Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council

Thursday, January 19, 2006

8:30 a.m. CRA session


DISCLAIMER:
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this transcript was produced in all
capital letters and any variation thereto may be a
result of third party edits and software compatibility
issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.


08:38:21

08:38:21

08:43:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ:

08:43:28 The Community Redevelopment Agency is now called to

08:43:31 order.

08:43:31 Roll call please.

08:43:33 [Roll Call]

08:43:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: This morning, we are going to hear

08:43:36 from Mike Chen.

08:43:41 >>> Good morning.

08:43:43 You have two items on your -- on your agenda this

08:43:47 morning for the CRA board meeting.

08:43:49 We'll start with the first.

08:43:51 It deals with the amendments proposed for the CRA plan

08:43:54 for the old Tampa police station site, sometimes

08:44:01 commonly referred to as Tampa Heights.

08:44:06 In looking through the existing CRA plan, it was kind

08:44:10 of another project that was associated with the

08:44:13 creation of CRA at the time.

08:44:15 And while CRA plans should be broad and generic, there

08:44:20 were a few items that kind of crept into the wording

08:44:23 of the plan that reflected the anticipated project.

08:44:27 So as we were doing the amendments, we first wanted to

08:44:32 make the wording broad and general that would

08:44:37 accommodate the new proposed project that's coming up,

08:44:40 but not be specific to that project, so that the city

08:44:46 would have flexibility even after setting the project

08:44:57 or still have a CRA plan that's broad and general that

08:44:59 we can manage and react to.

08:45:01 So with that, I would like to introduce a




08:45:04 representative from the proposed Tampa Heights project

08:45:07 development that will give you kind of a fresh update

08:45:11 on the status and concepts associated with that

08:45:14 project.

08:45:24 >> I'm Meg Collins, the project manager.

08:45:30 I just want to take a few moments to give you an

08:45:32 introduction and catch you up to speed on the status

08:45:35 of this project.

08:45:51 As most of you are aware, I just wanted to briefly

08:45:53 point out the approximate boundaries of the project.

08:45:56 We are bound on the west side by North Boulevard, on

08:45:59 the north by Ross, on the east side by Tampa street,

08:46:03 and all the way down to the river.

08:46:06 And this graphic also shows the portion of the

08:46:08 riverwalk proposed to build.

08:46:14 I'm going to go through just a few conceptual

08:46:17 graphics, and keep in mind these are all conceptual in

08:46:20 nature.

08:46:20 We are not married to any architectural standards or

08:46:23 any of the site standards at this point.

08:46:26 As you can see from this graphic, we are proposing to

08:46:29 realign the streets through the project to take




08:46:32 advantage of the view corridors of downtown and of the

08:46:35 river.

08:46:38 And also I wanted to point out that the streets are

08:46:40 also aligned with the -- this will replace the

08:46:51 somewhat defunct large defunctional street grid that

08:46:57 exists today.

08:46:58 A view of the project looking from the south to the

08:47:01 north, as you can see, we are proposing to build about

08:47:06 25 boat slips.

08:47:08 You will see the park on the right there, and a couple

08:47:12 of the historic buildings that we are proposing to

08:47:14 renovate, the Tampa armature works building which is

08:47:17 the old Tampa trolley barn, and the water works

08:47:21 building which is part of the park.

08:47:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question.

08:47:32 On the slips, is that just going to be limited to your

08:47:40 residents?

08:47:41 Or is it going to be available to the general public?

08:47:45 >>> To be honest with you, we haven't really ironed

08:47:47 out those details at this time.

08:47:50 There are several options.

08:47:51 Obviously we have been talking to the City of Tampa




08:47:53 about further opportunities to do some joint projects

08:47:57 with the city.

08:47:58 But at this point the reason why we have 25 slips is

08:48:00 to keep us under the DRI threshold.

08:48:04 So we really have not ironed out the details of this.

08:48:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Because it appears that the

08:48:09 location of them seems to be branching off of areas

08:48:14 that perhaps are either adjacent to or actually part

08:48:19 of the city property.

08:48:24 >>> Actually the location of the slips has changed,

08:48:27 shifted to the west because of the depth of the river.

08:48:30 This is just a conceptual graphic.

08:48:32 >>MICHAEL CHEN: Yes, there are discussions that will

08:48:39 be made out as we discuss the development agreement on

08:48:45 this.

08:48:46 But there is a discussion about the city perhaps

08:48:49 participating in the addition of some slips to their

08:48:55 current concept.

08:48:56 It is my understanding, although I have not seen the

08:48:59 graphic from the picture that you just had, but it is

08:49:02 my understanding that the proximity of the slips has

08:49:05 moved to the north and west that would be attached to




08:49:09 the developer's land as opposed to city land.

08:49:11 So access to those slips would be through there.

08:49:14 But it's also through a public corridor.

08:49:16 Because the concept has a wide band of public space

08:49:20 around most of the river's edge.

08:49:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are all reading about the

08:49:26 increasing shortage of slips that are available to the

08:49:28 general public to rent.

08:49:31 I mean, the general public shouldn't necessarily have

08:49:33 it for free, but -- so I think if we haven't already

08:49:39 negotiated that point, I think we need to give it

08:49:41 serious consideration as we go.

08:49:45 >>> It has not been finalized by certainly the mix of

08:49:47 public versus private slips has been in our discussion

08:49:53 and will continue to be through the drafting of the

08:49:53 development agreement.

08:49:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Please continue.

08:50:04 >>> Again just a couple of conceptual graphics that

08:50:07 really talk to the nature of the project, the

08:50:08 pedestrian friendliness, all of the streets have

08:50:11 on-street parking.

08:50:12 And as you can see just from the feel of the streets




08:50:15 in here, it is very urban in nature, fairly dense.

08:50:21 Again, another graphic, this one showing the river on

08:50:24 the right and the retail that we are proposing to

08:50:26 build along extension 7th Avenue on the left.

08:50:34 Here's an aerial of the conceptual site plan.

08:50:37 I just want to point out that everything that we are

08:50:39 talking about here today is just phase 1.

08:50:42 Phase 2 is really still conceptual in nature and will

08:50:45 be talked about at a later date.

08:50:47 And also phase 1 is also the -- everything to the east

08:50:51 of North Boulevard is what's included in the CRA.

08:50:58 As you know, we are also seeking to rezone the

08:51:01 property which will be discussed at a later date.

08:51:04 But just briefly, the proposed site program that we

08:51:09 are asking for is 160,000 square feet of office,

08:51:13 100,000 square feet of commercial, 1900 residential

08:51:17 units, and again the 25 boat slips.

08:51:19 This combination of uses here keeps us under the DRI

08:51:23 threshold, which as you know is something that we may

08:51:26 want to do.

08:51:27 I also want to point out that 10% of the housing units

08:51:29 will be set aside for affordable housing.




08:51:36 Again, the zoning application, the three regions that

08:51:39 we are proposing to rezone are based on underlook

08:51:42 lying land use.

08:51:43 And also the reason I wanted to mention this is

08:51:45 because the zones in the CRA are also based on the

08:51:47 same underlying land use areas.

08:51:55 As you can imagine, there's a slew of entitlements

08:51:59 that are required for this project.

08:52:00 The CRA amendment, this being one of them.

08:52:03 Our intent is to go ahead and take care of all these

08:52:06 entitlements roughly at the same time for efficiency

08:52:08 purposes, and just to expedite the process.

08:52:16 The CRA, this is a map of the CRA boundaries shown

08:52:19 here in blue, and the project boundary here shown

08:52:24 shaded in red.

08:52:24 And as you can see, the only part of the CRA that was

08:52:31 not part of the project is this one block here.

08:52:35 On the northeast side, which is a block, as you may

08:52:42 know, which has some really large and nice Victorian

08:52:46 homes, Fernandez and the garden home, and then also

08:52:51 Stetson university to the southeast.

08:52:53 And this is pretty much phase 1 of our project.




08:53:00 The CRA itself was initially established in March of

08:53:04 1999 when the city did a study and declared the area

08:53:08 was blighted.

08:53:10 The TIF was not passed until May of last year.

08:53:14 And here's just a couple of quotes from the CRA.

08:53:18 As you know, the purpose of a CRA is to make it more

08:53:23 conducive for redevelopment for the area.

08:53:27 And we'll get into some of the changes a little bit

08:53:30 later on.

08:53:34 Another thing we wanted to point out was that the

08:53:36 neighborhood itself came together just after the

08:53:38 establishment of the initial CRA to make their own

08:53:41 neighborhood concept plan.

08:53:43 And this was really the first of its kind in the city.

08:53:47 And Mary young-green is here from the neighborhood.

08:53:56 She was instrumental in getting this passed.

08:53:58 It was a three year plan adopted in '99 and adopted by

08:54:02 City Council in 2003.

