Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCVRC Agenda Packet 06/12/2009110- Q CORPORATION CHULA CHULA VISTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Christopher H. Lewis, Chair Paul Desrochers, Vice Chair Rafael Munoz Doug Paul Hector Reyes Christopher Rooney Salvador Salas, Jr. OFFICERS David R. Garcia, CEO Maria Kachadoorian, CFO Ann Moore, General Counsel Eric C. Crockett, Secretary 0 40 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC) Thursday, June 12, 2008, 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM C -101 276 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91910 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Directors Desrochers, Munoz, Paul, Reyes, Rooney, Salas, and Chair Lewis PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 & 2) The CVRC will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion, without discussion, unless a CVRC Director, a member of the public, or City staff requests that an item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar. 1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION A. Memorandum from Hector Reyes requesting an excused absence from the CVRC meeting of May 22, 2008. B. Memorandum from Sal Salas requesting an excused absence from the CVRC meeting of May 22, 2008. Staff Recommendation: That the CVRC excuse the absences. • 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff Recommendation: That the CVRC approve the minutes of the joint meeting with the Planning Commission of February 25, 2008 and the regular meetings of March 13, 2008, April 24, 2008, and May 22, 2008. PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the CVRC on any subject matter within the CVRC's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the CVRC from taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the CVRC may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. 3. PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS A. SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CONVENTION B. BROWNFIELD GRANT UPDATE C. DEVELOPMENT FEE DEFERRAL ACTION ITEMS The item(s) listed in this section of the agenda will be considered individually by the CVRC, and is /are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 4. LETTER OF INTENT FOR LAND TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE SPACE FOR SWEETWATER AUTHORITY Staff is presenting for CVRC consideration a working draft of a Letter of Intent ( "LOI ") by and among the City, Redevelopment Agency ( "RDA "), and Sweetwater Authority ( "Authority ") involving the potential relocation of the Authority's administrative operations to new commercial- office space located at a key regional transit node next to the E Street Trolley Station. Staff Recommendation: That the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE APPROVAL OF A LETTER OF INTENT CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SWEETWATER AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES ON CITY -OWNED PROPERTY AND RELATED LAND TRANSACTIONS Page 2 of 3 CVRC - Agenda - June 12, 2008 r 1 5. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS A. GALAXY B. SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTS 7. DIRECTORS' COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation will adjourn to their regularly scheduled meeting on July 10, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. The June 26`h meeting is cancelled. 3 t :r i Qz( t °:,at posted +it eu 1p O'i)'. I�:e Giro -1,;2 E.S iL Siit3 ^C r6 r;f. t ie -;,;c JerVQees L+uiidin j vnd at C it��,Y Had on Tr- In compliance with the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and /or participate in a CVRC meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty -eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the Community Development Department for specific information at (619) 691- 5047, or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585 -5655. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. Page 3 of 3 CVRC — Agenda — June 12, 2008 0 Thursday, May 22, 2008 Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation 276 Fourth Ave, MS C -400 Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Excuse from today's CRVC meeting Esteemed Board Members: Regretfully, I have a late commitment which place meeting. I apologize for this late notice. Respectfully, e�41 Wr Hector A!RtesTAIA President, CEO Hreyes@REYESorchitects.com 1 742 Broadway #� 0 excused absenc DRAFT MINUTES OF A JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC) AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA February 25, 2008 6:00 P.M. A Joint Special Meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation and Planning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. CVRC ROLL CALL PRESENT: Directors: Munoz (arrived at 6:03 p.m.), Paul, Reyes, Rooney, Salas, and Chairman Lewis ABSENT: Director: Desrochers PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners: Felber, Moctezuma, Vinson, Bensoussan, Clayton, Spethman, and Chairman Tripp ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director /City Manager Garcia, Assistant City Manager Tulloch, General Counsel /City Attorney Moore, Deputy City Attorney Shirey, Redevelopment & Housing Manager Mills, Chief Financial Officer /Finance Director Kachadoorian, Assistant Planning Director Lytle, Advanced Planning Manager Batchelder, Planning Manager Ladiana, Principal Planner Ponseggi, Assistant Building Director Remp, Building Inspector McGuire, Chief of Staff Forster, Senior Deputy City Clerk Peoples, Senior Administrative Secretary Fields PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE CVRC Chairman Lewis introduced the CVRC Directors and stated that Director Salas would be recusing himself from participation in the meeting due to his owning property within the proposed overlay district. Director Salas left the dais and the Council Chambers. Planning Commission Chairman Tripp introduced the Planning Commissioners and stated that Commissioner Moctezuma would be recusing herself from participation in the meeting due to her owning a business within the proposed overlay district. Commissioner Moctezuma left the dais and the Council Chambers. -�-1 1 � � ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. PUBLIC HEARINGS /ACTION ITEMS 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA 08 -03; An ordinance amending the City of Chula Vista Zoning Ordinance to add Chapter 19.57, Overlay Districts, and Section 19.57.010 General Purpose and 19.57.020 Third Avenue overlay District. The Third Avenue Overlay District will establish a three -story or 45 foot maximum height for parcels and portions of parcels fronting on Third Avenue between "E" Street and "G" Street (refer to attached zone map). It will also require that any newly constructed buildings or additions to existing buildings, utilize nationally recognized "green" building standards. Executive Director Garcia introduced Assistant Planning Director Lytle who provided a brief report of the proposed overlay district ordinance. Ms. Lytle stated that the City was proposing amending the Zoning Ordinance to establish an Overlay District, which is a zoning tool used to apply additional zoning requirements to a geographic territory. The district under consideration is currently regulated by the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) and is for parcels and portions of parcels fronting on Third Avenue between "E" and "G" Streets. Ms. Lytle stated that the first new requirement in the proposed ordinance is the height provision, which states that the maximum permitted height for newly constructed buildings and additions to existing buildings in the Third Avenue Overlay District shall be three stories or up to the height of 45 feet. The height limitation currently applies to all parcels within the Village 2 designation of the UCSP, but this new Overlay would affect seven additional parcels along "E" and "G" Streets. Ms. Lytle continued by stating that the second requirement applied to new construction and additions to existing buildings, and that they "shall" be required to meet nationally recognized green building construction standards. Furthermore, the green building requirement would affect all parcels within the Overlay District. Advanced Planning Manager Batchelder and Building Inspector McGuire provided an overview of the points -based Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification standards program. Assistant Planning Director Lytle then noted a recommended modification in the proposed ordinance under section 19.57.021 Purposes, item (c), to add the word "or" in the first sentence after "buildings and..." which would amend it to read "buildings and /or additions to existing buildings..." Page 2 of 8 CVRC /PC — Minutes — February 25, 2008 DRAFT PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Planning Commission Chairman Tripp requested a speaker slip, which had been submitted for oral communications and was inadvertently overlooked, be handled at this time as a procedural matter. ORAL COMMUNICATION Russ Hall expressed his appreciation for the Commission/Corporation's deliberation of the merits for the ordinance amendment. He expressed concern with the Jentz Initiative, which if passed would limit construction of certain types of buildings that are needed in the area and are traditionally over three stories high, i.e. hospital and/or courthouse buildings. PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Planning Commission Chairman Tripp provided an overview of the process the two groups would be following which included posing questions to staff, followed by public comment, and then deliberation and action. Planning Commission Chairman Tripp then requested questions of staff from the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Bensoussan made inquiry regarding overlay districts within the City and the process for change if implemented. Assistant Planning Director Lytle responded that they would be handled the same as a zoning amendment. Commissioner Clayton inquired, and Assistant Building and Housing Director Remp responded, that should a calamity to an existing structure in the proposed overlay district occur, the owner would need to comply with current standards, and noted that for major catastrophes, in order to qualify for FEMA funds to reconstruct, they would be required to meet the new standards. Planning Commission Chairman Tripp inquired, and Assistant Planning Director Lytle responded that the proposed ordinance would not affect the