Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Minutes 1993-05-26 Chairwoman Roberta Cerri Teglia M I N U T E S Boardmembers: Jack Drago Redevelopment Agency Joseph A. Fernekes tohn R. Penna Municipal Services Building ~,obert Yee Community Room May 26, 1993 AGENpA ACTION TAKEN 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 Mattel stated there were no changes to the Agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve Minutes of the 5/12/93 Regular Approved. Meeting. Motion to confirm expense claims of 5/26/93. ~ 5t03 Approved in the amount of $22,063.48. 3. Resolution approving the Fiscal Agreement with the Removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion S.S.F. Unified School District for the El Camino by Boardmember Drago. Corridor Redevelopment Plan, and Resolution ap- proving First Amendment to Alleviate Burden of Detriment from the S.S.F. Downtown/Central Rede- velopment Project. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A FISCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMEND- MENT TO THE FISCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND THE SOUTH SAN FRANCIS- CO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 4. Resolution approving Fiscal Agreement with San Mateo County for the El Camino Corridor Redevel- opment Plan. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 12-93 A FISCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 5/26/93 Page 1 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR M/S Fernekes/Yee - To approve the Consent Calen- dar with the exception of Item No. 3. Carried by unanimous voice vote with the exception of Item No. 4 wherein Chairwoman Teglia ab- stained. 3. Resolution approving the Fiscal Agreement with the Boardmember Drago stated that he did not feel S.S.F. Unified School District for the El Camino comfortable with the agreement with the Sch%l Corridor Redevelopment Plan, and Resolution ap- District, and felt the negotiators went too far and proving First Amendment to Alleviate Burden of committed us to too much money up front. He felt Detriment from the S.S.F. Downtown/Central Rede- this was a School District and BART problem, and velopment Project. felt someone was taking advantage of that position to take money from the Downtown/ A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF Central Redevelopment Project in order to put up A FISCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTH SAN front money for the schools. FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT He questioned why they were doing this and why the commitment. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AMEND- MENT TO THE FISCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN Interim Executive Director Martel stated that the __ THE AGENCY AND THE SOUTH SAN FRANCIS- fiscal negotiating team was given the charge of CO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT attempting to come up with an agreement with the taxing agencies relative to the identified impacts of the project areas on the taxing agencies. She stated that the project area potentially presents a problem for the School District because of the pro- posed level of density of housing and the projected increased enrollment in the local schools which they were not in a position to accept, etc. She spoke at length: utilizing vacant facilities some- where down the line when the District feels the impacts of the increased enrollment; substantial costs for capital improvements to open schools presently closed; providing additional classrooms because they are at a maximum capacity; so the agreement was reached as a means to alleviate the potential impacts by supplying money up front from the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project, etc. Boardmember Drago stated that he saw the District closing schools and selling the property, yet they ,, were getting developer fees that the State put in four or five years ago which are monies they can only use for enlarging facilities. 5/26/93 Page 2 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN · 21,4 3. Resolution - Continued. He stated that the City may not accept the 50 units and yet we have a commitment to the District based on that assumption which is putting the cart before the horse before seeing what was allowed. He stated that studies should be done on the impacts to the schools and then come back with a package, but for the tax payers to give a $1,000,000 up front at this time was to get money at the expense of the redevelopment which was trying to put money into the coffers for BART. Interim Executive Director Martel stated that while development fees would be available at such time as the development began within the project areas, but a certain amount of time was needed for the school improvements, and the District felt it could not complete the improvements if they had to wait for the development fees. Boardmember Drago commented that when the building permit was issued the District gets the money pursuant to State law, and that is based on enlarging facilities. He stated that still could not buy the agreement until that first student walks in - which would be years from now. He questioned whether the agreement could be undone if it was acted upon tonight. Mr. Jack Nagel, Special Redevelopment Counsel, stated that if the Agency executes the agreement and if the project goes forward then that would be the agreement the Agency would be bound by. He continued, if the Agency and Council determine to substantially decrease the densities, which he under- stood was one of their concerns, and still adopts the plan then the Agency would still be bound by the agreement. He stated that the negotiating team did take into account what they felt were the more likely impacts of a realistic build out of the project which does not in all cases make densities, whether you approve maximum densities or not. He stated that if they did not accept the viewpoint of the School District either as to what the total impacts would be or as to what portion of those impacts would be mitigated by impact fees and other re- sources that the District has available. He stated that instead the negotiating team conducted an indi- vidual evaluation of what they thought the realistic impacts are, which are less than the density impacts and the School District enrollment impacts that the 5/26/93 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN . 215 3_..~ Resolution - Continued. District anticipates. He stated that they had factored in other resources available to the District and the District included, so they had not worked from the District's numbers. He stated that they had respectfully agreed to disagree on some of those things, but instead negotiated a package that realis- tically reflected likely build out of the area. Boardmember Drago questioned if this agreement had to be in place tonight before we act upon the build out. Mr. Nagel stated that the purpose of acting on the fiscal agreement prior to acting on the project was to give both parties understanding or certainty of what the agreement will be if you ultimately adopt the plan. He stated that it was necessary for the Agency to adopt whatever agreement it felt was fair before they adopted the ordinance for the redevelopment plan that includes a finding on your part that there will be no unmitigated financial burden or no detri- ment to the District or any other taxing agency. He stated that in order to make that finding they would have to make in their best judgment, was a proposal for payments or other mitigation that in your judgment mitigates what you think the impacts are. Councilman Yee questioned, at what date would this have to be in place before we jeopardize the so- called deadline. Mr. Nagel stated that the deadline in terms of the plan itself is a mid-July deadline for second reading and adoption of the ordinance which they recom- mended rather than making an urgency finding. He stated that the first reading of the ordinance would be on 6/23/93 and the second reading on 7/14/93 in order to have the public hearing closed by 6/9/93, and a period of time for staff to respond to com- ments received. Boardmember Yee questioned, what would happen if we did not get an agreement executed between the District and the City by 7/14/93. Mr. Nagel stated that if you do not have an agree- ment, if you believe there is no impact and the evidence presented says there is no impact, then you don't have to have an agreement and you find no 5/26/93 Page 4 AGENDA ACIIQ_N TAKEN ,. Z16. 3. Resolution - Continued. unmitigated financial detriment. He continued, but if you find there is some impact but that could be handled with an agreement with less payments pre- sented at this time; and you would make that finding on the level of payment prior to 7/14/93. Vice Chairman Fernekes questioned if there were any financial statements that the District considers to their detriment as a result of this item, and whether the $1,000,000 had been achieved upfront and was it and the developer fees included in the equation. Finance Director Margolis related: the $1,000,000 was based on estimates the Distsrict provided for reopening El Ranch and for additional class rooms at Buri Buri; staff had indicated that the estimate pro- vided by the District was that $3,000,000 would be required, and that had been negotiated downward; the developer fees had not been part of the equation; the payments from the Agency through the Down- town or the El Camino Projects must be used for capital improvement for facilities in land acquisition or remodeling or renovation of facilities. Mr. Lou Dell'Anglea, 460 Gardenside, questioned: the City's ability to achieve their fiscal goal when he understood that the District wanted $1,000,000 in advance and $1,500,000 in terms of redevelopment; if anyone on the Council or Agency had been part of the negotiating team; what financially are we keep- ing from the County that we don't keep now - what is the difference in terms of loss or gain and that also applied to the School District; why the down- town central was tied in when it was a completed project; what were the numbers associated with being under redevelopment versus non-redevelop- ment. Interim Executive Director Mattel stated that the negotiating team was composed of special counsel, the Finance Director, Economic & Community Development staff, and herself. Mr. Nagel responded in detail: the District repre- sented forty three cents on every dollar in the pro- ject area, and the County twenty seven cents out of ..... every dollar; the team had negotiated with them on the tax increment which for the County was 2% for 30 years and the School District 15 years which they are allowed to claim whether we like it or not; the County is forgoing its share from redevelopment on 5/26/93 Page 5 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN : .. .17 3. Resolution - Continued. the assessments above the 2 9[ through most of the life of the plan, and in his judgment to present a package to BART and Samtrans to meet and exceed the goal that was represented to BART and Samtrans a year ago of a $2,000,000 commitment. Mr. Dell'Angela spoke of the Angus McDonald financial report in 1991 and questioned if this was in line with those assumptions. Mr. Nagel stated that it was. Mr. Dell'Angelo stated that his concern was that if we don't negotiate a hard bargain with these agen- cies, then we are unndermining the whole purpose of the project. Councilman Drago questioned if this agreement was comparable with to the downtown/central fiscal agreement now in place for the other redevelopment area, and were there any up front funds provided. Director of Finance Margolis responded that there was not. Mr. Nagel stated that he had not been involved, but the nature of the downtown/central was such that it was not designed to generate any where near the volumn of residential - either directly or indirectly that would lead to school impacts to the fiscal docu- ments, etc. Mayor Teglia stated that the first resolution was something she could not vote on due to a conflict, however, Councilman Drago could. She stated that the full Council could vote on the second resolution. Councilman Drago suggested holding up any action on the resolutions until after the Council portion or put it over to the next meeting until all testimony could be heard. Mr. Nagel stated that if the School 1District had an indication that this would be acceptable then they do not