Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1979/01/04 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ORDER COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss OF ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Paul G. Desrochers , being first duly sworn deposes and says: That I am the duly chosen, qualified and acting Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista; That the reqular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista was held at 7:00 p.m., January 4, 1979 and said meeting was adjourned to the time and place specified in the order of adjournment ATTACHED HERETO: That on January 5, 1979 at the hour of 11:00 a.m. I posted a copy of said order at a conspicuous place on or near the door of the place at which said meeting of January 4, 1979 was hel d. /~i'ì LJJ!.... Secretary -. MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursday. 7:00 p.m. January 4, 1979 The REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY met in the Council Chambers at the City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, on the above date at 7:00 p.m. with the following Members present: MEMBERS Hyde, Gi 11 ow, Scott, Cox, Egdah 1 Absent None * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting until January 11, 1979 at 4:00 p.m. adjourned regular meeting of the City Council (Council Conference) Conference Room . .. in the Council ~ City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue. Chula Vlsta, Call forma. I, Paul G. Desrochers, Secretary , of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that this is a full, true and correct copy of an order adopted by the Redevelopment Agency at the meeting of January 4, 1979 /l1 ~/ ~- )(, ... /b~~ ß-.~- /{?¡?: Y Paul G. Desrochers, Secretary Redevelopment Agency City of Chula Vista, California ---.---_.-.._----_.. .,.-.._..~-_.._--~--_.__.- MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Thursday - 7:00 p.m. Janua ry 4, 1979 A regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista was held on the above date at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California with the following: MEHBERS PRESENT Chairman Hyde; Members Gillow, Scott, Cox, Egdahl Members Absent None STAFF PRESENT Executive Director Cole, Special Counsel Reed, Community Development Director Desrochers, Community Development Coordinator Boyd, Assistant Planner Welch, Agency Counse 1 Li ndberg ALSO PRESENT Jerome Lipp, Terry ~kCarty, T. David Eyres, Sam Gaines, Bud and Richard Wilson, Mr. Andy Henry ITEM NO. 1 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Chairman Hyde, seconded by Member Scott and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of December 7 and 19, 1978 as mailed. (Member Cox abstained from voting on approval of December 19 minutes due to his absence at that meeting.) ITEM NO. 2 - REPORT: STATUS OF TOWN CENTRE II The Community Development Director told the members that staff had hoped to have an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement prepared for tonight's meeting. He is now in pos- session of a draft agreement and would like to schedule a special meeting, possibly on Janua~y 11th, to consider the document. The director then introduced Jerry Lipp, President of Carter Hawley Hale Properties, Inc. Mr. Lipp explained the primary functions of his company and gave the Agency a brief description of the stores contemplated for the center's expansion. He explained that he has been working with the City Manager and Mr. Desrochers, and emphasized that no commitments have been made. A plan has been formulated for the implementation of the expansion. Attempts are being made to provide for concerns to minimize adverse impacts that might hinder neighboring residents due to the requirements to close 5th Avenue. Mr. Lipp presented a concept plan prepared by the firm of Burke, Nicolais & Archuleta for display purposes. In answer to Chairman Hyde's query on the plan, Mr. Lipp stated that the Sears TBA store can be accommodated in its present location and that Sears has expressed a \_~illingness to cooperate.- Discussion ensued on the possibility of keeping 5th Avenue open. Mr. Lipp commented that this would require the major store to shift further to the west, thus, imbalancing tbe tenant mix; furthermore, a pedestrian mall could not be accommodated if bisected by a busy street. It was noted that two problems will be encountered under the present concept: 1/4/79 -2- Redevelopment Agency Meeting January 4, 1979 1. There will be a need to shift the two major natural gas lines; and, 2. Concerns with leasability of the small shops if the major store is not located in the middle of the expansion area. In the event there is little or no cost to the City for relocation of the gas lines, it was suggested that the relocation will permit a greater amount of leasable commer- cial space. Discussion followed on the next steps prior to the execution of a binding Disposition & Development Agreement. This will include discussions with representatives of Sears, structuring of an agreement and consideration of financing. Mr. Lipp commented that most important is to begin with a plan everyone agrees to. In response to the Chairman's concerns over the duration of option of the Henry property (Mr. Henry owns property on I Street near Sears), Mr. Lipp stated the duration is for six months. (Mr. Henry, in attendance at the meeting, confirmed this fact.) Mr. Lipp added that in previous discussion!i' he didn't mean to imply that the names of the major tenant or satellites would be disclosed immediately. The project hasn't reached the leasing stage yet but he hoped within the not too distant future, he would have a letter co-signed by a major tenant and his firm that would state the interest of the firm in locating here. Community Development Director Desrochers indicated to Mr. Lipp and Agency members that he would like the "letter of intent" by Thursday, January 11 if at all possible. The Agency is scheduled to meet following the Council Conference on that date to con- sider an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Mr. Lipp's firm. The Chairman expressed his appreciation to Mr. Lipp for his attendance and presentation at this evening's meeting. It was moved by Member Scott, seconded by Member Cox and unanimously carried to accept the report and to consider the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement on January 11, 1979. ITEM NO. 3 - RESOLUTION - ENTERING INTO AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH CREASER & WARWICK DEVELOPMENT, INC. Community Development Director Desrochers requested the Agency consider this item at the next Redevelopment Agency meeting. The developers woul d 1 i ke more time to recon- sider a few items in the Owner Participation Agreement. Also, the extra time would not impede their progress since a building permit is not scheduled to be issued until mid-February. It was moved by Member Scott, seconded by Chairman Hyde and unanimously carried to reconsider the item at the February meeting. ITEM NO.4 - RESOLUTION NO. 156 - CERTIFYING NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR IS-78-81 AND ENTERING INTO AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT \~ITH EYRES/GAINES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DEL MAR AVENUE AND G STREET The Design Review Board has recommended approval for the IS-unit residential townhouse project proposed at the northwest corner of Del Mar and G Street. Alley improvements adjacent to the property have been made possible through Block Grant funds approved by Council on May 24, 1977. 1/4179 -3- Redevelopment Agency Meeting January 4, 1979 Since the timing of this project coincides with the Town Centre I development, it can be included as part of the SB99 issue. The director discussed the possibility of SB99 financing and noted that a colored rendering of the subject project was on display for Agency review. Full discussion followed regarding the alley in this area and the storm drainage system being planned. Executive Director Cole suggested that the Public Works Director provide a report for the next meeting with regard to the final plans and time schedule for the pI anned improvements. Chairman Hyde suggested that the SB99 acceptability for this project be more specific. Mr. Desrochers remarked that an addendum can be included in the agreement with this regard. Special Counsel Reed offered an addendum to be included in paragraph 7A of the agreement as follows: "In the event the Agency's financing and bonding consultants determine that it is not in the best interest of the Agency to include Developer's project in the proposed SB99 bond issue, the Agency has the discretion to exclude the developer's project without liability." Mr. Reed stated that he has been in contact with the principals (both in attendance) and.their attorney, and explained that they should acknowledge his interpretation in some way or the other. The developers indicated they had no objections to the addendum. It was moved by Chairman Hyde, seconded by Member Cox and unanimously carried to approve the addendum regarding SB99 financing as offered by Special Counsel. Offered by Member Scott, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and adopted by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Member Scott, Cox, Egdahl, Hyde, Gillow Noes: None Absent: None ITEM NO. 5 - REPORT: SB99 BONDS Passage of several enabling resolutions, along with Agency agreements for trustee and originator-servicer for individual mortgages, is required for SB99 bonds. The final bond rating will be influenced by the strength of selected financial institutions. The director informed the Agency that Mr. McCarty was in attendance to provide status on bond issues. Mr. McCarty gave the members a brief outline of the Dending bond issue and talked about the defeasement method for the Bayfront bonds. He indicated he will be speaking to John Drew (the trustee) of United California Bank in the near future. A 1 so, it is very likely the bonds will be given a triple-A rating. 1/4179 -4- Redevelopment Agency Meeting January 4, 1979 In response to Chairman Hyde's query, Mr. McCarty stated he has been involved with the proposed legislation for merging of redevelopment projects and there may be a presentation in this regard at the current leqislative session. It was moved by Member Cox, seconded by Member Scott and unanimously carried to accept the report. ITEM NO. 6 - STATUS REPORT: ZOGOB SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE To date, most of the deadlines within the schedule of the Disposition & Development Agreement have been met and staff still believes the March 15 groundbreaking date is possible. Agency members were provided with a brief progress report of the major components of the schedule in the agenda statement. A discussion followed on the modified dates in the Schedule of Performance. Mr. Desrochers noted the EIR has been taken care of in another section of the schedule. Also, condemnation on other parcels may occur in June or upon receipt of funding. Plan checking review procedures are pending, and the length of time required for review may delay groundbreaking beyond March 15. It was moved by Member Scott, seconded by Member Egdahl and unanimously carried to accept the report. It was moved by Member Gillow, seconded by Member Scott and unanimously carried that staff be directed to bring back a status report on the Schedule of Performance in March. ITEM NO. 7 - REPORT: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM STATUS At the December Agency meeting, it was anticipated that the final LCP would be avail- able. Due to the holidays and the need to present a complete