Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1987/08/06 AGENDA A, REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Thursday August 6, 1987 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building ROLL CALL 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 7/16/87 and 7/21/87 2. INFORMATION ITEMS a. Bayfront Plan Hotel Significance Acquired Property - Bayfront Project b. c. Extension of San Diego Shipbuilding & Repair, Inc. Lease d. Status of Otay Valley Road Project Area CONSENT CALENDAR (items 3 throuqh 13) 3. Report: Status of Bay Boulevard Partnership DDA 4. RESOLUTION Approving a license with SDG&E for Nature Interpretive Center temporary parking lot at "E" Street and Bay Blvd. and appropriating funds (4/5ths Vote Required) 5. RESOLUTION Amendment to agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Ratner Properties for participation in construction of public improvements on Bay Blvd. , "J" Street to" L" Street 6. Report: Access to the Nature Interpretive Center 7. RESOLUTION Approving an Owner Participation Agreement with Rodolfo Tanos for exterior remodeling of a single story building at 452 Third Avenue 8. RESOLUTION Appropriating $6,000 to reimburse Joseph Development Company for public improvements (4/5ths Vote Required) 9. Report: Placing a temporary moratorium on conversion/ rehabilitation of single family homes for non- residential uses in Town Centre I (Continued on Page Two) 10. status Report: Park Plaza at the Village 11. Report: California Department of Veterans Affairs evaluation of sites for a Veterans Center 12. RESOLUTION Appropriating funds for the payment of administrative fees for the 1986 Bayfront/Town Centre Tax Allocation Bonds (4/5ths Vote Required) 13. Report: Chula Vista America's Cup Task Force END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 14. Status Report: Expansion and Renovation of Chula Vista Shopping Center 15. Presentation of proposals for amendments and alternative amendments to the Local Coastal Plan by Chu1a Vista Investment PULLED ITEMS 16. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 17. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 18. MEMBERS' COMMENTS THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WILL MEET IN CLOSED SESSION IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE MEETING TO DISCUSS SIERRA CLUB VS. MARSH; SIERRA CLUB VS. COASTAL COMMISSION ET. AL.; POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 494 THIRD AVENUE (EUGENE AND AMELIA ROBERTS, OWNERS) AND 315 H STREET (RALPH BURNI, OWNER) WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE I PROJECT; AND 340 BAY BOULEVARD (SUNLAND HOME FOUNDATION, OWNER) WITHIN THE BAYFRONT PROJECT; AND ITEMS OF POTENTIAL LITIGATION *** A MEETING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WILL FOLLOW THE AGENCY MEETING*** ADJOURNMENT to the regular meeting of August 20, 1987 at 4:00p.m. - 2 - MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Thursday, August 6, 1987 7:08 p.m. Council Chambers Public services Building ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cox; Members Nader, Moore and McCandliss MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Malcolm STAFF PRESENT: Executive Director Goss, Community Development Director Desrochers, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman Agency Attorney Harron, Deputy City Manager Morris 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 7/16/87 AND 7/21/87 MSUC (McCandliss/Moore) approve the minutes of 7/16/87 and 7/21/87 as submitted. (Chairman Cox abstained from voting on the minutes of 7/21/87.) 2. INFORMATION ITEMS a. Bayfront Plan Hotel Significance A summary of the significance of a hotel on Gunpowder Point and elsewhere within the Bayfront Plan was provided. The analysis was based on the two Berins & Co. 1986 reports to the Agency. Member McCandliss questioned why a 400-room hotel was looked at for Gunpowder Point and a 200-room hotel for other sites; why was there not a variation used in the studies? Community Development Director Desrochers responded that there is a market demand for a 200-room hotel in Chula Vista for the commercial business and small conferences that take place out of the Chula Vista and South Bay area. However, Gunpowder Point provides a unique piece of property in which to locate a 400-room hotel which would attract a different market, becoming a destination resort. b. Acquired Property - Bayfront Project A list of provided. Bayfront parcels acquired by the Agency was c. Extension of San Diego Shipbuilding & Repair, Inc. Lease Redevelopment Agency Minuc , - 2- August 6, 1987 San Diego Shipbuilding and Repair served notice to the Redevelopment Agency of their intent to extend their lease of property at 980 F street. d. status of Otay Valley Road Project Area A status report regarding the Otay Redevelopment Project Area was provided. Valley Road MSUC (Cox/Moore) to accept the information items. CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3,4, 5, 7, 8 AND 12 WERE OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN COX, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted unanimously. 