HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 2004/05/04
~{f?
~..-
- --
--
CllY OF
CHUIA VISTA
TUESDAY, MAY 4,2004 COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4:00 P.M. PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING
(immediately following the City Council meeting)
JOINT MEETING OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY I CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Agency/Council Members Davis, McCann, Rindone, Salas; Chair/Mayor Padilla
CONSENT CALENDAR
The staff recommendations regarding the following item!s) listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted
by the Agency/Council by one motion without discussion unless an Agency/Council member, a member of the
public or City staff requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items,
please fill out a "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary of the
Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be
discussed after Action items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 23, 2004, March 30, 2004 and April 20,
2004
2. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 2004 AMENDMENT (IN THE FORM OF AN
AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO THE MERGED
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (SECOND READING)
Adoption of the ordinance amends the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment
Project (comprised of the Town Centre II, Otay Valley and Southwest
Redevelopment Plans) to facilitate extension of redevelopment and economic
development tools throughout commercial and industrial areas in the western
part of Chula Vista. This ordinance was introduced on April 20, 2004.
[Community Development Director]
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt the ordinance.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency on any subject matter
within the Agency's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits
the Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish
to address the Agency on such a subject, please complete the "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications
Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redeveiopment Agency or City Clerk prior to
the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up
action.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Agency, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Agency
and staff recommendation may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak,
piease fill out a Request to Speak form available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the
Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the meeting.
3. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROPRIATING $202,292 FROM THE MERGED PROJECT AREA AS
A LOAN REPAYMENT TO THE BA YFRONT /TOWN CENTRE I PROJECT
AREA; AND APPROPRIATING THESE FUNDS IN THE BAYFRONT/TOWN
CENTRE I FUND AND AN ADDITIONAL $199.476 FROM THE MERGED
PROJECT AREA FOR THE 2003-2004 STATE EDUCATIONAL REVENUE
AUGMENTATION FUND (ERAF) SHIFT OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUES -
The State's adopted budget for the current fiscal year includes a shift of
Redevelopment Agency tax increment funds from local Redevelopment
Agencies state-wide to help fund current school revenue shortfalls. A total
of $135 million is being shifted from Agencies throughout the State. The
amount transferred to the State is based on gross tax increment revenues
and varies by jurisdiction. The shift from the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Agency has been determined by the State Department of Finance to be
$401,758. This payment is a one-time transfer of funds. However,
additional transfers may be forthcoming depending on the outcome of
ongoing State budget discussions for both this year and next. [Community
Development Director]
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Agency adopt the resolution.
OTHER BUSINESS
4. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
5. CHAIR REPORT
6. AGENCY COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will adjourn to a regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on
May 18, 2004, at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting in the
City Council Chambers.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabiiities Act (ADA), request individuals who
require special accommodates to access, attend. and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service
request such accommodation at least 48 hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services
and activities. Please contact the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency for specific information at (61 g)
691-5047 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at (619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is
also avaiiable for the hearing impaired.
Redevelopment Agency, May 4, 2004 Page 2
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETINGS OF
THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
March 23, 2004 6:00 p.m.
Adjourned Regular Meetings 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 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Agency/Councilmembers: Davis, McCaun, Rindone, Salas, and
Chair/Mayor Padilla
ABSENT: Agency/Co uncilm embers: None
ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowlands, Agency/City
Attorney Moore, and Assistant City Clerk Norris
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
PUBLIC HEARING
lA. COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2004-094, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TOWN CENTRE AND ADDED
AREA PROJECT AREA COMMITTEES ON THE PROPOSED 2004 AMENDMENT
TO THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
1 B. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1868, RESOLUTION OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA TRANSMITTING
ITS REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PROPOSED 2004 AMENDMENT
(IN THE FORM OF AN AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN)
TO THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
In November 2002, the Redevelopment Agency initiated the process to amend the
Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project (comprised of the Town Centre II, Otay
Valley, and Southwest Redevelopment Plans) to facilitate extension of redevelopment
and economic development tools throughout commercial and industrial areas in the
western part of Chula Vista. The proposed 2004 Amendment modifies the merged Chula
Vista Redevelopment Project. (Director of Community Development)
Senior Assistant City Attorney Googins explained that items IA and IB were administrative in
nature and could be acted upon jointly, prior to opening the public hearing and considering the
amendment itself.
I-I
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued)
Chair/Mayor Padilla asked if anyone wished to speak on Items lA and lB. 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 McCaun abstaining due to the proximity
of their residences to the project.
1 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 Avenue 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, ITom 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 irnprove the areas.
Page 2 - CounciVRDA Minutes I-À March 23, 2004
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued)
Mayor Padilla clarified for the record that the amendment provides the possibility of using
eminent domain, after due process, in the event it becomes necessary.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Googins added that there is no particular property or project that
is targeted by the proposed amendment plan as it relates to eminent domain.
Ruth Gordon spoke in support ofthe Machado family.
Cathy Lightbody spoke in opposition to the redevelopment plan and stated that her family
business has always complied with the City's rules and regulations.
Frank Luzzaro asked if the lower Sweetwater Valley was included in the redevelopment plan.
Mr. Tapia replied affirmatively. Mr. Luzzaro spoke in support of maintaining the valley as open
space and opposed any industrial use. Mr. Tapia responded that the land use designation is part
of the zoning ordinance and the General Plan. The redevelopment plan does not contain a land
use element, and there is no industrial proposal for the Sweetwater Valley site. Mr. Slater,
Project Consultant, further explained that the redevelopment plan amendment would not affect
the land use designation. The Agency would be given the authority to assist the City in its
implementation of whatever the City determines the proper land use to be.
Susan Luzzaro stated that the transfer of land to the Redevelopment Agency was not addressed at
the community meetings, and she asked if the community was properly noticed about the
transfer. She also stated that residents had received a letter ITom the City stating that further
discussions regarding the Sweetwater Valley were postponed pending completion of the General
Plan update.
David McClurg, President of the Downtown Business Association, said he did not recall the
proposed amendment beinf 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 and added that the proposed plan does not include either the Towne
Center I or BaYITont areas.
Al De Philippis, an owner of three downtown properties, opposed the plan, stating that he does
not want to give up his properties.
Deputy Mayor Salas commented that redevelopment fosters economic development, and existing
businesses, such as Mr. De Philippis', thrive in a redevelopment area.
Agency/Councilmember Davis stated that one reason for adding area to the Redevelopment
Agency is to receive additional funding. The City currently receives 14 cents for every tax dollar
in a non-Redevelopment Agency area. The 66-2/3 cents received for every tax dollar in a
redevelopment area goes directly back into the specific area of the community for infrastructure
improvements.
1-3
Page 3 - CounciVRDA 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 ifthere 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 of the public hearing is to
solicit reports ITom 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 ofthe 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 - CounciVRDA Minutes I-" March 23, 2004
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued)
There being no further members of the public wishing to address the Agency/Council,
ChairIMayor Padilla closed the public hearing.
ChairIMayor Padilla noted that 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 item.
OTHER BUSINESS
2. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
There were none.
3. CHAIR/MAYOR'S REPORTS
There were none.
4. AGENCY/COUNCILMEMBER'S COMMENTS
Agency/Councilmember Salas encouraged the public to continue to participate and communicate
concerns to the Council.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:22 p.m., ChairIMayor Padilla adjourned the meeting to a special joint meeting of the
Redevelopment Agency and City Council, meeting concurrently with the Board of Port
Commissioners, on March 30, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, and thence to the
regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on April 6, 2004, at 4:00 p.m., immediately
following the City Council meeting in the Council Chambers.
J~ cA J(i1Uu~/
Donna Norris
Assistant City Clerk
Page 5 - CounciVRDA Minutes I-S" March 23, 2004
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETINGS OF
THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONCURRENT WITH A MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS OF THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
March 30, 2004 4:00 p.m.
Adjourned Regular Meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Chula Vista, concurrent with a meeting of the San Diego Unified Port District Board of
Commissioners, were called to order at 4:06 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Public
Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Agency/Co uncilm embers: Davis, McCaun, Rindone, Salas, and
ChairIMayor Padilla
Port Commissioners: Hall (Vice Chairperson), Spane,
Cushman, Rios, VanDeventer
ABSENT: Agency/Councilmembers: None
Port Commissioners: Bixler, Davis (Chairperson)
ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowlands, City Attorney Moore,
and Deputy City Clerk Bennett
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Nohella Ramos, representing the Environmental Health Coalition, recognized two of the youth
organizers ofthe coalition who placed second and third in a recent countywide science fair.
ACTION ITEMS
1. PRESENTATION BY CONSULTANT TEAM ON THE MARKET STUDY FINDINGS
AND PRELIMINARY CONCEPTS FOR THE CHULA VISTA BA YFRONT MASTER
PLAN
The one-year master planning process is entering its final phase. The purpose of the
meeting was for the consultant team to present a market study identifying potential land
uses that could be supported by current and/or future market demands and preliminary
plauning concepts for the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan based on market study
findings, public input received to date, and the team's preliminary plauning ITamework.
Additional citizen advisory committee meetings and public workshops will be held in
order to develop three master plan alternatives prior to the next joint meeting of the
Board of Port Commissioners and City Council/Redevelopment Agency, anticipated for
late May. All three plans will be analyzed in an Environmentallmpact Report, and one
preferred plan will be carried forward to the State Lands Commission and California
Coastal Commission for final approval. (Director of Community Development)
/-(;,
ACTION ITEMS (Continued)
Director of Community Development Madigan stated that the City is making substantial progress
towards an exciting mid-bayfTont master planning effort. She spoke about the three integrated
principals of the planning process and the application of superior plauning and design standards,
the use of solid financial information, a sound understanding of the market, and an extensive
public outreach program.
Ralph Hicks, the Port's Director of Land Use Plauning, provided an update on the various
meetings and workshops attended by citizens. He added that the Duke power plant working
group has concluded itswork and will be submitting a report within the next few weeks.
Lynn Sedway, representing the Sedway Group/CBRE Consulting, presented the economic and
market overview for the bayfTont and conclusions of the market study.
Randy Morton, architect representing Cooper, Robertson and Partners, discussed various
principles and development programs for the bayfront plan that included creating one Chula
Vista bayfTont, celebrating the serenity and Hispanic culture of the bayfTont setting, extending
Chula Vista all the way to the bayfront, taking advantage of the deep water at the harbor to create
an active boating waterfront, creating a bayfTont park system that marries ecological habitats and
the recreational needs of the community, and reinforcing a sense of place at the bayfTont. He
also discussed the site summaries for the various areas.
Commissioner Spane asked the estimated overall cost of the project. Mr. Morton replied that the
cost consultant is in the process of preparing a cost estimate.
Commissioner Rios questioned the process for narrowing the various options. Mr. Morton
suggested consideration of obtaining public interest, following instincts, and key issues that
should be evaluated for a criteria.
Commissioner Van Deventer expressed the need for the plan to be completed on time. Mr.
Morton responded that all the legal agreements and related issues are currently being examined,
and the actual plans are anticipated to be put on paper within the next two weeks.
Chair/Mayor Padilla clarified that no "project" has been established and that the City is
continuing its process of obtaining public input and a collaborative process both at the policy and
staff levels. He urged the Port District to be open-minded about the Chula Vista bayfTont. He
also asked that there be no assumptions made that some of the plans are not do-able.
Commissioner Cushman encouraged the removal of the Duke power plant.
Agency/Councilmember Salas expressed the need to strike a balance, to build on incremental
successes, and to be open to plans that are presented.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone referenced the May 25, 2004 timefTame for the selection of
one preferred plan, expressing his concern about making a selection within the timefTame and the
limiting of input by the specified date. He also expressed the need to look at access to the
waterfront that would create a unique regional attraction. Mr. Hicks responded that the joint
Council/Redevelopment Agency and Port would be asked to approve three plans that would then
be analyzed to an equal level. He stated that staff feels confident that they will receive
significant public comment prior to May 25, 2004.
Page 2 Council/RDA/Port Minutes /-1 03/30/04
ACTION ITEMS (Continued)
The following individuals addressed the CouncillBoard with varying viewpoints regarding the
Bayftont Master Plan: Patricia Aguilar, representing Crossroads II; Alexander Hart, representing
IBEW, Local 569; Daniel Mazhain; Teresa Thomas; Karen McElliot, representing the Chula
Vista Marina and RV. Resort; Theresa Acerro.
At 5:57 p.m., Commissioner Hall adjourned the joint Port Commission/City
Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting and aunounced a recess of the joint City
Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting. The joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency
meeting reconvened at 6: 14 p.m., with all members present.
ChairIMayor Padilla continued soliciting comments fTom the following members of the public:
Nick Aguilar, representing the San Diego County Board of Education; Yasmin Vargas and
Christina Gonzales, representing the Environmental Health Coalition; Allison Rolfe,
representing San Diego Baykeeper; Lee Kaercher; Judy Cascales; Laura Hunter, representing the
Environmental Health Coalition; Jose Maretto; and JoAnn Springer. Several speakers expressed
concern regarding residential units in the plan and their potential impact on the already over-
crowded local schools. Additionally, the Agency/Council was encouraged to place emphasis on
open space, protection of wildlife, removal of the Dnke power plant, and the under-grounding of
overhead lines.
