 |
City Council Minutes June 8, 1998 |
City of Redwood City
|
City Council Minutes June 8, 1998 |
REDWOOD CITY CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR DIANE HOWARD
VICE MAYOR IRA RUSKIN
CITY COUNCIL
COUNCILMEMBER RICHARD S. CLAIRE
COUNCILMEMBER JIM HARTNETT
COUNCILMEMBER JEFF IRA
COUNCILMEMBER MATT LEIPZIG
COUNCILMEMBER IAN BAIN
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE ROOM 2B
CITY HALL
REDWOOD CITY
JUNE 8, 1998
CALL TO ORDER- 6:45 p.m., Mayor Howard presiding
ROLL CALL
Council Members present: Bain, Claire, Hartnett, Ira, Leipzig, Ruskin and
Mayor Howard
Council Members absent: None
Staff present: City Manager Everett, City Attorney Arnold Kessler, Redevelopment Executive Director Church, Redevelopment Specialist
Consultants present: Mark Milakovich and Stephanie Smith Lovette from Katz Hollis
1. PUBLIC COMMENT - None
A. Conference with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation according to Government
Code Section 54956.9(a) was held.
City of Redwood City v. Peninsula Open Space Trust, Sup. Ct. Action 404389
B. COUNCIL MEMBERS HARTNETT AND IRA LEFT THE CLOSED SESSION AT THIS TIME DUE TO POSSIBLE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
Conference with Legal Counsel regarding anticipated litigation according to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)
Number of cases: One (Significant exposure to litigation)
3. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION - 7:29 P.M.
4. REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION, IF ANY - None
5. ADJOURNMENT
After motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Ed Everett
City Manager
REGULAR MEETING and CONCURRENT MEETING
with the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD
JUNE 8, 1998
CALL TO ORDER - 7:35 p.m., Mayor Howard presiding
ROLL CALL
Council Members Present: Bain, Claire, Hartnett, Ira, Leipzig, Ruskin and Mayor Howard
Council Members Absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager Everett, City Attorney Sorba, Redevelopment Agency Attorney Kessler, City Clerk Jorgenson, Assistant to the City Manager Moore, Finance Director Ponty, Community Development Director Nelson, Engineering and Construction Manager Patterson, Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Church, Redevelopment Specialist Cady, Police Captain Switzer and Sergeant Matuszak, Public Works Services Superintendent Rosas and Supervisor Adams, Redwood City 2000 Coordinator Ross and Volunteer Coordinator Jackson, Administrative Chief/Fire Marshal Vella, Battalion Chief Skinner, Fire Captains, Ferro, Krause, Stecher, Fire Fighters Buranzon, Cronin, Dacunha, Meisenbach, Paramedic Pucci, Fire Prevention Officers Hall and Lee, Fire administrative staff Gettman, Nazar and Nemes, and City Volunteer Balsamo
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Council Member Hartnett
INVOCATION: Reverend James Anderson
Messiah Lutheran Church
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
A. The American Lung Association's "Tobacco Free San Mateo County" Program, presentation by Sequoia Union High School District Students;
Ms. Felicia Jones, American Lung Association's Tobacco Free San Mateo County Program Coordinator, introduced students from the Sequoia Union High School District Students participating in the Program designed to stop the sale of cigarettes to minors.
Ms. Jones, American Lung Association's Tobacco Free San Mateo County Program Coordinator, introduced students from the Sequoia Union High School District participating in the Program designed to stop the sale of cigarettes to minors.
Six students addressed the Council and described the damage cigarette smoking wreaks upon smokers and second hand smokers: 430,000 people die each year due to tobacco related diseases and 53,000 die due to second hand smoke; there are over 4,000 chemicals in cigarette smoke, 401 are toxic and 43 are known to cause cancer, including rat poison and arsenic. Amanda said over 1,500 people die every day from cigarette smoking and the tobacco industry "needs 5,000 new addicts daily to keep sales up. As a result 3,000 young people begin to smoke every day including over 200 young people from California."
The students explained the program and said they met every Friday at lunchtime and participated in all major events such as surveys and presentations. As an incentive to participate in the program, the students said they each received $200 at the completion of the program, as well as other incentives throughout the year. The students said they really enjoyed being advocates working against the use of tobacco. Kelly described the surveys done at 52 Redwood City stores. She said the surveys show the tobacco industry targets young people and tobacco products were all too readily available to people under 18 years of age. She described the law forbidding the sale of cigarettes to young people and said the law was not generally posted as required. Kelly said 37.7% of the stores didn’t even ask for identification. She described the candy-look-alikes that encourage smoking and try to convince young people that tobacco tastes good. She said smoking is the most preventable cause of death, and asked the Council to help them "stop the killing."
The students submitted a petition with 172 signatures in support of their cause. The petition expressed outrage at the tobacco industry for targeting youth, and urged sellers to restrict sales and marketing to young people through reduced signage inside and outside stores, require age identification, eliminate self-service displays, restrict cigarette advertising three feet and below, and restrict advertising near candy and look-alikes.
The students presented a package of materials to the Council that contained important information regarding teens and smoking issues.
Ms. Jones, Project Coordinator, described the students as dedicated and true advocates of stopping the sale of tobacco products to minors, and asked the Council to join them in their "fight to stop merchants in Redwood City from selling cigarettes to minors."
Mayor Howard said she was a nurse and "strongly, strongly supported and encouraged" the Lung Association’s work to stop the sale of tobacco products to youth. She said, "Who best to teach young people the dangers of smoking than people their own age. It has more of an impact than adults telling them." Mayor Howard said the Council was doing code review regarding signage right now and was aware of the County’s efforts to stop the sale of cigarettes to minors. She thanked Ms. Jones and all the students for their work.
The audience applauded the presentation and the outstanding efforts of the students and Ms. Jones.
MEMO 6/10/98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Redwood City 2000's new Brochure;
Assistant to the City Manager Moore introduced former Redwood City Mayor Jack Greenalch, Chairman of the Redwood City 2000 Community Action and Resource Council. She described the new brochure which explains how Redwood City citizens are developing many activities and ideas which will make "Redwood City the ideal community."
Chairman Greenalch said he was "proud to represent the partnership among the City of Redwood City, the County of San Mateo, the Redwood City Elementary School District and the Sequoia Union High School District and the organizations that are involved in trying to make Redwood City a healthier City." He said the community planning process sponsored by Redwood City 2000 has helped that process. Chairman Greenalch used slides of the handbook that lists the four main characteristics of healthy city:
- One that has wide community participation, which Redwood City 2000 has provided;
- It involves broad intersectoral involvement, bringing together the business community, the labor community, the religious organizations, social services, planning and environmental groups to come together around a common vision;
- There is a commitment to the process of moving a City from where it is, to that vision; and
- There is healthy public policy; such as the program just described by the students of the Sequoia Union High School District;
Chairman Greenalch described the current organizational structure including the four major initiatives that are integral to the partnership:
- Youth and Family Assistance Program, working to curb violence;
- Teen Pregnancy Prevention Coalition of San Mateo County;
- The Redwood City Healthy Start Network;
- The Early Childhood Investment Project.
Chairman Greenalch said he was pleased to announce that "Redwood City has been awarded an additional two Healthy Start Grants each in the amount of $400,000 over the next three years to replicate the program that is presently at Taft Elementary School, to replicate that program at Fair Oaks Elementary School and Hoover Elementary School."
