Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Minutes 1993-05-12 Chairwoman Roberta Cerri Teglia M I N U T E S Boardmembers: Jack Drago Redevelopment Agency Ioseph A. Fernekes lohn R. Penna Municipal Services Building Robert Yee Community Room May 12, 1993 AGENDA A C!IQ_N TA'KEN CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) 7:12 p.m. Chairwoman Teglia presiding. ROLL CALL: Boardmembers present: Drago, Fernekes, Yee, and Teglia. Boardmembers absent: Penna. AGENDA REVIEW AGENDA REVIEW Interim Executive Director Martel stated there were no changes to the Agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR Motion to approve Minutes of the Regular Meting of Approved. 4/28/93. 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of 5/12/93. 5~D3 Approved in the amount of $412,293.74. M/S Drago/Yee - To approve the Consent Calendar. Carried by unanimous voice vote. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 3. Resolution adopting Rules for Business Tenant Pref- Councilman Penna arrived at the meeting at 7:16 erence and Owner Participation for the El Camino p.m. and due to a conflict of interest did not take Corridor Redevelopment Project Area and transmit- part in the discussion nor vote on this item. ting rules to the City Council. Interim Director of Economic & Community A RESOLUTION ADOPTING RULES FOR BUSI- Development Solomon stated that this item was NESS TENANT PREFERENCE AND OWNER carried over from 4/14/93 to respond to concerns PARTICIPATION AND AUTHORIZING TRANS- raised at that meeting. He briefly reviewed the rules MITTAL OF SAME TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF that had two scenarios, master developer assembles THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO several parcels into one unified development, and one where individual parcels are redevel- -- oped by the existing owner. 5/12/93 Page 1 I II AGENDA ACTION TAKEN ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Resolution - Continued. He stated that under the master developer option the concern was that the owner could not develop his property, when in fact he would be welcome to submit master development proposals and the Agen- cy can select an owner for the master developer. He described Rule III.B.5 which gives the Agency the option of acquiring a parcel only if and when an owner fails to fulfill certain obligations which was an area of concern. He stated that staff had indicat- ed that the owner was free to develop the parcel, that the City and the Agency are not assisting BART with the station, and owners are free to come in and develop their parcel and the City would not inhibit that. Chairwoman Teglia stated that there were three members of the Board with potential conflicts of interest either through business or through their personal residences. She stated that through a spe- cial authorization from the State through the City Attorney each of them can act on a certain item on this project, and Boardmember Drago will be the member acting with the conflict in order to effect a quorum. Mr. Lou Dell'Angela, 460 Gardenside, stated that the Board had to make findings of consistency with the General Plan for this redevelopment plan. He stated that if you can't make those timings then the plan is not in compliance, and the owner is put into a position to sign an owner participation agreement or lose his rights under the plan. He stated that it struck him that this was an arbitrary decision for any property owner in the whole project even though the staff report calls it a tool that can be used in an agreeable way or in a severe way. He stated that it also says its a guideline that has to be followed. He related that he had asked Mr. Solomon what the purpose was and he had said it was a boiler plate used in all redevelopment plans, however, it was not in the Gateway or the Shearwater or the Downtown Plan - so, it was not a boiler plate. He stated that he was concerned for his Client's property because it puts it in a bad position and 5/12/93 Page 2 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN . 'Z08 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Resolution - Continued. creates an arbitrary situation that could work against certain property owners. He stated that his Client did know that the property is necessary for the BART facility and was saying to the City - if you need my property buy it because he is not going to sit on this for two or three years. He questioned how they could make this happen: 1) you can look at the funds and lend money to this particular property and credit the expense for undergrounding BART; 2) take a look and decide that maybe a BART station is not a good idea and maybe the impacts are so severe that a Tanforan station is sufficient; 3) to develop the project as a condominium project opposite Holly if he comes in asking that it be approved, and you say so for the record and staff says there is no violation with the General Plan. He stated that this would give the people an air of confidence, but if you can't say that then you have all the rights to develop. He asked the Agency to make that finding so if someone comes in and proposes a commercial build- ing they know it will be approved. Karen Tiedemann, Atty., stated that Mr. Dell'Angela was correct, this does not give any guaranty that