Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Minutes 1985-08-28 MINUTES THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR ~IEET ING August 28, 1985 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Community Room, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive South San Francisco, California CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Richard A. Haffey called the Redevelopment Agency meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Richard A, Haffey; Member Mark N, Addiego; Member Emanuele N. Damonte; Member Gus Nicolopulos Absent: Vice Chairperson Roberta Cerri Teglia Also Present: Executive Director C. Walter Birkelo, Counsel Herman Fitzgerald ~ NDA REVIEW: Executive Director Birkelo requested that Item #12 be continued to the next meeting. He stated that Counsel Fitzgerald needed to do a little more work on the findings of those resolutions and it will be more convenient at that time. There are no other changes requested. APPROVAL OF It was motioned by Member Addiego and seconded by Member Damonte that the BILLS: claims as submitted for payment in the amount of $43,049,08 for August 28, 1985, be approved. Motion as made and seconded was regularly carried. APPROVAL OF Member Damonte motioned, seconded by Member Addiego that the minutes of the MINUTES: Regular meeting of May 8, 1985; Regular Meeting of May 22, 1985; Special Meeting of May 29, 1985; Regular Meeting of June 12, 1985; Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 19, 1985; Regular Meeting of June 26, 1985; Regular Meeting of July 10, 1985, be approved. The motion as made and seconded was regularly carried. Chairman Haffey and Member Damonte abstained from voting for the minutes of the meetings for which they were absent. Chairman Haffey informed the Board that, for its information, there will be a joint session with the City Council so we will keep this meeting open until we get to that point on our agenda. JOINT POWERS Executive Director Birkelo stated that the Staff Report you have indicates AGREEMENT that the initial action of the joint powers agreement is merely a statement B~TWEEN that the two agencies intend to use their individual and separate powers ~ NCY AND toward the end of acquiring those properties. The following six resolutions ( Y: have to do with the individual properties and the owners involved thereof, Mr. Fitzgerald is heading our acquisition team; if you have any general questions regarding the effect of these, I am sure he will be happy to answer them. The property owners have been notified and given the opportunity to be present tonight to Speak to the matter. JOINT POWERS Questions were raised by.Member Damonte regarding the effect of this action. AGREEMENT Counsel Fitzgerald responded by informing the Board that what we have done [---WEEN is give them notice of intention to adopt a resolution, in addition, the I iNCY AND resolution authorizes the Executive Director and the City Manager, who is I 'Y, (cont'd): the same person, to do everything necessary to continue negotiations and then proceed further, if necessary, for the court actions to be filed. At this time, there is no plan to file any court actions, but to continue the negotiations which have been on an on-going basis. Counsel Fitzgerald further stated that the closed session will deal with negotiations, these resolutions do not deal with negotiations. You can rescind a resolution, if you so desire, in fact, there is a provision that if we do not go to emminent domain, go to court within six months, we will be rescinding the resolutions, and if we settle the cases by negotiations, the resolutions will die a natural death. He further requested that there be made a part of this record, the Environmental Impact Reports and the traffic studies which are on file with the City as the basis for your findings of the public use a necessity. It was motioned by Member Addiego and seconded by Member Damonte that the resolution be adopted. The motion as made and seconded was regularly carried. Title of the resolution is:"A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT" BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO." RESOLUTION: It was moved by Member Addiego and seconded by Member Nicolopulos that S.J~., CO.: ~qO the resolution entitled: JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGNECY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, be adopted. The motion as made and seconded was regularly carried. (Southern Pacific Land Company). RESOLUTION: It was moved by ~ember Addiego and seconded by Member Nicolopulos that the PG&E: resolution entitled: JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH hq\ SAN FRANCISCO AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGNECY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, be adopted. The motion as made and seconded was regularly carried. (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). RESOLUTION: Chairman Haffey inquired if anyone in the audience wished to speak to this BUDGET RENT nv item. No one spoke. It was motioned by Member Damonte and seconded by A-CAR: ~ Member Addiego that