Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1976/10/07 MINUTES OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Hel d Thursday October 7, 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 Chambers, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue with the following Members Present: Chairman Hamilton, Members Hyde, Cox, Hobel Members Absent: Member Egdahl Staff Present: Executive Director Cole, Attorney Reed, Community Development Director Cole, Community Development Coordinator Henthorn Vice-Chairman Hyde presided over the meeting until Chairman Hamilton arrived. l. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Member Cox, seconded by Member Hobel and unanimously carried that the minutes of the meetings of September 2 and 28, 1976 be approved, copies having been sent to each member. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - According to State law, each Redevelopment BIENNIAL REVIEW OF CITY'S Agency is required to conduct a biennial public REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS hearing in order to review and evaluate the progress of the jurisdiction's program. Execu- tive Director Cole, in a written report, discussed some of the major accomplishments that have materialized to date. He explained that $3.4 million in bonds had been sold relative to the Bayfront area. Obstacles still to be overcome included the lawsuit of the AT&SF Railroad and the institution of litigation by Sam Vener. One of the signifi- cant problems is the Coastal Legislation. It is hoped that work can begin on consideration of our project as a pilot program. He stated that the City was concerned somewhat on the delays to the J Street Marina but hopefully mitigating measures can be resolved. Presentation of Director Desrochers presented an unsigned audit Byafront Audit on the Bayfront Project; Mr. Wayne Carroll, the City's Auditor, will have a complete statement next week. The audit shows that the project is solvent and that the City was most fortunate to sell the bonds when it did, not only because of the bond market but because of the tax increments at that time. -174- Vice-Chairman Hyde questioned whether it is time to have a quarterly statement of funds involving the Redevelopment Agency accounts. Discussion ensued regarding whether a computer printout was necessary or whether a brief summarization would do. Motion made It was moved by Vice-Chairman Hyde, seconded by Member Hobel and unanimously carried to have staff submit a quarterly condition of funds to the Agency. Public Hearing Vi ce-Chai rman Hyde opened the pub 1 i c heari ng at Opened and Closed 7:45 p.m. to anyone wishing to address the Agency. There being no response the hearing closed at 7:46 p.m. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 60 - The Redevelopment Agency has heretofore approved APPROPRIATING THE SUM retaining Roscoe Keagy, an attorney, to assist OF $1,000 FOR PAYMENT in the review of pleadings of both the Santa Fe TO ROSCOE KEAGY FOR and Sam Vener cases. As the City has not yet PROFESSIONAL SERVICES paid Mr. Keagy for services rendered thus far, it is requested that the Agency appropriate the money for this purpose. If approved, Mr. Keagy will continue to work with the City on this ongoing review process. 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, Cox, Hyde Noes: None Absent: Chairman Hamilton, Member Egdahl 4a. STATUS REPORT - Director Desrochers reported that progress had COASTAL COMMISSION been made with the Coastal staff. It is hoped to have the plan before the State Commission before the end of the year. Problems with the local staff include lower income housing and additional environmental protection measures. It is suggested that a public hearing be held to obtain public response on the State's review of the plan before it is presented to the State Commission for consideration. It is believed that the Bayfront Plan is sufficient to meet the requirements of the new legislation but is subject to unrestrained interpretation. -175- Jack Henthorn, Administrative Assistant, has allotted close to 100% time to work on the project as the certification of the plan is most essential in order to market the Bayfront. One of the first questions asked potential developers is what is the status of the project with the Coastal Commission. Discussion on Member Cox questioned the Montoya Bill· and Redevelopment its effect on the City's Bayfront Plan. Special Legislation Agency Counsel Reed presented a summarization on the legislation out of Sacramento. There are aspects of the Montoya Bill that will affect the implementation of redvelopment plans. He stated that he is working with staff on the interpretation of these bills. One aspect that has arisen is the new provision on eminent domain that will affect both Town Centre and the Bayfront Project. It states that anytime after January 1, 1977 a property owner can come in and say you have