HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1988/01/21 (2)
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Thursday, January 21, 1988
4:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Council Conference Room
City Hall
Chai rman Cox; Members Nader, Mal colm, Moore and
McCandliss
None
Executive Director Goss, Community Development
Director Desrochers, Assistant Community Development
Director Gustafson, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman,
Principal Community Development Special ist Putnam,
Senior Community Development Specialist Buchan,
Assistant Agency Attorney Rudolf
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 1/7/88
MSUC (McCandl i ss/Moore) approve the mi nutes of 1/7/88, as submi tted. (The
vote was 4-0; Member Malcolm abstained.)
2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
a. Letter dated 1/13/88 from Will i am E. Cl aycomb, 521 Orange Avenue,
#118, Chula Vista regarding conversion of Orange Tree Mobilehome Park
and Agency purchase of unsold spaces
MSUC (McCandl i ss/Cox) to trail thi s i tern to di scuss wi th Item No. 12 on the
agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 3 through 9)
Items 3 and 5 were pulled from the consent calendar.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 4, 6, 7, 8 AND 9 WERE OFFERED BY MEMBER MALCOLM, the
reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved
unanimously.
4. (a) RESOLUTION 898
(b) RESOLUTION 899
APPROVING LIEN AGREEMENTS TO SECURE THE COST OF
ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN "G" STREET AND PARKWAY
WEST OF THIRD AVENUE
ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
"CONSTRUCTION OF TOWN CENTRE ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS
WEST OF THIRD AVENUE BETWEEN "G" STREET AND
PARKWAY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA"
Agency Mi nutes
-2-
Janua ry 21, 1987
The Town Centre alley west of Third Avenue between "G" Street and Parkway
serves the commerci al property along Thi rd Avenue and the R-3 zoned property
on "G" Street and Parkway. Funds were included in the 1987-88 Capital
Improvement Program for the improvement of thi s all ey. Thi s all ey is bei ng
constructed on the basi s that the property owners share in one-half of the
construction cost and the Redevelopment Agency sharing one-half of the
construction cost plus all engineering, inspection, surveying, etc. The
all eys east and west of Thi rd Avenue between "E" Street and F" Street were
constructed in a similar manner. This project includes installation of P.C.C.
alley approach, sidewalk ramp, asphalt concrete paving, excavation and
grading, and preservation of property.
It was recommended that the contract be awarded to Sil ver Strand Contractors
in the amount of $21,354.50.
6. RESOLUTION 900
APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH KATZ, HOLLIS, COREN AND
ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE VERIFICATION OF TAX
INCREMENTS FOR THE BAYFRONT, TOWN CENTRE I, TOWN
CENTRE II AND OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREAS
The Agency has hired the firm of Katz, Hollis, Coren and Associates, Inc. in
the past-to conduct an analysis of the tax increment revenues for the Bayfront
Redevelopment Project Area. At this time the Agency was requested to contract
with the fi rm for a current verifi cati on of the tax increments recei ved from
the four redevelopment project areas.
7. REPORT: SALES TAX REVENUE AS RESULT OF HOME DEPOT OPERATIONS
In February 1985, the City approved an agreement providing financial
assi stance to Home Depot for site improvments in order to assi st the company
in locating a new facility at "H" Street and 1-805. The agreement with Home
Depot requi red the company to repay funds provi ded by the City if thei r sal es
volume did not reach certain stipulated levels. Information concerning the
first year's operation was provided.
8. RESOLUTION 901
APPROPRIATING $6,000 FOR SERVICES RELATED TO AN
EXISTING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
REGARDING THE AGENCY'S MOBILEHOME ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
On June 24, 1986, the Redevelopment Agency approved a Cooperati ve Agreement
with the County of San Diego regarding the development and implementation of
the City's Mobilehome Assistance Program and appropriated $15,200 to pay for
technical services provided by the County. The County developed the City's
Mobilehome Assistance Program manual, and has implemented the City's program
at Orange Tree Mobilehome Park. Because Orange Tree has experienced several
delays, the number of County staff hours estimated for completion of Orange
Tree has proven insufficient. Additional funds are necessary in order for the
County to complete the work involved in processing low and moderate income
loans at Orange Tree Mobilehome Park.