08:54:03 We have had over a hundred public meetings and have

08:54:05 been working with them hand in hand to make sure that

08:54:08 our plan comports with theirs.

08:54:12 This graphic here shows the actual plan that I just




08:54:15 talked about, in our redevelopment area here in red.

08:54:26 Just a summary of the changes that you are going to

08:54:27 see that we are proposing to make to the CRA.

08:54:32 I want to acknowledge the consistency between our plan

08:54:34 and the neighborhood plan.

08:54:38 There was also some very specific information about

08:54:43 pipe sizes and other infrastructure that's no longer

08:54:47 valid, so we removed that language.

08:54:49 And just some outdated information about the Tampa

08:54:53 Police Department which no longer exists there

08:54:55 on-site.

08:54:57 And also each region of the CRA we are proposing to

08:55:00 make various changes to depending on the highest and

08:55:05 best use of that particular region.

08:55:10 We'll come back to this a little bit later.

08:55:14 Again the development schedule, I know that everyone

08:55:21 is very eager to get this riverwalk started, and we

08:55:24 are proposing to begin construction on the sea wall

08:55:28 portion of that just as soon as we can get the permit,

08:55:31 and then we will just roll right into site

08:55:35 development, and then later the vertical builders who

08:55:39 will come in and build the actual buildings.




08:55:44 Just a couple of notes about historic preservation.

08:55:46 Again, there's two prominent historic buildings

08:55:49 on-site.

08:55:50 We have hired Stephani Ferrell, a renowned historic

08:55:54 architect, to take a look at these two buildings and

08:55:57 to come up for a plan for adoptive reuse. This was

08:56:01 the old TECO trolley barn which is now an industrial

08:56:05 park in the process of being cleaned up.

08:56:07 And the water works building which I think is a city

08:56:10 building that's currently vacant.

08:56:16 Just briefly, the riverwalk, we are proposing to build

08:56:19 a little over a mile of the riverwalk, which is

08:56:22 actually two-thirds of the total existing riverwalk to

08:56:25 be built.

08:56:27 It goes from North Boulevard bridge all the way down

08:56:29 to Cass Street.

08:56:30 So it's a very large portion of the riverwalk.

08:56:38 The park here that you can see down on the

08:56:41 southeastern corner is approximately a 3-acre park.

08:56:44 It got some very nice amenities, it has a natural

08:56:46 spring, and we are proposing to enhance that spring

08:56:51 and bring this park back to life.




08:56:53 Of course bringing the riverwalk through it.

08:56:55 This is a plan that the city actually looked at back

08:56:58 in 2004 and hired Hardeman Landscape Architects, and

08:57:05 we have also retained them to continue to redesign the

08:57:08 plan to incorporate the riverwalk and a few other key

08:57:12 features that we would like to see.

08:57:15 So that is the overview.

08:57:18 And I would be glad to answer any questions.

08:57:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Questions, Mr. Dingfelder.

08:57:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I defer to Ms. Saul-Sena.

08:57:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have been working with the Tampa

08:57:27 Heights neighborhood for years prior to them getting

08:57:29 the plan to the Planning Commission, and you all

08:57:32 coming along, and this project is so attractive, and

08:57:36 would create such a positive transformation on our

08:57:40 part of the river that had been just sort of the

08:57:43 sleepy industrial brownfield.

08:57:45 It is so exciting.

08:57:46 And I look forward to the different components come

08:57:49 forth.

08:57:50 It's really an exciting plan.

08:57:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A couple of questions.




08:57:56 When I saw the quick sketch of the riverwalk that

08:58:00 you're building, are there any gaps, are there any

08:58:04 bridges that you are not able to do in this section

08:58:06 that you're committed to?

08:58:09 >>> No, there's a couple of bridges that we need to be

08:58:12 creative about how to get over or under these bridges.

08:58:16 But, no, it's a continuous piece.

08:58:19 >> So your engineers have resolved those conflicts?

08:58:22 >>> Yes.

08:58:25 They're working on it.

08:58:26 >> And the second question as related to the water

08:58:29 works building, and Michael, this might be more a

08:58:31 question for you, is it still a city building, number

08:58:35 1?

08:58:36 Number 2, I thought I had heard a discussion awhile

08:58:39 back that it would retain or remain in some sort of

08:58:43 community role, in some type of community center or

08:58:48 something for the entire area.

08:58:50 Was that just gossip?

08:58:52 >>MICHAEL CHEN: No, actually, there's a fair amount of

08:58:55 truth to the rumors that you have heard.