designated his property for eminant domain, acquire it; if the Agency does not acquire the property within 18 months by purchase or initiation of eminant domain proceedings then the property owner is entitled to have that property declared exempt from con- demnation. He commented that he will be presenting a memo stating the concerns of particular importance regarding the legislation and the City's projects. (Chairman Hamilton arrived at this time and assumed the gavel.) Member Cox asked if the requirement for 20% housing will be applied to the Bayfront. Attorney Reed responded that it will not and that the requirement will only effect those projects adopted after January 1, 1977. Member Hyde commented that neither of the two projects in progress will be effected by the housing requirements. Mati on made It was moved by Member Hobel, seconded by Member Cox and unanimously carried to accept the Status reports on the Coastal Commission, J Street Marina and Developer Search. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 61 - In order to go to the Coastal Commission and to APPROVING DEVELOPMENT forward this project on to the Planning Commission, CONCEPTI STREET PROPERTY it is necessary to have a resolution of Agency (789 E Street) acceptance of the concept plans. Staff is not committing the Agency to an Owner Participation Agreement at this time but rather asking for approval of the development concept of a 144 unit motel and adjacent restaurant at Bay and E. -176- Hedda Praa 1 Ms. Prall explained that this project was to 777 First Street be a "freeway service to people traveling to Imperial Beach Mexico". It is a three-story inn with 144 rooms, with a coffee shop, restaurant and bar having a serving capacity of 185 people. The architectural design is similar for all pro- posed buildings with City landscaping, parking and open space requirements being met. Mr. Jo Burkhart Member Hobel inquired about the rental rates 804 Third Avenue of the hotel facilities. Mr. Burkhart, co- Chula Vista developer for the project, responded that a $22 rate is initially anticipated; by the time of opening it will probably be in the area of $24. The inn is designed to full Hilton standards, making it acceptable to any of the major chains if it is decided to go to a franchise. It is locally owned by Chula Vistans. 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 Noes: None Absent: Member Egdahl Clarification of Director Desrochers clarified that this was Resolution approval of the concept plans which will enable the developers to proceed to the Planning Commission and to the Coastal Commission. Conflict of Interest Chairman Hamilton announced that he had been Statement advised by Special Agency Counsel Reed that ther~ is no possible conflict of interest on the Vtimes under Town Centre and as such, wi 11 continue to preside over the meeting. 6. STATUS REPORT - Director Desrochers introduced Tom Schriber John S. Griffith & Co. representing the Griffith Co. and Tom Morgan Negotiation Agreement of Coldwell Banker Company. He explained that he will be meeting with the Gruens to analyze the economic effect of the project and the preliminary figures as presented by the Griffith Co. Staff has met with the businesses involved assuring them that the City is not attempting to put anyone out of business. Mr. Schriber stated that during the past 60 days, they had begun the economic analysis and have started to finalize figures for a Dis- position and Development Agreement. His company had solicited three major tenants. Mervyn's, the major department store, has announced its -177- interest but there has been no final agreement. The store has been presented with three site plans, two of which they have rejected. The present site plan seems to be agreeable in principle to all concerned. It is expected to present Mervyn's with a full package in- cluding the economics study in the next two weeks. Marvyn's has more than one site to consider but definitely want to come into the area. The other major tenants, the market and drug, have been contacted but the talk is in the preliminary stages where it is too early to announce any major commitments. He stated that the 120-day limit is still realistic and that no contacts with other local businesses has been made due to not having a complete financial, economic package. Discussion on Member Hobel questioned if the Mervyn situation progress made fell through if the whole project would go. Mr. Schriber responded that there are other alternatives. Member Hobel expressed his concern relative to a possible extension of time. Mr. Schriber noted that the 120-day limit was adequate and he understood that no exceptions will be made. Member Hobel inquired if the Griffith Company had considered the devaluation of the peso and its impact on the City's large shopping center. He also stated his concern in regard to not having anything concrete and it being the halfway point in the time period. Mr. Des- rochers responded that anything said now could place the City in jeopardy with the owners and the current tenants. Attorny Reed remarked that when one is trying to put together a deal it requires a lot of quiet, sensitive negotiation. He advised staff and the Agency that since an exclusive negotiation contract was granted to the Griffith Co., it would be best to allow them to put together the deal in the 120 days allowed and after such, make the decisions as the Agency sees fit. Member Hobel asked if the company is still committed to the 18 acres. Mr. Schriber ex- plained that current plans include 16~ acres, excluding the triangle at Third and Madrona. Mr. Desrochers added that it is hoped to use this area as a relocation source for nearby businesses or included in the park; this area is still under discussion. He stated that the Griffith Co. has a copy of the Draft Design -178- Manual and is aware of its significance. In reply to Member Cox's question, Mr. Schriber stated that they were committed to give the first choice of relocation into the center to existing businesses. Member Hobel questioned Mr. Desrochers regarding the Zogob property. Mr. Desrochers responded that the 7ogob property is still a vital element of the shopping center plan and has discussed this with Mr. Zogob. The Agency has hired an appraiser on an hourly basis; it is estimated to cost between $3,000 to $5,000 should the Agency desire to appraise the Zogob property. If Block Grant funds are used, it will be necessary to get two appraisals. Member Hobel stated his concern in holding up Mr. Zogob by not having an appraisal should the City approve the Griffith project. Mr. Desrochers suggested that this be discussed in Executive Session since this subject property may be subject to litigation. Mr. Dick Zogob Mr. Zogob stated that as it is 60 days after 688 Garret the moratorium was placed on his property the Chula Vista meter is still running. Good faith was shown to the Griffith Co. but none to himself, the person who owned the property and needed it as he was stopped from starting his project. He reiterated that he has incurred tremendous expense because he was ready to go and also committed in monies to purchase the balance of the ownership in order to affect a loan. To recall, the loan expired the day after the moratorium was set. He commented that as a result, he and his partners have a mortgage that wasn't planned with a tremendous debt and an obligation to other properties. He stated that as an interested citizen of Chula Vista he questioned if the Griffith Co. was unable to perform whether or not that was the criteria determining if the City should own or not own the property. If the property does sit in such a strategic spot, is it in fact not blocking any continguos development of the property? He statEd that he wished to re- iterate the fact especially the fact that his clients are Mexican where the pesos have de- valuated and the loan will now cost more to payoff. Mation Made It was moved by Chairman Hamilton, seconded by Member Hobel and unanimously carried to accept the report. -179- 7. PRESENTATION OF For the past several months, staff, with input DRAFT DESIGN MANUAL from the Project Area Committee, has endeavored - TOWN CENTRE to prepare a Design Manual for the Town Centre Project. The Manual is a requirement of the Redevelopment Plan Ordinance as approved by the City Council on July 6, 1976. It is anti- cipated that by the November meeting, sufficient input from the various City departments and other organizations will be obtained in order for the Agency to consider the adoption of said manual. Motion made It was moved by Member Hyde, seconded by Member Cox and unanimously carried that the Draft Design Manual be accepted for future consideration. EXECUT~VE DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS None CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS None MEMBER'S COMMENTS Member Hyde asked when the report was due on the cultural center. Mr. Cole responded that the time frame which the City has to complete deliberations has been extended. In discussion of the layout of the Third and H Street project, the architect and the Project Manager seem to think there might be room onsite which meant a delay of 60 days. Staff is going forward in contacting the school districts and have the Gruens doing some preliminary work which will give Council preliminary figures. We do not have the 60 day time frame to make a decision. we have more time to investigate further. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member Hyde, seconded by Member Cox and unanimously carried to adjourned to Executive Session and from there to the next regular Redevelopment Agency meeting of November 4, 1976. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ;!¡)/ / . /- L / ?,\ ~~4P{ / ~jZ'7"'v, Paul G. Desr ers, Agency ecretary -180-