the resolution entitled: JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, be adoPted. The motion as made and seconded was regularly carried. (Budget Rent-A-Car/Traverse Corporation). RESOLUTION: ~ It was motioned by Member Addiego and seconded by Member Damonte that the POLETTI~ resolution entitled: JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PROPERTY #4: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCSICO, be adopted. The motion as made and seconded was regularly carried. (Poletti Trust Properties - Parcel #4). RESOLUTION: ~qq It was motioned by Member Addiego and seconded by Member Nicolopulos that the P~'[TTI resolution entitled' JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH F PERTY #2: SAN FRANCISCO AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO be adopted. The motion as made and seconded was regularly carried. (Poletti Trust Properties - Parcel #2). 8/28185 Page 2 I' I T I I RESOLUTION: ? It was motioned by ~ember Addiego and seconded by Member Nicolopulos that the POLETTI Ant resolution entitled; JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH F-'-PERTY #1: SAN FRANCISCO AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCSICO, be adopted. The.motion as made and seconded was regularly carried. (Poletti Trust Properties - Parcel #1). GOOD AND Chairman Haffey gave an opportunity for members 'of the audience to speak on WELFARE: issues relating to the Redevelopment Agency. No one spoke. CONTINUATION: Chairman Haffey ordered the meeti.ng continued to the joint meeting of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency. Time of continuation: 7:18 p.m. Minutes of the joint meeting of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency are hereby attached and made a part of the minutes of the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency meeting. Respectfully submitted, C.--~alte~ B'r elo, Executive Director S th San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Ric ff 'rman South ~an Fran lopment Agency The entries of the Redevleopment 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 documents related to the items are on file in the office of the City Manager and are available for inspection, review and copying. 8/28/85 Page 3 Mayor Richard A. Halley I N U T E S Vice Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia Council: City Council Mark N. Addiego Emanuele N. Damonte Municipal Services Building Gus Nicolopulos Community Room August 28, 1985 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) 7:39 p.m. Mayor Haffey presiding. ROLL CALL: Council present: Nicolopulos, Addiego, Tegl i a, Damonte and Halley. Counci 1 absent: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The pledge of allegiance was recited. INVOCATION: Reverend Donald Pitts, Good News Chapel, gave the invocation. AGENDA REVIEW AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Birkelo requested: - That the letter from Jeremiah Lynch, Esq., on behalf of the Poletti Trusts dated 8/14/85 related to the proposed refunding of Gateway Assessment Bonds, which the Council did not act upon at its 8/21/85 meeting, be entered into the record. So ordered. (A copy of the letter is attached and a permanent part of the record of this meeting.) - Delete Item 3, a Resolution auth- orizing execution of an agreement for motorcycle training for peace officers. So ordered. - Delete Item 5, a Resolution auth- orizing execution of an agreement for public improvements at 800-890 Dubuque Avenue. So ordered. - Continue Item 12, Consideration of Civic Center Renovation Project Amendments. So ordered. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ms, Nancy Nielsen and Ms. Kerry Forni, former members of the Youth Advisory Board, presented a proposal containing recommendations for use in interacting with future members of the Board. [ I ~ F I i I.AW OF'F'ICE: OF' JEREMIAH J. LYNCH MAIUNO ADDI~E:~: A'~I'OI~N~Y AT I-AW ,A~=.A C.O~' 415 PO~T OF'F~CE BOX 208 1220 HOWARD AVENUE, SUITE 250 'rE:I.~'PHONE: BURLJNGAME. CALIFO[~NIA 94011-0205 BURLLNGAME. CAL,[FORNL%. 94010-42! ] ~": ,, ' ' August 14, 1985 City Council of the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco City Hall 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: Gateway Assessment District No. ST-82-2; Resolution Preliminarily Approving Reassessment Report, Appointing Time and Place of Hearing Protests and Directing Notice Thereof; and Resolution of Intention to Issue Refunding Bonds and Levy Reassessments for the Security Thereof~ Agenda Ttem ~8 Dear Council Members and Redevelopment Agency Members: The undersigned represents the Poletti Trust. The Poletti Trust is the owner of certain real property located along, upon and adjacent to the proposed Gateway Boulevard Extension at its intersection with Mitchell Avenue and South Airport Boulevard. The street addresses are 191 and 111 Mitchell Avenue. The Poletti Trust objects to the adoption of any resolutions authorizing in any way the sale of any bonds in connection with the Gateway Redevelopment Project. The certified and approved FEIR for the Gateway Redevelopment Project forecasts an "F" rating for traffic conditions in the after condition at the intersection of South Airport Boulevard, Mitchell Avenue, and Gateway Boulevard (Extension). An "F" rating is defined in the FEIR June 1984 Supplement, p. 48, as a "jammed condition." The Gateway Redevelopment FEIR did not consider the cumulative traffic impacts including dust, fumes, noise and air pollution that will be generated at the same intersection by the U.S. Steel Plant Site Redevelopment Project and the Shearwater Project. Interestingly, the U.S. Steel and Shearwater FEIRs ignored their cumulative adverse traffic impacts on the same intersection on the Gateway Project. 8/28/85 Page la City Council Redevelopment Agency August 14, 1985 Page 2 The undersigned respectfully requests the City and the Redevelopment Agency to take judicial notice of the U.S. Steel and Shearwater FEIRs which projects anticipate construction of 2,000,000 square feet of new buildings, 6,000 employees and 9,000 visitors per day. When the traffic, noise, dust, fumes and air pollution impacts of these projects are superimposed on the main north/south corridor of South Airport Boulevard, Mitchell Avenue and Gateway Extension Boulevard, which already has an rating, the greatest physical and economic blight in history of the State of California will be visited upon the poletti Trust Properties, including the Super 8 Motel, Budget Rent- A-Car, and Hungry Hunter, and all other existing businesses fronting along and upon South Airport Boulevard and the surrounding street network system. Secondly, the Gateway FEIRalso ignores the cumulative adverse traffic impacts that will be generated by the Frice Company Project on the South Airport Boulevard, Mitchell Avenue, Gateway Boulevard Extension intersection. It is respectfully requested that the Redevelopment Agency conduct a new Subsequent and/or Supplemental Draft EIR for the Gateway Redevelopment Project to address the cumulative impacts of the several projects named herein which were ignored. Said request is made pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and in particular, California Administrative Code (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163), which provisions mandate a new EIR when new information of substantial importance to the project becomes available or subsequent changes of a substantial nature occur which impact the circumstances under which the project was undertaken. In the event that the aforementioned cumulative impacts are not addressed in either a Subsquent or Supplemental EIR, the Poletti Trust will have no other recourse but to take appropriate legal action. Kindly have the Clerk enter this letter as part the record for the public hearing. Respectfully submitted, JEREMIAH J. LYNCH 8/28/85 Attorney for the Poletti Trust Page lb JJL:jaa ! AGENDA ACi . ON TAKEN ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS An in-depth discussion followed: on tt.. proposal presented; the purpose of forming the Youth Advisory Board; setting goals and future objectives for the Board; if the two former members would work with the Recreation Department; raising the age limit of members of the Board; forming a community involvement committee for candidates nights; con- tacting other prior members of the Board for feedback; appointing new members in a timely fashion, etc. Ms. Gloria Maltoni, President of the Downtown Merchants Association, questioned the police services for the Art & Wi ne Festival which were billed at $1,456 when $1,008 had been the agreed upon amount. She requested Council assistance in a 50% defrayment in costs for Christmas decorations for Grand Avenue. Police Chief Datzman explained that th $1,456 accounted for five posts and one over-night security and that he had contributed a Watch Commander which amounted to 91 manhours. Discussion followed: that perhaps the Association should not be billed for all of the manhours in that the service was performed for the community at large; that Ms. Maltoni's requests should be agendized for the next regular meeting. COMMUNITY FORUM COMMUNITY FORUM No one chose to speak. CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Staff Report 8/28/85 recommending So ordered. by Motion to deny and refer the following claim to the City's Insurance Adjuster and to the office of the City Attorney: Claim as filed by Mariano Casals alleging personal injuries sustained as the result of ne_qligence and care- lessness on 6ehalf of a City 8/28/85 Building Inspector. Page 2 A6 E NDA AC' ON TAKEN --- --CONSENT CALENDAJ~ CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Staff Report 8/28/84 recommending adoption of a Resolution awarding ~ the bid for the Municipal Services Building Expansion Project to Nibbi Brothers in the amount of $384,361 as the lowest responsible bidder. . A RESOLUTION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT RESOLUTION NO. 181-85 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING EXPANSION PROJECT 3. Staff Report 8/28/84 recommending Removed from the agenda under Agenda adoption of a Resolution author- Review. izing execution of an indemnity and hold harmless agreement and release, in favor of City of San Mated for an 82-hour motorcycle training course for peace officers. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT AND RELEASE, IN FAVOR OF __ CITY OF SAN MATEO 4. Staff Report 8/28/84 recommending adoption of a Resolution author- izing execution of an agreement wibh Group 4/Architecture, Research & Planning, Inc. for architectural services for Magnolia Center. A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHOR- RESOLUTION NO. 182-85 1ZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT TO FURNISH ARCHITECTURAL AND RELATED DESIGN SERVICES TO THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 5. Staff Report 8/28/85 recommending Removed from the Agenda during Agenda adoption of a Resolution author- Review. izing execution of an agreement for construction of off-site public improvements with Crop-Spieker- Singleton, for the construction of storm drains and sanitary sewers at 800-890 Dubuque Avenue. A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHOR- ..... IZING EXECUTION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT 8128/85 Page 3 AGENDA AC · ON TAKEN CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR 6. Staff Report 8/28/85 recommending Removed from the Consent Calendar for by Motion to approve building per- discussion by Councilman Addiego. mit determinations of landmarks of 7/9/85 - 740 Larch Avenue and 406 Baden Avenue. 7. Staff Report 8/28/85 recommending Public Hearing set for 9/11/85. by Motion to set 9/11/85 as a Public Hearing date to consider extension of Interim Ordinance No. 962-84 relative to conflicts between General Plan provisions and existing zoning city wide. M/S Teglia/Addiego - To approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item No. 6. Carried by unanimous voice vote. 6. Staff Report 8/28/85 recommending Councilman Addiego inquired that since by Motion to approve building per- the 15 days had expired, was Council mit determinations of landmarks of action required. 7/9/85 - 740 Larch Avenue and 406 Baden Avenue. Planning Director Smith stated that Staff had neglected to send the item to Council in a timely manner, and the property owners had not gone ahead with the work, it would be appropriate for Council to take action. Councilman Addiego stated that it was his understanding that this was merely a procedural matter. He explained that when the Ordinance was originally set up it was City wide and had since been reduced to include only the downtown area where the City was anticipating homes within a certain age range. He commented that the Paradise Valley, Pecks Lot and Sterling Terrace areas would not have any homes within the historical range. M/S Addiego/Teglia - To concur with the Planning Director's findings. Carried by unanimous voice vote. 8/28/85 Page 4 AGENDA AC/ ,ON TAKEN APPROVAL OF BILLS APPROVAL OF BILLS 8. Approval of the Regular Bills of M/S Teglia/Addiego - To approve the 8/28/85. Regular Bills of 8/28/85 in the amount of $1,144,866.28 Carried by unanimous voice vote. Councilman Addiego did not participate or vote in the mater of the claim of Brentwood Market. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMNISTRATION 9. Staff Report 8/28/85 recommending: City Attorney Rogers suggested, "that the 1) Adoption of a Resolution approv- City Council incorporate in the record of ing and authorizing execution of an your consideration of these resolutions agreement entitled "Joint Powers the Supplemental EIR that covered the Agreement between the City of South Gateway Boulevard Extension Project, the San Francisco and the Redevelopment traffic studies related to that, the Agency of the City of South San letter dated 8/28/85 which was received Francisco; 2) Adoption of a joint from Attorney Lynch related to the Resolution of the City Council of Poletti Trust Properties which essen- the City of South San Francisco and tially they are protesting the resolu- the Redevelopment Agency of the tions related to Poletti Trust City of South San Francisco Properties." (A copy of the letter is (Southern Pacific Land Company); attached and a permanent part of the ~ ~P~~ounc~/~f a ~ointoT ~°~Y~°Sf record of this meeting.) South San Francisco and the City Manager Birkelo stated that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of resolution having to do with the Joint South San Francisco (Budget Rent-a- Powers Agreement sets forth the deter- Car/Traverse Corporation); 4) mination of both the City Council and the Adoption of a joint Resolution of Redevelopment Agency to exercise their the City Council of the City of respective powers in the acquisition of South San Francisco and the the needed properties to carry through Redevelopment Agency of the City of the Gateway Extension Project. That the South San Francisco (Poletti Trust following six resolutions have to do with Properties); 5) Adoption of a joint the individual properties. He stated Resolution of the City Council of that adoption of the resolutions would ~ ~v~o~ ~8~n[~as~i{~ and City of South San Francisco proceedings if necessary. (Poletti Trust Properties); 6) Adoption of a joint Resolution