Chairman Greenalch said that the Community Action and Resource Council has 35 very active members and about 50 members on its roster. He described the Operations Committee, which oversees Coordinator Beth Ross' and Neighborhood Coordinator April Jackson's activities. He said, "At the present time we are undergoing a planning process for community conversations…. We have a task force working on afternoon community enrichment for the youth of the community. In addition, we have a Change Agent Team that is working on two projects, one for the development of a teen or young person’s theater in the City of Redwood City and working on a goal of the City Council to increase the number of fields that are available for youth…. Finally, our group is working on the downtown."
Chairman Greenalch thanked the Council for supporting Redwood City 2000 and agreeing to fund it again next year in the amount of $15,500. He said that the Peninsula Community Foundation has contributed matching funds. Chairman Greenalch said Redwood City 2000 has also been awarded a United Way Grant to open a young leadership academy in Redwood City. He said, "citizens coming together at the grass roots are able to work together collaboratively to make a significant difference in the community… This is the first time, I think, that any group can say that every application that it submitted for funding from governmental and outside sources, we had 100% funding of our grants." Chairman Greenalch said that in the next fiscal year Redwood City 2000 will have $1 million to "make Redwood City a better place to live and work."
Mayor Howard thanked Chairman Greenalch for his outstanding work for the people of Redwood City. She said if anyone wanted to learn more about Redwood City 2000 or volunteer their time, to call City Hall, 780-7300. She thanked all the participants for the great new brochure available in English and Spanish.
MEMO 6/10/98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Proclamation in honor of retired Redwood City Fire Fighter John Hosford for thirty-three years of outstanding service to the people of Redwood City, his colleagues and the Fire Fighting community;
Mayor Howard presented a proclamation and City retirement plaque to retired Fire Fighter John Hosford for his dedicated and outstanding service to Redwood City. Mayor Howard described John’s most recent duties in managing all the supplies for the Department and said that his area was known as "HosMart, because if you needed anything from boots to Band-Aids" he could supply it. She described his illustrious career and the respect in which he was held by so many.
John Hosford introduced his wife, Linda, and thanked the Council and his colleagues for this recognition.
The audience, which included a large contingent of Fire Fighting personnel, gave John a rousing round of applause.
MEMO 6/10/98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Proclamation in honor of Public Works Superintendent William Adams, who is leaving Redwood City to become Public Works Deputy Director of Operations in Pleasanton California; for his six years of outstanding service to the people of Redwood City, his fellow employees and the Redwood City Public Works Department;
Mayor Howard presented a proclamation and City plaque to William Adams for his creative leadership and outstanding service to Redwood City and congratulated him on his promotion.
William Adams thanked the Council and said how much he had enjoyed his six years in Redwood City and how much he would miss everyone.
MEMO 6/10/98
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
- Monica Brooks, 31 Center Street, said she noted the Council’s planned discussion later this evening for expansion of Redevelopment Area No. 2 and asked that the Council consider including the southern end of El Camino Real in the proposed amended area. Mrs. Brooks submitted petitions stating, "The Redwood Oaks Neighborhood Association and the surrounding business community petition the County of San Mateo, the City of Redwood City and the Town of Atherton to establish a joint study session to improve the south Redwood City El Camino corridor and nearby Woodside Road. We would like the study session to address problems of crime in the area and to study ways to improve the physical appearance of the area." She asked that neighbors and business owners be included in the study session, open the area to Redevelopment funds, to relocate utilities underground, plant trees and shrubbery in the medians and construct arches at strategic points announcing the Redwood Oaks Neighborhood. Mrs. Brooks said the Redwood Oaks Neighborhood would be very supportive of redevelopment activity.
MEMO 6/10/98
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
Item 3.B. Sidewalk Repair and Tree Program. In answer to Council Member Leipzig’s questions regarding the unfinished repair work, City Manager Everett said weather problems prevented the completion of the project, and those projects and the remaining money left over in the project fund would be included in the next fiscal year, "If El Nino goes away."
Item 3.A. Vice Mayor Ruskin made the following corrections to the Minutes of the regular Council meeting of May 18, 1998: On Page 7, to read "the Redwood Shores Owners Association and Redwood Shores Home Owners Association"; page 8, "Marge Kohler"; and on Page 24, change "accepted to exempted."
M/S: LEIPZIG/BAIN WAIVE READING OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR, ADOPT THE RESOLUTIONS AND APPROVE OVER ITEMS INCLUDING CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 18, 198
ADOPTED BY UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL VOTE.
A. Approved the Minutes of the regular Council meeting of May 18, 1998, and the Council Study Session with the Planning Commission and Architectural Advisory Committee of May 26, 1998, as submitted;
MINUTE ORDER 98-142
B. Accepted the Cost Shared Sidewalk Repair Project and authorized the release of bonds (S. J. Burkhardt, Inc.);
MINUTE ORDER 98-143
C. Accepted the Sidewalk Repair and Tree Program and authorized the release of bonds (S. J. Burkhardt, Inc.);
MINUTE ORDER 98-144
D. Accepted the Redwood Creek Concrete Lined Channel, Emergency Repair Project, and authorized the release of bonds (Power Engineering Contractors, Inc. of Alameda);
MINUTE ORDER 98-145
E. RESOLUTION NO. 13352 AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF LETTER PERMIT AND REGULATING USE OF PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN CONNECTION THEREWITH ("THE CLIMATE BEST FEST") (Optimist Club of Redwood City)
F. RESOLUTION NO. 13353 ACCEPTING COPS MORE FEDERAL AUTOMATION GRANT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN AUTOMATION SYSTEM AND ACCEPTING CONDITIONS THEREOF (Automation Grant);
G. RESOLUTION NO. 13354 ACCEPTING BID FOR THE 1997-1998 WATER TANK REHABILITATION PROJECT; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR SAID WORK; AND DIRECTING RETURN OF SECURITY DEPOSITS (Spiess Construction Co., Inc.);
H. RESOLUTION NO. 13355 ACCEPTING BID FOR THE 1997-1998 SEWER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR SAID WORK; AND DIRECTING RETURN OF SECURITY DEPOSITS (Howard Engineering);
I. Approve warrants dated through June 8, 1998; APPROVED
- Reject claims of Cory Narog, No. 1664; and Abraham Friedman, No. 1665;
MINUTE ORDER 98-146
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 8:10 p.m. Mayor Howard called to order the regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting to meet concurrently with the Council Meeting.
Minutes of the Concurrent Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting of June 8, 1998 are located in the official Redevelopment Agency Minute Book No. 1
The Council Meeting reconvened at 10:35 p.m.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. BOARDS, COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Council Salary Subcommittee Recommendations for City Manager Everett and City Clerk Jorgenson, oral report by Council Member Hartnett;
Council Member Hartnett presented the report from the Council Ad Hoc Committee (Members Council Members Claire, Hartnett and Mayor Howard) and said neither the City Manager nor the City Clerk had had a salary increase since October of 1996 due to the press of other labor negotiations. Mayor Howard thanked the City Manager and the City Clerk for their patience and commended them for the work they do everyday for the City.
1. M/S: RUSKIN/HARTNETT. TITLE READ.
RESOLUTION NO. 13356 AMENDING SALARY SCHEDULE AND COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE POSITION OF CITY MANAGER;
ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS BAIN, CLAIRE, HARTNETT, IRA, RUSKIN AND MAYOR HOWARD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBER LEIPZIG
2. M/S: RUSKIN/HARTNETT. TITLE READ.
RESOLUTION NO. 13357 AMENDING SALARY SCHEDULE AND COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE POSITION OF CITY CLERK;
ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS BAIN, CLAIRE, HARTNETT, IRA, RUSKIN AND MAYOR HOWARD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBER LEIPZIG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Redwood City Police Department proposal to use Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) funds of $335,329 to meet the matching funds requirement for the Federal COPS MORE Automation Grant;
Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Public Hearing on file in the City Clerk Department;
1. Staff Report;
REPORT: Police Sergeant Matuszak, June 8, 1998;
Sergeant Matuszak said the combined total amount of both grants is $336,329.00.
