HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1986/02/06
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Thursday, February 6, 1986 Council Chambers
7:00 p.m. Public Services Building
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Members McCandliss, Scott, Moore, Malcolm
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Cox
STAFF PRESENT: Executi ve Di rector Goss, Agency Attorney Harron,
Communi ty Development Director Desrochers, Assistant
Community Development Di rector Gustafson,
Redevelopment Coordi nato r Kassman, Community
Development Specialist Davies
l. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MSUC (Scott/McCandliss) to approve minutes of January 16 and 28, 1986 meetings
as mai 1 ed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Acti ng Chai rman McCandl i ss stated that there was a request to pull item #5
from the consent calendar by Mr. Ira Taylor.
MSUC (Scott/Moore) to adopt consent calendar items as presented excluding
item #5.
2. REPORT: STATUS OF THE BAYFRONT NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER
Member Malcolm handed out a copy of a 1 etter sent to the Coastal Commission
from the Si erra Cl ub regarding thei r oppositi on of our rel ocati on of the
Nature Center.
5. RESOLUTION: ENTERING INTO AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH IRA W.
AND ROSINA M. TAYLOR
Community Development Director Desrochers commented that the calculations for
the i n-l i eu parki ng fees were made when the project was fi rst proposed when
the fee was $lO/sq. ft., it is now $17/sq. ft. He added that we are using the
standard of one space for every 200 sq. ft. of space and Mr. Taylor is asking
for one space for every 300 sq. ft. which is not in accordance with the
standards for the proposes uses.
Member Scott questi oned at what poi nt a buil di ng woul d be grandfathered in,
since Mr. Taylor's building has been two years in the planning stage.
Director Desrochers responded that we have not been faced with this situation
before and no pol icy has been establ ished. Agency Attorney Harron reported
that as a matter of law, something is grandfathered in at such a time when a
building permit is drawn.
Regular Meeting of the
Redevelopment Agency - 2 - February 6, 1986
Member Moore asked when the fees were officially raised. Coordinator Kassman
responded that it was in December. He added that Mr. Taylor's figures are
based on 300 sq. ft. per parking space coverage, but the Planning Department
uses 350 sq. ft. per parking space.
Ira Taylor commented that he is asking the City to allow him to have all the
parking spaces on site and that they be reduced so that he will not have to
pay the money to the City. At present calculations, the parking fee is about
13% of the cost of the building and he feels the building will not bear the
cost economically. Acting Chairman McCandliss questioned Mr. Taylor regarding
the need for less parking than required by the City. He responded that if he
was in the parking district he wasn't required to furnish parking spaces. He
stated that thi s area has now been overl ay zoned for retai 1 and that in that
zoning, the requirements are 300 sq. ft. for commercial and 200 sq. ft. for
medical, retail usage.
Acting Chairman McCandliss inquired whether it might be a good idea to
continue this item until the February 20, 1986 meeting. Director Desrochers
agreed and asked for di recti on from the Agency regardi ng the i n-l i eu park i ng
fee and whether this development should be grandfathered in. Member Malcolm
asked Mr. Taylor what usage he is proposing for the development. Mr. Taylor
responded that at this point it is open to whoever can pay $.60/sq. ft.
Member Malcolm commented that there is a building right down the street that
is of medical usage and they were required to pay for one in every 200 sq. ft.
and that we should stick to that policy. He added that he does not feel that
it is so important to requi re 100% coverage on Landi s but that it is most
important to have 100% coverage on Third Avenue and that he would support a
redesign of the building with all parking on site.
MSUC (Malcolm/McCandliss) to continue item for two weeks to February 20, 1986
meeting directing staff to come back with a recommendation regarding
grandfathering in and directing staff to look into current policy we have
requiring maximum usage of the property as far as building footprint.
6. RESOLUTION: AUTHORIZING THE LEE C. JOHNSON COMPANY TO APPRAISE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 427-431 THIRD AVENUE
Member Malcolm requested reconsideration of this item.
MSUC (Moore/McCandliss) to reconsider item #6.
Member Malcolm asked why should an appraisal be conducted on a parcel that is
not a priority. He feels that we have so much more in priorities to deal with
that we should not approve the appraisal. Member Scott stated that he feels
it is important for two reasons; (1) the property is becomi ng an eyesore and
(2) to provide for additional parking.
MSUC (Scott/Moore) to hold item over to Special Meeting of February 11, 1986.
. _.. __. __._.._____.~_._____....__·__n_
Regular Meeting of the
Redevelopment Agency - 3 - February 6, 1986
8. REPORT: STATUS OF RESIDENTIAL LOT 8 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Member Malcolm asked Mr. Zogob if that created any problems for them. Mr.
