The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSPJT Minutes 1984-05-21SRCC/SRRA Minutes (Spec . Joint) 5/21/84 Page 1 In the Council Chambers of the City of San Rafael, Monday, May 21, 1984 at 7:45 p.m. Special Joint Meeting: Present: Lawrence Mulryan, Mayor/Agency Chairman Dorothy Breiner, Councilmember/Agency Member Gary Frugoli, Councilmember/Agency Member Richard Nave, Councilmember/Agency Member Jerry Russom, Councilmember/Agency Member Also Present: Robert Beyer, City Manager/Executive Director; Linda Downey, Deputy City Clerk, Assistant Agency Secretary; Peter Muzio, City/Agency Attorney CITY COUNCIL 1. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF CITY POLICY FOR BUILDING ENCROACHMENTS WITHIN FUTURE 55' HIGHWAY "TAKE" ALONG FRANCISCO BOULEVARD WEST (P1) - Nile 11-16 x 4-8-11 x R-227 City Manager Beyer stated that at the time the Disposition and Develop- ment Agreement was signed with McPhails, the option was left open for the possibility of a building use within the 55' setback and, as the project was developed, McPhails came up with a proposal as part of the final development plan which included a building within that 55' "take." Staff recommends allowing encroachment as long as the buildings are temporary and all improvements are removed at the expense of the developer if and when necessary, as the use would be beneficial to McPhails and the City because there would be productive use of the area. Mayor Mulryan asked Cay Hoffman, representing McPhails, if he would recommend whatever use is designated for the structure encroaching on the 5S' "take" be somewhat severable from the rest in case the "take" did materialize. Mr. Hoffman said that typically, in situa- tions like this where there is a possible condemnation, the leases include provisions to terminate the leases, and that the tenant would not have any other space in the main portion of the building that would affect the use of his business. RESOLUTION - PERMITTING BUILDING ENCROACHMENTS WITHIN 55' "TAKE" FOR ULTIMATE STATE HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT, FRANCISCO BOULEVARD WEST SOUTHEAST OF RICE DRIVE AND NORTHWEST OF THE RICE CENTER AT 760 FRANCISCO BOULEVARD WEST (LIQUOR BARN) AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Chairman Mulryan 1. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR McPHAILS INCORPOR- ATED PROJECT (RA) - File R-227 Redevelopment Program Manager Howard Ours stated that the final plans call for a 39,300 sq. ft. home improvement retail center on 2.6 acres which is the land which the Redevelopment Agency sold plus the McPhails' land. He presented drawings of the building and indicated that staff recommendation is to adopt the plans and move .forward with construction. Member Russom indicated that in the Council Resolution previously passed permitting building encroachments within the 55' "take", there was a provision that the agreement between the property owner and the City for building encroachments within the "take" area was for a specific time limit agreed upon which could be re -negotiated, and this Resolution approving the final development plan for McPhails doesn't have a time limit. Executive Director Beyer pointed out that staff will be coming back to the Agency with a specific agree- ment which would be recorded based on the criteria in the Resolution and a time period would be post-dated. Mr. Ray Hoffman, representing McPhails, indicated that he had some important comments to make on the Resolution passed in the previous item. He stated that the major problem McPhails had in accordance SRCC/SRRA Minutes (Special Joint) 5/21/84 Page I SRCC/SRRA Minutes (Special Joint) 5/21/84 Page 2 with most of the staff recommendations, was the one'that dealt with the compensation of the building in the future, and felt it was totally inequitable and unjust and borders on condemnation. With condemnation you must have due process and compensation, and if McPhails was to enter into an agreement at this time that did not provide for that, it affects the entire feasibility of the project. McPhails should be free to negotiate with the State at the time the condemnation takes place and not waive those rights right now. Mr. Hoffman stated that the State has no ownership of the property and no easements that he knows of; just a plan to develop that pro- perty for future widening in an undetermined time frame. Chairman Mulryan asked Agency Attorney Muzio whether the rights that Caltrans has are mature to the point of them having some ownership rights. Agency Attorney Muzio said lie had not had the opportunity to review that, but indicated there is a letter from Caltrans engineers approving the notion of having buildings in the "take" area con- ditioned upon the buildings being removed at the owners' expense when Caltrans elects to use the property. Chairman Mulryan stated that Mr. Hoffman's point was that if the State has not already paid for the property and doesn't have a mature, legal right to the property, then they can't circumvent that just by filing a plan and bypassing the fair and equitable value of the pro- perty. Agency Attorney Muzio asked for time to review that matter. Member Frugoli indicated he thought Caltrans had the easement on the 55' strip. Executive Director Beyer stated that it was shifted as part of the agreement the City entered into with Caltrans two or three years ago when the line for the proposed roadway was shifted, and it is basically the responsibility of local government to pro- tect that right-of-way, which the City has been doing for years, in terms of what was a 150' setback. This would be consistent with that protection. In the past, the City has not allowed anyone to build on the property. This is the trade-off and why staff has been talking about ten years, back when the City entered into negotiations on the Disposition and Development Agreement. Since -staff hadn't seen any precise plans, the option was left open until the final develop- ment plan was under review. The other option for the City is not to allow the building at all. It is the safest position, as the City has a relationship with Caltrans to protect the right-of-way. Member Breiner asked if the property owners have been compensated in any way, or if it is an understood planning approach that if you own property along the area where the City has an agreement with Caltrans that no building is allowed within a certain number of feet. Executive Director Beyer responded that the property owners will be compensated when the widening takes place. Mr. Hoffman stated that McPhails doesn't want to be compensated for the economic value of the building based on the income, but wants to be compensated for the knockdown and re -erection of the building on another site. This is what McPhails wants to be able to negotiate with the State. Mr. Hoffman said that never in any discussions with staff has the lack of compensation for any improvements in the set- back ever been brought to their attention. Executive Director Beyer disagreed saying the ten-year period was discussed, as well as why an amortization clause was wanted so there would not be a cost to the public agency for allowing that development, yet recognizing there could be a legitimate period of time between the time this pro- ject was constructed and the time Caltrans would have the money to widen the freeway. Chairman Mulryan said it might be worthwhile to take a look at the idea of amending the condition to allow such things as negotiating the knockdown costs. Member Russom said he was under the impression that the agreement had been discussed and agreed to by staff and McPhails' representatives. He indicated he would like to have the item held over and get a legal reading on the 55' "take" and how it affects not only the McPhails property but others in the area. SRCC/SRRA Minutes (Special Joint) 5/21/84 Page 2 t SRCC/SRRA Minutes (Spec. i Joint) 5/21/84 Page 3 Staff was then directed to review the State's legal right as to the 55' "take" and, after discussion, discuss the matter with McPhails and bring the item back at the meeting of June 4, 1984. At that time, it was moved by Member Breiner and seconded by Member Nave to reconsider the previous item. AYES: MEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom & Chairman Mulryan NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None The Agency reconvened as the City Council and rescinded their previous action; that of adopting the Resolution permitting encroach- ments within the 55' "take." AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Frugoli, Nave, Russom $ Mayor Mulryan NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None The joint meeting adjourned to the regular City Council meeting at 8:00 p.m. Jam' .041411� LIND S.�DOW,DeputyCity lerk/Assistant Agency Secretary APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 1984. MAYOR/AGENCY CHAIRMAN OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC/SRRA Minutes (Special Joint) 5/21/84 Page 3