Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1988/01/07 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, January 7, 1988 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Counc il Chambers Public Services Building MEMBERS PRESENT: Chai rman Cox; Members Nader, ~loore and McCandl i ss MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Member Mal colm Executive Oirector Goss, Community Development Director Desrochers, Assistant Community Oevelopment Director Gustafson, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman, Agency Attorney Harron 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 12/8/87 and 12/17/87 MSUC (McCandliss/Moore) approve the minutes of 12/8/87 and 12/17/87 as submi tted. 2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS a. Letter dated 12/10/87 from William E. Claycomb, 521 Orange Avenue, #llù, Chula Vista regarding Orange Tree Mobilehome Park b. Letter dated 12/21/87 from William E. Claycomb regarding mailing of letters to the attention of the Redevelopment Agency Responding to Chairman Cox's questions, Assistant Community Development Director Gustafson stated Mr. Claycomb was notified that this item was on the agenda and that he had picked up copies of the staff response to each letter. MSUC (Moore/Cox) to accept the letters for the record. COIJSENT CALENDAR (Items 3 through 8) Items 6 and 7 were pulled from the consent calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3, 4, 5, AND 8 WERE OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN COX, the read; ng of the text was wai ved by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously. 3. RESOLUTIOIJ 894 APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THOMAS P. HUNTINGTON FOR BUILD ING A STORAGE ADD ITION TO 230 THIRD AVENUE Mr. Thomas Hunti ngton, the property owner of 230 Thi rd Avenue, proposed add; ng a detached building behind the House of ~lun;ch restaurant. The proposed improvements requ; re Agency approval through an Owner Pa rti ci pati on Agreement. ,~ Redevelopment Agency Minutes -2- January 7, 1988 4. RESOLUTION 895 APPROVING THE CONCEPT DESIGN OF A PUBLIC PARKING LOT AT 230-232 CHURCH AVENUE AND AUTHORIZING THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS In order to increase the supply of public parking downtown, the Agency purchased 230-232 Church Avenue for publ ic parki ng. The landscape architectural fi rm of Eartharts was hi red to desi gn and prepare constructi on drawi ngs for the proposed parki ng lot. A concept plan has been produced. Before proceedi ng wi th the development of constructi on drawi ngs, the Agency was requested to review and approve the parking lot design. 5. RESOLUTION 896 ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT WITH MURRAY ALLISON & ASSOCIATES FOR THE APPRAISAL OF PROPERTY AT 340 BAY BOULEVARD AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR The Redevelopment Agency has discussed with the owner the purchase of the Thermo King property at 340 Bay Boulevard in the Bayfront Redevelopment Project. Before acquisition can proceed a fair market value of the site is requi red. It was recommended that the Agency appropri ate $1,875 for thi s purpose 8. REPORT: AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE AN RFP FOR ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONr~ENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA On October 15, 1987, the Redevelopment Agency approved the "Otay Vall ey Road Redevelopment Area Sensitive Biological Resources Investigation and Wetlands Delineation" prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. The wetland delineation will provide valuable input into the preliminary design for the wi deni ng of Otay Vall ey Road that needs to be prepared. The goal of the design is to minimize the amount of fill required in the wetland for roadway widening. After preparation of the preliminary design, the environmental review documents, a Section 404 permit application, right-of-way and record of survey maps for acquisition of right-of-way, and construction drawings need to be prepared. In addition, phasing and financial plans for roadway widening need to be prepared. It was recommended that the Agency authori ze staff to send out the RFP for consulting services. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 9. RESOLUTION 897 ACCEPTING THE NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER BUILDING WITH EXCEPTIONS At the Agency I s November 5, 1987 meeti ng, a report on the status of the Nature Interpretive Center construction contract was submitted. It was reported to the Agency that the landscape and irrigation system was the last major item to be completed and that staff was working with the General Contractor, the Landscape Architect, and the Project Architect in an effort to complete 1 andscapi ng and i rri gati on per pl an pri or to recommendi ng acceptance of the building, however, the landscaping and irrigation issued cannot be resolved under the present circumstances. Therefore, it was recommended that the building be accepted with the exception of landscaping and unresolved matters identified in the staff report. ,. ...