Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Minutes 1988-03-23Chairman Jack Drago _ _M I N U T E S Boardmembers: Mark N. Addiego Reoevelopment Agency Richard A. Halley Gus Nicolopulos Municipal Services Building Roberta Cerri Teglia Community Room March 23, 1988 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) 7:10 p.m. Chairman Drago presiding. ROLL CALL: Boardmembers present: Addiego, Nicol opul os, Teglia and Drago. Boardmembers absent: Haffey. City Clerk Battaya stated that Boardmember Haffey had contacted her Office to relate that he was unable to attend tonight's meeting. He stated that he had met with Boardmember Nicolopulos as a Subcommittee on Item 5, and the two were in total agreement. Chairman Drago stated that Boardmember Nicolopulos had only one vote regardless of their agreement. AGENDA REVIEW AGENDA REVIEW Executive Director Lewis stated that he had nothing to add or delete from the Agenda. AGENDA AGENDA 1. Approval of the Minutes of the M/S Nicolopulos/Addiego - To approve the Regular Meeting of 1/27/88. ~¥~ Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 1/27/88. Carried by unanimous voice vote. 2. Approval of the Regular Bills of M/S Addiego/Nicolopulos - To approve the 3/23/88 in the amount of $34,365.12. Regular Bills of 3/23/88 in the amount of $34,365.12. Boardmember Teglia stated that she wanted a complete report on the administrative charges of $14,851.00 and $12,302.00. Executive Director Lewis stated that they were a composite of charges made by various departments against the Agency, and he would provide a report for Council. Carried by unanimous voice vote. 3/23/88 Page 1 I I AGENDA ACT 1N TAKEN -- 3. Staff Report 3/23/88 recommending Assistant Director/Secretary Smith stated adoption of a Resolution receiv- that this was the preliminary plan for ing the Preliminary Plan for the ~o} the Downtown/Central Redevelopment South San Francisco Downtown Project. She stated that the Council on Redevelopment Project, as well as 7/22/87 had adopted the Redevelopment other related actions to be taken. Survey Area for the Downtown and had added a number of other commercial and A RESOLUTION RECEIVING THE PRE- industrial areas at that time. She LIMINARY PLAN FOR THE SOUTH SAN stated that on 2/11/88 the Planning FRANCISCO-DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT Commission had adopted a Resolution PROJECT, ESTABLISHING THE selecting the project area and approving PROJECT BASE YEAR ASSESSMENT the Plan. ROLL, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE FILING OF INFORMATION She described in detail: the 5 subareas REQUIRED BY SECTIONS 33327 AND in the plan; the areas deleted from the 33328 OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVEL- plan with stated reasons; the 8 primary OPMENT LAW, AND AUTHORIZING objectives of the project; etc. (A copy PAYMENT OF A FILING FEE TO THE of the staff report read into the record STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION is on permanent file in the City Clerk's Office). She related the following: that this was not a public hearing, and was only intended to identify that portion of the survey area that would be studied in detail; that information letters had been sent to potentially affected property owners describing the general purpose of the proposed project; that prior to public hearings, legal notices would be published and registered letters would be sent to the affected property owners; the typical on- and off-site improvements which could be funded from the Project; that time increment funding would fund most of the improvements; that the Resolution establishes that 1988-89 was the project base year, and authorizes and directs filing of certain information pertaining to taxing agencies and the State Board of Equalization, and the filing of fees necessary for processing, as well as authorizing preparation of an EIR; that hearings could be held in approximately 12 months and the Plan in effect by Spring 1989; consultant cost preliminary estimates were $180,000; that funds would be advanced from the Shearwater Redevelopment Project that will later be reimbursed when funds are generated from the Downtown Project; that the redevelopment process was still one 3/23/88 Page 2 I AGENDA ACT }N TAKEN -- 3. Staff Report - Continued. of the best sources of funding and provi- des the necessary tools to renovate the remaining deteriorated areas of the com- munity; that it will offer new housing, employment and revenues to the entire community. She stated that a letter had been received from Mr. Dell'Angela, and offered to answer any questions raised in the letter. She stated that the first question was the inclusion of the South Produce Avenue Terminal Court area. Boardmember Teglia stated that she had not received a copy of the letter and would rather have the letter read to the audience by Mr. Dell'Angela before any answers were given by staff. Boardmember Addiego stated that he was interested in the rationale behind the non-inclusion of the entire Linden Avenue strip. Assistant Director/Secretary Smith stated that there were a number of small parcels in the Lindenville area that would be difficult to merge without having the cooperation of all of the people in the area and would take away emphasis from the Downtown area. Boardmember Addiego stated that he was not talking about the Lindenville area, but Linden Avenue between Juniper and Armour, which made a break in the commer~ cial strip. Assistant Director/Secretary Smith stated that it was primarily a residential area which was being left out of the plan, however, the City must spend the redeve- lopment money on low and moderate income housing adjacent to and within the pro- ject area. She stated that homeowners in