07/21/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. The Agency should also consider the acquisition of the remaining structure at Fifth and Main Stree~s for future development. This Building is currently occupled by ground floor tenants, but the upstairs portion has not been used for several years and it is believed that the cost of rehabilitation would be prohibitive. This additional acquisition would complete the assemblage of a second future development site within this block. Mr. Yamamoto said that he felt the Agency should stick to the original agreement with Mr. Allen and allow the construction as he originally proposed. He added that he would not support this Modification. Mr. Ward said that it had not been the Agency's policy to.lIla~d bank" land and he did not wish to see that policy changed at thlS tlme. He suggested that the Agency proceed on a temporary basis with Mr. Allen's proposal and reserve the right of future redevelopment. In response to a question from Mr. Bricken, the Executive Director stated that this modification had not been discussed with Mr. Fainbarg, the owner of a portion of the land involved. Mr. Bricken said that, in his opinion, when the Agency modified its position, all of the people that would be affected by the action should be notified. In response to a question from Mr. Bricken, staff confirmed that there . was not a time frame involved and that this item could be continued. Mr. Bricken then said that he would suggest that course of action. Mr. Luxembourger then moved, seconded by Mr. Serrato and carried unanimously that the Modification of the Exclusive Right to Negotiate for Mr. Ralph Allen (510-512 North Main Street) be continued. ALLEN E. JONES PROPOSAL FOR PHASE III DEVELOPMENT Mr. Ward said that he was reluctant to support the subject proposal for Phase III since he had not, as yet, seen any evidence of performance on Phase I of the Jones Development Mr. Luxembourger said that he agreed with Mr. Ward completely. The Executive Director advised the Agency that the chief reason Mr. Jones had asked for the change of direction for Phase III was that he had now entered into a partnership and his new partner is opposed to building office condominiums because of the possibility of conflict with the high rise development. Staff added that the financial impact of residential vs. office/commercial development for Phase III 4IÞ wasabout the same. Mr. Ward said that, in his opinion, since there was a tax increment bond involved, Phase I should be expedited so that the Agency could receive the tax increment. Mr. Yamamoto said that, if the property was equally suited for residential and commercial, he did not feel that the Agency should be changing its decisions back and forth. Mr. Yamamoto added that he was not in favor of considering a change and that, if Mr. Jones could not perform under the terms of his six month right to negotiate, the Agency should seek another developer. In response to a question from Mr. Griset, the Executive Director stated that Mr. Jones' exclusive right to negotiation had one month to run, after which the Agency may be asked to consider extending it. Mr. Griset then asked if the Agency would then be in a better position to know what had been done on Phase I and, if Mr. Jones' performance was not satisfactory, be able to pull back on the exclusive right to negotiate on Phase III. The ~xecutive Director said.th~t th~s wou~d be possible. Mr. Griset then sald that he would be satlsfled wlth thlS . arrangement. He added that he too did not want to see ~hase III supercede Phase I and he hoped that staff could convey thlS to Mr. Jones. 3.