want to submit any adverse commentary on the plan for the record. He stated that they needed to have that certainty because it appears that the Agen- cy is not going to approve an agreement along these lines. He continued, the District had indicated they want to put in the public hearing to preserve their remedies in subsequent litigation, so they need to 5/26/93 Page 6 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 3.._z' Resolution - Continued. come forward and speak. He stated they could work out something whereby the Agency could hear the testimony of the public and guage in terms of this agreement, and at some late stage in the public hearing when the Agency felt comfortable it could act on it and could so indicate and the District make its statement. Mayor Teglia stated that it was here intent to open the public hearing tonight and continue it to the next meeting so there would be two meetings for the public and School District to get it on the record at the next meeting. Councilman Drago stated that was alright for the fiscal agreement, but if they get the agreement then they won't give adverse comments on the plan which he wanted to hear. He stated that the District thinks the level of impacts are even greater than the mitigation payment on the table tonight, but in their judgment they are willing to go along but if the Agency did not think that was approPriate - then they wanted to make comments for the record. Motion by Councilman Drago - To table both reso- lutions or continue the item to the end of this meet- ing. M/S Drago/Fernekes - To continue the item to the next meeting. Carried by majority voice vote, Mayor Teglia ab- stained. M/S Drago/Fernekes - To continue the second reso- lution to the next meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. GOOD AND WELFARE GOOD AND WELFARE No one chose to speak. CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION 6:. Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion The Agency chose not to hold a Closed Session. i of personnel matters, labor relations, property negotiations and litigation. 5/26/93 Page 7 AGE_NDA ACTION TAKEN R.__ECESS: Chairwoman Teglia recessed the meeting at 7:55 p.m. · ,£DEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING RECON- Chairwoman Teglia reconvened the Redevelopment VENED: Agency meeting at 9:25 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Joint Public Hearing - with City Council on the pro- posed El Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan; the related General Plan Amendmente; Conduct Public Hearing. 10. Joint Public Hearing - with Redevelopment Agency Mayor Teglia opened the Joint Public Hearing. on the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Im- Interim Director of Economic & Community Devel- pact Report and adopt Mitigation Monitoring Pro- opment Solomon explained which of the consultants gram, and resolution adopting General Plan Amend- would make the various presentations on the Rede- ment GP-9347; Hold Public Hearing; close Public velopment Plan, the BART Extension, and the rede- Hearing; Adjourn Redevelopment Agency Meeting; velopment. Act on Council Items 10a) and 10b). Mayor Teglia stated that the purpose of the Joint a) Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Public Hearing is to consider testimony for the Impact Report for the El Camino Corridor Project related amendments to the Redevelopment Corridor and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Plan, to the General Plan and EIR and to allow time to hear comments on the Plan. She stated that the Agency and Council would not take action A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING REVIEW AND tonight as it would be continued to 6/9/93. CONSIDERATION OF THE ENVIRONMEN- TAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE EL CAMINO She ssked that those filling out a speakers card limit CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND their comments to five minutes. THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN, She explained that she would chair the meeting but MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE would not vote on the matter because of a conflict, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY and that the Council would be acting in a dual ACT, AND STATING OVERRIDING CONSID- capacity. She stated that she would ask the staff to ERATIONS IN THE APPROVAL AND ADOP- respond after each speaker but without Council or TION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Agency discussion. She stated that after all speakers AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT concerns had been responded to by staff they would consider closing the Public Hearing and b) Resolution adopting General Plan Amendment continuing it to 6/23/93 when the ordinance willbe GP-9347. considered. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMEND- Mr. Cai Hollis, Keyser Marston, Assoc., gave an MENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN GP-93-47 overview of redevelopment on how it works and what it will mean to property owners and residents. A He described the planned BART Extension through the El Camino Corridor and how redevelopment will be used as a tool to improve the area, and to miti- gate any impacts of BART coming through S.S.F. 5/26/93 Page 8 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN , PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS and 10. Joint Public Hearings - Continued. Mr. Bob Wetmore, Keyser Mhrston Assoc., sum- marized the report on the Redevelopment Plan with various types of funding available and financial feasibility, and the twelve sections of the report. Coordinator of Economic & Community Develop- ment McCue gave key highlights of the Plan. Senior Planner Morton explained the purpose of the proposed amendments to the General Plan. Mr. John Wagstaff, Wagstaff and Assoc., summa- rized the Environmental Impact Report. Karen Tiedemann, Esq., asked that all testimony be incorporated into the record as to the public hearing noticing and affidavits of publication. City Clerk Battaya introduced into the record: a letter from Donald E. Larramendy of San Francisco Water Department dated 5/25/93, and a letter from Frederick Schlosser of Broadmoor