HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1981-03-19Mayor Ronald G. Acosta
Vice Mayor Gus Nicolopulos
Council:
Mark N. Addiego
Roberta Cerri Teglia
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTIONS:
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
Marc~ 19, 1981
ACTION TAKEN
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
10:52 a.m. Mayor Acosta presiding.
Council Present: Teglia, Nicolopulos,
Addiego and Acosta.
Council Absent: Damonte.
Recited.
Mayor Acosta stated that this was a
joint meeting of the Redevelopment
Agency and the City Council of the City
of South San Francisco to handle the
continued items from the 3/18/81
meetings.
Mr. Tim Snow, Vice President Homart
Development Co., Mr. Preston Martin,
Chairman of the Board of Homart
Development Co., Mr. William Mackey,
Attorney for Homart Development Co.,
Mr. George Holomka, Engineer, Wilsey
& Ham, Mr. Gordon Elliott, Designer
for CHM2 Hill, Mr. John Aguilar,
Local Project Manager of Gateway
Project.
Mr. Martin stated that his role was
to reassure Council and Staff of the
number one priority of this particular
joint venture for Sears Roebuck,
Sirocco and Homart Development Co.
He commended the community as reflected
by the City officials, in seeking to
upgrade the land uses and make the
City tax rolls grow. He continued,
that such an attitude behooves the
developer to come in and try to
work out the best kind of joint
arrangement possible. He spoke of the
dedication by Sears to commitments
in business partnerships with the
community to work out the best project
for the City. He stated that the
Board of Directors was eager to
develop the property as quickly as was
3/19/81
Page 1
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
(TF-973)
(TF-1020)
economically possible and that the
East Grand Avenue separation site
would move the project forward and
mitigate existing problems. He
spoke of the good faith exhibited
by the firm in underwriting certain
financial arrangements before the
District was established and bonds
issued.
Mr. Tim Snow spoke of the complexities
of the negotiations in the undertaking
of the development. He stated that
Mr. John Aguillar would coordinate
the full scale of development and
standards of the final plan.
Mayor Acosta complimented Mr. Martin
on the cooperation extended by
Homart, the diligence and work
exhibited by the City and Homart's
staff.
· City Manager Birkelo stated that two
agendas would be dealt with that had
been carried over from the 3/18/81
meetings. He continued, the first
deals with the Redevelopment Agency:
A Resolution authorizing execution
of participation and development
agreement; the second, a Resolution
approving a reimbursement agreement.
After the Redevelopment Agency business
was concluded, Council would act on
the three continued items from the
3/18/81 meeting.
He stated that Council's action on
the Southern Pacific Resolution
would authorize application for the
State funding and certify that funds
are available locally to perform
the obligations of the Local Agency.
He stated that all the negotiated
changes in the Owner Participation
and Development Agreement would be read
aloud and discussed before there was
Redevelopment and Council action
taken.
Mr. Herman Fitzgerald, Attorney,
spoke of modifications in the
Agreement that were being edited and
typed in Mr. Mackey's office
3/19/81
Page 2
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
Discussion of Owner Participation
and Development Agreement:
(TF-1034)
that would be read to Council in
compliance with requested changes
by City Manager Birkelo.
City Manager Birkelo said he had
asked for more readily ascertainable
standards to determine when Homart
should become the leader of last
resort. He continued, that the
State Code now has certain provisions
that place maximums on terms available
for issuance of tax increment bonds
for Redevelopment Agencies. The
City would apply the same legal
maximums, which presently are 10%
interest and a maximum of 5% discount
to any other borrowings that might be
made on the front end for third parties.
He stated that this was a readily
ascertainable standard and considered
reasonable for long term borrowing
and for short term obligations.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that the
aforementioned had not been in the
original document and that he had
read the document being typed in
Mr. Mackey's office.
Mr. Mackey stated that Council's copy
of the document had an underline under
all language that had been changed
and proceeded to read the new language
replacing the underlined wordage. He
stated that one of the changes clari-
fied that the $2,000,000 advanced by
Homart towards the cost of the East
Grand Avenue Separation would not bear
interest until the credits by virtue
of developments are earned by Homart.
Then it would begin to bear interest
in 1991. He further explained that
in the context of the Agreement a
contribution means no one gets the
money back and an advance is a loan
to be repaid out of tax increments.
He stated that one clarification was
that the first $5,000,000 ($2,000,000
advanced by Homart and $3,000,000
advanced from third party sources),
the next $1,000,000 was the local
share (and is to be advanced from
the City); and the final $1,000,000
which would contemplate a $7,000,000
3/19/81
Page 3
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
Discussion of Owner Participation
and Development Agreement:
(TF-1063)
(TF-1119)
local share is to be advanced by
Homart and the City respectively.
He continued, that Homart is the
source of last resource for that
final $1,000,000.
