Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1988/02/02 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Tuesday, February 2, 1988 8:30 p.m. Council Conference Room citv Hall ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cox; Members Nader, Malcolm, Moore and McCandliss MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Executive Director Goss, Community Development Director Desrochers, Assistant Community Development Director Gustafson, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman, Assistant City Attorney Rudolf The Redevelopment Agency met in closed session prior to the meeting to discuss potential acquisition of property located within the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area: 280 Landis Avenue (Mr. Christensen, owner); 282 Landis Avenue (Dr. Lopez, owner); and 281-285 Landis Avenue (Mr. Grant, owner). Because members of the Design Review Committee were present to discuss i tern number 4 on the agenda, Communi ty Development Director Desrochers suggested this item be discussed first. 4. RESOLUTION 904 APPROVING THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PLANS FOR THE EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF THE CHULA VISTA CENTER The Homart Development Company and their architects, the Jerde Partnership, presented plans for the expansion and renovation of the Chula Vista Shopping Center to the Design Review Committee (DRC) on January 25, 1988. Further design information was submitted to the DRC at their February 2 meeting held prior to this meeting. Mr. Tom Gourguechon of Homart Development Company introduced Mr. Mike Wester, the Project Architect, and Mr. Stan Hathaway, Senior Designer, from the Jerde Partnership. Mr. Wester gave a slide presentation giving a background of his firm as well as a design concept orientation. Using renderings of the design plans, Mr. Hathaway discussed the plans for the expansion and renovation of the Center. Regarding the exterior, Mr. Wester stated a critical issue was how to combine the existing structures with the new structures. The entire project will read as a new center. Agency Minutes -2- February 2, 1988 Because of the fact Homart does not have direct control over the remodeling of the Broadway and Sears buildings, it was necessary to be careful in presenting any remodeling efforts for these buildings. Hopefully, they would be of a type that would tie into the intent and design used in the entire center. Homart is trying to use their influence in seeing that that happens. Mr. Wester further stated subtle, muted tones have been selected for the exterior color scheme so that the buildings themselves act as a background to the actual storefronts. The Jerde Partnership along with Homart have been working to develop a set of tenant design criteria that will address the design guidelines that will be used by the individual tenants in the design of their storefronts so that they all tie together and will comprise a comprehensive whole. The tenant criteria manual will be coming before the DRC for review at a later date. In reference to the Broadway and Sears buildings, Chairman Cox asked if the proposed design (remodeling of the exterior) had been submitted to Broadway and Sears. Mr. Wester responded that Broadway and Sears have reviewed the proposal but have not approved anything to date. Mr. Gourguechon commented the design concept was presented to the Sears Corporate office in Chicago on a schematic basis. They gave a tacit approval of this design concept and said to proceed to the next level of design (design development). Mr. Kevin O'Neill, Chairman of the Design Review Committee, stated as of this meeting the DRC has approved the interior elevations. The exterior elevations will be coming back to the DRC for further review on two areas: (1) the entry-ways on Fifth Avenue (both the north and south elevations) and the entryway south elevation of the Broadway; the landscaping and site work need to be addressed for these entryways. (2) The exterior storefronts in the existing mall need to be brought to the DRC for approval. Member Malcolm asked if the DRC feels the remodeling of the exterior of the Broadway and Sears buildings is an integral part of the Center's revitalization. Mr. O'Neill responded yes, it is not necessarily a matter of completely re-doing the exterior (as in the case of the Broadway). Sears will need to have substantial work because of the metal work on the face of the building. Member Malcolm noted concern about the importance of also remodeling the inside of the existing stores. Mr. O'Neill stated the architecture (exterior) was a large concern to the DRC. The interior was a concern to the DRC but more of a marketing concern for Homart. The site work is presenting more difficulty with regard to the developer and the DRC coming to agreement. The DRC is concerned with Agency Minutes -3- February 2, 1988 the Pacific Bell building, the OscojVons building and Firestone building. In response to concerns regarding the vacant Firestone building, Mr. Gourguechon stated Homart is obligated to break through the leasehold interests now in place. There are a series of leases between Homart as landlord, J. C. Penneys, and J.C. Penney's sub-leasing to Firestone, which involves every J.C. Penny Auto Service Center in the country. Member Malcolm commented the Firestone building should be demolished. It is a very unattractive building which will detract from the renovated center. Mr. Gourguechon agreed, however, there are restrictions on that building which prevent Homart from taking possession immediately. Mr. Gourguechon further noted the property involved in the expansion and renovation of the center was tremendously encumbered by all types of leases and subleases and various ownerships. Homart ended up acquiring nine separate parcels and in addition, approximately six lease-holds. This was