particular get most upset with redevelop- ment project areas, and that was why that area was not included because of the focus on commercial and industrial areas. She stated that money could be spent in residential areas without it being included in the project area. 3/23/88 Page 3 AGENDA ACT 1N TAKEN -- 3. Staff Report - Continued. Executive Director Lewis stated that the only reason to include residential areas in a project was when the City intended to acquire, through condemnation, private parcels in a residential area and relo- cate the people living in those homes. He continued, since that was not the intent of the Council, there was no need to include the residential areas. He stated that the original purpose or intent of the project had been to cause portions of our community that had become economically or physically blighted, to cause them to be redeveloped or revitalized in the process. He con- tinued, the core areas of the Downtown and the neighborhoods surrounding the Downtown, and expanded from that to the point where the Council wanted to look at some of the other portions of the com- munity that also needed assistance, i.e., like parking garages, and loan programs. He stated that improvements to residen- tial areas that surrounded the Downtown needed a larger financial commitment than just a core Downtown Project. He stated that the two concepts sort of melted together and ended up with a project that not only focused on the Downtown, but also included other pockets of blighted areas. Boardmember Teglia questioned, with respect to the residential area - was the City precluding opportunities either to the City or to the people that live in the area by exclusion of the residential area. Executive Director Lewis stated that it did not, because they were being provided all of the benefits of redevelopment without the threats. Chairman Drago questioned if the zoning for that portion of Linden was zoned com- mercial presently, and what if the people in that area wanted to put residential . above and commercial below to improve their property. 3/23/88 Page 4 A G E N D A A A C T ~-~ N T A K E N .... i!i 5 --3. Staff Report - Continued. Assistant Director/Secretary Smith responded, that the interior of the areas behind Linden were zoned residential R-2 in the General Plan, and if they chose to make those improvements and if they were doing something to improve the supply of low and moderate income housing, then the redevelopment monies could be spent for that. Chairman Drago stated that the redevelop- ment monies could not be used for a com- mercial venture, but could only be used for affordable low cost housing. City Planner Christensen stated that the block of Linden in question was commer- cially zoned, but was primarily residential. Assistant Director/Secretary Smith stated that even though that area would not receive direct redevelopment funds, it could receive the benefit of funds for sidewalks and utilities. Executive Director Lewis stated that if the City was in a position with the Developer to want to condemn the property to aggregate a bigger piece of property because it is not in that district, the City could not do that. Boardmember Addiego questioned if the City was in a position to underwrite loans outside of the redevelopment area. Assistant Director/Secretary Smith responded, probably only for residential portions, but with community block grants that were not redevelopment funds, the City could do it. Boardmember Addiego questioned if there were pitfalls or legal constraints through inclusion of the residential parcel s. City Planner Christians responded, that the real problem was that those areas are included in the redevelopment project, and if the City assisted a Developer in putting together a commercial development 3/23/88 Page 5 I I AGENDA ACT )N TAKEN -- 3. Staff Report - Continued. it was obligated to assist in the reloca- o tion of the residents; that there would have to be a formal project committee, and the City would have to go through a very controversial process which was not the Council's intent. Executive Director Lewis stated that if a committee was formed the City would have to fund it; and they were entitled to their own attorney which the City had to pay for, etc. Boardmember Addiego stated that a good deal of Zone 3 had been recently deve- loped between Railroad Ave. and No. Canal - so why was it being included. Assistant Director/Secretary Smith stated that portions of Subareas 3 and 4 did not need redevelopment, however, areas could be included that did not specifically need redevelopment because they are located in an area that does need a lot of work. Boardmember Addiego questioned why the Flying Tiger property on the northern regions of the Airport and near Belle Air Island was not included in Area 5, which only had the Fingers property which in the original Area 6 included everything in the southerly region. Assistant Director/Secretary Smith stated that the primary reason it had been excluded was that it belonged to the City and County of San Francisco, and the Council would be very limited in what they could do in that there would be no tax increment Chairman Drago stated that there were two maps dated July 1987 that were different from one another. Assistant Director/Secretary Smith stated that one map was the original survey area and that not all of that was included in the recommended project area in the --- second map. 3/23/88 Page 6 AGENDA ACT )N TAKEN .... 