Agency/Councilmember McCaun thanked all those involved in the process for their spirit of
cooperation. He also recognized the Mayor and the Port District for their leadership in the
process. He stated that the citizens deserve the best, and he expressed the need to ensure
signature parks, public access, opportunities for jobs and revenues, and the unification of the east
and west regions ofthe City.
Agency/Councilmember Salas encouraged continued mutual understanding between all parties
involved in the plan.
Agency/Councilmember Rindone commented that the bottom line of the plan would be access to
the bayfTont, and he spoke in support of having flexibility in the vision for the bayfTont.
ChairIMayor Padilla thanked all those members of the public who have taken the time to
participate in the plauning process.
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:50 p.m., ChairIMayor Padilla adjourned the meeting to the regular meetings of the City
Council and Redevelopment Agency on March 4, 2003, at 4:00 p.m.
~
Lorraine Bennett, Deputy City Clerk
I-g'
Page 3 Council/RDAIPort Minutes 03/30104
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETINGS OF
THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
April 20, 2004 6:00 p.m.
Adjourned Regular Meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Chula Vista were called to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Public
Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Agency/Councilmembers: Davis, McCaun, Rindone, Salas, and
ChairIMayor Padilla
ABSENT: Agency/Councilmembers: None
ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowlands, Agency/City
Attorney Moore, and Assistant City Clerk Norris
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 16, 2004
Staff recommendation: Agency/Council approve the minutes.
2. CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS ACTIONS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
WITH CHBD CHULA VISTA, LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT OF BROADWAY
URBAN VILLAGE PROJECT AT 760 BROADWAY, CHULA VISTA
On June 10, 2003, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency approved a disposition
and development agreement that provided for the sale of Agency-owned property at 760
Broadway and the development of a mixed-use project. Efforts to complete the
entitlement process and to satisfy the various conditions to close escrow have been
ongomg. These further actions are needed in order to close escrow and begin
construction of the Broadway Urban Village Project. (City Attorney; Community
Development Director)
A) RESOLUTION NO. 2004-122, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A QUITCLAIM OF PROPERTY
AT 760 BROADWAY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR SALE TO
CHBD CHULA VISTA, LLc.
B) COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2004-123 AND AGENCY RESOLUTION NO.
1869, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING A RECESSION AGREEMENT TO ELIMINATE
UNNECESSARY CITY AND AGENCY INTERESTS IN PROPERTY AT 760
BROADWAY
1- c¡
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
C) AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1870, RESOLUTION OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
APPROVING SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT IN FAVOR OF KEYBANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, THE BROADWAY VILLAGE PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION LENDER
Staff recommendation: Agency/Council adopt the resolutions.
ACTION: ChairIMayor Padilla moved to approve staffs recommendations and offered the
Consent Calendar, headings read, texts waived. The motion carried unanimously.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
ACTION ITEMS
3. CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE NECESSARY RESOLUTIONS
AND ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT, IN THE FORM OF AN AMENDED AND RESTATED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, TO THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
The Redevelopment Agency initiated the process to amend the Merged Chula Vista
Redevelopment Project to facilitate extension of redevelopment and economic
development tools throughout commercial and industrial areas in the western portion of
Chula Vista. The 2004 amendment was presented to the Council and Redevelopment
Agency for consideration following previous consideration of certain procedural and
policy matters involving the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area.
(Community Development Director)
Agency/Councilmembers McCaun and Rindone noted that they would abstain fTom discussion
and voting on this item due to the proximity of their properties to the project area. They then left
the dais.
Principal Community Development Specialist Tapia presented the proposed 2004
Redevelopment Plan amendment.
David McClurg, president of the Downtown Business Association, thanked staff for the
presentation on the project and eminent domain. He stated that the association voted in favor of
the amendment, as the downtown has benefited fTom redevelopment.
Thomas Horning, representing the Added Area Project Committee, stated that the Committee
continues to be concerned about the effect of redevelopment on tenants and owners and
suggested items that could be incorporated into the process to protect them.
1-10
Page 2 CounciVRDA Action Agenda 04/20/04
ACTION ITEMS (Continued)
ACTION: Agency/Councilmember Davis offered Council Resolutions 2004-124, 2004-125,
2004-126, and 2004-127 and Agency Resolutions 1871 and 1872 for adoption and
the Ordinance for first reading, headings read, texts waived:
(A) RESOLUTION NO. 2004-124, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING WRITTEN
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE 2004
AMENDMENT, IN THE FORM OF THE AMENDED AND
RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, TO THE MERGED CHULA
VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
(B) RESOLUTION NO. 2004-125, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE
FINAL PROGRAM ENVIORNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
2004 AMENDMENT, IN THE FORM OF AN AMENDED AND
RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, TO THE MERGED CHULA
VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
(C) RESOLUTION NO. 2004-126, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ELECTING TO
RECENE ALL OR A PORTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT
REVENUES PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
SECTION 33676 AND THE CITY'S SHARE OF TAX INCREMENT
PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33607.5
WITH RESPECT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MERGED CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
(D) RESOLUTION NO. 2004-127, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDING THAT THE
USE OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUNDS FROM
THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA,
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING, IMPROVING, AND
PRESERVING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW-AND.
MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA,
WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT AREA
(E) AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1871, RESOLUTION OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
FINDING THAT THE USE OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
HOUSING FUNDS FROM THE MERGED CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
INCREASING, IMPROVING, AND PRESERVING THE
COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW-AND. MODERA TE- INCOME
HOUSING OUTSIDE TH PROJECT AREA, WILL BE OF BENEFIT
TO THE PROJECT AREA
I-II
Page 3 CounciVRDA Action Agenda 04/20/04
ACTION ITEMS (Continued)
(F) AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1872, RESOLUTION OF THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
ADOPTING A METHOD OF RELOCATION FOR THE MERGED
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE 2004 AMENDMENT THERETO
(G) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 2004 AMENDMENT (IN
THE FORM OF AN AMENDED AND RESTATED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO THE MERGED CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (FIRST READING)
The motion carried 3-0-2, with Agency/Councilmembers McCaun and Rindone
abstaining due to the proximity of their properties to the project area.
OTHER BUSINESS
4. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
There were none.
5. CHAlR!MA YOR'S REPORTS
There were none.
6. AGENCY /COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
There were none.
At 7:06 p.m. ChairIMayor Padilla adjourned the Redevelopment Agency to a regular meeting on
May 4, 2004, at 4:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council Meeting in the Council
Chambers.
~ á...L.T=cc~7 ..ß.....Q -------
Susan Bigelow, CMC, City Clerk
I-/~
Page 4 CounciVRDA Action Agenda 04/20/04
SECON
ORDINANCE NO. D READING AND
ADOPTION
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE 2004
AMENDMENT (IN THE FORM OF AN AMENDED AND
REST A TED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO THE MERGED
CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, on August 15, 1978, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1827 approving
a redevelopment plan for the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project and has subsequently amended
said redevelopment plan on May 19,1987 by Ordinance No. 2207, on July 19, 1988 by Ordinance
No. 2274, on November 8, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2610, and on August 22, 2000 by Ordinance No.
