Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1985-02-20 Mayor Richard A. Haffey Vice Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia Counci 1: Mark N. Addiego Emanuele N. Damonte ,,, Gus Nicolopulos AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) ROLL CALL: Staff Report 2/20/85 recommending adoption of a Resolution which authorizes execution of a Ground Lease with the Price Company. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A GROUND LEASE MINUTES City Council City Council Conference Room City Hall February 20, 1985 ACTION TAKEN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 5:05 p.m. Mayor Haffey presiding. Council present: Council absent: Nicolopulos, Addiego Damonte and Haffey. Teglia. City Manager Birkelo stated that Council received a Staff Report together with the copy of the Resolution, the Ground Lea~e, the accompanying Site Preparation Agreement and a Memorandum of Lease for recording purposes. He stated that the Staff Report details the essential provi- sions of the Agreement and that he needed to clarify a statement he had made, that the Company is allowed to recover the costs of off-site improvements as a cre- dit against percentage rentals which may be due to the City. He stated that ~n reality the Agreement also provided some on-site cost, such as paid preparation for the site of the building itself, would fall under that recovery clause. He stated that something to be clarified was on page 2, Exhibit B, paragraph D~ "This Agreement is conditioned upon Tenant receiving, no later than one hundred twenty days after the date of the lease, all necessary and required f(nal governmental land use and other approvals and building and other permits needed for the construction and operation on the property of a typical Price Club opera- tion to be located in a building of approximately 100,000 square feet, including all governmental approvals necessary to perform the development work referred to in paragraph 2, below herein." He stated that there was a question as to whether that put the City 2/20/8S Page 1 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 1. Staff Report 2/20/85 - Continued. under too tight a time frame to have to deal with the approvals. He stated that the City basically knew what the improve- ments are and what was intended to be put on the property. He stated that this was a rather urgent request on the Price Company's part because they wanted to try to assure themselves that they could meet their goal of being in operation by November 1st. He stated that the effect of that was if for any reason they could not comply with that within 120 days they would have the option to terminate the Agreement, which he did not think was likely when the Price Company had invested in the project and there were legitimate reasons for delaying the project. He stated that if the City wanted to go back and try to renegotiate, leave it wide open or wait and put a date after their final complete application had been filed rather than the date of this Agreement; or the City might not execute the Agreement until the City had the application in hand to assure proper time. Discussion follows: that this was pro- posed to put the heat on the City~ however the real burden could be to the Price Company; whether the Corps of Engineers would have some concerns with the swamp over-flow and filled lands; prior experiences with the Corps; that the Price Company did not want the lease to take effect until the soil testing and the title were proper; that it was important to tell the Price Company,. before executing or submitting the lease, to have an understanding of how soon the City would have the application and followup with a letter carrying out the fact that the City's ability to meet Price's desires in that section hinged upon their prompt and rapid submission of all necessary documents; that if the time ran out, both parties would have to waive their rights. 2/20/85 Page 2 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 1. Staff Report 2/20/85 - Continued. Ri-"CESS~. RECALL TO ORDER: Discussion of the Draft Ordinance "An Ordinance Adding to the South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 2.58 entltled "Historic Preservation Comm~ ssi on' ." M/S Addlego/Nicolopulos - To adopt the Resol uti on RESOLUTION NO. 42-85 Councilman Nicolopulos questioned why the City was paying for the on-site, off-site construction rather than the Price Company. City Manager Birkelo stated that it was started with the idea of giving the Price Company a site ready condition which was not the case, and the City would retain ownership and could recover down the road through any type of default. He further stated that the City would recover the site preparation money, traffic signals and importation which would not affect the base lease rental that the City would receive. Councilman Addiego spoke of the nego- tiation procedures which he had sat in on with Staff and the Price Company. City Attorney Rogers explained the defi- nition of triple net lease: wherein the lessee, the Price Club, pays taxes, main- tenance and insurance on the property and that the City would have possessory interest tax which was akin to property tax. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Mayor Haff~ declared a recess at B:~O p.m. Mayor Haffey recalled the meeting to order at 5:24 p.m., all Council present, City Attorney Rogers stated that this Ordinance before Council would provide for a Historical Preservation Commission. He stated that the approach was to even- tually set up a five member commission, similar to other Boards and Commissions with four year terms, with the authority and responsibility to designate things as historical resources, structures, buildings and sites. He spoke of appll- 2/20/85 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 2. Discusslon of the Draft Ordlnance Continued. cations which the Board would process; notice and hold hearings; in order to designate anything as an historic resource it takes four votes of the five members; effects from the designation of a certain architectural feature to be retained on a single family home and their right to use or remodel the building; that once a resource has been designated as an historic resource, before anyone can demolish or relocate, add too or alter the building they must apply for a Certificate of Alteration which the Board would administer; limita- tion would be put on the life of a Certificate of Alteration. if they don't have a building permit to commence the work in six months the permit expires; ordinary maintenance and repair of historical resources; enforcement pro- ceedings; violation of the Ordinance would be handled as a misdemeanor. Councilman Nicolopulos suggested adding an addendum that spelled out the penalty connected to the misdemeanor. City Attorney Rogers stated that he could change the section to read, guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than or by imprisonment not to exceed six months or by both such fine and imprisonment. Consensus of Council - To add the penalty for the misdemeanor to the Ordinance. Director of Recreation and Community Services Norton presented a listing of the criteria, procedures, Certificate of Alternation, ordinary maintenance and repair, duty to keep in good repair~ enforcement and a chart going through the steps of the application process by a citizen. He stated that if an indlvldual bought a home that was previously dedi- cated as an historic resource that person inherited that resource. He continued, if the person wanted to modify the site he must come in for a Certificate of Alternation. He stated that if an indl- 2/20/85 Page 4 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 2. Discussion of the Draft Ordinance Continued. vidual appealed a designation it would go before the City Council for a hearing. He stated that if someone appealed a Certificate of Alteration, the Ordinance designated the City Manager as the indi- vidual of final say on the Certificate; that the Code Enforcement Officer was the individual responsible for enforcement. He stated that the Board would consider and recommend to the Council methods other than those provided for in the Ordinance for encouraging and achieving historical or architectural preservation. He stated that the Council had authorized him to submit a grant proposal for an historical survey of the community and that he had met with various represen- tatives; there were 36 proposals and there were funds to support 12 of those; word was to be received any day; if suc- cessful the City would proceed imme- diately to retain a consultant to take up one portion of the grant and that within the period of one year the City would have a master plan. He stated that designation could be made by an owner, citizen or by a member of the City Council. He stated that the grant monies came from the Federal Government and were administered by the State. He spoke in detail of how the Ordinance had been developed: other cities' ordinances, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, American Planning Association Historic Preservation Ordinance, etc. Councilman Addiego questioned if someone could appeal a designation five years after the fact. City Attorney Rogers stated that an indi- vidual could ask that the site be unde- signated, however once it was an historic resource there was not a provision to remove the designation once it had been given to the property. 2/20/85 Page 5 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Discussion of the Draft Ordinance Continued. Discussion followed: tax consideration by tax credits and write-offs for historical resources; maintenance being the respon- sibility of the owner; if the designation created undue hardship to the owner, perhaps a Certificate of Alteration could be allowed so the owner could modify the home; if the building was destroyed by fire, earthquake or acts of God to the extent it could not be restored then the Building Inspector had the power to say that it was being done with his approval, etc. Councilman Addiego stated that as a citi- zen of the community who had from time to time agonized over the loss of histori- cally significant pieces of property he was grateful for the support of Council and Staff to effect this Ordinance. Mayor Haffey stated that when the change was made in the Ordinance to define the penalties, the Ordinance should be agen- dized for a future meeting. M/S Damonte/Nicolopulos - That the meeting be adjourned. Carried by unanimous voice vote. ADJOURNMENT Time of adjournment 5:50 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Barbara A. Battaya, City Cl~k City of South San Francisco APPROVED: San ;co City of South . The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose of an item. Oral communications, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape and documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for inspection, review and copying. 2/20/85 Page 6