►
From YouTube: San Bruno City Council Meeting April 9, 2013 10c. Vacant Lots in Crestmoor Neighborhood
Description
San Bruno City Council Meeting April 9, 2013
10c. Development of Vacant Lots Within the Crestmoor Neighborhood
B
Mr.
mayor
members
of
the
City
Council
over
the
last
several
months,
staff
along
with
residents
have
been
addressing
the
various
rebuilding
restoration
issues
in
the
crestmoor
neighborhood
following
the
devastating
pge
gas
line,
explosion
and
fire
that
occurred
in
our
community
on
September
9
2010.
As
the
council
is
well
aware
at
that
time,
there
were
a
total
of
thirty-eight
homes
that
were
totally
destroyed
or
that
were
determined
to
be
a
total
loss,
and
there
are
now-
or
there
have
been
rather
in
the
immediate
aftermath
of
the
fire
38
vacant.
B
Pge
purchased
a
total
of
five
lots,
and,
as
of
a
year
ago,
at
the
time
that
the
city
entered
into
a
restitution
settlement
agreement
with
pge
those
five
lots
were
transferred
to
the
city
as
part
of
that
settlement
agreement
that
the
City
Council
is
well
familiar
with
over
the
past
year,
PG&E
has
acquired
an
additional
seven
lots.
That
brings
to
a
total
of
twelve
lots
which
have
been
purchased
and
for
which
there
are
no
plans
for
the
property
owners
to
return
and
rebuild
themselves.
B
There's
a
table
in
the
staff
report
that
you
have
in
the
map.
That's
projected
on
the
wall
behind
me
gives
a
visual
overview
of
the
status
of
each
of
the
38
lots,
whether
it
is
either
in
progress
or
has
been
redeveloped
by
its
by
its
owner,
whether
it
has
transitioned
to
be
a
sale
to
pge,
and
there
are
just
a
very
small
number
of
lots
whose
status
has
yet
not
as
as
of
yet
not
been
determined
and
those
properties
are
listed
as
well
on
a
map
and
in
the
staff
report.
B
At
this
time
there
are
only
two
lots
of
the
original
38
where
the
property
owners
have
not
yet
decided
what
their
ultimate
future
plans
are.
So
we
think
it's
an
appropriate
time
to
be
discussing
and
determining
how
the
city
and
pge
should
proceed
to
resolve
the
future
of
those
Lots
that
have
gone
into
that
went
into
p.
Genies
ownership,
the
other
and
in
probably
the
more
pressing
issue.
Is
that
we're
now
two
and
a
half
years,
approximately
from
the
time
of
the
explosion
and
the
fire?
B
What
would
I
call
the
public
development
side
with
our
various
projects
to
rebuild
repair
and
improve
the
infrastructure
throughout
the
entire
crestmoor
neighborhood
that
was
impacted
by
the
incident
residents
in
the
neighborhood
are
rightfully
and
somewhat
vigorously
expressing
their
concern
about
the
length
of
time
that
they
have
already
had
to
endure.
The
impacts
of
ongoing
construction
activity
and,
frankly,
they've
been
expressing
their
concerns
about
how
much
longer
this
is
likely
to
go
on.
At
the
current
time.
B
We
at
that
time
of
the
january
twenty
third
meeting.
In
answer
to
the
questions
that
were
raised
on
this
topic,
staff
warranted
to
the
neighborhood
that
this
issue
would
be
back
in
front
of
the
city
council
for
a
final
determination
within
approximately
sixty
days.
And
that's
the
the
reason
for
this
for
the
timing
of
the
report
to
you
tonight.
Men
for
our
request
that
you
consider
as
a
specific
strategy
to
address
of
a
disposition
in
the
development
of
those
Lots
the.
B
And
let
me
back
up
and
mentioned
that
we
have
throughout
this
process,
maintained
coordination
and
communication
with
PG&E
and
it
has
been
consistently
PG
knees,
stated
preference
and
interest
to
be
in
coordination
with
the
city,
and
we
have
recently
suggested
to
PG&E
that
a
collaborative
process
led
by
the
city
such
that
all
of
this
could
be
done
at
once.
Whatever
the
whatever
the
strategy
is,
would
be
a
good
idea.
We've
received
initial
verbal
confirmation
through
pge
that
that
is
a
desirable
approach
from
their
perspective
as
well.
B
Ranging
other
alternative
would
be
that
the
city
could
actually
act
as
the
landowner.
The
developer
we
could
acquire
by
purchase
the
properties
from
pge
and/or
pge
could
act
as
a
developer
and
develop
the
properties
and
then
put
them
out
to
sale,
and
we
have
settled
after
a
fairly
extensive
evaluation
of
different
ways
of
approaching
this
issue
and
and
different
alternatives.
B
Staff
is
recommending
to
you
tonight
that
we
pursue
a
strategy
and
again
in
coordination
with
PG&E,
whereby
city
would
take
the
lead
and
would
manage
and
control
a
process
to
select
via
a
request
for
proposals
or
RFP
process.
A
qualified,
incapable
developer,
who
would
then
take
ownership,
would
purchase
the
properties
and
would
then
proceed
with
their
development
in
a
coordinated
manner
and
it's
sort
of
like
production,
build
or
mini
subdivision
whereby
the
development
would
occur
as
near
as
possible
all
at
one
time
in
order
to
minimize
the
ongoing
and
overtime
impact
to
the
neighborhood.
B
That
would
otherwise
occur
if
the
lots
were
put
out
for
individual
development
or
they
were
developed
somehow
individually,
either
by
PG&E
or
by
us,
while
we
can't
suggest
to
you
or
to
the
neighborhood
that
impact
can
be
eliminated,
and
certainly
a
development
of
this
size
and
scope,
along
with
the
ongoing
construction
activity
to
rebuild
the
infrastructure
throughout
the
neighborhood
is
going
to
continue
to
create
a
probably
substantial
impact
on
residents
within
the
neighborhood.
We
hope
to
minimize
the
timeline
over
which
that
occurs
and
to
manage
that
in
the
best
way
possible.
B
By
with
the
approach
that
we're
recommending
to
you
tonight
whereby
we
would
be
dealing
with
one,
not
many
developers,
and
that
we
would
specify,
in
a
request
for
proposals
process
and
by
our
management
and
coordination
with
the
developer,
going
forward
the
details
of
how
that
development
will
occur.
And
again,
as
I
mentioned,
the
Lots
would
be
developed
at
one
time
by
one
developer
in
order
to
minimize,
to
the
maximum
extent
possible,
the
timeline
over
which
that
development
is
occurring
again.
B
We're
recommending
to
you
tonight
that
you
direct
staff
to
proceed
to
enter
into
the
agreement
I
mentioned
with
PG&E
and
to
move
forward
expediently
with
the
development
of
a
request
for
proposals
and
the
solicitation
of
developer
interest,
the
identification
of
a
selection
process
and
then
that
we
would
work
with
you
further
after
we've
put
together
a
request
for
proposals
and
a
selection
process
to
move
forward
with
a
selection
of
a
developer
and
a
ultimate
sale
of
the
properties.
To
that
selected.
Developer
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Any.
C
A
D
Tzelek
merced
I
would
like
to
give
you
three
options
that
I
think
you
should
consider.
One
is
I
think
you
should
table
this
item
until
your
next
scheduled
meeting.
I
was
only
able
to
obtain
the
background
documentation
from
the
city
clerk
city
manager's
office
at
two
o'clock
this
afternoon,
which
my
understandings
correct,
really
nobody,
the
public's,
had
a
chance
to
review
this
or
even
be
having
the
opportunity
to
come
forth.
Being
that
this
item
is,
you
know,
been
an
ongoing
issue.
D
So
I
would
first
ask
that
you
table
this
for
two
weeks,
so
that
people
in
the
public
have
a
chance
to
read
this
and
see
if
it
is
I've
talked
to
a
few
people
in
the
area
who
have
no
clue
of
what
this
was
all
about
and
how
this
was
coming
down
now,
maybe
some
people
do
some
people?
Don't
that's
my
first
request.
The
second
request,
I,
have
is
that
little
over
six
months
ago,
I
entered
into
conversations
with
two
people,
people
at
PG&E
and
their
real
estate
department.
D
Subsequently,
I
was
forwarded
to
michaelson
of
Brook
Street
in
regards
to
the
properties
that
PG&E
had
owned.
At
that
time,
I
was
told
by
Mike
that
you
know
the
city
under
their
agreement,
had
first
right
of
refusal
and
that
there
were
people
interested
in
purchasing
those
Lots
directly
from
PG&E
I
have
an
offer
still
sitting
with
PG&E
and
PG&E
has
not
been
able
to
enter
into
the
next
stages
of
dialogue.
D
Due
to
the
fact
that
the
city
of
San
Bruno
has
first
right
of
refusal
on
all
those
parcels
in
talking
with
the
city
manager
a
couple
months
back,
she
explained
to
me
that
she
is
melon
of
other
people
that
had
an
interest
in
buying
those
lots
and
having
them
developed
in
this
business
in
the
in
the
purpose
of
getting
these
Lots
built.
And
getting
this
you
know
development
back
where
it
is.
You
know,
a
lot
of
care
was
given
from
the
residents
that
I
knew
personally
that
rebuilt
their
homes.
D
They
did
a
lot
of
thinking
a
lot
with
their
architects
and
there's
some
beautiful
homes
that
they're
being
rebuilt
there
all
the
time.
A
developer
just
wants
one
thing:
the
bottom
line:
pay
off
and
you're
going
to
just
take
cookie
cutter
homes,
change
the
faces
a
little
bit,
but
they're
going
to
be
the
same
thing,
and
it's
not
going
to
have
the
care
and
personality
of
people
that
have
been
there
or,
but
within
this
town
that
had
lived
here
so
I.
Think
it's
really
not.
D
The
delays
have
been
that
pge
doesn't
want
to
step
on
the
city's
toes
generally
speaking
as
it
was
explained
to
me
and
that
these
offers
you
know
would
like
to
be
handled,
but
they
haven't
been
able
to
do
it
because
of
the
claws
of
first
right
of
refusal,
I'm
a
little
confused
if
we're
trying
to
hurry
up
the
process.
Why
are
we
you
know
slowing
them
down
low
selling,
I?
D
Think,
even
if
you
allow
pge2
seller,
you
could
also
stipulate
that
that
proceeds
or
let's
call
it
profit-
that
they're
making
be
put
back
into
the
city
in
another
means
that
is
acceptable
to
the
council
and
to
the
residence.
So
it's
not
like
they're
going
to
profiteer
off
us.
You
know
they're
going
to
make
a
profit.
They
should
be
able
to
return
it
back.
If
not,
it
should
go
into
helping
the
rate
payers.
Pay
the
absorbent
amount
of
costs
that
we're
having
to
pay
now
for
their
negligence.
D
The
the
what
I'm
asking
then
is
simply
that
if
you
choose
to
go
the
path
that
you're
going,
that
you
release
the
property
at
1655
clermont,
so
that
PG&E
and
I
can
finish,
and
if
we
can't
come
up
to
an
agreement
on
a
price
and
terms,
then
we
will.
You
know:
it'll
revert
back
to
you.
Our
terms
with
PG&E
is
we've
written.
A
proposal
in
our
attorney
is
forwarded
to
them
is
straightforward.
It's
an
offer
price
30-day
close!
D
It's
an
all-cash
deal,
so
if
we
would
have
been
able
to
do
this
six
months
ago,
we'd
be
breaking
ground
on
a
new
home.
On
that
lot,
so
I'm
not
sure
where
the
confusion
is
of.
I
know,
there's
other
people
that
have
asked
me
how
I
got
my
information
and
they
would
like
to
also
pursue
building
in
this
community.
D
But
the
whole
thing
came
back
to
is
michael
also
explained
to
me.
First
right
of
refusal
stopped
the
door
on
anybody
trying
to
get
through.
At
least
I
was
able
to
get
into
PG&E
talk
to
the
people
and
say
this
offers
sitting
there.
I'd
like
to
finish
negotiate
if
they
want
more
than
I
could
afford
I'll
walk
away
in
two
weeks,
but
we're
ready
to
go
and
we've
been
ready
to
go.
You
know,
city
manager,
Jackson
explained
to
me
that
you
know
this
would
take
several
months
to
get
to
you
guys.
D
You
talk
about
the
construction
delays,
you're
talking
about
putting
bump-out,
mediums
or
I,
think
it's
called
traffic
calming
or
something
out
there.
The
residents
I
talk
to
you
want
no
part
of
it.
So
I
don't
know
what
this
all
lingering
is,
but
I'd
like
to
do
is
build
a
home
for
my
children
who
are
participating
in
the
finances
of
this
would
like
to
be
stay
in
san
bruno
where
they
were
born
and
raised,
and
my
grandson
would
love
to
live
close
by
to
me.
I'm
sure
I
could
persuade
him
to
do
that.
D
But
worse
comes
to
worse,
I'd
like
you
to
choose,
you
know
the
option
that
you
have
on
the
back,
which
is
left,
PG&E,
sell
the
land,
give
them
a
deadline
to
sell
them
by
and
there's
nothing
better
than
private
enterprise
pushing
to
get
a
project
built
the
developer
you
risk
with
hey.
Are
they
going
to
look
at
the
cross
from
ten
of
minorities
up
there?
Half
that
track
wasn't
built.
D
Does
it
financial
problems,
the
ones
across
the
street
in
the
old
gas
station,
for
it
bill
I'm,
ready
to
build
and
I'm
sure,
there's
other
people
out
there
too
ready
bill
if
they
know
that
pge
hands
aren't
tied
any
longer,
so
I'd
really
ask
you
to
consider
it
if
you
don't
consider
it
from
the
public
view
point.
Let's
call
it
I'd
like
you
to
consider
it
that
give
me
two
weeks
to
finish
with
PG&E
I
can't
close
a
deal
in
two
weeks,
it'll
be
back
in
your
hands
and
I'll,
say
well.
B
Could
I
just
make
one
clarifying
comment?
I
think
my
comments
were
clear:
that
PG&E
has
been
very
interested
in
working
collaboratively
with
the
city.
The
specifics
of
the
agreement
that
the
city
and
pge
entered
into
that
is,
they
established
the
community
restitution
does
not
require
first
right
of
refusal
per
se.
A
Questions
are
coming,
I,
don't
want
to
be
in
a
position
of
speaking
for
PG&E,
but
I
know
that
they
don't
want
to
get
involved
in
the
land
business
at
all.
They
are
very
sensitive
to
being
in
the
neighborhood
at
all,
and
they
just
want
to
get
this
behind
them
and
we
looked
at
a
number
of
scenarios.
I
don't
know
mr.
Zelnick,
and
maybe
some
other
people
have
some
offers
out
there.
I
don't
know,
but
a
lot
of
the
pge
issues
were
just
settled
with
a
lot
of
these
residents
having
to
do
with
lots
and
settlements.
A
A
lot
of
this
was
not.
The
city
was
not
privy
to
at
all,
so
we're
not
aware
of
any
of
the
intricacies
of
what
might
have
happened
with
individuals
or
or
other
entities
at
all.