2. Open public hearing;
Mayor Howard opened the public hearing at 10:43 p.m.
3. Hear public comment;
Mayor Howard asked if there were anyone who wished to speak to this item. No one came forward.
- Close public comment;
M/S: RUSKIN/IRA TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE AND HEARING CLOSED AT 10:44 P.M
MINUTE ORDER 98-148
5. Council action;
M/S: RUSKIN/HARTNETT APPROVE THE REQUEST OF THE REDWOOD CITY POLICE CHIEF TO REALLOCATE PREVIOUSLY COMMITED 1996 COPS FUNDS TOWARD MEETING THE CASH MATCH REQUIREMENT OF THE FEDERAL COPS MORE AUTOMATION GRANT
CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE.
MINUTE ORDER 98-149
7. MATTERS OF COUNCIL INTEREST
This item limited to fifteen minutes.
A. Council Member Claire thanked his colleagues on the Council for the Proclamation the Council gave to Monsignor Flynn celebrating his fiftieth year as a priest. He said he had the honor of presenting it to Monsignor Flynn at St. Matthias Church on Sunday, June 7. Council Member Claire said that although St. Matthias Church is probably one of the smallest parishes in the Archdiocese it has probably produced more politicians than other parishes combined: Matt Leipzig, his mother Marguerite Leipzig, Jack Greenalch, Congresswoman Eshoo, Brendan Maguire, Dixon Arnett and himself.
B. Mayor Howard thanked her colleagues for the Proclamation the Council gave to Gino and Louisa Gasparini at their huge party celebrating their fiftieth wedding anniversary.
C. Mayor Howard announced that the Redwood City Police Department is again sponsoring the "Torch Run" to raise money for the Special Olympics on June 15. She said the route will take the runners by City Hall, and she will present a Proclamation to them at 9:30 a.m. She invited everyone to be there and encourage them as they continue their run through Redwood City to pass the torch to runners in San Carlos.
D. Mayor Howard thanked staff, particularly Pat Valentine, Peter Vorametsanti, Miguel Navarette, and Gary Hover for their assistance in helping with the Blue Ribbon Task Force Bay Area Council forum on proposed extension of ferry service on the Bay. The forum was held in the City Hall Council Chamber. Mayor Howard said there were about 200 people in attendance, and everyone was very impressed with the new City Hall and the assistance they received from staff. She thanked staff for helping her make that day a tremendous success for Redwood City.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. STAFF REPORTS
A. Bair Island Road Extension - Agreements for Acquisition of Street Parcel and Construction of Street Improvements;
REPORT: Joel Patterson, Manager, Engineering and Construction, June 3, 1998
City Manager Everett said the proposed resolutions implement the settlement agreement previously presented to the Council.
1. M/S: RUSKIN/CLAIRE. TITLE READ.
RESOLUTION NO. 13358 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY (BAIR ISLAND ROAD EXTENSION) (RIAB Development, Inc.);
ADOPTED BY UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL VOTE.
- M/S: RUSKIN/CLAIRE. TITLE READ.
RESOLUTION NO. 13359 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS (BAIR ISLAND ROAD EXTENSION) (Irvine Apartment Communities);
ADOPTED BY UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL VOTE.
3. M/S: RUSKIN/CLAIRE. TITLE READ.
RESOLUTION NO. 13360 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR BAIR ISLAND ROAD RECONSTRUCTION;
ADOPTED BY UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL VOTE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE
Fiscal Year 1997-98 Appropriations Revisions
REPORT: Director of Finance and Financial Planning Ponty, June 8, 1998
Director Ponty presented the staff report and said the Council was being asked to approve amendments to the FY 1997/98 budget. He said that the presentation of such amendments is a routine task at this time of the fiscal year. Director Ponty said the Council had already conceptually approved several of the items and others were unexpected costs.
In response to Council Member Hartnett’s questions, Director Ponty said the ending fund balance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1997 was approximately $8.5 million. He said with these proposed amendments and the addition of stronger than expected revenues, "We are expecting that to grow somewhere between $1 million and $2 million." Director Ponty said the fund balance for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1998 will be around $10 million.
M/S: CLAIRE/RUSKIN. TITLE READ. FIRST READING.
ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING SPECIFIED AMOUNTS FROM DESIGNATED UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCES TO SPECIFIED APPROPRIATIONS, CANCELING CERTAIN APPROPRIATIONS, AND TRANSFERRING SPECIFIED AMOUNTS FROM DESIGNATED APPROPRIATIONS TO OTHER SPECIFIED APPROPRIATIONS;
ADOPTED BY UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL VOTE, FIRST READING.
MINUTE ORDER 98-150
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Status report on the Governor's proposal to repeal Vehicle License Fees, a steady and significant source of revenue to all California cities;
REPORT: Assistant to the City Manager Moore, June 8, 1998
Assistant Moore presented the staff report and asked Council to join with other cities in the State opposing this measure.
Mayor Howard thanked Ms. Moore for the informative and timely Report, and said this proposal would have a significant impact on Redwood City if adopted.
Council Member Ira, member of the Council Legislative Committee, along with Council Member Leipzig, said the Committee’s decision not to meet regarding this issue was based on the fact that the Committee "felt we were really getting into an issue where it was really a partisan issue, and that’s exactly what it is." He said it was going to be a partisan issue at the state level, and "it is not an issue of how it would really affect the cities, but we are getting into an issue of how funds are allocated to cities and lots of other things…. I felt… it was a difficult issue to address from that particular perspective. Certainly the Governor’s proposal has a reduction and we are talking about a philosophical thing here." He quoted from an article in the San Jose Mercury News which discussed "why the two parties don’t agree as to what the benefits of that reduction in the tax would be, rather than really discussing the whole way that they allocate money. When the issue first came to me it came through Assemblyman Lempert’s office, and he wanted to know if I knew someone in the Governor’s office that we could contact to discuss this." Council Member Ira said the Assembly was getting very close to returning ERAF(Education Revenue Augmentation Funds) monies back to the cities. He said that once the issue of VLF was raised the ERAF plan was abandoned immediately. He said, "Really it is a stopgap measure. They are happy now that we are not going to lose these monies, they don’t even worry about how to address the ERAF money right now. There is a lot larger issue here, and that’s mainly the reason that I felt that really I didn’t want to address this one particular one. I can guarantee you that Governor Wilson has already been contacted by the League of Cities and he knows exactly how the League feels, and what the League’s position is on this bill. I felt that our time would be much better spent addressing some of these other issues. And that was the reason that we didn’t feel that we needed to address this particular issue and bring it before the Council."
