Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Minutes 1990-12-12Chairman Richard A. Haffey M I N U T E S Boardmembers: Jack Drago Redevelopment Agency Gus Nicolopulos John R. Penna Municipal Services Building Roberta Cerri Teglia Community Room December 12, 1990 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) 7:24 p.m. Chairman Haffey presiding. ROLL CALL: Boardmembers present: Drago, Nicolopulos, Penna, Teglia and Haffey. Boardmembers absent: None. Reorganization of the Redevelopment ~o~ M/S Teglia/Penna - To appoint Jack Drago Agency by the selection of a new as Chairman, and Gus Nicolopulos as the Chairman and Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman. Carried by unanimous voice vote. AGENDA REVIEW AGENDA REVIEW Executive Director Armas stated there were no changes to the Agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 11/28/90. So ordered. 2. Motion to confirm expense claims Confirmed in the amount of $1,531.82. of 12/12/90. 3.Motion to cancel the regular meeting of 12/26/90. M/S Teglia/Penna - To approve the Consent Calendar. Carried by unanimous voice vote. RECESS: Chairman Drago recessed the meeting until after the regular City Council meeting at 7:25 p.m. 12/12/90 Page I AGENDA ACTION TAKEN "'RECALL TO ORDER: Mayor Drago recalled the meeting to order at 10:10 p.m., all Council present, no action taken. Councilman Penna stated that he had only listened and had not discussed or par- ticipated in the Shearwater items. Councilman Haffey stated that apparently there was a FPPC ruling wherein Councilman Penna can not vote on this and must step down on items on which he will abstain. City Attorney Armento stated that the Council Handbook provided that when someone was abstaining, they will absent themselves from the dais. Councilman Penna stepped down from the Councilman Penna stepped down from the podium, podium at 10:12 p.m. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING RECONVENED: Chairman Drago reconvened the Redevelopment Agency meeting at 10:12 p.m. to handle the two Shearwater items. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Motion to consider a request to ~ Director of Economic & Community grant a 15 month time extension to Development Costello stated that the 3/31/92 for submittal of precise Mainspring Corp. had asked for a stay of plan for Phase I of Shearwater, and expiration which State Law allowed when for all other items that may expire projects were involved in litigation. in the interim. (REDEVELOPMENT ITEM) She stated that staff was recommending that the item be continued to 1/9/91. 13. Motion to consider a request to grant a 15 month time extension M/S Haffey/Teglia - To continue the to 1/9/91 for the Shearwater precise plan of Phase I of Shearwater to Tentative Subdivision Map SA-87-91. 1/9/91. (CITY COUNCIL ITEM) M/S Haffey/Teglia - To continue the Shearwater Subdivision Map SA-87-91 to 1/9/91. Mr. Cannizzaro stated that he and his Client's Counsel had a significant problem with the Motion which would ter- minate the tentative map. He stated that they had started with the premise that the tentative map should 12/12/90 Page 2 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ---ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Motion - Continued. be stayed for the length of time of the lawsuit which was placed between the City 13. Motion - Continued. and the Airport, and the request had been for 15 months to get everything fixed on the project. He stated that extension of the tentative map was controlled by State Law, and without that extension, because of the lawsuit, the defec- tiveness of the tentative map may in fact be jeopardized by the Motion. He requested that the Council not proceed with that Motion, in fact, extend the Tentative map for the 15 months even though he realized that staff was only recommending the month extension which they were not necessarily in favor of, but felt that would be better than con- tinuing the issue. Mayor Drago requested a clarification from the City Attorney. City Attorney Armento stated that she believed that whether or not the Council gave a one month extension to 1/9/91 or simply continued the matter to 1/9/91 that the map would be alive and still be considered a valid map. She stated that she did not believe there was a substan- tial difference between the two because the statute under which they made the request requires the Council act within 40 days of the request that is attached to the staff report and the date is 12/7/90, and 1/9/91 would be within 40 days. She stated that actually the sta- tutory section says within 40 days after receiving the application, so she thought there was plenty of time to deal with it on the 9th. She continued, on the other hand, if it would give a greater comfort level to the applicant she was not sure that there was a substantial difference in granting a one month extension and continuing it. Councilman Haffey stated that based on --- the Attorney's opinion that there was no substantial difference - he would like to 12/12/90 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Motion - Continued. call for the question. 13. Motion - Continued. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned if staff had received anything from the Developer requesting the 15 month extension. City Manager Armas stated that attached to the staff report was a letter dated 12/7/90 from the applicant seeking the 15 month extension. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned the reason for the extension. City Manager Armas stated that the appli- cant had indicated that under State Law there was a provision that allows a map to be extended beyond its normal life if during the course of the life of the map there was litigation involved -- which there was in relation to Shearwater. He continued, consequently the applicant used that as the basis for the request for extension of 15 months. He stated that there had been correspondence in the past with the applicant preceding the 12/7/90 date, and had responded in posing a series of questions that in his view necessitated that they positively respond as well. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned if the 40 day period mentioned by the Attorney was equally understood by the applicant or was there some discrepancy as to when the 40 day starts, and ends. City Attorney Armento stated that if one looked at page 3 of the letter that was attached to the staff report the Council would see in the center of the page the summary or actual quotation of the provi- sion of the California Government Code. She stated that the last sentence says within 40 days of receiving the applica- tion the local agency shall either stay the time period for up to five years or 12/12/90 Page 4 GENDA ACTION TAKEN ~DMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Motion - Continued. deny the requested stay. She stated that the Developer read the sentence in the 13. Motion - Continued. same way that she did, however, they may differ in the application of that sentence. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned if the Developer agreed with the City Attorney's interpretation. Mr. Cannizzaro stated that they would like to interpret it the same way as the City Attorney does - we think that inter- pretation is arguable. He continued, it is that concern, that in the course of trying to put this project together some of the adversaries of the project will be looking for reasons that the project should not go forward; and in the absence of a conservative approach, i.e., to definately extend the tentative map it may be arguable that interpretation that the City Attorney has given would be not sustained in a Court action, and it is on that premise that we request that a con- tinuation action not be taken and we rely on the strength of the interpretation that the City Attorney gave in response to the question Councilman Haffey raised that in either case there would be no substantial difference as far as action by the City that is to extend the map or continue it. He thought that a con- tinuation action was a dangerous action in case somebody would want to find reason why the project should not go for- ward, and it is on that basis that we are asking. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that there was a difference and there was jeopardy in Mr. Cannizzaro's mind if not jeopardy in the Council's mind, and going on with the assumption what assumption, what extension - not fifteen months, but what extension on this thing assures Mr. Cannizzaro to get that clarification. Mr. Cannizzaro felt that the original 12/12/90 Page 5 A G E N D A A C T I 0 N T A K E N ty "-'ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Motion - Continued. recommendation by staff -- at least the recommendation set forth in a memo to 13. Motion - Continued. Council - one that would give them some degree of comfort -- at least it is a definite action to extend to January 9th. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that the 9th gave the applicant some assurance that may be able to determine the correc- tive description by someone. Mr. Cannizzaro stated that was not the point, the point was -- we are of the impression after the other things involved have that need to be worked out, and we think extension of the tentative map until January 9th, will allow these other things to be worked out, but the important thing is - the action that is necessary to give us comfort and not jeopardize the project would be to extend the tentative map as opposed to a continuance. He stated that he was assuming, based on conversations with the City Manager, that the difficulties that have arisen con- cerning the project can be worked out by 1/9/91, and we are reluctantly agreeing to proceed on that basis, etc. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned the rationale in why the City Manager had not recommended the 15 month extension. City Manager Armas felt there was a series of issues that need some signifi- cant exploration, and given the time period in which we are in he would think those could take place; and consequently it was his view that could occur over the next month or so, and that was why he had selected this initial period in the recommendation wherein the Council could decide on 1/9/91. He stated that the debate between Councilman Nicolopulos and the applicant centered on the level of comfort or risk on extensions vs. con- tinuances and centers on their assessment 12/12/90 Page 6 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ~DMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Motion - Continued. that the 40 day clock starts ticking earlier than we believe it does. 13. Motion - Continued. Councilman Nicolopulos questioned if the City could have given the final map approval during the time the lawsuit bet- ween the City and the Airport was in place. City Attorney Armento responded, yes, it could. Councilman Nicolopulos further questioned, and is so, could the City have sold bonds for an assessment district that the Council approved during that time. City Attorney responded, yes. Councilman Nicolopulos continued his questioning, if an item was on the Redevelopment Agenda also and if this expires, it is all gone and the applicant has to start from scratch again. City Manager Armas stated that the pri- mary issue was the tentative map that the Council was acting on now, and the Redevelopment Agency item followed but was not critical. He stated that the critical part was the map that the Council would act on. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that he was confused -- he thought the request was predicated on the Redevelopment precise plan which was in jeopardy now, and questioned why the stay of the tentative map had been included. City Manager Armas stated that when the Council acted on the Shearwater as the Council and as the Agency there was a need for extensions for both, and he proceeded to explain State Law. He stated that if the map was not recorded, then the precise plan becomes mute, and another application would have to be 12/12/90 Page 7 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ..... ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Motion - Continued. submitted. 13. Motion - Continued. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that the deadline was on 12/31/90, and he questioned what the Council could do to give assurance to the applicant that the project would be alive. City Manager Armas stated that the City Attorney advised that in her opinion, continuing this matter to January 9th preserved that opportunity, and the appli- cant has indicated that he believes that in handling it in that fashion a continuance will expose them to some risk at some future date and people would question on technicality the fact that the map remains alive during the interim period. Mayor Drago stated that there was a Motion and a Second on the floor right now to continue the item to 1/9/91. Councilman Niciolopulos questioned if any effort had been made by staff to alter the provisions of that map. City Attorney Armento stated that the tentative subdivision map had been awaiting the Developer's filing the final subdivision map -- which had not been filed, and that was what staff had been awaiting. She stated that at this stage there are no changes that anyone proposed to the tentative map, and the idea was that they would file the final map and people would check and see if the final map met all the conditions imposed on the tentative map, and the final map would be routinely approved as administarial action. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that there was a provision in the Shearwater plan that a conference center was included or has that been taken out of the project. City Attorney Armento stated that was 12/12/90 Page 8 "G E N D A A C T I 0 N T A K E N ~'.' :ii') ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Motion - Continued. part of the specific plan of the Municipal Code Title 2Od, and there had 13. Motion - Continued. been no discussion in regard to changing that. City Manager Armas related: Council adopted a specific plan which delineated wide uses that could take place at that site, and identified a series of parcels on which those activities could take place; subdivision map was filed; ten- tative map was approved; staff had not initiated any amendments to any of those documents; applicant had indicated an interest in submitting an application to amend the specific plan, etc. Mayor Drago stated that when they got to the Redevelopment item they could go into that. He stated that he would feel more comfortable with a continuance because if they granted an extension it would end on 1/9/91, and there was a limit to how many extensions there could be. He questioned if they could ask for another extension after five years. City Attorney Armento stated that actually the law doesn't address that, the law says they can have an extension for a period not to exceed five years, so the way in which that extension is struc- tured -- the statute is silent on that. Mayor Drago felt that with the con- tinuance the extension would take place beyond that. Mr. Cannizzaro stated that was a more risky step to take and should the project be attacked and they lose on that basis, then with the number of investments by different people and significant legal action would be required. He believed that a more conservative way of dealing with this was to agree to a stay of the extension, etc. Councilman Haffey stated that he was con- 12/12/90 Page 9 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Motion - Continued. cerned because this project had been on the drawing board for quite some time and 13. Motion - Continued. he did understand that there had been litigation, and problems with financing and partnerships. He stated that the City had waited quite some time for a development and his choice now was to allow the map to expire, which was the reason for his motion - because of the history of the project. He continued, consequently there might be a better ten- tative map, precise plan in the future. Mr. Cannizzaro stated that the lawsuit that took place in 1985 went on for a period of more than 4 years, and there is a difference of opinion with the City Attorney as to whether an assessment district could have been put in place when that only left one year to put the bonds in place. He stated that Mr. Price had told him that if the project was not approved, and we lose the ability to proceed with the tentative map, he was no longer going to try to put a project together, because the first time he had gone bankrupt because of the City's actions, and was going to hold the City responsible for any loss in value that will occur on this project because of a loss of the ten- tative map, etc. Discussion followed: that the applicant preferred a stay until 1/9/91 - not a continuance, but if it was a choice of having the map expire or a continuance he would prefer the latter; Councilman Nicolopulos wanted to be sure of what was being voted on and be able to listen to all evidence and not make an immature decision, because he didn't want to face a lawsuit again. Neil Park, Esq. stated that the word stay in statutory language was not an exten- sion of the map - was not a continuance. He stated that if the map expired it was 12/12/90 Page 10 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Motion - Continued. not a case of just applying for a new map, it was a new EIR, and back to square 13. Motion - Continued. one. Councilman Nicolopulos requested a clarification of the Motion. City Clerk Battaya reaffirmed that the Motion was to continue the item to 1/9/91. Mayor Drago stated that if the con- tinuance was not granted, then the map expires. Motions and Seconds for both items carried by majority roll call vote, Councilman Penna abstained. REDEVELOPMENT ADJOURNMENT: M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment was 10:54 p.m. 20. Motion to adjourn the meeting to M/S Haffey/Nicolopulos - To adjodurn the Wednesday, 12/19/90, at 6:45 p.m., meeting to 12/19/90 at 6:45 p.m.d, 1City City Council Conference Room, 400 Council Conference Room, City Hall, 400 Grand Ave., South San Francisco for Grand Ave., for the purposes noticed. the purpose of a study session for discussion of the following: Carried by unanimous voice vote. Conflicts of Interest; S.S.F. Local Economy; Paid and Unpaid Leave/Overtime. ADJOURNMENT Time of adjournment was 10:55 p.m. ~~RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,~~ ~~~ Bar ara A. Battaya, CleriC/ J J~ck Drago, Chairm~ City of South San Francisco ~ x//(Tity of South San Francisco The entries of this Redevelopment Agency meeting show the action taken by the City Council 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. 12/12/90 Page 11