RDA Min 1994-09-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

-~._-~ ~ -- --- -. - -- - ------- -~ -. --- - - -- and it was still the responsibility of the Agency Board to study the Plan's numbers to see if they made sense for the Agency and the City. In response to Directors' questions, Agency Board Attorney Schricker advised that the issue of soils testing was between two private parties and the Agency was not involved. Director Steinfeld stated that action should not be taken at this time, and the use of tax increment funds in this acquisition was fiscally irresponsible. Director Gasparini stated that the action under consideration at this meeting did not preclude Safeway ftom making a proposal to Rosalie Davies at any time, and advised that she was in favor of moving forward with the Plan. Director Greenalch addressed the issue of a public purpose and stated that some members of the Agency Board had concluded that a public purpose would be served by redevelopment of that parcel. The purpose of an owner participation process is to first ask the owner of the property (which would include owners with significant interest within the redevelopment project) ifhe or she wanted to be the one to implement the public purpose as derIDed by the Agency, and if the owners said "no", Redevelopment Law in California allows for taking that property by right of eminent domain and turning it over to whomever is willing to implement the public purpose as defined by the Redevelopment Agency Board. Approval of the Specific Plan would accomplish that. If the owner of the Davies property says no, Safeway will say yes. Director Greenalch described the absence of commercial activity in the downtown area before Sequoia Station, and opined that if the Plan was not adopted there would still be limited commercial activity in the downtown area in addition to the loss of commercial activity on the subject property. Director Greenalch stated, "we are halfway there." Director Greenalch added that the only way the Redevelopment Agency was able to get people to participate was to share something with them, and the Agency had shared land, staff time and tax increments. AI Davies advised the Agency Board that he had not given permission for soil testing on the subject property, and discussed some of the circumstances regarding construction of the new police facilities. Carol Mittlesteadt stated that the owner participation process did not necessarily allow the property owner to participate in redevelopment of the parcel; and she could not advise her client, Rosalie Davies, to spend money on improvements before ownership was finally decided. Ms. Mittlesteadt advised that her client was willing to tear down the existing building and rebuild a new auto dealership, but at the present time her hands were tied. Ms. Mittlesteadt stated that her client was very cooperative and would have liked the opportunity to work with her own tenants. Directors discussed the actions of the private parties and the impacts of the negotiations between Safeway and the Kopfs, and the fact that the Redevelopment Agency had stayed out of all facets of that process. Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting Minutes MINUTE BOOK NO.1 September 26,1994 PagEIINo. 210 Page 3