all contemplated in the original project pro forma. Responding to Member Moore's questions, Mr. O'Neill stated with regard to the disposition of the satellite buildings, the DRC agreed to defer this matter as part of the site review. Mr. 0' Neill has asked Homart to prepare a time table for the disposition of these buildings. Mr. Gourguechon stated with regard to the J.C. Penney's TBA, Firestone is actively trying to sub-lease it. If Firestone does sublease it, there is not much that Homart would be able to do to the building. Regarding the VonsjOsco building, because it would be impacted by the fourth department store, Homart is precluded from entering into long term leases. There has been recent interest from Vons to remain in place and to have a lease extension for up to two years. The Pacific Bell building presents problems in that the building has hazardous material in it. The cost for removing the hazardous material will be approximately $300,000. A use needs to be determined for the building if it is decided to redevelop the building. The Burger King will go through minor renovation (green house and improved landscaping). Bob's Big Boy has just completed an interior renovation. The postal kiosk was relocated in order to not interfere with traffic circulation. Mr. 0' Neill stated the motion approved unanimously by the DRC at their meeting earlier on this date was as follows: Approve the architectural design plans as presented in the revised drawings subject to (1) further review of entryways in the landscaping context; and (2) exterior storefronts or Agency Minutes -4- February 2, 1988 non-storefronts in the existing mall area would have to come back to the DRC for approval. Mr. 0' Neill further stated at the previous meeting of the DRC a motion was approved stating Homart was given approval of the structural "footprints" of the buildings so that they could go ahead with their working drawings and permits to continue construction. Mr. Desrochers stated that he and the Planning Director suggested in the Agenda statement that no further permits be issued until the landscape plans are submitted. Ms (Cox/Moore) approve the architectural plans as presented and as approved by the Design Review Committee subject to the applicant coming back with a more specific treatment of the entryways and landscaping for the entryways (two entries on Fifth Avenue and the new southerly entry into the Broadway); and subject to final approval of the exterior storefront (or non-storefront) treatments on the existing mall. Mr. Gourguechon noted his concern that it is important to pull permits in a timely manner. He wanted to make it clear that Homart will be requiring building permits subject to their future review. Homart would like to be in a position to pull their building permits so they can release the contractor by the middle of February subject to review of the technical documentation. Chairman Cox stated that is not in conflict with the motion on the floor. Mr. O'Neill stated withholding the Certificate of Occupancy would be more than adequate to insure resolution of the landscape and circulation plans. Mr. Desrochers reported the landscape/site plans are due February 12. A preliminary set was delivered to the Planning Department in mid-November. Chairman Cox stated he would like to include as part of the motion that until there is a resolution of the landscape and circulation plan, the Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued. The motion was approved. voting no.) Member Malcolm noted concern with the fast-track method of moving this project along. Procedures normally followed are bypassed in order to move the project along quickly. (The vote was 4-1; Member Malcolm Agency Minutes -5- February 2, 19BB Responding to Member McCandliss' questions regarding the interior remodeling of Sears, Mr. Gourguechon stated Homart will pay for part of the remodeling of the interior of Sears and Sears will pay for part of it. The remodeling will be done by Sear's interior merchandising people. Member Malcolm spoke regarding the gas line and noted concern that because of the fast track timeline, opportunities to negotiate with SDG&E were overlooked. He does not want to forsake improvements because of the fast track timeline. Member McCandliss pointed out that at the end of the DDA negotiations it was determined that the gas line was not going to be removed. Further responding to Member McCandliss' questions regarding the mitigation issues, Mr. Gourguechon stated initial design drawings were prepared in a direct response to addressing the particular issues identified in the Environmental Impact Report. Approximately 13 revisions were prepared until the goal of the City's Engineering Department was reached. Concurrently there were discussions with a property owner, Harriet Stone, who had concerns about losing an additional three feet of sidewalk. The result was that all of the improvements originally designed for the south side of "H" street were relocated to the north side of "H" street. This meant that everything that Homart had done from Fourth Avenue to the trolley tracks had to be redesigned. The redesign ultimately forced Homart to reorder a signal arm. Since the schedule was mandated by the City's Engineer Department about how Homart sequenced the off-site work, Homart was required to have the new signal arm before the existing signal could be disassembled. Mr. Don Gladhorn of the Homart Development Company reported that he is scheduled to meet with property owners on February 3 in order to start the demolition of the block wall and removal of trees on the northwest corner of Fourth and "H" Street. Chairman Cox stated there was one additional item the Agency wanted to discuss with the Design Review Committee. There is a concern with some of the projects that have come before the DRC and that the end result is different