Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1998/06/09 RDA MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, June 9, 1998 Council Chambers 8:27 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER I. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency Members: Moot, Padillaf Rindone, Salas, and Chair Horton ABSENT: Agency Members: None ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director, David D. Rowlands; Legal Counsel, John M. Kaheny; City Clerk, Beverly A. Authelety and Deputy City Clerk, Charline V. Long CONSENT CALENDAR {Items pulled: none) CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY MEMBER RINDONE, headings read, texts waived, passed and approved unanimously 5-0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 19, 1998 3.a) AGENCY RESOLUTION 1586 APPROVING ITS REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE REPORT AND THE PROPOSED AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL-In 1997, the Agency requested that staff proceed with amendments to the Bayfront and Town Centre I Redevelopment Plans to address limitations that currently impede the Agency from removing blight and completing its redevelopment program in both Project Areas. The plan amendment process involves a series of steps. Per staff' s recommendation, the Agency approved the resolutions 5-0 to submit the Bayfront and Town Centre I Plan Amendment documents to the City Council for consideration. (Community Development Director) b) AGENCY RESOLUTION 1587 APPROVING ITS REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE ANENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF THE REPORT AND THE PROPOSED AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL * * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF: 1) GPA-98-03 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TO INCLUDE "MIXED LAND USE DESIGNATION AREA" TEXT INCLUDING PROPERTY IN CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT; AND 2) AMENDMENTS NUMBERS FIVE TO THE BAYFRONT AND TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PLANS--In 1997, the Agency requested that staff proceed with amendments to the Bayfront and Town centre I Redevelopment Plans to address time limitations that currently impede the Agency from removing blight and completing its redevelopment program in both Project Areas. In addition, the Agency is seeking to amend the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan to add approximately 398 acres of port District tidelands to the Project Area and to modify the existing Bayfront Redevelopment Plan's land use plan to correlate with the Chula Vista Certified Local Coastal Program and the city's General Plan. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions and to place the ordinances on first reading. (community Development Director) i ! RDA Minutes June 9, 1998 Page 2 a) AGENCY RESOLUTION 1588 AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 19036: CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE TOWN CENTRE I/BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS (EIR-98-2), ADOPTING THE FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO THE FEASIBILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN EIR-98-2, AND ADOpTING A RELATED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM b) COUNCIL RESOLUTION 19037: AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE TIDELANDS PROPERTY LOCATED GENERALLY NORTH OF "J" STREET, SOUTH OF "G" STREET AND WEST OF THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE FROM OPEN SPACE, PARK, RESEARCH & LIMITED MANUFACTURING, VISITOR COMMERCIAL, AND GENERAL INDUSTRIAL TO MIXED LAND USE c) ORDINANCE 2734: APPROVINGAND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5 FOR THE BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (first readinq) d) ORDINANCE 2735: APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5 FOR THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (first readinq) Pam Buchan, Principal Community Development Specialist, stated that approximately one year ago the City Council and Redevelopment Agency directed staff to proceed with the redevelopment plan amendments for Town Centre I and Bayfront to eliminate blight in those areas. The staff and consultants teamed for the project are Joe Monaco, environmental review; Duane Bazzel, advanced planning for the general plan amendment; Mark Huebsch, our special counsel; Kathy Rosenow and Jim Simon, Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc., redevelopment specialists. · Jim Simon, Redevelopment Consultant with Rosenow Spevacek Group (RSG), remarked that over the last 12 months, RSG has worked with the Agency preparing various documents identifying the rationale behind the proposed plan amendments to both Town Centre I and Bayfront Redevelopment Plans and the benefits and purposes of the amendments. The Bayfront amendment consists of a series of technical amendments involving the extensions of various time limits and the addition of property to the project area enabling the Agency to undertake redevelopment activities within the Port District tidelands area. This area was not originally included in the project area when it was established in 1974. The amendments address existing deficiencies of