Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1976/12/02 MINUTES OF A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursday December 2, 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 Hyde, Egdahl, Hobel, Cox Members Absent: None Staff Present: Executive Director Cole, Attorney Reed, Community Development Director Desrochers, Senior Planner Pass, Community Development Coordinator Henthorn l. APPROVAL OF ~lItWTES It was moved by Member Cox, seconded by Member Hyde and unanimously carried with the exception of Member Hobel abstaining due to absence at the last meeting that the minutes of the meeting of November 4, 1976 be approved, copies having been sent to each member. 2. JOHN S. GRIFFITH COMPANY The proposal by the John S. Griffith Company is NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT STATUS being re-evaluated. It is evident that the terms of the present agreement with the Griffith Company will not be met. The Company informed staff that they are interested in a portion of the site. Options the Agency may wish to pursue in view of the fact that the 120 day negotiation period will expire, along with the building moratorium for the subject area, are: A. Extend the terms of the Negotiation Agreement between the Agency and the Griffith Company for another 30 to 60 days B. Invite property owners, as well as other developers including the Griffith Company, to submit proposals within 60 to 90 days for development of the area C. Let the building moratorium expire and request that staff present a plan for enforcement of codes and the removal of dangerous buildings in the area along with a plan for development of the vacant properties. Mr. Tom Schriber of the Griffith Company who is present tonight has indicated that his company is interested in continuing work on the project but before exposing their plan (revised proposal) - 185 - they would request an exclusive extension of 30 days thus avoiding exposure of their proposal to other developers. Discussion of After discussion of the new proposed development Alternatives by the Griffith Company of approximately 10\ acres, Mr. Schriber explained that the requested 30 days extension would be spent determing the economic factors. Agency expressed concern about the Zogob property one-half of which would still be in the project area and which is presently frozen under the moratori urn. Member Hobel expressed concern that in 30 days' time, the economics would still not be finished with no proposals for the site. Member Egdahl arrived at this time. Discussion ensued relative to the impact of a 30- day extenslonon surrounding property owners. Consideration was given to attempting to involve area property owners. Mr. Schriber indicated that since the entire land area does not appear to be needed for the revised proposal, participation by area owners is a possibility. Motion made It was moved by Member Hobel that the 30-day no second extension not be granted. There was no second. Motion made It was then moved by Member Hyde that the Agency no second approve the 30 day extension. There was no second. Motion made and seconded Agency discussion ensued on other possible action. to grant extension and It was moved by Member Egdahl, seconded by Member invite other proposals Hyde for discussion,to grant the exclusive 30-day extension and advise property owners and others of that action and invite their submittal of proposal s. Motion to table It was moved by Member Hyde, seconded by Member motion Hobel and unanimously carried to table the motion. Further discussion At this time, Mr. Schriber presented the Griffith Company revised plan and indicated that the economic analysis was not complete. He stated that this was a drawing that did not show ele- vation. The revised plan covered approximately 10\ acres of the subject property. Major tenants included a market and drug store. In working with the plan, they were attempting to incorporate some of the present businesses now located there. Public comment The Agency questioned Mr. Schriber regarding the plan and the provision of housing. Va ri ous - 186 - members of the public in attendance at the meetin9 commented on the revised plan and its perceived impact upon property owners and businesses in the area. Among those making public statements were Mr. T. Balliesteri, Mr. Norm Ross, Mr. Don Richey, Mr. Fred GelS.omini, Mr. Bernard Bernes, t1r. Vinnie Albernita, Mr. Bud Isham. t1r. Thomas Hunti ngton, Chai rman of the Town Centre Project Area Committee, stated that the Committee had voted in favor of recom- mending that the moratorium be extended for 90 days. Chairman Hamilton left Chairman Hamilton left the meeting at this time at thi s time (8:35 p.m.) and Vice Chairman Hyde took the chai r. Discussion continued on the revised plan, high density development, the economic analysis and other potential developers. Motion made It was moved by Member Cox, seconded by Member Egdahl and unanimously carried that Option B, inviting property owners as well as other de- velopers to submit plans within the next 60 days with the understanding that the moratorium also be extended for that length of time. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 64 - Upon the approval of the Town Centre Redevelopment ADOPTING THE PROCEDURES Plan, a Procedures Manual was proposed in order MANUAL FOR THE TOWN CENTRE to set forth the procedures necessary for processing REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT development proposals. The proposed draft meets the requirements of the Plan and provides time schedules necessary for the orderly processing of the proposals. The Manual in draft form has been presented to the Town Centre Project Area Com- mittee and City departments for review. It has been requested by the Public Works Director to withhold the adoption of the manual until it cë:n be included into the DOTS (Delivery of Technical Services) program. However, the Project Area Committee has requested that it remain on the agenda for consideration. Their request is based upon the fact that the manual can be amended. Should the manual not be adopted, an interim procedure will need to be set up. Executive Director Cole stated that the Public Works' request was due to the time element frame. They did not feel they could