So
you
know,
we've
talked
about
this
on
and
off
with
the
neighbors
over
the
last
number
of
months
and
I
understand
where
some
individuals
might
want
to
purchase
a
lot
and
build,
there's
no
guarantee
that
those
individual
individuals
will
in
fact
build
in
a
timely
manner.
A
That
really
concerns
me,
because
this
neighborhood
has
been
through
an
awful
lot
and
still
has
somewhere
to
go
so
I
think
some
type
of
a
package
deal
in
collaboration
with
PG&E
is
probably
the
best
way
to
go
and
we
still
have
control
over
design.
We
still
have
control
all
of
the
different
things
that
go
into
building
a
home,
just
like
any
other
place
in
san
bruno.
So
that's
my
two
cents.
There.
C
This
mayor
I
agree
as
a
designer
I
I'm
a
little
concerned
with
another
ten
ten
different,
looking
houses
up
there,
yes,
beauties
and
I
beholder,
but
there's
a
lot
of
different
designs
up
there
and
38
different
designs
is
to
me
is
not
going
to
look
good
and
I
fit
you
know
and
whether
you
change
facades
and
change
materials.
There
are
some
very
nice
developments,
and
especially
even
in
this
town
with
summer
hill
and
such
that
good
examples
of
how
a
developer
can
can
mix,
mix
and
B
and
have
some
continuity
in
a
neighborhood.
C
That
was
what
made
this
neighborhood
so
attractive.
Many
of
our
neighborhood
so
attractive
over
the
course
of
the
years
is
that
you
know
they
are
very
similar.
You
know,
and
then
each
each
owner
added
their
own
touch
to
it,
but
to
to
go
from
you
know
from
the
dirt
up
with
something
totally
different
is
not
it's
not
appealing
to
me
really
and
so.
I
feel
that
it
with
another
ten
homes
that
we
have
control
over
and
have
good
design
guidelines
I
believe
that
a
an
RFP
process
is
the
best
way
to
go.
E
Would
just
like
to
clarify
that
the
neighborhood
people
have
been
informed
of
all
the
negotiations
that
have
been
going
on.
They
know
that
we've
been
talking
about
the
different
options
that
we've
talked
about
with
the
housing
up
there.
It's
like
anything
else,
you
can
get
10
people
in
a
room
and
you
get
10
different
opinions
about
things.
So
our
job
up
here
is
to
find
the
best
way
that
we
can
to
help
the
process
along
to
minimize
the
impacts
of
the
neighborhoods
to
get
the
houses
built
as
quickly
and
as
well
as
possible.
E
E
What's
fair
and
all
those
other
questions,
so
all
along
we've
been
dealing
with
how
to
how
to
make
it
work
for
everyone,
and
so
I
think
our
emphasis
is
to
get
it
done
as
quickly
as
possible,
with
a
good
quality
result
and
have
the
while
it
won't
be
pleasant
for
probably
18
months.
Is
that
a
fair
estimate?
After
that?
It's
all
done,
then
there
won't
be
anything
after
that.
So
I
agree
with
the
process
that
were
the
RFP
process
that
we're
contemplating
in
that
process.
B
Absolutely
and
as
I
was
discussing
back
here
a
moment
ago
with
my
colleague,
the
city
can
up
to
and
including
specifying
a
tract
style.
You
know
all
the
houses
look
same
or
very,
very
similar
up
to
a
program
whereby
the
the
houses
would
have.
Let's
say,
semi
custom
finishes,
or
they
might
be
semi
custom
built
homes
too
bland
to
bring
about
a
sort
of
a
more.
C
B
The
neighborhood,
when
it's
finished,
given
that
this
is
a
pretty
substantial
number
of
additional
homes,
that
the
aesthetic
of
the
overall
neighborhood
is
one
that
fits
together,
works
together
and
is
consistent
with
what
both
the
neighborhood
as
well
as
the
community,
wants
to
see.