the Town Centre I and Bayfront Redevelopment Plans that include: establishing a twelve-year period in order to commence eminent domain activities from the amendment adoption date; allow the Agency to initiate eminent domain activities within the existing Bayfront Redevelopment Project area; extending the time frame to incur debt which allows the Agency to initiate new redevelopment programs until the year 2004; extending the plans effectiveness; allowing the Agency to continue implementing redevelopment programs and to collect tax increments for an additional 15 years beyond its limit. Likewise, the Town Centre I amendments are very similar in that they extend time frame limits for eminent domain and the ability to incur debt plans and to collect tax increment revenue. These amendments are necessary to allow the Agency to eliminate blighting conditions within the project area as well as undertaking new redevelopment programs in the added area. Chris Salomone, Director Community Development, responding to the issue of blight stated that blight can be incompatible parcels, large vacancy rates, depressed lease rates, environmental issues, lack of infrastructures, lack of response to marketing, all of which this area has experienced. The territory to be added should have been added when the Council adopted the redevelopment area in 1974. Despite the millions of dollars spent on creating redevelopmerit enhancement opportunities, the conditions that existed twenty-five years ago largely exist today. When you think of our Bayfront, the term blight would probably not be thought of by the lay person. But, when you think of the litany of issues and the efforts of the Agencies, City, and Port District to market those areas; the term does fit the state definition and that's why staff feels very secure in recommending this action. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Addressing the Agency was: · Mrs. Diane Gaffney, 376 Center St, #139, Chula Vista, 91910 stated she RDA Minutes June 9, 1998 Page 3 visits the Bayfront frequently and believes its a possibility that Rohr will eventually move and that property will become available. She would like to see a partnership with Rohr to develop the area close to the J Street entrance. By utilizing this area, a park could be developed and the spare buildings could be used for a day care center. There being no one else indicating a desire to address the Agency, the public hearing was closed. Member Moot stated that the staff's explanation of the addition of the land to the Bayfront area was appropriate and highly necessary, that a public explanation is vitally important to the approval of this project, and he is satisfied that the legal requirements to add that particular area have been met under the text of the redevelopment law. ORDINANCES 2734 AND 2735 PLACED ON FIRST READING, AGENCY RESOLUTUION 1588 AND COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS 19036 AND 19037, OFFERED BY MEMBER MOOT, headings read, text waived. Chris Salomone interjected that there may be a problem with introducing the ordinances at this time due to a letter, which was delivered after the meeting had started from the County of San Diego. Mr. Huebsch, Special Counsel, stated that there is a procedural requirement needed due to this letter, a copy of which is to be placed on file with the city clerk and is made a part of the record with all of the other written material. Under redevelopment law, the Council is not able to consider ordinances tonight. It requires that seven days or more from now a written report, prepared by staff, addressing the written material be received and at that point Council would be called on to overrule any objections. His recommendation would be that Council act on the resolutions tonight, and continue action on the ordinances until another meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. Chrie Salomone stated they have some confidence that they will be able to negotiate and mitigate the issues described in the letter. Member Moot questioned what interests the County of San Diego' s Department of Housing and Community Development have in a redevelopment area in the City of chula Vista and did the letter come through the member of the Board of Supervisors with jurisdiction over Chula Vista. Chris Salomone replied that the San Diego County Community Development Department oversees this one redevelopment area. In addition, they are charged with reviewing these types of documents. The department also undertakes this similar type of activity on other redevelopment area plan amendments or plan proposals such as the South Embarcadero proposal. Our Supervisor was made aware late this afternoon, he expressed concern and was apologetic for the late notice to our staff. We have been negotiating with them since October, and they gave no indication of an objection to this action. Mark Huebsch stated that a written response, thoroughly analyzing the writing, may be brought back for action and if the objections are acted on at that time, then under redevelopment law Council would be able to proceed with first reading of the ordinances. VOTE: Resolutions approved unanimously 5-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT TO ALLOW EDUCATIONAL AND