document, submittal has been postponed until the February Redevelopment Agency meeting. It was moved by Member Egdahl, seconded by Chairman Hyde and unanimously carried to accept the report. ITEM NO. 8 - REPORT: BAY BOULEVARD DEVELOPMENT STATUS Joe Street Although the Planning Commission has reviewed the EIR and its certification is scheduled for January 10th, progress on the property has not moved along as quickly as anticipated due to the cost of financing which has changed drastically in the past three months. The principals have indicated they are close to securing the long- term mortgage commitment with more reasonable interest rates. Chairman Hyde commented on the scrap metal (stacked auto carcasses) still on the property. The Community Development Director assured members that he has spoken to the Streets and was informed the cars are now being removed. Orange Development & Investment Company In a letter dated December 15, 1978, the developers indicated they are preparing to close escrow on five parcels on Bay Boulevard on May 1, 1979. They are ready to 1/4/79 -~ Redevelopment Agency Meeting January 4, 1979 make submittals for design review to the Coastal and Planning Commissions this month. Meanwhile, eminent domain proceedings have begun in the case of South Bay Auto Wreckers. Discussion ensued with regard to environmental issues and EIR Negative Declaration concerning Bay Boulevard properties. It was moved by Chairman Hyde, seconded by Member Cox and unanimously carried to accept the report. ITEM NO. 9 - REPORT: RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK ON SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT PROPERTY On May 4, 1978, the Redevelopment Agency considered a proposal to construct a recrea- tional vehicle park on the Chula Vista Bayfront. The proposal was approved with the understanding that the Chula Vista Planning GommissionWould provide design review during project development and that the developer would specify an exact time period for interim use. Appearing before the Port District on December 5, 1978, Mr. Wilson requested an expansion of the park that would double the size from 20 to 40 acres. Staff attended the meeting to request that Chula Vista be given time to review the new proposal. The proposal was approved subject to review by Chula Vista. Community Development Coordinator Boyd summarized three recommendations in the agenda statement: that the recreational vehicle park be approved contingent upon the simultaneous development of the marina, that the bounda~y line be moved south and that the Planning Commission provide design review during project development. Staff feels this all can be accomplished by eliminating certain land uses that the developer does not consider a high priority. In response to Chairman Hyde's concern regarding the Port District's financial parti- cipation, Mr. Boyd explained that the Port feels that the J Street Marina area would be more suitable for the park use. In addition, neither the developer nor the Port District has expressed an interest in financial participation in the construction and maintenance of a public area although neither of the principals involved strongly objects to an area being set aside for that purpose. Member Cox commented on the noisy operations at odd hours at the adjacent Southwest Marine site as indicated in the Port District meeting minutes of December 5, 1978. Staff recommended that the developer be directed to work with staff to specifically identify location of buffers and a boundary south of G Street. Mr. Bud Wilson addressed the Agency at this time. He praised Mr. Boyd on his coop- eration regarding the project. Beginning with staff recommendation #3 regarding Planning Commission design review, the applicant stated he had no objections and looks forward to working with the City. Responding to staff recommendation #2, Mr. Wilson requested that he be allowed to develop the entire 40 acres. Mr. Wilson further discussed the marina development and requested not making it contingent with the simultaneous development of the park. U~~ -6- Redevelopment Agency Meeting January 4, 1979 Member Scott commented on staff's statements regarding vandalism and developer's request for a 20-acre expansion stating perhaps a compromise of 30 acres could be considered. Chairman Hyde emphasized a major goal of the California Coastal Act is assuring public access of tidal waters. He noted the applicant's proposal severely limits this pos- sibility, and that the public's access to the water can be achieved only through the use of the commercial project. In response to Chairman Hyde's request, Special Counsel Reed phrased this motion: "Redevelopment Agency approve in concept the development of a recreational vehicle park subject to analysis of the size of the vehicle park and the economic viability of the project and contingent upon the simultaneous development of the marina." Chairman Hyde and Member Scott disagreed with this motion. Member Scott stated the Agency wasn't concerned with the financial viability. No motion was made or seconded by the members. Mr. Wilson recommended the elimination of the contingency noting the original reason for developing in Chula Vista was due to the water-oriented park. It was moved by Chairman Hyde and seconded by Member Scott that in staff recommenda- tion #1 to strike the words "contingent upon a simultaneous" and substitute "which would include ultimate. The reading would then be as follows: "The Redevelopment Agency approve in concept the development of a recreational vehicle park which would include ultimate development of a marina." Executive Director Cole observed that upon approval of the motion, the applicant would not be required to develop a marina. The Community Development Coordinator discussed this observation and explained the developer's financial obligation at this time to construct a breakwater for the Marina since the Port District has not committed itself to provide the facility. Chairman Hyde, with approval from the motion's second, offered a substitute motion that the Redevelopment Agency approve in concept the development of a recreational vehicle park which would include ultimate development of a suitable marina by the developer and/or the Port District. Member Scott stated that as a second he would not agree, thereby withdrawing his second. Chairman Hyde asked for another second, Member Gillow seconded the motion. Member Egdahl remarked that perhaps the motion should state approving in concept the development of a recreational vehicle park with a marina, or, and a marina. 