3. REPORT: STATUS OF BAY BOULEVARD PARTNERSHIP DDA In April 1987, the Redevelopment Agency voted to institute section 46 of the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Bay Boulevard Partnership to begin reversion of the property located at the northeast corner of "F" Street and Bay Boulevard. This action was taken due to the developer's non-performance in developing the site with the approved restaurant. Subsequent to the Agency's action, Joel Broida, limited partner of Bay Boulevard Partnership, requested that the Redevelopment Agency permit him, under a newly formed corporation to develop the site with the formerly approved Soup Exchange Restaurant. It was recommended that the Agency direct staff to work with Mr. Broida in completing the necessary documents for the assignment of the Disposition and Development Agreement and development of the Soup Exchange Restaurant. 4. RESOLUTION 842 APPROVING A LICENSE WITH SDG&E FOR NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER TEMPORARY PARKING LOT AT "E" STREET AND BAY BOULEVARD AND APPROPRIATING $1,150 THEREFOR At the May 21, 1987 Agency meeting, members directed staff to proceed with processing the necessary documents to utilize the SDG&E transmission easement north of "E" Street west of Bay Boulevard for NIC temporary parking. On June 23, 1987 the City Council approved a Coastal Development Permit for the project. A license agreement with San Diego Gas and Electric Company was negotiated for use of their land. 5. RESOLUTION 843 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND RATNER PROPERTIES FOR PARTICIPATION IN Redevelopment Agency Minu~es - 3- August 6. 1987 THE CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN BAY BOULEVARD, J STREET TO L STREET On December l7, 1985 the Redevelopment Agency approved a Cooperation Agreement wi th Ratner Properties for the construction of improvements in Bay Boulevard between J street and L street. The Agency agreed to reimburse the developer for the Agency's portion of the design, inspection and construction costs. At this time the developer is prepared to proceed with the bidding and construction of the work. However, it has become apparent that, due to the City's bidding requirements, it would be preferable for the Agency to separately bid the Agency's portion of the work concurrent with the developer bidding his portion. It is therefore necessary to amend the agreement between the Agency and Ratner Properties to reflect this change in construction procedures. 6. REPORT: ACCESS TO THE NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER This item was pulled. 7. RESOLUTION 844 APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREE- MENT WITH RODOLFO TANOS FOR EXTERIOR REMODELING OF A SINGLE STORY BUILDING AT 452 THIRD AVENUE Mr. Rodolfo Tanos proposed to remodel the exterior of his building at 452 Third Avenue. The project is categorically exempt from environmental review, but required Agency approval through an Owner Participation Agreement. 8. RESOLUTION 845 APPROPRIATING $6,000 TO REIMBURSE JOSEPH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR PUBLIC IMPROVE- MENTS The developer of Park Square II, Joseph Development Company, requested that the Agency assist in financing the repair of the sidewalk along Third Avenue between "G" Street and Park Way. Joseph Development damaged a portion of the sidewalk, directly adjacent to their property, during demolition. Pursuant to City policy, the Engineering Department required the developer to replace a section of the sidewalk rather than allowing the developer to replace just the damaged area. It was recommended that the Agency appropriate $6,000 to reimburse Joseph Development Company for the cost of repairing that portion of the sidewalk not damaged due to demolition. 9. REPORT: PLACING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON CONVERSION/REHABILITATION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES Redeve 1 opment Agency Ml nutes - 4- August 6,1987 IN TOWN CENTRE I This item was pulled. 10. STATUS REPORT: PARK PLAZA AT THE VILLAGE This item was pulled. 11. REPORT: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS EVALUATION OF SITES FOR A VETERANS CENTER This item was pulled. 12. RESOLUTION 846 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE PAYMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE FEES FOR THE 1986 BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE TAX ALLOCATION BONDS In 1986 the Agency refinanced several older bond issues and issued the 1986 Tax Allocation Bonds for the Bayfront/Town Centre Redevelopment Project Areas totaling approximately $38,655,000. At that time, the Trustee, First Interstate Bank, was not directed to deduct administrative expenses from tax increment funds provided by the Agency to cover debt service payments. It was recommended that the Agency appropriate funds for the payment of $9,253 in administrative expenses for the 1987-88 Fiscal Year. The Bank has been directed to subtract the administrative expenses from the excess tax increment funds, after debt service has been paid for subsequent years. 13. REPORT: CHULA VISTA AMERICA'S CUP TASK FORCE This item was pulled. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 14. STATUS REPORT: EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF CHULA VISTA SHOPPING CENTER Mr. Tom Gourguechon, Project Director for Homart Development Co., was present and gave a status report on the expansion and renovation of Chula vista Shopping Center. He reported that Homart has made considerable progress in efforts to expand the shopping center. Mr. Gourguechon gave a slide presentation review of the project. Member McCand1iss stated she would like to have a copy of the time schedule (as shown in the slide presentation). Because of the very tight time schedule, she encouraged Homart Development Co. to get their plans into the City as soon as possible so that staff and particularly the Design Review Committee will not have to go through the same Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 5- August 6, 1987 demanding schedule of meetings the Agency/Council did when putting together the Disposition and Development Agreement. Ms. McCandliss further noted that when the plans are presented she would like the Design Review Committee to not be intimidated by the name of the architect. This project should receive the same scrutiny as any other project. Homart will be tested for compliance with commitments; the design and materials need to be of the quality expected; if there are any changes to be made, time needs to be allowed to incorporate those changes. Mr. Gourguechon stated Homart Development Co. is committed to this project. Approximately $18.5 million is invested to date, and they are projecting their costs, before any municipal financing, to be approximately $37 million. Responding further to Member McCand1 iss, Mr. Gourguechon stated that if his company anticipates any problems, they will bring it directly to the Agency. Member McCandliss also noted concern with the size of the project as described in the slide presentation. If the center becomes too large, many of the figures used for improvements and mitigation measures may no longer be valid. She stated she would like staff to be watching for this. Mr. Gourguechon stated in the slide presentation he was alluding to the ultimate build-out of the center (approximately 900,000+ feet) including the second phase. At this time the center is tracking exactly 140,000 sq. ft. of new leaseable area which is the number that is in the DDA. He reminded the Agency that Homart ultimately plans to expand the center. Chairman Cox asked if a decline in sales could be expected during the construction period. Mr. Gourguechon stated it has been the experience of Homart in recent projects that a decline in sales has not occurred. Their project in Montclair, California had an increase in sales during the construction period. MS (Cox/Moore) to accept this report. Member Moore noted that in the staff report it states that staff has met with the owners of property from Fig and Guava street. Was a consensus reached as far as what to do? Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman stated a consensus has been reached and that a report will be forthcoming to the Council. Mr. Desrochers commented that the City and Homart are working toward getting a fourth department store. Staff is cognizant of the fact that there will be more environmental analysis required. Redeve 1 opment Agency Mi nutes - 6- August 6, 1987 The motion Dassed unanimouslv. l5. PRESENTATION OF PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENTS AND ALTERNATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN BY CHULA VISTA INVESTMENT COMPANY Chula vista Investment Company (CVIC), representing the ownership of the majority of the Bayfront lands, requested by letter dated July 22, 1987, to make a presentation on their views relative to amendments to the Local Coastal Program. Chairman Cox stated there has been a strong indication that this item needs to be scheduled at a time that the public would have an opportunity to participate in the discussions. Also, in view of the fact that Member Malcolm was not able to be present at this meeting, he suggested that the Agency accept the information being submitted by CVIC and refer it to staff without a formal presentation. This information would be discussed in conjunction with the public discussion on this item. Chairman Cox further noted it is the preference of CVIC to have the discussion scheduled at as early a date as possible and desired all Agency members to be present. He suggested the Secretary to the Agency contact all members and schedule a meeting for the week of August 17. Member McCandliss suggested scheduling the meeting after 6:00 p.m. to allow members of the public who work to attend. MS (Cox/Nader) to accept the information that CVIC has submitted; refer it to staff; and direct staff to schedule a meeting during the week of August 17. Mr. Donald Worley, attorney representing Chula vista Investment Company, addressed the Agency. He stated that by the time table used by CVIC, proposed amendments should have been brought to the Agency by June 1. They have been unable to reach agreement with City staff as to what should be included in an LCP amendment. They believe that there are a number of extremely important policy questions that only the Council/Agency can address as to what should be included. He noted that a frank and open public discussion is needed of those important policy questions. In the handout presented to the Agency, the changes discussed fall into three categories: (1) internal inconsistencies and clean-up items; (2) requirements that the Council asked to have included at the time the tentative map was rejected which would necessitate changes; and (3) CVIC has become convinced that certain changes should be included in the LCP as potential options of land use changes. These changes are necessary in order to settle the pending lawsui ts. Particularly with regard to those changes, CVIC believes that it would be a waste of time on the part of their staff Redeve 1 opment Agency Mi nutes - 7- August 6. 