Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1989/06/01 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, June 1, 1989 Council Conference Room 7:05 p.m. City Hall ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cox; Members McCandliss, Nader, Malcolm and Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Executive Director Goss, Acting Community Development Director Gustafson, Agency Attorney Harron, Deputy City Manager Morris 1. REPORT: PORT COMMISSIONER'S QUARTERLY REPORT Robert Penner, M.D., Port Commissioner, was present and gave the following report: 1. The Board of Port Commissioners authorized the preparation and issuance of request for proposals for .preparation of an Economic Feasibility Study of commercial recreational use of the Chula Vista Industrial Business Park site on February 7. 2. The Board approved a resolution authorizing an agreement with Entex, Inc. for continued salt marsh and fisheries monitoring and scale insect control programs at the Chula Vista Wildlife Reserve on March 21. 3. The Board approved~ resolution authorizing a $10,000 change order to replace channel daymark piles in the Commercial Basin and in the Chula Vista Channel on March 21. 4. The Board amended the lease to Chula Vista Marina-RV Park to extend the restaurant construction deadline approximately 5 months to December 31, 1989. 5. Authorization for bids for construction of the excursion boat shore facilities at Chula Vista was given May 2. 6. An agreement with Engineering Science, Inc. for preparation of a South San Diego Bay Development Study has been authorized. 7. Regarding the Second Harbor Entrance Project (SHEP), SHEP requested that the Port assume lead agency role in the effort to obtain additional studies. The Port accepted the lead agency role; they will conduct careful and deliberate meetings with all affected agencies to gather information on the many matters of concern prior to the initiation of any further studies. Redevelopment A~ency Minutes -2- June l, 1989 8. Regarding the airport, Dr. Penner reported the Port received the P&D Technology Report. The report included an Immediate Action Plan and a Long Range Plan. As part of the Immediate Action Plan, Port staff was directed to issue an RFP for environmental consulting services for the fuel storage project. The Immediate Action Plan will allow the continued easy use of Lindberg Field for about five years. What is being used as the Immediate Action Plan is compatible with the Long Range Plan. The airport access road will be repaired during the summer. Pavement and lighting rehabilitation of Runway 9-27 was awarded to Daly Corporation. 9. The new auditing firm for the Port is Deloitte Haskins and Sells. They will be utilizing the firm of Martinez and Company, a Chula Vista firm, for 25% of the total Port auditing contract. Chairman Cox noted the City is trying to coordinate a grand opening of the completion of the excursion boat shore facilities in conjunction with Harbor Days. He asked if the contract allows for the work to be completed by the end of September. Commissioner Penner responded that he had asked that question of the Port; they did not feel there would be any block to meeting that completion date. Member Malcolm asked about a walkway in front of the existing offices at the Marina, noting that it stops and does not go all the way around. Commissioner Penner stated he would take a look at the situation. Member Nader commented there was a media report recently about locating the airport in the South Bay and that the majority of Port Commissioners and a majority of San Diego City Councilmembers were involved in putting together this deal. He asked if Commissioner Penner had any knowledge of such a transaction. Commissioner Penner responded he does not know of any deal that has been transacted that involves the Port Commissioners. Responding to questions, Commissioner Penner stated the Port had made a statement regarding the location of the Airport to the effect that nothing that the Port is doing as part of the redevelopment of the airport should be considered a block to the search for and the development of another airport site. Chairman Cox noted that a letter had been received from Chula Vista Marina. Apparently there have been a number of people in association with the rental of their boat slips who have expressed concerns regarding the 5 miles per hour speed limit which is being enforced not only in the harbor but all the way down the channel to 24th Street. This letter will be on the Tuesday, June 6, Council meeting agenda. He believes this will be referred to staff to work with the Port District staff to address this matter. Commissioner Penner stated that if the City of Chula Vista would like to see an increase in the speed limit just in the channel §oin9 north, perhaps the speed limit could be raised without impacting the safety of the rest of the bay. He would be happy to bring this issue to the Port Commission. Redevelopment Agency Minutes -3- June l, t989 2. RESOLUTION lO16 RESCINDING AGREEMENT WITH McDONOUGH, HOLLAND AND ALLEN AND ENTER1NG INTO AGREEMENT WITH SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER AND HAMPTON FOR ONGOING LEGAL SERVICES RELATING TO BAYFRONT AND PROPOSED AUTO PARK ISSUES AND AUTHORIZING CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE SAME Since 1985, the Redevelopment Agency has retained the legal services of McDonough, Holland and Allen for various issues pertaining to redevelopment. Marcia Scully has principally represented the Agency in these matters. Ms. Scully will be leaving McDonough, Holland & Allen, however, she desired to continue to act as Agency Special Counsel in association with her new law firm. Acting Community Development Director Gustafson stated the Agency has had contracts with McDonough, Holland and Allen for matters relating to the Bayfront and the auto park. Ms. Marcia Scully of that firm has served the Agency very well in regard to these existing contracts. It is recommended that the Agency continue using the services of Ms. Scully with her new firm. The new contract would be the same terms and conditions. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MEMBER NADER, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent. Responding to questions posed by Member Malcolm, Ms. Scully stated her new office will be located near her old office in Newport Beach. The new firm does have a San Diego office although she will remain in Newport Beach. Her field of expertise is redevelopment, public law, and land use. Her fee per hour is $155.00. Member Malcolm questioned why the Agency should obtain the services of an attorney in Orange County versus San Diego. Mr. Gustafson noted the firm of McDonough, Holland and Allen was initially selected because of their principal's experience (Mr. Joe Coombs). At this time, the concern is to have continuity in retaining Ms. Scully because she has been working on the Bayfront and auto park projects for some time. Regarding the Bayfront, Ms. Scully has been involved in preliminary discussions trying to move toward a Disposition and Development Agreement. Agency Attorney Harron stated the Agency initially hired the firm of McDonough, Holland and Allen because they were specifically interested in obtaining the services of Joe Coombs. He is considered the dean of redevelopment law. As it turned out, the Agency worked very closely with him at the beginning, however, Marcia Scully took over almost exclusively (although she was working with Joe Coombs and getting his advice on deals that were put together). In negotiations with Homert Development Company and Chula Vista Investment Company, proposals were accepted because of the expertise of the consultants (McDonough, Holland and Allen). Mr. Gustafson pointed out there is a certain degree of professional courtesy occurring between McDonough, Holland and Allen and the new firm where the transition will take place with no additional cost to the Agency for her to Redevelopment Agency Minutes -4- June l, 1989 complete her services. If the Agency were to seek new services at this time, it is likely the Agency would pay substantially more than is represented by completing the project with Ms. Scully. Ms. Scully stated it is her understanding that there are not a lot of firms in San Diego County that specialize in redevelopment. One problem is that some of the local firms have conflicts because they represent developers. For example, Centre City Development Corporation of San Diego uses a Los Angeles firm. Member Nader noted that the only event that has occurred that would lead the Agency to consider changing attorneys at this point in time is the fact that Ms. Scully has changed firms. