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