Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1988/08/18 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, August 18, 1988 4:15 p.m. ROLL CALL Council Conference Room City Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cox; Members Nader, Moore and McCandliss MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Malcolm STAFF PRESENT: Executive Di rector Goss; Community Development Director Desrochers; Assistant City Attorney Rudolf; Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman; Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam; Senior Administrative Analyst Stokes 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 7/26/88 and 8/2/88 MSUC (Moore/Nader) approve the minutes of 7/26/88 and 8/2/88 as submitted. (The vote was 3-0; Chairman Cox was not present for the vote.) 2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS a. Letter dated August 3, 1988 from Christensen, Scott-Blair Properties, 376 Center St., No. 350, Chu1a Vista, 92010 concerning property located at 311 "F" Street On July 26 the Redevelopment Agency reviewed and denied a request by Mr. Christensen to sell the Agency the parking lot located behind his property at 311 "F" Street for the purpose of providing additional public parking. Consequently, Mr. Christensen is requesting that the Agency consider the sale of approximately 12 feet of Agency-owned property located at 287 Landis Avenue to add to his existing parking lot so that he may increase the number of off-street parking stalls. It was recommended that this item be referred back to staff for further study and negotiations with Mr. Christensen and be brought back to the Agency at a future meeting. MS (Moore/McCand1iss) to refer this item back to staff for further analysis re~arding parking spaces; pros and cons as to cost per space; what would be galned from the in-lieu fee; what would be the loss per space. Responding to questions raised by Chairman Cox, Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman stated an appraisal has not been prepared. He noted the cost for an appraisal would be approximately $250. Chairman Cox asked if the maker of the motion would include directing staff to get an appraisal on the subject property. Member Moore agreed to include this in his motion. Discussion followed concerning the need for an appraisal and what the cost of an appraisal would be. The motion was withdrawn. MS (McCandliss/Nader) to accept staff recommendation. MINUTES -2- August 18, 1988 Executi ve Di rector Goss poi nted out the need to exami ne the pros and cons of purchasing the property rather than evaluating the proposed development plan, including the widening of the property in question. Therefore, staff recommendati on is to refer thi s item back to staff to explore the pros and cons of possibly purchasing this property. Chai rman Cox commented he cou1 d not support the sale of a porti on of a lot purchased for addi ti ona1 parking. However, there are many potenti a 1 benefi ts in look i ng at the per-space cost the Agency woul d have to pay if the lot in question was purchased. The motion carried. The vote was 3-1 with Member Moore opposed. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 3 through 8) 3. RESOLUTION ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SECOND HARBOR ENTRANCE PROJECT TO UNDERTAKE STUDIES ASSOCIATED WITH A SECOND HARBOR ENTRANCE TO THE SAN DIEGO BAY, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE SAME, AND APPROVING EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR ,- Mr. Goss stated that staff recommends this resolution be continued to the next regular meeting in September. MSUC (Cox/Nader) continue this item to the first meeting in September. Mr. Larry Peep1 es, Executi ve Di rector of the Second Harbor Entrance Project, was present and commented he also agrees with continuing this item to the first meeting in September. He noted an Executive Summary of the most recent report was distributed to the Agency on this date. All remaining items on the consent calendar were pulled. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING 9. RESOLUTION 947 ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-89-5 AND GRANTING A LAND USE PERMIT TO TILT VIDEO ARCADE FOR SUITE 2014 LOCATED AT 555 BROADWAY (CHULA VISTA CENTER) Tilt Video Arcade negotiated with Homart Development Company to lease space in the renovated mall just west of the Sears Building. The proposed use requires a land use permit under the Redevelopment Plan. It was recommended that the Agency approve the resolution adopting Negative Declaration IS-89-5 and approvi ng a 1 and use permi t for Til t Vi deo Arcade to locate in sui te 2014 of 555 Broadway, subject to certain conditions. Chairman Cox declared the public hearing open. MINUTES -3- August 18, 1988 Mr. Desrochers reported the proposed location of Tilt Video is next to Sears, north of the Ti re Store and west of the mai n Sears bui 1 di ng. It woul d be fairly well insulated with regard to any potential noise factor or crowd concerns. Member McCand1iss questioned what the operating hours would be for Tilt Video. Mr. Desrochers stated the hours of operation are to be consistent with the operation of the mall. Mr. Jeff Brinton, Attorney representing Tilt Video, 401 "B" Street, Suite 1150, San Diego, 92101, commented that when the application was first submitted the mall hours were not known. The hours were discussed thoroughly with the Project Area Committee where a representative of Homart was present. The mall hours were discussed as being 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 11 :00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. It is acceptable to the applicant to have operating hours consistent with the mall hours. Member Nader questioned the proposed location of Tilt Video, wanting to know if it could be located in a different space. Mr. Brinton pointed out the lease is for a specific space, most of the remaining spaces are already leased to other enterprises. It would be difficult at this point to try to change the location. Chairman Cox asked if members of the public wished to address the Agency on this matter. Mrs. Betty Neumann, 466 "I" Street, Chula Vista, 92010, presented a letter to the Agency noting her opposition to the proposed Video Arcade being located on the "I" Street side of the mall. She feels it belongs on the "H" Street side where there is no residential area. Her main concern is that the proposed use would present a congregating area. The public hearing was declared closed. Responding to Member Nader's questions, Environmental Review Coordinator Reid stated the Pol ice Department was consulted during the Initial Study as to potential concerns. There was no response. Member Nader suggested continuing this pub1 ic hearing to the next meeting in order to get further input from the Pol ice Department and Homart Development Co. Mr. Desrochers pointed out Homart is attempting to rapidly work on tenant improvements due to the schedu1 ed openi ng in October. Mr. Bri nton stated a similar discussion was held at the Project Area Committee meeting. The conclusion was reached that given the closure time and given the fact that there is 24 hour security, problems are not anticipated. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN COX, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent. Chairman Cox commented he does not believe there will be problems, and that Homart has the incentive to insure this business does not become a "hang-out" or a policing problem for the shopping center or the neighborhood. ~- MINUTES -4- August 18, 1988 Member Nader commented he is hesitant to vote for thi s reso1 uti on wi thout taking the opportunity to explore a location that may be more central in the mall and less likely to be a problem. There is a certain amount of crowd noise and electronic noise inherent in this type of operation. Substitute Motion Member Nader offered a substi tute moti on to conti nue thi s item to the next Agency meeti ng. The motion died for lack of a second. MS (Nader/McCand1iss) to amend the resolution to specify the hours of operation as those set forth in discussion. Member McCand1iss commented that she is concerned this business will be a congregati ng poi nt and she wou1 d 1 i ke to see the hours controll ed to some point other than just the hours of the mall. There are different times in the year when the mall hours are later. Chairman Cox commented having the hours of operation consistent with the hours of operation with the mall makes sense so that the entire mall is consistent. The motion failed on a 2-2 vote; Chairman Cox and Member Moore opposed. Member Nader commented he feel s 90% sure thi s faci 1 i ty wi 11 not be a problem for residents in the area. With a short continuance or more informatlon, he could be 100% sure. For this reason, he will vote no at this time. Vote on the Resolution The resolution passed and was approved. (The vote was 3-1; Member Nader opposed. ) 10. a) RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT WITH CHULA VISTA INVESTORS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MIDBAYFRONT AREA OF THE BAYFRONT PROJECT b) RESOLUTION APPROVING CERTAIN LOAN AGREEMENT, OPTION AGREEMENT, PROMISSORY NOTES AND DEEDS OF TRUST In December of 1987, William Barkett