HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1985-07-17Mayor Richard A. Haffey
Vice Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia
Counci 1:
Mark N. Addiego
Emanuele N. Damonte
Gus Nicolopulos
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1)
ROLL CALL:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
AGENDA REVIEW
City Manager requested that the following
items be added:
- Add as Item 3 a request to set 8/14/85
as a Public Hearing date to consider
adoption of the Community Development
Block Grant Budget for 1985-86.
Staff Report 7/17/85 recommending:
1) Motion to waive further reading
of the Ordinance; 2) Motion to
adopt the Ordinance to include the
position of Secretary II - City
Manager's Office (non-competitive)
and delete the competitive service
classification of Administrative
Secretary.
2nd Reading/Adoption
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION
3.12.010.A1 AND B OF THE SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE AND
SUBSECTION 6.A(1) AND 6.B OF
ORDINANCE 449 AS AMENDED, ENTITLED
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO RECREATING AND RE-
ESTABLISHING A PERSONNEL SYSTEM
FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
AND REPEALING ORDINANCE 216 AND
ALL INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES"
MINUTES
City Council
City Council Conference Room
City Hall
July 17, 1985
ACTION TAKEN
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
5:43 p.m. Mayor Haffey presiding.
Council present: Addiego, Teglia and
Halley
Council absent: Nicolopulos and Damonte.
Pledge of allegiance was recited.
AGENDA REVIEW
So ordered.
City Clerk Battaya read the title of the
Ordinance in its entirety.
M/S Teglia/Addiego - To waive further
reading of the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Teglia/Addiego - To adopt the
Ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 989-85
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
7/17/85
Page I
AGE.DA ACTTO, TAKE,
Staff Report 7/17/85 recommending:
1) Motion to waive further reading
of the Ordinance; 2) Motion to adopt
the Ordinance approving the
Redevelopment Plan for the South San
Francisco U.S. Steel Plant Site
Redevelopment Project.
A letter of protest was presented to the
City Clerk and is attached hereto and
made a permanent part of the record of
this meeting.
City Clerk Battaya read the title of the
Ordinance in its entirety.
2nd Reading/Adoption
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ADOPTING
THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO U.S. STEEL
PLANT SITE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
M/S Teglia/Addiego - To waive further
reading of the Ordinance.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
M/S Addiego/Teglia - To adopt the
Ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 990-85
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
3. Request to set August 14, 1985,
as a Public Hearing date to consider
adoption of the Community Block
Grant Budget for 1985-86. 5D~c
GOOD AND WELFARE
M/S Addiego/Teglia - To set 8/14/85 as a
Public Hearing date.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
GOOD AND WELFARE
No one chose to speak.
M/S Addiego/Teglia - To adjourn the
meeting.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
ADJOURNMENT
Time of adjournment 5:50 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
City of South San Francisco
APPROVED:
City of South Sa~ancisco
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.
7/17/85
Page 2
LAW OFFICE OF
JEREMIAH J. LYNCH
BURLINGAME, CALI~
July 17, 1985
City Council
City of South San Francisco
City Hall
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Re:
ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO U.S. STEEL PLANT
SITR RRDRVRT,OPM~NT PROJECT (Second Reading)
Dear Councilmembers:
The undersigned represents the Poletti Trust. The
Poletti Trust is the owner of certain real property located
along and upon the proposed Gateway Boulevard Extension at
its intersection with Mitchell Avenue.
The Poletti Trust objects to the adoPtion of the above-
captioned Ordinance for the following reasons:
1. Contrary to representations made at the July 10,
1985, public hearing, the Final EIR presented in connnection
with the U.S. Steel Plan Site Redevelopment Plan was not an
EIR for the Redevelopment Plan. In fact, the Shearwater EIR
was used as the U.S. Steel Plan EIR by merely changing
covers. The U.S. Steel Final EIR is a subterfuge.
2. The approved Supplemental Final EIR for the Gateway
Redevelopment Project, which studied the environmental
impacts of both the new Gateway Boulevard Extension Project
and the addition of 700 hotel rooms in the Gateway
Redevelopment Project, failed to consider the intensity of
development and anticipated traffic flow which the U.S.