2817 ("Town Centre II Plan"); and
WHEREAS, on December 29, 1983, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2059
approving a redevelopment plan for the Otay Valley Redevelopment Project Area and has
subsequently amended said redevelopment plan on November 8, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2611 and
on August 22, 2000 by Ordinance No. 2818 ("Otay Valley Plan"); and
WHEREAS, on November 27, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2420
approving a redevelopment plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project and subsequently
amended said redevelopment plan on July 9, 1991 by Ordinance No. 2467, on November 8, 1994 by
Ordinance No. 2612, and on August 22, 2000 by Ordinance No. 2819 ("Southwest Plan"); and
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 2819, the Town Centre II Plan, Otay Valley Plan, and
Southwest Plan (collectively, the "Plans") were merged to establish the Merged Chula Vista
Redevelopment Project to facilitate the sharing of financial resources pursuant to Sections 33485
through 33489 of the Law; and
WHEREAS, on January 13 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2947 amending
each of the Plans to eliminate the time limit on incurring indebtedness, pursuant to Senate Bill 211
codified in Health and Safety Code Section 33333.6(e)(2)(B); and
WHEREAS, on February 3, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2949 amending
each of the Plans to extend the duration of the Plans' effectiveness and time limit to collect tax
increment revenue by one year, pursuant to Senate Bill 1045 codified in Health and Safety Code
Section 33333.6(e)(2)(C); and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista (the "Agency")
initiated proceedings to amend the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project to consolidate the
three Plans that comprise the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project into a single
redevelopment plan document, update the public improvements and project facilities list, add
property to the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project boundaries, and, subject to certain
limitations, extend eminent domain authority in the Town Centre II and Otay Valley constituent
project areas (collectively "2004 Amendment"); and
cJ.-(
WHEREAS, the California Community Redevelopment Law (the "CRL") (Health and
Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) permits the adoption of amendments to redevelopment plans;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received from the Agency the proposed 2004
Amendment (in the form of an Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan), a copy of which is
on file with the City Clerk, together with the Report of the Agency prepared pursuant to Section
33352 and Section 33457.1 of the CRL (the "Report to City Council"), which includes a
description and discussion of the proposed 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Town Centre II Plan consists of an original area, which in the Amended
and Restated Redevelopment Plan is referred to as the "Original Town Center II Constituent Area;"
and an amended Town Centre II area, which in the Amended and Restated Plan is referred to as the
"Amended Town Centre II Constituent Area;" and
WHEREAS, the Original Town Centre Constituent Area and the Amended Town Center II
Constituent Area are collectively referred to herein as the "Town Centre II Constituent Area;" and
WHEREAS, Otay Valley Plan consists of an area referred to in the Amended and Restated
Redevelopment Plan as the "Otay V alley Constituent Area;" and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Plan consists of an original area, which in the Amended and
Restated Redevelopment Plan is referred to as the "Original Southwest Constituent Area;" and an
amended Southwest area, which in the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan is referred to as
the "Amended Southwest Constituent Area;" and
WHEREAS, the Original Southwest Constituent Area and the Amended Southwest
Constituent Area are collectively referred to herein as the "Southwest Constituent Area;" and
WHEREAS, the area proposed to be added to the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment
Project Area, referred to hereinabove as the "Added Area," is referred to in the Amended and
Restated Redevelopment Plan as the "2004 Amendment Constituent Area;" and
WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution No. PCM-04l4 on March 3, 2004, the Plauning
Commission of the City of Chula Vista found and determined that the proposed 2004 Amendment
was consistent with the General Plan of the City of Chula Vista, including the Housing Element
thereof, and recommended that the City Council adopt the 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution No. 2003-003 on September 17. 2003, the Town
Centre II Project Area Committee recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed 2004
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution No. 2003-001 on October 9, 2003, the Added Area
Project Area Committee recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed 2004 Amendment;
and
',ICOMMDEV\RESOSl04.20-041O<d Adopting 2004 c).-;)...
Amendment to M"ged CV Red" Pmj"tDOC -2.
WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared a Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") on
the proposed 2004 Amendment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code Sections 21000, et. Seq., "CEQA"), and the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et.
Seq., the "Guidelines") and City CEQA guidelines and City Environmental Review Procedures;
and,
WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution No. 04-01 on March 3, 2004, the Plauning
Commission of the City of Chula Vista certified the Final EIR and recommended that the City
Council certify the Final EIR for the 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Agency held a Joint Public Hearing on March 23,
2004, concerning the adoption of the proposed 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, notice of the Joint Public Hearing was duly and regularly published as
required by the CRL; and
WHEREAS, at least thirty (30) days prior to the Joint Public Hearing; copies of the
notice of the Joint Public Hearing were mailed by first -class mail to all residents and businesses
within the boundaries of area encompassed by the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project
and within the boundaries of the proposed Added Area; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of, and upon closure of, the Joint Public Hearing,
consideration of the Final EIR for the 2004 Amendment and of the 2004 Amendment and items
related thereto were continued to the joint meeting of the Agency and City Council of April 20,
2004; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Report to City Council for the 2004
Amendment, and has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard, and has received and
considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the
Amendment; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution No. on April. 20, 2004, the City
Council, in compliance with the CRL, adopted written responses in response to any and all
written objections received with respect to the approval and adoption of the 2004 Amendment
and therein overruled any and all such objections; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution No. on April 20, 2004, the City Council
certified the Final EIR for the 2004 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, all considerations and actions required to be taken precedent to the
adoption of this Ordinance have been duly and regularly taken in accordance with applicable
law;
WHEREAS, Section 33457.1 of the CRL, provides that to the extent warranted by the
proposed Amendment, this Ordinance shall contain the findings required by Section 33367 of the
CRL;
J\COMMDEV\RESOS\04-20-O4\O,d Adoptiog 2004 -3- c2.-3
Amoodmoot to M".,d cv R,d" P'ojo"ooc
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein
and made a part hereof.