1987 and consultants as well as of the City to proceed with the other changes without addressing as options those changes that CVIC believes are made necessary in order to settle the lawsuits. Mr. Worley further stated his clients are unwilling to spend what they believe to be hundreds of thousands of dollars in engineering fees, etc. to prepare the necessary plans and studies to proceed with the Bayfront project unless it is clear that there is a prospect in the near future of commencing and completing actual physical development of the project. They believe this is not possible without the settlement of the lawsuits. Mr. Worley noted that he had asked that Item #6 be pulled from the Consent Calendar because it relates to the access to the Nature Interpretive Center. Access and what types of improvements to go to that access are inextricably bound up with this entire issue of LCP amendments. He believes that the decision and discussion of this matter should be delayed until such time as the amendments are able to be dealt with. Chairman Cox stated Item #6 is dealing strictly with the desire to have some type of temporary repair and maintenance of the south levee road. It does not relate to any permanent improvements. Mr. Worley responded that if that is the case then CVIC does not have any problem with it. He was under the impression that there was an item on this docket that referred to some paving and improvements to at least the access road that would go into the south levee road. Mr. Desrochers stated the report does refer to later discussion and decision of a temporarily paved road. staff is not asking for approval of that tonight. The motion passed unanimous1v. PULLED ITEMS 6. REPORT: ACCESS TO THE NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER Prior to the opening of the Nature Interpretive Center the Council asked that a report be prepared addressing whether the Nature Interpretive Center should continue operating in the event that the south levee road cannot be sufficiently repaired and maintained. It was recommended to continue shuttle bus access to the Nature Interpretive Center at least until the Bayfront Conservancy Trust can consider the matter and direct staff to continue pursuing a Section 404 permit for repair and maintenance of the south levee road until the jurisdictional issues can be resolved. Redeve 1 opment Agency Mi nutes - 8- August 6, 1987 Member McCandliss referred to the discussion in the staff report which states that while construction or improvements are made on the south levee road, the first choice seems to be to attempt to divert traffic on the north levee road in order to continue the Nature Center being open. Ms. McCandliss stated she does not see anything wrong with closing the center for a period of time if there is any problem with diverting traffic across the north levee road. Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam stated the discussion of using the north levee road as an alternative access was based on the construction of the bridge which would take approximately 7 months. If there is any question of whether or not to close the Center during this period, that issue will be brought to the Agency/Council. Regarding construction of the repair and maintenance of the south levee road which would take approximately 6 days, it is planned that the Nature Center would be closed during that time. MSUC (Cox/Moore) to accept staff recommendation. 9. REPORT: PLACING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON CONVER- SION/REHABILITATION OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES IN TOWN CENTRE I The Town Centre Project Area Committee is concerned about the conversion/rehabilitation of single-family homes in Town Centre I and II to commercial, retail or professional uses. The Committee is concerned that continuing to allow this incremental activity is detrimental to the redevelopment of these project areas. Mr. Desrochers referred to the staff recommendation in the Agenda statement. He noted that "moratorium" is extremely strong language and that staff would like to change moratorium to "review" with scrutiny. Requests for change over would be brought to the Agency during the 90-day period this issue is being studied and reviewed by staff. MSUC (Moore/Cox) to accept the revised recommendation. 10. STATUS REPORT: PARK PLAZA AT THE VILLAGE The purpose of this report was to provide members with the current status of the discussions and the financial data relating to the payments made to support the parking structure. Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman reported that staff and the subcommittee (Member Malcolm and Member Nader) met with Mr. Zogob earlier this evening. At this time the proposed purchaser for the center has fallen out and there is no Redeve 1 opment Agency Mi nutes - 9- August 6. 