HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1982-09-29Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia
Vice Mayor Mark N. Addiego
Council:
Ronald G. Acosta
Emanuele N. Damonte
Gus Nicolopulos
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Conference Room
September 29, 1982
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code
of the State of California, that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, the 29th day of September, 1982, at 6:00 p.m.,
in the City Council Conference Room, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting is for the discussion of the following:
Dated:
Oyster Point Overpass Project.
Business License Direction.
Closed Session for the discussion of litigation.
September 27, 1982
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CALL TO ORDER:
1. Oyster Point Overpass Project.
ACTION TAKEN
SPECIAL MEETING
Recited.
6:10 p.m. Mayor Teglia presiding.
Council present: Acosta, Nicolopulos,
Addiego, Damonte and
Teglia.
Council absent: None.
City Manager Birkelo stated that copies
of the Oyster Point Grade Separation,
an Executive Summary and a Staff Report,
had been received by Council and that
the purpose of the meeting was to have
the consulting engineers explain the
work that had been performed and answer
any questions. He stated that Homart
had not been informed of the meeting
until that afternoon and that after
careful study Homart would submit a
written response that would be avail-
able the following week. He related
that in the terms of the OPA Agreement
with Homart the City was obligated to
9/29/82
Page 1
AGENDA
Oyster Point Overpass Project -
Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
negotiate in terms of the participation
on the Oyster Point Grade Separation
Project.
Director of Public Services Yee stated
that Council in March had directed Staff
to narrow down the alternatives to three
or four and to bring forth suggestions
for financing of this Project. He
stated that George Nolte's Office had
narrowed the alternatives and that
Mr. Bill Wagner would outline the
alternatives.
Mr. Bill Wagner, George S. Nolte & Assoc.,
stated that the eleven alternatives had
been reduced to four which his firm
found most preferable in relation to
cost sharing formulas. He described
each of the alternate plans in great
detail and outlined the advantages;
disadvantages; traffic impacts; on and
off-ramps required; the required property
acquisition needed; the cost sharing
formulas to spread the costs among the
potential contributing developers;
that the estimated 1982 costs in the
Preliminary Executive Summary ranged
from 14.2 million to 17.8 million;
the peak hour formula and the funding
available; that the railroad was
required to pay 10% of the grade
separation portion of the Project,
estimated at one million dollars;
the State PUC Grade Separation Fund
Grant; total local share to build the
two Projects was 16.8 million; that any
other developer that may benefit from
this project in the future should pay
some costs to offset the Project costs.
Discussion followed on the benefits
to be gained by the ease of traffic
flow in peak hours; possible plans for
a new development for U.S. Steel, etc.
Mr. Richard Diodati, Developer, expressed
concern that the statement had been
made, that the Developer should pay a
bigger share for the newer project -
when all people would benefit from the
bridge and the toll should be paid by
everyone. He stated that whatever the
figure would be he would pay it, however
9/29/82
Page 2
AGENDA
Oyster Point Overpass Project -
Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
he felt the figure should be equal for
everyone and fair. He asked if the
Harbor District had been included as
a participant.
Mr. Wagner stated that he believed that
the Marina had been included in the
existing traffic estimates.
Director of Public Services Yee stated
that his understanding was that the
Harbor District plan was developed and
approved by the Council before this
particular Project was under way and
therefore had not been considered as
a new development.
Mayor Teglia stated that rumors had it
that the Harbor District was going to
come before Council to ask for an
increase in density and felt that if
that happened it would be fair to
increase the $700,000 committment for
a more equal share.
Councilman Damonte stated that a portion
of the Harbor District's land is land
that is not controlled by tide waters
and that would be the only piece of
land that revenue could be collected
from in that it was a public park.
Carl Dryer, Esq., questioned if the
formulas under consideration provided
that a future developer would be required
to contribute to this Project and that
money would be returned to the present
contributors.
Director of Public Services Yee stated
that the money would be put in trust
and if later money comes in from new
developers then it would be fair to
give some of the money back to the
original participants. He stated that
if the Project turned out to cost more
than anticipated - then the participants
would need to ante up additional monies.
City Manager Birkelo stated that at this
point most of the new developments had
been identified and that U. S. Steel
was included on that basis and in that
the Agency was putting up the money -
9/29/82
Page 3
AGENDA
Oyster Point Overpass Project -
Continued.
ACTION TAKEN
the Agency would be the first one to
get it back.
Mr. Diodati stated that the GSA property,
which was six to seven acres, had not
been included and that he felt that all
affected property should be included.
Mr. Wagner stated that U.S. Steel's
traffic volume had been estimated on
a development density similar to the
Gateway, however when U.S. Steel
developed there could be less density
and less trips - therefore money set
aside for U.S. Steel may actually be
less.
Councilman Damonte questioned if other
developers come in with a lessor amount
of money who was expected to pick up
the difference to equate to the 100%.
Mr. Wagner stated that that was a
potential problem with the formula in
that the developers that have a granted
use and have some real numbers to go on
then something could be assigned. He
continued, applying any portion of
this to future developments, there
is always the problem that future
development may not generate the money
that was anticipated.