---.-." Redevelopment Agency Minutes -3- Janua ry 7, J 988 Community Development Di rector Desrochers stated that the purpose of thi s agenda item is to start the process of placing a notice of completion on the Nature Interpretive Center building. This will enable staff to see that the landscaping project is completed and that some of the subcontractors, who are still awaiting payment, receive payment. Mr. Desrochers further stated staff is suggesting that funds be withheld to insure that the landscaping is completed. Regarding the other disputed items listed in the report, it would be appropriate to seek mediation as allowed for in the contract. Member McCandliss questioned how the plant species were selected for the Nature Center 1 andscapi ng. ~lr. Desrochers responded all 1 andscape items for City projects must go through the City process including review by the City Landscape Architect. Mr. James Kuhlken of Kawasaki/Theilacker & Associates, the landscape architect for the Nature Center, addressed the Agency. He noted his firm selected the plant species and that it went to the City for review. Ms. ~1cCandliss commented it is her understanding that a plant called "Status," which is like a marsh plant but is not natural to the marsh area, was pl anted. It is growi ng and flowering at thi s time and efforts are bei ng made to be sure it does not seed in the marsh area. 14r. Kuhlken stated that is correct. Unfortunately, it was not realized until after the plant was installed that it was not a desired plant species for the marsh. At this time, the direction is to cut off the bloom until the plants can be replaced. Ms. McCandliss suggested it may be appropriate to seek specialized review of projects in sensitive areas. Mr. Wayne Muse of Ramm Contracting, general contractor for the Nature Center, stated he is in full agreement with Mr. Desrochers. He noted concern regardi ng those subcontractors awai ti ng payment who compl eted thei r work satisfactorily. He believes the funds being withheld for landscaping is overstated. He believes arbitration is the best way to deal with the disputed items. Mr. Glen Strange, President of Ramm Contracting, stated he also supports the comments of Mr. Desrochers. He asked for clarification regarding the landscaping issue. He noted 50-60% of the landscaping work has been completed by Ramm. He requested that Ramm be allowed to complete the work. Mr. Desrochers noted concern that the landscape work should have been completed last May. In order to resolve the issue, it appears that the funds need to be withheld and have someone else do the work. Mr. Strange stated Ramm Contracting would like to complete the work by February 1, 1988, and would like to be compensated for the work in conformance with the original contract. Mr. Desrochers stated he believes the February 1 date is a reasonable timeframe, however, he emphasized that the landscape architect, the clerk-of-the-works, and the City landscape staff need to be able to accept the work. r Redevelopment Agency Minutes -4- January 7, 1988 RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MEMBER MOORE, the readi ng of the text was wai ved by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously. MSUC (McCandl i ss/Nader) to allow Ramm Contracting to complete the 1 andscape work at the Nature Center with acceptance by the City by February 1, 1988. If Ramm Contracti ng is not abl e to compl ete the work by February 1, 1988, other sources will be used to complete the work. 10. ORAL COMMUlnCATIOIJS: None. PULLED ITEMS 6. REPORT: DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROGRESS MEETING On December 17, 1987 a subcommittee of the Redevelopment Agency, i ncl udi ng Chairman Cox and Member Moore, met with downtown merchants and business leaders to assess the progress of the Town Centre I Project. The report summari zed the content and concl usi ons of that meeti ng. I t was recommended that the Agency accept the report and maintain the subcommittee to participate in another progress workshop in three months. Member Moore reported one of the items discussed at the workshop was signage, in particular a sign at Third Avenue and H Street (perhaps at the current location of the Cotija Taco Shop). The sign would advertise both the downtown and the Chula Vista Shopping Center. He would like to add this as an amendment to the report to consider signage at this site. ~'SUC (Moore/Cox) Agency agrees with concept of si gnage at Thi rd Avenue and "H" Street advertising Town Centre and the Shopping Center; subcommittee to discuss the concept with Homart Development Company. MSUC (Cox/Moore) accept the balance of the report. Executive Director Goss suggested an item for discussion for this group could be merchandi si ng and hours stores are open. He noted diffi cul ty in shoppi ng in downtown Chula Vista on Friday and Saturday evenings, as well as on Sundays, because stores are closed. 