1987 purchaser for the center. Mr. Zogob feels there may be an opportunity to negotiate with Beverly Hills Savings for a restructuring of the loan obligations. Mr. Kassman stated it is his understanding that city staff and the subcommittee supported Mr. Zogob in this endeavor. There were several other alternatives that were discussed in the event that the restructuring of the current financial obligations cannot be carried through. This will be brought back to the Agency after Mr. Zogob has had the opportunity to confer with Beverly Hills Savings and staff has had the opportunity to review the information coming forth. Member Nader commented it was the consensus of the subcommittee that whatever form their action takes, they do not want it to be in the form of a commitment of General Fund monies to assist Mr. Zogob. The initial proposal that was brought to the Agency of waiving the fees and indirectly making up the funds through General Fund monies has been rejected. Member McCand1iss stated the City has continuously been giving and giving to this project. She would like to see financial information come to the Agency for review. She would like to make sure that if the Agency gives anything at all, that it is seen as being absolutely critical to this project and that there is no other way to structure it so we can continue with the center. Chairman Cox stated he would like to have a report from staff that indicates the concessions or participation by the City which has occurred over the life of this particular project. Responding to Member Moore I s question, Mr. Kassman stated staff's recommendation is to authorize staff and the subcommi ttee to continue to work with the developer, Mr. Zogob, and with Beverly Hills Savings to try and come to some solution to the financing dilemma. J.R. Norman, 908 Mission Avenue, Chula Vista, addressed the Agency. Mr. Norman stated there is some concern in the City about the Redevelopment Agency. The appearance is that the City is guaranteeing profits for private developers. He has been asked by people in the community to review some of the projects because of his familiarity with them. He would like to see some of the figures with regard to the outstanding loan on this project. Mr. Norman stated he attempted to attend a conference this week in which the subcommittee, city staff and the developer were meeting. He stated he was ruled against and was not able to attend the conference. He would like to know why the results and all of the figures of these conferences are not made public. He also would like to have more time Redevelopment Agency Minutes -10- August 6, 1987 available for concerned people in the community to review this information in order to give a response to the Agency. Mr. Norman further suggested the Agency appoint a committee of concerned residents to sit in on meetings and come back to the Agency/Council and give fresh thoughts that are free of political, peer and management pressures. Member Nader stated that Mr. Norman wanted to attend the first meeting of the subcommittee. There was a misunderstanding in that Member Malcolm, Member Nader and some members of the public were under the impression that the public was welcome at the meeting. Upon arriving at the meeting, City staff informed those present that there was a policy that this was not a public meeting. Chairman Cox stated the information that Mr. Norman has requested is public information. He asked if city staff is in the process of putting this information together for him? Deputy City manager Morris stated he had been contacted by Mr. Norman and referred him to Fred Kassman. The information is available and will be provided. Bud Pocklington, resident of Chula Vista, addressed the Agency. He stated he was in opposition to the closure of Fifth Avenue partially because of the impact on other businesses in Chu1a Vista. He had stated in the past that some of the businesses from Town Centre and other parts of Chula Vista would be asking for help from the City because of the pressure put on them by the new development. He stated it will be important how the Agency deals with this project because the same situation will be occurring again with other projects. He noted his concern of not wanting taxpayer's money used to aid a private developer. Mr. pocklington further stated he would also like to have more information on the financial status of this project as well as financial information on the Redevelopment Agency. Chairman Cox referred Mr. pocklington to the Finance Director. MS (Cox/Moore) to accept staff's revised recommendation; authorize staff and subcommittee to meet and come back with a report on their recommendation. Chairman Cox stated he assumes that within this motion that as soon as there is a recommendation forthcoming that it will be put in the form of an Agenda statement that will be available to not only the Agency but also the members of the public. He assumes that Mr. Norman and Mr. Pocklington will be mailed that information. The motion passed unanimouslY. Redevelopment Agency Mloutes -11- Augus t 6, 1987 Member McCandliss suggested that staff present to the Agency/Council the policy on public attendance at subcommittee meetings; whether it is open to the public or whether it is at the discretion of the subcommittee. She would like a review of the policy. 