My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
CC Min 2001-01-08 Adj Reg
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CC Min 2001-01-08 Adj Reg
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2005 2:41:49 PM
Creation date
3/12/2002 9:49:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council & Redevelopment
Date
1/8/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Long Beach, San Luis Obispo and Santa Cruz. All of the projects continue to perform <br /> well. As noted in an earlier meeting, one project has come and gone, that being in <br /> downtown San Jose. <br /> <br /> 28. Concerns assert that downtown merchants have not bought into the project. <br /> <br /> A survey of downtown businesses was conducted as part of the economic study. <br /> Approximately 250 questionnaires went out to both retail and nonretail businesses and <br /> the result of the 102 questionnaires returned is included in Chapter 6 of the economic <br /> report. The purpose of the survey was to help understand booth retail and nonretail <br /> context in which the project would be developed. If merchants are interpreted to mean <br /> retail, what resulted is that of the merchants who returned surveys, opinion was fairly <br /> evenly divided among those who thought the project would have a positive effect, no <br /> effect at all, or a negative effect. Some of the negative effect came from the small <br /> number of people who actually would be displaced by the project. How projects of this <br /> nature really work is that merchants recognize expanding opportunities as those <br /> expanding opportunities occur and then decide when or how they will take advantage <br /> of those opportunities for their own businesses. Merchants are not required to respond, <br /> but the opportunities for increased business are often very attractive and very seductive <br /> which is why redevelopment projects of this kind work so well. Not every merchant <br /> needs to participate in those opportunities in order for many merchants to experience <br /> positive benefits of the project. <br /> <br /> David Irmer, representing the Innisfree Companies, co-developer of the project, addressed <br /> the following questions. <br /> <br /> 29. What is the long-term maintenance program and guarantees in maintaining not <br /> only the buildings, but also the surrounding areas of the buildings? <br /> <br /> They have initiated a license agreement that would spell out in some detail the scope of <br /> the building maintenance, grounds maintenance and sidewalk maintenance plans. It <br /> calls for a painting schedule, maintenance of landscaping, sidewalk, furniture, steam <br /> cleaning and other issues. Mr. Irmer stated it is incumbent on the developer and they <br /> certainly want to enter into the license agreement at the same time as the development <br /> agreement. <br /> <br /> 30. Will there be a priority or allowance for the displacement of businesses currently <br /> at the site? <br /> <br /> Under the Redevelopment relocation and under the Redevelopment authority these <br /> businesses that will be displaced will be relocated and those that are interested in being <br /> part of the project are encouraged to discuss the options with the developer. Mr. Irmer <br /> stated they are open to discussions with all merchants currently at the site. <br /> <br />JOINT ADJOURNED REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 8, 2001 <br />MINUTES PAGE 13 <br /> MINUTES Book No.58 <br /> Page NO. 309 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.