Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />in that it takes 48 months to bring a new office building on the <br />market and that what is presently on-hand is viewed as inventory <br />for this period of construction. He added that he did not feel <br />Dunn Properties would consider a development of this scope if <br />they did not believe it could be leased. The Deputy City <br />Manager/Development Services stated that the l8-acre parcel <br />referred to was presently held by an Estate and had been on the <br />market for a variety of proposed uses. He added that the Estate <br />was presently in negotiations with a private purchaser and that <br />staff did not view this site as a replacement site for the C-7 <br />site, pointing out that it would properly be a site for a <br />mixed-use development of much higher density. <br /> <br />In response to questions from Mr. Young regarding the calculation <br />of the reuse value of the land, Mr. Richard Botti of Keyser <br />Marston, financial consultants to the Agency, stated that the <br />proposed project for the C-7 site was the highest and best use <br />for the land and, therefore, there should be no difference <br />between the acquisition and reuse costs. <br /> <br />In response to questions from Chairman Griset, the Deputy City <br />Manager/Development Services stated that the Agency would be <br />purchasing residential units, complete with equipment and a <br />variety of other improvements, which would result in a <br />considerably higher cost for the property than land value. He <br />added that vacant land in the area was priced at from <br />$19 to $20 per square foot. He added that the irregular <br />configuration of the C-7 site and the necessity of relocating a <br />jet fuel line that ran below the property had caused the site to <br />be appraised at the $17.50 per square foot price. <br /> <br />After further discussion, it was moved by Mr. Johnson, seconded <br />by Mr. Hart and carried unanimously (6:0) that the Agency: <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />Adopt Resolution No. 85-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY <br />REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING <br />AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND MAIN STREET PARTNERS; <br />and <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />approve the conceptual plans proposed by Main Street <br />Partners; and <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />approve the project budget and authorize its implementation <br />by the Redevelopment Commission. <br /> <br />It was moved by Councilmember Johnson, seconded by Councilmember <br />Luxembourger and carried unanimously (6:0) that the Council adopt <br />Resolution 85-103: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY <br />OF SANTA ANA MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE <br />CONSIDERATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT <br />AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA PURSUANT TO AN OWNER <br />PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT <br />AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND MAIN STREET PARTNERS FOR THE <br />SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE SANTA ANA REDEVELOPMENT <br />PROJECT AND APPROVING THE SALE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY UPON THE <br /> <br />-4- <br />