Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPJT Minutes 1998-09-08SRCC/SRRA MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 9/8/98 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1998, AT 7:55 PM Special Joint Meeting: Present: Gary O. Phillips, Vice-Mayor/Vice- Chairman San Rafael City Council/ Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember/Member San Rafael Redevelopment Agency Barbara Heller, Councilmember/Member Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember/Member Absent: Albert J. Boro, Mayor/Chairman Others Present: Rod Gould, City Manager/Executive Director Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney/Agency Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk/Agency Secretary SPECIAL JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (RA) - File (SRRA) R-140 XVII x (SRCC) 140 Vice-Mayor/Vice-Chairman Phillips explained the Councilmembers served both as members of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency, and would be doing so as part of this joint public hearing. He explained the purpose of the hearing was to discuss the Second Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Central San Rafael Redevelopment Project. Mr. Phillips noted speaker forms were available for anyone wishing to address the Council/Agency concerning the Redevelopment Plan, and asked that forms be filled out and given to the City Clerk by anyone who wished to speak. Senior Development Specialist Nancy Mackle explained the Redevelopment Agency Plan was a very general guide for the actions the Agency can take to meet its goals, such as economic revitalization, job creation, affordable housing, and the elimination of blight. She noted this Plan had been written very generally, compared to the detailed, specific programs contained in the Implementation Plan. Ms. Mackle reported the Redevelopment Plan was first adopted in 1972, and has been amended a couple of times, although it has only been restated one time. Ms. Mackle stated the amendments and restatement now before the Council/Agency would bring the Agency up-to-date with the final changes that have been done. She noted the amendments were technical in nature, and would not add any new territory, or change the goals or scope of the Plan, nor would they change the Project Area. She pointed out that a large map of the project area was available in the lobby, for anyone who wished to see the project area. This public hearing was to bring the Agency up to date with such things as new State laws, explaining these changes did not oblige the Agency, or fund the Agency, to do these projects, they merely reflected the Agency's ability to do certain things, such as abating graffiti, remediating hazardous materials, providing loans for the rehabilitation of commercial buildings, providing financial assistance for industrial manufacturing uses, or providing assistance for seismic retro -fitting. Ms. Mackle stated this was simply being added to a list of tools within the Plan which allow the Agency to achieve its goals. Ms. Mackle stated staff was also recommending the Agency extend the date by which it must commence Eminent Domain action, explaining it currently expires in 1999, and it is being extended by twelve years, the maximum it can be extended, bringing it closer to the end of the Plan, which is 2011. Ms. Mackle noted that as in the past, this would be used very sparingly, and only as a last resort, pointing out that because this was a very general plan and guide, there was no specific property being targeted for that kind of action. Ms. Mackle reported the Plan had been presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee on Redevelopment, and both the CAC and the Planning Commission have reviewed the Plan, and recommended its adoption. She stated staff has gone through the CEQA Environmental Review process, and found the City's General Plan EIR would cover this amendment, because nothing has been significantly changed. She explained tonight's action was to receive public testimony, hold the public hearing, and close the public hearing, and then come back on September 21st to take action adopting the amended plan, by Ordinance, and associated Resolutions. Vice-Mayor/Vice-Chairman Phillips opened the public hearing, and invited public comment. SRCC/SRRA MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 9/8/98 Page 1 SRCC/SRRA MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 9/8/98 Page 2 Krystyna Barron, resident of the Gerstle Park neighborhood, stated she lived in the area, close to the boundary shown on the map, and was very concerned about whether the Agency could extend the boundaries, and why the Agency needed an additional twelve years concerning the timeline for commencing Eminent Domain? She also stated her concern about industrial redevelopment in San Rafael, noting it was her understanding part of the amendment referred to the Agency having something to do with funding industrial projects. Ms. Mackle stated that for the Agency to go through a boundary change, it would have to go through a process similar to what they were doing now, and any change to the Redevelopment Plan would entail notifying all the taxing agencies, and all the property owners and residents of the project area. She stated it would be a major undertaking, and there were no plans, at staff level, to do anything like that, and they did not expect to bring anything like that forward. Councilmember/Member Heller asked if this was the original boundary the Agency started with in 1972? Mr. Ours stated these were the same boundaries established in 1972, and there were no plans to change these boundaries. He explained the Agency's boundaries were established because the areas within the boundaries were those which, at the time, were blighted, and undeveloped in East San Rafael, and in need of infrastructure improvements. He stated the same held true today, and there was no reason for the Redevelopment Agency to go into a residential area. In addition, the County of Marin would have to agree to it, which he was certain they would not, and the School Districts would also have to agree, which he saw no reason for them to do. Mr. Ours stated that since 1972 the Agency had a fairly