The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutrda min 1982/02/18 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, February 18,1982 Council Conference. Room 4:08 p.m. City Hall ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Cox (arrived late); Members Gillow (arrived late), Campbell, Scott, McCandliss MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Acting Executive Director Asmus, Community Development Director Desrochers, Redevelopment Coordinator legl er, Development Services Administrator Robens, City Engineer Lippitt ALSO PRESENT Greg Ballenger, Joe Street, Sr., Wi 11 ene Whiteman, David Wilson, Glenn Fithian, Ted Gurnee', Jeff Wi ssl er, Fred Schnaubelt, Dan Mori arty ITEM NO.1 - REPORT: STATUS OF WHITEMAN/GURNEÉ NEGOTIATIONS Community Development Director Desrochers suggested that since the full Agency is not present at this time, perhaps this matter should be trailed to the end of the meeti ng. He informed Agency members that a new 1 etter has been submitted this afternoon by the owner's attorney which will be the subject of discussion. Members concurred with the Director's suggestion to trail this item and discuss it further in Closed Session. MOTION TO ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION. MSUC (Campbell/McCandliss) to adj ourn to Closed Session following thi s afternoon's meeting for discussion of litigation. ITEM NO.2 - REPORT: JOE NEAL STREET PROPERTY The Li on Property Company of San Di ego has begun escrow proceedi ngs for the purchase and development rights for Mr. Street's property and for the property to the north. MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT MSUC (Scott/Campbell) to accept the report. Redevelopment Agency Meeting -2- February 18,1982 JEFF WISSLER LION PROPERTY COtlPANY Lion Plaza, 1660 N. Hotel Circle Drive Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92108 Mr. Wissler gave a brief description of his firm that specializes in commercial and retail development. Lion Property Company has recently entered into a relationship with Mr. Street regarding the property at "E" Street and Bay Boulevard. Their firm would also be working with the adj acent 1 ease- holder, Santa Fe Industries, as well as the Community Development Director. Mr. Wissler stated that his firm hopes to have a formal proposal to present to the Agency in the next few weeks. In response to Member Scott's question, Mr. Wissler indicated that his firm feels that a possible "E" Street Trolley Station would be most beneficial towards the development of visitor services such as a hotel and restaurant. ITEM NO.3 - REPORT: MARINA FINANCING PLAN In May 1981, the Redevelopment Agency and City Council rejected a proposed financing plan for the development of a marina and RV park due to the risk inherent in the potential use of public funds. A new entity is involved now, Income Property Group of San Diego, and a revi sed fi nanci ng pl an has been presented. Mr. Desrochers indicated that the Agency had requested that staff look into an Industrial Development Bond financi ng issue for thi s purpose. It was noted that the uti 1 i zati on of thi s type of financing is not permi tted in thi s project because it is not within the redevelopment area. The Director conti nued that the Mi 11 er and Schroeder representati ve will testi fy that IDBs wi 11 have a very difficult time selling for this project. IDBs are backed by 100'.!. letters of credit issued by financial i nsti tuti ons. Thi s woul d be very di ffi cult to obtai n by the RV park and mari na sponsors. Mr. Desrochers remarked that he received the same response from three other independent companies. Mr. Desrochers rei terated hi s understanding of the Agency's direction, which was that every precaution should be taken to protect the City. MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT MSUC (Scott/Campbell) to accept the report. The Di rector noted that representatives of the Wil son Group, Income Property Group and Miller and Schroeder are in attendance at today's meeting. 