Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 2004/03/23 RDA MINUT OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY OUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA March 23, 2004 6:00 p.m. Adjourned Regular Meetin s of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista were called to order at 6:51 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Services Building, 276 Fo h Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Councilmembers: Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas, and Chair/Mayor Padilla ABSENT: Agency/Councilmembers: None ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowlands, Agency/City Attorney Moore, and Assistant City Clerk Norris ORALCOMMUNICATIO S There were none. PUBLIC HEARING 1 A. COUNCIL RESOL TION NO. 2004-094, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY F CHULA VISTA ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE REPORTS AND COMMENDATIONS OF THE TOWN CENTRE AND ADDED AREA PROJECT A COMMITTEES ON THE PROPOSED 2004 AMENDMENT TO THE MERGED HULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1 B. REDEVELOPME AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1868, RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMEN AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA TRANSMITTING ITS REPORT TO T E CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PROPOSED 2004 AMENDMENT (IN THE FORM 0 AN AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO THE MERGED HULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT In November 2002 the Redevelopment Agency initiated the process to amend the Merged Chula Vist Redevelopment Project (comprised of the Town Centre II, Otay Valley, and South st Redevelopment Plans) to facilitate extension of redevelopment and economic dev opment tools throughout commercial and industrial areas in the western part of Chu Vista. The proposed 2004 Amendment modifies the merged Chula Vista Redevelopme t Project. (Director of Community Development) Senior Assistant City Atto ey Googins explained that items IA and 1B were administrative in nature and could be acted pon jointly, prior to opening the public hearing and considering the amendment itself. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Chair/Mayor Padilla asked if anyone wished to speak on Items IA and IB. There was no response. ACTION: Agency/Councilmember Davis offered Council Resolution No. 2004-094 and Agency Resolution No. 1868, headings read, texts waived. The motion carried 3- 0-2, with Councilmembers Rindone and McCann abstaining due to the proximity of their residences to the project. I C. CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED 2004 AMENDMENT (IN THE FORM OF AN AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Mayor Padilla opened the public hearing. Senior Community Development Specialist Tapia explained the three key elements of the proposed 2004 amendment: expansion of the project area by adding approximately 500 acres of property throughout the western region of the City; re-establishment of eminent domain authority in the Towne Centre II and Otay Valley regions, with the exception of properties utilized for residential purposes and in residential zones; and consolidation of the Southwest, Otay Valley and Towne Centre II redevelopment plans. He stated that the goal of the amendment is to remove blight and revitalize the Broadway and Third A venue corridors, as well as the commercial and industrial areas. He stated that the extensive outreach campaign had included general community workshops and additional meetings with local groups and business organizations. Assistant City Clerk Norris read the following communications into the record: a letter dated September 30, 2003, from Angela J. Madement, owner of property at 120 Press Lane; and a letter dated November 11, 2003, from Kent and Alicia Thompson, owners of property at 507 Jefferson Avenue. Mary Machado stated that she has been a business owner in the proposed redevelopment area since 1960 and would oppose relocating her business. Stu Gordon spoke in support of the Machado family and against the use of eminent domain with regard to their property. Mr. Tapia commented that adoption of the proposed plan amendment does not necessarily mean the use of eminent domain. The City has no plans to acquire any property at this time, since there are no current specific projects or plans. Should the amendment be approved, staff would then look at conditions in the areas in more detail and work with property owners on the types of programs that could be implemented to improve the areas. Page 2 - Council/RDA Minutes March 23, 2004 ---------.-.,- ---_._--~------_._---- ----------------- PUBLIC HEARING (Conti ued) Mayor Padilla clarified fo the record that the amendment provides the possibility of using eminent domain, after due p ocess, in the event it becomes necessary. Senior Assistant City Atto ey Googins added that there is no particular property or project that is targeted by the proposed endment plan as it relates to eminent domain. Ruth Gordon spoke in supp rt of the Machado family. Cathy Lightbody spoke in opposition to the redevelopment plan and stated that her family business has alwayscompli d with the City's rules and regulations. Frank Luzzaro asked if the lower Sweetwater Valley was included in the redevelopment plan. Mr. Tapia replied affirmati Iy. Mr. Luzzaro spoke in support of maintaining the valley as open space and opposed any ind strial use. Mr. Tapia responded that the land use designation is part of the zoning ordinance an the General Plan. The redevelopment plan does not contain a land use element, and there is 0 industrial proposal for the Sweetwater Valley site. Mr. Slater, project consultant, further xplained that the redevelopment plan amendment