Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Minutes 1999-08-11 (2) MINUTES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 11, 1999 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 7:09 p.m. (Cassette Tape No. 1) ROLL CALL Present: Boardmembers Fernekes, Mullin and Penna, Vice Chair Matsumoto and Chairman Datzman. Absent: None. AGENDA REVIEW: Executive Director Wilson announced that at the request of the applicant, Item No. 4, Extended Stay America Hotel, is removed from the Agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to Approve Minutes of the July 28, 1999 Regular Meeting 2. Motion to Confirm Expense Claims of August 11, 1999, in the amount of $87,132.01. 3. Cancellation of Regular Meeting of Wednesday, August 25, 1999, Next Regularly Scheduled Meeting Will be September 8, 1999 Motion-Fernekes/Second-Penna: To approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Approved by voice vote. ABSTAIN: Vice Chair Matsumoto, Item No. 1. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Extended Stay America Hotel - PP-99-040, EIR-97-027: Precise Plan to Construct a 5- Story, 196 Room Hotel on a Vacant 4.6 Acre Site in the Bay West Cove Specific Plan District Item removed from agenda at the request of the applicant. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 5. Resolution Determining that the Public Interest and Necessity Require the Acquisition of Certain Real Property Located at 169 Harbor Way and Directing Eminent Domain Proceedings Staff report presented by Redevelopment Project Manager Robert Beyer recommending adoption of the resolution. ! ! I Janet Fogarty, 1633 Bayshore, #329, Burlingame, representing Mr. Bob Rizzetto, requested that her comments from the July 14, 1999 City Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings be included in the record for this proceeding as well. She cited her reasons for objecting to the adoption of the resolution of necessity and its findings, stating an abuse of the city' s powers of eminent domain and that it is not serving the public's interest. She stated that the properties identified for the relocation of Mr. Rizzetto's business are not suitable and the total funding being allocated is still unknown. She requested a delay until a full environmental analysis has been made and a determination of property fights has been resolved by the courts. Mr. Wayne Kaul, 2982 Arguello, Burlingame, stated he is the owner of 169 Harbor Way and briefly commented on the litigation he is having with Mr. Rizzetto. He stated that Mr. Rizzetto has no option to purchase the property. He did not object to the Agency taking action. Staff reminded the Agency that the litigation is still pending between Mr. Rizzetto and Mr. Kaul, and staff confirmed the matter as well. Agency Counsel Mattas responded to Ms. Fogarty's comments and stated that redevelopment law specifically authorizes condemnation by adopting a concept plan, which the Agency did. He also explained that an EIR was prepared when the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan was adopted. He further commented that when conveyance of the property is made to Britannia, they will be required to return to the Planning Commission for a PUD modification, at which time a negative declaration can further evaluate any inadequacies. Boardmember Mullin asked for verification that conveyance of private property is a common place activity of eminent domain proceedings and Counsel Mattas responded that it is consistent and that the Agency is required to pay fair market value. Vice Chair Matsumoto asked if the relocation properties identified were zoned or not zoned for Mr. Rizzetto's use (sheet metal). Ms. Forgarty responded that the identified sites were not suitable for the use, and the feasibility of a site can not be determined until Mr. Rizzetto knows how much he will be receiving for relocation compensation. Project Manager Beyer commented that there are ten relocation sites and one site was not acceptable, but nine are appropriate. There was further discussion of the suitability of sites and the right zoning area Mr. Rizzetto's business can be relocated to. Condemnation Counsel David Skinner responded to Vice Chair Matsumoto's questions regarding relocation compensation. He explained the process by which a deposit is made to the state treasury, based on an appraised value of land, to be withdrawn by application by any named defendant of eminent domain action. He also explained the value of a "good will" claim that is resolved through the condemnation process. He further advised that these items are not part of adopting the resolution of necessity. Ms. Fogarty reiterated her position that a 90 day clock begins when Council takes action that puts Mr. Rizzetto in a bind because he does not have a site to move his business to. REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AUGUST ! 1, 1999 MINUTES PAGE 2 (At the request of Councilman Penna and Agency Counsel Mattas the follow&g verbatim is included.) Datzman: Councilman Penna, I'm not sure if you have a question now... ? Penna: Yes, I do. It has to do with the list of relocation sites that we have in front of us. As I go through these sites, I'm somewhat curious because of a few comments that I see in here. I'm going to ask a question. Does Mr. Rizzetto want to be located outside of the city of South San Francisco? Fogarty: No, he does not. He does not because his business is related to the location. He gets a lot of work from the BART project, the airport, and the airport project. He has to be near that location in order to get that business. Penna: So, there are two Burlingame locations on the list and a Brisbane location. Those would be then eliminated from consideration? Am I correct? Fogarty: Yes. Mr. Rizzetto says yes. Penna: Alright. Yard space, how important is yard space to the operation of this business? Fogarty: It is very important that he has sufficient yard space in order to conduct his business. The problem of course is that the larger the site, the more expensive it is. As you know, being in real estate yourself. Penna: Yes, but my question is...is it important to have a yard? Fogarty: Yes. Penna: Ok, then if it's important to have a yard, that eliminates that. Mezzanine? That eliminates