RDA Min 1984-02-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

/" '... In response to question, Mr. Schricker said that the City has not investigated the partnership arrangements between the three corpora- tions of CCDC and will not do so, preferring to take their representa- tions at face value, knowing the obligations of such partnership agreements. Discussion continued regarding the requirements for and nature of participation agreements; the fact that the Agency operates under State law with requirements for housing, subsidy requirements, etc.; whether it might be desirable to require personal guarantees to bind performance from CCDC and to indicate their financial stability; and whether guarantees might be more appropriate at the time a Disposition and Development Agreement is considered. In response to question, Mr. Schricker said that the City would incur no liability with regard to property owners in the project area in the event CCDC does not fulfill its agreement. William Lightner, Jr., Sunderhaus & Leigh, 873 Sutter Street, San Francisco, representing CCDC, said that the preliminary master plan will have to combine many properties which would preclude owners participating in some cases, noting. that the proposed agreement provides for Council review from time to time so that CCDC and the City can work together. Mr. Lightner inquired about the Council IS willingness to consider the master plan before allowing piecemeal development in the project area, stating CCDC wants a II freeze II on development while the plan is being prepared. Discussion continued and Mr. Lightner, Mr. Smith, Mr. Schricker and Mrs. Case replied to questions and commented concerning the extent of committed finan- cial resources of CCDC; the needs of CCDC with regard to a comprehensive plan; CCDC's understanding that the Ostertag development was bound by a condition to conform to the master plan; and whether any productive dis- cussion had taken place on the subject between CCDC and Mr. Ostertag. CLARIFICATION: Mr. Smith stated that City Council has made a decision with regard to development of the Ostertag property and Mr. Lightner is asking for recons i dera ti on, but Council can say "no II. However, if the subject agreement is to be approved, it would not be desirable to allow any more piecemeal development of the project area. In response to question, Mrs. Case said that Mr. Ostertag received a use permit subject to three conditions relating to age of occupants, parking and his obtaining a participation agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. Upon meeting the conditions, he may proceed. Mr. Lightner asked that the record show that CCDC had assumed that the agreement required of Mr. Ostertag was an owner participation agreement required in order to have his development consistent with a master plan. Mr. Schricker noted for the record that no master plan exists and that the participation agreement required is the one covered by State redevelopment law. Mr. Schricker added that Mr. Ostertag could be required to adhere to a master plan if it existed or is to be available within a reasonable time, but his use is compatible with the uses permitted in the project area. Redev.Agency 2/6/84 Page 2 MINUTE BOOK NO. 44 Page No. 350 ",.. - ""', . c'-"">C -c'-""",'" ..> "','~""~' ---- - . ,-' - -,~, "', -- --~- -------- - --- -- ---- - --