long track record of what they have been doing, and where they have been doing it, and it has not been in the residential areas. Vice-Mayor/Vice-Chairman Phillips noted the residents would certainly be notified if there were any plans to extend the Redevelopment Agency boundaries, but based on staff's comments, he did not believe there were any such plans. Ms. Barron asked, if the Agency had twelve years to commence Eminent Domain, would that not give them twelve years during which the boundary could move? Mr. Ours explained the two were not connected, explaining Eminent Domain was a tool the Agency used in parcel assemblage within the boundaries. He reported that in the past sixteen years, since he had been with the Agency, it had only gone to Eminent Domain once for a road project, noting that could actually have been done under the City's authority, without using the power of the Redevelopment Agency to do it. He stated Eminent Domain was a tool that was very helpful, and could make it easier for the property owner when the Agency is trying to assemble parcels, noting there are tax advantages that can flow to the property owner. Ms. Barron noted twelve years was a long time, and asked why they needed a twelve-year extension, and if they really needed that long a time to know what they were doing? She pointed out they were saying such things as, "We don't plan to do such things", or "It would be a very rare situation, and we would have to come back to the Council", but those things were not an assurance, and did not make her feel as though the boundary was in place and was not going to move, and was something she did not have to worry about. Vice-Mayor/Vice-Chairman Phillips stated changing the boundaries seemed unlikely on a couple of counts. First, the residents within any proposed expanded boundaries would be notified, and given an opportunity to express their opinions, and second, with the tax structure the way it is, it would require the County and the School Districts to participate in the expansion of the boundaries, which they would not be inclined to do because, in effect, it would be shifting revenues from the County and the Schools to the City, and they would not be very excited to do that. There being no further public comment, Vice-Mayor/Vice-Chairman Phillips closed the public hearing. Councilmember/Member Cohen referred to the issue of boundaries, and stated it has always been his understanding, with the way Sacramento has sometimes viewed Redevelopment Agencies, that Redevelopment Law has changed over time, becoming more restrictive. He believed that if we were to consider changing the boundaries of our Redevelopment Agency, in any direction, we would come under more restrictive guidelines from Sacramento. He noted he was trying to give additional reassurance, and while he acknowledged it was impossible to state that no future Council would ever consider such a thing, he told Ms. Barron she could rest assured the current Council, and staff, had no intention whatsoever of expanding the boundaries. In addition to the things already mentioned, he stated it was his understanding the Agency would put itself in a more restrictive position if it were to make any changes to the Redevelopment boundaries as they currently exist. SRCC/SRRA MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 9/8/98 Page 2 SRCC/SRRA MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 9/8/98 Page 3 City Manager/Executive Director Gould stated that was correct, reporting that in 1995, Redevelopment Law was amended to make it much more difficult for agencies to expand their boundaries, create new project areas, or extend their period indebtedness. He stated he had attended a conference last week, at which this was discussed, and the attorneys had been very careful to point out to all in attendance that it was a very massive undertaking to try to expand the boundaries of a Redevelopment Agency in this day and age. He noted, as had been pointed out earlier, the Agency Board did not have the power to unilaterally extend the Agency's boundaries, and the Agency would not only have to get the concurrence of a number of other institutions, but must also meet numerous definitions of blight, as required under the law, a series of Findings, environmental documentation must be done, several full public hearings must be held, and there must be extensive noticing. Mr. Gould stated this was rarely done nowadays in California, and pointed out the fact that our Agency's boundaries had not moved in twenty-six years should also be consolation to those who might be concerned about the boundaries. Councilmember/Member Cohen stated that on the issue of the extension of Eminent Domain actions, he believed that would bring the date in fairly close compliance with the expiration date of the Agency, as it currently stands, noting it was not as though the Agency were extending the Eminent Domain powers beyond the existing life of the Agency, as it is currently organized. Ms. Mackle stated that was correct. Councilmember/Member Heller asked if cities sometimes had more than one Redevelopment Agency, if they wanted to work on a particular area of the city? City Manager/Executive Director Gould explained there could be more than one project area, and those project boundaries could be re -drawn, and sometimes merged. However, under current Redevelopment law, it was extremely difficult and cumbersome, and most would not recommend it. He stated the advice given to most participants was that if a city had a redevelopment project area, they should not change it, but rather work within it. Councilmember/Member Miller moved and Councilmember/Member Cohen seconded, to close the public hearing. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Vice-Mayor/Vice- Chairman Phillips NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS/MEMBERS: Mayor/Chairman Boro There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, CITY CLERK/AGENCY SECRETARY APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1998 VICE -MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL/ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY VICE CHAIRMAN SRCC/SRRA MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 9/8/98 Page 3