepting Medi-Cal patients as payment in full for Medi-Cal patients. Discussion followed: How to determine low income residents for paramedic fees through Medicare or Medi-Cal documen- tation prior to billing. Vice Mayor Drago stated that he felt that this Resolution would protect the elderly and thanked staff for their efforts. M/S Drago/Haffey - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 201-86 Carried by unanimous voice vote. TECHNICAL & MAINTENANCE SERVICES TECHNICAL & MAINTENANCE SERVICES 6. Staff Report 12/17/86 recommending M/S Teglia/Haffey - To accept the Colma by Motion to accept the Colma Creek Creek Dredging Project as complete in 12/17/86 Page 16 AGENDA AC', ON TAKEN TECHNICAL & MAINTENANCE SERVICES TECHNICAL & MAINTENANCE SERVICES 6. Staff Report - Continued. accordance with the plans and specifica- tions. Dredging Project as complete in accordane with the plans and Carried by unanimous voice vote. specifications. ITEMS FROM STAFF ITEMS FROM STAFF No one chose to speak. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL ITEMS FROM COUNCIL No one chose to speak. GOOD AND WELFARE GOOD AND WELFARE No one chose to speak. CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION 7. Closed Session for the purpose of Council chose not to hold a Closed the discussion of personnel mat- Session. ters, labor relations and litiga- tion. M/S Teglia/Haffey - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, APPROVED. Barbara A. Battaya, City C~Yerk Addi 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. 12/17/86 Page 17