Agency Mi nutes
-3-
January 21, 1987
9. REPORT: Annual Report to the State
The State Health and Safety Code, Community Redevelopment Law section,
requires that all redevelopment agencies submit an annual report to the State
Controller and Department of Housing & Community Development. The report is
to contain the annual audit, a work program, recommendations to the
Legislature, a description of activities affecting housing and displacement,
and achievements in comparison to the previous year's work program.
The annual audit was performed by the firm of Touche Ross. No findings or
audit exceptions are noted.
END OF CONSENT CALENOAR
Chai rman Cox suggested di scussi ng Item No. 12 at thi s time due to the 1 arge
number of people in attendance regarding this matter.
12. RESOLUTION 902
APPROVING CERTAIN ACTIONS REGARDING ORANGE TREE
MOBILEHOME PARK CONVERSION, INCLUDING APPROVING
AGENCY-FINANCING OF MOBILEHOME SPACE PURCHASES THROUGH
BANK OF AMERICA AND "AGENCY RESOLUTION TO BORROW",
DIRECTING STAFF TO INCLUDE IN THE APPROPRIATE SPACE
PURCHASE DOCUMENTS A CLAUSE WHICH WILL VOID THE
AGENCY'S PURCHASES AND RELIEVE THE AGENCY FROM ALL
LIABILITY IF HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION ADOPTS ANY RULE
PROHIBITED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
(DRE), APPROVING RENTAL POLICY FOR AGENCY-OWNED
SPACES, APPROVING MARKETING POLICY FOR RESALE OF
AGENCY-OWNED SPACES, APPROVING ROLLOVER OF ORANGE TREE
ACQUISITION LOAN FUNDS TO DOWN PAYMENTS FOR AGENCY
SPACE PURCHASES, AUTHORIZING CHAIRMAN, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO SIGN
ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
On December 17, the Agency accepted a status report on the Agency purchase of
unsol d spaces at Orange Tree Mobilehome Park, gi vi ng conceptual approval of
several recommendati ons for accompli shi ng and managi ng those purchases and
asking for additional discussion of possible Agency purchase of coaches.
Assistant Community Development Director Gustafson stated the resolution
before the Agency would formalize the action approved in principal at the
December 17 meeti ng. The ultimate result wi 11 be the purchase of the unsol d
spaces at Orange Tree Mobilehome Park.
t~r. Gustafson further stated the proposed rental policy is in response to the
Agency's desire to have a fully articulated policy so that there could be no
misunderstanding when the Agency owns the spaces and has lessees. With regard
to the marketing policy, it will be a clear indication of how the Agency
intends to market the spaces purchased at the point they are to be resold.
Agency Mi nutes
-4-
January 21, 1987
The rollover of Orange Tree Acquisition loan funds deals with money that has
already been loaned to the Acquisition Association for the acquisition of the
park. After the low and moderate income loans were made, a surplus of funds
exists. This action would rollover those funds to make them available to make
the down payments for the purchase of the unsold spaces.
t~r. Gustafson reported that all of the low income loans at the park have
closed. Those people who have waited so long and had the greatest need have
now had the opportunity to purchase their space.
There was a proposal originally by the park to require a sell-together policy
where the coach and space woul d have to sell to the same party. The intent
was to create an owner-occupancy environment in the park. There were concerns
about that policy that was proposed to be put in the park's rules and
regulations on the part of the City Attorney's Office which felt it could be a
violation of antitrust law. All parties came up with an alternative of an
owner-occupancy rule to put in the park's rules and regulations. The
Attorney's Office was concerned that that rule did not appear in the CC&R' s
for the park. In checking with the Department of Real Estate (which approved
the CC&R s), it was determined that such a rule would be in violation of the
policies of the DRE. If such a rule would be instituted at the park, the DRE
would disapprove any further sale of spaces at Orange Tree. This was
discussed with the consultants for the Park and the Park Association and they
del i vered a 1 etter on thi s date stati ng they do not intend to put in the
park's rules and regulations any rules which would be counter to the policies
of the DRE. For the security of the Agency. 1 anguage woul d be put into the
escrow documents that would void the purchase of the unsold spaces by the
Agency and relieve the Agency from any liability if the park did put in such a
rule.