that. Foga~ty: Do you want Mr. Rizzetto to speak to those sites he's seen? Penna: I think you've answered my question. That eliminates that...I'm not sure. Where I'm going is...I'm just curious as to what is available and I'm looking at how the tenant is being compensated. And I think that was a comment that was made by somebody from staff on how the tenant was being compensated. If the tenant...I think the problem that I'm looking at right now...from the list of ten properties...I've just, in the two questions I've asked, have eliminated one...two...three...four...six spaces. So, you're down to four. There's one on Rozzi Place, now you need a crane, how high of a ceiling do you need? May I ask the applicant? Rizzetto: It may be easier. Bob Rizzetto, 169 Harbor Way. There are cranes that we can modify to use a lower ceiling. If there is enough space inside, rather than a yard, we could do that. REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AUGUST 11, 1999 MINUTES PAGE 3 Penna: So what is your clearest picture...? Rizzetto: The problem is this. With all the legalese that's going on, I don't know the numbers and the sections. Here's what I know. A year ago, I spoke to the Council and I asked to not be closed. Mr. Mullin asked the Council--EDA, RDA, whatever it is, whether or not we were going to lose businesses. You didn't want to lose any businesses and you were told that, as far as I can remember, that it was not the object of the RDA to cause any businesses to go out of the area. What's happened is, in all this ensuing time, a year has gone by and during this year, Mr. Beyer and Mr. Van Duyn will tell you, that I have been calling them and asking them to please find us a location. Now, we're down to push time. My reason was that Brittania is under a schedule to build buildings. The reason to build buildings is so he can make money. The reason he wants to make money is because that's what we all want to do being in business. Now, the problem has been finding us a home. We've come up with two locations. Two locations. We're down to crunch time now, it's very difficult to move property, as you can see. So, we're now down to 90 days, and we don't have a home. It's that simple, okay? It doesn't mean anything to the legalese of this. What the law says, it still comes down to the fact that I have nine employees who have families that are relying on these others to supply them with their income. It comes down to people for us. We don't have a home. The RDA hasn't come up with anything. We went to one project down on Mayfair, and I said, "Yes. Make the numbers work." My thing is then...Okay, we have to move. I'll bite the bullet, but find us a place. It's a year and you haven't found a place. If you look on your Chamber of Commerce thing, it says there's only 12 % property in South San Francisco available. Those -- are your numbers, not mine. Well, a lot of those properties are really large. If you offered me the Trans-America building for $20 million---that would be a hell of a deal, but if I can't afford the payment, I lose it all. That's what we're talking about. That's what we are asking you to do, is to hold off a little bit 'til you help us find a place. Penna: I haven't had an answer to my question. What is your clear height requirement? Rizzetto: We can get away with 20 feet. Penna: You need 20 feet or more? Rizzetto: More is better. Penna: Alright. So then I'm eliminating this one...and it would appear this one. So we are down to two. One is on Maple and the other is on Rozzi Place. Rozzi Place has a 20 foot height limit. Maple has a metal building, and I don't know what the status is on that. Is Rozzi Place available, Bob? Rizzetto: It's vacant, but it's in the wrong location. Penna: So, this property that's been put on the list is not a property that he can consider. Staff: I don't believe it's in the right location, no. REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AUGUST 11, 1999 MINUTES PAGE 4 Penna: Alright, so we eliminate that one. So the only one that's left is a building that's far larger, I guess, 40 thousand--43, almost 50 thousand square feet. Well, I've got my question answered. It appears to me, from what I'm seeing from the list that was given to us, that there is a possibility of maybe just one site out of ten that would fit with his business requirements in order for him to be able to go anywhere. I have a couple of questions. Datzman: (explained to the television audience that the Redevelopment Agency is still in session. ). . . This is to be followed by another item on the Redevelopment Agenda before we start the Council Meeting... for the benefit of folks at home. John, go ahead. Mattas: I wanted to clarify one point. With regards to the 1998 time line, that is the minimum time line that the Agency could request if it went in for an order for posession. There are mechanisms for the property owner to negotiate an agreement with the Agency or through court really to have that period of time extended beyond that. I just wanted the Board to be aware of that. Penna: Okay. Well, then that brings up another point with me. If there is a time limit that can be extended...I'm looking at the three conditions of the resolution...and one is the taking of the fee simple title and paying it to the real property, more particularly described as a necessity for the project. But, if you don't need it right away then why act so quickly? mattas: That wasn't what I was saying. What I was saying was that the suggestion was made bY the property owners that they have a 90 day clock started, that requires that they be out of there in 90 days. What I am advising the Agency is that from the time that a court grants an order for immediate possession, which would be after a court hearing, with the Agency approving this, the minimum period of time would be 90 days. That by law the minimum period of time is 90 days. If the parties desire to extend that time line they could, or if we even didn't want to extend that time line--meaning the Agency, and they brought a motion before the court, the court could order that time line extended. From a distant standpoint, from the standpoint of the disposition of the development which was previously approved by the Agency, the Agency has indicated that if