1/4179 -7- Redevelopment Agency Meeting January 4, 1979 The Chairman withdrew the motion; Member Gillow was agreeable. In further discussion, Executive Director Cole commented that the Agency understood that staff will work with Mr. Wilson and the Port towards an agreement favorable to all parties. Member Cox questioned the need by the Agency to take immediate action o~ if it would be possible, to delay the project for a couple of weeks. Mr. Richard Wilson requested that the decision not be delayed. It was moved by Chairman Hyde, seconded by Member Scott and unanimously carried that staff recommendation #1 be modified to read: The Redevelopment Agency approve in concept the development of a recreational vehicle park and marina. In response to the applicant's query regarding the previous existence of a marina in this area, Community Development Director Desrochers identified the marina's existence in a copy of the Bayfront Plan on hand. It was moved by Member Scott and seconded by Member Gillow that staff recommendation #2 be allowed to stand. Chairman Hyde offered a substitute motion. The motion was seconded by Member Gillow to amend recommendati on #2 addi ng ". . . tha t woul d provi de a Bayfront park of not 1 ess than approximately ten acres." Upon receiving clarification of the amended motion, Member Scott spoke against it stating that the modification is already taken care of in the General Plan and the area is already designated as a park. He argued that the amended motion would only cause confusion. Chairman Hyde expressed his willingness to withdraw the motion if Member Scott's arguments proved correct but he was concerned that recommendation #2 made no reference to there being a provision for a park. Member Scott explained that provision for a public park was already in the General Plan or the Bayfront Plan and there is not a necessity for specific designation as such in staff's recommendation. Following Agency discussion, Chairman Hyde withdrew his motion and the second agreed. It was moved by Member Scott and seconded by Member Gillow to amend staff recommend- ation #2 as follows: "The developer be required to work with staff to develop a northerly boundary line that does not extend to G Street and to provide adjacent to the north, a Bayfront open space park of approximately ten acres." Member Cox spoke against the amended motion expressing his concern that at this point we have no indication from the Port District if they would ever agree to put in a park even though it's on the General Plan. Until some indication is obtained from the Port or developer, some type of recreational vehicle activity is preferred as opposed to leaving the area vacant. It was generally agreed that the Agency/Council should use whatever influence in its power to obtain supportive action for our interests from the Port District. 1/4179 -8- Redevelopment Agency Meeting January 4, 1979 The motion to accept staff recommendation #2 as amended was passed by the following vote, to-wi t: AYES: Member Scott, Gillow, Egdahl, Hyde Noes: Member Cox Absent: None It was moved by Member Egdahl, seconded by Member Cox and unanimously carried that the Port District be requested to give the Chula Vista Planning Commission design review of the project development (staff recommendation #3). ITEM NO. 10 - REPORT: MERGER OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS State legislative action is involved for the purpose of merging the Bayfront and Town Centre I redevelopment projects. The Agency was furnished with a draft copy of the proposed legislation prepared by Agency and Bond Counsel. It was moved by Member Scott, seconded by Member Cox and unanimously carried to accept the report and forward proposed legislation to Assemblyman Deddeh. MEMBERS' COMMENTS Member Cox commented on the La Bella Pizza alley as to its vacation for dedicated alley purposes. He then questioned the status of the $25,000 in Block Grant funds allotted to the LDC. It was moved by Member Cox and seconded by Member Scott to request a report from staff regarding Block Grant funding for the LDC. Chairman Hyde thought it might be helpful to contact Assemblyman Deddeh apprising him of the problem and asking him to inquire on our behalf. Special Counsel Reed advised against this pointing out that State Franchise Board approval is expected at anytime. The motion to bring back a progress report on the LDC passed unanimously. Member Scott discussed the need for Oral Communications by the Agency. The Chairman agreed noting the Agency should be alert to this point. Responding to Chairman Hyde's concern on the UDAG application, Community Development Director Desrochers stated that it will be considered in March to give the developer more time to provide assurance of secured tenants. Mr. Zogob is attempting to obtain 1 etters of commitment from prospecti ve tenants. The director indicated he would bring back an update on the UDAG status at the February Redevelopment Agency meeting. Th, ",ti", w., ,djoo,",d ,t 8,4' p.'. to th, R,d", ~,y ",ti" "h,do"d to follow the Council Conference on January 11'/~~7.-< ./__ {J / .' /., ..- Pau 1/4179