was introduced to the Community Development Di rector as a potenti al investor in the Bayfront. The meeti ng with Mr. Barkett was subsequent to the Agency's di scussi on to purchase the Bayfront holdings from Chu1a Vista Investment Company (CVIC) interests. While the Agency was rejected by the latter, William Barkett and his associates (Chu1 a Vista Investors) proposed that they make an effort to purchase the subj ect property based upon thei r des ire to develop in a manner consi stent with the Agency's aspirations. For the past three weeks negotiations between both parties have taken place. These discussions have reached the point whereby agreements are to be considered relative to the acquisition of the Midbayfront project area by Chu1a Vista Investors. MINUTES -5- August 18, 1988 Mr. Goss noted that due to the fact that many of the documents were just presented to the Agency, it is recommended that these resolutions be continued to Tuesday, August 23, 1988. He suggested that the Agency focus on the Loan and Option Agreement and Deed of Trust, Assignment of Leases, Rents and Profits and Security Agreement - Acquisition Loan. Mr. Goss introduced Marcia Scully, Attorney with McDonough, Holland & Allen, and Stephen Delaney of TopMark, Inc. Both Ms. Scully and Mr. Delaney were part of the Redevelopment Agency/City's negotiating team regarding this property transacti on, along with Mr. Desrochers, Lyman Chri stopher, and Mr. Goss. Mr. Goss further reported that an escrow is going on at this time between Mr. Barkett and his firm, Chu1a Vista Investors, and Chu1a Vista Investment Company regarding the acquisition of the property on the Bayfront. The Agency/City has been talking with Mr. Barkett about the possibility of loaning money with regard to this transaction. Mr. Goss pointed out there are some drawbacks to Agency participation. There are uncertainties regarding design, what is to be built when, what the mitigation credit value would be, and what the developer pro forma would be. A Negotiation Agreement is before the Agency. It is the intent of this agreement to meet a certain schedule in which to develop an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA). An OPA will respond to the above concerns. Regarding the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement, Mr. Goss reported it has provisions that the Redevelopment Agency may terminate negotiations at its sole discretion, and give a 120-day notice to call the loan at any time during the two-year negotiating period. CVI also has the ability to cancel the agreement if not satisfied with the progress of the negotiation. CVI agrees not to subdivide or sell the land during the exclusive negotiation period. There are two loans involved in this transaction, a long term loan and a short term loan. The short term loan is for $3.25 million. The loan is to provide time for Rohr Corporation to consummate their purchase of +10 acres of bayfront property from CV I. - Wi th regard to the long term loan, the Redevelopment Agency woul d agree to loan CVI $4.3 million in order to complete the site acquisition. The loan is for a lO-year peri od, however, the loan may be call ed at any time duri ng the fi rst two years provi ded 120 days noti ce is given. One of the ma in terms of the loan is that the Redevelopment Agency has a si x month opti on to purchase up to 40 mitigation acre credits. As long as the loan is outstanding $1.6 million (estimated cost of the 40 mitigation credits) would carry a zero interest rate, and the balance would carry an 8% interest rate. The Redevelopment Agency would have a first right of refusal for a two year period on the sale or acquisition of the remaining 40 mitigation credits. Any sale of mitigation credits by CVI would be used to reduce the Redevelopment Agency loan. MINUTES -6- August 18, 1988 Mr. Goss noted there are two issues that are still outstanding. One of the issues is the "call" provision where the Agency can call the loan with a 120-day notice. This provision for the Acquisition Loan would expire on August 31, 1990 or when the parties enter into an Owner Participation Agreement. There has been concern on the part of the purchaser of the property as to whether or not the Agency shou1 d be ab1 e to call the loan if the Agency exerci ses its opti on to purchase the miti gati on credi ts. The other outstanding issue deals with Rohr Corporation. Mr. Desrochers stated Rohr is currently working with Mr. Barkett to acquire the +10 acres south of F Street west of Bay Boulevard. The documents have been strûctured so that Rohr's need to acquire the property is taken into consideration. Respondi ng to