SECTION 2. The purpose and intent of the City Council with respect to 2004
Amendment is to (i) consolidate the three separate Plans covering the Town Centre II, Otay
Valley, and Southwest Constituent Areas into a single, consolidated, amended and restated
redevelopment plan to provide consistency to, and ease of administration for, the implementation
of redevelopment activities in the areas encompassed by the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment
Project; (ii) update the public improvements and facilities projects list; (iii) re-designate the area
subject to the consolidated Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Plan as the Merged Chula Vista
Redevelopment Project Area, (iv) add approximately 494 acres of property located throughout
the western part of Chula Vista to the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area, such
added territory commonly known as the "Added Area" and in the Amended and Restated
Redevelopment Plan as the 2004 Amendment Constituent Area; (v) re-establish eminent domain
authority for a period of twelve (12) years on all property (except residentially occupied property
in a residential zone) within the Town Centre II and Otay Valley Constituent Areas.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines, based on substantial
evidence in the record, including, but not limited to, the Report to City Council and all
documents referenced therein:
a. The finding that the Original Town Centre II Constituent Area is a
blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the
Community Redevelopment Law, was made in Ordinance No. 1827 when the Town Centre II
Plan was adopted. The finding that the Amended Town Centre II Constituent Area is a blighted
area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Community
Redevelopment Law, was made in Ordinance No. 2274 when the Amended Town Centre II Plan
was adopted. The finding that the Otay Valley Constituent Area is a blighted area, the
redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Community
Redevelopment Law, was made in Ordinance No. 2059 when the Otay Valley Plan was adopted.
The finding that the Original Southwest Constituent Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment
of which is necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law, was
made in Ordinance No. 2420 when the Original Southwest Plan was adopted. The finding that
the Amended Southwest Constituent Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is
necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law, was made in
Ordinance No. 2467 when the Amended Southwest Plan was adopted. The City Council finds
that (i) such findings set forth in Ordinance Nos. 1827,2274,2059,2420, and 2467 are final and
conclusive, (ii) such previously made findings remain valid and effective, and (iii) no further
findings concerning the blight findings set forth in Ordinance Nos. 1827,2274,2059,2420, and
2467 are required for the 2004 Amendment.
b. The 2004 Amendment Constituent Area, also known as the Added Area, is
a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes
declared in the California Community Redevelopment Law, Part 1 of Division 24 (commencing
nCOMMDEVIRESOS\04-20-D4\O,d Adop""g 2004 -4. ~-c/
Am,"dm,"t to Mctgd cv R,d" Pmj'ct.DOC
at Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California ("CRL") , The
foregoing finding is based on substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to the
Report to Council and all documents referenced therein.
c. The 2004 Amendment will allow continued redevelopment to occur within
the Town Centre II, Otay Valley, and Southwest Constituent Areas in conformity with the CRL
and in the interests of the public health, safety and welfare. The 2004 Amendment would
redevelop the 2004 Amendment Constituent Area in conformity with the CRL and in the
interests of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare. The foregoing findings are based on
substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to the Report to Council and all
documents referenced therein.
d. The finding that the carrying out of the Town Centre II Plan, with respect
to the Original Town Centre II Constituent Area, is economically sound and feasible was made
in Ordinance No. 1827 when the Town Centre II Plan was adopted and in Ordinance No. 2207
which amended the Town Centre II Plan. The finding that the carrying out of the Town Centre II
Plan, with respect to the Amended Town Centre II Constituent Area, is economically sound and
feasible was made in Ordinance No. 2274 when the Amended Town Centre II Plan was adopted.
The finding that the carrying out of the Otay Valley Plan is economically sound and feasible was
made in Ordinance No. 2059 when the Otay Valley Plan was adopted. The finding that the
carrying out of the Original Southwest Plan is economically sound and feasible was made in
Ordinance No. 2420 when the Original Southwest Plan was adopted. The finding that the
carrying out of the Amended Southwest Plan is economically sound and feasible was made in
Ordinance No. 2467 when the Amended Southwest Plan was adopted. The City Council finds
and determines that (i) such findings set forth in Ordinance Nos. 1827, 2207, 2274, 2059, 2420,
and 2467 are final and conclusive, (ii) such previously made findings remain valid and effective,
and (iii) no further findings concerning economic feasibility are required for the 2004
Amendment with respect to the Town Centre II Plan, Original Town Centre II Constituent Area,
Amended Town Centre II Constituent Area, Otay Valley Plan, Otay Valley Constituent Area,
Southwest Plan, Original Southwest Constituent Area, or Amended Southwest Constituent Area.
e. The adoption of the 2004 Amendment, with respect to the 2004
Amendment Constituent Area, is economically sound and feasible, based on substantial evidence
in the record, including but not limited to the Report to Council.
f. The 2004 Amendment, in the form of the Amended and Restated
Redevelopment Plan for the Chula Vista Merged Project Area, including all constituent areas
thereof, conforms to the City of Chula Vista General Plan including, but not limited to, the
Housing Element thereof, which substantially complies with the requirements of Article 10.6
(commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government
Code. This finding is based on substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to
the Report to Council and all documents referenced therein, which includes the finding of the
Plauning Commission of the City Chula Vista that the 2004 Amendment conforms to the Chula
Vista General Plan and all elements thereof.
g. The carrying out of the 2004 Amendment, in the form ofthe Amended and
Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Chula Vista Merged Project Area, including all constituent
nCOMMDEV\RESOS\04-20.04\ilid Adopt;", 2004 -5- r:2-~
Am,"dm,"t to Mecged CV R,d" Pwj,".DOC
areas thereof, will promote the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the City of Chula
Vista and will effectuate the purposes and policies of the CRL. This finding is based on
substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to the Report to Council, which
confirms that the 2004 Amendment will benefit the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project
Area, including all constituent areas thereof, by continuing to provide the Agency with the
necessary tools and financial resources to correct conditions of blight, and specifically with
respect to the 2004 Amendment Constituent Area, to enable the initiation of redevelopment
activities within the 2004 Amendment Constituent Area.
h. The condemnation of real property, to the extent provided for in the 2004
Amendment with respect to the Town Centre II Constituent Area (both Original and Amended),
the Otay Valley Constituent Area, and the 2004 Amendment Constituent Area, is necessary to
the execution of the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan, and adequate provisions have
been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. This finding is based on
substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to the Report to Council and all
documents referenced therein.
i. The 2004 Amendment does not alter, affect, or amend the Agency's
authority, if any, with respect to the condemnation of real property within the Southwest
Constituent Area and the City Council finds and determines that (i) all required findings
pertaining to the condemnation of real property within the Original Southwest Constituent Area
were made in Ordinance No. 2420; (ii) all required findings pertaining to the condemnation of
real property within the Amended Southwest Constituent Area was made in Ordinance No. 2467;
(iii) such previously made findings are final and conclusive, (iv) such previously made findings
remain valid and effective, and (v) no further findings concerning the condemnation of real
property with respect to the Original Southwest Constituent Area or Amended Southwest
Constituent Area are required for the 2004 Amendment.
j. The Agency has adopted a feasible method or plan for the relocation of
families and persons displaced from Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area, if the
Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan should result in the temporary or permanent
displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in Merged Project Area. This finding is
based on substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to the Report to Council
and all documents referenced therein, which includes the Method of Relocation, and on the
Agency's adoption of its Resolution No. approving and adopting a Method of
Relocation for the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project In Conjunction With the 2004
Amendment Thereto.
k. There are or are being provided in the Merged Chula Vista
Redevelopment 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 from the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area, if
any, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to the
displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. This
finding is based on substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to the Report to
Council and all documents referenced therein, which includes the Method of Relocation, and on
the Agency's adoption of its Resolution No. approving and adopting a Method of
JlCOMMDEVIRESOSI04-20.04\O,d Adop.;", 2004 -6- 02-(..,
Amoodmoot to M""d CV Rod" Pmj"t.DOC
Relocation for the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project In Conjunction With the 2004
Amendment Thereto, and further upon the requirement that the Agency comply with the State
Relocation Law (Gov. Code §7260 et seq.), State Relocation Guidelines (25 C.c.R. §6000 et
seq.), and such greater requirements, if any, stated in the Agency's adopted Method of
Relocation.
1. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the adoption of a
re]ocation plan pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Sections 33411 and 33411.1, and
dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income, if any, shall not be
removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan as statutorily required
pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Sections 33334.5, 33413, and 33413.5, to the
extent required thereunder. This finding is based on substantial evidence in the record, including
but not limited to the Report to Council and all documents referenced therein.
m. There are no noncontiguous areas of the Otay Valley Constituent Area and
therefore the finding that noncontiguous areas within the Otay Valley Constituent Area are either
blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment and are not included for the purpose of
obtaining the allocation of taxes from the Otay Valley Constituent Area, was not required to be
made in Ordinance No. 2059 when the Otay Valley Plan was adopted. The City Council finds
and determines that (i) the 2004 Amendment does not alter or affect the boundaries of the Otay
Valley Constituent Area; and (ii) therefore no further findings concerning noncontiguous areas is
required for the 2004 Amendment with respect to the Otay Valley Plan or Otay Valley
Constituent Area. The City Council further finds and determines that (i) the 2004 Amendment
does not alter or affect the boundaries of the Town Centre II Constituent Area; and (ii) therefore
no further findings concerning noncontiguous areas is required for the 2004 Amendment with
respect to the Town Centre II Plan, Original Town Centre II Constituent Area, or Amended
Town Centre II Constituent Area. The City Council further finds and determines that the finding
that all noncontiguous areas of the Original Southwest Constituent Area and Amended
Southwest Constituent Area are either blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment and are
not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of taxes from such Constituent Area was
made in Ordinance Nos. 2420 and 2467, pertaining to the Original Southwest Constituent Area
and Amended Southwest Constituent Area, respectively, and the City Council further finds and
determines that (i) such findings set forth in Ordinance Nos. 2420 and 2467 are final and
conclusive, (ii) such previously made findings remain valid and effective, (iii) the 2004
Amendment does not alter or affect the boundaries of the Original Southwest Constituent Are or
Amended Southwest Constituent Area, and (iv) no further findings concerning noncontiguous
areas is required for the 2004 Amendment with respect to the Southwest Plan, Original
Southwest Constituent Area, or Amended Southwest Constituent Area.
n. All noncontiguous areas of the 2004 Amendment Constituent Area are
either blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment and are not included for the purpose of
obtaining the allocation of taxes from the 2004 Amendment Constituent Area. This finding is
based on substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to the Report to Council
and all documents referenced therein.
o. The finding that inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which
are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare is necessary for effective
J\COMMDEV\RESOS\04-20-04\O,d Adopting 2004 -7- .:2.-Î
Am,ndm'nl 10 M""d CV R,d" Pmj"WOC
redevelopment of the Original Town Centre II Constituent Area, Amended Town Centre II
Constituent Area, Otay Valley Constituent Area, Original Southwest Constituent Area, and
Amended Southwest Constituent Area, and that any area included in such Constituent Area is
necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of obtaining the
allocation of tax increment revenues from the particular Constituent Area pursuant to Health and
Safety Code Section 33670 without other substantial justification for its inclusion, was made in
Ordinance Nos. 1827,2207,2274,2059,2420, and 2467, pertaining to such Constituent Area.
The City Council finds and determines that (i) such findings set forth in Ordinance Nos. 1827,
2207, 2274, 2059, 2420, and 2467 are final and conclusive, (ii) such previously made findings
remain valid and effective, (iii) the 2004 Amendment does not alter or affect the boundaries of
any of the foregoing Constituent Areas; and (iv) no further findings concerning whether
inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare is necessary for effective redevelopment, is required for the 2004
Amendment with respect to the Town Centre II Plan, Original Town Centre II Constituent Area,
Amended Town Centre II Constituent Area, Otay Valley Plan, Otay Valley Constituent Area,
Southwest Plan, Original Southwest Constituent Area, or Amended Southwest Constituent Area.
p. The inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements within the 2004
Amendment Constituent Area which are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare is
necessary for effective redevelopment of the 2004 Amendment Constituent Area, and that any
area included is necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of
obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues fTom the 2004 Amendment Constituent Area
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670 without other substantial justification for its
inclusion. This finding is based on substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited
to the Report to Council including all documents referenced therein.
q. The finding that the elimination of blight and the redevelopment of
Original Town Centre II Constituent Area could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished
by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency was made in
Ordinance No. 1827 when the Original Town Centre II Plan was originally adopted and in
Ordinance No. 2207 amending the Original Town Centre II Plan, The finding that the
elimination of blight and the redevelopment of Amended Town Centre II Constituent Area could
not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid
and assistance of the Agency was made in Ordinance No. 2274 when the Amended Town Centre
II Plan was originally adopted. The finding that the elimination of blight and the redevelopment
of Otay Valley Constituent Area could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private
enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency was made in Ordinance No.
2059 when the Otay Valley Plan was originally adopted. The finding that the elimination of
blight and the redevelopment of Original Southwest Constituent Area could not be reasonably
expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of
the Agency was made in Ordinance No. 2420 when the Original Southwest Plan was originally
adopted. The finding that the elimination of blight and the redevelopment of Amended
Southwest Constituent Area could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private
enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency was made in Ordinance No.