of Discussion followed on the letter from the City Council of the City of Mr. Lynch in protest of the adoption of South San Francisco and the the Resolutions; that Mr. Lynch was pro- Redevelopment Agency of the City of testing the action of the passing of the South San Francisco (Poletti Trust Resolutions of Intention and taking the Properties); 7) Adoption of a joint property based upon his evaluation of the Resolbtion of the City Council of Final EIR being inadequate and that it the City of South San Francisco and doesn't consider cumulative impacts; that the Redevelopment Agency of the further discussion regarding this matter 8/28/85 Page 5 I.AW OF'F'IC~' Of"' J~m~ J. L~cH ~ ~ mox mom ~AM~ CA~ ~401t~201 B~G~. ~L~O~ ~l~21l 'August 28, 1985 Mr. Walter Birkelo City Manager City of South San Francisco City Hall,' 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Mr. Walter Birkelo Executive Director Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re= Resolution of Necessity Authorizing Acquisition of the Lands of the Poletti Trust Dear Council Members and Redevelopment Agency Members: The undersigned represents the Poletti Trust. The Poletti Trust is the owner of certain real property located along, upon and adjacent to the proposed Gateway Boulevard Extension at its intersection with Mitchell Avenue and South Airport Boulevard. (Acquisition parcels 1, 2 and 4) The Poletti Trust objects to the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity authorizing the acquisition of the lands of the Poletti Trust for the following reasons= A. The'Public Interest And Necessity Do Not Require The Proiect. The certified and approved FEIR for the Gateway Redevelopment Project forecasts an 'F' rating for traffic conditions in the after condition at the intersection of South Airport Boulevard, Mitchell Avenue, and Gateway Boulevard (Extension). An 'F' rating is defined in the FEI~ June 1984 Supplement, p. 48, as a 'jammed condition.' The Gateway Redevelopment FEIR did not consider the cumulative traffic impacts including dust, fumes, noise and air P°llution that will be generated at the same intersection by the U.S. Steel Plant Site Redevelopment Project and the Shearwater Project. Interestingly, the U.S. Steel and Shearwater FEIRs ignored their cumulative adverse traffic impacts on the same intersection. 8/28/85 Page 5a City Council Redevelopment Agency .... August 28, 1985 Page 2 The undersigned respeCtfully requests the City and the Redevelopment'Agency to take judicial notice of the U.S. Steel and Shearwater FEIRs which, projects anticipate construction of 2,000,000 square feet of new buildings' 6,000 employees and 9,000 visitors per daY. When the traffic, noise, dust, fumes and air pollution impacts of these projects are superimposed On the main north/south corridor of South Airport Boulevard, Mitchell Avenue and Gateway Extension Boulevard, which already has an 'F' rating, the greatest physical and economic blight in history of the State. of California will be visited upon the Poletti Trust Properties, including the Super 8 Note1, Budget Rent- A-Car, and Hungry Hunter, and all other existing businesses fronting along and upon South Airport Boulevard and the surrounding street network system. Secondly, the Gateway FEIR also ignores the cumulative adverse traffic impacts that will be generated by the Price Company Project on the South Airport Boulevard, Nitchell Avenue, Gateway Boulevard Extension Intersection. -- The undersigned requests the City and Agency to take Judicial notice of the purported 'Negative Declaration' on the Price Club P~oject and the 6,000 vehicles per day that will visit that project. It is respectfully requested that the Redevelopment Agency conduct a new Subsequent and/or Supplemental Draft EIR for the Gateway Redevelopment Project to address the cumulative impacts of the several projects named herein which were ignored. Said request is made pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and in particular, California Administrative Code (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15162 and 15163), which provisions mandate a new EIR when new information of substantial importance to the project becomes available or subsequent changes of a substantial nature occur which impact the circumstances under which the project was undertaken. B. The Project Ts Not Planned And/Or ?.ocated Tn The Manner That Will Be Moat Compatible With The Greatest Public Good And The r.east Private Tnlurv. The acquisition of the Poletti Trust properties and the construction of the street extension improvements in the manner proposed will create no less than 6 ~eparate and distinct remainder parcels. The Project, if constructed in the manner proposed, will relegate the Super 8 Note1 to a non-conforming sub- standard use contrary to the zoning ordinances of the City. 8/28/85 Page 5b ~ [ ? I City Council Redevelopment Agency August 28, 1985 Page 3 The'Project, as designed, conceived, and constructed, will create massive traffic jams at the intersection of South Airport Boulevard, Mitchell Avenue, and Gateway Boulevard Extension, which will result in