Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1977/03/10 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursday March 10, 1977 A special meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, with the following Members Present: Chairman Scott, Members Egdahl, Hobel, Hyde, Cox Members Absent: None Staff Present: Executive Director Cole, Special Counsel Reed, Community Development Director Desrochers, Community Development Coordinator Henthorn Also Present: Dr. and Ms. Gruen, Gruen Gruen + Assoc., Economic Consultants Chairman called the meeting to order and stated that the purpose of the meeting is to consider and make a selection from the three proposals, Town Centre Associates, Collins/ La Jolla Development Co., and Calmark/M.S.I., relative to the Focus Site in the Town Centre Redevelopment Project. ;ackground Data Director Desrochers added that staff had delivered late yesterday a memo containing several exhibits: a financial analysis done in conjunction with Gruen Gruen + Associates and Stone & Youngberg, a matrix and a recommendation from the Project Area Committee. Also included in the packet is a sample negotiation agreement. Member Hobel questioned the letter from Seltzer, Caplan, Wilkins & McMahon, Attorneys. Director Desrochers responded that Mr. Caplan represents Mr. Milo Barrenson, present owner of the Chu1a Vista Center. With regard to the letter from Town Centre Associates, which was received late this afternoon, the numbers presented were given last week. The analysis forming the matrix does contain this information. Public Input Chairman Scott noted the motion passed two weeks ago opening the meeting to public comment. Bud Isham Mr. Isham stated that he was asked to be spokesman 314 Center Street for several of the tenants and landowners; specifically, Chula Vista Mr. Burns (bakery), Mrs. Jenkins (auto parts shop), Mrs. Arnold (garage) and Mr. Eyer (printers). Their concern was the lack of input from the property owners in the area relative to the acceptance of the plans. -1- He stated they had not had the opportunity to expand being held up by the moratorium and the uncertainty of the plans. Member Egdahl questioned why these property owners had not improved their propertiesbefore, if the problems of expansion had been in finances and if the property owners would be interested in owner participation. Mr. Isham responded that he was not interested in owner participation as he was not willing to share his business with a private developer when he had worked to build it himself. Bernard Bernes Mr. Burns remarked that he felt the Calmark 935 Country Club Lane proposal was most compatible with the buildings Chula Vista, in the area. He felt it unfair to the owners and tenants that could not meet the rents if they went under a new landlord. Sid Morris Mr. Morris stated his concern with the amount the 862 Cedar project would cost and committing the taxpayers Chula Vista monies without knowing the full impact of the project. He objected to possible public condem- nation. Member Egdahl responded that the net impact has been shown and that property owners have the right to sell. Special Counsel Reed added there was the possibility of eminant domain. Norm Ross Mr. Ross commented that he would like to make'his :stand 909 Wrangler public. He objected to the project for two Chula Vista reasons 1) for the people, businesses and tenants in the area and 2) he did not believe that tax money should be used to fix up some one else's property. Dorothy Fish, Resident Ms; Fish stated that she was speaking as an Congregational Towners individual only on the residential aspect of the 288 F Street development proposal. As resident manager of the Chula Vista Towers, she reported that the 186 units of the complex were full at all times. There is a waiting list of 327 people with a wait of up to 4 to 4~ years. The move out rate is 25 to 30 per year. These figures show a definite need for additional resi- dential units for seniors. Robert Caplan, Attorney Mr. Caplan stated that although he did represent 3003 Fourth Avenue Mr. Barrenson, a property owner of the shopping San Diego center, he was also a trustee and wish to speak in that position. Attorney Reed questioned if Mr. Caplan was going to speak on a particular proposal and if so, was in conflict as h~'was representing Mr. Barrenson. -2- Mr. Caplan remarked that it would seem from their analysis that all of the plans would seem to have an amount of overkill. He hoped that the Chula Vista Center would remain substantially intact, leaving the property south for residential. There will be a number of small users, owners and businesses disrupted before anyone developer is se 1 ected. It might be well to hold a workshop to allow explaination of what they need and what they want and letting the people come up with a plan that would meet the goals of the City. Public Input Chairman Scott declared the public input portion of closed the meeting closed at 7:26 p.m. Mr. Desrochers spoke to the material received late today. The letter from Mr. Caplan addresses the retention of the present shopping center with rehabilitation and allowing negotiations