from what was approved. An example being the Adma Project on "F" Street. Member McCandliss commented when a project is presented and approved because of the good architectural features, there needs to be a way to maintain the integrity of the project. Mr. O'Neill stated unfortunately there is not a staff member available to maintain a checks and balances on proj ects. Agency Minutes -6- February 2, 1988 Planning Department Staff or DRC members will review projects to see if it meets the spirit of what was approved. Member McCandliss stated there needs to be a more formalized process of reviewing projects. Mr. 0' Neill stated a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued if substantial changes from what was approved has been made to a project. Member McCandliss commented the "leverage" needs to occur earlier in the construction of a project. Mr. O'Neill stated one thing that would be helpful to the DRC is that if a rendering is brought to the Agency/Council and is approved because of the rendering, then nothing less than that should be brought to the DRC. MSUC (McCandliss/Nader) refer to staff to take whatever remedy is possible on the ADMA proj ect building, and to review the process to insure something like this does not happen again; do not issue a final approval of the project before coming back to the Agency/Council. (The vote was 4-0; Chairman Cox was not present for the vote. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 1/21/88 MSUC (Moore/McCandliss) approve the minutes of 1/21/88 as submitted. 2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS a. Letter dated 1/20/88 from William E. Claycomb regarding Orange Tree Mobilehome Park. b. Letter dated 1/22/88 from William E. Claycomb regarding Orange Tree Mobilehome Park. Mr. William E. Claycomb, 521 Orange Avenue, #118, Chula Vista, was present and addressed the Agency. He presented an additional letter dated 2/2/88 which he read into the record. The letter was a response to an information item prepared by the Community Development Department regarding Mr. Claycomb's previous letters. Mr. Mo Wamburg, 521 Orange Avenue, #37, Chula Vista, stated his concerns regarding an additional coach which he purchased approximately a year ago at Orange Tree Mobilehome Park. He originally purchased it for his daughter, however, because she is not a senior citizen she is not permitted to live in the park. He discovered after purchasing the coach that the gas and electric meters had been removed and the association refused to put the meters back in. It was approximately 5 months before the meters were put in. He >--...--..---- Agency Minutes -7- February 2, 19B8 has been unable to sell the coach. He is not permitted to lease the coach to another party. Mr. Wamburg wanted to make the Agency aware of this situation. MSUC (Cox/McCandliss) refer this item to staff to review the information presented by Mr. Wamburg and report back to the Agency. Responding to Mr. Wamburg's concerns regarding the age restriction set for Orange Tree, Assistant Community Development Director Gustafson pointed out there are state law problems with changing the age restriction. His understanding of the law is that a mobilehome park can have an age restriction to senior park or a family park. Mr. Claycomb commented that Meadows Mobilehome Park is an adult park (not senior or family). GSMOL maintains that a senior park is illegal; senior housing excludes mobilehomes. Chairman Cox stated staff will be asked to take a look at Meadows Mobilehome Park in terms of adult versus senior restrictions. Member Nader clarified the referrals to staff on this issue that staff is not to do specific private legal research. Rather, generally find out what the law is in relation to the problem brought to the Agency's attention. Also, the long term impact of how it affects the legal rights of parties in this conversion generally and how that might impact the Agency as policymakers. 3 . RESOLUTION 905 AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR BAY FRONT LITIGATION SERVICES, EXTENDING AN AGREEMENT WITH DALEY & HEFT FOR ONGOING LEGAL SERVICES RELATIVE TO BAYFRONT ACQUISITION, EXTENDING AN AGREEMENT WITH WARNER & STACKPOLE FOR ONGOING LEGAL SERVICES RELATIVE TO THE BAYFRONT, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR The Agency has been involved with the acquisition of certain Bayfront properties; namely, Merziotis, Cappos, Hitchcock, and Hobel. Ongoing legal services of Dennis Daley of Daley & Heft have been retained since 1985 related to these acquisitions. Additional funds are necessary in order to continue those services. On July 16, 1987 the Agency authorized hiring special counsel to assist in the Sierra Club v. Marsh lawsuit. Funds need to be appropriated for further retention of services provided by Lee Bishop of Warner & Stackpole. Agency Minutes -8- February 2, 19BB Mr. Desrochers informed the Agency that the Habel case has been postponed to December 7. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN COX, the reading of was waived by unanimous consent, passed and unanimously. (The vote was 4-0; Member Malcolm present for the vote.) the text approved was not 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. 6. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: None. 8. MEMBERS COMMENTS: Member McCandliss: a. Redevelopment of the "F" Street Shopping Center Member McCandliss asked that this be continued to the next meeting. Member Moore: a. Relocation Mobilehome Park Member Moore commented he would not be interested in relocating old, used trailers and coaches to a relocation park. He prefers to build a relocation park with four- plexes. Member Nader stated he is not ready to rule out any option for the relocation mobilehome park at this point. ADJOURNMENT at 10:55 p.m. to the regular meeting of February 18, 1988. ~- . srochers Community Development Director