Congregational Tower Senior Apartments at F Street. With no further questions, Planning Commission Chairman Tripp closed the question and answer portion for the Planning Commission. CVRC Chairman Lewis requested questions of staff from the CVRC Directors. Director Rooney inquired, and Assistant Building Director Remp responded as to how building officials would address the inspection and certification process to ensure that green building standards were met. Mr. Remp stated that although no City staff members were currently qualified to do this type of certification, staff was moving forward in obtaining the necessary training. In the interim, the inspections and certification would most likely come from an outside party- Next Director Rooney inquired and Assistant Planning Director Lytle responded, that the end parcels were reduced to 84 -feet for consistency. Planning Manager Ladiana provided further Page 3 of 8 CVRC — Minutes — February 25, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING (continued) definition of the step -back requirement and noted that across "E" and "G" Streets, the parcels would still be allowed to go higher. Director Reyes inquired about the rationale behind setting the height limit to three stories versus four or five stories, and Assistant Planning Director Lytle responded that although she was not present in the initial discussions, most likely it was based on maintaining the historic character of the urban core district, taking into account the narrow parcels and how they interface with the small buildings around it. Planning Manager Ladiana confirmed Ms. Lytle's statement, adding that the lot depth mandated looking at a lower height. Director Paul inquired and City Attorney Moore responded that the tool of the "overlay district" came from the City Charter and Municipal Code Zone ordinance. CVRC Chairman Lewis closed the question and answer portion for the CVRC. CVRC Chairman Lewis and Planning Commission Chairman Tripp opened the public hearing. Lisa Cohen, Chula Vista resident and CEO of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce stated that her Board of Directors had reaffirmed their support for the Urban Core Specific Plan and green building practices. Further, that they supported the Third Avenue Village Associations position on the proposed ordinance. Leo Miras stated the green building caveat under this proposal was very weak and would have no impact on the environment. Further, that the City needed a more aggressive green policy in order to be able to meet the goal of reducing greenhouse emissions 20% below 1990 levels by the year 2010. Greg Mattson, President of Third Avenue Village Association stated that TAVA supported sustainable construction, however, they felt the language in the ordinance was too vague, and that green building standards should be encouraged, but not mandated. Mr. Mattson also stated that TAVA was concerned with the overlay district's restriction on development opportunities and believed that it diluted the UCSP land use guidelines and policies. In closing, Mr. Mattson stated that the TAVA board did not support the City's overlay district as proposed, and was in support of the UCSP land use guidelines along Third Avenue, i.e. densities, land use mixes, height etc.; as they allowed the gateway tips and tail parcels to be at higher densities and height. Peter Watry, Chula Vista resident representing Crossroads IT stated that his organization opposed the ordinance amendment because they felt it was a ploy to defeat the Jentz Initiative in the June election. If the Jentz Initiative was to pass, it would become law, however, the ordinance could be amended at any time. He urged a vote against it. Mitch Thompson, Chula Vista resident, asked for clarification on an earlier statement that there was not a story limit except for public buildings, noting that there was language in the ordinance, which stated that there was a three -story limit. City Attorney Moore stated that the language in Page 4 of 8 CVRC/PC — Minutes — February 25, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING (continued) the staff report referenced the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP), however, the proposed Ordinance Amendment was capping it at three- stories or a maximum of 45 feet. Glenn Googins, Chula Vista resident, stated that green building construction was a very good idea when set up as an incentive and when it is applied to public projects. He further stated that the UCSP included important provisions that encouraged green building standards by allowing additional development intensities. However, he expressed concerns with green building being a mandatory requirement and applied to private construction. Mr. Googins then stated that a 45 foot height restriction for the entire Third Avenue was not appropriate and urged the members to stand up for the process and development standards that were set forth in the UCSP. Jose Cortes, Third Avenue property owner, applauded the City for adopting green building standards, and stated that he supported the UCSP, but opposed height restrictions along Third Avenue, believing higher densities were needed. CVRC Chairman Lewis and Planning Commission Chairman Tripp requested clarifying questions from their members for the speakers. Commissioner Bensoussan made inquiry regarding the potential impact of the proposed ordinance on the Social Security Administration building project that had recently been presented to the Redevelopment Advisory Committee. With no further speakers wishing to speak, CVRC Chairman Lewis and Planning Commission Chairman Tripp closed the public hearing. Discussion followed regarding what constituted a story (height) and at what point you start to count floors when considering underground or above level parking lots. Staff made a point of clarification that parking lots did not count towards the floor- area -ratio (FAR), but that they did count as a story. Director Felber requested clarification as to whether a building could be four stories, but under 45 feet, to which Executive Director Garcia responded that the proposed language of Chula Vista Municipal Code section 19.57.22 set the maximum height at three stories, up to the height of forty -five feet, and therefore a four -story building would not be acceptable. Executive Director Garcia then added that the section could be changed to state "three stories or up to forty -five feet" to allow for more flexibility if the members wanted to recommend that. Director Rooney received clarification from staff that no sites currently under Exclusive Negotiating Agreements (ENA's) would be affected by the proposed ordinance. Director Reyes made inquiry regarding why the back portions of lots were allowed to be higher if the lots were consolidated. Executive Director Garcia responded that it was to allow for flexibility of lots that had land outside of the overlay district and that this was the reason the term "predominantly" was used. PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Z_5 Page 5 of 8 CVRC — Minutes — February 25, 2008 DRAFT Director Felber stated that he thought language other than "predominantly low rise" should be used as it seemed to conflict with height. Deputy City Attorney Shirey noted that the "Purposes" section of the ordinance was not intended as a control section, and that the language used came from the General Plan. Planning Commissioner Bensoussan stated that she believed the ordinance amendment was compatible and consistent with the vision of the UCSP and General Plan and that it preserved the historic character along Third Avenue. Further, she indicated that she would like to see tighter language for the green building requirement and recommended that the language read "that construction follow a nationally recognized green building standard or equivalent to LEED Silver certification, or 20% above Title 24 standards." Planning Commissioner Felber stated that the key to a successful, vibrant Third Avenue downtown district was to put feet on the street. Additionally, he stated that he was concerned that imposing strict green building standards may be cost - prohibitive and would be a deterrent to the development that was needed. Planning Commissioner Clayton stated that she believed the ordinance imposed restrictions that could be perceived as infringing on property rights of the owners of the affected parcels, and therefore did not support it. Planning Commissioner Spethman stated that he liked the height variable that the tips and tail parcels added to the overall design flow along Third Avenue and that he would not like to see it turned into a bowling alley corridor. He also expressed concern that a restrictive ordinance would impact the property owners along Third Avenue in terms of resale value or modification of their properties. Planning Commissioner Vinson stated that he wholeheartedly supported the City's endeavor to go green and believed it to be an excellent marketing tool to attract investors. Further, that the City could become a nationally recognized progressive city leading the way in smart growth development practices and tying it in with cutting edge green building standards and technology. Planning Commission Chairman Tripp stated that the UCSP and other documents had been developed to allow flexibility in an area of our City that was fading, and being too restrictive was a disincentive for investment if we wanted redevelopment to occur. Further, he stated that there was a need to be flexible in order to be attractive enough for investment. Director Munoz stated that many of his sentiments had already been expressed by previous speakers, particularly Planning Commissioner Felber, and stated that he was in support of the ordinance amendment. Director Rooney applauded the City's attempt to incorporate LEED standards, however, he expressed reservation on the way it was being handled. He stated that other jurisdictions were incorporating LEED standards by offering incentives to the developer, i.e. LEED Silver in exchange for a bonus FAR point on their property —a much more positive approach than mandating it. He expressed further concern with the expertise and specialized training required to inspect these buildings as they were constructed, and to certify their compliance when completed. Director Rooney then indicated that the tips and tail parcels were prime parcels in prominent intersections and the City would be forfeiting or reducing their value by limiting their PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Page 6 of 8 CVRC /PC – Minutes – February 25, 2008 I height, noting that here again, the incentive to build green at a higher standard could be used in exchange for an increased FAR. Director Reyes stated that in urban design, nodes are generally used as landmark or gateway demarcation parcels to give character and stability to an area. By capping the height and density in these areas, this was a disincentive for investment because it would not pencil out financially for the developer; therefore, you end up with single story development, eliminating the opportunity to create the environment to sustain a vibrant urban core. Director Paul stated that going green was a noble cause, however, one had to recognize the trepidation that some of the small business owners, i.e. TAVA, must feel when considering the cost of going green. He then stated that he concurred that green building certification should be used as an incentive to go higher, i.e. four stories at 45 feet, and not be a mandate. CVRC Chairman Lewis stated that he supported the green building practice, however, he too was concerned that it appeared the ordinance was exclusively endorsing LEED certification over other nationally recognized programs. Further, he stated that green building practice was defined in many different ways depending on who is asked. He felt a comprehensive standard that measured how to reduce the cost and use of a building and how to make it sustainable and environmentally sound was needed. Furthermore, based on his professional research, he had found that developers would voluntarily build green because sustainable development was profitable. He stated that sustainable development added value to the building and the community, and that there was a demand for it that would attract development. Chair Lewis added that the UCSP was plenty clear on the building heights and didn't need to be modified. In closing, he stated he would like to make a recommendation amending the ordinance to maintain the spirit and intent of the UCSP with regard to height and strongly recommended that new buildings and additions to existing buildings consider employing sustainable development. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Vinson, seconded by Commissioner Bensoussan, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ordinance as presented. Commissioner Felber offered a friendly amendment to the motion that the "tips and tail" parcels be left alone, and language be incorporated similar to what CVRC Chairman Lewis offered regarding a strong recommendation that green building standards be used, but not mandated. Deputy City Attorney Shirey noted that the "Maker and Second" of the original motion needed to be in agreement to amend the motion. Commissioner Vinson (Maker) accepted the amendment, but Commissioner Bensoussan (Second) did not. Motion by Commissioner Vinson, seconded by Commissioner Bensoussan, to approve the motion as originally stated. The motion carried 4 -2 -1 -0 with Commissioners Felber and Clayton voting no, and Commissioner Moctezuma abstaining from participation. Page 7 of 8 �,~ I CVRC — Minutes — February 25, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING (continued) CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACTION: Motion by Director Rooney, to recommend adoption of the ordinance with the following amendments: • That the tips and tail parcel be reduced from 84 feet, as designated by the UCSP, to 65 feet, with an incentive to allow it to be at 84 feet subject to construction being certified minimally at a LEED Silver rating or a similar nationally- recognized green building standard, and That the center parcels, between the tips and tails, that have a 45 -foot or three story restriction be allowed as an incentive to go to 50 feet and four stories subject to construction being certified minimally at a LEED Silver rating or a similar nationally - recognized green building standard. The motion died for the lack of a second. Motion by Director Reyes, seconded by Director Rooney, to recommend adoption of the ordinance with the following amendments: • That the tips and tail parcel be reduced from 84 feet, as designated by the UCSP, to 65 feet, with an incentive to allow it to be at 84 feet subject to construction being certified minimally at a LEED Silver rating or a similar nationally- recognized green building standard, and That the center parcels, between the tips and tails, that have a 45 -foot or three story designation be allowed as an incentive to go to four stories (at 45 feet) subject to construction being certified minimally at a LEED Silver rating or a similar nationally - recognized green building standard. The motion carried 5 -0 -1 -1 with Director Desrochers absent and Director Salas abstaining from participation. ADJOURNMENT At 8:17 p.m., CVRC Chairman Lewis adjourned the meeting to the Regular Meeting of February 28, 2008, at 6:00 p.m., noting that the Regular Meeting of February 14, 2008 had been cancelled. Planning Commission Chairman Tripp adjourned the Planning Commission meeting to their next Regular Meeting on February 27, 2008. Eric Crockett, Secretary Page 8 of 8 CVRC/PC — Minutes — February 25, 2008 DRAFT MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC) March 13, 2008 6:00 P.M. A Regular Meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation was called to order at 6:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. CVRC ROLL CALL PRESENT: Directors: Munoz (arrived at 6:06 p.m.), Paul, Reyes, Rooney, Salas, and Vice - Chairman Desrochers ABSENT: Directors: Chairman Lewis ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director /City Manager Garcia, Deputy City Attorney Shirey, Redevelopment & Housing Assistant Director Crockett, Chief Financial Officer /Finance Director Kachadoorian, Assistant Finance Director Davis, Project Coordinator Johnson, Principal Project Coordinator Lee, Senior Deputy City Clerk Peoples, Senior Administrative Secretary Fields PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE PRESENTATION • INFORMATION UPDATE ON THE SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY STRENGTHENING STRATEGIES Project Coordinator Johnson provided a brief update on the Southwest Community Strengthening Strategies and invited everyone to attend the community outreach event being held to solicit input from the community on Saturday, March 15th from 1 I a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Otay Recreation Center, 3554 Main Street. CONSENT CALENDAR (Item 1) 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Staff recommendation: That the CVRC approve the minutes of January 24, 2008. ACTION: Director Paul moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Director Reyes seconded the motion and it carried 6 -0 with Chair Lewis absent. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. -2-- Ot DRAFT ACTION ITEMS 2. EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH GALAXY COMMERCIAL HOLDING, LLC FOR THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF F STREET & WOODLAWN AVENUE (707 F STREET) Staff is recommending that the CVRC enter into a new Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with Galaxy Commercial Holding, LLC (Galaxy) for the former City corporation yard (Corp Yard) located at 707 F Street, adjacent to the E Street Trolley Station. The CVRC and Galaxy have an existing ENA (executed November 8, 2007) for two motel sites located immediately north of the Corp Yard on the southwest corner of E Street and Woodlawn Avenue (E & Woodlawn ENA). Galaxy has an interest in those motel properties through a 300 -day Purchase and Sale Agreement (entered into on August 15, 2007). Principal Project Coordinator Lee provided a brief overview of the report noting that what was being recommended was a short term 120 -day ENA, which was a new ENA in addition to the first ENA approved back in November. He then recapped the initial proposed project, the potential benefits to be derived, and the market challenges that have since occurred. He concluded with the rationale for the inclusion of the additional ENA to include additional land. A comprehensive site design study is required to be provided along with an economic study, preliminary traffic analysis, and phasing plan. Vice - Chairman Desrochers inquired as to whether there would be an opportunity to include the triangular parcel to the south of the Corp Yard on F Street. Redevelopment & Housing Assistant Director Crockett responded that that property was currently owned by MTS, and that it contained the major transformers for the trolley lines. Redevelopment & Housing Assistant Director Crockett then advised the Board that Mr. Raffi Cohen as well as his partner John Conway and their associate Brian Angelini and Project Manager Diane Erickson were present to answer any questions as well. Executive Director Garcia advised the Board that there was a lot of work to be done in the next 120 days, but that Mr. Cohen was a very willing partner and had agreed that the requests were reasonable and deliverable within the given time period. Further, that discussions with him had led staff to believe that he was as anxious to begin the project as staff was to give him the opportunity to begin the project. Director Paul inquired as to the grade separation being discussed. Mr. Lee stated that SANDAG was still in the study phase and that it was a very real project included in their funding. The location of the stop was uncertain at this time, but the preferred alternative was for going underground, which would require the grade to start to descend prior to E Street. Page 2 of 5 2- i �) CVRC — Minutes — March 13, 2008 DRAFT ACTION ITEMS (continued) Director Salas and Vice - Chairman Desrochers inquired and Mr. Lee explained the ENA timing process. Director Reyes requested that the Galaxy group provide the Board with their vision considering the economic changes. John Conway, representing Galaxy, stated that market conditions were always difficult, but their job was to come up with the best possible projects and business decisions that make sense. They had studied the Best Western property with the hopes of having a for sale product. Because of the configuration of that site and the unknown elements of NITS, as well as other properties within that ENA study area that they do not currently control, making a Phase I project was becoming extremely difficult. The availability of the City Corp Yard property coincided with their looking at another product type that was