between the present owner and the City for redevelopment. Mr Desrochers commented that with a total development there would be uniform management creating a viable, functioning center. The City would encourage owner participation because it is one of the goals that is hoped to be accomplished. Chairman Scott questioned if any discussion had been held with Mr. Barrenson. Mr. Desrochers said he had met with Mr. Barrenson and his attorneys right after the Gri ffi th Agreement expired and had numerous ,phone discussions and a meeting yesterday. Member Hobel stated that after narrowing it down to three proposals, there seems to be a different approach now. Mr. Desrochers referred to the recommendations from staff and the Town Centre Project Area Committee endorsing the Collins proposal as the best economic proposal. The Town Centre Business and Professional Association independently, after much discussion came up with the same recommendation. There was some prob 1 em' with the 1 ayout along Thi rd Avenue not gi vi ng enough impetus to the revitalization of shops. Staff and the Project Area Committee couch their recommenda- tion with the condition that the developer attempt to put more emphasis on Third Avenue. Staff felt that the Calmark proposal had some excellent concepts but their overall financial package did not meet the Collins proposal. The matrix included five major areas of concern: 1) link from Library to Park; 2) tie with Third Avenue shopping; 3) fiscal impact; 4) Parking and circulation; and 5) background and experience of developer. The Collins proposal came out well in the fiscal impact area and circulation and background. Ca1mark was strong in parking and link with the library to the park. Town Centre Associates plans have been changed and as such, hard to evaluate especially in the fiscal impact category. -3- Lack of Housing Member Egdah1 questioned the lack of residential Evaluation rating in the evaluation. Mr. Desrochers responded that the plans were more or less equal in meeting the goals. Further discussion ensued relative to the housing aspect. Dr. and Ms. Gruen commented that the major emphasis in the evaluation was the relationship of the development to Third Avenue. The Collins proposal is directed towards convenience which does not do much for Third Avenue. They are concerned that if the City does go with Collins that a condition be set to place more emphasis on Third Avenue shops. Dr. Gruen stated that the essence of the commercial aspect is how well it will bring people into the area. Conditi ons of Chairman Scott questioned if the conditions of the recoß111endations recommendation - l} that the developer is willing to explore methods to bolster the specialty shopping opportunities along Third Avenue and 2) that the developer is willing to do more clustering of residential units along the Park - were agreeable to Collins. Mr. Desrochers responded that he has talked with the Coll ins Co. They feel they could work out a better residential scheme. As to the commercial shopping, they could to a degree work with staff. Ms. Gruen commented that the disadvantage of the Collins proposal is the advantage of the Calmark proposal. The Collins disadvantage is the row of housing acting 1 ike a "Chinese wall" across the park and the direction of shopping relative to Third Avenue. On the other hand, Calmark's housing is more oriented to the commercial area and park. Not sure if the problem could be solved by either. Chairman Scott remarked that the letter from the attorneys representing Mr. Barrenson seems to be more or less incorporated in the Calmark proposal which leaves most of the buildings. He questioned if that would change the matrix. Ms. Gruen responded that it does in some ways. The concern lies in renovating the area which may not be that much less than redoing it from scratch. In any downtown, it's very hard to get any three merchants to agree on anything. Dr. Gruen stated that Mr. Collins is being candid by saying that you cannot solve the problem to everyone's satisfaction. If the developer is willing to work with the community on owner participation, the present scheme can be improved to solve most of the problems. If not, then the proposal would not be acceptable. -4- Questions on the Member Cox questioned whether within the 90-day ~greement negotiation period the problems as seen could be worked out. Mr. Desrochers responded that during that time, costs will be tied down and differences smoothed out. Member Cox asked if after the 90-day period the changes could affect the fiscal impact. Mr. Desrochers remarked that it is proposed to choose the most favorable plan, work with it and bring back a total package. Member Cox questioned if owner participation is the only process that an existing owner could participate. Mr. Desrochers responded with an affirmative answer. Member Egdahl questioned if the City was bound by the agreement to stay with this company for total development. Mr. Desrochers stated that if one is selected tonight and a mutual plan cannot be reached, there are escape clauses and the City could go back to tqe beginning. Member Egdah1 stated that by the very