meet the schedule as proposed and with another 60 days could come up with an alternate time schedule. - 187 - Offered by Offered by Member Hobel, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Hobel, Cox, Hyde, Egdahl Noes: None Absent: Hami lton 4. RESOLUTION NO. 65 - At the November 4, 1976 meeting of the Agency, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO the Design Manual was approved. In addition, ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR staff was authorized to obtain bids for the THE PRINTING OF THE TOWN printing of up to 1,000 copies of the docu- CENTRE DES I GN MANUAL ment. The following firms submitted costs as follows: Conklin Litho $2,804 including cover Neyenesch Printers 3,025 including cover Crest Printing 2,950 without cover It is envisioned that the Manual will function as both a marketing, promotional tool and. a guideline for redevelopment. It was recom- mended to award the contract to Conklin Litho. Offered by Offered by Member Cox, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Cox, Hyde, Egdahl, Hobel Noes: None Absent: Hamil ton 5. RESOLUTION NO. 66 - In accordance with the Redevelopment Plan, and ESTABLISHING DESIGN REVIEW subsequent Design Procedures Manual, a Design (COMMITTEE) BOARD FOR THE Review Board is to be established. The purpose TOWN CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT of this body is to review all plans for new PROJECT constructi on and remodel i ng for improvement work in the public right-of-way; and construction plans in other public phases of the project. The Board shall consist of a member of the Planning staff as appointed by the Director, the Chairman of the Project Area Committee and three private members. The three private members shall be appointed by the Agency with the advice of the Town Centre Project Area Committee for a re- newable term of two years. Two architects have been asked by the Project Area Committee to become members. They are Alfredo Araiza, AlA, and Victor Wulff, AlA. The third member has been left open to Agency suggestion. - 188 - Offered by Offered by Member Hobel, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Hobel, Hyde, Egdahl, Cox Noes: None Absent: Hami lton The resolution was clarified by the Vice- Chairman as only establishing the Board and not appointing members. Suggesti ons for Member Cox commented that he felt that an Members additional mEmber of the business area should be appointed and ás such, submitted the name of Jerry Prior for consideration. Motion made It was moved by Member Cox, seconded by Member Hobel and unanimously carried to appoint Alfredo Araiza, Mr. Victor Wulff and Mr. Jerry Prior members of the Town Centre Design Review Board. 6a. RESOLUTION NO. 67 At the November 4, 1976 meeting, Agency con- CERTIFYING NEGATIVE sidered the plans for an office building as DECLARATION FOR IS-76-107 submitted by Messrs. Adams and Dickerson. MESSRS. ADAMS AND DICERKSON At that meeting it was suggested that some OFFICE BUILDING 470 THIRD type of entrance way be des i gned and that AVENUE the item be brought back. The architect has been contacted and has complied with staff approval. Offered by Offered by Member Hobel, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Hobel, Cox, Hyde, Egdahl Noes: None Absent: Hami 1 ton 6b. RESOLUTION NO. 68 - Offered by Member Egdahl, the reading of the APPROVING A PARTICIPATION text was waived by unanimous consent, passed AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY and adopted by the fo 11 owi ng vote,. to-wi t: AND ROY FENTON ADAMS AND ROBERT L. DICKERSON AYES: Egdahl, Hobel, Cox, Hyde Noes: None Absent: Hami lton - 189 - 7. STATUS REPORT - Staff has pressed the Coastal Commission for COASTAL COMMISSTION a response to the Plan and they have replied in a very conservative manner assumably to protect themselves. They have provided the Agency with specific comments relative to the Bayfront Plan. Bri efly, the comments questioned the benefi t of recreational use over agricultural use. Staff is currently in the process of preparing specific responses to the issues raised by the Commission. It is anticipated that the response will be available at the next meeting of January 6, 1977. If the Agency concurs with the content of the response, it will, at that time, be requested to adopt a resolution forwarding the response to the Commission requesting it formally con- sider any unresolved issues. Vice Chairman Hyde remarked that without any background the letter would be shocking and would appear that they were attempting to sabotage the project. Motion made It was moved by Member Cox, seconded by Member Egdahl and unanimously carried to accept the report. 8. STATUS REPORT - Under the current Owner Participation Agreement, JOE STREET PROPERTY the use of the property could continue until January 8, 1977. At that time the Agency wi 11 have the prerogati ve to enforce the terms of the present agreement or to modify same should construction on development begin within a reasonable period of time. Coastal Commission has given approval for lSD-room inn and 8,000 sq. ft. restaurant. The Commission has reserved the right to review the finalized plans. Mr. Street indicated that some removal has begun and that by the first of January much of the wrecking will have been removed. Motion made It was moved by Member Hobel, seconded by Member Cox and unanimously carried to accept the report. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Director Cole echoed the concern expressed about the hold up in the certification of the Bayfront Plan. CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS None - 190 - MEMBERS' COMMENTS Member Hobel expressed his concern with the fact that many of the property owners are still confused with what is happening with the project and that more public relations work needs to be done. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS Mr. Desrochers reported that construction of the building for Lawless Detroit Diesel will begin on December 13, 1976. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of January 6, 1977 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. " ./ /Ä/' / '\ ¿' ,." . // , . / / ' ./ '. i ./ " / "-.-. \ i./ k~. / . ".,. /' é·· ;/ ..// ¡}'<b' I l// Paul . Desrochers, Agency Secretary - 191 -