Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1991-09-18 Mayor Jack Drago Council: Richard A. Haffey Gus Nicolopulos John R. Penna --Roberta Cerri Teglia AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) ROLL CALL: 1. E1Camino Corridor Alternative BART Site Studies. MINUTES City Council City Council Conference Room City Hal 1 September 18, 1991 0007i ACTION TAKEN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 7:00 p.m. Mayor Drago presiding. Council present: Council absent: Haffey, Nicolopulos, and Drago. Penna and Teglia. Chief Planner Solomon stated that Council had directed staff several months ago to develop information to allow it to make comparisons on two potential sites for the future BART station at Chestnut and Mission and at the Hickey Blvd. Extension. He stated that represen- tatives were present from Wilsey & Ham, traffic engineers, and Angus McDonald & Assoc. with Komar Assoc., economic con- sultants, to address their findings in their reports. He spoke briefly of the economic findings and fiscal impacts of the two sites. Mr. Bob Goldman, Angus McDonald & Assoc., stated that his firm was the lead in the economic part of the study which indi- cated that the economic potential of the Hickey site was higher to the City on the Hickey site depending on the City's deve- lopment policies within the corridor. Mr. Terry Margerum, Komar Assoc., spoke of the two locations and their relative impacts on key property owners. Mr. Frank Tedesco, Wilsey & Hamm, addressed the results of the traffic study. Discussion followed: if the City would be jeopardizing an underground station by moving the station site north; the problem of getting housing closer to jobs; eminent domain use by BART for streets, etc. 9/18/91 Page I AGENDA ACTION TAKEN .... 1. E1Camino Corridor - Continued. Councilman Penna Arrived: Councilwoman Teglia Arrived: Councilman Haffey Left the Podium: Mr. Jim Keegan, BART Citizens Advisory Committee, asked questions on accessing E1Camino by either of the stations. Discussion followed: on the two stations configurations in relation to access of E1Camino Real; Mr. Lou Dell'Angela, 460 Gardenside Ave., stated that the Hickey station would not infringe on the neighborhoods. Chief Planner Solomon summarized his pre- sentation by saying that staff believed that Hickey was the preferred station based on the reports submitted tonight. Councilman Haffey stated that he could support the Hickey station if there was assurance that the station would be underground. Discussion followed: on alternative alignments being looked at as requested by San Bruno; that the Advisory Committee should further convey this City's request for an underground station; that alter- natives had to be proven in value as cost saving; that the alternate station site would cost $1,000,000-$9,000,000 which was a tenth of the cost for the BART extension, etc. Councilman Penna arrived at 7:35 p.m. Councilwoman Teglia arrived at 7:40 p.m. Councilman Haffey left the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Discussion followed: that a letter would be forwarded incorporating Council pre- ferences; that the Policy Committee will meet 10/11/91; a draft letter from the Mayor to MTC for the cities looking for support. Mr. Keegan questioned the mission of the Citizens Advisory Committee and where they were to get their direction. He suggested that the Council hold a one 9/18/91 Page 2 E1 Camino Corridor - Continued. Terrabay Development Phasing.~~ item study session with the Committee. Mayor Drago stated that it was an advi- sory committee or the checks and balances to the Council. He stated that there was a member of the Committee that did not want BART to go through S.S.F. or so he had read in the minutes. Discussion followed: that Samtrans, MTC, and BART were part of the Policy Committee; that mixed messages were coming from Council and the Citizens Committee; staff was directed to set up a joint study session with the Committee, and invite all of the technical people. Mr. Eugene Terry, Citizens Advisory Committee, stated that minutes were not being properly stated for their meetings, and they had asked that they be tape recorded and they were refused. He stated that he had made the comment that the Mayor made reference to on BART, however he had not seen anything in the minutes quoting him. Discussion followed: that the City had communicated their desire many times to have the BART station underground, etc. Director of Economic & Community Development Costello stated that the Developer of Terrabay wanted to be able to build out the entire residential pro- ject before doing the commercial phases of the project. She stated that the Development Agreement gave the City the authority to deny that, and direction had to be given staff on the phasing and the fiscal impacts. She stated that the basic question was - who is going to pay the annual cost to finance services for the Terrabay Project, the City or Terrabay. She proceeded to explain the alternatives and the three points of direction requested by staff in the staff report. 9/18/91 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Terrabay - Continued. Discussion followed: using the marginal cost method to evaluate the fiscal impacts; mechanism for gap financing; a pubic hearing would be scheduled for October to take formal action on this issue; the investment by the Development to Developer to date in this project; Vice Mayor Nicolopulos felt that Mr. Dean deserved a great deal of credit for the delicate balance that had been achieved for the South Slope environment during the ten years, and if the homes had been built 9 years ago the cost would have been $100,000 rather than $500,000; that the first phase of the project included $17,000,000 in public facilities; that so far only the playfield and fire sta- tion had been completed; that there were two major phases; terms of the Development Agreement; Vice Mayor Nicolopulos preferred the average costing rather than the marginal cost method; that the marginal cost indicated gap financing; that the commercial market was dead and Mr. Dean had a better chance to find financing for residential; that the average costing method was saying that the improvements being made were of bene- fit to the entire City and that value should be recognized, i.e., such as the fire station; that the projected City figures such as library and police services were inflated; using Mello-Roos funds; Mayor Drago and Councilwoman Teglia favored the marginal cost method but wanted the figures to be accurate; that the figures had to be refined; original projected revenues of the project included a hotel; setting up an assessment district to deal with a defi- cit that would be the obligation of the individual homeowners; Councilman Penna felt there should be a third alternative - that of tying the developer more to the costs because he benefits immediately from the sale of the residential units; he stated that he could support the marginal approach provided that the Developer was tied to a commitment that no profits will be taken; that the market had not been good for homes for over a 9/18/91 Page 4 AGENDA Terrabay - Continued. ACTION TAKEN year and the commercial market was worse, etc. Mr. Oschner stated that Mr. Dean had a problem in that the infrastructure and the public facilities had been required by the City in Phase 1, and if Phase 2 never goes he still was fiscally impacted by costs already incurred whether the City used the marginal approach or not. He urged Council to allow the Developer to go forward with all of the residential. Discussion followed: that the public improvements when completed would become City facilities; who was to maintain the storm drains; that usually the City picks up the maintenance; Hillside widening; revenue from property tax to the City, etc. Mr. Keegan stated that the staff report says that if the Developer does not do the Hillside Extension the City will have to do it, yet without the development there was no need for the extension. He stated that there was an agreement years ago between the County and Mr. Dean for the extension, and it was in the General Plan for the County. He stated that the County had come to the City in 1978 for approval of the Hillside Extension because they assumed the City would annex the land, and had imposed that agreement on the Developer that he would dedicate the land and one half of the cost of the Hillside Blvd. Extension. He stated that he therefore saw no reason that S.S.F. would ever have to contribute to the Extension. Councilwoman Teglia refutted Mr. Keegan's comments on the agreement. Mr. Dell'Angela questioned how Mr. Dean could get financing if the Council did not allow him to go ahead with the total residential portion of the project. 9/18/91 Page 5 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Noise Insulation Program 4. Planning Commission Work Program 1991-92. Be Closed Session for the purpose of discussion of personnel matters, labor relations, property negotiations and litigation. RECALL TO ORDER: ADJOURNMENT: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Barbara . y ,' City Cli~k City of South San Francisco Senior Civil Engineer Wong requested the Council to review the current policy for selecting homes to be insulated, and revise any policies they choose. Discussion followed on the basic policy and the defined alternatives and chose to continue the present policy. Council chose to accept the Work Program without discussion. Council adjourned to a Closed Session at 10:20 p.m. to discuss litigation pursuant to G.C. Section 54956(a) Judith L. Clegg v. Loews Corp. Westborough Case No. 1261. Mayor Drago recalled the meeting to order at 10:22 p.m., all Council present, no action was taken. Mayor Drago stated that the Council would hold the meeting before Thanksgiving, and then the Council change-over meeting would be held at the regular meeting on 11/27/91. M/S Teglia/Haffey - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment was 10:23 p.m APPROVED. Jack Drago, Mayo~/ j/City of South San Franci SCO The entries of this 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. 9/18/91 Page 6