would not affect the land use designation. e Agency would be given the authority to assist the City in its implementation ofwhatev the City determines the proper land use to be. Susan Luzzaro stated that t transfer of land to the Redevelopment Agency was not addressed at the community meetings, d she asked if the community was properly noticed about the transfer. She also stated t at residents had received a letter from the City stating that further discussions regarding the S eetwater Valley were postponed pending completion of the General Plan update. David McClurg, President f the Downtown Business Association, said he did not recall the proposed amendment bein brought before the association and asked if staff might attend the Board's upcoming April 7' meeting. Mr. Tapia responded that a staff colleague had attended a prior association meeting d added that the proposed plan does not include either the Towne Center I or bayfront areas. Al De Philippis, an owner f three downtown properties, opposed the plan, stating that he does not want to give up his prop les. Deputy Mayor SalaS comm nted that redevelopment fosters economic development, and existing businesses, such as Mr. De hilippis', thrive in a redevelopment area. Agency/Councilmember D vis stated that one reason for adding area to the Redevelopment Agency is to receive additio al funding. The City currently receives 14 cents for every tax dollar in a non-Redevelopment gency area. The 66-2/3 cents received for every tax dollar in a redevelopment area goes di ectly back into the specific area of the community for infrastructure improvements. Page 3 - Council/RDA 'Minutes March 23, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) Mr. De Philippis asked for clarification regarding Agency/Councilmember Davis' comments on Redevelopment Agency funding. Mr. Slater explained that a portion of the property taxes paid by residents who live in redevelopment areas is accumulated over time to provide resources for the implementation of redevelopment projects that go directly back into that specific area. Mr. Googins added that property taxes paid by residents on property outside a redevelopment area are placed in a general fund that can be used anywhere within the jurisdiction. However, when the Redevelopment Agency receives tax increment, the funding must be poured back into those specific project areas. Emily Jenkins stated that she lost her property by way of eminent domain and was not provided any assistance in relocating. She commented, however, that she was able to purchase the new property at the old tax rate because it was in a redevelopment area. She asked if there would be any zoning changes at the current location of her business. Mr. Tapia suggested that he meet with Ms. Jenkins regarding any proposed plans for the area. Patricia Korignan spoke regarding the fear of property owners that their properties would be taken. Randy Churness expressed concern about the purpose of community input for a proposed plan that has no specificity. Chair/Mayor Padilla explained that the purpose ofthe public hearing is to solicit reports from the committee, staff, and public on what potential areas would be included and designated as potential redevelopment areas. Mr. Slater added that the redevelopment plan is an initial step to set forth, in very general terms, the tools the Redevelopment Agency can use to try to redevelop a particular area and the goals and objectives for that particular area. Paul Machado stated that it was his understanding if the Council approves the plan, a developer could make a proposal to the City to develop a property and the affected property owner would have to relocate within a year. Albert Pina believed that any changes would be costly to the existing property owners. Steve Franklin, a Broadway business owner, opposed the use of eminent domain. Henry Harb, a local business owner, supported a redevelopment plan that would include a good balance for the west side of the City. John Rader, who has a family-owned business on Broadway, stated that he favors redevelopment for improvements, and he asked if land would be set aside for the relocation of those businesses subject to eminent domain. Lenny Kuzman, owner of a family business on Broadway, expressed concern about losing her business to eminent domain. She asked which businesses would stay and which businesses would be taken through eminent domain. Marco Vargas, a business tenant on Broadway, was hesitant about moving forward with improvement plans to his rental property as a result of concerns about the redevelopment plan. Page 4 - Council/RDA Minutes March 23,2004 .-----..-- --_..- ---~-- ---------------- PUBLIC HEARING (Conti ued) There being no further embers of the public wishing to address the Agency/Council, Chair/Mayor Padilla closed he public hearing. Chair/Mayor Padilla noted at the proposed amendment is scheduled for discussion at the joint Agency/Council meeting on April 20, 2004, followed by adoption of the plan on April 27, 2004. No action was taken on this 'tem. OTHER BUSINESS 2. DIRECTOR/CITY There were none. 3. CHAIR/MA YOR'S There were none. 4. AGENCY/COUNCI MEMBER'S COMMENTS Agency/Councilmember Sa as encouraged the public to continue to participate and communicate concerns to the Council. ADJOURNMENT At 8:22 p.m., Chair/Mayo Padilla adjourned the meeting to a special joint meeting of the Redevelopment Agency d City Council, meeting concurrently with the Board of Port Commissioners, on'March 0, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, and thence to the regular meeting of the Re evelopment Agency on April 6, 2004, at 4:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council eeting in the Council Chambers. J~£~ Donna Norris Assistant City Clerk Page 5 - Council/RDA Minutes March 23, 2004