1995 ADJ JT MIN FEB 28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

right to ask questions during Public Comment; however, the Council need not respond. Mr. Jackson proceeded to asked if the developer in question was the same person who was involved in a litigated Conflict of Interest in Riverside. He asked if this was the same controversial developer who has done business in Riverside, in San Bernardino and the same individual, who was paid $231,000 for development of a mall in Colton that fell through. The City of Colton paid him the $231,000 and received nothing in return. Mr. Jackson went on to state his understanding of the RDA's transaction in the purchase of the property in question. Mr. Jackson said the City had paid fees in the amount of $25,000 to obtain the land in addition to the $375,000. The City should sell the land for $400,000 to break even. Mr. Jackson stated that the developer will not have to put down $1.00 of his own money and if he cannot secure proper financing, it is his understanding that the City guarantees the money to build the restaurant and if the restaurant is a huge success and it encounters traffic problems, the City will have to provide additional parking. Mr. Jackson closed by saying this was a terrible way to do business and that the City should make a concerted effort to sell the property on its own. Mr. Jesse Valdivia, Sr., spoke in opposition to the agreement, saying that the City would not receive the $375,000 up front and - that because of increased traffic and the City having to build additional parking, it might end up with a parking lot and project like Plaza Las Glorias. The City helped that developer out and that he walked away from the project owing the City. He said the City cannot afford to give away any freebees. Mayor/Member Fulp asked Special Counsel Sabo if it was his recommendation that the resolution be adopted prior to seeing the final language on the DDA. Special Counsel Sabo responded that he has recommended changes to the resolutions and has provided the language to General Counsel Biggs that would make reference to incorporating the changes in the staff memo. Special Counsel Sabo said it was solely the option of the RDA whether it wants to approve it with those changes, subject to the final review of the General Counsel and the Executive Director or if the Agency wants to approve it conceptually with the final version to come back at a later date. Special Counsel Sabo said he was comfortable with either method of approval. Counc i lmember /Member Sandoval said he would amend his motion to include the changes included in the staff memo. General Counsel Biggs stated the actual motion would be to approve the resolution with the addition to Section 6., Line 8, at the end of the paragraph by inserting the following "in accordance with the modification as outlined in the staff report dated February 28, 1995." 3 FP 0 lq%