Vice Mayor Ruskin said he respected his colleague’s views, but his concern was while the vote may or may not divide along party lines in Sacramento, the effect of this were to pass would be non-partisan on our city’s budget." Vice Mayor Ruskin said he had researched this issue and was astonished at the impact this would have on the City and said he felt it was worthy of Council consideration. He described how the State of California during its economic crisis several years ago took City funds and moved them to the Education Augmentation Fund. Vice Mayor Ruskin said he didn’t see the value of continuing the policy now when the State is experiencing good economic times. He said the impact on cities would be enormous, and "Governor Wilson understands full well, I believe, that the intention of present legislation is to guarantee the cities the money coming from the Vehicle License Tax. In fact the legislation states that that money can’t go anywhere else but the cities. But there is a loophole that has been found, and that is, you can eliminate the tax itself. I believe Governor Wilson understands the cities need this money, and he has offered to hold the cities harmless to the effects of the loss of the Vehicle License Tax. The problem is that several times in the past decade the legislature in one form or another has agreed to hold the cities harmless, but they have never enacted the legislation to do so. There has been a series of broken promises. Where might this money come from? The most likely place is to move back from Education. I think that would be a disaster…. In terms of a policy, I think the responsible thing for the legislature to do, if they were to remove the Vehicle License Fee would be to combine that with legislation as to how the cities would be held harmless. And unless those are done at the same time, there is no way we can accept the good faith promise of the state government. They have often acted at their own advantage to the disadvantage of the cities. The effect upon our City and our residents would be catastrophic if this were to go through. Personally I believe it is an opportunity for legislators to look good while they are acting irresponsibly, and I don’t believe we should sit quietly by and allow people to have that opportunity and affect the City as negatively as it would be affected."
Council Member Leipzig said, "I feel like this is C-Span here. The hour is late and there is no one here listening to the speeches… I’m going to vote ‘no’ of course." Council Member Leipzig expressed his displeasure that this item was scheduled on the Council agenda after the Legislative Committee chose not to consider it. He said the Committee had decided not to bring it to the Council, "and here it is."
Council Member Claire expressed his concern that an important item like the loss of revenues to the City had not been reviewed by the Legislative Committee and brought to the Council with recommendations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AT 11:01 p.m., M/S: RUSKIN/HARTNETT TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 11:05 P.M.
CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOICE VOTE:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS BAIN, CLAIRE, HARTNETT, IRA, RUSKIN AND MAYOR HOWARD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBER LEIPZIG
MINUTE ORDER 98-151
M/S: HARTNETT/BAIN TO OPPOSE THE VEHICLE LICENSE FEE (VLF) REPEAL PROPOSALS.
CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOICE VOTE:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS BAIN, CLAIRE, HARTNETT, RUSKIN AND MAYOR HOWARD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS IRA AND LEIPZIG
MINUTE ORDER 98-152
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. CLOSED SESSION
None
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. ADJOURNMENT
M/S: LEIPZIG/BAIN TO ADJOURN THE MEETING TO 7:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1998 FOR AN INTERVIEW SESSION IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER AND CONFERENCE ROOM, 1017 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, REDWOOD CITY; CANCEL THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 15, 1998; AND ADJOURN THE JUNE 10 INTERVIEW SESSION TO 7:00 P.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 18 FOR AN INTERVIEW SESSION IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER AND CONFERENCE ROOM, 1017 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD, REDWOOD CITY.
Arlyn c. Jorgenson
City Clerk
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING and CONCURRENT PUBLIC HEARING
with the REDWOOD CITY CITY COUNCIL
and REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JUNE 8, 1998
CALL TO ORDER – 8:11 p.m., Mayor/Chairman Howard presiding
ROLL CALL
Council Members/Redevelopment Agency Board Directors present: Bain, Claire, Hartnett, Ira, Hartnett, Leipzig, Ruskin and Mayor/Chairman Howard
Council Members/Redevelopment Agency Board Directors absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager Everett, City Attorney Sorba, Redevelopment Agency Attorney Kessler, City Clerk/Redevelopment Agency Secretary Jorgenson, Assistant to the City Manager Moore, Finance Director Ponty, Community Development Director Nelson, Engineering and Construction Manager Patterson, Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Church, Redevelopment Specialist Cady, and Council Volunteer Balsamo Council/Redevelopment Agency consultants present: Mark Milakovich and Stephanie Smith of Katz Hollis
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
None
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
- M/S: BAIN/LEIPZIG TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 1998 SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AS SUBMITTED;
CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE.
MINUTE ORDER NO. 17-98RD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. GENERAL
A. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING of the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council of the City of Redwood City on the Proposed Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 2; and CONCURRENT PUBLIC HEARING on the Proposed Implementation Plan Amendment for Redevelopment Project No. 2
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING AND CONCURRENT PUBLIC HEARING
Affidavit of Notice of Publication of Public Hearing is on file in the City Clerk Department.
The complete text of the proposed amendment is on file in the City Clerk Department.
1. Open public hearing;
COUNCIL MEMBERS/DIRECTORS HARTNETT AND IRA EXCUSEDTHEMSELVES DUE TO A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTERESTRELATING TO CLIENTS OR BUSINESS IN THE PROPOSEDAMENDED AREA, AND LEFT THE DAIS.MEMO 6/10/98
Mayor/Chairman Howard said this was a joint public hearing of the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council of the City of Redwood City on the 4th Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 2, and concurrent hearing on the proposed implementation plan amendment.
Mayor/Chairman Howard said the purpose of the joint session of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency is to hold a public hearing to consider an act upon the proposed 4th Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project No. 2 and related documents and the proposed implementation plan amendment.
Mayor/Chairman Howard said properties in the existing Redevelopment Project No. 2 were not under consideration at this time, only properties in the proposed amended area.
Mayor/Chairman Howard declared the public hearing open at 8:14 p.m.
Mayor/Chairman Howard described the procedures required by law in the conduct of the joint public hearing and concurrent public hearing. She said the purpose of the hearing was to consider, 1) the proposed 4th Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to Redevelopment Project No. 2, 2) the report of the Redevelopment Agency to the City Council, 3) the proposed amendment to the implementation plan, and 40 all evidence for and against the adoption of the proposed 4th amendment. She said notices of these public hearings have been mailed and published as required by law.
Mayor/Chairman Howard said, "The 4th amendment discussed today does not change or extend in any way the time or financial limits which apply to the existing project area, including the Agency’s existing eminent domain authority. A transcript will be made of this hearing…. All person’s desiring to speak will be given an opportunity to do so." She asked everyone to fill out a speaker’s card.
Mayor/Chairman Howard said all questions would be recorded and as many questions as possible would be answered at the end of public comment by staff and consultants.
Mayor/Chairman Howard described the procedures for the hearing. She asked that all written comments be submitted to Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Church sitting at the staff table. She said that responses to all written comments received by the close of this meeting will be made at the June 22, 1998 Concurrent Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting. She said that after all public comments were received, the public hearing would be closed and action would be taken at the June 22, 1998 Concurrent Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting.
2. Staff and consultant presentation;
REPORT:
Available in the City Clerk Department.
Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Church used slides "to provide a brief history of Redevelopment Agency activities in Redwood City, what redevelopment is, what its power and purposes are, how it’s funded, why it has the power of eminent domain, what Redwood City has accomplished with its redevelopment power, why we are proposing to expand the territory, and the definition of blight.
Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Church said redevelopment in Redwood City came into existence in 1982, which included two areas in the downtown and two east of Highway 101. Director Church said the First Amendment was adopted in 1983, the Second Amendment in 1989, and the Third Amendment in 1997.
Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Church said every City in the State of California has the opportunity to establish a Redevelopment Agency, "to assist City government in improving a designated area and to achieve desired development reconstruction and rehabilitation." Director Church said the purposes of redevelopment under state law are to alleviate blight, to develop low and moderate income housing, to provide opportunities for employment.
Director Church described the powers of the Agency, and said it cannot operate outside the boundaries of the Redevelopment area except for funding of housing. He said Redevelopment Agencies do not have the ability to tax, it gets its funding from taxes generated by new development. He said, "If you own property in the Redevelopment area now, your taxes will not go up because of redevelopment. I can’t promise taxes will never go up, but the proposed 4th Amendment would not generate a tax increase." Director Church said 20% of funds the Agency receives from promoting new development has to be set aside for development of low and moderate housing.
Director Church said many governmental agencies have the power of eminent domain to purchase property for a public purpose, and with redevelopment it is mostly done to assemble parcels. He said, "It can only do so when the project being proposed is determined to have a high public purpose and it must follow a very difficult and detailed process." He said Redwood City had not used the power often nor lightly.
Director Church listed the Redevelopment Agency projects funded in Redwood City since 1982: Seaport Centre and Seaport Boulevard; Rolison Road acquisition of dilapidated properties designated for low and moderate income; Wyndham Place, 15 affordable owner occupied condominiums built on the site of a demolished blighted motel on Whipple Avenue; design studies for Carrington hall; Sequoia Station; participated in the cost of the County’s new parking structure; half the funding of the City’s new downtown parking structure; Mezes Plaza that will be the new home of U.C. Berkeley Extension; storefront improvement program; funding to establish a restaurant training facility at Mime’s restaurant in the downtown; Broadway sidewalks and furniture; City Centre Plaza, 81 affordable rentals and retail; Canada College Small Business Development Center; seed money for the County Historic Museum in the downtown; Climate Best archways; CalTrans Station clock Tower; Hamilton Avenue street improvements; Sequoia Gate at Sequoia High School and painting and landscaping; and downtown Broadway entry features.
Director Church said expansion would allow the Agency to be used as a tool for improvements along the 101 Corridor and El Camino Real. He said the bulk of the projects have been small projects designed to enhance the environment. Director Church said expansion might also allow relocation of some auto businesses that might be forced to move because of existing inadequate sites on El Camino Real.
Director Church introduced Mark Milakovich, consultant from Katz Hollis, to explain the legal definition of blight.
Mr. Milakovich said part of his role was to "document the economic and physical blighting conditions within the proposed 4th Amendment area." He said that the California Community Redevelopment Law defines two types of blight, economic and physical, "and at a minimum one type of physical blighting condition and one type of economic blighting condition must be present within an area to establish a Redevelopment Project."
Mr. Milakovich said the physical conditions that cause blight include, 1) buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work; 2) Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots; 3) Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the economic development of those parcels or other portions of the project area; 4) the existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are under multiple ownerships.
Mr. Milakovich said economic blight includes: 1) Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments, including but not limited to properties containing hazardous wastes; 2) Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, high turnover rates, abandoned buildings or excessive vacant lots within an area developed for urban use and served by utilities; 3) the lack of necessary commercial facilities; 4) Residential overcrowding or an excessive of bars, liquor stores or other businesses that cater exclusively to adults that has led to problems of public safety and welfare; and 5) a high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare.
Mr. Milakovich said the consultants job was to look at an area with respect to those definitions and document observations. He said the law requires only one physical and one economic condition be prevalent to qualify for inclusion in a Redevelopment Project; or that "the sum of the physical and economic blighting conditions within the area must be prevalent." He said in the proposed 4th amendment, "the latter is true. Although there is not one overriding blighting condition which is pervasive throughout the entire area, it is the sum of these conditions which combine to create the over all condition of blight within the area."
Mr. Milakovich said the blighting conditions for the proposed area are described in the subject Report under Tab 6, and contain thirteen different elements.
Mr. Milakovich said blight is an areawide concept and should not be measured parcel by parcel. He said the proposed 4th Amendment does contain unblighted properties. and "the Agency tried to keep the numbers of such parcels to a minimum, and has amended the boundaries and the scope of this project several times." Mr. Milakovich said the blighted conditions cited in the Report were "a snapshot" taken at a given time, and "logistical constraints prohibit continuously updating the data." He said "the total assessed valuation for the proposed 4th Amendment area dropped by about $18 million between 1996/97 and 1997/98… This statistic alone is an excellent indicator of the continuing conditions within the area."
Mr. Milakovich advised that the characterizations within this area cited in the Report, "do not stay with the property in any way beyond the adoption of this planned amendment. And indeed as project activities get under way, any such conditions are often alleviated as the area improves." He said a redevelopment designation often shows up on a title report, but "This designation in and of itself means nothing, and will not have any effect on either the salability of a parcel or the ability to finance such a sale."
Director Church said, "The evaluation of the blight argument for this area is not dependent on any one property." He said it might be true that an individual property is not blighted under the law, but "there is a basis for making a finding for a Redevelopment area without having to make a finding that every property within the boundary is blighted." He said a rational boundary needed to be established, and trying to establish an area "with too many holes or notches in it trying to incorporate only those properties that are clearly blighted, you create a boundary that has very little value." Director Church described the 20-year life of the Plan and said it would allow the Council/Agency to respond to changing opportunities.
3. Receive written statements, questions and comments;
Mayor/Chairman Howard asked everyone who wished to submit a written comment to please hand it to Director Church. The following written comments were received:
Peninsula Open Space Trust, Walter Moore, June 8, 1998;
F. P. International, 1090 Mills Way;
Catholic Worker House, 545 Cassia Street, Lawrence Purcell, May 12, 1998;
Seaport Industrial Business Association, Clem Molony, June 5, 1998;
Wendall, Rose, Black and Dean, Malibu Grand Prix, Deborah Livornese, June 8, 1998;
Hannig Law Firm, Ted Hannig, June 8, 1998;
Lyngso Garden Materials, Theresa Lyngso, June 8, 1998
Lyngso Garden Materials, Victor Thomas, June 9, 1998
FP International, Arthur Graham
Director Church written responses to all written comments received will be made at the Concurrent Council/Redevelopment Agency Board Meeting of January 22, 1998. He added that staff would try to respond to questions raised during the public statement period after the public statement period was concluded.
MEMO 6/10/98
In response to Council Member Bain’s questions, Director Church described the status of talks with the County regarding the conditions of County property just south of the Redwood City border along El Camino Real, and said although County staff was not involved in any plans for the area, perhaps Council Members could work with their peers on the Board of Supervisors to discuss positive changes.
4. Receive public statements, questions and comments;
Mayor/Chairman Howard called upon those speakers who wished to comment at this time. She advised that any speaker would have the opportunity to question staff or the consultants through the Mayor/Chairman. She asked everyone to please try to abide by the established three-minute time limit, and said those speaking for several people could take longer.
In response to Council Member/Director Leipzig’s questions, Redevelopment Agency Counsel Kessler stipulated that speakers did not have to declare if they were tenants or owners, the property address would suffice.
MEMO 6/10/98
Alice Parcell, owner of the property at 1590 Tacoma Way, speaking for her parents, her brother and her husband, Frank Parcell, said she opposed the proposed 4th Amendment based on issues of code enforcement and supply and demand and not the issue of redevelopment. She said she was speaking as a property owner of 6 parcels, business owner, employer, landlord and tenant all in Area 1. Mrs. Parcell said her business was not blighted, and pointed out several errors in the Report. She described the outstanding services her employees have provided since 1952, many of them Redwood City residents and long, long time employees. She expressed doubt they would be allowed to continue to work in Redwood City if the 4th Amendment passes. Mrs. Parcell said it appeared to her that the City/Agency wanted her property to relocate auto dealerships to bring in higher tax sales revenue. She said her company had plans for improvements but had to wait until the Highway 101 improvements were completed. Mrs. Parcell responded to several blighted conditions cited in the Report and explained they did not apply to her property. She said the conditions cited are problems of code enforcement and supply and demand in Area 1, and not redevelopment issues. She said, "One of the reason assessed valuations have not gone up dramatically is because many of the properties have not changed hands often or recently." Mrs. Parcell said when service companies are forced out of the City, jobs can be lost and prices might have to rise. She said there is not a comparable site in the City to relocate her business, which needs a large space for trucks and freeway access. Mrs. Parcell said the underground tank on her property is legal and services 50 trucks. She said everyone will end up paying more if the City eliminates industrial companies. She said, "If the 4th Amendment is adopted, the value of their properties would no longer be governed by the market place and free enterprise, because all of the properties are along the 101 corridor, and if we want to sell a property the value would be questionable, since the proposed buyers would know that they could be redeveloped, also."