COUNSELING SERVICES TO CLIENTS WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS AT 314 PARKWAY- Episcopal Community Services submitted a Land Use Permit application to establish the South Bay Recovery Center at 314 Park Way. The Center is planned to provide educational and counseling services to clients who have substance abuse problems. The project is located within the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area and has been reviewed by the Town Centre Project Area Committee and the Downtown Business Association. The project is exempt from environmental review. Staff RDA Minutes June 9, 1998 Page 4 recommends the public hearing be continued indefinitely. (Community Development Director) Pam Buchan, Principal Community Development Specialist, stated that when they said indefinitely, staff would probably bring this back mid-July. The request for continuance was made so that Community Development and the Attorney' s Office could resolve some issues as well as answer some questions and concerns from the public. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. · Robert Schaeffer, 490 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910, Offered that this program can do a lot for the people that need treatment. He has been around the park and Chula Vista for years and believes that Chula Vista is participating in making the neighborhood a better place. The program would help in keeping people out of the park. · Diane Gaffney, 376 Center St, #139, Chula Vista 91910, stated she lives directly over the park and can observe everything that goes on. Over the last two years, she has called the police over fifteen times, of which they have only responded twice. She has seen everything from drug deals to immoral activities. The police did respond to a call yesterday concerning underage drinking, but by the time they arrived, the perpetrators had disposed of their liquor bottles. She has been involved in drug abuse since 1958, working in private therapy and knows the problems. That's why she calls the police. We need a drug treatment center; it's the only answer. Member Rindone requested that a referral be made to the Police Department for consideration of either foot or bike patrols for the area in Memorial Park that has been alleged to have the drug trafficking problem for a period of time and bring a report back to Council. Member Moot questioned whether the applicant was in attendance and what their position was on an indefinite continuation. He had received a call regarding this matter, some two months ago, suggesting that it wasn't being handled in a timely manner and that the person who owned the building was anxious to get a decision. Having passed this information on to the appropriate person in Community Development, he was surprised that a request for an indefinite extension is before Council. · Jack Cuda, 59 K Street, Chula Vista, representing the property owners and tenants, stated that with regard to avoiding blight and fostering maintenance and supervision of those properties, a timely action is vital. Both the tenants and property owners are handicapped by indecision. The property at 314 Park Way has been an office building for a considerable length of time. The tenants are not looking for a variance trying to convert a residential house to office use. If the Episcopal Community Services, the appliclant and proposed tenant, who are well respected in the San Diego community of social and environmental counseling services, conduct themselves in such a way as not to annoy, disturb, or create a blight on the neighborhood; then a rapid decision to support their occupancy should be made. The owners of this property are very proactive in regards to supervision, terms of leasing, and deal affirmatively with misuse, annoyances, disturbances, and improper conduct. We have a legitimate office user who is going to conduct themselves in an appropriate fashion, and we have the support of the property owner to see that that happens. In regards to the continuance, he stated that an affirmative immediate decision from the Council would be preferred. Chris salomone stated that because the applicant is operating the business without a permit, the continuation will not affect their operation. The continuance is that of a legal issue, a defacto permit being issued and its impact on the existing redevelopment plan. Its our position to resolve these issues as soon as possible. Staff agrees with Mr. Cuda that the owners and tenants deserve a resolution, but acting on this item tonight would not be appropriate. RDA Minutes June 9, 1998 Page 5 Member Moot commented that since we don't have an staff report we wouldn't be able to act tonight. In the future when a matter is continued indefinitely, it would be helpful to get some further background, especially when one council member has already made a specific inquiry. MSUC (Hotton/Moot) that the Public Hearing be continued until July 14, 1998. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR None. OTHER BUSINESS 6. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTIS) - None. 7. CMAIR/MAYOR'S REPORT(S) - None. 8. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER CO~4ENTS - None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk