Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1976/06/24 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday - 7:30 p.m. June 24, 1976 A joint meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista was held on the above date beginning at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, with the following Councilmen/Members present: Mayor Pro Tempore/Vice Chairman Hyde, Councilman/Member Cox, Councilman/Member Egdahl Councilmen/Members absent: Mayor/Chairman Hamilton (due to a conflict of interest of owning property in area discussed) and Councilman/Member Hobel Staff present: Attorney Clifton Rsed, Acting City Manager/Executive Director Asmus, Director of Community Development Desrochers, Senior Planner Pass ABBREVIATIONS USED For the purposss of this set of minutes, the following IN MINUTES abbreviations will be used: Mayor Pro Tempore/Vice Chairman - MPT/VC Councilman/Member - C/M Director of Community Development - DCD Acting City Manager/Executive Director - ACM/ED City Clerk/Agency Secretary - CC/AS TOWN CENTRE PROJECT MPT/VC Hyde opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. announcing PUBLIC HEARING that it was a joint meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the adoption of the proposed Town Centre Redevelopment Plan. 1. CITY CLERK/AGENCY CC/AS Fulasz, in answer to ~fFT/VC Hyde's and Attorney SECRETARY'S REPORT Reed's inquiries, submitted the following documents into evidence: 1. Statement that the notices of the public hearing were published and mailed according to law. (Exhibit 1) 2. Affidavit of publication testifying that the notice of public hearing was published once a week for four 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 2) 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 3) -139- Joint Meeting June 24, 1976 Council/Redevelopment Agency 4. A list of all taxing agencies which levy taxes on any property in the proposed project 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 4) 2. WRITTEN OBJECTIONS CC/AS Fulasz declared that she did not receive any written objections to the proposed plan. SUBMITTED INTO DCD Desrochers submitted the following documents into EVIDENCE evidence: 1. The Redevelopment Plan (Exhibit 5) 2. The Plan Report (Exhibit 6) Public hearing opened This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared opened. 3. ATTORNEY'S STATEMENT Attorney Reed explained that the Council/Agency must make certain findings upon the adoption of the Redevelop- ment Plan of the Town Centre Redevelopment Project - these are listed in Sections 4 and S of the proposed ordinance (submitted to the Council/Agency). STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT DCD Desrochers reviewed the findings and presented the OF FINDINGS following determinations: SECTION 4 (1) The project area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California. Determination: The area encompassed by the Town Centre Redevelopment Plan is blighted as evidenced by the report of the Redevelopment Plan, Section 3 - that out of 387 struc- tures in the project area, 55% are in poor or fair con- dition. Out of the 175 commercial ~t~uctures, 128, or 73% a~e in poor or fair condition, while 9 structures or 2% of the total are actually dilapidated. ~his infor- mation was gathered by the Building and Housing Depart- ment of the City. Historic trend~ of other cities in- dicate that if positive steps ~re not taken, further decline in this section of the City is most likely to occur. (2) The Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre Redevelopment Project No. 1 will redevelop the Project area in conform- ity with the Co~unity Redevelopment Law of the State of California and in the interest of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. -140- Joint Meeting June 24, 1976 Council/Redevelopment Agency Determination: The Redevelopment Plan is in conformity with the Re- development La~ of the State of California. Legal Counsel has provided input and assistance in its prep- aration. The Plan is in the interest of public peace, health, safety and welfare since improved circulation, lighting and pedestrian safety measures will be enacted. In addition, sturctures that are a safety hazard will be removed. (3) he adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment is economically sound and feasible. Determination: The adoption of the Plan is economically sound and feasible. No general fund monies, except for normal City maintenance, will be utilized. Funds from tax increments and block grants are proposed for project improvements and acquisition purposes. In addition, the Parking Place Commission and Business Improvement District monie~ may al~o be available for appropriate project utilizations. Page 15, Article 7 of the Redevelopment Plan and page 5, Section 4 of the Report of the Plan further details financing for the project. In addition, an annual budget will be prepared and presented to the City Council ond the Redevelopment Agency for consideration. (4) The Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre Redevelopment Project No. 1 conforms to the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista. Determination: The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City of Ohula Vista as adopted by City Council Resolution No. 5878, an December 15, 1970. Section 4 of the Preliminary Plan further elaborates on this issue and the staff will submit the Preliminary Plan also as evidence in t~is ~earing. (5) The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan for the Twon Centre Redevelopment Project No. 1 will promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City of Chula Vista and will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California. Determination: The carrying o~t of the Redevelopment ~lan of the Town Centr~ will promote public peace, health, ~afety and welfare of the City and will effectuate the purposes polieiee of the Redevelopment L~w of the State of California. As evidence, submitted is the Gruen+Gruen & Associate~'report~ dated April I975. Said report ~tates (~ Exhibit 7) -141- Joint Meeting June 24, 1976 Council/Redevelopment Agency that the area has not kept pace with the growth of the City in general - that signs of blight will con- tinue to occur unless remedies are taken. The adoption of the Plan will effectuate the remedies, such as pro- motion of remodeling of existing structures, improvement of public facilities and the attraction of new business and residential units to the area. (6) The condemnation of real property, as provided for in the Redevelopment Plan for the Project area, is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan and adequate provisions have been made for payment for property to b~ acquired as provided by law. Determination: The discriminate use of condemnation when financially feasible is necessa~j in order to eliminate blighted atruatures, consolidate parcels for development in aaaordanas with the Plan, and to accommodate certain public facilities. The State of California statutes and federal government regulations when applicable through the use of Community Development Block Grant funds will be adhered to. (7) The Agency has a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons to be displaced from housing facilities in the Project area. Determination: The report on the Redevelopment Plan~ as well as the Housing Assistance Pla~for the City will also be submitted as evidence. (*gxhibit $) (8) There are, or are being provided, in the Project area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons displaced for the Pro~ect area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such dis- placed families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. Determination: ~his Housing Assistance Plan is for the new fiscal year 1976/77 and attests to the fact that adequate re- location facilities are available. The Housing Assis- tance Plan also assures that adequate housing close by will be available to any person that may be dislocated from the project. (9) The Redevelopment Plan for the Project area will afford a maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the locality as a whole for the Redevelopment of such area by private enterprise. -142- Joint Meeting June 24, 1976 Council/Redevelopment Agency Determination: The Redevelopment Plan in accordance with the rules adopted by the Agency, in particular Resolution No. 37 which governs oWner-participation, assures that maximum redevelopment opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the locality will be afforded to the private sector, and in particular, those in business in the project area. The rules governing oWner-participation are submitted also as evidence. (E×hibit 9 - Redevelop- ment Resolution No. 37) SECTION 5. The City Council is satisfied permanent housing facilities will be available within three years from the time occupants of the Project area are displaced and that pending the development of such facilities there will be available to such displaced occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the City of Chula Vista at the time of their displacement. Determination: The Housing Assistance Plan for the City covers a three- year period and is submitted as proof that there are adequate relocation resource~ available if persons have to move from the project area. MAYOR - CONFLICT OF Attorney Reed stated that Mayor/Chairman Hamilton INTEREST came into the Chambers (during Mr. Desrochers' testi- mony) and because of the Mayor's ownership of property within the area, there is a potential conflict of in- terest and he advised the Mayor to leave the room. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN DCD Desrochers submitted and briefly explained the Plan noting that it was a reflection of 15 years of work particularly by the people in business in that central area of the City. Two years ago, the business people in the area asked the Council to take some pos- itive steps to assure the central district area means of competing with thc other retail areas of the City and outlying areas. At that time, the Council hired the consultants, Gruen + Gruen & Associates and their survey concluded that the area needed more diversity and mer- chandising - that restaurants and middle income resi- dential units were desirable for the area and to assure these goals, a redevelopment program should be initiated. At the conclusion of this report, 98% of the people in this area - from "E" Street to "G" Street - signed a petition asking the Council to prepare a redevelopment plan. In the fall of last year, the County decided to locate the Regional Center at Third and "H" Street; therefore, it was decided by the Planning Commission, Council and Redevelopment Agency to include this area in the Plan. -143- Joint Meeting June 24, 1976 Council/Redevelopment Agency Mr. Desrochers noted the progress made by the staff to date, the formation of the Project Area Committee, and the Environmental Impact Report. Speaking in opposition Speaking in opposition to the Project were: Ralph Benjamin, Co~mnander, Veterans of Foreign Wars, 299 "I" Street; Bob Green, 292 Talus Street, representing the Chula Vista Taxpayers' Association and Sid Morris, 862 Cedar Avenue. Their reasons were as follows: (1) Benjamin: questioned how much money has already been spent on the Plan; (2) where did the money come from; (3) how much federal money was appropriated; (4) what about low income housing; (5) who is to set the standards for the project area; (6) who is going to pay the taxes and is the City going to raise the taxes to meet the standards of the properties; (7) represents 800 people and they don't understand the full concept of the project. (At this time, DCD Desrochers noted the monies spent on the project thus far and Attorney Reed explained tax increment financing). (8) Green: who is going to pay the relocation costs; (9) who is going to decide who is to move; (10) who will pay for the remodeled structures; (ll) the Chula Vista Taxpayers would like, in writing every three months, a complete financial statement of income and outgo so that the local taxpayers will know where their money is going; (12) this is another taking-away of property rights. Speaking in favor Speaking in favor of the proposed project were Phil Creaser, member of the Town Centre Project Area Com- mittee who read a Resolution of the Committee asking for adoption of the Redevelopment Plan; Kitty Raso, La Belle Pizza, 373 Third Avenue; Jerry Prior, 230 Third Avenue; letter from Jack Harper on behalf of the Downtown Improvement District; Joseph Raso, La Belle Pizza Restaurant; Bill Kirby, 253 Third Avenue; Don Richie, 92 "F" Street and member of the Parking Place Commission~ Michael Wright, resident of Chula Vista; J. Schnepf, 3672 Valley Vista Road, Bonita; Mr. Willardson, 509 Carvalos Drive; John Madson, 270 Madrona; Mary Willardson, 509 Carvalos Drive; Trina Green, citizen of Chula Vista. Their reasons are summarized as follows: (1) K. Raso: speaking for the 200 people that have signed the peti- tion for the project; (2) has faith in the plan and is adding an addition to her restaurant; (3) Prior: invested in a restaurant in Third Avenue and if plan is not adopted will consider moving out of the area; (3) speaking on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce which en- dorses the plan; (4) urges cooperation of all the people -144- Joint Meeting June 24, 1976 Council/Redevelopment Agency to implement the plan; (5) J. Raso: some of the build- ings along Third Avenue should have been torn down 20 years ago; (6) either the town will be improved or it will go the other way; (7) Kirby, representing the Downtown Association: if the area is not improved, a loss of sales tax will follow; (8) Richie: read letter of endorsement from Parking Place Commission; (9) Wright: at one time Third Avenue was the main shopping district - it is now a health and fire hazard; (10) the buildings are ugly, dirty and need painting very badly and redevelopment is the answer; (11) Madson: for the plan in some areas and against it in others; (12) Green: the pros out-weigh the cons; (13) the project will benefit this beautiful City. Questions frem Speaking neither for or against the plan, the following the audience questions were asked and answered by Attorney Reed, DCD Desrochers, and the Council/Agency: Bobbie Morris, 862 Cedar Avenue: (1) if the area is as bad as depicted by the testimonies, why has it passed health and City safety inspections; (2) Tom Warburton, owner of property at Third and "G": dis- crimination applied to those owners who have already improved their properties - curbs, gutters and side- walks~ (3) Schnepf, as head cost accountant for the Tax Assessor's office and owner of property on "H" Street: the Gruen report was made in April 1975 and encempassed the area to "G" Street which he agrees is a blighted area; (4) the other area to "I" Street was included in October 1975 - once the County takes over the property at Third and "H", this area will '~draw on itself"; (5) request the Agency to consider the project in two phases: one to "G" and the other phase to "I" Street; (6) questioned the new version of the eminent domain law presently going through the legis- lature; (7) Willardson, 509 Carvalos Drive, owner of property on Landis and Church Streets: questioned the type of development proposed for the areas around Third Avenue and the speed in which the plan will be imple- mented; (8) Erwin: who makes the decision as to whether the property is considered hazardous and what recourse does the property owner have. Request to delete Mr. Frank Ferreira, 270 Bonita Glen Drive~ owner of the property f~om property at Fourth Avenue and Center Street discussed area project the plan, noting the location of his property and the present C-O zoning. Mr. Ferrelra said he acquired the property 15 years ago and removed the "blighted" in- fluences: the packing shed, foundation, and cleaned up the slopes at a cost of $140,000. Mr. Farreira added that he is neither for nor against the plan, but -145- Joint Meeting June 24, 1976 Council/Redevelopment Agency feels that the perimeters of the project have ex- tended too far and would like to go on record re- questing that his property be removed from this redevelopment plan project. Public hearing closed There being no further comments, either for or against MPT/VC Hyde declared the public hearing closed. Council/Agency Comments The Councilmen/Agency Members questioned the number of businesses in the area, both retail and commercial and discussed the petition signed in favor of the project. 5. COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 8226 - Offered by MPT/VC Hyde, the reading of the text was REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY waived by unanimous consent of those present, passed RESOLUTION NO. 48 - and adopted by the following vote, to-wit: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING AYES: MPT/VC Hyde, C/M's Cox, Egdahl THE THIRD AVENUE MASTER E.I.R. Noes: None AS THE E.I.R. FOR THE TOWN Absent: Mayor/Chairman Hamiton, C/M Hobel CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Mr. Ferreira's In answer to inquiries, DCD Desrochers requested property that the Council/Agency not delete Mr. Ferreira's property from the project as that property was essential to the plan and is a logical part of the downtown area. No motion to MPT/VC Hyde asked for a motion to delete the prop- delete property erty from the plan as requested by Mr. Ferreira. No motion was made. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 49 - Offered by Member Egdahl, the reading of the text RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA was waived by unanimous consent of those present, VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY passed and adopted by the following vote, to-wit: APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TOWN CENTRE AYES: Members Egdahl, Hyde, Cox REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND Noes: None RECOMMBNDING TO THE CITY Absent: Chairman Hamilton, Member Hobel COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THAT THE  PLAN BE ADOPTED 7. ORDINANCE NO. 1691 - It was moved by Mayor Pro Tempore Hyde that this ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ordinance be placed on its first reading and that the CHULA VISTA APPROVING AND reading of the text be waived by unanimous consent of ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT those present. PLAN FORT HE TOWN CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - FIRST READING -146- Joint Meeting June 24, 1976 Council/Redevelopment Agency The motion carried by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Mayor Pro Tempore Hyde, Councilmen Cox, Egdahl Noes: None Absent: Mayor Namiton, Councilman Hobel Redevelopment Agency Vice Chairman Hyde adjourned the Redevelopment Meeting closed Agency meeting at 9:33 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION It was moved by Mayor Pro Tempore Hyde, seconded by Councilman Egdahl and unanimously carried by those present that the Council recess to Executive Session for reasons of pending litigation. The Council recessed at 9:33 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 10:28 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Fro Tempore Hyde adjourned the meeting at 10:28 p.m. to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, June 29 at 9:00 a.m. City Clerk / Redevelopment Agency S~etary -147-