nature of the site, there is an inherent conflict between aesthetics and dollar return. Ms. Gruen stated that the lin~ from the Library to the park was aesthetic and not economic advantage. The only true aesthetic dis- advantage would be the wall of housing, which does give the best parking. Dr. Gruen commented that the most important aspects economically are the parking and link to Third Avenue. Housing may have social and other benefits. Further discussion ensued relative to the matrix and the evaluation of the proposals. The Agency questioned the conditions of the Calmark proposal and asked their response. The conditions being: 1) the amount willing to pay for commercial property be increased approximately $.50 per square foot and 2) that the developer work with staff in order to provide better vehicular circulation. Mr. NOKen, representative of Ca1mark, responded that the price was negotiable and that they are willing to work with staff. Recess called A recess was called at 8:05 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 8:15 p.m. Member Hobel questioned if the matrix included the numbers in the letter received from Town Centre Assoc. Mr. Desrochers stated the figures were related to the first proposals and since then changes had been made. These figures do relate to the bond analysis. Member Hyde requested comment from the attorney on the letter from Mr. Caplan relative to owner participation. -~ Owner Participation Attorney Reed responded that the letter refers to the law encouraging owner participation. There are no hard and fast, rules stipulating this. The re have been cases challenging the limited use of owner participation and the courts have agreed the idea is to include existing tenants and should be encou raged. It is the preferential right of the developer to offer owner participation. Paragraph E of the letter states that the owners desire time to discuss plans to work out a mutually satisfying arrangement. Mr. Desrochers stated that it is hoped to hold workshop sessions to get owner input. Member Hyde asked Special Counsel whether or not the agreement should include that a significant effort be made by the developer to work out owner participation. Attorney Reed stated it can be included in the agree- ment but it may end up that no one can economically parti ci pate. The developer, however, would have to demonstrate they have, in good faith, made efforts to talk to the people and demonstrate to staff why it is not economically feasible. It would be staff's responsibility to insure this. Agency discussion included the conditions of Calmark's proposal and since they were agreeable to the conditions if it did not change the matrix. Chairman Scott declared that since the plans were evaluated as submitted further questioning as to imposed conditions were out of order. Chairman Scott asked staff if Collins was flexible in their plans. Mr. Collins responded that they were but did not entirely agree that the plans did not relate to Third Avenue. Special consideration had been given to Third Avenue and there are reasons for the plans as they are; willing though to work with staff. Member Hobel stated that many owners seem to be inter- ested in owner participation but were never approached. He questioned if they were going to approach it with an open mind. Mr. Isham responded that if something concrete was shown that was not damaging to his business, he would go along with the development. Mr. Bernes spoke to the same issue. His concern was with his tenants; something compatible to them would be con- sidered. Motion made It was moved by Member Egdahl, seconded by Member Cox and unanimously carried that during the period of negotiation, workshop sessions be held for property owners and other interested parties. -6- ,-,,"-~---.~.- Explanation of Member Egdahl asked if the attorney would comment egotiation Agreement on what exactly the negotiation agreement involved. Attorney Reed responded that it would cover a 90-day period wherein staff (planning, engineering, etc.) would be working closely with the developer expressing the goals of the redevelopment plan. During that exclusive negotiation period, the developer will attempt to come up with a plan that is economical and viable. The agreement will be more comprehensive with regard to project deadlines, responsibilities, financing, etc. They will come back at the end of that period with a development proposal that is specific though it may not please everyone. Motion made It was moved by Member Egdah1, seconded by Member Hyde and unanimously carried that an exclusive negotiation agreement with the Collins/La Jolla Development Co. be effected with the two stipulations: 1) that the developer is willing to explore methods to bolster the specialty shopping opportunities along Third Avenue; and 2) that the developer is willing to consider more clustering of residential units along the park. Also included in the motion was the motion requesting workshop sessions with property owners. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 7, 1977 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 1'/ /.~ /, ,I ,/' i ,-~l 1..- /"' .".,- -7 -