it exercises discretion and adopted the resolution of necessity, starting the condemnation proceedings, that you would act to acquire the property in the fastest reasonable time period that you could. So, that is the urgency of it. Penna: (directed to the Agency) I'm going back to the list of 10 properties that were given to us. It appears though that none of these properties are suitable for the business use that he (Mr. Rezzitto) has, so he would not be in a position of moving within the next 90 days based on the list of properties that you (staff) gave us. And, if that's the case, then an additional time would be needed. It would seem to me to be more appropriate to...and you have a cooperating _ .. individual who wants to go along with the Agency...and it appears to me, that it would be more reasonable to find the site first, understanding the difficulties of trying to find the site, and then moving to act on the condemnation if need be. It appears to me like, if we do it this way, 90 days could come up and we're into another lawsuit and I just have difficulty in going in that direction. REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AUGUST 11, 1999 MINUTES PAGE 5 Datzman: Didn't we hear the attorney say, and I may have misunderstood this, that it's possible under circumstance to extend the 90 days. Mattas: Right. If the Council will recall that when the Agency acquired 208 East Grand the Council directed that we wait 30 days before we filed the request for an order for immediate possession...that is within your authority to do tonight. The two different objectives that the Agency would be trying to obtain...one is to implement the DDA, which you previously approved, that anticipates acquiring the property on the fastest reasonable timeframe which you can; the second one is trying to facilitate the deeds of the current tenant of the property. And so those are different issues that you're looking at. Fogarty: I just want to speak to the issue of the position the City may put itself in if you act tonight and then delay the 90 days, where you have a contract with Britannia in your DDA to act as soon as possible to acquire the property...you put yourself in conflict there and set yourself up for another lawsuit from one party or the other, or both. So, I just wanted to point that out to you from what Councilman Penna has to say. Datzman: Thank you Ms. Fogerty. As long as you're speaking about lawsuits, could you find a real simple way, it says, "litigation presently exists between Mr. Kaul and Mr. Rizzetto on the issue". Could you find a real simple way of explaining what the issue is? Fogarty: Mayor Datzman, I'm a lawyer. Datzman:That's why I'm asking. I'm sure you can do it. Fogarty: I'm not the attorney of record for that suit and so I would have difficulty speaking to exactly what that suit entails. And, on the record I wouldn't want to jeopardize Mr. Rizzetto's rights by misconstruing what's going on there. I will tell you, however, that my understanding is a debate as to the rights of the parties. Mr. Kaul is claiming there is no option, as he did here tonight, and Mr. Rizzetto is saying, "yes, in fact, there is an option". He has a written option. It's signed by the party to be charged. It satisfies the statutes of frauds and that there is a set price and a time by which it can be exercised, so that's as simple as I can make it. Datzman: That's a simple explanation, thank you. Any further questions? mullin: I would just have a comment. I looked at the same ten properties that Boardmember Penna has dismissed as not being suitable, and assuming that the two from Burlingame do not meet the needs because of the proximity to BART, quite frankly the other eight seem to be at least as doable either with a combination of yard or height. In any event, I'm not quite so dismissive of the ten properties to which the business can be relocated as my fellow Boardmember is and with that...I'd be happy to move the resolution if that's the interest of the Chair? REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AUGUST 11, 1999 MINUTES PAGE 6 Mr. Robert Bristow, Britannia, Inc., 1939 Harrison, Oakland, stated his agreement to a thirty day extension. Counsel Mattas reminded the Board that a two-thirds vote is required for adoption of the resolution and that the 30-day delay is part of the motion. Motion-Mullin/Second-Fernekes: To approve Resolution No. 12-99, a Resolution of Necessity to condemn the property at 169 Harbor Way in South San Francisco for Redevelopment Agency purposes; including findings and determinations; authorization of eminent domain proceedings and application for possession prior to judgement; and delay action for thirty days. Approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Fernekes, Mullin, Matsumoto, and Datzman. NOES: Penna. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. 6. Resolution Determining that the Public Interest and Necessity Require the Acquisition of Certain Real Property Located at 185 Harbor Way and Directing Eminent Domain Proceedings Project Manager Beyer presented the staff report, and requested a 30 day delay in action for resolution of the acquisition price and relocation issues. He stated that Calpico representatives have agreed to the delay. Motion-Mullin/Second~Fernekes: To approve Resolution No. 13-99, a Resolution of Necessity to condemn the property at 185 Harbor Way in South San Francisco for Redevelopment Agency purposes; including findings and determinations, authorization of eminent domain proceedings and application for possession prior to judgement; and delay action for thirty days. Approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Fernekes, Mullin, Penna, Matsumoto, and Datzman. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. ADJOURNMENT Motion-PennaJSecond-Fernekes: To adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be September 8, 1999. Unanimously approved by voice vote. Respectfully Submitted: Approved: Sylvia M. Payne, es City of South San Francisco Uty of South San F/kqncisco The entries of this Redevelopment Agency meeting show the action taken by the Board 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. REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AUGUST 11, 1999 MINUTES PAGE 7