Member McCand1 i ss' questi ons regardi ng bankruptcy, Ms. Scully stated the Agency wou1 d not be subject to goi ng to bankruptcy court. The Agency would be in first position on the land. The loan is approximately 25% of the value of the property which is a low 10an-to-va1ue ratio in the market place. Mr. Delaney stated in his opinion the documents will give the Agency the adequate protection. Mr. Desrochers stated an attachment to the Excl usive Negoti ati on Agreement (time schedule) has not as yet been prepared. He suggested the attachment be submitted within a 3D-day time period to the Agency for approval. Mr. Desrochers further suggested it may be more effi ci ent to have Mr. Barkett (CVI) prepare the LCP amendment and then have it reviewed by City staff. This will be explored further. Respondi ng to Member McCand1 i ss I questi ons regardi ng the rep1 anni ng of the Midbayfront, Mr. Barkett stated staff has apprised him of the Agency's desires. The plan to be proposed by CVI will not change the amount of square footage that has al ready been approved in the current LCP; the bul k is bei ng changed, not the amount. It will not effect the 404 permit. MS (Cox/McCand1iss) to continue this item to Tuesday, August 23, 1988 at 5:30 p.m. Member McCand1iss commented it is critical that there is enough time to review these documents, therefore, she wou1 d 1 i ke to have the abi 1 i ty to conti nue this item to Thursday if needed. Mr. Tom May, attorney for CVI, pointed out the documents are substantially in final form at this point. They are intended to reflect all of the substantive deal points that have been agreed upon, except one. Any changes in the documents between now and Tuesday wou1 d be mi nor. It is hi s preference that the transaction be approved on Tuesday. Mr. May also noted that he would like direction from the Agency on the one open point at this meeting. Mr. May stated he has Agency exercises its resisted this idea. proposed that the call provision be option on the mitigation credits. Mr. Delaney stated he is strongly removed once the City staff has opposed to this MINUTES -7- August 18, 1988 position. The Agency is paying for the option to purchase mitigation credits. By exercising the option and then losing the right to call the loan, it wou1 d be a 10 year loan on a development whi ch is sti 11 gray in terms of knowing what will actually occur. Mr. Barkett stated he would agree to the City's staff position on this issue. Vote on Motion: The motion passed unanimously. The Agency recessed at 6:47 p.m. The Agency reconvened at 7:00 p.m. 11. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Jim Mason, 1925 Rue t~ichelle, Chu1a Vista, addressed the Agency. He stated he and his wife submitted a proposal on August 1 to the Community Development Department pertai ni ng to an interim use of the Coti ja Taco Shop property located at the corner of Third Avenue and H Street. He read the letter into the record. The proposed interim use would involve constructing and operating a small attractively designed flower shop on the subject property. MSUC (Cox/Moore) refer thi s item to staff and the Town Centre Project Area Committee for a report to be brought back to the Agency in September. PULLED ITEMS 4. RESOLUTI ON APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH VAN DYKE & ASSOCIATES FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MASTER PLAN FOR MARINA VIEW PARK The Parks and Recreation Department received proposal s from approximately 20 1 andscape architectural firms in response to a Request for Proposal s for the preparation of a master plan for Marina View Park. A three member selection committee reviewed the proposal s and selected four firms to interview. A separate four member panel i ntervi ewed these fi rms and se1 ected Van Dyke & Associates because of its park design experience, competitive fee and familiarity with the project site. It was recommended that the Agency adopt the resolution approving the agreement with Van Dyke & Associates. Member McCand1 iss referred to the staff report where it states the Port District will be approached to contribute toward the cost. She asked why the Port District had not been approached earlier? Senior Administrative Analyst Stokes stated originally staff was looking at preparing a master plan for just the City-owned property. Once discussions began, it was determined the entire site (including Port District property) should be looked at. Chai rman Cox commented it wou1 d be presumptuous of the Agency to approve a contract which would involve making plans on Port District property without MINUTES -8- August 18, 1988 havi ng any