Mr. Gustafson pointed out there are changes to the Rental Policy (Exhibit B to
the resolution). The changes are as follows:
B. Lease agreements will contain annual renewal options as long as
lessees are occupying spaces.
D. The Agency will pay possessory interest taxes assessed against coach
owners for the use of the land as long as initial lessees are
occupying spaces in owner-occupied coaches.
Mr. Gustafson referred to the Agency Marketing Policy (Exhibit C to the
resolution). He stated there was a discussion in the Agenda Statement about a
point raised by Member Moore at the December 17 meeting which was should there
be some provi si on for the Agency to be able to buy coaches of the 1 ifetime
lessees. In response to that concern, point 9 in the marketing policy states
that it mi ght be the i ntenti on to, and the Agency coul d make offers to
lessees, to purchase their coaches under certain circumstances based on
individual appraisal of the circumstances. However, it could not be required.
..-----..---.-.----
Agency Mi nutes
-5-
January 21, 1987
Responding to Chairman Cox's concerns, Mr. Gustafson stated subleasing of the
coach could be considered in hardship cases subject to approval by the
Agency. The Agency has the right to prohibit and/or approve subleasing of
coaches on a reasonable basis.
Member Moore noted a concern that there shoul d be a maximum time with regard
to a potential sublease.
Member Malcolm pointed out this is a policy that will need to be revised and
situations addressed as they arise. He suggested the marketing pol icy be
reviewed by a committee and that the rules on marketing be established up
front.
Member McCandliss stated there are a number of
complicated and need to be looked at with expertise.
Mobilehome Issues Committee, and/or other experts in
issues.
issues that are very
She suggested that the
the field, review the
Mr. William E. Claycomb, 521 Orange Avenue, Space 118, Chula Vista, addressed
the Agency. He noted concern with Exhibit C to the resolution (I~arketing
Policy) as it was originally structured. As far as the resolution is
concerned, he suggested the Agency eliminate item No.5 and No.7.
Mr. Gustafson encouraged the Agency to proceed wi th as much as they are
comfortabl e wi th because there is some time sensi ti vi ty to purchasi ng the
spaces. Bank of America is not in a fully covered situation with regard to
the acquisition loan. He suggested approving the policies on a provisional
basis subject to further consideration.
Respondi ng to Member McCandl i ss' questi ons with regard to the cl ause whi ch
woul d voi d the Agency's purchases, Assi stant Agency Attorney Rudolf expl ai ned
the cl ause is i ncl uded only as a stop gap. It woul d free the Agency from its
legal obligation and financial obligation.
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY ~1EMBER NADER AS At~ENDED, the readi ng of the text was
waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously.
MSUC (Malcolm/Moore) refer the entire item for further review by staff and
more specifically the marketing policy/sales policy to the Mobilehome Issues
Committee for a report back on refinement. (Mr. Claycomb's letter is included
for review.)
Member McCandliss stated she would like to see a report on the full picture of
what has occurred with regard to this project.
13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Ken Bodily, 521 Orange Avenue, Space 67, Chul a Vi sta, member of the
Acqui si ti on Associ ation for Orange Tree, expressed hi s appreciati on of the
actions taken by the Redevelopment Agency with regard to Orange Tree
Mobilehome Park.
Agency Mi nutes
-6-
Janua ry 21, 1987
Ms. Susan Hawkes, Continental Associates, 7970 Convoy Court, San Diego, also
expressed her appreci ati on of the acti ons taken by the Redevelopment Agency
with regard to Orange Tree Mobilehome Park.
10. REPORT: STATUS OF LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM REVISION
The Agency's coastal consultant is preparing a revised Local Coastal Program
(LCP). The organi zati on of the proposed revi sed LCP differs si gnificantly
from the certified LCP. The certified LCP is structured similarly to ordinary
planning documents utilizing two documents, a land use plan and a specific
plan. The revised LCP consolidates both elements into a single document that
is organized to address Coastal Act policies.
Community Development Director Desrochers stated the purpose of this report is
to inform the Agency of the issues and receive input prior to the distribution
of the preliminary draft document to Agency members.
