Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1982/04/01 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, April 1,1982 Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Public Services Building ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Cox; Members Gillow, Campbell, McCandliss, Scott MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Executive Di rector Cole, Community Development Director Desrochers, Special Counsel Reed, Redevelopment Coordinator Zeg1 er, Development Services Administrator Robens, Development Specialist Kassman, ALSO PRESENT Michael Cowett, Richard Zogob, James Hobel, Ted Gurnee, Steve Hauser, Hugh Brooks ITEM NO.1 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES MSUC (Cox/Campbell) to approve the minutes of March 4, 9, and 18, 1982 as mailed. (Member McCandliss out.) ITEM NO. 2a, b - RESOLUTION NO. 359 - APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTH BAY REGIONAL CENTER GROUND LEASE Inasmuch as the Agency has provided a financing vehicle for the center and has a leasehold interest in the land and the buildings until the issue is amortized, the County is responsible for the entire repayment. The Sweetwater Authority is now des i rous of purchasi ng a .7-acre site on the property held by the Agency. Therefore it is necessary that the Agency execute certain documents in order for the Sweetwater Authority to locate on the subject site. Staff has prepared a response to Agency members' questions as directed at the March 18 meeting. (Member McCand1iss arrived at this time.) Copies of Special Counsel Reed's prepared "Opinion" were distributed prior to this evening's meeting. Special Counsel Reed reiterated that the subject opinion was discussed with Mr. Donald Hodgman, a partner in the law firm of 0'Me1veny & Myers, and he concurs in the Opinion. 4/1/82 Redevelopment Agency Meeting - 2 - April 1, 1982 In response to Member campbell's questi on regarding confl i cting statements with the Boards and Commissions' recommendation and staff's recommendation, Colllllunity Development Director Desrochers clarified that the County is agreeabl e wi th the architectural revi ew because they want the new buil ding to be compatible with the completed structure. An owner participation agreement would be required in this case, however, since the property will now be owned by another party. Special Counsel Reed suggested that the resolution be clarified to reflect the design review/owner participation stipulation. C. MICHAEL COWETT, ESQ. JENNINGS, ENGSTRAND & HENRIKSON, INC. 2255 Camino del Rio South San Diego, CA 92108 Mr. Cowett addressed the need for desi gn revi ew and owner parti ci pati on as commented by the Special Counsel. He noted that the tentative agreement that was drawn up by the County contains the recognition that the subject building is in the redevelopment area, therefore, there should be no problem with this. MOTION TO CLARIFY RESOLUTION MSUC (Scott/McCandliss) that Resolution A be clarified to reflect the design review criteria as provided by Special Counsel. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MEMBER SCOTT, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 360 - AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A QUITCLAIM DEED CONVEYING A PORTION OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE SOUTH BAY REGIONAL CENTER TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MEMBER CAMPBELL, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted unanimously. ITEM NO.3 - REPORT: FOCUS AREA RETAIL MALL FINANCING As stated in the Schedule of Performance, the Focus Area developer's financing commitment is to be presented to the Agency by April 1, 1982. Mr. Cowett, representing Centre City Associates Limited, distributed copies of the status report on "Park Pl aza at the Village" which included architectural, marketing, as well as financing reports. The Agency took a brief in-house recess in order to review the package. 4/1/82 Redevelopment Agency Meeting - 3 - April 1,1982 Conmunity Development Director Desrochers recommended in accordance with paragraphs G and H of the present Schedule of Performance, a notation should be required to be signed by the Agency and the developer indicating that the lender, Home Federal, has not suppl ied a financial conmitment, but that the Agency approves going ahead with the contract to provide architectural and engineering services for the parking structure. He noted that the financial institution will require that working drawings be obtained before they will commit to such a loan. In response to Member Scott's question as to when to expect the final letter of commitment, Mr. Desrochers stated that as outlined in the letter included in the developer's report, the loan will be approved subject to the following terms and conditions, numbered 1 through 10 of the subject letter. Mr. Cowett remarked that most of the 10 points as 1 i sted in the 1 etter have been completed. With regard to item no. 9 of the terms and conditions, SGPA has been engaged in completing the drawings in order