contact or communi cati on wi th the Port Di stri ct. He suggested giving direction to staff to talk with the Port District with this regard; also, discuss with the Port District the possibility of jointly funding restrooms. Member McCand1 i ss noted a concern that a master p1 an is proposed in whi ch financial guidelines are not given at the beginning. She suggested developing guidelines asking the firm to submit alternative options (the ideal option and one the government can appropriately fund). MSUC (Cox/McCand1 i ss) conti nue thi s item to September 1 with di recti on to staff to communicate with the Port District and explore their interest in pursuing participation in development of a master plan for Marina View Park and adjoining Port properties. Also, explore with the Port District the question as to whether or not they would be willing to look at jointly funding restrooms. Member McCand1 i ss asked that i nc1 uded in the moti on di recti on be gi ven to staff to try and develop either a work plan statement or policy statement that wou1 d develop a basic park and a "Cadi 11 ac" park, gi vi ng opti ons to the Agency. Chairman Cox agreed to include this in the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. RESOLUTION 948 INVOKING SECTION 15 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAN DIEGO SHIPBUILDING AND REPAIR, INC. AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO TERMINATE SAID LEASE FOR DELINQUENT LEASE PAYMENTS The Redevelopment Agency extended the lease agreement with San Diego Shipbuilding and Repair for property at the foot of "F" Street until January 31, 1989. Under Section 16 of the existing lease, the lessee is in breach of the contract due to lack of lease payments for the past several months. It was recommended that the Agency invoke Secti on 15 of the 1 ease agreement, seek recovery of past due rent payments, and terminate said lease if lessee does not remit delinquency payments by September 1,1988. Mr. Desrochers stated the May and June payments have been received. A letter was received on this date from San Diego Shipbuilding and Repair. The letter states the July payment will be submitted by August 31 or sooner, the August payment will be submitted by September 15, and the September payment submitted no later than September 30 with the remaining payments to be kept current. Chairman Cox commented the Agency should be informed in a more timely manner when lease payments are running behind (do not wait four months). CHAIRMAN COX OFFERED THE RESOLUTION, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent. Member Nader clarified that this action would not require this establishment to vacate pri or to a further report to the Agency. He wou1 d 1 i ke to see a MINUTES -9- August 18, 1988 report as to what actions have been taken to e1 iminate the del inquency, and the pros and cons involved in moving ahead with terminating the lease. Mr. Desrochers stated that is the intent of the staff recommendation. He noted a report will come back to the Agency at the first meeting in September. MS(Nader/Moore) amend the resolution to specify sentence of the resolution as the deadline payments. Responding to Member Moore's question, Member Nader stated this would allow the opportuni ty to see what progress has been made in mak i ng up del i nquent payments by the September 1 Agency meeting. A date would be in place to take action if payments remain delinquent. The intent of the motion is not to give Mr. Gurnee unti 1 September 30 to pay, it is to conti nue with the current arrangement but to gi ve the Agency one more look at the s i tuati on before the lease is terminated. September 30, 1988 in the last foe ",a",,, of "~Ii,,",,, Chairman Cox suggested modifying the date change to September 2. This would allow the Agency to review the matter on September 1. Member Nader stated he would be comfortable with this change. The motion carried. (The vote was 3-0; Member McCand1iss abstained.) CHAIRMAN COX OFFERED THE RESOLUTION AS AMENDED, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and was approved. (The vote was 3-0; Member McCand1iss abstained.) 