Respondi ng to Chai rman Cox's questi ons pertai ni ng to combi ni ng the 1 and use
plan and specific plan into a single document, Norbert Dall (coastal
consul tant) stated by submitting a single document there is a much greater
chance of having it approved by the Coastal Commission. Also, the answer is
received from the Coastal Commission more quickly.
The proposed revisions to the LCP were addressed individually as follows:
1. Name changes for several geographical areas of the Bayfront were proposed
by the Agency's coastal consultant. It was staff's recommendation to keep
the original names.
MSUC {McCandliss/Nader} to accept staff recommendation.
2. The potential alternatives to LCP provisions approved by the Agency on
August 20, 1987, were incorporated into the draft revi sed LCP. These
alternatives were formulated in an effort to reach a compromise that would
be acceptabl e to the USFWS and settl e the Sierra Cl ub Lawsuit. It was
staff's recommendation that the alternatives not be included in the
revised LCP at this time.
MSUC (Moore/Malcolm) accept staff recommendation.
3. The Agency's coastal consultant proposed that the City consider requesting
the State legislature to include the Sweetwater and Otay River Valleys in
the Coastal Zone as one of the implementing actions and programs in the
revised LCP.
Mr. Dall stated everywhere in the State Coastal Zone, comparable river valleys
are in the Coastal Zone. The two exceptions are the Sweetwater and Otay River
Valleys. Public access and recreational opportunities as well as availability
of State funds {which are only available for Coastal Zone areas} were reasons
for this proposal.
Agency Minutes
-7-
January 21, 1987
MS (McCandliss/Malcolm) not to include in the revised LCP the proposal to
include the Sweetwater and Otay River Valleys in the Coastal Zone.
Executi ve Di rector Goss suggested that the Agency di rect staff to further
evaluate this issue. This was included in the motion.
Chai rman Cox stated he woul d 1 i ke to know what funds woul d be avail abl e as a
result of including the river valleys in the Coastal Zone as opposed to what
funds would not be available to the Agency.
The motion passed unanimously.
4. LCP Amendment #3, the exception to the grading prohibition for the inland
parcel and reconfiguration of the 1-5 on- and off-ramp, was tabled for
refi nement and i ncl usi on in the revi sed LCP. Staff recommends that a
revision of the grading prohibition and the reconfiguration of the 1-5 on-
and off-ramp be considered in the revised LCP.
MSUC (Cox/Nader) accept staff recommendation. {The vote was 4-0; Member
Malcolm was not present for the vote.}
5. a g Other proposed revisions were listed and it was staff's
recommendation to further review the proposals.
With regard to the proposal for a number of new facilities to provide visual
access to the shoreline, Mr. Dall stated in order to facilitate implementation
of the LCP, it is desirous to put as much specificity with detail in the
submittal to the Coastal Commission especially public access and recreational
opportunities.
Member McCandl i ss stated she woul d 1 i ke to have fl exi bi 1 ity in determi ni ng
where the facilities to provide visual access to the shoreline would be
located. Mr. Dall explained that if specific sites are not put into the LCP
submi ttal, it woul d requi re an amendment to add si tes; al so, there is a ri sk
that the Coastal Commission could make the finding that the City does not meet
the precise public access component of what is required to be in a local
coastal program.
Ms. Putnam commented that putting a lot of money into specific facilities at
this time may not be wise because there are a lot of planned programs already
that are very expensive. It may be appropriate to take a closer look at how
much the existing programs are going to cost to implement, how much the parks
are gOing to cost to develop, and then decide if it is desirous to have
additional improved facilities.
With regard to 5 (d) Mr. Desrochers stated the consul tant has suggested a
policy requiring applicants for Coastal Development Permits to pay a fee per
square foot of development area to operate and maintain the visitor-serving
and environmental education programs identified in the LCP as a replacement
for the Bayfront Open Space Assessment District. He stated it is an
Agency Minutes
-8-
January 21, 1987
interesting suggestion, however, he noted concern about the continuing
maintenance, and perhaps the original suggestion {Open Space Assessment
District} may be more appropriate. Mr. Dall stated the reason for suggesting
the alternative was that the City has approved a number of developments in the
Coasta 1 Zone without i nsti tuti ng the assessment di stri ct or requi ri ng those
parties to pay into it. The question of whether or not the City would be able
to create the assessment district in the future without protests exists
because a number of property owners and developers have proceeded al ready
without being required to participate. It is an attempt to create another
legal vehicle to generate the necessary funds. Mr. Desrochers stated the
staff recommendation is to further consider this item.