Director Church said, "I want to remind the Council/Agency that simply by establishing a Redevelopment District, you are not necessarily implying that you are going to act in that area right away." He said there are properties established in 1982 have not changed. Director Church said the Council could decide to act and the property owners would be invited to participate, or developers can come to the Council/Agency with a proposal, such as Sequoia Station. Director Church said there was no evidence that establishing a Redevelopment District has created a problem either buying or selling properties in the Area over the sixteen years of the Redevelopment Agency.
Mayor/Chairman Howard asked that errors in the Report be corrected. Director Church said the properties, although incorrectly identified, were in the proposed amended area.
MEMO 6/10/98
Deborah Livornese, from the law firm Wendell, Rose and Black and Dean, 1111 Broadway, Oakland, speaking on behalf of Malibu Grand Prix, said the business occupied approximately 14 acres in Area 2. She said it had been there almost 20 years and is a thriving success attracting approximately 1 million visitors per year to Redwood City. Ms. Livornese said Malibu Grand Prix is an active contributor to the community. She said Malibu Grand Prix had been in discussions with City staff for the last 18 months relating to improved upgrades, but had not learned of this proposed amendment until last week, and did not receive a mailed notice. Ms. Livornese said she received materials relating to the amendment last Friday and had not had time to fully consider them, and the notice given was not adequate. Ms. Livornese said she had also submitted written comments. She said Area 2 was home to many thriving businesses, and Malibu was the only family entertainment site in the area. She questioned what would happen to all the kids who "hang out" there, if the business was forced to move. Ms. Livornese showed a plan for upgrades to the site, and said "to
have the site under threat of condemnation as part of a Redevelopment Plan really provides a disincentive to Malibu Grand Prix Corporation to make this kind of an investment." She said that the Finding that Area 2 is a blighted area is just not supported by the facts. Area 2 should be removed from this amendment."
Director Church said, "In the issue of the public notice, in an attempt to reach everybody we were obligated to try to reach all the owners and tenants within the area. We did a mail-out in excess of 2,700 pieces. The advertisement in the newspaper was repeated for six weeks. We have made every reasonable effort to try to get the notice to everybody."
Rick Showecker, representing Granite Rock, said they owned 4 parcels, approximately 20 acres along Blomquist, and totaling 50 acres including the property along Seaport Boulevard. He said the properties have been 100% occupied for 15 years, including Malibu Grand Prix. Mr. Showecker said their tenants and Granite Rock itself planned to remain in their present locations. He said one of their main concerns for their properties was to find compatible users, and they found them with Malibu, T and H. and Pavex. Mr. Showecker said they were concerned about new taxes, condemnations and the possibility that those businesses would have to be relocated and the new businesses would not be compatible. He asked that the Council/Agency reconsider the inclusion of Area 2.
David Irmer, 209 Paradise Drive, Tiburon, said he did not support any particular issue, but wanted to comment on the concept of redevelopment. He described the ten-year process he went through to develop and complete Sequoia Station. Mr. Irmer said the process was long, but just and fair. He described the concept of blight and how it related to Sequoia Station parcels. Mr. Irmer said he hoped the Council/Agency would act accordingly whenever Redevelopment Projects were proposed.
Don Warren, Stonybrook Associates, said he was not representing any particular property owner nor did he have any property interests in the proposed amended Area. He said he wanted to share his experiences with redevelopment. Mr. Warren said he had always been a strong and outspoken advocate of private property rights. He said, however, there were, at times, good and demonstrable reasons for redevelopment activity to take place, if done right. Mr. Warren said, "Assuming there was a bona fide finding of blight in a community…. Then a properly constituted Redevelopment Agency, which you do have in this City, can do a great deal of good, by bringing together the various disparate voices that may exist and have interest within the defined Area. And bring them to the table in a framework for decision making that otherwise probably could not happen." He said Sequoia Station was a good example of different interests coming together to complete a project that has been very successful. Mr. Warren said only the existence and the powers of the Redwood City Redevelopment Agency are permitting the Franklin Street Area project to go forward. He said "without the Agency that Area would develop like Topsy."
Joe Brady, 234 Marshall, one of the developers of City Centre Plaza, the new downtown building soon to be occupied by U.C. Berkeley Extension, said he and his partners were unable to develop that property for years because of the economic climate. He said the Redevelopment Agency offered them a chance to participate in a large development with the adjacent land owners, and said he found the experience very positive. Mr. Brady said that the Plaza project appears to be a catalyst for downtown renewal, and that project would not have come about without the assistance of the Redevelopment Agency.
Frank Manocchio, 1280 Middlefield Road, Landscape Contractor, said he opposed the inclusion of Area No. 2. He said he purchased materials from Lyngso Garden Materials, and "they are a very vital part of this area’s economy in terms of supplying building materials and landscaping materials to the green industry." Mr. Manocchio said if they had to relocate their prices would go up. He said a key to a healthy economy is diversity of businesses. He said Area 2 had a history of industrial use and the compatible businesses were thriving there. Mr. Manocchio said the concepts of blight and eminent domain were too broad and threatened the livelihood of these businesses. He said being in a Redevelopment Area was like having the sword of Damocles hanging over people and discouraged investment and long range planning.
Theresa Lyngso, Lyngso Garden Materials, 19 Seaport Boulevard, said her company had been in business for over 40 years and in Redwood City for 30 years. She said a compatible and stable industrial and recycling community has grown and prospered there for 30 years. Mrs. Lyngso said this area was constantly being considered for other uses, and she wondered why the businesses who have worked so hard to be there aren’t valued more. She said they were a strongly community oriented business that needed a special home. Mrs. Lyngso said the Blomquist area is one of the best areas on the Peninsula for these types of businesses. She said they built their business and made improvements in good faith that the City would continue to support them. She said they were discouraged and disheartened to be included in this area.
Director Church said, in response to the last two speakers, "Just because you are in a Redevelopment District does not mean that this Council, this Board will take any action to effect negatively those businesses. I think quite the contrary. Given the kind of input you have received, it would be… counter rational to say yes, we would want to remove these businesses wholesale. I don’t think that is what you have indicated to staff, and that’s not what this proposal would necessarily do. What we would open up
is the possibility that, just as we have provided a lot of money and incentives to businesses in the downtown to make improvements…. We could do that same kind of investment along Blomquist."
Ken Hettman, 1846 Stockbridge Avenue, homeowner and commercial property owner in Redwood City, said he had problems getting notices of this Proposed Amendment and suggested using Certified Mail. He said he had a proof of delivery of the written comments he sent to the City. In response to Mr. Hettman’s questions, Mayor/Chairman Howard said that the City paid Mr. Church, and the City hired Mr. Milakovich and the Mayor/Directors were elected and paid by the residents elected. Mr. Hettman expressed concern that the Council/Board were going to take away his building "without me having an opportunity to fix it up or rebuild it" and his retirement that he worked so hard for. In answer to Mr. Hettman’s questions, Mayor/Chairman Howard said that at this hearing, the Council/Board would hear all public comment about the Proposed Amendment. Mr. Hettman said it was his understanding that the Council/Board could take his property and give it to a developer so the City could get more tax money. He discussed proposed projects in San Carlos and auto dealerships and the Circle Star Theater property. Mr. Hettman discussed the problems posed by commercial development to residences in the area, and said the people should make these kinds of decisions. He said no one had ever contacted him about the Storefront Improvement Project. He said there was no communication, "It’s dictatorship…. You should help your citizens. Not take from the poor and give to the rich."