2/18/82 Redevelopment Agency Meeting -3- February 18,1982 ITEM NO.4 - REPORT: BAY BOULEVARD STREET LIGHTING On January 19, the City Council directed staff to investigate and return with a report concerni ng the street 1 i ghti ng on Bay Boul evard between "E" and "F" Streets. MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT MSUC (Scott/Campbell) to accept report. (It was noted that the City Engineer had been called away from this meeting at this time; therefore, the Chairman requested a report from the City Engineer upon his arrival back to this meeting.) ITEM NO.5 - REPORT: FOCUS AREA UPDATE The Agency was provided with a status report on the architect/engineer consultant selection for the parking structure, Third Avenue improvements between "F" and "G" Streets, and renovation of the Chula Vista shopping center on "F" Street. Redevelopment Coordinator Zegler reported that the Parking Structure Selection Commi ttee met and interviewed five applicants. The top rated applicants were: Hugh Brooks and Associates, SGPA, and Bell, Evans, Yamamoto. The Coordinator commented that in conferring with the City of La Mesa, it was discovered that the estimated cost for the parking structure constructi on given by the Brooks Company was close to the quote for our project as well. MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT MSUC (McCandliss/Cox) to accept the report. ITEM NO.6 - REPORT: BROADWAY AD HOC COMMITTEE In an effort to set goals and guide p 1 anni ng for the improvement of the Broadway strip, staff proposed that an ad hoc committee be established. Si nce the December 17 Agency meeting, staff has discussed the formation and constituency of such a committee with the Broadway Association. MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION MSUC (Scott/Cox) to establish a Broadway Ad Hoc Committee as proposed by the Broadway Association. Community Development Director Desrochers commented that Staff has proposed a different ad hoc committee composition than what was proposed by the Association. The Associ ati on is adamant that members of thi s commi ttee be specifically Broadway Association Commi ttee members. Staff's feelings was that the scope of the Committee should be much broader. However, in order not to delay the study any further, it was recommended that the Association proposal be adhered to. 2/18/82 Redevelopment Agency Meeting -4- February 18,1982 Member Campbell expressed hi s di sappoi ntment wi th the Broadway Associ ati on's parochial view that the composition of this committee be totally theirs, excluding others. This type of thinking runs counter to the concept of open dialog. Member McCandliss commented that decisions based on the opinions of an ad hoc committee to study the Broadway strip would impact the entire City. She fel t that if the composition of an ad hoc committee was solely the Broadway Associ ati on, recommmendati ons by thi s commi ttee woul d be ti 1 ted somewhat. Member Scott agreed with the staff's contention that it is more important to get on with the job. MEMBERS' COMMENTS Referring to the lighting on Bay Boulevard, Chairman Cox asked the City Engineer how long it would take to install this type of lighting on the south side of "E" Street. City Engineer Lippitt indicated that there is an SDG&E pole at that location. A light will be ordered from the utility company and should come in in about one month. Chairman Cox commented that it is important that members of the Agency who are going to Washington, D.C. should meet to discuss the schedule that staff is setti ng up for them. He suggested that the Agency meet for this purpose this Monday (February 22) at 4:00 p.m. MOTION TO SCHEDULE SPECIAL MEETING MSUC (Cox/Campbell) to schedul e a meeti ng for members goi ng to Washi ngton on Monday, February 22nd at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers to di scuss items for this trip. At thi s time, the trailed item regarding Whiteman/Gurnee ' negotiations was discussed. Special Counsel Reed suggested that this item be discussed in Closed Session at thi s time. CLOSED SESSION The Agency recessed to Closed Session at 4:31 p.m. and reconvened at 4:37 p.m. MOTION TO DISCUSS OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH PARTIES MSUC (Scott/Cox) to authorize Agency Special Counsel and staff to discuss with the parti es involved (regarding the Shangri-La) an owner participation agreement within the parameters of Mrs. Whiteman's attorney's 1 etter dated February 18,1982. 2/18/82 Redevelopment Agency Meeting -5- February 18,1982 Chairman Cox clarified the intent of the motion to the property owner, Mrs. Whiteman. He explained that in order to take action on an owner parti cipati on agreement proposed by her attorney, the Agency needs an actual owner participation agreement in front of them to consider. (Member Gillow arrived at this time, 4:39 p.m.) ADJOURNMENT at 4:40 p.m. to the special meeting of Monday, February 22, 1982 at 4:00 p.m. and the regular meeting of March 4,1982 at 7:00 p.m. cretary WPC 0018H AH:dl 2/18/82