they can develop their property, but these rules are a tool and it is up to the Agency to decide whether they were going to use the master developer or not. She stated that if the Agency chose to give owners preference they could do that and at the time you go out you can establish the criteria. She refuted Mr. Dell'Angela concern on the issue that if they want to develop the property they have to enter into an agreement. She stated: that it is up to the Agency - if you are not satisfied with the development you don't have to do it; cautioned the Agency against using other funds to buy properties because they have to make a finding that it is for the area; that the BART station is a policy statement for the Agency; the Agency could not give a blanket guaranty to a project because there are some things inconsistent with the General Plan which could not be allowed - such as zoning. 5/12/93 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION T A.KE N ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Resolution - Continued. Boardmember Drago questioned if Mr. Dell'Angelo's Client had a plan to submit to the City. Mr. Dell'Angela stated that he was considering one that is a condo project similar to the one on Mission and Holly, and the Attorney says it has to comply with the zoning, and he agreed. He stated that if the project met the criteria of the heights, zoning and the like would the Council and staff make a finding of compliance with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that one of those findings was to build a BART station, as well as its being underground, and he wondered if they could make that finding. He stated that if they could not make the finding in compliance -- you are saying we can't develop it. If you are saying we can do it, then say so for the record if all the other zoning is met as required. Economic & Community Development Coordinator McCue stated that the redevelopment area was being formed for BART to facilitate the station and solely addresses subwaying the line. She stated that if the City did not meet their agreement the plan falls away -- so we don't control the placement of the station. Boardmember Drago stated that BART had agreed to this plan and we have been given the time to come up with the redevelopment plan for financing. He stated that he was not worried because the City was paying for the undergrounding. He stated that if the developer had a plan right now we could make a decision, but five or ten years from now it may not comply. Counsel O'Toole stated that the Agency had no right to give blanket approval. Discussion followed: whether any development on that project could be determined to be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Plan; the Agency ...... could not make that determination until they look at the plan and look at the guidelines; then the whole idea of developing is meaningless; that a good rea- son had been offered on why the master developer was put into the plan; staff did not know if that 5/12/93 Page 4 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN . ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Resolution - Continued. provision had been put in other redevelopment plans; whether this j~opardized the Plan; it does not specifically jeopardize the integrity of the Plan, but the Attorney would have to look at the law if they had to take it back; it could be changed at a later date; that rule could be there and not be used other than with discretion; Councilman Yee did not see a disadvantage in having the provision in there from the Agency's point of view or from a property point of view; what was the difference in a single development or a master development; he felt that if the developer comes in with a plan and meets the Plan and requirements - why can't you answer the question; Mr. Dell'Angela had problems with the way the general plan was being drafted so as to pro- vide the same degree of property rights as there were today; Planning could not prejudge a project they had not seen; Mr. Dell'Angela felt you could accomplish the same thing as master development through eminent domain; that bringing forward plans cost money which could be rejected in a year; he felt the City had an inverse condemnation problem here that could be worked out; Councilman Drago questioned what would happen if the needed revenue fails to materialize; then the station is still there and the parking, and the cloud hangs over the property that doesn't change, etc. M/S Drago/Yee - To adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 11-93 Carried by majority voice vote Boardmembers Penna and Teglia abstained. GOOD AND WELFARE GOOD AND WELFARE No one chose to speak. CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION 4. Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of The Council chose not to hold a Closed Session. personnel matters, labor relations, property negotia- tions. M/S Fernekes/Drago - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. 5/12/93 Page 5 I ADJOURNMENT: I Time of adjournment was 7:55 p.m. ESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, APPROVED. Roberta L%rri Teglia, Ctr~woman Barbara A. Battaya, Clerk (../ ~/RedeR°b~velopment Agency ~fi~woman Redevelopment Agency 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. 5/12/93 Page 6 I II