Steel Plant Site Redevelopment Project would generate.
Therefore, a further supplemental EIR on the Gateway
Redevelopment Project is required in light of the major
changes in anticipated circumstances and impacts.
3. The U.S. Steel Plant Site Redevelopment Plan is in
violation of Section 33333 of the Community Redevelopment
Law of California in that "the Plan does not show by diagram
and in general terms:
7/17/85
Page 2a
City Council
July 17, 1985
Page 2
(a) The approximate amount of open space to
be provided and street layout;
(b) Limitations on type, size, height,
number, and proposed use of roadways;
(c) The approximate number of dwelling units;
(d) The property to be devoted to public
purposes and the nature of such purposes."
4. The public hearing draft of the U.S. Steel
Redevelopment Plan did not contain a time limit, not to
exceed 12 years, for commencement of eminent domain
proceedings to acquire property within the Project Area.
This is required by Section 33333.2(3) of the Community
Redevelopment Law.
5. The South San Francisco U.S. Steel Plant Site
Redevelopment Plan is so generally and vaguely written that
it is contrary to the intent and spirit of the Community
Redevelopment Law of California.
6. Section IV, B, 1 of the Redevelopment Plan (page
13) lists Gateway Boulevard as a major public street within
the Project Area. Yet, Gateway Boulevard is not shown on
Exhibit A of the Plan.
7. Section IV, C of the Redevelopment Plan (page 14)
allows interim uses in the Project Area which are not in
conformity with uses permitted in the Redevelopment Plan.
The term "interim uses" is not defined in the Plan. This
provision/section is contrary to the spirit and intent of
land use provisions of the California Community
Redevelopment Law. This section is also in conflict with
Section IV, D of the Redevelopment Plan.
8. Section III, I, 3 of the Redevelopment Plan
requires that at least 15 percent of all new or rehabili-
tated dwelling units developed in the U.S. Steel Project
Area by public or private entities or persons other than the
Agency, shall be for persons and families of low or moderate
income; and of such 15 percent, not less than 40 percent
thereof shall be for very low income households. This
provision is contrary to the Final EIR adopted for the
project which identifies no such units in the project as
being set aside for low and moderate income persons and
families.
7/17/85
Page 2b
City Council
July 17, 1985
Page 3
9. Exhibit C of the U.S. Steel'Redevelopment Plan does
not list Gateway Boulevard as a Proposed Public Improvement
and Facilities in the ~roject Area. This Exhibit is in
conflict with Section IV, B, 1 of the Redevelopment Plan.
10. The Redevelopment Plan Map (Exhibit A) does not
identify the major streets which are proposed in the Project
Area. Gateway Boulevard and the Oyster Point Boulevard/U.S.
101/SPRR Overcrossing are not shown on this Exhibit.
11. The Redevelopment Plan Map (Exhibit A) does not
specifically designate the major land uses authorized within
the Project Area, all in violation of Section 33333 of the
Community Redevelopment Law.
In light of the foregoing it is respectfully submitted
that:
1. The above-captioend Ordinance be repealed;
2. That the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency
adopt a resolution ordering the preparation of a new EIR,
separate and distinct from the Shearwater EIR, for the U.S.
Steel Plant Site Redevelopment Project;
3. That the Redevelopment Agency take whatever steps
are necessary by appropriate resolution to decertify the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the U.S. Steel Plant
Site Redevelopment Project on the ground that said Final EIR
is inadequate in both form and substance and does not
constitute a separate and independent EIR for the U.S. Steel
Plant Site Redevelopment Project; and,
4. That the Redevelopment Agency adopt an appropriate
resolution ordering a new Supplemental Final EIR for the
Gateway Redevelopment Project addressing the unanticipated
major impacts occasioned by the U.S. Steel and Shearwater
projects.
It is kindly requested that this letter be made part of
the record of the public hearing scheduled for 5:30 p.m. on
July 17, 1985.
JJL:jaa
Very truly yourS,
~-EREMIAH J. LYNCH
CC:
The Poletti Trust
7/17/85
Page 2c