08:58:58 First of all, the building is in the park, and it is




08:59:01 part of a park land.

08:59:04 We're making sure to confirm whether that building is

08:59:07 actually designated as part of the park or not.

08:59:10 But it will influence how we have to deal between the

08:59:13 city and the developer on the use of that building.

08:59:17 It's not totally vacant.

08:59:19 I understand that there is a city broadcast facility

08:59:21 that is operating within there.

08:59:24 But in terms of its role within the developer's plan,

08:59:27 it's an absolutely critical piece.

08:59:30 In terms of creating a public environment and some

08:59:34 energy along the park and riverwalk segments of their

08:59:37 project.

08:59:38 So it's very important that we figure out how to work

08:59:40 together to where -- in fact I'm hearing things like

08:59:44 restaurants and that type of thing, for adaptive reuse

08:59:51 here.

08:59:51 We have to make sure and how we do that in an

08:59:53 appropriate fashion.

08:59:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And who would fund those

08:59:56 improvements?

08:59:58 Would that be the developer per se?




09:00:00 Would that be the CRA?

09:00:05 The various options that are available.

09:00:07 >>MICHAEL CHEN: At this time, the initial proposal was

09:00:09 for the developer to buy that parcel to take ownership

09:00:14 of that building.

09:00:16 The broadcast facility would be leased back to the

09:00:18 city, and then within the context and cost of the

09:00:22 developer's project, all that adaptive reuse would be

09:00:26 taken care of in that budget.

09:00:27 If indeed it's determined that this is park land, or

09:00:32 park building, we'll have to explore an alternative

09:00:35 because we wouldn't be able to convey it to the

09:00:37 developer without a referendum.

09:00:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just one or two more questions.

09:00:42 Ma'am, you mentioned affordable housing.

09:00:45 There's always this back and forth between what's

09:00:49 affordable and what's attainable.

09:00:52 Is it attainable housing?

09:00:53 Is it low-income affordable housing?

09:00:56 >>> The way that we are defining affordable housing is

09:01:00 anyone will meet the who makes between 80% to 120% of

09:01:07 area mean income which is a fairly industry standard




09:01:12 for affordable housing in general.

09:01:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Michael, how would that relate to

09:01:17 those two words, affordable versus attainable?

09:01:19 >>MICHAEL CHEN: I think the concept would be closely

09:01:22 related to the affordable housing terminology rather

09:01:25 than the broader and say undefined attainable.

09:01:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then finally, you threw up a quick

09:01:36 slide that talked about entitlements, and then

09:01:41 mentions zoning, and that sort of thing.

09:01:43 And I was just curious about the word entitlements.

09:01:48 There's nothing in the agreements that entitle this

09:01:52 developer to any particular zoning or anything else,

09:01:55 correct?

09:01:55 >>MICHAEL CHEN: I think the entitlements are referring

09:01:58 to the various legal processes within the city that

09:02:01 will give them entitlement to build the project, not

09:02:04 that they are entitled to the -- to approvals, but

09:02:09 rather once the approvals are done, then they'll have

09:02:11 entitlement to construct.

09:02:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thanks for the clarification.

09:02:14 Thank you, Madam Chair.

09:02:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just one question on my part.




09:02:18 When you talk about affordable housing, are we talking

09:02:21 about single-family type homes?

09:02:23 Or are we talking about condos or town homes, things

09:02:27 like that?

09:02:28 >>> Right now everything that we are proposing to

09:02:29 build would be a town home or a condominium.

09:02:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.

09:02:35 I think it's a great project.

09:02:37 I can't wait for to the get off the ground.

09:02:39 It's going to revitalize that area something like

09:02:46 nobody has seen in a long, long time.

09:02:48 And it's a long time in coming.

09:02:50 So I'm glad that Mr. Bishop and his partners have

09:02:56 taken this role to help revitalize this area.

09:02:59 And I want to thank you all for bringing this

09:03:03 presentation to us this morning.

09:03:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just one more question.

09:03:08 What is the buildout projected, assuming we still have

09:03:11 a viable building economy?

09:03:14 You know, and assuming that you all get your green

09:03:18 lights on the various things you need to do this.

09:03:21 What would your buildouts be for these units?




09:03:25 >>> In terms of time line?

09:03:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.

09:03:27 >>> We're showing a ten-year complete buildout.

09:03:30 But we feel that's very conservative.

09:03:35 Even in a slowing housing market, we feel that that

09:03:38 would be conservative. But that's what we're showing

09:03:40 for these purposes.