I
think
the
council
members
comments
are
very
well
taken
and
there
has
been
some
amount
of
discussion
among
the
neighborhood
as
well,
and
there's
lots
of
everybody
has
an
opinion.
B
So
there
are
lots
of
different
opinions
among
residents
in
the
neighborhood
like
elsewhere,
that
you
know
a
lot
of
people
just
really
want
to
see
it
back
the
way
it
was
and
we're
we're
already
quite
a
ways
from
that.
So
there's
there's
interest
I,
think
in
in
blending
the
old
and
the
new
and
putting
together
something
that
people
will
be
happy
with
long
into
the
future.
F
A
Lessons
this
is
an
informational
report
public
here,
so
they
were
obviously
aware
that
it
was
going
to
be
rested.
Atop
it
was
going
to
be
a
dress.
It
would
certainly
be
within
the
discretion
of
the
city
council
if
you
want
it
to
continue
it,
but
there's
no
legal
requirement
that
you
do
so.
I
would
also
point
out
that
a
number
of
the
other
actions
that
are
going
to
be
required
for
this
will
also
come
to
the
council
in
in
public
session.
F
Okay,
hindsight's
great,
so
well,
we
go
forward
and
you
know
we
can
try
to
have
it
more
available.
I
know
that
councilmember
Salazar
said
we
do
have
somebody
that
is
up
there
in
the
neighborhood.
I
can
speak
for
a
lot
of
us
who
have
been
at
many
meetings
in
events
and
yes,
people
have
been
interested
at
various
times
and
events
that
have
been
emotional,
those
are
have
been
joyful.
F
C
B
They're
not
prevented
I,
think
PG&E.
They
are
required
by
virtue
of
settlement
agreement
at
the
minimum,
I
would
say
to
consult
and
to
coordinate
with
the
city,
and
I
think
that
p
Jeannie's
actions
are
very
much
in
the
spirit
and
in
compliance
with
that
agreement,
and
so
the
fact
that
they
have
suggested
to
residents
or
two
individuals
that
the
city
has
a
first
right
of
refusal
is,
it
is
maybe
just
a
use
of
words
that
are
not
specifically
articulated
in
our
agreement.
B
C
Just
envisioning,
even
though
there
was
just
one
person
that
came
forward,
saying
that
they're
very
interested
I'm
vision
that
there's
a
whole
slew
of
people
out
there
who
are
very
interested
in
that
if
PG&E
were
to
be,
you
know
free
to
do
this,
that
it
would
be
a
mess
up
there
and
then
there's
no
control
and
who's
to
say
just
because
one
property,
you
know
one
potential
property
owner,
says
they're
ready
to
go
that
nine
others
we'd
have
no
control
over
the
city
would
have
virtually
a
neighborhood,
but
virtually
have
no
control.
I.
B
We
did
carefully
consider
that
strategy
as
an
alternative,
because
we
were
aware
that
there
is
an
interest-
and
you
know
I.
Think
council
members
have
have
articulated
this
well,
that,
like
many
things
that
we've
been
forced
to
try
and
address
in
the
best
way,
we
possibly
can
it's
it's.
It's
not
likely
that
the
solution
that
we
identify
as
having
a
best
benefit
for
the
community
as
a
whole
and
for
the
neighborhood
is
is
likely
to
please
everybody.
E
C
B
Muir
I'm
sorry
I
just
found
one
more
thing:
I'm
sitting
I
just
for
the
matter
of
the
public
record,
and
these
Lots
will
eventually
these
homes
will
eventually
be
sold
to
individuals
who
will
hopefully
occupy
and
live
happily
ever
after
in
them.
So
we
hope
that
people
will
pay
attention
to
this
process
and
that
they
will
continue
to
be
interested
and
that
there
will
be
a
great
opportunity
down
the
road.
We
hope
for
people
who
are
interested
to
purchase
a
home
and
to
participate
in
making
this
neighborhood
spring
back
to
life
and.