Victor Thomas, Lyngso Garden Materials, described the $500,000 improvements permitted by the City five years ago. He said their business was neat, clean and efficient and had always been a strong contributor to the community. Mr. Thomas said the area had compatible, healthy, stable and successful business. He said the EIR unfairly labels their neighborhood as blighted, and the consultant’s Report is inaccurate. He said Lyngso’s location was extremely important to its employees and its success.
Bob Peter, 50 chemical Way yielded his time to Clem Molony.
Clem Molony, Secretary of the Seaport Industrial Association, spoke in opposition to the proposed Amendment. He said he researched the issue and submitted a written comment. Mr. Molony said he wanted to speak for good planning. He said the businesses along Blomquist do not belong in Area 2, and asked the Council to listen to its traditional industrial companies and the real estate development industry. Mr. Molony said that the businesses along Blomquist are a special case, that they represent "a contiguous sub-area between Maple and Seaport" of compatible uses within a clearly delineated and logical boundary. Mr. Molony used four slides to show the businesses along Blomquist providing middle-class jobs, solid sales and property taxes. Mr. Molony said those businesses have provided major community support for decades and decades and have plans for massive investments for the future as well as providing diversity in the City’s portfolio. Mr. Molony said the Report citing blight was inaccurate relating to Area 2, and this sub-area was not legally justified to be labeled as blighted. He said this was a very healthy economic sector and property values were increasing on their own. Mr. Molony said there was a need to respect private property rights, and recommended that a project area committee be formed to avoid creating a divisive issue. He said redevelopment works well where it is needed, but it is not needed on Blomquist. Mr. Molony submitted his slides for the record.
Director Church said the law does not obligate the formation of a project area committee as there are no residential units in the proposed area. He said if there were, however, the plan as currently proposed would exempt them.. Director Church said the original direction from the Council was to include area along the El Camino and both sides of the 101 corridor, and the original Plan name was the 101 Project. He said the testimony tonight "indicates that there is a substantial investment in the industrial sector. The Plan life we are proposing here will run for 20 years, and a lot may change in that time. This proposal before you would provide you with tools to respond to changes in circumstance a long time in the future. It may be that you want to leave and encourage those businesses to grow in that area. I think that is the direction that you have given us over the last year or so. If that is the case, then that is what will happen as a result of redevelopment. It gives you a tool to affect those businesses in a positive way. The implication is from the discussion of blight and eminent domain that the only thing you are going to do is affect them negatively, and I don’t think that’s true."
Lynette Dowling, 751 Canyon Road, said her auto mechanic’s business is on Tacoma and she buys lots of materials to beautify her property from Lyngso. She asked if her mechanic’s business was compatible with the area for redevelopment, and if not, what kind of relocation assistance would be offered to him. She described the positive outcome of the City staff working with the gas station on Canyon Road and Oak Knoll. She encouraged staff to use that process as a model.
Director Church said it is too soon to comment on any given use as there is no Plan at this point. He said there is relocation assistance available as provided under law to businesses impacted by redevelopment.
Bart Saucerman, 1485 Veterans Blvd., representing Good Night Inn Hotels, in the proposed Area 1, said he supported the Redevelopment Project. He said that his company wanted to create more jobs for the City, and generate more revenue, and asked, "How can we partner with the City in helping to redevelop our property and our project?"
Director Church said staff would contact Mr. Saucerman.
MEMO 6/10/98
Bruce Dorfman, Irvine Apartment Communities, also representing Shea Homes and Butler Construction, developers of the Franklin Street Area Project, described their project of 500 home community on Franklin. He said, "This project will become the watermark upon which all other Master Plan residential communities on the Peninsula will be compared." Mr. Dorfman said the project will also assist in the continued revitalization of the downtown. He said, "It would not be possible without the Redevelopment Agency’s involvement."
Ted Hannig, 2991 El Camino Real, representing Lyngso Garden Materials, Inc., Peninsula Building Materials, Tanklage Construction Company, Inc., Pressure Vessel Service Inc., Granite Rock, Malibu Castle Golf and Games, and other individual property owners, used computer slides to address Area 2. Mr. Hannig addressed the issue of blight and showed blighted areas in the existing Redevelopment Area. He said, "a blighted area must constitute a serious physical and economic burden on the community. For you to find that Area 2 is subject to redevelopment", you will have to find that it constitutes a burden on the community, and…. also show that that burden cannot be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or government action or both. And you must also show either physical blight and economic blight or the majority of lots are of irregular form and shape and inadequate size." Mr. Hannig recapped the earlier explanations of physical and economic blight. He said Justice Hanning wrote an opinion in 1987, "To qualify and be properly subject to redevelopment you have to look at the area as a whole, and the whole area must be found to be blighted. I will submit to you tonight, that Area 2 either in its full composite or as Mr. Molony suggested the portion that might be removed, cannot be found to be blighted." Mr. Hannig said only a compelling economic need can allow the government to use what is called an extraordinary power of redevelopment. He said, "Nor can you look to the future of what speculative gain you might have by other forms of businesses" such as car dealerships. Mr. Hannig said the legislature had made clear that the finding of blight not be made on the basis of potential alternative uses but on the basis of existing use. He said, "If Area 2 does not constitute a serious physical and economic burden which the private sector or government cannot fix, it is not a blighted area. Or if it does not suffer both physical and economic conditions that cause blight and does not contain lots of irregular form and shape, it is not a blighted area."
Mr. Hannig showed a slide of the map of the proposed amended area, and conducted a virtual tour of Area 2. Mr. Hannig said the proposed amendment appeared to be a gerrymandered district in spite of staff’s comments to the contrary. He said consistent planning is impossible with inconsistent borders. Mr. Hannig described properties the Report identified as vacant, and advised they were in fact occupied. He said he did not find one vacant property in Area 2. Mr. Hannig described a recent profitable sale of a property in the proposed area and said, "this tells us that you have escalating property values, when a current sale exceeds an option price, thus defeating one of the characteristics that are frequently associated with blight." He described a San Carlos business moving into that property which also denies blight. Mr. Hannig said crime was not a problem in the area, although there was a lot of criminal activity at one location, 1301 Maple Street – the Redwood City police Department. Mr. Hannig said his data shows the proposed Area is not blighted nor were there so-called irregular lots. Mr. Hannig said this was a serious issue, and the businesses he represented had a passion for Redwood City and much preferred to work with the City.
Mr. Hannig addressed the issue of the City’s ethical obligations to business that have been located in the City for decades and have large investments. He said Lyngso was a prime example of the type of company which had provided much needed materials which actually help to alleviate blight in the City. He said that the Plan, and newspaper articles on the Plan, suggests that the Redevelopment Agency intended to relocate auto dealerships into the proposed Area. He said such an incompatible use downwind from Lyngso, Granite Rock, Peninsula Building Materials and others threatens the vitality of the whole area. He said, "As a lawyer, I know that litigation will ensue. In the long run the citizens of Redwood City will be the losers. These businesses should not have to worry. Family members should not have to lie awake wondering what a Redevelopment District is going to do as it changes over the political course of its lengthy history. Mr. Hannig said, "I believe the City’s ethical obligations to business like these are to give them certainty as to their future as they have provided the City with its own stable future."