physical and economic blight on all lands and existing businesses located south, east and west of the Gateway Redevelopment Project. The public interest and necessity does not require massive traffic jams in order to accommodate the exigencies of the redeveloper and the Agency. C. The Poletti Trust Property Ts Not Necessary For The Pro~ect. For the reasons stated under headings A and B, above, the Poletti Trust real property is not necessary for the Project. D. There Does Not ~.xist An 'Approved Appraisal' W~th Respect To The Lands Of The Poletti Trust. The appraiser for the Redevelopment Agency incorrectly assumed that PG&E was the owner of Acquisition Parcel 2 which contains approximately 1.461 acres. Parcel 2 is a fully improved piece of real property that has been filled, culverted, paved, striped, landscaped, improved with parking lot lights, and fenced. It is presently leased for $.12 a square foot. However, Parcel 2 has been incorrectly appraised as part of a larger parcel of land owned by PG&E containing 7 acres, which larger parcel can be considered undeveloped swamp land requiring 8 or 10 feet of fill. The vice of the Agency's appraisal theory of evaluating Parcel 2 as part of a larger undeveloped piece of real property owned by PG&E is to reduce the overall average price of Parcel 2. Such appraisal theory is incorrect. The proper method of appraisal is to appraise Parcel 2 either as a separate and distinct parcel owned by the Poletti Trust or as part of a larger parcel or parcels owned by the Poletti Trust, whichever theory will give Parcel 2 its highest price in terms of fair market value. (People v. Silveira, 236 C.A.2d 604, at 616} As regards Acquisition Parcel 4, the Agency appraiser must have assumed that Parcel 4 was unuseable and land-locked. Such is not the case. Parcel 4 contains 5771 square feet. The Agency has offered $1,000 for Parcel 4, or approximately $.17 per square foot, for the full fee value. 8/28/85 Pa~ 5c City Council Redevelopment Agency August 28, i985 Page 4 A portion of.Parcel 4 is presently rented at $.12 a square foot per month. Such appraisa! is insulting. The undersigned' contends that the RedeVelopment Agencyts appraisal is not a bona fide approved appraisal, in -that it is predicated upon improper assumptions as regards ownership; it incorrectly assumes that Parcel 2 is part of a larger parcel of real property owned by PG&E; and it fails to consider the income approach as regards fair market value. Finally, the appraisal of acquisition Parcels 2 and 4 are inconsistent with the Agencyts appraisal of PG&E Acquisition Parcel No. 1 containing 1.082 acres or 47,262 " square feet. Eo The Redevelopment Agency Has Not F-rnishe~ ThQ Trustee~ Of The Poletti Trust With A R-mmar¥ Of The App~ove~- Appraisa.]. Aside from the fact that the Agency's 'approved appraisal' is predicated upon improper assumptions, the purported appraisal summary is not a summary of the basis for the amount it established as just compensation. It cannot be ascertained if acquisition Parcels 1, 2 and 4 were appraised as separate and distinct parcels or were appraised as part of a larger parcel or parcels owned by the Poletti Trust. It cannot be asoertained whether the 6 remainders have been diminished in value as a result of severing the part from the whole. It cannot be ascertained what value, if any, the appraiser had on the subject property in the before con~it~on. It cannot be ascertained what value, if any, the appraiser fixed as the fair market value of Acquisition Parcels 1, 2 and 4. It cannot be ascertained what value, if any, the appraiser placed upon the 6 remainders in the after condition. There is no summary of any comparable sales or mention of any sales, or range of comparable sales the appraiser considered in arriving at his 'opinion of value". In a word, the purported "~ummar¥ of the ~si- o~ the Appraisal' is merely a lump sum offer to purchase the aforementioned acquisition parcels. For the reasons set forth under headings D and E, above, the undersigned contends that the Redevelopment Agency has violated the provisions of Government Code Section 7267.2. 8/~8/8§ Page 5d I City Council .Redevelopment Agency August 28, 1985 Page 5 It is respectfully requested that this letter be made part of the record at the public hearing Respectfully submitted, - C A-.torney for the Poletti Trust JJL~Jaa 8~28~85 Page 5e AGENDA AC1 .ON TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMNISTRATION 9. Staff Report 8/28/85 - Continued. would take place in a Joint Closed Session with the Redevelopment Agency. City of South San Francisco (Pacific Gas & Electric Company). Mayor Haffey asked those wishing to speak either for or against this matter to step 1) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND to the dais - no one chose to speak. AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "JOINT M/S Addiego/Damonte - To adopt the POWERS AGREEMENT" BETWEEN THE Resolution on the Joint Powers Agreement. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF RESOLUTION NO. 183-85 THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Carried by unanimous voice vote. 2) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH M/S Teglia/Addiego - To adopt the SAN FRANCISCO AND THE Resolution on the Southern Pacific Land REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE Company property. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO (SOUTHERN PACIFIC LAND COMPANY) RESOLUTION NO. 184-85 3) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY Carried by unanimous voice vote. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE M/S Teglia/Addiego - To adopt the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE Resoltuion on the Budget CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Rent-a-Car/Traverse Corporation property. (BUDGET RENT-A-CAR/TRAVERSE CORPORATION) RESOLUTION NO. 185-85 4) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY Carried by unanimous voice vote. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH- SAN FRANCISCO AND THE M/S Teglia/Addiego - To adopt the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE Resolution on Poletti Trust Properties. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO (POLETTI TRUST PROPERTIES) RESOLUTION NO. 186-85 5) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY Carried by unanimous voice vote. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE M/S Teglia/Addiego - To adopt the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE Resolution on Poletti Trust Properties. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO (POLETTI TRUST PROPERTIES) RESOLUTION NO. 187-85 6) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY Carried by unanimous voice vote. COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE M/S Teglia/Addiego - To adopt the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE Resolution on Poletti Trust Properties. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO (POLETTI TRUST PROPERTIES) RESOLUTION NO. 188-85 7) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY Carried by unanimous voice vote. ~/28/~5 age b AGENDA AC'' ON TAKEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ADMNISTRATION 9. Staff Report 8/28/85 - Continued. M/S Teglia/Addiego - To adopt the Resolution on Pacific Gas & Electric COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH Company property. SAN FRANCISCO AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 189-85 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO (PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY Carried by unanimous voice vote. RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES 10. Public Hearing - 1985-86 Community Director of Recreation and Community Development Block Grant Budget - Development Norton stated that the continued from 8/14/85 and the requested action was to adopt the final 8/21/85 meetings, statement and proposed use of funds so that it could be submitted to the Federal Staff Report 8/21/85 recommending: Government. He stated that the budget 1) Continue the Public Hearing and remained the same and that the shared hear testimony; 2) Close the housing project would contain a general Public Hearing; 3) Adoption of a title, and that Staff would investigate Resolution authorizing the submittal ways of administering the program of the Final Statement of in-house. Objectives and Projected Use of Community Block Grant Funds for Mayor Halley closed the Public Hearing. Fiscal Year 1985-86. Discussion followed concerning costs A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SUB- administering the program; that there~ MITTAL OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF a current federal regulation indicating OBJECTIVES AND PROJECTED USE OF that the administration costs associated COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FOR with the program must be within the FISCAL YEAR 1985-86 program; that $15,000 of the $90,000 of the housing rehabilitation funds were for administration; etc. Vice Mayor Teglia expressed concern that $15,000 of the $90,000 would be used for administrative fees and that the costs for administering the program should come out of the $103,000 for administration. An in-depth discussion followed con- cerning the transferring of funds from the administration program to the rehabi- litation program; that the transfer of funds would have no effect on the program; impact on city funds; that there was a flexibility to move funds around if they did not exceed $50,000, otherwise it would require a public hearing, etc. Mayor Haffey closed the Public Hearing 8/28/85 Page 7 AGENDA ACi ,ON TAKEN RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES 10. Public Hearing - Continued. M/S Damonte/Addiego - To adopt the Resolution.. RESOLUTION NO. 190-85 Carried by unanimous voice vote. TECHNICAL AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES TECHNICAL AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES 11. Hearing - Show Cause Hearing City Manager Birkelo stated that the regarding violations of Chapters owners of the property Harmonious 14.04 and 14.08 of the South San Holdings had indicated that that they had Francisco Municipal Code occurring approval from the County Health at 1410 E1 Camino Real South San Department to put in a new septic tank Francisco, California - continued system at that location. He stated that from 5/8/85, 5/13/85, 5/22/85 and the firm had indicated today that they 6/12/85, 6/26/85, 7/10/85 and intend to enter into an agreement for 8/14/85 meetings, that on the 7th of September and hope- fully have the work completed by the end ITEMS FROM STAFF of September. He recommended that the hearing be held open until the work is ........ ITEMS FROM COUNCIL complete and continue the hearing until the first meeting in November. Councilman Addiego questioned the suita- bility of this type of a system within the City limits. City Manager Birkelo stated that the pro- perty had been through the testing program with the County and the soils were adequate and the County felt that it was a remedial step to be taken, and the City did not see the availability of a sewer system there for at least two years. Discussion followed: that under existing ordinance the City can force hook ups to the City's sewer system; and that if a sewer is available within a certain distance of one's property then a connec- tion had to be made; that there was a exception found in the plumbing code, but it did not talk in terms of distance from a sewer system; that once a sewer system becomes available the City can order hook ups; conflicting ordinances between the Municipal Code and the Plumbing Code; to continue the hearing to 11/13/85. 8/28/85 Page 8 I AGENDA AC ~ I ON TAKEN ITEMS FROM COUNCIL ITEMS FROM COUNCIL 12. Consideration of Civic Center City Manager Birkelo stated that at the Renovation Project Amendments - last meeting the Council had had dif- continued from 8/21/85. ferences of opinion as to whether or not of the balustrade, cupola, painting and further work in the manager's office area and the conference room. He stated that he was looking for direction. Mayor Haffey stated that that there was a split in the Council and some members wished to move forward and others did not. He stated that he felt that at this point there were too many capital improvements and other priorities and {R~ ~r~e~sW~t~ ~n~u~ng ~i~ ~e. ment budgets and held off Concurrence of Council - To have this matter considered during the 1986-87 Capital Improvement Budget. Mayor Haffey stated that he had receiv a request from a member of the Personn Board for a joint meeting of the Board and the Council. He requested that City Manager Birkelo put this item on Council's calendar in the near future. GOOD AND WELFARE GOOD AND WELFARE Mr. Frank Conrad, 536 Grand Ave., expressed concern over parking on sidewalks, driveways, as well as cars parked for long periods of time on the street. He requested better control from the Police Department in enforcing parking regulations in the area. Councilman Addiego stated that the parking on the 500 block of Grand was impacted by the downtown area and suggested that the downtown parking enforcement be extended to the 500 block. Discussion followed: that the police were dealing with the problem; that daily recordings were being made of every e~ t taking place by patrol cars; that the 8/28/85 Page 9 '' AGENDA AC', ,ON TAKEN GOOD AND WELFARE GOOD AND WELFARE Police Chief would forward the report to the Council and Mr. Conrad; the burden being on the Police to prove over parking and the resultant towing; the car behind Wardrobe Cleaners that had been parked there since 7/1/85. 13. Closed Session for the purpose of Council adjourned to a joint Closed the discussion of personnel mat- Session at 9:00 p.m., with the ters, labor relations and Redevelopment Agency to confer with the litigation. Agency's Attorney regarding the procedure as, to whether to initiate eminent domain litigation concerning property located in the general area of East Grant Avenue, South Airport Blvd. and Mitchell Avenue for the Gateway Extension Project on the following properties: 1) Poletti's Trust, Assessor's Parcel No. 15-12-62, northwest corner of Mitchell & West Harris; 2) Poletti Trust, Mitchell Avenue at South Airport Boulevard; 3) Budget Rent-A-Car, Assessor's Parcel No. 15-121-02, 7 South Airport Boulevard; 4) Poletti's Trust, Assessor's Parcel No. 15-123-54; 5) Southern Pacific Railroad Company, a 1.197 acre parcel off East Grand Avenue which is a part of a larger Southern Pacific ownership; and 6) Pacific Gas & Electric property located directly on East Grand Avenue near Highway 101. RECALL TO ORDER: Mayor Haffey recalled the meeting to order at 9:40 p.m., all Council present, no action taken. M/S Addiego/Teglia - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. ADJOURNMENT Time of adjournment was 9:41 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, APPROVED: Battaya, City Cler Richard A. Haffey, Mayor City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco AGENDA AC ION TAKEN The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispos~ ~f an item. Oral communications, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape , I documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for inspection, review and copying. 8/28/85 Page 11