7. REPORT: AMENDMENT OF THE TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPI~ENT PLAN TO EXPAND THE PROJECT BOUNDARIES The Agency amended the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan in July of last year in order to have the ability to collect tax increments from the Redevelopment Project Area in conjunction with the renovation of the Chula Vista Shopping Center. In establishing that amendment, the Agency agreed that the project woul d be further amended to expand the boundari es to i ncl ude certai n school di stri ct properti es. It was al so recommended that certai n other pub 1 i cly owned and privately owned parcels be included in the expanded boundaries. ! ---~.- --- ---"~'-" Redevelopment Agency Minutes -5- January 7, 1988 Member McCandliss stated it was her impression that properties in a redevelopment area should be contiguous. She asked staff to discuss the criteria for including properties in a redevelopment area. Mr. Desrochers explained properties do not need to be contiguous. Traditionally, the Agency has followed a contiguous program in the other redevelopment districts. In this instance, there is not a connecting factor. Staff wanted to be conservative in taking in the property. The goals were to focus on some of the public properties that are due for redevelopment, such as the City Corporation Yard and the School District offices. Other areas focused on were privately-owned properties in need of redevelopment, such as the Chula Vista Swap Meet and the corner of Broadway and "E" Street. Mr. Desrochers further explained in choosing the sites suggested to be included in the expanded redevelopment district, staff believed the sites were realistic to pursue and to try and turn-around and contribute to the general overall program. Member r~oore noted concern with expanding to sites that are not contiguous, particularly item #5 (northwest corner of Broadway and "E" Street). Chai rman Cox referred to an agreement with the County in which the County agrees not to protest an expansion of 50 additional acres. He questioned what the advantage would be to the City of including item #6 (Trolley Station) in the redevelopment di stri ct. ·Ir. Desrochers stated staff is 1 ooki ng for the potential of tax increments; there could be the possibility in the future that the City may want to lease air-rights to a private developer to build over the joint City/County Trolley Station. Chairman Cox suggested rather than including the Trolley Station site and the Chula Vista Junior High School site, where there would be no immediate benefit to the City, at this time, it may be more appropriate to include other sites where the City may gain immediate benefit in the form of improved appearance or additional revenues coming in. He also noted concern with the inclusion of item #5 (northwest corner of Broadway and "E" Street) in the expansion. Responding to Executive Director Goss' questions, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman stated the agreement with the County referred to origi nally had a figure of 40 additional acres. In negotiations, that figure was raised to 50 acres. If additional public-owned property was requested, he felt the County may be open to 5 - 10 additional acres. If privately-owned properties were to be added, it has been indicated to Hr. Kassman that the County woul d be very concerned about that and may request re-negoti ati on. Mr. Kassman further stated the agreement has not been ratified by the County Board of Supervisors at this time; it is anticipated that it will go before the Board of Supervisors in the near future. Member McCandliss noted concern with the philosophy being used in selection of sites for expansion. She believes the priority should be on areas that need to be developed and redeveloped. ~ , Redevelopment Agency ~li nutes -6- Janua ry 7, 1988 Mr. Frank Spevacek of Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc., consultants to the Agency, was present and addressed the Agency. He noted that the schedul ed date for plan adoption is August of this year. The ordinance adopting the amendment must be effective prior to August 21. If it was deemed appropriate to expand the scope of the project area, then most 1 ikely the August 21 deadl ine woul d not be kept. This would mean that instead of the 87-88 tax assessment roll that is currently bei ng operated under as the base year roll for the project area, it would be necessary to switch to the 88-89 assessment roll. At this point in time, it is not possible to evaluate what impact this would have. r~r. Desrochers noted a concern that the School Di stri ct woul d 1 i ke to buil d their Third Avenue facility and that they are planning on the tax increment from parcel #1 to partially assist in the financing of their school facility on Third Avenue. If there is a year delay on the receipt of tax increment from that parcel, it would possibly delay their project. Mr. Spevacek pointed out that in order to meet the outlined schedule, the project area boundaries would need to be taken to the Planning Commission for thei r consi derati on at thei r fi rst meeti ng. If it was deemed appropri ate to expand the scope beyond the 50 acres encompassed in the County agreement, Mr. Spevacek suggested that the Agency staff move forward to have the Board of Supervi sors adopt the agreement. Once the boundari es are desi gnated through the adoption of the preliminary plan, the Agency has the option (up until the time the ordinance is adopted) to delete properties from the project area. If a deci si on was made to add areas to the project area after the prel imi nary plan is adopted, then it would be necessary to start the entire process over. Therefore, Mr. Spevacek suggested one option could be to expand the focus of the areas for inclusion, see the reaction received from the County, School Di stri ct and the communi ty, and if it is appropri ate, at a future date start eliminating properties. Respondi ng to Member tJader' s questi ons regardi ng parcel #3 (Chul a Vi sta Swap Meet), Mr. Kassman stated the prol iferati on of buil di ngs on thi s site is a concern because it makes traffi c ci rcul ati on di ffi cult and hazardous. Some structures on this parcel should be removed to make it a more viable commerci al parcel. No parti cul ar structures have been specifi ed for removal at this time. MS (Moore/Cox) (a) authorize staff to continue negotiations with the County to exceed 50 acres for expansion; excess will be public property; and (b) approve sites 1, 3; sites 2, 4 and public works yard to be the public entities. t1ember Nader stated he believes it is premature to be discussing this matter until the agreement has been ratified by the County. He was concerned that opti ons may be 1 imi ted by desi gnati ng 50 acres in advance of ratifi cati on of the agreement. Chai rman Cox commented it may be more appropri ate to di rect staff to urge the County to take action on the agreement; to specify 50 acres of land that is in private ownership that would be eligible for redevelopment; discuss with the ~,' Redevelopment Agency Minutes -7- January 7, 1988 County the possibility of additional publiCly-owned property being included in the expansion (in addition to the 50-acres of privately-owned property). While this is being done, Chairman Cox suggested giving direction to staff to proceed with looking at the different areas to be included in an expanded redevelopment district because part of the process is to do an evaluation and come forward with a public hearing which takes approximately 6-8 weeks. At the end of the 6-8 week period a resolution should be reached with the County. Member McCandliss stated she could not support the motion on the floor. She agrees that #1, 3 and the City Corporation Yard should be included; however, she would like more information on #2 and #4. She would also like to look at other sites. The motion was withdrawn. MSUC (Cox/r4oore) direct staff to contact the County to move forward with the agreement on the expansion of the redevelopment district to include 50 acres which would be non-publicly-owned parcels; to seek as part of the agreement an understanding that if it was the desire of the City Council to include pUblicly-owned parcels which are contemplated to be used as public areas, that those areas be allowed to be included (and not be part of the 50 acres). MS (Cox/McCandliss) give direction to staff to proceed with including parcels #1, #3, and the City Corporation Yard (part of #6) in an expanded redevelopment district; and come back to the Agency with additional areas with rationale for inclusion of those areas. Responding to Mr. Goss' question, Chairman Cox clarified that the parcels in the agenda statement not referred to in the motion would not be precluded from being brought back for further consideration, however, additional rationale is requested for those parcels. Member Nader stated he is supportive of the motion, hO\~ever, in specifying certain parcels, he does not want to pre-judge what should be included ultimately in the expanded redevelopment area. He believes it would be a good idea to include parcel #4 (City Hall Complex), however, he is hesitant to direct it at this point until the parameters of the agreement with the County are known because there may be higher priorities that are under private ownership. Regarding parcel #3 (Chula Vista Swap Heet), Member Nader would like more rationale for including this entire parcel. Chairman Cox suggested it would be helpful in evaluating the City Hall Complex to look at more than just the area that is presently the Civic Center. There is a need to look at additional parking and room for expansion. The motion passed unanimously. (' ,~ Redevelopment Agency Minutes -8- January 7, 1988 11. DIRECTOR'S REPORT a. Youth Community Center Executive Director Goss reported that he and the Council Committee (Mayor Cox and Councilman 11alcolm) met with a representative of the School District on this matter. One of the points raised by the School Di strict representati ve was an unwi 11 i ngness to approach the School Board unless there was a rendering of the center and a site plan. The architect who did the original site evaluation was requested to do the rendering and site plan. These documents were available for the Agency to view at the close of the