2467 when the Amended Southwest Plan was originally adopted. The City Council finds and
determines that (i) such findings set forth in Ordinance Nos. 1827, 2207, 2274, 2059, 2420, and
2467 are final and conclusive, (ii) such previously made findings remain valid and effective, and
nCOMMDEVIRESOSI04-20.04\O<d Adop.;", 2004 -8- c:2-8'
Am"dm'nI to Mmg,d CV Rod" Pwj"'.DOC
(iii) no further findings concerning whether the elimination of blight and the redevelopment of
Original Town Centre II Constituent Area could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished
by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency, are required for
the 2004 Amendment with respect to the Town Centre II Plan, Original Town Centre II
Constituent Area, Amended Town Centre II Constituent Area, Otay Valley Plan, Otay Valley
Constituent Area, Southwest Plan, Original Southwest Constituent Area, or Amended Southwest
Constituent Area.
r. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of 2004 Amendment
Constituent Area could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise
acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. This finding is based on substantial
evidence in the record, including but not limited to the Report to Council.
s. A finding that the redevelopment project area is a "predominantly
urbanized" area, as is now required and as now defined by the CRL, was not required to be made
for the Original Town Center II Constituent Area when the Original Town Center II Plan was
adopted by Ordinance No. 1827, or for the Amended Town Centre II Constituent Area when the
Amended Town Centre II Plan was adopted by Ordinance No. 2274, or for the Otay Valley
Constituent Area when the when the Otay Valley Plan was adopted by Ordinance No. 2059, or
for the Original Southwest Constituent Area when the Original Southwest Plan was adopted by
Ordinance No. 2420, or for the Amended Southwest Constituent Area when the Amended
Southwest Plan was adopted by Ordinance No. 2267. The City Council finds and determines
that (i) the 2004 Amendment does not alter or affect the boundaries of the Original Town Center
II Constituent Area, the Amended Town Centre II Constituent Area, the Otay Valley Constituent
Area, the Original Southwest Constituent Area, or the Amended Southwest Constituent Area,
and (ii) therefore no further finding or determination concerning the foregoing is required for the
2004 Amendment with respect to the Original Town Center II Constituent Area, the Amended
Town Centre II Constituent Area, the Otay Valley Constituent Area, the Original Southwest
Constituent Area, or the Amended Southwest Constituent Area.
t. The 2004 Amendment Constituent Area is predominantly urbanized as
defined in the CRL. This finding is based on substantial evidence in the record, including but
not limited to the Report to Council.
u. The finding that the time limitations and, if applicable, the limitation on
the number of dollars to be allocated to the Agency that are contained in the Original Town
Centre II Plan, the Amended Town Centre II Plan, the Otay Valley Plan, the Original Southwest
Plan, and the Amended Southwest Plan are reasonably related to the proposed projects to be
implemented in the foregoing constituent areas and to the ability of the Agency to eliminate
blight within these constituent areas, if and to the extent required to be made with respect to such
plans and constituent areas, were previously made in conjunction with the adoption of previous
ordinances. The City Council finds and determines that (i) such findings and determinations set
forth in the previously adopted ordinances pertaining to the foregoing listed plans and constituent
areas, if and to the extent then required to have been made, are final and conclusive, (ii) such
previously made findings and determinations, if and to the extent required to have been made,
remain valid and effective, and (iii) no further finding or determination concerning the foregoing
is required for the 2004 Amendment with respect to the Original Town Centre II Constituent
j,ICOMMDEVIRESOSIO4-20-04\O,d Adopting 2004 -9- ó2.-'
Amendme", 10 M"ged CV Red" PmjeoWOC
Area, the Amended Town Centre II Constituent Area, the Otay Valley Constituent Area, the
Original Southwest Constituent Area, or the Amended Southwest Constituent Area. The
Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan continues the limitations applicable to each of the
foregoing listed constituent areas and the 2004 Amendment, in the form of the Amended and
Restated Redevelopment Plan, does not alter or amend these limitations with respect to these
constituent areas.
v, The time limitations that are contained in the Amended and Restated
Redevelopment Plan with respect to the 2004 Amendment Constituent Area are reasonably
related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the foregoing constituent areas and to the
ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the 2004 Amendment Constituent Area. This
finding is based on substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to the Report to
Council, and upon the further reason that the time limitations applicable to the 2004 Amendment
Constituent Area set forth in the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan per the 2004
Amendment are consistent with and in compliance with the requirements of the CRL, including
but not limited to Health and Safety Code Section 33333.2. The City Council further finds that
the 2004 Amendment with respect to the 2004 Amendment Constituent Area is not required to
state a limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated to the Agency from the 2004
Amendment Constituent Area.
SECTION 4. The City Council declares that it is satisfied that permanent housing
facilities will be available within three (3) years from the time any residential occupants of the
Merged Chula Vista Project Area (collectively, the Town Centre 11 Constituent Area, Otay
Valley Constituent Area, Southwest Constituent Area, and 2004 Amendment Constituent Area)
are displaced, if any, and that pending the development of the facilities there will be available to
the displaced housing occupants, if any, adequate temporary dwelling facilities at rents
comparable to those in the City at the time of their displacement. This finding is based on
substantial evidence in the record, including but not limited to the Report to Council, which
includes the Method of Relocation, and on the Agency's adoption of its Resolution No.
approving and adopting a Method of Relocation for the Merged Chula Vista
Redevelopment Project In Conjunction With the 2004 Amendment, and further upon the
requirement that the Agency comply with the State Relocation Law (Gov. Code §7260 et seq.),
State Relocation Guidelines (25 C.C.R. §6000 et seq.), and such greater requirements, if any,
stated in the Agency's adopted Method of Relocation, and compliance with Health and Safety
Code Section 33411 and 33411.1, providing that families and persons shall not be displaced prior
to the adoption of a relocation plan, and with Health and Safety Code Sections 33334.5, 33413,
and 33413.5, providing that dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate
income, if any, shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing
plan, to the extent required pursuant to such statutory provisions.
SECTION 5. In order to implement and facilitate the effectuation of the 2004
Amendment in the form of the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Merged
Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area, the City Council hereby (a) pledges the cooperation of
the City to help carry out the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan, (b) requests that the
various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City having administrative
responsibilities in the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area likewise cooperate to
such end and exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with the
IICOMMDEV\RESOS\04.20-04\Ot.d Adopt'", 2004 -10- c;;t -( 0
Am,"dm,", to M"g,d CV R,dov Pwj,,'DOC
redevelopment of the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area, (c) stands ready to
consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the
Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan, and (d) declares its intention to undertake and
complete any proceeding necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the
Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan.
SECTION 6. The 2004 Amendment in the form of the Amended and Restated
Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area is incorporated
herein by this reference, and said Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan is hereby
approved as, and declared to be, the official redevelopment plan for the Merged Chula Vista
Redevelopment Project Area.
SECTION 7. The Building Department of the City is hereby directed, for a period of
two years fTom and after the effectiveness of this Ordinance, to advise all applicants for building
permits for construction of buildings or other improvements on sites located within the 2004
Amendment Constituent Area, that such site(s) is within a redevelopment project area.
SECTION 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this
Ordinance to the Agency, whereupon the Agency is vested with the responsibility for carrying
out the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan.