Cowett responded that their new situation is not much of modification. They
have increased the pri vate capital by about 42% and have eliminated the
necessity to issue bonded indebtedness by going with a private lender. They
are in plan check right now and it will not jeopardize anything for them to
wait until there is a full Agency present. Acting Chairman McCandliss stated
that she maintains that even if you have plans into the City, if you do not
have financing, you are no further along that you were six months ago.
MSUC (McCandliss/Scott) to continue item to Special Meeting of February 11,
1986.
9. STATUS REPORT: TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Member Malcolm commented that does not see any reason why the City shoul d
share thi s cost with the developer. Member Scott stated that the theory of
redevelopment is that you put seed money in to get a project off the ground.
Member Scott went on to say that the City would like to start this venture in
a cooperative spirit. Member Malcolm interjected that he feels Homart should
come back to the Agency and prove that it financially infeasible for them to
proceed before the City puts any money into the project.
Di rector Desrochers remarked that the staff feel s that a cooperative effort
with Homart, particularly as it pertains to Fifth Avenue, is very important.
Member Moore commented that he feels there should be a policy for staff to
follow regarding cost sharing, right now they are working on a philosophy of
redeve 1 opment.
MSc (Mccandliss/Moore) to accept report as submitted.
Aye: McCandliss, Moore, Scott
Nay: Malcolm
10. REPORT: APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH STUDY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Member Moore questioned two items in the report; (l) sees no scope of
responsibil ity that requires the committee to report to the Council and that
the minutes of the meeting should be recorded, and (2) the statement that the
committee will confer with County and City staff. He stated that he questions
the word "will", would like to see a word like "may" in its place. A 1 so, the
statement "may make recommendations" shoul d be changed si nee it is a
commi ttee I s purpose to make recommendati ons and thi s statement infers that
they have a choice of whether to do so.
MSUc (Scott/Moore) to accept the report as submitted.
..-_..._-_..-. ---"---"
Regular Meeting of the
Redevelopment Agency - 4 - February 6, 1986
Member Moore brought up the fact that the report states that a member of the
Redevelopment Agency will serve on the committee and suggested Member
Mccandliss. Acting Chairman Mccandliss stated that her involvement with the
Health Department might conflict with acting on this committee, Member Moore
declined after being nominated by Member Scott.
MSUC (Moore/Malcolm) to approve staff recommendation with the change that the
Agency will appoint two members-at-large.
11. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Executive Director Goss reported that over ten
proposals were received for the hotel site at Bay Boulevard and "E"
Street. Director Desrochers added that the proposals will be reviewed and
a report will be presented at the next Redevelopment Agency on February
20th. Proposals will be looked at by a City committee and CVIC.
12. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: Acting Chairman McCandliss noted that there is a
request for a closed session to discuss acquisition of property at Third
and "H", Bay Boulevard south of "F" Street and property along Landis
Avenue between Davidson and "F" Street, and possible litigation.
MSUc (Scott/Moore) to go into closed session to discuss acquisition of
properties at Third and "H", Bay Boulevard south of "F" Street and property
along Landis Avenue between Davidson and "F" Streets, litigation and possible
litigation.
Acting Chairman McCandliss commented on the Bayfront sign on "E" street has
been vandalized or damaged and questioned whether we plan to repair the sign
on an ongoing basis. Mr. Kassman replied that we plan to repair the sign
under the landscape district, trying to contact the original sign maker to
make the repairs as our sign shop cannot make the repairs to bring it back to
its original form.
13. MEMBERS' COMMENTS: Member Moore stated that his comment would relate to
the potenti al pol icy of the staff as it rel ates to shared costs in
redevelopment projects. Questi oned whether the staff feel s that there
should be an established policy. Director Desrochers responded that staff
would like to keep it on a case-by-case basis.
Member Scott remarked that a phil osophi cal statement to Council woul d
regardi ng redevelopment woul d be hel pful to see what framework we are
working under.
Member Malcolm reported that the City of San Diego approved a project
which the County of San Diego has appealed and he feel s that the Agency
needs to take a firm stand in joining the County of San Diego in this
lawsuit. City of San Diego has approved a project right in the middle of
117 whi ch ti es into 125 and sai d that they do not agree wi th where the
County has the road.
Regular Meeting of the
Redevelopment Agency - 5 - February 6, 1986
MSUc (Malcolm/Scott) to di rect staff to come back wi th report as soon as
possi bl e to Council in regards to thi s project recently approved by the City
of San Diego.
ADJOURNMENT AT 8:00 p.m. to Tuesday, February 11, 1986 at 7:00 p.m.
~~'" S"""'y
WPC 2099H
------_.-