Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Minutes 1982-01-06 M z N u T E S SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY January 6, 1982 Regular Meeting TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Community Room, Municipal Services Building CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Gus Nicolopulos called the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Gus Nicolopulos, Vice Chairman Roberta Cerri Teglia; Members Ronald G. Acosta, Mark N. Addiego, and Emanuele N. Damonte Also present: Executive Director/Secretary C. Walter Birkelo; Assistant Secretary LouisDell'Angela; Director of Finance Barry Lipton; representatives from Homart Development Company: Messrs. Robert A. Snow, Robert Sholitin, John Aguilar, Donald Bruzzone; representatives from Robinson, Mills & Williams, Architects; and Bartle Wells Associates Al DA REVIEW: Executive Director Birkelo stated that there was nothing to add to the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Member Damonte moved, seconded by Member Teglia that the Minutes of the Adjourned Regular meeting of December 15, 1981, and the Regular Meeting of December 16, 1981, be approved. Motion, as made and seconded, was unanimously carried. APPROVAL OF BILLS: After an explanation by Executive Director Birkelo, Member Acosta moved, seconded by Member Teglia, that the claims, as submitted for payment, be approved. Motion, as made and seconded, was unanimously carried. PRESENTATION OF ANNUAL Executive Director Birkelo stated that the first item was the AGENCY AUDIT FOR ]!980/81 presentation of the Annual Audit for the fiscal year 1980/81 and suggested that the Board receive the audit which would preserve their option to discuss it at a later date. Member Acosta so moved, seconded by Member Damonte; motion, as made and seconded, lwas unanimously carried. PRECISE PLAN, PHASE 1 Assistant Secretary Dell'Angela gave a backgroundof the previously GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT approved documents and the anticipated impact and mitigation P~-'ECT measures required. He stated that the Specific Plan stipulated 0120 P~ :ISE PLAN, PHASE 1 a procedure by which the project is developed over a period of G~ WAY REDEVELOPMENT time in a series of phases. He stated that the first phase is Pkv~ECT being presented to the Board with Staff's recommendations to (Continued) approve it at this time, subject to the conditions stated in the Staff Report dated January 6, 1982, with Exhibits B, C, D, E, and F, and the recommended building and site security provisions con- tained in Exhibit G, based on the five findings so listed in the Staff Report. SHALLOW POOL/ From the Staff Report, the Assistant Secretary explained Phase 1 REFLECTING POOL which consists of two office buildings with related parking and landscaping on the twenty-six acre tract of land. He commented on an earlier recommendation that a shallow pool or reflecting pool be constructed in the proposed plaza area. He further ex- plained the concerns of Homart that future water/soils contamin- ation may result from a water facility in this area. He stated that it was staff's opinion that a pond or reflecting pool is a necessary aethetic feature, and such a water surface would also enhance the marketable potential of the first phase building. Assistant Secretary Dell'Angela stated that the second part concerning security provisions in the Environmental Impact Report was a concern noted by both Police and Fire Departments in terms of the impact the project would have on their particular ability .... to serve and provide security assistance. He stated that security improvements were considered to be built into the project and City services could be minimized. He stated the Exhibit G contains the recommendation of Bechtel International Corporation, the firm re- tained by the Agency to study the plan; that Exhibits H, I, J, K were correspondence between the Agency's Executive Director and Homart's Project Director which points out and responds to deficien- cies contained in the precise plan submissions. Also submitted, he stated, is a reduced set of the Final Precise Plan submission for Phase 1, Sheetsl through 8, and 1M through 7M, November 24, 1981. Vice Chairman Teglia inquired if Homart Company had read all of the conditions and had accepted them as a whole. In reply, the Assistant Secretary stated that a copy had been provided Homart, and they were not in accord with the lake proposal and some aspects of the security plan. He further stated that the Engineering Division had recommended the parking lots be separated by median landscaping strips, and that these were not agreeable to Homart. Mr. John Aguilar, Project Director for Homart Development Company, 480 Industrial Way, stated for the record that several Homart representatives have studied the Precise Plan and are asking for the Agency Board to take action on the first three Special Conditions and to reconvene in three weeks to discuss the Special Condition 4 regarding the Security Plan. He stated his firm is retaining a securitY specialist to assist them in their recommendations. He commented if the Board was in agreement, the first issue could be addressed. 1/6/82 Page 2 P~ iISE PLAN, PHASE 1 The Board concurred with his request. G~ WAY REDEVELOPMENT PLv~ECT Mr.' Aguilar read Condition 1. He explained that it was never the (Continued) intention of Homart not to landscape those areas. He explained that the two particular areas are part of the improvements to be funded by the assessment district. They will be completed within Phase 1, shown on the landscape plan, but will not be included in the Phase 1 actual package. In answer to the Board's inquiry, Executive Director Birkelo explained that there are no serious differences, and a condition could be prepared whereby Homart acknowledges that the City has a right to defer its installation until it coincides with assessment district proceedings. He stated that the language could be worked out Mr. Aguilar next addressed Item 2 regarding the shallow pond or reflecting pool. He stated that they had developed a concept scheme for