11. REPORT: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS EVALUATION OF SITES FOR A VETERANS CENTER The 14.3 acre Agency-owned parcel in the Sweetwater River Valley is being considered, along with a number of other sites in Southern California, by the California Department of Veterans Affairs as a possible location for a new California Veterans retirement home. Member Moore stated that before this property was recommended as a possible site for the Veterans Home the matter should have come before the Agency/Council. Chairman Cox stated he shares the same concern. There should have been some type of acknowledgment or information item provided to the Agency/Council. There may have been other sites that Agency members could have suggested, such as the site owned by the school district near Community Hospital. Member Nader commented that particularly in light of the designated use of this property as a mobilehome relocation site, the Agency should have been advised before this site was suggested for a different use. However, he would be interested in hearing more about the pros and cons of this site; about whether other sites might be available. Mr. Goss suggested that if there is a feeling that this site is inappropriate for the veterans Home, staff could send a letter to that effect and suggest to them that there may be other sites that the City could give them advice on. MS (McCandliss/Moore) to inform the state agency that this site is not available for a veterans Home; to continue to pursue the relocation park; ask the Commission on Aging to review a proposal for a Veterans Home and look at criteria for locating one (i.e., near transportation, etc.); contact Board of Realtors to find out about available sites; and prepare for presentation to the Assembly Panel if staff is able to identify sites. Member Moore suggested also contacting the school districts about available sites. Member Nader asked that the motion be divided and to vote separately on the part informing the state Agency that this Redeve 1 opment Agency Mi nutes -12- August 6. 1987 site is not available. He would like information before he would vote to do this. to have more Member McCandliss stated she would be willing to separate the motion. Chairman Cox commented that because San Diego County has a heavy military influence, it would make a lot of sense to locate a Veterans Home here. If by eliminating this site we have eliminated Chula vista from consideration because we do not have another site available at this time, it would be unfortunate. Member McCandliss pointed out the primary goal for acquisition of this property was as a relocation mobilehome park. MS (McCandliss/Moore) to remove this property as a site from consideration as a Veterans Home; explain the reasons and that alternate sites will be identified. (The vote was 3-1; Member Nader voting no.) MSUC (McCandliss/Moore) to direct staff to work with the Board of Realtors, school districts, and other agencies in trying to identify other potential sites. 13. REPORT: CHULA VISTA AMERICA'S CUP TASK FORCE The Agency requested that a report be prepared outlining the potential responsibilities and composition of a Chula Vista Task Force for the America's Cup in the event that the competition is held in San Diego. Member Moore questioned the suggestion in the Agenda Statement about submitting a list of potential committee members to the City Manager. Mr. Desrochers stated this should be handled in the same manner as other committees are appointed. Names should be submitted to the Chairman. MSUC (Moore/McCandliss) to accept the report. 16. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Mr. Desrochers reported on the meeting with the rating agencies in New York earlier this week. Staff expects to hear on the credit rating for the bond issue by August 14. The documents will be ready for consideration by the Council/Agency on August 18. 17. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: None. Redevelopment Agency Mlnutes -13- August 6, 1987 18. MEMBERS' COMMENTS: Member Moore commented he would like to see positive action taken to deal with the trailers parked along Bay Boulevard south of L street. Member McCandliss requested when the Agency packets are assembled for distribution that another binder be used if the original binder is not available. Member McCand1iss referred to Item No.6. She stated a viable alternative to consider is to not submit the 404 permit application, construct the bridge and close the Nature Center for the period of time the bridge is under construction. She would like this reviewed and brought back to the Agency. Chairman Cox commented the Energy Way area in the otay Valley Road Redevelopment District has a lot of abandoned vehicles. He suggested this is an area where staff should direct some enforcement action. The Redevelopment Agency recessed at 9:00 p.m. to a brief meeting of the Industrial Development Authority. The Agency reconvened at 9:02 p.m. MSUC (Cox/Moore) to go into Closed Session to discuss sierra Club vs. Marsh; Sierra Club vs. Coastal Commission et. al.; potential acquisition of property located at 494 Third Avenue (Eugene and Amelia Roberts, owners) and 315 H street (Ralph Burni, Owner) within the Town Centre I Project; and 340 Bay Boulevard (Sunland Home Foundation, owner) within the Bayfront project; and items of potential litigation. Adjournment to Closed Session at 9:02 p.m. Adjournment from Closed Session to the regular meeting of August 20, 1987 at 4:00 p.m. Director