MSUC (Cox/McCandliss) accept staff recommendation on 5 a-g. (The vote was
4-0; Member Malcolm was not present for the vote.)
Mr. Dall stated there is a significant technical problem in the drafting of an
LCP that is certifi abl e under the Coastal Act, and that is by 1 aw it has to
take into account all feasible alternatives. He pointed out that direction
from the Council/Agency is needed on several issues in a subsequent public
hearing. {l} The question of whether there should be a destination hotel on
Gunpowder Poi nt needs to be addressed. (2) The questi on of the 1 east tern
nesting area on the D Street Fill needs to be addressed. (3) The dedication
of the +188 acres on the Sweetwater Marsh Complex to a public Agency. (4) The
question of the Tidelands Avenue crossing across the Sweetwater Marsh needs to
be addressed. {5} The question of designating the entire D Street Fill to the
same land use designation as is in the Port District (marine related) thereby
allowing for the transfer of density for development back to the Midbayfront.
(6) The question of the Montgomery annexation area that is in the Coastal Zone
and should it be addressed in the LCP revisions.
MSUC (Cox/Nader) accept the report on the status of the Local Coastal Program
Revision. (The vote was 4-0; Member Malcolm was not present for the vote.)
3. REPORT: DESIGN FOR IDENTIFICATION SIGNS AND BUS SHELTER FOR THE NATURE
INTERPRETIVE CENTER PARKING LOT
On December 3, 1 987, the Agency approved the concept recommended by staff for
Nature Interpretive Center identification signage and a bus shelter for the
NIC parking lot. The design for the identification sign and shelter, and
locations were presented for Agency consideration.
Chairman Cox pOinted out the detail for the sign has cattails which is a plant
not commonly found in the marsh and suggested the cattai 1 s be repl aced. He
also suggested bike racks be included at the parking lot.
Chairman Cox further stated he would like the bus shelter to include a message
board. It would also be helpful to have night lighting for at least the sign
and perhaps lighting for the bus stop area.
Agency Mi nutes
-9-
January 21, 1987
Senior Community Development Specialist Buchan stated it is planned to have a
combined bus shelter and message board. With regard to the bike rack, a
22-space rack was suggested by Dr. Neudecker whi ch wi 11 be incorporated into
the plan. Ms. Buchan further reported staff has looked into the availability
of a transformer to the parking lot site to provide electricity for lighting.
The cost for bringing in electricity would be approximately $2,400 - $3,000.
Member Moore suggested looking into battery operated lights versus going into
the expense of bringing in electricity since this is a temporary site.
MSUC (McCandliss/Moore) approve staff recommendation as amended (modifying the
cattails, including the bike rack, message board, looking into battery
operated lighting). (The vote was 4-0; Member Malcolm was not present for the
vote.)
5. RESOLUTION 903
ACCEPTING THE DEED FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 496 THIRD
AVENUE IN CHULA VISTA AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY OF THE AGENCY TO RECORD THE SAME
On November 6, 1986, the Redevelopment Agency approved Resolution 743
determining the public necessity for acquiring property located at 496 Third
Avenue {known as the Cotija Taco Shop}. Subsequent to that action, the Agency
and property owners of the subject parcel agreed upon a purchase price and the
property transaction is in escrow. Before escrow could close, it was
necessary for the Agency to accept the deed.
Member McCandl i ss asked questi ons regardi ng the shari ng of responsi bil ity if
hazardous contami nation was found on thi s site. Assi stant Agency Attorney
Rudolf explained that as the owner of the property, the Agency would be liable
for costs involved {since there is not a clause in the escrow instructions
concerning the previous owner's liability}. There would be a potential
lawsuit against the previous owner(s}. Mr. Desrochers stated staff researched
the chain of title and it appears that there is no concern about the previous
uses with regard to hazardous waste.
RESOLUTION OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN COX, the reading of the text was waived by
unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously.
