RDA Min 1998-01-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I I , - effect this is having on some of the property owners whose futures are being debated here. It's one where we have already suffered some damages. For instance, we have a vacancy right now and we had a very qualified potential long term tenant contact the City. Because - of the big question marks that are hanging out there, which I am sure a certain amount of question marks would have to be expected, that because of the complete absence of any sort of a schedule we have lost this very good tenant. This is in the short term. In the long term, we also have questions of what to do with the property. What I am suggesting is that if you could recommend that the staff put together some sort of a time table that is based on their professional experience, of what the property owners can expect, and that this would be a standard report that would be given to anybody that calls the City in relation to this question. Because otherwise there are conflicting opinions and a complete absence of any fact which is hurting our ability to rent or possibly to sell the property." Redevelopment Agency/City Attorney Schricker said, "Our recommendation to staff has been not to engage in any speculation, because it could only be speculation at this time as to what time limits might be or what projections might be involved or foreseen by the parties. As time goes by, it is possible they may develop a more finite schedule, but that's the kind of thing that is more likely than not to be included in a Disposition and Development Agreement. Our recommendation has been to advise the public and other interested parties, of the precise status of where a project is at any given moment, and in connection with this particular project, the most that could be said is, there will be presented tonight to the Board of Directors of the Agency, the question of approval of Exclusive Right to Negotiate, and explain what that means. Beyond that we know we - have a period during which negotiations will take place. We can't tell you whether they will be successful, and even if they are, what kind of a development schedule might evolve from that, until there's been an agreement on that point." Director Claire confirmed Attorney Schricker's comments regarding the inadvisability of trying to determine time lines; and reminded everyone that Sequoia Station took about ten years to develop and the property on Main and Broadway had taken six to seven years. In response to Mr. Shevelyov's request for a minimum time, such as being able to offer their properties for one year, City Manager Everett said, "What we can say for sure is that we expect to have a Development Agreement back to you (Agency Board) in October, 1998. We've never gotten them back quicker than that because there is an infinite number of very technical issues and some due diligence before they even sign it, and we may have to end up doing some EIRs or something. So you can rest assured that we don't even have a Development Agreement until 1998, and what we may try to do is to see, assuming we can meet that target, and there is absolutely no guarantee, and we would so write that, we certainly though can tell you that if we met that target the developer would probably then be able to give you some reasonable estimates and we would ask him to do so as to what they thought they could do from that time on when they would have that kind of control." -- REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO.1 JANUARY 26,1998 MINUTES Page No. 460 PAGE 5