City Makes Offer for 80 Natoma, Prepares for Condemnation

SAN FRANCISCO-The City of San Francisco is hedging its bets with regard to 80 Natoma St., concurrently negotiating with property owner Jack Myers while also setting the stage for eminent domain proceedings should negotiations fail. Myers has approval for a 423-unit residential tower on the property, but the city believes it needs the property in order to expand and improve its Downtown regional public transit hub, the Transbay Terminal.City Supervisor Chris Daly introduced a resolution this week that will allow the board to vote on condemnation as soon as mid-August, should it come to that. An eminent domain vote requires approval by eight of the 11 supervisors. Meanwhile, Steve Legnitto, director of property for the real estate division of the city’s Department of Administrative Services, has sent a letter to Myers with an offer for the property, initiating a dialogue that could lead to a sale outside of the condemnation process, though Myers has said publicly the property is not for sale.Legnitto declined to reveal the size of the offer in the letter, though published reports have estimated that the city would make an offer in the $30-million range. Myers’ attorney, Michael Coffino, said he is preparing a written response to Legnitto, but declined to summarize it for GlobeSt.com until his client has approved it.Concurrently, Myers has filed two lawsuits against the city regarding his development. The first claims the environmental impact report for the Transbay Terminal project is inadequate because it does not take note of his building plans. Coffino says the importance of the lawsuit is that he believes the city cannot condemn any property with respect to the Transbay project until it has an adequate EIS.The second suit charges the city with selective enforcement of permit rules when it suspended work at the 80 Natoma site on June 7 following a complaint alleging the permits weren’t valid because a prior owner hadn’t followed the rules. In addition to setting aside the suspension, the suit asks for unspecified damages. A motion to stay the work suspension order is scheduled to be heard August 12 in state Superior Court.