6. RESOLUTION 949 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE "CONSTRUCTION OF PARKING LOT AT 230 & 232 CHURCH AVENUE IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CAD On August 8, 1988, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for "Construction of Parking Lot at 230 and 232 Church Avenue in the City of Chu1a Vista, Cal ifornia". Funds for this project were budgeted in FY 1986-87. The work includes removal and disposal of existing improvements, grading and excavati on, install ation of asphalt concrete pavement, curbs, gutter, sidewalk, driveways, stamped concrete, lighting system, automatic irrigation system, block walls, planting and other miscellaneous work shown on the plans. It was recommended that the Agency accept the bids and award the contract to Southland Paving, Inc. in the amount of $106,160.57. Mr. Goss reported this parking lot will provide 29 parking spaces including 2 handicapped spaces. Acquisition costs of $240,000 and construction costs of $106,000, for a total of $346,000, will mean a cost of $11,931 per space. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN COX, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously. MINUTES -10- August 18, 1988 7. RESOLUTION 950 AUTHORIZING THE AGREEMENT WITH WALKER SCOTT COMPANY, FRED BORST, AND JAGINCO, INC. FOR SHARING THE COST OF SECTION 404 PERMIT PROCESSING AND MITIGATION PLANNING IN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT AREA On March 15, 1988, the Redevelopment Agency approved Leedshi ll-Herkenhoff, Inc. as the consultant to provi de engi neeri ng and envi ronmenta1 consulti ng services for the widening of Otay Valley Road. A portion of the Agency's agreement with Leedshi11-Herkenhoff includes a wetland delineation, design of wet1 and mi ti gati on projects, and preparati on and processi ng of Secti on 404 permits for both the road widening project and proposed development south of Otay Valley Road which would require fill in the wetland. Because the wetland mitigation pl anning effort and permit processing for the area south of the roadway will primarily benefit Walker Scott Company, Fred Borst, and Jaginco, Inc., property owners south of Otay Valley Road, the proposed agreement provides a structured schedule for reimbursement of those efforts. Responding to Member Nader's questions, Senior Community Development Speci a1 i st Putnam stated the Wa1 ker-Scott partnership is bei ng requested to fund 75 percent of the work. The remai ni ng 25 percent wi 11 be recovered because it will cover the permit processing and mitigation planning for the road wi deni ng project. Ms. Putnam further noted the road wi deni ng project directly impacts the Walker Scott parcel from the north, and the wetlands directly impact the parcel from the south. Responding further to Member Nader's questions regarding cost recovery of the Otay Valley Road widening project, Ms. Putnam stated once the assessment district is set up and the financial plan is establ ished, either the City or the Redevelopment Agency may end up payi ng a porti on of the cost for road widening. Mr. Desrochers added that all of the Owner Participation Agreements require the developer to sign an agreement stating that they will participate in the assessment district. Ms. Putnam stated the Otay Valley Road widening project is a $7 million project. It is anticipated that the Redevelopment Agency through tax increment fi nanci ng may be payi ng part of the bi 11 (tax increment financing may not be adequate to cover the costs). The Agency will be participating in the process of finding a mechanism to cover the cost of the road widening. Member Nader commented he would like to see a the road widening project will be recovered expected from redevelopment and fees owners/developers. plan that insures full by a combination of from benefiting cost of revenues property RESOLUTION OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN COX, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and approved unanimously. MINUTES -11- August 18, 1988 8. REPORT ON REQUEST TO INCLUDE THE DESIGN OF ROADWAY AND THE BRIDGE LOCATED SOUTH OF THE PLANNED ROAD WIDENING PROJECT IN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S EXISTING DESIGN AGREEMENT On July 26, 1988, the Agency approved guidelines for the preliminary design of Otay Valley Road. Those recommended guidelines were the result of a series of four public and staff issue identification meetings. At that meeting Chi 11 i ngworth Corporati on, owner and developer of Otay Ri 0 Busi ness Park, located west of the southerly extension of Otay Valley Road, requested that the Agency include the roadway and bridge that connect Otay Rio Business Park with the Redevelopment Area in the existing roadway design agreement that the Agency has with Leedshi11-Herkenhoff, Inc. It was recommended that the Agency accept thi s report and not allow the desi gn of the north-south 1 ink of Otay Valley Road to be included in the existing design contract. Chairman Cox stated he does not want to do anything to slow down the work that is contemplated for Otay Valley Road, however, if this effort could be put on a duel track with