RDA Min 1992-06-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. , co Redevelopment Director Church advised that in the case of the Sequoia Station Project the Development Agreement states the offer made can be 5% over what the Board approves, but if that 5% threshold is breached then the Developer can insist that the issue proceed through condemnation. Mr. - Church distributed two documents given to property owners and tenants: "Business Relocation Benefits of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Redwood City" and "When the Agency Acquires Your Property." Mr. Church described the the five contacts between Mr. Michaels and the Schiavones, the relocation benefits available to the Schiavones, and to avoid any possible conflict of interest the Redevelopment Agency chose not to appoint a real estate broker as their relocation and acquisition agent. Mr. Church described the letter from Grubb and Ellis, real estate brokers Mr. Michaels asked to contact the Schiavones, and the list of locations Grubb and Ellis suggested to them. The Agency can offer suggestions, but the owner knows what he or she wants and the real estate broker knows what is available, and they need to work directly together. Mr. Church described available moving expenses, in lieu payments which provide up to $20,000 in value based on average of last two years net profit, up to $10,000 reestablishment payment, tenants benefits, and if a tenant moves out in advance of reaching a settlement with the owner the Agency will take over the lease so there is no impact on the income stream. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Church advised it is in the interest of the Redevelopment Agency to close the issue of valuation as soon as possible on as many properties as possible, and last night's Board action resolved the immediate problem as Safeway's buildings are to be fi rst. Building B which is to be impacted by the two properties to be considered at this hearing will be delayed due to the toxics problem on two other properties on that site. The time scale for that construction is not - as critical. If the Board takes action today the Agency will still have control over when the notice to vacate is issued, and could delay it. Director Murray stated the Board did not want to delay construction, but suggested that the Board hold off on the order of possession on the properties that are not affected by the Safeway construction, and which action would not harm the Agency. Mr. Adams advised that the Agency does not have to take possession at the end of the ninety (90) days, but just has the authority to do so if it wishes. If construction is on time then the properties will be needed. It is up to the Agency to issue the notice to vacate. In response to questions from the Board Mr. Adams advised the properties are needed immediately, as construction is scheduled for September 15, 1992. Mr. Alan Phillips, representing Mr. and Mrs. Cook, asked Mr. Adams if a property owner has the right to apply for a stay from the process by virtue of necessity if he has to. Mr. Adams advised the property owner has a right within thirty (30) days after the court grants the order for possession to ask for a stay, and the Adj. Reg. Redev. Agency Mtg. Minutes ,.\June9, 1992 Page 3 - MINUTE BOOK NO.1 Page No. 77