Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1982/04/15 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, April 15,1982 Council Conference Room 4:00 p.m. City Hall ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT Chairman Cox; Members Gillow, Campbell, Scott MEMBERS ABSENT Member McCandliss STAFF PRESENT Executi ve Di rector Cole, Speci al Counsel Reed, Community Development Di rector Oesrochers, Redevelopment Coordinator legler, Development Services Administrator Robens, Director of Finance Grant, Development Specialist Kassman, Administrative Analyst Pritzlaff ALSO PRESENT Kitty Raso ITEM NO.1 - WRITTEN COMMUNICATION - APPEAL OF HOUSING REPLACEMENT BENEFITS FOR J.D. PETERS In a memo prepared for the Redevelopment Agency, Special Counsel Reed reported that the attorney for Mr. J. D. Peters has filed a notice that he is appealing the trial court' s deci si on in hi s claim for repl acement housing benefits. Special Counsel Reed assured the Agency that "we will not lose this one." He noted that there was no need to go into closed session to discuss this matter and recommended that as soon as the brief prepared by Mr. Peter's attorney is received then we should continue discussions. ITEM NO.2 - RESOLUTION NO. 365 - RESCINDING TC/OP 13 AND AMENDMENT, AND ENTERING INTO TC/OP 38 WITH CATALDA AND ANTHONY RASO On December 7, 1978, the Redevelopment Agency entered into an owner participation agreement for the remodeling of the La Bella Pizza Garden with the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Raso. Because the owners dec i ded to change the exterior design of their building from what was represented in the original owner participation agreement, revised plans were submitted to the Town Centre Design Review Board in March of this year. Design Review Board Members reviewed the pl ans and recommended that the Agency approve the new design subject to conditions. Adjourned Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting -2- April 15, 1982 Redevelopment Coordinator Zegler reported that at the Design Review Board's March 23 meeting, members voted unanimously to recommend that the Agency approve the exterior design concept subject to the following conditions: 1. that the 1 atti ce work proposed along the roofl ine be removed and the applicant introduce a short parapet of the same materi a 1 as on the existing building; and, 2. that the applicant select a paint color for the stucco walls (approved by staff) for the building with less contrast to the proposed trim color - a color with less white and more yellow. (Member Scott arrived at this time, 4:12 p.m.) RESOLUTION OFFERED by Member Cox, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted unanimously. ITEM NO.3 - REPORT: VACANCY ON THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE Due to the resi gnation of Mr. Will i am Peterson from the Project Area Committee effective May 6, 1982, the Agency is requested to appoint a new member to fill this vacancy. Community Development Director Desrochers noted that State Law requires redevelopment agencies to form Project Area Committees during the planning phases of a project and three years after implementation. Although it is not now required to have a Project Area Committee for the downtown area, this Committee continues to be very valuable in the area's redevelopment. MOTION TO APPOINT WILL T. HYDE MSUC ( Scott/Campbell) to recommend the appointment of Mr. Will T. Hyde to fill the vacancy on the Town Centre Project Area Committee. ITEM NO.4 - REPORT: STUDY TO AMEND THE BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN In January, Agency Members requested staff to study the feasibility of amending the existing Bayfront Redevelopment Plan to include "E" Street east of Interstate 5 to Broadway, the "H" Street Troll ey Station, and the Tidelands area. Community Development Director Desrochers briefly discussed the highlights of the report prepared by staff, and noted that the report should be considered preliminary. At this time, Redevelopment Coordinator Zegler outlined the proposed amendment to the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan Study which would incorporate the foll owing study areas: project boundaries, current land uses allowed by zoning, the nature of redevelopment, the process to amend an existing redevelopment plan, alternatives to redevelopment, and conclusions and 4/15/82 Adjourned Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting -3- April 15, 1982 recommendations. Mr. Zegler also discussed the characteristics of qualifying attributes of the "E" Street area from Interstate 5 east to Broadway, "H" Street at the MTDB Trolley Station site, and the Tidelands area on the Bayfront. With regard to the Tidelands area, Mr. Zegler commented on developers' interest in this area for redevelopment funding. Should the Tidelands area become a part of the Bayfront Plan, the Agency may be able to facilitate development in a more efficient manner than at the present. Community Development Director Desrochers reflected on the initiation of the Bayfront Plan in 1974. At that time, the question to include the Tidelands area into the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan was a matter of legality. I f the Agency deci des to include Tidelands area into the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan, they must enter into an agreement with the Port District. In response to Chairman Cox's question concerning solicitation of opinions from the Port District, Mr. Desrochers remarked that thi s concern has not been brought to the attention of the Port District, but he could not see any reason why they would object to inclusion into our Redevelopment Plan. Special Counsel Reed remarked that a cooperative agreement would be necessary if the Agency wished to usurp the utilization of another entity's plan. With this type of an agreement, the two entities could work together. Member Campbell remarked that if acceptance of this report should include contacting the Port District, this contact should be made immediately. Member Scott di scussed hi s concern that we proceed cauti ously so that the Agency does not lose its tax increment financing. The opportuni ty currently exists to do something significant through redevelopment; a logical second step to help redevelopment along would be to create a corri dor from "E" Street to "L" Street and possibly past "L" Street into the Price Club area. In this case, we could take advantage of future housing opportunities. Special Counsel Reed noted that when the project areas were first formed, the City did not have to go through the same procedures that are now required. He pointed out that the power of appeal is held by certain entities. MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT MSUC (Cox/Scott) to accept the staff report including the amendment to the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan Study, and direct staff to initiate procedures to amend the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan. MOTION TO CONSIDER MTDB TRANSIT CORRIDOR MSUC (Scott/Campbell) to direct staff to consider another phase that woul d encompass the entire length of the MTDB transit corridor after the first phase is completed. 4/15/82 Adjourned Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting -4- April 15, 1982 ITEM NO.5 - REPORT/DISCUSSION: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINANCIAL CONDITION AND PAYBACK OF CITY LOANS Factors affecting the use of remaining and future tax increment funds include the City's need to repay loans, future Agency land acquisitions, parking structure financing, and future bond issues. Member Scott di scussed the necessity of determining an appropriate fixed interest rate for the future use of City funds. Member Campbell concurred and suggested that the Agency should be allowed to change that rate from time to time as market interest rates change. MOTION TO ACCEPT REPORT AND PREPARE RESOLUTION INCORPORATING 10% INTEREST RATE MSUC (Campbell/Scott) to accept the report and direct staff to prepare a resolution that incorporates the 10% interest rate. ADJOURNMENT at 4:47 p.m. to the regular meeting of WPC 0125H AH:dl 4/15/82