Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1978/07/13 MINUTES OF A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday - 7:00 p.m. July 13, 1978 A joint Public Hearing of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista was held beginning at 7:07 p.m. on the above date in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue. COUNCILMEN/MEMBERS PRESENT Mayor/Chairman Hyde; Councilmen/Members Cox, Egdahl, Gillow, Scott COUNCILMEN/MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Executive Director Cole, Community Development Director Desrochers, Special Counsel Reed, Community Development Coordinator Boyd, Administrative Analysts Cebula and Sanseverino, Assistant Director of Public Works Lippitt Deputy City Manager Wittenberg ABBREVIATIONS USED IN For the purpose of this set of minutes, the following MINUTES abbreviations will be used: Mayor/Chairman - M/C Councilman/Member - C/M City Manager/Executive Director - CM/ED Community Development Director/Agency Secretary - CDD/AS TOWN CENTRE PROJECT #II PUBLIC HEARING M/C Hyde opened the meeting by announcing that it was a joint meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency for the purpose of holding a public hearing for the consideration of the proposed Town Centre Project #II Redevelopment Plan. It was also noted that public testimony would be taken when the hearing was officially opened. ITEM NO. I - CDD/AS REPORT CDD/AS Desrochers, in answer to M/C Hyde's inquiries, submitted the following documents into evidence: ItEM NO. 2 - COUNCIL/AGENCY RECEIVES INTO EVIDENCE 1. Statement that the notices of the public hearing were published and mailed according to law. (Exhibit "A") CDD/AS Desrochers indicated that due to computer error, as many as four copies of these notices were mailed to property owners. Also, Mr. Desrochers expressed his appreciation to various City departments, expecially the Fire Department, for their assistance in the mailing. 2. Affi davit of publication testifying that the notice of public hearing was published once a week for four (4) successive weeks prior to the public hearing in the Chula Vista STAR-NEWS, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Chula Vista. (Exhibit ~'B'~) 7/13/78 -2- joint Public Hearing City Council/Redevelopment Agency July 13, 1978 3. A copy of that portion of the last equalized assess- ment roll showing the names of the property owners of record within the proposed project area testifying that the notice required by Health & Safety Code Section 33349 was mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, to each such person. (Exhibit "C" 4. A list of all taxing agencies which levy taxes on any property in the proposed area testifying that the notices required by Health & Safety Code Section 33349 were mailed to the governing board of each such agency by certified mail, return receipt requested. (Exhibit "D") WRITTEN OBJECTIONS CDD/AS Desrochers declared that he has received six letters of objection to the pro~ posed plan. Of those six, only three were signed. Upon the request of M/C Hyde, the CDD/AS proceeded to read these letters into evidence. Listed below are the names and addresses of those property owners who submitted signed letters of objection: Mr. Wallace W. Miller Route 1, Box 483 Sequim, WA 98382 Mr. Grant Jacobson 1221 26th Street San Diego, CA 92102 Mr. Michael J. Messina DORMAN'S, Inc. 6565 Knott Avenue Buena Park, CA 90620 CDD/AS Desrochers submitted the following documents into evidence: (1) The Redevelopment Plan (Exhibit "E"); and, (2) the Report on the Plan (Exhibit "F"). SPECIAL COUNSEL'S STATEMENT Special Counsel Reed explained that the Council/Agency must make certain findings upon the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan of the Town Centre #II Redevelopment Project - these are listed in Sections 4 and 5 of the proposed ordinance. M/C Hyde informed the public of the purposes and intent of the City Council with respect to the project area as outlined in the proposed ordinance. ITEM NO. 3 - ORAL STAFF REPORT In response to M/C Hyde's request for additional comments in regard to the Plan and Report, CDD/AS Desrochers defined the term "blighted area" stating the differences between 'economic' and 'physical' blight. He also indicated that the Redevelopment Plan is in conformance with State Law and has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Town Centre Project Area Committee in accordance with that law. 7/13/78 Joint Public Hearing City Council/Redevelopment Agency July 13, 1978 The CDD/AS commented that eminent domain proceedings could be used only in a few : instances. CDD/AS Desrochers noted that the Redevelopment Plan is basically the same as the Town Centre #I P1 an. The Council/Agency was informed that the Project Area Committee has reviewed the Plan. On July 6, 1978, the Committee voted 6-1 to recommend adoption of the Plan. There is concern by the members with regard to the closure of Fifth Avenue. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of July 12, 1978, voted 4-2 to recommend elimination of Madison Avenue from the proposed boundaries as outlined in the En~iron- mental Impact Report (EIR). The CDD/AS stated that staff is in concurrence with the recommendation. C/M Scott asked for the rationale for the inclusion of property west of Broadway in the boundaries. CDD/AS Desrochers, in response, stated that: (1) For traffic circu- lation purposes, all properties surrounding the shopping center on the west or north flanks were proposed to be included; and, (2) Mayfair Market building is now vacant and could be an appropriate site for a new use under the proposed Redevelopment Plan. At this time, the M/C informed the public as to the reason for the proposed Redevelop- ment Project as follows: 1. To bring the present shopping center to major regional shopping center status; and, 2. Chula Vista Shopping Center is basically anchored by two major tenants - Sear's and the Broadway which is divided by Fifth Avenue. They are both well over 18 years old. Due to the fact that both stores suffer the consequences of age, unless something is done to prevent the'normal de- terioration of the center, it will continue to decline. The M/C went on to explain that 35% of sales tax revenue comes from the shopping center. The affects of Proposition 13 seriously hamper financial sources of the City. Revenue becomes more acute. Therefore, it is the feeling of the City Council that it would be appropriate to attempt to improve, by internal expansion, the Chul a Vista Shopping Center In regard to the proposed boundaries, M/C Hyde reiterated that the City does not wish to disturb or inconvenience residents in any way. The boundary lines were drawn to minimize the number of residential units that will be involved. ITEM NO. 4 - PUBLIC HEARING OPENED There being no further comments by staff and the Council/Agency, and this being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing'was declared open. Mr. Rich McGinty Mr. McGinty, representing the Chula Vista Chamber of 501H Street Commerce, spoke in favor of the proposed Redevelopment Plan commenting that the Chamber supported the concept of redevelopment only as a partial solution to 1 agging sales in the Chula Vista Shopping Center. 7/1~/78 Joint Public Hearing City Council/Redevelopment Agency July 13, 1978 Mr. E. C. Duhamel Mr. Duhamelspoke in opposition to the subject plan and~ 229 Glover Avenue requested the Council/Agency cancel the redevelopment project. In response to Mr. Duhamel's query on the number of notices mailed to property owners, CDD/AS Desrochers replied that over 1,000 were mailed certified, return receipt requested in accordance with the State Redevelop- ment Law. Mrs. Joe Strum Mrs. Strum was concerned about whether or not some of 524 H Street nicer-looking homes would be eliminated through the use of eminent domain. She informed the Council/Agency that her home was directly across the street from the Broadway store. M/C Hyde advised Mrs. Strum that the Agency was not looking to 'eliminate' any homes and that property owners within the boundaries of the proposed plan must be notified of the eminent domain possibilities. Mrs. Harriet Stone Mrs. Stone, representing the Mayfair Shopping Center, 6566 Ridgemanor informed the Council/Agency that this store had closed San Diego, CA in January. She indicated that she was in favor of the Redevelopment Project and would like her property in- cluded in the boundaries. M/C Hyde, at this time, announced to the audience that he welcomed their criticism but. requested that it be done in a constrained manner. Mr. Joseph Garcia Mr. Garcia noted that he concurred with the message dis- 484 Fifth Avenue pensed by Proposition 13 whereby administrative duties in local government be controlled. Mr. Garcia also questioned the Council/Agency with regard to the City's power of eminent domain. He expressed concern with regard to the acquisition of properties, wondering whether the land would be purchased from the private owner at its commercial value and then resold to the developer at a higher price. CLARIFICATION BY SPECIAL COUNSEL Special Counsel Reed clarified for Mr. Garcia that property would be appraised, according to law, at its "fair market price" or, in other words, its highest and best use. Mr. Burton O. Perkins Mr. Perkins spoke in opposition of the proposed project 554 Fig Avenue indicating that traffic from Fifth Avenue would be shunted down Fig Avenue. Mr. Walter S. Alcarez Mr. Alcarez pointed out to the Council/Agency and staff 411 Shasta Street that the boundary map was in error in that the First Lot #12 National Bank located at Fourth and H Streets would be 7/13/78 Joint Public Hearing City Council/Redevelopment Agency July 13, 1978 divided. CDD/AS Desrochers indicated that there was no reason why the bank could not have property located on both sides of the boundaries inasmuch as the bank recently purchased two residential parcels for the ex- pansion of this parking lot. Mr. William Riedel Mr. Riedel requested that the City close off Fifth 554 I Street Avenue for a couple of weeks on a trial basis. C/M Scott noted that