Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Minutes 1988-04-13 Chairman Jack Drago M I N U T E S Boardmembers: Mark N. Addiego Redevelopment Agency Ri chard A. Halley Gus Nicolopulos Municipal Services Building Roberta Cerri Teglia Community Room April 13, 1988 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) 7:10 p.m. Chairman Pro Tem Teglia presiding. ROLL CALL: Boardmembers present: Addiego, Haffey, Nicolopulos, and Teglia. Boardmembers absent: Drago. City Clerk Battaya stated that Chairman Drago's wife had contacted her Office to relate that he was ill and unable to attend tonight's meeting. AGENDA REVIEW AGENDA REVIEW Executive Director Lewis stated that he had nothing to add or delete from the Agenda. AGENDA AGENDA 1. Approval of the Minutes of the M/S Nicolopulos/Addiego - To approve the Regular Meeting of 3/23/88. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 3/23/88. Boardmember Nicolopulos requested that the spelling of City Planner Christians name be corrected on page 5. Carried by unanimous voice vote. 2. Approval of the Regular Bills of M/S Addiego/Nicolopulos - To approve the 4/13/88 in the amount of $20,257.74. Regular Bills of 4/13/88 in the amount of $20,257.74. Carried by unanimous voice vote. 3. Staff Report 3/23/88 recommending Assistant Director/Secretary Smith stated adoption of a Resolution receiving that this item had been continued from the Preliminary Plan for the South the 3/23/88 meeting and proceeded to San Francisco Downtown Redevelopment describe the following: boundaries - _ Project, as well as other related approximately 550 acres; Subareas 1-6; actions to be taken - continued from six reasons for the exclusion of various the 3/23/88 meeting, areas; primary objectives of the project; A RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE 4/13/88 Page I AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ~- 3. Staff Report - Continued. that the proposed uses, such as street layouts and densities, would be con- PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE SOUTH SAN sistent with the General Plan; California FRANCISCO-DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT Community Redevelopment Law as related to PROJECT, ESTABLISHING THE PROJECT the Project; citizen participation; BASE YEAR ASSESSMENT ROLL, Project improvements; funding; redevelop- AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE FILING ment process; consultant costs, etc. (A OF INFORMATION REQUIRED BY SECTIONS copy of the staff report was read aloud 33327 AND 33328 OF THE COMMUNITY and is on permanent file in the City REDEVELOPMENT LAW, AND AUTHORIZING Clerk's Office.) PAYMENT OF A FILING FEE TO THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION She stated that three letters had been received from Mr. Dell'Angela raising questions on various items in the pro- ject, which staff had answered. Chairman Pro Tem Teglia stated that there was a fourth letter from Mr. Dell'Angela, dated 4/11/88 to the Agency, which would be incorporated as documents in the proceedings. She stated that there were approximately 328 individual ownerships within the area covered in the project. Councilman Nicolopulos tried to clarify the actions to be taken by the Agency, and reiterated the recommendations on the agenda. He asked that all comments be directed to those Agency actions to be taken. Councilman Haffey stated that the response by staff to Mr. Dell'Angela's letters should also be incorporated into the documents of the proceedings. Mr. Frank Strazzarino, Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber and its Legislative Committee had had the oppor- tunity to review the Project, and had provided information to their membership. He stated that the Chamber was in favor of redeveloping this area. He stated that various concerns had been addressed in meetings with staff, and the Chamber had been assured it would be included in the process as the project progresses. He applauded staff for the efforts made to keep the Chamber apprised. 4/13/88 Page 2 I I AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Staff Report - Continued. He spoke of the letter received today from Mr. Dell'Angela, that made mention of secrecy and half truths which seemed to surround community development, however, the Chamber had always had full cooperation from staff on all requests for documents and information. Mr. John Penna, President of the Downtown Merchants Assn., stated that City staff had attended Merchants meetings and had provided detailed information on the Project, and as a result no one had expressed opposition to the Project. He stated that he had been notified on three separate occasions of City meetings on the Project as a property owner, and commended staff for the public notifica- tion. Mr. Dell'Angela, 460 Gardenside Ave., chronicled some of the concerns in his letters: boundaries included in the pro- ject area; that a good part of the pro- posed redevelopment area was not blighted; whether an attorney or someone familiar with redevelopment had examined the sites, and whether they could assure the Council that the areas comply with the blight standards in State Code; the County Manager issue relative to the holding back of any tax increments would have major ramifications in terms of this particular project, etc. He stated that if the City did not get a great advantage financially, in terms of tax increments, in that the County with- holds a lot of the revenue and the City may have to use General Revenue Funds because of it. He stated that he was still of the opin- ion that the South Produce area, in terms of the commercial parking lot and produce market, were not blighted areas and were not in the survey area. He stated that his main issue was that no one had taken the time to go through and explain why each of these areas were being proposed as redevelopment areas, etc. 4/13/88 Page 3 A G E N D A A C T I 0 N T A K E N {~, -,. 