to obtain the building permit by June. Mr. Cowett further discussed the problems incurred by asking the financial institution to set aside such a large amount of funds. Di scussi on foll owed wi th regard to the prel easing arrangements of the retail center. Mr. Cowett stated that Mr. Bucci are11 i of the John Burnham Company expects the center to be 80 percent preleased during construction. This leaves only 20 percent upon completion of construction. He added that most of the leasing takes place during construction. Mr. Cowett reiterated that Centre City Associ ates is progressing in accordance with the intent of the Schedule of Performance. The developer has no fear with regard to the financing that the project will be built. Member Scott expressed concern that the information distributed tonight with regard to the financing did not meet the terms and conditions as set forth by the Agency. In response, Mr. Desrochers concurred with Member Scott's conments. Therefore, he again suggested that some type of a memo be signed by the Agency and the partnership which would include this understanding of the conmi tment. Member Scott indicated that it seems that the Agency is still taking more of a ri sk than what was ori ginally intended. He suggested that a contract be negotiated to state that if the commitment was not forthcoming that any funds that were allotted by the Agency would be reimbursed by the Developer. Members di scussed the possi bil i ty of withholding action on the subject agreement to provide architectural and engineering services tonight. In response, Mr. Cowett stated that there could be problems with timing as far as United Artists and Marie and Callender construction is concerned. MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM MSUC (Scott/Gill ow) to continue items no. 3 and 4 to a special meeting on Tuesday night, April 6, following the regular City Council Meeting. 4/1/82 Redevelopment Agency Meeting - 4 - April 1, 1982 At thi s time, Agency Members di scussed certain 1 anguage in the Archi tectural and Engineering Agreement as reported in item no. 4. Member Campbell emphasized that any time this type of agreement is prepared, the term "not to exceed" shoul d be indi cated. Cl arifi cation was al so requested wi th regard to item J of the agreement regarding arbitration. Wi th regard to the heading under Phase 4 on page 4 of the agreement, Member McCandl i ss questi oned the open endedness, and asked if an estimate could be prepared. Also, she questioned the slippage with the Schedule of Performance. In addressing members' concern s with regard to the slippage of dates, Mr. Desrochers agreed that it is frustrating. Because of unstabl e financi al markets, it is not possible to meet the dates we have set. ITEM NO.5 - REPORT: STATUS ON TOWN CENTRE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PROGRAMS As requested by the Agency at their meeting of March 4, an update with regard to the LDC was provi ded of the seven pending loans, as well as a status report on the proposed Sign Rebate Program. MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT MSUC (Cox/McCandliss) to accept the report. Member Scott remarked that he endorsed the concept of the Sign Rebate Program but he expressed reservations about putting more money into this area. He opposed the "gift" of funds and stated that it would not be fair to the businesspersons on Broadway or 5th Avenue. Mr. Desrochers noted that the reason for the program i s: 1) to promote removal of nonconforming si gns, and 2) to upgrade older signs in the Town Centre area. Further discussion involved the priorities for upgrading certain signs, the amount proposed to be awarded for signs in compliance, and amount of funds already spent in the downtown area. MOTION TO REFER BACK TO STAFF MSUC (Scott/Campbell) to refer this item back to staff for a signing program that provides a loan rather than a gift. ITEM NO.6 - REPORT: OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MRS. WILLENE WHITEMAN The Agency adopted a resolution on March 18 to commence with eminent domain proceedings against the property owned by Mrs. Whiteman in the Bayfront redevelopment area. Al so, the Agency recommended that negoti ati ons continue in order to develop an owner participation agreement with Mrs. Whiteman to allow usage of her property for an interim period. 