transit - oriented, such as the project in Mission Valley which is a multi -use rental property —very nicely done. The current ENA did not contain enough property to do an adequate study, but it works with the inclusion of the Corp Yard. Mr. Conway then stated that he had studied the grade separation and looked at the alternatives that are on the board and that they were sensitive to those issues. They believe they can come up with a 2 or 3 phase property that they can start very quickly and at the same time, with staff support, approach MTS and gain an understanding of some of the other issues. Their plan is to focus on something that would be a 2 to 3 phase product within the next 2 to 4 year cycle that brings in mixed use, satisfies the City's need for retail and multi - family rental housing, and then everything on the eastside along E Street would be for sale product. Mr. Conway stated that they are keeping the owner of the Best Western property abreast of their progress, and that they are aware of the timing they're working in. Director Paul inquired and Mr. Conway committed to keep the Board informed with periodic progress updates. ACTION: Director Paul moved adoption of Resolution No. 2008 -001, heading read, text waived: CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -001, RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APPROVING AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH GALAXY COMMERCIAL HOLDING, LLC FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 707 F STREET IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Director Rooney seconded the motion, and it carried 6 -0 with Chair Lewis absent. 3. 2008 TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BONDS Director Reyes stated that he would be abstaining from participation on this item due to having property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property that is subject of this action. He then left the dais and Council Chambers. On January 22, 2008, a resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista was approved declaring the intent to refund the 2000 Tax Allocation Bonds (TAB). On January 24, 2008, the CFO provided the financing plan for the proposed 2000 TAB refunding. At that time the Directors were advised that a request for recommending Page 3 of 5 2--I\ CVRC – Minutes – March 13, 2008 DRAFT ACTION ITEMS (continued) authorization to the Redevelopment Agency Board would be forthcoming if it was deemed financially feasible to refund the TABS. Chief Financial Officer /Finance Director Kachadoorian assisted by Assistant Finance Director Davis, provided an overview of the staff report, which was a follow -up to the prior presentation of January 24, 2008. She then introduced Financial Consultant Raul Amezcua of E.J. De La Rosa, and Suzanne Harrell, Financial Advisor of Harrell and Co., who were present in the audience. Vice - Chairman Desrochers requested Financial Consultant Raul Amezcua provide his opinion on the municipal bond market and what he sees in the next few months. Mr. Amezcua of E.J. De La Rosa responded stating that the last couple of months had been pretty severe, but the thinking is that the market will improve as the Feds cut rates again infusing money back into the market and taking an active role to unclog the credit paralysis currently being dealt with. His firm is optimistic, but can't say with certainty. They do know that there are a lot of investors who are just uncertain of when to invest. Vice - Chairman Desrochers added that he had no part in these bonds during his tenure with the City, and that it was important to note that these types of bonds and the bonds that were sold for the parking structure were the type of bonds that act as a catalyst to get redevelopment going. Further that the additional tax revenue generated has more than paid the City for the expense of the bonds. ACTION: Director Salas moved adoption of Resolution No. 2008 -002, heading read, text waived: CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -002, RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECOMMENDING THE ISSUANCE BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OF NOT TO EXCEED $24 MILLION PRINCIPAL AMOUNT 2008 TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BONDS FOR THE MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Director Rooney seconded the motion and it carried 5 -0 -1 with Director Reyes abstaining and Chair Lewis absent. At 6:45 p.m. Director Reyes returned to the Council Chambers and dais. 4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS There were none. 5. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTS There were none. Page 4 of 5 mot-- — I -L CVRC — Minutes — March 13, 2008 tiers adjoui Regular N VAN MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC) April 24, 2008 6:00 P.M. A Regular Meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation was called to order at 6:02 -101, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, p.m. in Conference Room C California. CVRC ROLL CALL PRESENT: Directors: Munoz (arrived at 6:04 p.m.), Paul, Reyes, Rooney, Salas (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), and Chair Lewis ABSENT: Directors: Desrochers ALSO PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Tulloch, Deputy City Attorney Shirey, Redevelopment & Housing Manager Mills, Assistant Planning and Building Director Lytle, Principal Project Coordinator Lee, Planning Manager Ladiana, Assistant Building Director Remp, Conservation and Environmental Services Director Meacham, Environmental Resource Manager Reed, Senior Deputy City Clerk Peoples, Senior Administrative Secretary Fields PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE PRESENTATIONS This item was heard after Item B. A. PERMIT STREAMLINING AND MEASURES TO REDUCE COST AND TIME FOR DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS, ENCOURAGING ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION Assistant Planning & Building Director Lytle explained that staff was directed to review all processes and remove unnecessary or redundant steps with regards to project reviews by various Boards and Commissions including the Resource Conservation Commission, Redevelopment Advisory Committee, and Design Review Committee. She then provided an overview of the current process and options noting that staff would be speaking with all Boards and Commissions and then returning to the CVRC with the results of the discussions and recommended actions. Ms. Lytle provided the Board with a copy of Longtin's Land Use Procedures & Timelines, as well as Local Ordinance & Administrative Processes Flow Charts. She spoke on the creation of a Zoning Administrator position and responded to questions of the Board. Director Rooney inquired as to where the current thresholds were, and Planning Manager Ladiana responded that they were based on the size of a project, and that new construction would go to the Design Review Committee for review. C2,- 1 DRAFT PRESENTATION A (continued) Pat Aguilar, Chula Vista resident, stated that it made sense to her that the Resource Conservation Commission should not be involved in environmental documents and she encouraged the consideration by staff of having them take over historic preservation issues as required by State law as it would go well with their Mills Act reviews. She also suggested that the community be involved in the determination of what the thresholds should be, and that design review should be done by design professionals who have appropriate training. Director Reyes requested that during the second cycle of comment and review, staff meet with developers /applicants to outline a timeline for their project (internal audit of administrative processes) and if they were willing, make this a condition of approval to expedite the timeline. He also suggested that the Zoning Administrator should have a design background. Chairman Lewis stated that although the charts presented were good, they should include clarification that streamlining would save time and money for everyone involved. He requested that when staff returns, a chart be provided that reflects what has been done and what was being planned to be done (condense the core) and that the zoning administration process be added to get the public involved early and often, and to get the master developer involved early and often. Assistant Planning and Building Director Lytle closed by stating that staff was forming focus groups to critique the process and that there were new managers in Planning and Building who were providing new vision and perspective. She also stated they were working on getting the information about properties out to the public as soon as possible and that they were looking at the fee schedules as well as the internal work flows. Director Reyes suggested they might also consider providing clients with probable cost estimates. B. CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING GROUP FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT Environmental Resource Manager Reed provided a PowerPoint presentation, which included the Reduction Goals, Mission Statement, Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Working Group Participants, and Process and Evaluation Criteria. Director Reyes, member of the working group, provided an overview of the Emissions Sector. Transportation: included the immediate implementation by Council of a Clean Vehicle Policy that requires 100% of replacement vehicles purchased for the municipal fleet be high efficiency (hybrid) or alternative fuel vehicles; and encouragement of fleet operators and companies doing business in Chula Vista to adopt a 100% clean vehicle replacement purchasing policy. Environmental Resource Manager Reed continued with the presentation providing the Emissions Sector. Energy: directed staff to develop a plan to require City - licensed businesses to participate in an energy assessment every 3 years or upon change of ownership; adopt green building standards for all new and major renovations of residential and commercial construction; develop a solar conversion program for existing residential and commercial buildings, proactively enforcing existing codes and requiring pre - plumbing for solar hot water; facilitate smart growth around the H Street, E Street, and Palomar Trolley Stations; and coordinate with Otay Water District, San Diego County Water Authority, and the Sweetwater Authority to convert turf lawns to xeriscape landscaping. Page 2 of 5 CVRC — Minutes — April 24, 2008 1 