3. Staff Report - Continued. Chairwoman Pro Tem Teglia requested that staff respond to Mr. Dell'Angela's concerns. Executive Director Lewis responded: that it was clear that the areas incorporated into the proposed project were in accor- dance with the guidelines of State Law; that it was premature at this time for the Agency to delete properties without having the preliminary plan completed; that the Agency would have the ability to delete properties through the development of the preliminary plan, and determine they do not meet the requirements - were not sufficiently blighted to be included in the plan. Senior Planner Christians stated that staff and the consultant had toured the survey area over a year ago through the proposed boundaries, and were convinced that the area is blighted and met redeve- lopment criteria in State Law. He stated that at this time it would be premature ..... to have the Agency delete property before the formal report that would analyze the blighted condition of the project area is completed. He stated that the report would take nine months, and the Agency could delete properties up until the adoption of the project. He proceeded to describe in detail the process of selecting the project area as a blighted area. Discussion followed: that Serra Point was already in a redevelopment area; that American Can Co. and the Price Club were supportive of the project; Chairwoman Pro Tem Teglia questioned if any of the pro- perty owners in the project area were present or were former clients of Mr. Dell'Angela. Mr. Dell'Angela stated that Park'N'Fly was one of his clients who had questioned their property being included in the redevelopment area as a parking lot that was not blighted. He stated that he had been requested to seek information from 4/13/88 Page 4 I AGENDA ACTZON TAKEN Staff Report - Continued. the City and posed the question at a Planning Commission meeting. He stated that he had received a general and nebu- lous answer, to the effect that the area was blighted. He stated that his understanding was that a survey area had been designated; the City had looked at some projects that potentially were blighted; that the area should then be pared down to the survey area - down to a project area for precise boundaries. He stated that the deter- mination in terms of blight was to be done between the time the survey area was designated and tonight. He stated that the Agency should be convinced as to whether the properties are or are not blighted. Boardmember Addiego commented on the contradiction between Mr. Dell'Angela and the City Planner, on whether the Council had to act on the boundaries tonight or whether the Agency was still in the exploratory process. He questioned what would happen if the Agency culled out certain properties tonight. City Planner Christians stated that if the Agency culled out properties tonight, it could not add them back in without starting over again with the preliminary process. Discussion followed: that every property within an area need not be blighted to be included; that the property owners should be included in discussions of the project area and a group formed; that Mr. Dell'Angela was dissatisfied with the process followed for notification to affected property owners; that Chairman Pro Tem Teglia was satisfied with the notification process; Boardmember Nicolopulos gave a dissertation on faith, understanding, and trust for Mr. Dell'Angela's benefit; Mr. Dell'Angela felt that Government should be an open process that would survive public scru- tiny, and that people should be involved in the process from the beginning - not at the end, etc. 4/13/88 Page 5 I AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 3. Staff Report - Continued. M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adopt the Resol uti on. RESOLUTION NO. 8-88 Carried by unanimous voice vote. GOOD AND WELFARE GOOD AND WELFARE No one chose to speak. CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION 4. Closed Session for the purpose of The Agency chose not to hold a Closed the discussion of personnel Session. matters, labor relations, property negotiations and litigation. M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. ADJOURNMENT: Time of adjournment was 7:47 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, APPROVED. Barbara A. Battaya, Cleg~( Jack Drago, Chaffrman Redevelopment Agency Redevelopment ~(gency City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco The entries of this Agency meeting show the action taken by the Redevelopment Agency to dispose of an item. Oral communications, 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. 4/13/88 Page 6