My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-06-1974
Clerk
>
Minutes
>
CITY COUNCIL
>
1952-1999
>
1974
>
06-06-1974
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2012 1:59:54 PM
Creation date
5/7/2003 9:04:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Minutes
Date
6/6/1974
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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).
View images
View plain text
The cost implications for Proposal One through Three are <br />$507,310, $440,000 and $570,000, respectively. <br /> <br />The consensus of the consultants was that Proposal Three was <br />the best in terms of providing the greatest tax increment <br />and potential opportunities for development. <br /> <br />The goals for redevelopment of the project were defined as <br />follows: <br /> <br />° To eliminate the problems <br /> <br />° To accommodate significant existing buildings <br /> <br />o To encourage increased density of development <br /> <br />° To encourage land assemblage <br /> <br />The key change in the area would be tho retail core and specialty <br />retail area. One of the major elements would be the transit <br />terminal which would provide subterranean and at-grade parking. <br /> <br />RECESS The presentation was <br /> concluded and the Mayor <br /> announced a recess. The <br /> meeting reconvened at <br />8:50 P.M. with Councilmen Garthe, Yamamoto, Ward, Evans and <br />Mayor Patterson. Councilmen Griset and Markel were absent. <br /> <br />REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Mayor Patterson invited <br />PROPOSALS (CONTINUED) discussion and comments <br /> from the other Board and <br /> Commission Members and <br />the Consultants responded to questions. <br /> <br />In response to questions regarding financing, the Redevelopment <br />Director stated that the latest assessed valuation for the area <br />will not be available until the end of June; that he estimates <br />the "frozen" assessed valuation for the area will be approxi- <br />mately $12,000,000; and that he will not request approval of <br />any development concept until a workable Financial report has <br />been prepared by consultants Stone and Youngberg. <br /> <br />Mr. Joseph Gilmaker, Realtor, stated that he was opposed to <br />closing off Fourth Street from Broadway down because it is <br />an historical street and it would close off th~ access fo~ the <br />people west of Broadway who want to develop. <br /> <br />Mr. Gordon Bricken, member of tko Redevelopment Commission, stated <br />that the proposals were creative and innovative; and that th_e <br />project will help to serve the needs of the Cit~ now and for the <br />future. (CA 82.5) <br /> <br />MEMORIAL POOL The written request dated <br /> June 6, 1974, from Bob <br /> Gaughran, Chairman <br /> Water Polo, United States <br />Olympic Committee, for use of Memorial Pool from 6:00 A.M. to <br />8:00 A.M., July 3 - 12, 1974, for the National Water Polo Team, <br />was unanimously approved C5-0), and tke fees were walyed~ on <br />motion of Councilman Yamamoto, seconded bM Councilman Garthe, <br />(CA 52) <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL MINUTES <br /> <br />206 JUNE 6, 1974 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.