Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1976/07/01 MINUTES OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursday July 1, 1976 A regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, with the following Members present: Chairman Hamilton, Members Cox, Hyde, Egdahl, Hobel Members absent: None Staff present: Acting Executive Director Asmus, Attorney Clifton Reed, Director of Community Development Desrochers, City Attorney Lindberg, Assistant City Attorney Beam, Community Development Coordinator Henthorn Chairman Hamilton opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Member Hyde and seconded by Chairman Hamilton that the minutes of the meeting of June 3, 1976 be approved, copies having been sent to each member. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Hyde, Cox, Hamilton Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Members Egdahl, Hobel Members Hobel and Egdahl abstained due to the fact that they were not present at that meeting. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 50 - The City Council, on May 6, 1976, considered and ap- ADOPTING THE BAYFRONT proved the budget covering the Administrative Fundi PROJECT FISCAL YEAR Redevelopment Agency - Bayfront in the amount of $19,750 1976-77 AND DIRECTING (Fund No. 240, Activity No. 2410) . THE RELEASE OF FUNDS FROM FISCAL AGENT The resolution formally adopts this budget and directs the Fiscal Agent to remit the amount of that budget to the Agency for expenditures in accordance with the budget. Resolution offered Offered by Member Hobel, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Hobel, Hyde, Cox, Hamilton, Egdahl Noes: None Absent: None -148- Redevelopment Agency Minutes July 1, 1976 EXECUTIVE SESSION It was moved by Member Egdahl, seconded by Member Hyde and unanimously carried that an Executive Session be called for reasons of pending litigation. The Agency recessed at 7:40 and the meeting reconvened at 8:00 p.m. 3. PRESENTATION OF FINAL Mr. Jim Hutchinson, representing the engineering firm DRAFT REPORT OF WILSEY & of Wilsey & Ham, consultants for the Bayfront project, HAM presented the Agency with a report of their work. Mr. Hutchinson discussed the aerial maps included in their survey work; soils analysis of the area; the preliminary plans for streets and utilities, sewer lines, Gas and Electric; and the grading plans. Mr. Hutchinson commented that the Developer's Report, and the EIR prepared by Westec Services is now in draft form. The overall plan, according to Wilsey & Ham, appears to be in conformance with the Coastal Commission and Redevelopment Agency plans. The draft EIR will be distributed to the various entities for the review process and public hearings within the next month. Tidelands Avenue Mr. Hutchinson noted the recommended alignment for Tidelands Avenue which they feel meets most of the problems from a land use standpoint, grading, drainage, and traffic. Member Egdahl asked if the intersection of Tidelands Avenue and "E" Street, as proposed, is anticipated to be a problem intersection as far as left turns and cross traffic go. Mr. Hutchinson indicated it will be a congested inter- section but not as bad as "E" Street and Broadway. The reason for the proposed alignment is that it allows less left turns than the configurations previously proposed. In answer to Member Egdahl's query, Mr. Hutchinson said the through street flow will be from Tidelands Avenue down "E" Street. Member Egdahl: Is the fill and culverts satisfactory to the govern- mental groups that are concerned and suggested that that section of Tidelands be on pilings? Are they agreeable to fill and culverts? Hutchinson: It is not going to be the easiest one to fill. I think they would prefer to have it on pilings all the way through. It is definitely more expensive - about $2,000,000. Member Egdahl: That's the economic impact you were talking about -- significant! -149- Redevelopment Agency Minutes July 1, 1976 Hutchinson: . . With the freeway widening here ("E" Street ramps), interchange here (I-54), you have several ramps coming down this area (the marsh between the SDG&E right of way and freeway) and it will kind of wipe that out any- how. Member Egdahl: In your opinion, no matter how this area may be devel- oped, whether industrially or residentially or commer- cially or recreationally, this is the best alignment from your engineering standpoint for Tidelands Avenue? Hutchinson: Yes. We worked with the Sedway Cooke Plan from the beginning, but of course, we looked at other studies: housing, industrial and commercial . . . and tried to determine the total impact needs for Tidelands Avenue and grading and utility requirements. Member Egdahl: To put in another way, regardless of what the land use might be, for this general area, this is the best alignment for Tidelands Avenue? Hutchinson: Yes, it is. Member Hobel: One question on Tidelands Avenue. The way you have it designated, it crosses "G" Street marsh -- could you speak to that - environmentally - will that "G" Street marsh be protected? Hutchinson: There were several ways we could get from here to there ("G" Street to "F" Street) and we looked at all of them, I think. Of course, one of the problems is that Tidelands Avenue exists for some distance right here (from "J" Street to "G" Street) - and how to curve into it and join it safely. "G" Street crosses it right here, so based on the need for the road and impact on the "G" Street marsh, we felt that by loca- ting here (to the eastern sector of the marsh) - and one of the mitigating measures in the EIR is to pro- vide an enhancement down in here (west) when the road was to go through. However, by doing that and provid- ing other connections to the Bay for that marsh, it will avoid some problems right now where the drainage from Rohr coming in here (southern sector) - it goes right through the marsh, and you actually end up with a better connection than you have leaving the marsh . . disconnected from the Bay. Chairman Hamilton: That part to the east that might be destroyed is off- set by expanding it and improving it . . . Hutchinson: We feel it would. Member Hobel: One other question in the northwest quadrant - every- thing outside the red line is in control of the Port -150- Redevelopment Agency Minutes July 1, 1976 District. Is that the area in our plan that is designated as marine . . . Hutchinson: Well actually all along there (the Sweetwater Channel). . . Mr. Desrochers: It is marine-related commercial. Hutchinson: There is to be a bridge going over the Sweetwater Channel so it will be quite high and dropping down. The access road into the Area C . . feeds in to City and the Port District lands. Member Hyde: On the basis of your studies, Jim, do you see any major dislocations or modifications to the Sedway Cooke plan will be necessary as a result of the engineering truths that have been revealed? Hutchinson: The main problem we found in trying to adapt this to the Sedway Cooke plan to this was in the Area C which we have the soils condition requiring . say before you put smaller buildings on, you have to remove and recompact and compact soil and surcharge that area for quite some time before you can build. Before you put any larger buildings on, the foundations become quite heavy and expensive to build and for taller, larger buildings, it would require piling . . . I think any precise plan in there would have to take that into account. We also located a similar area in here (along Bay, north of "F" Street to Vener Pond) where the fill is very thin; it would be difficult to build in that area, too. Member Hobel: So what you are saying is that all of that white area up there (Area C) even though some of it is under the Port District . . do the same conditions exist there? Hutchinson: Yes . . . we have about four borings there . . fairly uniform. As far as the fill is concerned, if not com- pacted, it would have to be removed and compacted. But another part of the problem is the bay mud under- neath this fill on top of the bay mud . . . in this location (south side of Area C) about 45 feet deep. The bay mud is even here, though . . Mr. Desrochers: Jim, can that be mitigated by, say recompacting and surcharging it. Hutchinson: Right . the cost of the foundation depends on the size of the structure. Mr. Desrochers: Then you would probably recommend that we build no more than two stories. You'll have that in your report - the type of structure and the time in which to prepare the soils and cost. -151- Redevelopment Agency Minutes July 1, 1976 Attorney Reed: Jim, getting back to that point. We are talking about . . height . . engineering costs . . . r'm wonder- ing if that will be economically viable . . what they can afford to build given the engineering costs, the construction costs. That has to relate to the entire plan itself. Hutchinson: Definitely. In order to build in Area C, the costs of compaction plus import fill as well as the time . . . from six months to two years. Right now, we can ex- pect three feet to four feet of settlement. If you build a sewer line without doing that, it would point this way and by the time it is fully settled, it would be either flat or point in the other direction. Member Cox: How many lanes in Tidelands Avenue? Hutchinson: Four lanes - two each way plus a parking lane. Member Cox: Is there any hookup with Route 54 or any other . . . Hutchinson: Yes, let me show you. (Showed the alignment on the map) The on-ramp for Route 54 would come right out here and you also have a ramp going to I-5 right out here. Member Cox: The material used in Area C . . . is that all dredge material? Hutchinson: Yes. It is my understanding that it is sort of a dike fill generally in this area and then the spoils from the dredging would pump in here and kind of fill up the "doughnut." Member Hobel: Jim, when you are talking about fill, what quality are you talking about? What would have to go? In other words, that two-way interchange and everything that's built, is that the type of fill (utilize for recompaction) that you can, say, put on top of that . Hutchinson: It could be worse . . . that is, recommending that it be a grandular material, no play in it . . especially in the upper layers . . well, you don't need top soil but it should be pretty good fill. There's the possibility that if everything were to work right, . . you might get some dredging but there are a lot of uncertainties in that. More than likely you can get it from some project that needs grading . . . Mr. Desrochers: Also the flood control project would have a large amount of dirt and Area C might be a mutually bene- ficial disposal site. Hutchinson: Yes, for the channel. . . -152- Redevelopment Agency Minutes July 1, 1976 Chairman Hamilton: I move that we accept the report. Member Egdahl: I second that. The motion carried unanimously. 4. PRESENTATION OF FINAL The consulting firm of Gruen Gruen & Associates was DRAFT REPORT OF GRUEN hired by the Agency on November 25, 1975 to assist GRUEN & ASSOCIATES with the marketing program for the Bayfront. Dr. Claude Gruen discussed his report indicating that he wished to have Wilsey & Ham look at it, since during the past few months, as environmental needs were noted, soil conditions, prices have been changing back and forth. What he is talking about is Grading Plan D, and the report is more of a fact sheet noting public costs and fiscal impact and in terms of private feas- ibility and dollar impact to the developers. Talking about the marketing end first, Dr. Gruen said his view of market is the user, and there is a link about finding out about hotel use and convincing the investor of the righteousness of that. Dr. Gruen indicated that his report is a very detailed financial analysis on an area by area basis in which they looked at the public costs and without public cost, to permit the area to be developed environmentally, or at all, then to look at the private side would mean nothing. Dr. Gruen stated that they are talking about public costs of $14,500,000 for the project as a whole. In answer to Member Egdahl's question, Dr. Gruen declared that the private developer, without public funds, would have an extremely difficult time to de- velop - impossible in some cases. Dr. Gruen then reviewed alternate uses for each sub- area giving estimates of the construction costs - after the public costs are in. He emphasized that the figures quoted are for the project as completed (the second part of the analysis shows an area by area breakdown as opposed to a summary). To be prudent financially, you must begin with those elements that can be built with a front end of both a minimum of public and private costs so the City would not get trapped with early years' losses before the final result comes in in the end. The project looks good, both from a public and private point, if the City does a good job of phasing. In answer to Member Hobel's query, Dr. Gruen said he used 9\% for the private sector and 7\% for the public. -153- ....- Redevelopment Agency Minutes July 1, 1976 Industrial-Office Dr. Gruen declared that there is a lag in office-in- dustrial because there are a great many of these office and industrial facilities that were built when a shell was built for $12 . . and people are renting them now for $.20 to $.25 a square foot. This project does not become feasible until you can rent this space for $.30 a square foot per month. Report by Mrs. Nina Gruen Mrs. Gruen discussed the Visitors and Housing aspect. -- Visitor Aspect In March and April, surveys were conducted at the Visitor & Convention Bureaus at 1-5, 1-805 and at Mission Bay. The survey does have a bias because the people that stop at these visitors' centers are not the most sophisticated travelers (those who travel by air and have travel agencies plan their trips do not use the information center). The impact of 1-805 on 1-5 showed a decrease of 31% trips (on 1-5). The I-80S traveler differs from the 1-5 traveler as he is much more likely to reside in Los Angeles, will spend the night in Mexico, does not spend an appreciable amount of time in Chula Vista, and is less likely to spend the night in a motel or hotel, and if they do, they would spend less money than the 1-5 traveler. One-third of those surveyed, however, stated they would stay in a hotellmotel in Chula Vista at the prices quoted. Mrs. Gruen then reviewed the occupancy and vacancy factors in the City. She discussed the border cros- sings and the amount of Mexican dollars being spent in Chula Vista. She added that if Chula Vista got only 1% of the border traffic, it could fill 500 rooms a night, and she felt it could reach 1,000 very easily. This is provided the "rubber tires" are out, provide for a man-made beach between the hotels and waterfront things the tourist expects. Housing Aspect Mrs. Gruen indicated that the type of housing that would be viable on the bay front would be one which markets at a minimum of $50,000. People who can afford these homes ($20,000 yearly income) would demand 385 of these units by 1980. As to the homes on the bayfront, the survey showed it would sell to families of four or less and the demand would be for 280 between now and 1980 and 435 between 1980 and 1985. The Bayfront would have to absorb 83% of 700 units of this housing pool- or if 400 units were built, the bay front would have to get 47%. -154- Redevelopment Agency Minutes July 1, 1976 General discussion Discussion followed regarding the average income of the people living in Chula Vista, the make-up of the families, the types of people and their current demands for housing. Dr. Gruen noted these demands and reiter- ated that the same is not true for office and industrial. Report accepted It was moved by Chairman Hamilton, seconded by Member Cox and unanimously carried that the report be accepted. 