RDA Min 1997-04-21 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I I I II owner occupied, 50/50 is OK, the more you can articulate (the better), but I wouldn't get down to the specific percentage, because the site may not permit it. We haven't - really done enough analysis." In response to Director Liepzig's questions regarding who would participate, Director Church said "Option 3 of the staff report was the one that referenced the map. We proposed expanding the area for owner participation to include Mr. Butler's property and some of the adjacent pieces. It is not the whole Franklin Street Area." City Manager Everett said, "I don't think we want to say that only owners of the land could participate in bringing a proposal forward. I would think we would want other people who would be interested to at least have a shot at it if the Council does not want to proceed with the existing project." Director Church advised, "Maybe that's the second phase we have to go through, because the last time we brought this forward our Attorney indicated that we had to go through the owner participation process. Those owners have the first right to express an interest. You don't have to accept any expressions of interest, but you have to give them that opportunity. They will submit something like Irvine did in conjunction with Lonestar. I would imagine some of the others would ally themselves with other developers." City/Redevelopment Attorney Schricker said, "My concern is my references to - owner participation. The law requires that we have to offer owners the opportunity to participate in the project. It doesn't require that we limit ourselves only to that process. When we are talking about other parcels of property than the owners that we have seen thus far,... we are broadening the potential for development, which I think is really expected, or anticipated; because already we are talking with the Lonestar site that there is another parcel beyond the owner's parcel. We are expanding opportunity to participate to any qualified developer who would want to come in and make a proposal. That would be my recommendation." City Manager Everett said, "It is a function of maybe sequential or concurrent. We see it as being concurrent. We do have to go out, and the owners do have the right to submit. Instead of doing it sequentially, we thought we would do it concurrently, to have them make any offer they want, and also go beyond that. Director Buchan said, "Mr. Church, when we were starting work on the Wyndham Place Project we decided it might be a good idea to let the developers really help us to find the project if you recall. We put RFPs together and basically said here is what we are looking at, and you come back and show us what your vision of this project is... I am saying yes, I am going to throw out for the sake of argument, 50/50, and tell me what it would look like." -- SPECIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO.1 APRIL 21,1997 MINUTES Page No. 423 PAGE 7