11. REPORT: ~ENDMENT OF THE TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO EXPAND THE
PROJECT BOUNDARIES
At the meeting of January 7, 1988, the Redevelopment Agency reviewed a
proposal to expand the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area to include
six additional sites including the Sweetwater Union High School District
offi ces. Foll owi ng di scussi on, staff was di rected to i nvesti gate addi ti onal
areas which might be included in the expanded Project Area.
Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman reported two private sites were added. They
were Al's Trailer Park on Broadway and the Dixieline Lumber site. Because
these sites were contemplating redevelopment in the near future, it was felt
AgenCY
1 87
Minutes
-10-
January
21,
that they coul d be incorporated into the Redevelopment Pl an and the Agency
would have the benefit of tax increments. Mr. Kassman further reported staff
consi dered addi ng addit i ona 1 property but after di scussi on with the Pl anni ng
Department and consultants, it was noted that there would be a considerable
planning time involved which would prevent completion of this redevelopment
amendment by the end of August and capturi ng the tax increment in the next
fiscal year. The School District is depending upon the tax increment in order
to partially finance their new district offices on Third Avenue. Staff is
recommending that staff concurrently start to look at the western part of the
City for redevelopment purposes.
Chai rman Cox questi oned the Dixi el i ne Lumber site in that only half of the
site could be considered developable because of the presence of wetland area
and steep slopes on the site. If only half of it is developable why woul d the
entire site be included (a waste of approximately 15 acres)? Mr. Desrochers
responded that the wetl and area bi sects the si te and it is staff's i ntenti on
to petition the County to "charge-off" only the developable acreage.
Chairman Cox also questioned the northwest corner of Broadway and "E" Street
site. He pointed out there is not a plan to redevelop Cornell Plaza,
therefore, why is it included? Mr. Desrochers stated the only reason would be
in the event of street widening or for street improvement purposes on
Jefferson; however, Cornell Plaza could be excluded.
Member McCandliss commented with regard to the two new private sites selected
that she hopes the sites have been looked at very carefully and that there is
not any question of any connections to City personnel, City Councilmembers,
etc., where it could be challenged that these sites were given special
consi derati on.
Chairman Cox suggested i ncl udi ng additi onal publ i cly-owned property in the
expanded redevelopment area. One specific site he would like included is
Eucalyptus Park.
MSUC (Cox/Moore) to include Eucalyptus Park into the expansion of the Town
Centre II Redevelopment Plan. (The vote was 4-0; Member Malcolm was not
present for the vote.)
MSUC (Cox/Moore) accept staff report as amended. (The vote was 4-0; Member
Malcolm was not present for the vote.)
14. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Executive Director Goss stated that in response to questions rai sed at the
Tuesday, January 19 Council meeting, a memo was prepared regarding the Homart
Development Company status of street miti gati on constructi on. I~r. Goss
reported that permits have been pulled by the contractor. Construction work
has been delayed pending arrival of ordered equipment. It is anticipated that
electrical work will begin shortly. Regarding the ~as main issue, Homart and
SDG&E are in agreement as to the process that is belng followed. The line was
not proposed to be relocated; SDG&E agreed that it should not be relocated.
A§ency Mi nutes
1 87
-11-
January 21,
Mr. Goss stated that he intends to direct that on each Agency agenda, under
Director's Report, that an update on the Chula Vista Shopping Center be given.
Mr. Desrochers reported that the Nature Center levee road has been
refinished. It is now a weather-proof, safe road.
15. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
a. Need to Reschedule the February 4, 1988 Redevelopment Agency Meeting
MSUC (Nader/r~cCan) reschedul e Agency meeti ng to Wednesday, February 3, 1988,
at 7:00 p.m. {The vote was 4-0; Member Malcolm was not present for the vote.}
15. MEMBERS' COMMENTS
Member McCandl i ss asked that a di scussi on on the i ntegrati on of the downtown
with the proposed remodeling of the "F" Street Shopping Center be placed on
the next Agency agenda.
Mr. Rudolf reported that the trial date for Hobel vs. Redevelopment
Agency/CVIC is set for February 16.
ADJOURNMENT at 6:35 p.m. to the regular meeting of Wednesday, February 3, 1988
at 7:00 p.m.
. {J;ì(.
I. . -'Lþ{i,(,
Pául G. esrochers
Community Development
Di rector
WPC 3387H