the overall project, he would not object. Ms. Putnam stated the anticipated alignment of the north-south portion of Otay Valley Road at the bridge will be within 300 feet of a 1988 nesting location for Least Bell's Vireos. It is anticipated that at this distance a formal Section 7 consultation will be requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and granted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A Section 7 consultation has 1 engthy federally-mandated time frames that were not accounted for in the original schedule for the project because a Section 7 consultation is optimistically not anticipated for the widening of the east-west portion of Otay Valley Road. There are numerous potential complications involved in completing the consultation process which could result in delaying the project. MS(McCand1iss/Nader) to accept staff recommendation. Mr. Paul Robi nson, an attorney representi ng Chi 11 i ngworth Corporati on, 600 B Street, San Diego, addressed the Agency. He stated his client is disappointed with the City Manager's recommendati on. However, they do not want to del ay the improvements to Otay Valley Road. The problem is that the Chillingworth property, the only property in Chu1a Vista that is benefited by these improvements, does not generate enough trips by itself to warrant the burden of mill ions of dollars worth of pub1 ic improvements. There are two other options they would like to pursue. (1) Seek the City of San Diego's support in accelerating or at least distributing some Facilities Benefit Assessment funds for those improvements earl i er than ori gi nally p1 anned; (2) Re 1 i ef in the development agreement that is required by the approval of the tentative map, from the 7100 threshold average daily trips for this project. The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Cox stated he would like to see staff establish liaison with the City of San Diego on this subject. MINUTES -12- August 18, 1988 12. DIRECTOR'S REPORT a. Status Report - Chula Vista Shopping Center Mr. Goss reported the flooring in the old mall will be completed this weekend. They are beginning the new mall paving (flooring) and the erection of new steel canopies for the Sears building. The escalator is in and the elevators are going in. The two new parking lots at the old Boys Club site are ready to be paved. They are ready to sl urry coat (refi ni sh) the Sears parking lot and they are still on schedule for October 27 opening. Mr. Goss further reported they were doing work in the evening (early morning hours) wi th apparently very 1 itt1 e compl ai nts. Agency members noted concern that this activity may be in violation of City ordinances. MSUC (McCand1iss/Nader) that staff monitor the construction carefully and take whatever action necessary to control night time construction. 13. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman Cox noted the Cotija Taco Shop site has cement that is partially rai sed whi ch needs to be taken care of. Mr. Kassman reported the contractor has been asked to put a coat of asphalt over the site and clean up the site. Chairman Cox a1 so asked for a status report on the Landis Avenue property purchased by the Agency. Mr. Kassman reported that the bui 1 di ngs have been released to the demolition contractor. Interviews will be held next Tuesday to select a firm for the design of a parking lot. Chairman Cox suggested before awarding the contract, a decision should be reached with regard to Mr. Chri stensen' s proposal with regard to 287 Landi s Avenue. 14. MEMBER'S COMMENTS Member Moore commented regarding the Orange Tree Homeowner's Association and the Acquisition Association. He believes it is time to have only one committee. It is his understanding the Acquisition Association is remaining involved until the fire hydrant installation is completed. If this is so, it should be changed. MSUC (Moore/Cox) refer to staff for a report on Orange Tree Acquisition Association/Orange Tree Homeowner's Association; who has responsibility for the removal of the green house and the street improvements; are there other obligations. Recessed at 7:03 p.m. to a meeting of the City Council. MINUTES -13- August 18, 1988 Reconvened at 7:35 p.m. Adjourned to Closed Session at 7:35 p.m. to discuss potential acquisition of property located at 273 Alvarado (Robert Craig Martin, owner); 354 Church Avenue (Dennison Investment Trust, C/O Charles T. Dennison, owner); and acquisition of bayfront property (CVIC/Barkett). Adjourned at 8:00 p.m. to the regular meeting of August 23, 1988 at 5:30 p.m. ---'\- .y (. '''''\ . pau':~:';d~s (~ Community Development Director WPC 3736H