PRESENTATION B (continued) Conservation and Environmental Services Director Meacham stated that although staff was not recommending implementation of all recommendations at the time of presentation, the City Council took the lead and approved everything. Lisa Cohen, CEO of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, advised the CVRC Directors that a lot of her members were already LEED certified and that Environmental Resource Manager Reed was scheduled to provide her Board with a presentation on May 14th. She stated that the only concerns her organization had were with how the Council had rushed through things. Director Rooney made inquiry regarding the Third Avenue businesses and LEED compliance, and Conservation and Environmental Services Director Meacham stated that although Recommendation 4, to adopt green building standards, was challenging, what the community had been talking about was not to just require the standards for new development, but for major renovations as well. Assistant Building Director Remp provided a prospective on the building codes and standards, stating that the state established the requirements, yet the legislature was looking at bills that could impact the ability to implement local standards. Director Reyes stated that the smart growth measure speaks to incentives. He added further that timing and financial incentives to encourage use of technology should be considered as well. Director Paul encouraged staff to continue to work with SDG &E to reach an agreement to buy back power, noting that otherwise, the solar conversion program was not a good incentive. Chairman Lewis inquired and Conservation and Environmental Services Director Meacham responded that the intent of the program was for an assessment every three years, not for implementation. Thus, there would be no cost to the business owner, and tracking could perhaps be accomplished by business license renewal with notification to the staff to set an appointment for evaluation. Chairman Lewis then encouraged staff to incorporate the developers into the process as the developer also has an economic interest, and for staff not to make it competitive with the state. ACTION: Motion by Chairman Lewis, seconded by Director Paul, to receive and file the report. The motion carried 6 -0 -1 with Director Desrochers absent. Item A was heard at this time. CONSENT CALENDAR (Item 1) WRITTEN COMMUNICATION A. Memorandum from Christopher Lewis requesting an excused absence from the CVRC meeting of March 13, 2008. Page 3 of 5 CVRC — Minutes — April 24, 2008 � a CONSENT CALENDAR (continued) Staff recommendation: That the CVRC excuse the absence. B. Memorandum from Paul Desrochers requesting an excused absence from the CVRC meeting of April 24, 2008. Staff recommendation: That the CVRC excuse the absence. ACTION: Director Munoz moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Director Rooney seconded the motion and it carried 6 -0 -1 with Director Desrochers absent. PUBLIC COMMENTS Patricia Aguilar, Chula Vista resident, spoke regarding the need to update the Chula Vista zoning code. Assistant City Manager Tulloch responded that staff was looking at creative ways to obtain funding to do an update. Ms. Aguilar then extended an invitation to everyone present to participate in the May 10, 2008 Chula Vista Historic Home Tour. 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS Redevelopment and Housing Manager Mills asked the Directors to mark their calendars for the June 23, 2008 Boards and Commissioners appreciation event to be held at 6:00 p.m. at the Montevalle Recreation Center. 3. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTS Director Reyes excused himself and left the Council Chambers. A. SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Chairman Lewis stated he had attended a meeting with District Superintendent Dr. Gandara, District Board Member Cartmill, City Manager Garcia and Redevelopment and Housing Assistant Director Crockett, and reported that the District was now ready to proceed and will provide what they think they need. The interest on their loan is coming due and they want to develop their property and have committed to working with the CVRC and Redevelopment Agency. Staff will review what they provide and examine the feasibility of the District proposal once received. Upon conclusion of discussion on the item, Director Reyes returned to the Council Chambers. B. COMPLEX AND MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENTS PROJECTS CONFERENCE Chairman Lewis next reported that he had attended a Law Seminars workshop in Walnut Creek and learned about public /private versus private projects. He also learned from examples presented, that there was absolutely no challenge in redevelopment that could not be met with the Page 4 of 5 �- VI CVRC — Minutes — April 24, 2008 DRAFT right mix of people and encouraged all of the Directors to be proactive in bringing development into Chula Vista. 4. DIRECTORS' COMMENTS Director Salas stated that he had been in Washington DC to lobby for home funds. A. DIRECTOR REYES — CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE Director Reyes stated that he had attended the California Redevelopment Association conference with Director Munoz in an attempt to gain more knowledge on redevelopment. Some of the points he learned and wanted to share were: • Redevelopment mixed use — add municipal. • Finance projects — be creative and think outside the box — include tenants in a library... • Westside can only have so much commercial — look at being more destination - oriented with attraction pulls rather than scattered retail • Long term vision — retain the ability to accomplish goals • Blighted areas in other cities became the transportation core Chairman Lewis added that investors were looking for "infrastructure investment" for redevelopment projects within cities. ADJOURNMENT At 7:51 p.m., Chairman Lewis adjourned the meeting to the Regular Meeting of May 8, 2008, at 6:00 p.m. Page 5 of 5 Z- -1 � Eric Crockett, Secretary CVRC — Minutes — April 24, 2008 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC) May 22, 2008 6:00 P.M. A Regular Meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. CVRC ROLL CALL PRESENT: Directors: Desrochers, Munoz, Paul (arrived at 6:12 p.m.), Rooney, and Chair Lewis ABSENT: Directors: Reyes, Salas ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director /City Manager Garcia, Deputy City Attorney Shirey, Redevelopment & Housing Assistant Director Crockett, Redevelopment & Housing Manager Mills, Assistant Finance Director Davis, Senior Deputy City Clerk Peoples, Senior Administrative Secretary Fields PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE PUBLIC COMMENTS Jeffrey Heston, San Diego Resident, spoke in opposition to the Port of San Diego Marine Freight and Bayfront Redevelopment Initiative, which was being circulated for signature. ACTION ITEMS Chairman Lewis stated that due to ownership of property within 500 feet of the two action items on the agenda, Directors Reyes and Salas would not be present. 1. AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO THE GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT PROJECT AND WESTSIDE REVITALIZATION ACTIVITIES Staff is proposing the Redevelopment Agency enter into an agreement with Economic and Planning Systems for ongoing professional services on an as- needed basis for consultation on financing strategies and fiscal and economic consulting services related to new development within the Bayfront Master Plan area that includes the development proposal by Gaylord Entertainment for a hotel and convention center. Additionally, services for Economic and Planning Systems will include analysis of other development proposals throughout the Agency project areas. Redevelopment & Housing Assistant Director Crockett stated there was no staff presentation as the item was a continuation of consultant services for the bayfront redevelopment project for the past two years and continues that effort. -z -1'1 ACTION ITEMS (continued) ACTION: Director Desrochers moved adoption of Resolution No. 2008 -003, heading read, text waived: CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -003, RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ECONOMIC AND PLANNING SYSTEMS, INC. Director Rooney seconded the motion, and it carried 4 -0 -3 with Directors Paul, Reyes and Salas absent. 2. PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2008 /2009 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HOUSING AUTHORITY OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET On June 10, 2008, the Office of Budget & Analysis and Finance Department will be presenting a comprehensive budget package to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency for Fiscal Year 2008/2009. This report provides a summary of the key elements of the budget package that affect the operations of the CVRC and Redevelopment Agency that includes moving the remaining staffing costs for Redevelopment and Housing from the budget of the Community Development Department, which resides in the General Fund, to the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority budget. Executive Director Garcia introduced Assistant Redevelopment and Housing Director Crockett, who in turn introduced Redevelopment and Housing Manager Mills. Ms. Mills presented an overview of what had changed in the proposed budget, and the Redevelopment & Housing Fiscal Year 2007/2008 Investments and the Fiscal Year 2008/2009 Work Program. Assistant Finance Director Davis next presented and overview of the actual proposed budget; Fiscal Year 2008/2009 revenue Sources for Redevelopment & Housing; Project Area Assessed Values; Gross Tax Increment — 10 Years; Fiscal Year 2008/2009 Gross Tax Increment Allocations $14.1 Million; and the Fiscal year 2008/2009 Low -Mod Housing Fund Allocations. Director Desrochers inquired as to what was included in the City Staff and the RDA budget for services. Assistant Finance Director Davis responded that the building usage charges, overhead, lease, janitorial, legal, planning and engineering were examples of what was included. Chairman Lewis requested clarification as to why the figures on the charts and the revenue totals of $15.5 and $14.1 differed. Assistant Finance Director Davis responded that the difference was in staff reimbursements, interest earnings, transfers -in and bond administrative fees, so the bar graph was strictly tax increment revenue. Chairman Lewis then inquired about what departments were charged directly to the Redevelopment Agency. Assistant Finance Director Davis stated various support departments within the City such as the City Attorney, Office of Budget Analysis, Finance, Human Resources, Risk Management to name a few, and confirmed that throughout the budget year line items which support the direct charging would be tracked and would be reflected in the information to be provided to the Board. Lastly, Chairman Lewis requested a target date be put into the budget for the repayment of the parking meter loan. Page 2 of 4 �� CVRC — Minutes — May 22, 2008 1 ACTION ITEMS (continued) ACTION: Director Rooney moved adoption of Resolution No. 2008 -004, heading read, text waived: CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -004, RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MAKING RECOMMENDATION TO THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008/2009 Director Munoz seconded the motion, and it carried 5 -0 -2 with Directors Reyes and Salas absent. 3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS Assistant Director Crockett provided an update report on Sweetwater Union High School District, noting that there had been movement from the district based on a letter sent by Mr. Garcia and results of the CVRC sub - committee meeting. City staff will be meeting with Sweetwater staff on June 3rd, and will bring a report back to the next CVRC meeting. He then reported that staff hoped to bring a progress report back in June /July on the Galaxy project, and that Gateway Phase 3 was in process with the Planning Department. Further, a meeting was being planned for June 12th to provide a presentation on the Southwest Strengthening Strategy, and another convention was being scheduled for June 21St from I 1 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Loma Verde Recreation Center. Assistant Director Crockett also mentioned that there would be a presentation of the Brownfield Work Program for the $400,000 grant that was received from the Environmental Protection Agency. An application is due by June 3rd and once it has been submitted, staff will provide a presentation to the Board of what will be done in the Southwest with those funds. They also hope to provide an update on the Sweetwater Union High School progress in the work program at that meeting. Assistant Director Crockett then recommended the Board go dark on June 26th in concurrence with the Council schedule. Chairman Lewis inquired as to what would be included in the Galaxy report and Assistant Director Crockett responded that he would provide an oral report to be followed by a more substantial report with the developer in July at the latest. 4. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTS Chairman Lewis asked all Board members to assume greater leadership roles in acquiring and attracting business to the City for investment, and to assist staff in making sure things such as the Sweetwater Union High School project move forward —that they be proactive and exercise more Page 3 of 4 �� CVRC — Minutes — May 22, 2008 leadership in moving the City fo agreed. 5. DIRECTORS' COMMEN' Director Desrochers stated that he original Gaylord project. He state contained development, wonderfu his hope that Gaylord would start ADJOURNMENT At 6:24 p.m., Chairman Lewis ad at 6:00 p.m. Page 4 of 4 Item #3 A, B, No documents CVRC Board CORPORATION Staff Report — Page 1 CHULA VISTA Item No. 4 DATE: June 12, 2008 TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: CVRC Board of Directors David R. Garcia, Chief Executive Officer Eric C. Crockett, Assistant Director of Redevelo /M Letter of Intent for Land Transactions Involving the Development of New Administrative Office Space for Sweetwater Authority EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff is presenting for CVRC consideration a working draft of a Letter of Intent ( "LOI ") by and among the City, Redevelopment Agency ( "RDA "), and Sweetwater Authority ( "Authority "), involving the potential relocation of the Authority's administrative operations to new commercial- office space located at one of Chula Vista's key regional transit nodes. Under the LOI, the three parties will spend up to 120 days cooperatively exploring and defining development opportunities and land transactions that would facilitate the relocation of the Authority's administrative operations from their current location at 505 Garrett Avenue (southeast corner of H Street and Garrett Avenue, immediately adjacent to the Superior Courts) to new commercial- office space on the City's former corporation yard ( "Corp Yard ") located at 707 F Street (southwest corner of F Street and Woodlawn Avenue, immediately adjacent to the E Street Trolley Station). As proposed, the new office space would be constructed as part of a mixed -use residential project that is the subject of the CVRC's May 13, 2008 Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ( "ENA ") with Galaxy Commercial Holding, LLC ( "Galaxy "). Key objectives of the LOI include: • Facilitate the new construction of 25,000 square feet of office space for the Authority in a mixed -use residential - commercial building. • Bring jobs and a retail customer base to a key "Transit Focus Area" of the City. I\ Staff Report — Item No. 4 Page 2 Facilitate the relocation of the Authority's administrative operations to a location that may better serve the needs of the Authority and its customers, including enhanced access to key services and facilities. Facilitate, through relocation of the Authority's operations, the potential expansion of the South County Regional Center (Superior Court, Sheriff, Probation, District Attorney, Revenue and Recovery, Board of Supervisors), which will create important new commercial- office space and jobs in the H Street Business Corridor. The LOI is currently a "working draft" and may be revised prior to final consideration by the City and RDA, during review by the parties' respective staffs, the Authority's Operations Committee, and the Authority's Board of Directors. Staff will update the CVRC on any substantive revisions that are made during the review process. RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency approve the LOI, as conceptually contained in the proposed working draft. DISCUSSION The following background discussion provides historical context for the proposed LOI, including: (1) the CVRC's existing ENA with Galaxy on the City's former Corp Yard; (2) Sweetwater Authority's future space needs; and (3) The proposed expansion of the South County Regional Center. The general concepts outlined in the proposed LOI Working Draft include: • Construction of 25,000 square feet of new commercial- office space, designed specifically for the operational needs of the Authority's administrative offices, as part of a mixed -use residential building on the City's former Corp Yard. • Separate and distinct pedestrian entry and access to the Authority's commercial - office portion of the building. • Parking for all uses in accordance with the City's adopted Urban Core Specific Plan. • Authority and RDA agree to a maximum dollar allowance of tenant improvements that will not result in any net impact to the general funds of the Authority or City ( "TI Allowance "). The Authority will be financially responsible for TI costs above and beyond the TI Allowance. • Subject to the ENA, the developer constructs the building, parking, and the 25,000 - square foot shell of the office space. The Authority constructs the tenant improvements. • MAI appraisal of the Authority's 29,252- square foot property at 505 Garrett Avenue. • • Staff Report — Item No. 4 Page 3 Negotiate in good faith a land trade, or other appropriate transactions, that facilitate development of the new office space and the relocation of the Authority's administrative operations. Galaxy ENA Since November 2007, the CVRC and Redevelopment & Housing staff have been engaged in ongoing discussions with Galaxy Commercial Holding, LLC for the development of a mixed -use, transit - oriented project on multiple properties located adjacent to the E Street Trolley Station. The focus of these discussions is now centered on the City's former Corp Yard, located immediately south of the Trolley Station. Due to future known development constraints on the site, including MTS's long -range plans for grade separation of the Trolley line, site planning is limited to the eastern half of the Corp Yard. (Please refer to Attachment #1 for a vicinity map.) On May 13, 2008, the CVRC approved a 120 -day ENA with Galaxy for the Corp Yard. If, at the end of the 120 days, the CEO determines that Galaxy has adequately completed and submitted the required studies and reports, and the CEO concurs that a mutually desirable project is feasible on the property, the CEO may administratively extend the ENA for an additional 120 days to negotiate deal points and craft a Disposition and Development Agreement ( "DDA ") for a project. The CEO is proposing that a "mutually desirable project," and the deal points for which, include the construction of new commercial- office space designed specifically for the operational needs of the Authority's administrative offices. Sweetwater Authority Sweetwater Authority is a retail water provider with approximately 180,000 customers in Chula Vista, Bonita, and National City. The Authority is a joint Powers Authority whose Board of Directors is made up of representatives from the South Bay Irrigation District and the City of National City. The Authority's administrative offices have been located at 505 Garrett Avenue, on a 29,252- square foot parcel, for approximately 23 years. The Authority's operations staff has indicated that the Authority's existing office space and location are sufficient for their current administrative activities. They have expressed, however, openness to exploratory discussions about possible relocation, if the conditions for which meet the interests and priorities of the Authority's Board of Directors. Redevelopment & Housing staff has had several discussions with the Authority's operations staff about the Authority's space needs. If the Authority were to decide to relocate its administrative operations to another site, the City's former Corp Yard may be a desirable location. It is located immediately across the street from the Authority's existing maintenance yard (744 F Street), and immediately adjacent to a regional transit facility. As described earlier, it is also the subject of an ENA for the development of a mixed -use, transit - oriented project. Both staffs have verbally agreed to recommend that the Authority, City, and RDA enter into an LOI to provide a framework for exploratory negotiations for � -3 Staff Report — Item No. 4 Page 4 development of 25,000 square feet of Sweetwater Authority office space, and land transactions that would facilitate relocation of the Authority's administrative operations to the new space. Land transactions could include a land trade between the City /RDA and Authority involving the 25,000 square feet of new office space, plus parking, and the Authority's 29,252- square foot Garrett Avenue property. The proposed LOI is timely given the existing ENA on the Corp Yard with Galaxy, and ongoing discussions among the City, RDA, County of San Diego, and California Superior Court regarding expansion of the South County Regional Center. South County Regional Center The City and RDA have had multiple discussions during the past several years with the Superior Court about its rapidly growing space needs in South County. The Superior Court is currently located on an 11.53 -acre County property which serves as the South County Regional Center and also houses offices and facilities for the County Sheriff, Probation, District Attorney, Revenue and Recovery, and Board of Supervisors. The South County Regional Center is located in a critical area of the City's Urban Core, bringing jobs and customers to support retail services in the H Street Business Corridor. The Center is one of four major business - employment anchors along the corridor. The other three are the Chula Vista Center, Gateway Chula Vista, and Scripps Hospital, all located between Broadway and Third Avenue. The Authority's 505 Garrett Avenue property is located immediately adjacent to, and surrounded on three sides by, the 11.53 -acre South County Regional Center. Relocation of the Authority's administrative operations from Garrett Avenue to the former Corp Yard would provide an important and unique opportunity for the City, RDA, County, and Superior Court to cooperatively plan for and implement the expansion of the South County Regional Center. Review Process 77 7 Soul" C"Ty r \\ y COU ESBOR. RECOR \ RECORDER v-_ The proposed LOI is a "working draft" that is subject to revisions upon review and consideration by the parties' staffs, the Authority's Operations Committee, the Authority's Board of Directors, and the City Council and RDA. Staff is currently anticipating Council /RDA consideration of the LOI in late July or early August. • The LOI is not a binding agreement, but provii among the parties until more definitive agreem( laws are reserved and protected, including those CEQA. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Consideration of the LOI is exempt from CEQ. State CEQA Guidelines. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the ( holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of action. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. LOI Working Draft PREPARED BY. Ken Lee, Principal Project Coordim /1-S FORMER CITY CORP YARD • • Attachment 2 LETTER OF INTENT BY AND AMONG SWEETWATER AUTHORITY, CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SWEEWATER AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES ON CITY -OWNED PROPERTY AND RELATED LAND TRANSACTIONS RECITALS WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista ( "City ") and Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency ( "RDA ") have been engaged in a multi -year effort to redevelop City -owned property that previously served as the City's corporation yard, encompassing approximately 257,858 square feet, or 5.98 acres, of territory located at 707 F Street in the City of Chula Vista, at the northwest corner of F Street and Woodlawn Avenue (Assessor Parcel Number 567- 031 -2700) ( "Former Corp Yard "); and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2008, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation, a California nonprofit, public benefit corporation ( "CVRC "), on behalf of and for the RDA, approved and entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ( "ENA ") with Galaxy Commercial Holding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ( "Developer "), to explore possible redevelopment of the Former Corp Yard with mixed -use residential; and WHEREAS, the initial negotiation period of the ENA is 120 days and may be administratively extended by the Chief Executive Officer ( "CEO ") of the CVRC for an additional 120 days; and WHEREAS, RDA staff has engaged in discussions with operations staff from Sweetwater Authority ( "Authority ") regarding the Authority's projected future space needs for its administrative operations, currently located at 505 Garrett Avenue in the City of Chula Vista (Assessor Parcel Number 573 -100 -3700) ( "Garrett Avenue Property"), and regarding future opportunities to relocate the Authority's administrative operations to another location in northwest Chula Vista that better serves the needs of the Authority and its customers; and WHEREAS, the Garrett Avenue Property is located immediately adjacent to, and is surrounded on three sides by, property owned by the County of San Diego ( "County "), encompassing approximately 11. 53 acres and consisting of the South County Regional Center, a government facility occupied by the Superior Court, Sheriff, Probation, District Attorney, Revenue and Recovery, and the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, both the County and Superior Court of the State of California ( "Superior Court") have previously expressed their desire to expand their facilities and operations to add more court rooms and office space to accommodate the growing needs of the South County region; and It - --� Letter of Intent By and Among Sweetwater Authority, City of Chula Vista, and Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency Page 1 • • WHEREAS, relocation of Sweetwater Authority's administrative operations from the Garrett Avenue Property would provide an important and unique opportunity for the City, RDA, County, and Superior Court to cooperatively plan for and implement the expansion of the South County Regional Center; and WHEREAS, redevelopment of the Former Corp Yard under the ENA also presents a unique opportunity for the City and RDA to work with the Developer to create a mixed -use residential project that includes commercial - office space and parking specifically designed to meet the operational needs of Sweetwater Authority's administrative operations ( "Project "), and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Letter of Intent ( "LOI ") is to provide a framework for the City, RDA, and Authority to jointly develop a cooperative process for studying the feasibility of relocating Sweetwater's administrative operations to a new administrative facility on the Former Corp Yard designed and constructed as part of a mixed -use project under the ENA. NOW, THEREFORE: 1. Parties. This LOI, dated as of , 2008 (the "Effective Date "), is by and among the Authority, City, and RDA (collectively "Parties "). 2. Term of Letter of Intent. This LOI shall be for a term expiring on the earliest of (i) 120 days from execution, (ii) upon termination or expiration of, and no administrative extension is granted for, the CVRC's ENA with the Developer; or (iii) the date on which any Party elects to end negotiations as described in Paragraph 9 below. 3. Subject Matter. The purpose of this LOI is to provide a broad outline of the basis on which the Parties will work with each other during the term of the LOI to determine whether mutually acceptable agreements can be reached relating to: (i) the development of new commercial -office space, and required parking, on the City's Former Corp Yard for the Authority's administrative operations; and (ii) land transactions necessary for the relocation of the Authority's administrative operations to the new commercial -office space. 4. Project Assumptions. The Parties are entering into this LOI with a general understanding of the following assumptions about the development project proposed on the Former Corp Yard: (a) Single, vertical mixed -use building with: (i) residential uses on upper floors; (ii) approximately 25,000 square feet of commercial -office space near or on the ground floor, designed for the intended use of the Authority's administrative operations, and (iii) potential commercial - retail uses on the ground floor. (b) Separate and distinct pedestrian entry and access to the Authority's commercial -office portion of the building. (c) Parking for all uses in the building will be provided in accordance with the City's adopted Urban Core Specific Plan. Zj' q- Letter of Intent By and Among Sweetwater Authority, City of Chula Vista, and Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency Page 2 (d) The Developer, pursuant to the aforementioned ENA and any subsequent entitlement documents or approvals that said Developer may enter into, will physically construct the building and parking, including the interior shell of the Authority's proposed commercial - office space. (e) The Authority will physically construct all tenant improvements within the Authority's proposed commercial -office space. 5. Cost Assumptions. The Parties are entering into this LOI with a general understanding of the following assumptions about Project costs: (a) The Parties will negotiate and agree to a maximum dollar allowance of tenant improvements that will be constructed as part of the Project but not result in any net impact to the Authority's general fund ( "TI Allowance "). (b) Construction of the commercial -office space, the TI Allowance, and required parking spaces will not result in any net cost or impact to the general fund of either the Authority or City. (c) Design and construction costs for tenant improvements above and beyond the agreed upon TI Allowance will be the sole responsibility of the Authority. 6. Authority Obligations. During the term of the LOI, the Authority will be responsible for: (a) Defining the physical parameters of the Authority's space needs in greater detail, including, but not limited to, the number of floors dedicated to the Authority's commercial -office space, the minimum dimensions necessary to accommodate the Authority's administrative operations, and access and entry to the Authority's commercial -office space by the Authority's customers, employees, and Directors. (b) Preparing an itemized list of the Authority's anticipated tenant improvement needs with estimates of cost for construction and /or installation. 7. Joint Obligations. During the term of the LOI, the Parties will jointly be responsible for: (a) Preparing an appraisal of the Authority's Garrett Avenue Property. The Parties will either: (i) cause two separate appraisals to be prepared; or (ii) jointly select an appraiser to prepare a single appraisal. Any and all appraisals shall be prepared by an appraiser who is a certified Member of the Appraisal Institute. If the Parties agree to prepare separate appraisals, the Authority will be responsible for the cost of its appraisal, and the RDA will be responsible for the cost of the appraisal prepared for the City and RDA. If the Parties agree to jointly select an appraiser to prepare a single appraisal, the Authority and RDA will equally share the cost of the appraisal. Letter of Intent By and Among Sweetwater Authority, City of Chula Vista, and Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency Page 3 • • (b) Negotiating in good faith a maximum TI Allowance that will result in no net impact to the general funds of either the Authority or City. (c) Negotiating in good faith the terms and conditions of all necessary agreements for land transactions that will facilitate the development of the proposed commercial - office space, and required parking, and the relocation of the Authority's administrative operations to the Former Corp Yard. 8, UCSP Litigation. Authority acknowledges that the City is currently in litigation over the UCSP and that said litigation could affect the Project and the Authority's potential future interests therein. Authority agrees and acknowledges that the processing, adoption and /or amendment of the General Plan or the UCSP by the City is not a consideration in its proceeding with this LOI or the proposed Project, and that the Developer and /or Authority may need to request amendments to the General Plan or UCSP. The General Plan and UCSP are legislative actions and this LOI does not limit or in any way interfere with the City Council's ability to exercise their discretionary authority as it relates to these or any other legislative actions. Authority acknowledges and agrees that the exercise of the City's legislative discretion, whether by the City Council's own actions or pursuant to or as a result of any litigation shall not form the basis of breach of this LOI, express or implied, or any other claims against the City or RDA. 9. Compliance with Additional Laws No Limitation of Legislative Discretion. (a) Approval of the Project is subject to full compliance with CEQA. (b) No provision of this LOI shall be construed to require or compel the City, RDA, or Authority to grant any approval with respect to the Project or to limit the discretion of the City, RDA or Authority to approve, deny or condition the Project, including the imposition of mitigation measures as required by CEQA. (c) The Parties agree that nothing in this LOI in any respect does or shall be construed to affect or prejudge the exercise of discretion by the City, RDA or Authority. (d) Moreover, nothing contemplated herein to be done by the City, RDA or Authority will be inconsistent with the duties of the City, RDA or Authority, including fiduciary duties of the City, RDA and Authority and any constitutional and statutory requirement of the City, RDA or Authority related to the use of public funds and activity related to the Project. 10. Negotiation of Additional Documents. After execution of this LOI, if the Parties have determined that it is feasible to proceed with the development of the Project as outlined in this LOI, the Parties shall negotiate and produce any documents the Parties deem appropriate. 11. Letter of Intent Not a Binding Agreement. The Parties agree that this LOI is not intended to nor shall it be interpreted to create a binding agreement among the Parties. Any agreements regarding land transactions or any element of the Project, including financial obligations of the Parties, will be the subject of other written agreements which must be Letter of Intent By and Among Sweetwater Authority, 1-1,0 Page 4 City of Chula Vista, and Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency • • approved by the governing bodies of the Parties, following appropriate public processes, and is not embodied in this LOI. The Parties further agree that, while this LOI is intended to guide the Parties in their negotiations relative to the Project, it does not bind the Parties to continue negotiations if, in the judgment of each of the Parties, such continued discussions do not serve the interests of that Party. Moreover, each of the Parties agree that, to the extent it expends funds or devotes resources to discussions relative to the feasibility of implementing the Project, it does so of its own initiative and not in reliance on this LOI or any representations of any other Party. In no event will any Party be responsible for the costs or other losses, real or imagined, of any other Party in pursuing the Project in the absence of a definitive agreement entered into subsequent to this LOI relative to such cost sharing. None of the Parties shall be entitled to sue to force the terms of this LOI or to recover monetary damages for an alleged breach of this LOI. Approved as to form: SWEETWATER AUTHORITY LM General Counsel Sweetwater Authority Approved as to form: Ann Moore City Attorney City of Chula Vista Approved as to form: wo Ann Moore Agency General Counsel Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista Letter of Intent By and Among Sweetwater Authority, City of Chula Vista, and Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency By: Dennis Bostad General Manager Lo CITY OF CHULA VISTA David R. Garcia City Manager REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Lo David R. Garcia Executive Director Page 5 • • CVRC RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE APPROVAL OF A LETTER OF INTENT CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SWEETWATER AUTHORITY ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES ON CITY -OWNED PROPERTY AND RELATED LAND TRANSACTIONS WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista ( "City ") and Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency ( "RDA ") have been engaged in a multi -year effort to redevelop City -owned property that previously served as the City's corporation yard, encompassing approximately 257,858 square feet, or 5.98 acres, of territory located at 707 F Street in the City of Chula Vista, at the northwest corner of F Street and Woodlawn Avenue (Assessor Parcel Number 567- 031 -2700) ( "Former Corp Yard "); and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2008, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation, a California nonprofit, public benefit corporation ( "CVRC "), on behalf of and for the RDA, approved and entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement ( "ENA ") with Galaxy Commercial Holding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ( "Developer "), to explore possible redevelopment of the Former Corp Yard with mixed -use residential; and WHEREAS, the initial negotiation period of the ENA is 120 days and may be administratively extended by the Chief Executive Officer ( "CEO ") of the CVRC for an additional 120 days; and WHEREAS, RDA staff has engaged in discussions with operations staff from Sweetwater Authority ( "Authority ") regarding the Authority's projected future space needs for its administrative operations, currently located at 505 Garrett Avenue in the City of Chula Vista (Assessor Parcel Number 573- 100 -3700) ( "Garrett Avenue Property "), and regarding future opportunities to relocate the Authority's administrative operations to another location in northwest Chula Vista that may better serve the needs of the Authority and its customers; and WHEREAS, the Garrett Avenue Property is located immediately adjacent to, and is surrounded on three sides by, property owned by the County of San Diego ( "County "), encompassing approximately 11.53 acres and consisting of the South County Regional Center, a government facility occupied by the Superior Court, Sheriff, Probation, District Attorney, Revenue and Recovery, and the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, both the County and Superior Court of the State of California ( "Superior Court") have previously expressed their desire to expand their facilities and operations to add more court rooms and office space to accommodate the growing needs of the South County region; and CVRC Resolution No. 20080 Page 2 0 WHEREAS, relocation of Sweetwater Authority's administrative operations from the Garrett Avenue Property would provide an important and unique opportunity for the City, RDA, County, and Superior Court to cooperatively plan for and implement the expansion of the South County Regional Center; and WHEREAS, redevelopment of the Former Corp Yard under the ENA also presents a unique opportunity for the City and RDA to work with the Developer to create a mixed -use residential project that includes commercial- office space and parking specifically designed to meet the operational needs of Sweetwater Authority's administrative operations ( "Project "); and WHEREAS, the purpose of the proposed Letter of Intent ( "LOI ") by and among the Authority, City, and RDA is to provide a framework for the parties to jointly develop a cooperative process for studying the feasibility of relocating Sweetwater's administrative operations to a new administrative facility on the Former Corp Yard designed and constructed as part of a mixed -use project under the ENA. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista approve and enter into a Letter of Intent with the Sweetwater Authority concerning the development of new Sweetwater Authority administrative facilities on City -owned property and related land transactions. Presented by: Approved as to form by Eric C. Crockett Secretary A General Counsel CVRC Resolution No. 2008- Page 3 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista, this 12th day of June 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Directors: NAYS: Directors: ABSENT: Directors: ABSTAINED: Directors: Christopher H. Lewis, Chair ATTEST: Eric C. Crockett, Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Eric Crockett, Secretary of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing CVRC Resolution No. was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation held on the 12th day of June 2008. Executed this 12t' day of June 2008. Eric C. Crockett, Secretary /�'\A