meeting. Addi ti onally, there was interest in the other issues pendi ng between the School District and the City/Agency. The issue of the joint-use yard and administrative building on Third Avenue is very complex and requi res a lot of i nnovati ve thought as to how thi s can be put together. Ideas have been discussed and brainstorming by the school di strict and City staff has occurred both independently and together. Mr. Goss believes this needs to proceed and he would like to indicate this to the superintendent. Instead of the two agencies getting into a negotiating stance, it is very important to continue to work out the ways and means. In addition, clarification of the issue of splitting the cost for the study which would lead to the expansion of the Town Centre II boundari es was requested. By the action taken by the Agency on December 3, 1987, the Redevelopment Agency hi red Rosenow Spevacek Group to conduct that study solely from Redevelopment Agency funds. Mr. Goss referred to an analysis prepared by a consultant hired by a property owner interested in a school site that could possibly accommodate a joint use yard. There is a need to continue with that effort to try to refi ne exactly what woul d go into a joi nt use yard and what the cost mi ght be. Staff recommends that the Agency woul d pay for the cost of that consultant. It has been the understanding of 11r. Goss that the tax increment from the sale of the current school district administration offices would be utilized toward the new administration building cost. It is Mr. Goss' intent to include the above points and clarification in a letter to the superintendent of the School District. b. Status of the Local Coastal Program Revision Mr. Goss referred to an information item in the Agency's packet concerni ng the status of the Local Coastal Program revi si on. He asked the Agency if they would desire to have this item placed on the next agenda. It was the request of the Agency to pl ace it on the next agenda. I I l . "~..,,~.,-,,_.._.....,,-. - --------------.- Redevelopment Agency Minutes -9- Janua ry 7, 1 988 c. Fine Art Feature for Park Square I (Joseph Development Project) Mr. Goss reported that in the Owner Participation Agreement approved by the Agency, it was directed that the developer submit the details for the fine art feature to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. The feature submitted was not approved by the Committee and they asked for a resubmittal. A rendering of the new fi ne art feature approved by the Commi ttee was presented to the Agency by Mr. Goss. Member r~cCandl i ss stated she woul d 1 i ke to see the mi nutes from the Desi gn Revi ew Commi ttee approvi ng the feature. Member McCandl i ss al so suggested a written status report on thi s matter be prepared. 12. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: a. Chairman Cox noted the first Agency meeting in February is scheduled for February 4. There is also a jOint meeting of several divisions of the League of Cal iforni a Ci ti es on the same ni ght. He woul d not be able to attend the Agency meeting on that night and questioned whether or not other members would be present. It was suggested that the Agency meeting date be rescheduled to Wednesday, February 3, 1988 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Conference Room. This will be placed on the next Agency agenda for action. b. Chairman Cox pointed out a lot of the bomanite and concrete surrounding it is breaking up, particularly at Third Avenue and "F" Street. He suggested staff should take a look at this. c. Chairman Cox also asked about the alley improvements behind the Joseph Development property. Mr. Desrochers reported an agenda item for the next Agency meeti ng wi 11 award the contract for the all ey improvements. 13. MEMHERS' COMMENTS Member McCandliss: a. Commented about the need for attention to detail on projects approved by the Council / Agency. There needs to be a process whereby an item is brought back to the Counc il /Agency whenever there is a maj or architectural or design change. b. Suggested it may be appropriate to have a biological consulting firm on retainer to review all matters pertaining to Bayfront deve 1 opment. Mr. Desrochers expl ai ned there are currently resources available to the Agency (Robin Putnam of Community Development and Mr. t1itchell Beauchamp of Pacific Southwest Biological Services) to revi ew matters pertai ni ng to the Bayfront. By havi ng these resources, he felt it is unlikely that an event such as the planting of incorrect plant species in the marsh would occur. L- r Redevelopment Agency Minutes -10- Member Moore: January 7., 1988 a. Reported he took a tour of the southwest portion of the City with the Housi ng Rehabil itati on Admi ni strator, Tony Ci otti. He noted that a lot of progress has been made, however, there is still a great deal to be done. He further noted concern with the alleys in that area. ADJOURNMENT at 9:12 p.m. to the regular meeting of January 21, 1988 at 4:00 p.m. '{'< '/'l'..L'-:r /'-- Paul G. Desrochers Community Development Director WPC 3357H ,,;¡",