Mr. Snow stated that the final
$1,000,000 and next to last $1,000,000
are funds that would be used if needed:
however, the present estimates
indicate the monies would not be
needed.
Mr. Mackey stated that as suggested
by Mr. Yee, Section 2.3.1 was clarified
to read: "That the Developer shall
contribute his proportionate share
of the cost of the construction
off-site as needed in the course
of the design and construction."
A general discussion followed on the
specifics of the other off-sites,
i.e., Grand Avenue over-crossing,
improvements along East Grand Avenue,
Oyster Point Blvd. and Industrial Way.
Mr. Mackey stated that paragraph
2.6.2, page 12, was eliminated,
relating to bond issues. He continued,
the bottom of page 12 and beginning of
page 13 was rewritten to state that
if there were excess costs the
parties would have to meet and
negotiate.
Discussion followed on exceeding
established costs due to the under-
grounding, which cost wouldbe based
on a PG&E study.
Mr. Mackey spoke of paragraph 2.7.1
and said that only that portion of
the project way that dealt with
underground within the Redevelopment
Project was going to be affected by
the agreement. He stated that the
changes on page 15 dealt with language
and the clarification of priorities.
Page 16, paragraph 2.12.2, was a
language change on advances by the City
for consistency with the previous
language on advances by the
3/1 9/81
Page 4
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
Discussion of Owner Participation
and Development Agreement:
Developer. The intent here was that
before the third or fourth priority
items are reached that a 100% of
advances through that date by the
City are repaid. He stated that
the addition of the word "pursuant"
to paragraph 2.12.4 was to reference
that those advances by the City in
excess of the administrative budget
of $125,000 per year plus CPI
annually and the administrative
budget that might be insured after
1995 are fourth priority as opposed
to second priority for repayment.
He continued, citing the minor change
on page 26, paragraph 4.3.11 to
reflect the alternate 2E which is
the alternate other than the two
proposals included with CH2MHill concept
of the East Grand Avenue separation.
The other change was that the City and
Developer will advance as stated.
A discussion followed on the estimated
costs and a possible over-run.
Mr. Mackey continued an in-depth
discussion of the changes on page 27,
paragraph 4.3.2c. He said the final
change was the City of South San
Francisco signature being attested to
by a secretary which should have been
the City Clerk attesting the signature.
A discussion followed on the preservation
of sewer capacity rights for Homart
and whether this additional capacity
load would be detrimental to the
sewer service.
Mr. Mackey mentioned paragraph 4.3.2
page 27 which says that if the East
Grand Avenue funding process falls
apart - any party to this agreement
can cancel this agreement. He stated
that with the addition of this add-on,
"Any zoning or planning approval granted
pursuant to Article 3 may be subject
to the expressed condition, that if
this agreement is terminated pursuant
to such, approval shall be suspended
until satisfactory funding is devel-
oped for the Grand Avenue Separation
or alternate mitigation acceptable
3/19/81
Page 5
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
Discussion of Owner Participation
and Development Agreement:
(TF-1245)
to the City is provided."
A discussion followed on alternate
plans of egress and ingress, possibility
of eminent domain, mitigation of the
traffic impact, better use of the
rail service, off-site parking and
busing of employees, the distinction
of the entity between the Council and
the Agency in action taken in the
Redevelopment Project, etc.
Mr. Mackey explained in response to
Vice Mayor Nicolopulos' concerns
that paragraph 4.4 on page 28 was
written to remove the liability of
the City for acts of the Agency.
Mayor Acosta questioned whether the
limits of liability insurance were
sufficient to cover accidents that
might occur.
Mr. Mackey stated that the comment
was well taken and that the insurance
would be increased to $10,000,000
combined single limit maximum.
Mr. Fitzgerald asked Mr. Mackey to
read the paragraph on source of last
resource.
Mr. Mackey stated that paragraph
2.13.1 dealt with the concept source
of last resource: "...but not
required to accept a commercially
unreasonable loan...", he said this
language would be inserted: "A loan
shall be deemed unreasonable if the
interest rate and the discount
exceeds the maximum interest discount
permitted by the Redevelopment Law."
He said that if it exceeds it the
loan can be turned down and the City
would turn to Homart as a source of
last resource.
Mr. Snow stated it should be qualified
to say that it shall cover all loans
based on Redevelopment Law as related
to tax increments on bond indentures.
A discussion followed on whether the
Bond Council would be willing to
delete the last sentence in paragraph
3/19/81
Page 6
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
Discussion of Owner Participation
and Development Agreement:
RECESS: (TF-1456)
RECALL TO ORDER:
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Staff Report recommending Agency
review and approval of Partici-
pation and Development Agreement
by and among Redevelopment Agency
of the City of South San Francisco,
the City of South San Francisco,
and Homart Redevelopment Company.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHOR-
IZ1NG EXECUTION OF PARTICIPATION
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND
AMONG REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, AND
HOMART DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Staff Report recommending approval
of Reimbursement Agreement between
the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of South San Francisco and
the Homart Development Company.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTH-
ORIZING EXECUTION OF REIMBURSEMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOP-
MENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO AND THE HOMART
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report 3/18/81 recommending
adoption of a Resolution approving
and authorizing execution of
Participation and Development
Agreement by and among the
3.2.1 and benefits of the deletion.
Mayor Acosta declared a recess at
12:03 p.m.
Mayor Acosta recalled the meeting
to order at 12:07 p.m., all Council
present and announced that Council
was now sitting as the South ~San ~
Francisco Redevelopment Agency.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Motion by Teglia - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 12
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
Motion by Addiego - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 13
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
Director of Finance Anderson gave
an in-depth description of the two
changes Staff and Homart had agreed
upon.
Mayor Acosta recessed the South San
Francisco Redevelopment Agency meeting
and announced that the City Council
meeting had been reconvened.
CITY COUNCIL
3/19/81
Page 7
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
CITY COUNCIL
1. Staff Report - Continued.. (TF-1552)
Redevelopment Agency of the
City of South San Francisco,
City of South San Francisco
and the Homart Development Co.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTH-
ORIZING EXECUTION OF PARTICIPA-
TI'ON AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BY AND AMONG REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO AND HOMART
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Staff Report 3/18/81 recommending
the adoption of a Resolution
approving and authorizing execution
of an agreement between the City
of South San Francisco and
Southern Pacific Railroad Company
for the East Grand Avenue Railroad
Grade Separation Project.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION
OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
FOR THE EAST GRAND AVENUE RAILROAD
SEPARATION PROJECT
(TF-1605)
CITY COUNCIL
Motion by Teglia - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 32-81
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
City Manager Birkelo stated that
the Railroad participates up to
ten percent of the cost of the
project.
Vice Mayor Nicolopulos stated that
page 2, item 3 of the agreement
says, "City agrees to reimburse
Railroad for the cost and expense
incurred by Railroad in connec~iOn~
with the construction .... ", and
questioned what it meant.
City Manager Birkelo said that the
Railroad had a commitment of
$1,450,000 and that an estimate
of $418,000 was work to be done on
the Railroad's tracks and that sum
would be credited against the
$1,450,000. He continued, that
the balance would be cash into the
Project after deduction of the
work on the tracks.
Motion by Teglia - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 33-81
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
3/19/81
Page 8
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 82
CITY COUNCIL
Staff Report 3/18/81 recommending
the adoption of a Resolution
authorizing filing of an applic-
ation with the State of California,
Dept. of Transportation for a Grade
Separation Fund Allocation by the
State of California Transportation
Commission for the construction of an'
overpass of East Grand Avenue at the
Southern Pacific Transportation
Company right-of-way between Airport
Blvd. and Harbor Way, in the City of
South San Francisco and designating
C. Walter Birkelo, City Manager, as
authorized City official to endorse
all necessary papers in connection
therewith. (TF-1629)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
AUTHORIZING FI'L~NG OF AN APPLICATION
WITH THE STATE OF CAL~FORNI'A, DEPART-
MENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR A GRADE
SEPARATION FUND ALLOCATION BY THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN
OVERPASS OF EAST GRAND AVENUE AT
THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN AIRPORT
BOULEVARD AND HARBOR WAY, IN THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, AND
DESIGNATING C. WALTER BIRKELO, CITY
MANAGER, AS AUTHORIZED CITY OFFICIAL
TO ENDORSE ALL NECESSARY PAPERS IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH
Discussion of the Municipal Services
Building Punch List.
CITY COUNCIL
Director of Finance Anderson stated
that within the Resolution there was
one word change as cleared with
Acting City Attorney Rogers: "Whereas,
City funds have been appropriated..."
had been changed to read: "Whereas,
City funds have been allocated...".
He stated that this change was made
because formal legal appropriation
had not taken place but had been
allocated.
Motion by Nicolopulos - To adopt the
Resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 34-81
Carried by unanimous roll call vote.
A brief discussion followed on the
punch list of remaining things to
be done by the Contractor, when
the Police Department would be
moving into the building, etc.
M/S Nicolopulos/Addiego - That the
Council meeting be adjourned and the
South San Francisco Redevelopment
Agency be adjourned.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
3/19/81
Page 9
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
ADJOURNMENT (TF-1645)
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Time of adjournment 12:27 p.m.
APPROVED:
City of South San Francisco
Ronald G. Acosta, Mayor
City of South San Francisco
The entries of this Council Meeting show the action taken by the City
Council to dispose of the item. Oral presentations, 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 available for
inspection, review and copying.
3/19/81
Page 10