09:03:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.

09:03:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We have a resolution.

09:03:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.

09:03:51 >> Second.

09:03:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Chen, would you read the

09:03:55 resolution?

09:03:56 Or would you prefer not to?

09:03:59 >>MICHAEL CHEN: I'll be happy to read the resolution

09:04:01 for you if you like.

09:04:02 Or however you prefer to handle it.

09:04:03 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like for Mr. White to read it

09:04:06 since it's his area.

09:04:07 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move a resolution of Community

09:04:10 Redevelopment Agency of the city of Tampa, Florida

09:04:12 relating to community redevelopment in old Tampa




09:04:13 Police Department site, community redevelopment area,

09:04:16 accepting a second amendment to the community

09:04:18 redevelopment plan, old Tampa Police Department site,

09:04:21 community redevelopment area, submitted by the City of

09:04:23 Tampa administration, directing the secretary of the

09:04:26 Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tampa to

09:04:28 move forward, a copy of said amendment to Hillsborough

09:04:31 County, city-county Planning Commission, directing the

09:04:34 secretary of said agency to submit a written report on

09:04:37 said amendment to each taxing authority, pursuant to

09:04:40 section 163.361, Florida statutes, 2005, providing an

09:04:45 effective date.

09:04:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We have a motion and a second.

09:04:49 Any questions on the motion?

09:04:52 Please indicate by saying Aye.

09:04:55 Any nos?

09:04:56 Motion passes.

09:04:57 Very good.

09:04:58 Thank you.

09:04:59 Okay, Mr. Chen, you're on again.

09:05:00 >>MICHAEL CHEN: Item 2 on your agenda is dealing with

09:05:06 pre-suit designation for property acquisition into the




09:05:11 Tampa Heights area.

09:05:12 And David Smith is here to brief you on that segment.

09:05:16 >>DAVID SMITH: Good morning, members.

09:05:20 This has a slightly different cast to it than we

09:05:24 described or discussed during my meetings with you in

09:05:26 private.

09:05:27 So I would like to clarify that.

09:05:28 I apologize that we did not have that opportunity to

09:05:31 discuss what I am about to describe to you.

09:05:34 What you're going to be asked to do today is slightly

09:05:37 less than you may have anticipated.

09:05:39 We are really only authorizing pre-suit negotiations

09:05:42 today, in order to literally take the actions you need

09:05:47 to take -- the cell phone in my pocket seems to want

09:05:52 my attention.

09:05:52 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's $5.

09:05:59 >>DAVID SMITH: What we are going to have to do in

09:06:00 order to actually move forward with imminent domain is

09:06:04 have a hearing after a 30-day public notice.

09:06:06 So you are not literally taking action to require or

09:06:10 to allow or authorize eminent domain today.

09:06:14 What you will be doing as a CRA is authorizing




09:06:18 pre-suit negotiations by the developer to talk with

09:06:22 the property owners in the area, to attempt to acquire

09:06:26 the property pursuant to negotiations.

09:06:28 If those negotiations are not successful -- and I

09:06:31 believe we have a 75-day period in the resolution --

09:06:34 then and only then will eminent domain be considered.

09:06:40 Now, what we will probably recommend to you, however,

09:06:43 is that we come back to you prior to the expiration of

09:06:47 75 days with a stand-by authorization, but certainly

09:06:49 not today.

09:06:50 So literally today, all that is being decided is a

09:06:54 resolution to allow the developer to engage in

09:06:57 pre-suit negotiations, to attempt to acquire the

09:06:59 parcels of property that are missing.

09:07:01 The properties that are missing, I think have been

09:07:04 presented to you, and as you know, I think I told you

09:07:07 there were 17 parcels, 14 were vacant lots.

09:07:09 There's actually 15 parcels now.

09:07:12 I believe 13 of which are vacant lots.

09:07:14 The other three properties, the improvements we have

09:07:17 described, actually they were very accurately depicted

09:07:19 in the paper this morning.




09:07:21 Rather than spending too much of your time, I know you

09:07:24 have an extremely busy morning this morning, and the

09:07:27 issue today is a lot lower level than what we

09:07:30 anticipated.

09:07:31 I will be happy to answer any questions I can give you

09:07:34 in elaboration and a lot of other information that I

09:07:37 sent to you in writing.

09:07:38 Since that does not really seem to be hardly necessary

09:07:40 for the action you're taking, I'll dispense and answer

09:07:43 questions.