SECTION 9. The City Clerk is hereby directed to (i) record with the San Diego County
Recorder a Statement of Proceedings identifying by recorded instrument number the previously
recorded legal description of the Original Town Centre II Constituent Area, Amended Town
Centre II Constituent Area, Otay Valley Constituent Area, Original Southwest Constituent Area,
and Amended Southwest Constituent Area, and attaching to such Statement a legal description of
the 2004 Amendment Constituent Area, to provide notice that the 2004 Amendment in the form
of the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment
Project Area has been approved in conformity with the CRL; and (ii) submit the documents
described in Health and Safety Code Section 33375 to such officials as described in said section
within the time set forth in said section.
SECTION 10. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of the
Statement of Proceedings, the legal description of the 2004 Amendment Constituent Area, the
2004 Amendment in the form of the Amended and Restated Plan for the Merged Chula Vista
Redevelopment Project Area, and/or such other documents to such other parties as may be
directed by the Agency.
SECTION 11. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days fTom and
after the date of final passage.
SECTION 12. If any part of this Ordinance, or the 2004 Amendment (in the form of the
Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project
Area) which it approves, is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or of the 2004 Amendment, and the City
Council hereby declares it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance or approved the
remainder of the 2004 Amendment if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted.
JICOMMDEVIRESOSI04-20-04\O,d Adop""' 2004 -11- ~-II
Amoodm,", '° M""d CV R,d" Pmj,".DOC
SECTION 13. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to post or publish this
Ordinance or a summary thereof in the mauner provided by the City Charter.
j
Presented by Approved as to form by
~ 1ft¿
Laurie Madigan A Moore
Community Development Director ty Attorney
BCOMMDEVIRESOS\04-20-04\O,d Adop,;"g 2004 12 01 -I c';l.
Am"dme", to M"ged CV Red" Pmj"WOC - -
PAGE I, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 05/04/04
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING $202,292 FROM THE MERGED
PROJECT AREA AS A LOAN REPAYMENT TO THE BAYFRONT/TOWN
CENTRE I PROJECT AREA; AND APPROPRIATING THESE FUNDS IN
THE BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE I FUND AND AN ADDITIONAL
$199,476 FROM THE MERGED PROJECT AREA FOR THE 2003-2004
STATE EDUCATIONAL REVENUE AUGMENTATION FUND (ERAF)
SHIFT OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUES
SUBMlnED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR,M
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Oi'-'
4/5THS YOTE: YES ~ NO CJ
BACKGROUND
The State's adopted budget for the current fiscal year includes a shift of Redevelopment Agency tax
increment funds from local Redevelopment Agencies state-wide to help fund current school revenue
shortfalls. A total of $135 million is being shifted from Agencies throughout the State. The amount
tronsferred to the State is based on gross tax increment reven4es and varies by jurisdiction. The shift
from the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency has been determined by the State Department of
Finonceto be $401.768. This payment is a one-time tro:nsfer of funds. However, additional
transfers may be forthcoming depending on the outcome of on-going State budget discussions for
both fiscal years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution appropriating $202,292 from the Merged Proiect Areo os a loan repayment
to the Bayfront¡Town Centre I Proiect Area; and appropriating these funds in the Bayfront¡Town
Centre I Fund ond an additional $199,476 from the Merged Project Area for the 2003-2004
State Educational Revenue Augmentotion Fund (ERAF) Shift of Tax Increment Revenues.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
~-I
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE: 05/04/04
DISCUSSION
The ERAF payment must be transferred to the State no later than May 15, 2004. The
oppropriation will authorize a transfer of the funds to the County Auditor, pursuant to Section
33681.8 of the State Health and Safety Code.
The tronsfer of $401,768 represents a significant portion of the Agency's net available tax
increment revenue. This year, net tax increment receipts after mandatory pass-throughs to other
taxing entities are $6,540,143. Therefore, the $401,768 shift represents 6% of net available tax
increment revenue that is used to poy debt service, fund Agency operations and administer the
Redevelopment Agency Project Areas.
Additional ERAF poyments may result from ongoing budget negotiations in Sacramento.
Significant additional cuts in redevelopment program funding, including the provision of low and
moderate income housing and assistance for development of smart-growth mixed-use projects,
may be considered for 2004-2005. Staff is working closely with our lobbyist, the League of
Californio Cities, and the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) regarding ongoing State
budget issues as they may affect the City and the Agency. Staff will keep the Council apprised
through regular reports from the City Manager's office.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fund balance impact to the Merged Project Area will be $401,768. This accounts for the
Merged Project shore of the State Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) shift of
$199,476 and the loan payment to Bayfront/Town Centre I of $202,292, which will fund their
share of the ERAF shift.
J:\COMMDEV\STAFF.REP\OS-O4-04\2004 ERAF Agenda Statement.doc
..3-~
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING $202,292 FROM THE
MERGED PROJECT AREA AS A LOAN REPAYMENT TO THE
BAYFRONT/TOWN CENTRE i PROJECT AREA: AND
APPROPRIATING THESE FUNDS IN THE BAYFRONTITOWN
CENTRE I FUND AND AN ADDITIONAL $199,476 FROM THE
MERGED PROJECT AREA FOR THE 2003-2004 STATE
EDUCATIONAL REVENUE AUGMENTATION FUND (ERAF) SHiFT
OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUES
WHEREAS, the State of California is working to close an extremely iarge budget deficit
which is affecting schooi district funding throughout the St'ilte with potentially dramatic negative
impacts to the State's iong-term fiscal situation: and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code 36381.7 of tht3 State Statutes was adopted which
requires a shift of $135 miilion in local Redevelopment Agençy revenues to be transferred into the
Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) to help fund K-12 educational programs in
Caiifornia; and
WHEREAS, the Agency is required to complete the tnmsfer by May 15, 2004 to the County
Auditor from available Agency funds based on a specified fotmula tied to both gross tax increment
revenues and tax increment revenues net of pass-throughs to !other taxing entities: and
WHEREAS, the specified reductions have been calcuiflted by the State for each Agency and
the City's Finance Department has determined that the reduclions will met by the specified amounts
in the BayfrontiTown Centre I and Merged Project Area$, and the ERAF shift will result in
unspecified budget impacts during the current and future fisc!¡1 years affecting Agency projects and
programs;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the RedevEliopment Agency of the City of Chula
Vista does hereby (a) appropriate $202,292 from the Merge~ Project Area as a loan repayment to
the BayfrontiTown Centre I Project Area; and (b) appropri~te these funds in the BayfrontiTown
Centre i fund and an additional $199,476 from the Merged !Project Area for the 2003-2004 State
Educationai Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) Shift of TaX: Increment Revenues.
PRESENTED BY APPROVED AS TO FORM BY
Laurie Madigan
Director of Community Development
J:\COMMDEV\RESOS\ERAF 2003-2004 reso.doc
.3 -3