Mayor Teglia thought it better to exclude
U.S. Steel and only include the company
for its existing contribution and
revise the formula so that the parti-
cipants that are known to exist more
equally share the cost. She continued,
then if U.S. Steel developes and there
is extra money that could be redist-
ributed among the participants.
Mr. Tom Ireland, Sutter Hill Co.,
stated that his firm had an option to
purchase the Dubuque property and were
in the planning stages and anticipated
generating 2,100 trips per day.
Mr. Waxman, Dubuque Packing Co.,
asked for a time frame for establishing
the formula for participation of shares.
9/29/82
Page 4
AGENDA
1. Oyster Point Overpass Project -
Continued.
Councilman Damonte left the podium:
RECESS:
RECALL TO ORDER:
ACTION
TAKEN
Director of Public Services Yee stated
that there would be a three to five
year time frame before construction
is seen, however the commitment would
be earlier.
Mr. Diodati asked why the City didn't
float a bond for the whole project and
have the developers pay the City.
City Manager Birkelo stated that to
sell bonds would be difficult because
there is no security for land that
is not developed.
Director of Public Services Yee stated
that it could be done if all the
property owners agreed to an Assessment
District and build roads, however if
U.S. Steel is not included in the
District the firm does not have to pay.
Councilman Damonte left the podium
at 7:00 p.m.
Consensus of Council - To adopt Cost
Sharing Formula C and to exclude U.S.
Steel from the base share at the
present time.
Director of Public Services Yee stated
that as new developments came in they
would be added to the map and would be
included in the formula to pay a
proportunate share.
Discussion followed on new uses for
the Woolworth Building; benefiting from
increased access; if a use does not
change - a use permit is not needed;
CALTRANS involvement in the alternatives
and the EIRs; the alternates in
relationship to on and off-ramps;
property acquisition, etc.
Mayor Teglia declared a recess at
7:50 p.m.
Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to
order at 8:03 p.m. all Council present
except Damonte.
9/29/83
Page 5
AGENDA ACTION TAKEN
2. Business License Direction.
City Manager Birkelo stated that during
Council discussions of the commercial
parking tax there had been considerable
discussion of reviewing the entire
business license ordinance for internal
equity among the various categories.
He stated that the Finance Director
felt it would take sometime to do the
more exhaustive kind of analysis and
have discussions with the business
community. He stated that an alter-
native measure would be to sit down
and talk with the business community
to see if they were amenable to an
across the board cost of living
adjustment that could be effective
during the coming calendar year and
give Staff time to look at the equity
probl em.
Director of Finance Lipton stated that
if Staff looked at the restructuring
of the entire business license ordin-
ance instead of the fee structure in
use by the City which pertained to
numbers of employees, etc.
Councilman Acosta stated that Staff
should forget about a gross receipts
tax as he found it unacceptable.
Director of Finance Lipton stated that a
gross receipts tax had been mentioned
in the past as one alternative out of
many. He stated that the restructuring
would take the better part of 1983.
He stated that in the meantime there
was an opportunity before the renewal
notices were mailed to propose to the
business community an increase of
approximately 50%, which was a 7%
increase over the last five or six
years when the fees were last adjusted.
He spoke in detail of the increases
by business categories.
Councilman Nicolopulos expressed concern
over inequities in the existing business
license structure and he did not want
this situation compounded do to the
categories being wrong.
9/29/83
Page 6
AGENDA
2. Business License Direction -
Continued.
3. Closed Session for the discussion
of litigation. (CLOSED SESSION)
RECALL TO ORDER:
ACTION
TAKEN
City Manager Birkelo stated that the
business tax rates had been set some
time ago and had not kept up with
inflation and he felt that a 50%
increase was modest and might be
acceptable to the business community.
Vice Mayor Addiego stated that it
would take years to correct the inequities,
if they were real, and it should be done
in a thoughtful manner.
Discussion followed on the City's rate
structure as compared to other cities;
talking to the business community to
effect an equitable structuring; that
this was a revenue producing method
for the City; looking at San Leandro
and comparing the two cities rate
structure.
Director of Finance Lipton stated that
because of additional work for the
rate adjustments and getting renewal
notices out in a timely manner, that
hopefully an ordinance would be presented
for Council action in the month of
November. He stated that otherwise
perhaps a procedure could be developed
in the City Attorney's Office to
amend the delinquent date for paying
the 1983 business license tax and
still allow a thirty day period for
payment.
Consensus of Council - Staff was directed
to discuss the increase of business
license fees with the business community.
Council adjourned to a Closed Session
to discuss litigation at 8:18 p.m.
The meeting was recalled to order at
9:25 p.m., all Council present, no
action taken.
M/S Addiego/Acosta - That the meeting
be adjourned.
Carried by unanimous voice vote.
9/29/83
Page 7
AGENDA
ACTION TAKEN
ADJOURNMENT:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
City of South San Francisco
Time of adjournment 9:26 p.m.
APPROVED:
"'Rro6erta Cerri Teglia, Mayo~ .~
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 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 are available for inspection, review and copying.
9/29/83
Page 8