Mr. Hannig described the other properties in the area, all without vacancies. He said prices will increase if construction materials companies are forced to move out of the area. He said he represented the property owners of Jay’s Towing site, and said they were quite willing to talk about development. Mr. Hannig said free enterprise is at work.
Mr. Hannig said his data and photos clearly show that Area 2 is not blighted. He said, "A wise man once told me that a good City Council has a desire to act, knows that it should, and does. A great City Council sometimes has a desire to act, but knows that it should not, and does not. Be that great city Council. Do not include Area 2 in the Redevelopment Plan. It is wrong."
Mayor/Chairman Howard announced that the Council/Board was about to close the joint public hearing, and said no further comments would be accepted after that time. She advised that there would be no public comment at the June 22, 1998 Concurrent Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting. Mayor/Chairman Howard asked if anyone else wished to speak. No one asked to speak.
5. Staff and consultants limited responses to questions and comments;
Director Church responded to concerns raised during the public comment. He said the Redevelopment Agency does not have the power to tax, and will not increase taxes. Director Church said being placed in a Redevelopment Area does not mean property will be taken or relocated, nor does it necessarily mean something negative will be done. He said the Redevelopment Agency believes it is a positive act by providing an opportunity for funding to existing or potential businesses. Director Church said some lenders have said they like projects in a Redevelopment District because it provides an additional source of funding for improvements or equity. He said hen the 2nd Amendment was passed no one envisioned what would happen with Franklin Street, there were no plans at the City level or by developers. He said the Franklin Street Project is only possible because of the redevelopment power, the ability to aggregate parcels. Director Church said that kind of event might be possible for any of the four areas being proposed. He described the Lone Star Company Batch Plant on El Camino Real and said the owners told the City/Agency that they were not going to get out of the sand and gravel business, "we are a heavy industry and we are not interested in land speculation. Three months later they sold the site." Director Church said things change over time.
Director Church said the proposed boundary is not rectilinear, "but the mandate from the Council was to incorporate those parcels into the Redevelopment District that we could support on a blighting argument that faced on the 101 Corridor. And that is what this attempts to do." Director Church said the vacancies were determined by a "snapshot in time. It was done some time ago" in order to get the data collated, through the Planning Commission process and into the written Report. He said it could not be continually updated. Director Church said the consultants determined that :the blighted argument could be sustained on the entire area, and that is the fact you have to consider. It is not a parcel by parcel analysis. It’s the cumulative impact of blight throughout the area both of a physical and economic nature.
In response to Vice Mayor/Vice Chairman Ruskin’s questions regarding vacancy discrepancies, Director Church said, "The information could well be changed somewhat." He said he didn’t know if there were errors in the data, but that was a possibility. Director Church said the vacancy rate that was found at the time of the survey was included in the Report, and he didn’t know what it was at this time.
Council Member/Director Claire asked that staff clearly describe the relocation policies in a Report by January 22, 1998, so everyone would know what to expect if in fact at some point in time relocation was required. He also asked for the data on the relocation efforts during the Sequoia Station and Mezes project.
MEMO 6/10/98
City Manager Everett said, "It is important to remember that Redevelopment Agencies do two things. They do redevelop new businesses and they do help redevelop existing businesses. I also want to point out that part of the economic strategy that this Council adopted was to save and improve existing businesses. When you have a Redevelopment Agency you have more tools and different sources of revenue to in fact help do that. I know the presentation has been, if this goes through then we will have to leave. I think that is the wrong image to leave with people. I concur with many of the people. Lyngso I happen to know, Granite Rock we happen to know. We have worked with the CEO of Granite Rock… I find both of them excellent companies, value driven, exceptionally well run. I would be shocked if the Council would ever consider moving those. I can conceive certainly in the short run, 5-7 years where they might want to develop their existing business in a better way, which would in fact help us and they may need redevelopment help to do that… The other thing we must look at is we are planning twenty years from now, and I certainly know that 15 years ago when we first put Redevelopment together, no one knew that the Way To Go Building in downtown would be sold. It has been sold, and we now in fact have bought it through redevelopment, and a theater complex would like to move in there. When you look at this you are looking at two things. How do you help existing businesses? How do you redevelop areas that have no business or weak business? And the other thing you always look at is what will happen fifteen years out. There is a twenty year life to this particular project. I happen to think that, although I know it is difficult to understand because we word things in very legal ways and we talk about all the down sides that could happen, we are required to do that by law. But this Council and certainly its economic strategy is, and a policy they have endorsed, is to assist existing businesses. I would say Lyngso, Granite Rock and I don’t mean to pick on those, because there are lots of other good businesses, are good businesses, ones that would want to help and ones that we honor and cherish to be part of our community. So I think the issue of blight, and I think Mr. Hannig made a great presentation, that is for our experts. I can’t tell you whether it is blight or not… (The consultants) will come back to you and say this is why we think it is (blight) or here is where we made some mistakes. But assuming it has the legal definition of blight, I think we have to not think always of what dastardly thing the City will do against a business, but rather what it can do to help a business. And if we are trying to save a business or keep a business, quite frankly, redevelopment is very helpful, because other cities have them and could offer something to one of our businesses and cause them to move. And we would not have the same playing field to try to keep that business. I don’t think this Council is against or moving out businesses, I think it is about helping businesses."
Mayor/Chairman Howard said she agreed with the City Manager and thanked him for putting it into perspective.
Council Member/Director Leipzig said, "I wish this audience had been able to meet my friend, Tom McClintock,… who is now a state assemblyman… and trying to eliminate Redevelopment Agencies in California." Council Member/Director Leipzig said he found the comment that assessed valuations in the proposed area had declined over the last fiscal year very, very difficult to believe. He said no action would be taken at this meeting, but "I have my own particular opinion. I think it would be an easier sale to the public, and this is to my colleagues and to the staff, if we took care of some of the real blight problems in this City, particularly neighborhoods, other areas that are in existing Redevelopment Areas, before we go into a new area and continually grow the Redevelopment Agency, it is not a comment on Mr. Church, and the governmental process, because there are strings attached." Council Member/Director discussed the requirement to include 15% low to moderate income units in any housing development, and said, "I think we have enough in Redwood City. That’s a fact we have to pay attention to. We’ll get back to it on the 22nd."
Director Church said staff would provide data regarding assessed valuations, by Areas, and the other issues raised at this meeting to the Council/Board before June 22.
MEMO 6/10/98
Mayor/Chairman Howard asked if there were any other questions. No one had any more questions or comments. Mayor/Chairman Howard declared the joint public hearing of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency and the Redevelopment Agency Public Hearing on the Proposed Implementation Plan amendment closed.
6. Close public hearing and 7. Council action;
M/S: BAIN/LEIPZIG TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND CONTINUE THE CONCURRENT COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TO 7:35 P.M., MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1998 IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER, TO CONSIDER WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED FROM EXISTING PROJECT AREA OR 4TH AMENDMENT SUB AREA PROPERTY OWNERS OR TAXING AGENCIES AT THE JUST CONCLUDED JOINT PUBLIC HEARING AFTER WHICH THE AGENCY AND THE COUNCIL WILL DELIBERATE ON THE MATTERS BEFORE THEM INCLUDING THE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS LISTED ON THE AGENDA.
CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS ROLL CALL VOTE.
MINUTE ORDER NO. 18-098RD
MINUTE ORDER NO. 98-147
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. ADJOURNMENT
Concurrent Council/Redevelopment Agency adjourned at 10:25 p.m. to 7:35 p.m., Monday, June 22, 1998.
Arlyn C. Jorgenson
City Clerk/
Redevelopment Agency Secretary
City of Redwood City
| City CouncilCopyright © 1998. The City of Redwood City. All rights reserved.