3. Staff Report - Continued. Chairman Drago stated that he had com- pared his original 7/87 map that he had voted upon to the one presented in this packet with the same date, and they were different. He suggested that in future when a map was altered and reproduced, it should bear a different date than the original map. Discussion followed: why the Church pro- perty was excluded in Subarea 7 and the Masonic Temple included; that the Church area included a convent and 14 residen- ces; deterioration of Grand/Baden/ Railroad/Commercial that was not included, but should be considered in some manner for rehabilitation; that Village Way was also blighted; the basis for the $180,000 cost for an EIR; the outside consultants to be used on the project and the estimated costs; that outside legal aid was not anticipated and the City Attorney would function as the Redevelopment Counsel. Boardmember Nicolopulos stated that he and Boardmember Haffey were the Council Subcommittee on this project and gave the following report: that the objective of the Subcommittee was to meet with staff throughout the process and make the Agency more knowledgable of the project; that the figures in the staff report were conservative estimates; that it was a thirty year commitment; that the pro- jected site was 550 acres and that staff was trying to reduce that figure; that the proposed objectives were to expend retail sales and to eliminate blight in the community; that improved parking had to be addressed; that housing had to be upgraded and redevelopment funds could be used for that purpose; that the Agency should work with private investment in properties; that citizen input was needed for a successful project; the various needed improvements this project would provide the City; that people should not be afraid that the City will take their _ ~ property; and the Agency should consider an architectural theme and give direction to staff, etc. /23/~8 age / I I AGENDA ACT )N TAKEN 3. Staff Report - Continued. Chairman Drago stated that Boardmember Nicolopulos should give the same report at the next Council meeting to share the information with the viewing audience. Boardmember Teglia stated that she would like to see the Subcommittee suggest to Council when it would go out of busi- ness so the Council could be involved as a Body in this very important process. Boardmember Addiego expressed concern over the length of this Agency meeting when a Council meeting was scheduled for 7:30 p.m., and suggested having earlier meeting for the Agency when it considered such meaty matters so the public would not be inconvenienced. Mr. Dell'Angela, 460 Gardenside Ave., stated that he did have a few questions, however, in light of the Agency discussion tonight he had some suggestions: that it made good sense to include the housing areas, especially in the north Linden area in the project for the sake of good planning; people will become frightened that their property will be condemned, but make a specific provision in the plan that the City will not condemn residential units and this will relieve the homeowners fears and allow an entire plan to be developed; letters to property owners, call this a Downtown Project, yet 85% of the project (Cassette No. 2) was outside of the Downtown; that there were financial concerns on the Oyster Point Overpass to fund, and maybe major plans to relocate properties on Oyster Point Blvd.; there was the junkyard issue on Harbor, as well as other issues out- side of the Downtown; that the Agency should address the purpose of this project -- to deal with the older uses along Oyster Point Blvd., the Harbor Road area, and the Oyster Point Overpass; was the title of the project truly represen- tated, accurately, as a Downtown related project. Boardmember Teglia questioned if the argument was over the title of the pro- 3/23/88 Page 8 I AGENDA ACT IN TAKEN 3. Staff Report - Continued. ject when the boundaries were very clear regardless of the name used. Mr. Dell'Angela stated that there were a lot of business people east of the freeway that received notices of this meeting, and who had looked at the noti- ces and said this is basically a Downtown oriented project and were not going to worry about it. Boardmember Teglia questioned if the notice to affected property owners had included a map of the boundaries of the project. Assistant Director/Secretary Smith stated that the maps were not sent with the notice, however, the notice had said that the individually owned property was included in the project. Chairman Drago stated that this item would be continued to the next Agency meeting in that it was now 25 minutes passed the scheduled start of the Council meeting. Boardmember Teglia stated that was good, because this issue should not be rushed, and she would have felt better if staff had included a map with the notice to affected property owners east of the freeway so they would know the implica- tions of the project. Chairman Drago stated that this issue would be continued to the 4/13/88 meeting and a notice should be mailed by staff to all affected property owners to let them know they are involved in this project. He suggested that Mr. Dell'Angela meet with staff to draft a reasonable letter to the affected property owners, and if necessary use a project title more indi- cative of the boundaries covered. GOOD AND WELFARE GOOD AND WELFARE No one chose to speak. 3/23/88 Page 9 [] 'l £ I I AGENDA ACT )N TAKEN - - -- CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION 5. Closed Session for the purpose of The Agency chose not to hold a Closed the discussion of personnel matters, Session. labor relations, property nego- tiations and litigation. M/S Nicolopulos/Teglia - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. ADJOURNMENT: Time of adjournment was 8:10 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, APPROVED. Barbara A. Battaya, Clerk~ JJ~ck Drago, Chairman J ~edevelopment 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. 3/23/88 Page 10