Loading...
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