Phase 1 and were looking at the inclusion of a pond. He explained how the architects and engineers had discovered, as a result of the previous manufacturing site, problems with heavy metals in the soils. Based on their recommendations, Homart chose to remove the pond. He introduced Mr. William Calloway, architect, to explain the situation. Mr. William Calloway, ~SWA Group, stated that, as the Landscape Architect, he was instrumental in proposing the pond in the first place as water bodies are amenities to any project. He in depth spoke concerning the contaminants in the soil and why he felt it was compelling to delete the pond as an acre of a possible contamin- ated body. He spoke about the possible leakage into the soil and that they were unable to get a guarantee that no leakage would occur. He explained how the redesigned courtyard keptthe same concept - as a grass area, thus providing more usable space. The Agency Board discussed the depth of the pool, the circulation of water, and the addition of water lillies. The Agency also questioned, from an engineering standpoint, the recommendations of the State Department of Health Services and the State Water Quality Control Board. Mr. Aguilar explained that, based on test drillings taken in those specific areas, certain concentrations caused the State to be con- cerned about a pond in that area, and certain requirements were to be followed to prevent leaching and contamination. He presented two letters, one letter dated September 21, 1981 from Executive Director Fred Dierker, State Water Quality Control Board, and letter of October 6, 1981, from the Department of Health Services concerning the special conditions required. --- Mr. George Homolka, Vice President of Wilsey & Ham, and Engineering Consultant to Homart Development Company, explained the two time frames in the first year when they were looking at the project 1/6/82 Page 3 P~ ISE PLAN, PHASE 1 generally. He stated as the State became more involved, they were G~ WAY REDEVELOPMENT asked to look in greater detail into the disposition of the situa- PkvvECT tion. He further explained the handling of the heavy metals, the (Continued) keeping of them out of the drinking and bay waters. He concluded 'by stating that he felt they were being asked to put in something that is counter-productive to what they are trying to achieve - to seal the contaminants. Assistant Secretary Dell~Angela responded by citing his conver- sations with Julia Anderson, State Department of Health Services, in which concrete or clay li-ners were discussed. He stated that she saw no reason for concern of leakage with either liner. He further explained the pool and acidities affecting the metals. and requested that the plan should not be discarded until more precise documentation is presented that a ]problem exists. The Board discussed the eight-foot depth of the one-acre pond; amenities to the project; the potential danger of the one acre of a concrete liner; developer's marketability expertise; and require- ments of contaminants' being removed from the area. It was noted that there has been no complaints from the State departments con- cerning contaminants' seepage in the past years, and there should be no threat to the development. --- Mr. Aguilar next introduced the cultural components applicable to the plaza area and stated that the concept plan is ready, subject to review by the Agency's and Homart's legal counsels. He asked to read the presentation. Vice'Chairman Teglia interjected with an explanation of thealternate plan in lieu of the pond as discussed at a previous meeting. Mr. Aguilar then read the concept plan within the project and Homart's participation in cultural events. The Agency Board concurred unanimously to negate the concept of the shallow pond/reflection pool. Executive Director Birkelo suggested that the Agency note the culture offer and refer it to staff as suggested for approval. As there were no objections, it was so ordered. Discussion followed concerning the Board's actions on the Special Conditions. It was the Board's opinion that No.1 is a condition showing that Homart Development Company is not precluded from installing the landscape and irrigation system from the assessment district process; No. 2 - pond has been deleted and concept plan presented to be reviewed; No. 3 , a revised site plan will be sub- stituted and considered within the next three weeks; No. 4 - discussions to be held to determine what actions are necessary to accomplish the necessary requirements. Discussion followed between Mr. Aguilar and the Board concerning approval in order not to delay the issuance of building permits. 1/6/82 Page 4 PF ISE PLAN, PHASE 1 Mr. Robert Snow, Vice President of Homart Development Company, Gl WAY REDEVELOPMENT Chicago, Illinois, expressed his company's understanding of the P~u~ECT complexities and proposed, overthe ne~t two to three weeks, (Continued) that staff, conSultants, and Homart meet and discuss, and come back to the Boardwith specific issues to be resolYed at that time, Mr. Snow commented that he concurred with Mr. Dell'Angela's suggestion not to attempt conditional approval; that Homart has the Board's understanding on the first three items; and would defer until that meeting. Chairman Nicolopulos expressed the Board's appreciation. GOOD AND WELFARE: Chairman Nicolopulos invited anyone in the audience to speak. No one wished to speak. ADJOURNMENT: Member Damonte moved, seconded by Member Teglia, that the meeting be adjourned. Motion, as made and seconded, was unanimously carried. Time of adjournment: 8:45 p.m. APPROVED: Gus Ni col o u 1~o ~,~C~'~a n South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ~'/' ~/~ Bi r~ke o, ~~r/Secretary C. Walter Executive South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency The entries of this Redevelopment Agency meeting show the action taken by the Board to dispose of the item. Oral presentations, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape and d~ ments related to the items are on file in the office of the City Manager and available for iF ections, review, and copying. 1/6/82 Page 5 '