5. REPORT ON LITIGATION - Special Counsel Reed reported on the pending litigation BAYFRONT at the Executive Session. 6. REPORT ON UTILITY Commµnity Development Director Desrochers reported that UNDERGROUNDING - in reviewing the plans for the Lawless Detroit Diesel BAY BOULEVARD facility, it was found that the Bay Boulevard area (BAYFRONT) between "F" Street and "G" Street does not lend itself to immediate undergrounding. San Diego Gas & Electric has cited several problems which exist and indicate that the undergrounding could best be handled on an overall development basis. Mr. Desrochers recommended that the Agency direct the staff to prepare the necessary documents to permit deferral of undergrounding of utilities along Bay Boulevard from "F" to "G" Street subject to the pro- visions for deferral contained in the City Code. Report accepted It was moved by Chairman Hamilton, seconded by Member Hyde and unanimously carried that the staff recommenda- tion be accepted. Chairman Hamilton stated he is abstaining from voting and discussion,on the advice of the Attorney, due to a possible conflict of interest. 7. STATUS REPORT - In a written report to the Agency, Community Development TOWN CENTRE Director Desrochers stated that 1) the budget for the Town Centre Project will be placed on the August agenda of the Agency; 2) work on the Design Manual by the Planning Department is progressing well; 3) the County has amended their architectural agreement to include the additional 40,000 square feet of office space in accordance with the Board of Supervisor's direction, and over 400,000 square feet of floor area will even- tually be constructed at this Third and "H" Street site. Court complex Member Hobel questioned the status of the County Regional Court complex. Attorney Lindberg suggested a Council Conferen~be called in regard to the design elements. -155- Redevelopment Agency Minutes July 1, 1976 Motion for Conference It was moved by Member Egdahl and seconded by Member Hobel that the Agency request the City Council within the third week of July to discuss the court complex. Motion carried The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Egdahl, Hobel, Hyde, Cox Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Chairman Hamilton Mr. Hutchinson's report Mr. Hutchinson stated that his firm is in the second phase of a three phase program with the County. The first was to determine the needs for the court; second is the pre-architectural phase. The Agency clarified the motion stating that they wished to have the county people present at the meeting - not necessarily the Board of Supervisors. Motion for liaison It was moved by Member Hyde and seconded by Member Egdahl that the Agency request the City Council to ask the Board of Supervisors to approve of an estab- lishment of a liaison contact between the City of Chula Vista staff and the County staff that will be respon- sible for the South County Center. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Hyde, Cox, Egdahl, Hobel Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Chairman Hamilton Acting Executive Director commented that his office receives reports from the County from time to time regarding the progress of this development. He will send these to the Agency members in the future. Motion to accept report It was moved by Member Hyde and seconded by Member Cox that the report be accepted subject to the comments made. The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Members Hyde, Cox, Egdahl, Hobel Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: Chairman Hamilton 8. RESOLUTION At the meeting of May 6, 1976, the Agency Secretary DESIGNATING THE DIRECTOR presented a letter of resignation to the Agency. On OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT June 3, 1976, this matter was considered and continued AS SECRETARY TO THE AGENCY to this meeting. -156- Redevelopment Agency Minutes July 1, 1976 Acting Director Asmus asked that the matter be continued until such time as the Executive Director can be present to make comments. Motion for continuance It was moved by Member Hyde, seconded by Member Egdahl and unanimously carried that this matter be continued to the next Agency meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Hamilton adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. -157-