Lumber & Ply- wood Co. dated 5/21/93. Ms. Barbara Christianson asked that a letter from San Marco County Community College District Chancellor Callahan dated 5/26/93 be introduced into the record. Ms. Janice Smith, S.S.F. Unified School District, stated that she would wait until the next meeting before making her comments. Mrs. Schlosser stated that she wanted to make sure that the 5/25/93 letter from Frederick Schlosser went into the record. Mr. Tom Lodato, 3301 El Camino Real, Ste. 220, stated that he was speaking for McLellan Nursery who support this item and felt it was consistent in density with their long term plans. Mr. Lou Dell'Angela stated that BART had stated that they will take his client's property of one half acre which threatened his property rights because he was compelled to hold on to the property until BART wants to acquire the property. He questioned why the City was not looking to acquire the proper- ty now using capital improvement funds. 5/26/93 Page 9 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 221. PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS . and 10. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. He expressed concern: there was a conflict on Exhibit C which could be a legal problem in that it was different from the one presented to the Planning Commission; transient oriented residential was the one before the Commission that is not in this docu- ment; why was a new map substituted; this is a conditional General Plan Amendment on public improvements - which was one he had never seen in 30 years; Policy 11 of Plan - if put in a retained cut should not be put in; the problem with the stations is the parking lots and traffic; did not think a General Plan Amendment was a good idea because BART should not be dictating to the City; high density on McLellan property - this should be retained as an important natural resource; Oak Farm property should be medium density - not high density. He continued: Chestnut and Grand was sold and now the City has a human wall of houses which this high density will also do; City has not addressed problems of Mission Road/McLellan Nursery/High School of overflow parking and traffic on Ever- green; should be a retained cut without increasing density; should be negotiating with BART and Air- port to move Tanforan station to Airport because if that happens Hickey will take the brunt; newspapers say BART is slowing down, but City is hurrying into this - yet there is no urgency and should go back and reassessed which takes courage because staff is pushing you to do this, etc. Mayor Teglia stated that the map was important and she had asked for this to be widely noticed, and the reason for continuing the Public Hearing to the next meeting. She stated that the agenda was forced on us by BART, and yes the Council was aware of negotiations in San Bruno. Mr. Milan Jurdota, 111 Chestnut, stated he owned the property adjacent to Oak Farms and had a peti- tion against high density for McLellan and Oak Farms. He stated that staff had asked why he was so late to come in, however, the first notice he had received was last month. He was told that for him to be included would set the Project back six months, and only the Council could change this. He stated that his project was turned down in 1979 because it was too high structured and would shade 5/26/93 Page 10 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS . and 10. Joint Public Hearing - Continued. his next door neighbors nursery. RECESS; Mayor Teglia recessed the meeting at 10:43 p.m. for staff to develop responses to the concerns raised. RECALL TO ORDER: Mayor Teglia recalled the meeting to order at 11:04 p.m., all Council present. (Cassette No. 2) Director of Economic & Community Development Solomon responded to the planning issues: in refer- ence to Exhibit C - the copy before the Council was the same as the document before the Planning Com- mission; in reference to the tiered General Plan - he believed it was a valid concept and provides a clear definition of the development rights and addresses the City's concern on the assignments of density; Mr. Jurkota's property - district boundaries were tightly drawn and Mr. Jurkota was notified although the properties on Chestnut were not eligible for this density; removal of the San Bruno station would be a detriment, etc. Mayor Teglia stated that the issue of the map was a very important legal issue and it should be checked out. She stated that she wanted to be sure that the development rights were addressed. Karen Tiedemann, Esq., stated that Mr. Jurkota wanted his property to have a higher density, and if the Council wanted it included in the redevelopment area they would have to start the process over which has already taken nine months. Mr. John Wagstaff stated that the EIR has an urban design chapter that addresses the so-called building wall and identifies all impacts including densities which are mitigated except for noise. He stated that he did get a letter from Mr. Dell'Angela on the EIR and had responded. Mayor Teglia stated that the Council will hold their comments until the Public Hearing is closed at the next meeting. Karen Tiedemann, Esq., stated that the City would not be acquiring the property of Mr. Dell'Angela's client, and if done it would be by BART. She stated that the master development operating process was an option that the Agency has and can then deter 5/26/93 Page 11 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN . 223 _~PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS and 10. Joint Public Hearings - Continued. mine if it is unfair. She stated that the tax incre- ment was based on forty year projections and the City would make payments based only on the reve- nue stream. M/S Fernekes/Drago - To continue the Public Hear- ing for both agencies to 6/9/93. Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Fernekes/Drago - To adjourn the Redevelop- ment Agency meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADJOURNMENT: Time of adjournment was 1 l:13 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, APPROVED. ;rbara A. Battaya, Cie ~/Roberta Cerri Teglia, Chai~v~9~n · .~evelopment Agency 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. 5/26/93 Page 12