4/1/82 Redevelopment Agency Meeting - 5 - April 1, 1982 Redevelopment Coordinator Zegler reported that Mrs. Whiteman was advised not to sign an agreement previously prepared by Agency Special Counsel and staff. Chairman Cox remarked at this point there is nothing further to discuss with the proposed tenant, Mr. Gurnee, until the Agency and the owner can resolve their differences. Speci a1 Counsel Reed advised that he could file a Writ of IlII11edi ate Possession on the property if was so desired by the Agency. C. MICHAEL COWETT, ESQ. JENNINGS, ENGSTRAND & HENRIKSON, INC. Mr. Cowett, representing Ted Gurnee, apprised the Agency of the following: 1) Mr. Gurnee would be will ing to sign the previ ous ly drafted owner participation agreement (if he were the owner of the property); 2) the tenant is most anxious to locate a site in which to conduct his business under the terms of that agreement, which is for three years. He cannot proceed wi th his intended type of business where he is currently located. Mr. Cowett noted that his tenant will abide by the previous agreement if it were effected. MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT MSUC (Scott/Cox) to accept the report and direct Agency Special Counsel to file a complaint with this regard. ITEM NO.7 - REPORT: COASTAL COMMISSION LITIGATION AND NEGOTIATIONS The Agency was provi ded wi th an update regarding the 1 i ti gati on in the Appellate Court with the Coastal Commission as filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation. In the meantime, staff was authorized to attempt to negotiate a settlement with the Coastal Commission staff. Member Scott di sagreed that the Coastal Conservancy shoul d parti ci pate as a third party and he suggested that other avenues be explored by staff. He further suggested that future negotiations should be on the Council/ Conmission level. Di scussi on followed regarding the Counci 1 's role as negoti ators with the Coastal Commission, the need for a public hearing in the event that the land use in that area is changed, and employment by Santa Fe Land Company of private consultants to provide additional data. In response to Member McCandliss' question on the Coastal Conservancy's role, Mr. Desrochers indi cated that the Conservancy does not wi sh to take on the arbitrator position. Development Services Administrator Robens elaborated that the Conservancy (Petrillo) wishes to work between the two staffs in order to get both sides moving. 4/1/82 Redevelopment Agency Meeting - 6 - April 1,1982 Discussion followed concerning Santa Fe's support of the Bayfront project, a meeting held with Mr. LeMenager of Watt Industries and City staff, Santa Fe's anticipation of the environmental review and the time frame involved. Speci al Counsel Reed, in response to Member Campbell's query, discussed the effect of Coastal Conservancy involvement relative to our present litigation in that area. Development Services Administrator Robens offered that the only advantage in going ahead with the Coastal Conservancy is that they may determine areas of agreement that we have not yet di scovered. As far as Gunpowder Point is concerned though this can be resolved at the staff level. Member Campbell summarized that utilizing the Conservancy's services probably would not be a risk as long as the litigation is not affected, and he agreed that the existing plan would probably be changed. Assuming that pl ans for Gunpowder Point never reach fruition, maybe some other kind of common ground could be reached. Member Scott agreed that changes have occured, but he did not bel ieve that Gunpowder Point is a dead issue. MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM MSUC (Cox/Campbell) to continue this item until the special meeting of Tuesday, April 6,1982. ITEM NO.8 - REPORT: MARINA FINANCING The 1 essee for the "J" Street marina and RV park, Income Property Group, continues to make progress in attempting to secure financing for construction of their facilities. MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT MSUC (Scott/Cox) to accept the report. ITEM NO.9 - REPORT: BRICK ON GUNPOWDER POINT Upon the direction of the Director of Building and Housing, the old Hercules Powder Plant will be razed because it has been declared unsafe. The lessee, Mr. Hobel, has arranged demoli ti on of the buil ding through the landowner, Santa Fe Land Improvement Company. MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT MSUC (McCandliss/Gi110w) to accept the report (directing staff to pursue preservation of the bricks for historical purposes). 4/1/82 Redevelopment Agency Meeting - 7 - April 1, 1982 DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Executive Director Cole distributed copies of the itinerary for the CIP tour on Saturday at 8:00 a.m. Crystal T's Status Colllllunity Development Director Desrochers told the Agency that he has learned from C.W. Clark that they expect a loan commitment on the Crystal T's parcel in about two weeks. He added that there is a penalty on this project, $1,000 per month for each month the property is not developed. El Torito Status The Director informed the Agency that they have been asked by the El Torito firm for utilization of a portion of the proposed Crystal T's site for interim parking. They have been informed if such a request is approved by the Agency, it would be conditioned with the understanding that the existing property be cleaned up and that liability insurance be provided by El Torito. MOTION TO BRING BACK REPORT MSUC (Scott/Campbell) that staff be directed to bring back a report with this regard on Tuesday night following the City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT at 8:57 p.m. to the special meeting of Tuesday, April 6, 1982. AH:dl WPC 0103H 4/1/82