09:07:46 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I move the resolution authorizing

09:07:48 them to do what they have already been doing.

09:07:51 >> Second.

09:07:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Any other questions?

09:07:54 Mr. Dingfelder, did you have a question?

09:07:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No.

09:07:57 We didn't get a copy of the resolution.

09:07:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It should be in this.

09:08:01 >>DAVID SMITH: Actually, we do have a corrected

09:08:04 resolution.

09:08:05 I would like to file that with the clerk.

09:08:07 The change in the resolution from what you received in




09:08:09 your packet is in the fourth to the last whereas

09:08:11 clause, says within 75 days from the date hereof.

09:08:15 So that is the time period by which the developer has

09:08:17 to attempt to acquire the property prior to eminent

09:08:21 domain action.

09:08:22 If I could, I would like to file that with you.

09:08:24 I have a copy for the clerk and for each of you.

09:08:34 (Off microphone)

09:08:36 It is a City Council resolution.

09:08:41 I think what you need to do is City Council will take

09:08:44 that action as it shows up appropriately on your

09:08:47 agenda.

09:08:47 But since John didn't have a copy of the resolution, I

09:08:51 wanted to make sure he has one.

09:08:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I didn't see that any City Council

09:08:58 member had a copy of the resolution.

09:08:59 But I guess what I'm confused about is the -- Sal just

09:09:03 handed me this resolution, the last whereas paragraph,

09:09:08 says whereas the City of Tampa is hereby authorized to

09:09:12 exercise its power of eminent domain to acquire the

09:09:16 additional property, by initiating condemnation

09:09:18 proceedings under chapter 72-74, from the developer,




09:09:22 funds equal to the good faith estimate which the city

09:09:24 will be required to submit to the registry of the

09:09:27 court in order to acquire title to said property.

09:09:31 >>DAVID SMITH: That will have to be stricken.

09:09:32 Basically whether what transpired, there is

09:09:35 empowerment in the bylaws for the CRA that we were

09:09:37 unaware of.

09:09:37 Your bylaws require a 30-day notice.

09:09:40 As a consequence of that we have to follow your

09:09:43 bylaws.

09:09:43 Really all you are doing today, this resolution that

09:09:45 you have in front of you will not be submitted to

09:09:47 council today, and council will not take action on it

09:09:50 because it is premature.

09:09:52 So all you are doing today is pass ago resolution, as

09:09:55 Mr. Harrison appropriately indicated, that authorizes

09:09:58 developer to begin pre-suit negotiations.

09:10:00 What this really does is puts the community on notice

09:10:03 that the CRA and ultimately the council will be

09:10:07 considering the possibility of bringing an eminent

09:10:09 domain action.

09:10:11 So it's appropriate for him to enter into those




09:10:14 negotiations in earnest.

09:10:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We always want to dot our Is and

09:10:22 cross our Ts.

09:10:23 Are you suggesting we modify this last paragraph,

09:10:25 because this paragraph is specifically authorizing

09:10:29 power of eminent domain?

09:10:31 >>DAVID SMITH: I think your resolution -- if I

09:10:33 understood Mr. Harrison's motion really to be an oral

09:10:37 resolution as opposed to this particular resolution,

09:10:39 which was prepared for council.

09:10:40 But it is premature for council to act.

09:10:43 He can either modify his resolution to delete from

09:10:47 that prepared resolution any reference to the current

09:10:50 authorization of eminent domain, or we can simply

09:10:53 leave it as a verbal resolution that we will then

09:10:55 craft for you to sign.

09:10:57 It will be the same exact as your motion.

09:11:00 Limited activity at this juncture.

09:11:05 >>SAL TERRITO: that you continue this for 30 days,

09:11:09 because the pre-suit negotiations, they are doing the

09:11:11 pre-suit negotiations.

09:11:13 They don't Ned our authorization to do that.




09:11:15 If we simply continue this hearing to give it time for

09:11:17 the notice to go out.

09:11:18 >>DAVID SMITH: That's probably a sounder

09:11:21 recommendation.

09:11:22 >>SAL TERRITO: Come back in 30 days and hear this.

09:11:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to continue for 30 days.

09:11:33 >> Second.

09:11:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We have a motion and second to

09:11:36 continue for 30 days.

09:11:37 All in favor?

09:11:39 Any Nays?

09:11:40 Motion passes.

09:11:41 It's continued.

09:11:42 Thank you.

09:11:43 Anything else to come before this agency?

09:11:46 We are now adjourned.