if Fifth Avenue were closed as suggested, that would show cause for additional public hearings. Mr. Jerry Prior Mr Prior indicated that up to now he has been in strong 689 H Street support of redevelopment, but seeing that there are two other projects in the City that have not progressed he is now in opposition to another one. Mr. Prior also pointed out that it seemed that the Town Centre I and Town Centre II project were in competition with each other. M/C Hyde explained that one of the provisions in the Plan is that #II not be competitive with #I, rather that they be complimentary to one another. Mr. George Punton Mr. Punton, speaking in opposition, requested that his 4664 Lucille property be removed from the boundaries. Mr. Ronald Landells Mr. Landells asked if the City intended to exclude the 1027 Vista Grande Drive Savings & Loan building at Broadway and H from the boundaries and if so, w~ll the Der Wienerschnitzel also be excluded? Mr. Jack Scrimminger Mr. Scrimminger spoke in opposition to the proposed 454 Shasta project. Gloria Harpenau Ms. Harpenau requested that certain parcels be removed 2733 Glebe Road from the proposed boundaries. She also expressed concern Lemon Grove, CA with regard to the proposed courthouse construction. M/C Hyde informed Ms. Harpenau that the County Courthouse facility has been placed on hold by the County pending further discussion with regard to Proposition 13. Mr. Joe Rainbolt Mr. Rainbolt spoke in opposition to the project if his Fig & I property were to be purchased as residential rather than commercial. If the later were the case, then he would support the project. Mr. Frank Orgovan Mr. Orgovan stated that he was generally opposed to the 640 W. Manor Drive project; would like to see boundaries reduced. 7/13/78 Joint Public Hearing ~'~ City Council/Redevelopment Agency July 13, 1978 Mr. Dick Sterba Mr. Sterba spoke in opposition to the project. 456 Fifth Avenue Mr. Jerry LaFredo Mr. LaFredo expressed concern in regard to the City's 627 Ash Avenue power to use eminent domain. Mr. R. K. Wooters Mr. Wooters was concerned as to whether or not the 620 Guava Avenue Council/Agency had reviewed testimony minutes of the Planning Commission. He pointed out that in those .minutes the Council/Agency would find no favorable comments to the project by the public. Mr. Jack Hillyer Mr. Hillyer requested that the boundaries be restricted 385 H Street to the area surrounding Sear's and the Broadway only. Mr. Dick Kau Mr. Kau indicated that he was Chain~an of the subcommittee of the Chamber of Commerce that backed the shopping center expansion and was in favor of the project as proposed. Mr. William Goldy Mr. Goldy spoke in opposition to the project 597 Guava Avenue PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ) There being no further comments, either for or against, M/C Hyde declared the public hearing closed. The meeting was recessed at 9:17 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:32 p.m. MOTION TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL/AGENCY It was moved by M/C Hyde to continue further discussion in this matter to another meeting due to the receipt of the final EIR, to review comments by the Planning Com- mission, and to consider public testimony. The motion died for lack of second. C/M Cox commented that although it is appropriate to continue discussion, the concerns of the public deal with the inclusion of homes outside of the Chula Vista Shopping Center. Staff has emphasized the plan's goal is to strengthen the shopping center. C/M Scott recommended that action be taken in regard to the boundaries. MOTION TO REVISE BOUNDARIES It was moved by C/M Scott, seconded by M/C Hyde and unanimously carried that the boundaries of the Redevelopment Project #II under consideration be made on the west side of Broadway; north side of H Street and across the back of the zoning wall (Fig/ Sear's property line) to I Street and south on I Street back to Broadway. M/C Hyde expressed concern with regard to the deletion of the properties along the north side of H Street. 7/13/78 -7- Joint Public Hearing City Council/Redevelopment Agency July 13, 1978 MOTION AMENDMENT It was moved by M/C Hyde as an amendment to the previous motion that the properties as displaced on the north side of H Street between Broadway and Fourth Avenue be included in the boundaries. The motion died for lack of second. yl MOTION TO CONTINUE JOINT COUNCIL/AGENCY MEETING It was moved by C/M Scott, seconded by C/M Cox and unanimously carried that the meeting be continued to the next Redevelopment Agency meeting of August 3, 1978. It was requested by CM/ED Cole that the Council adjourn to Executive Session to discuss personnel matters. Special Counsel Reed indicated that since the Council portion of this hearing is declared a Special Meeting, the Council could not adjourn to Executive Session. ADJOURNMENT The Joint Public Hearing of the City Council/Redevetopment Agency was adjourned at 9:46 p.m. to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on August 3, 1978. a u D e.s~c re~ry~ 7/13/78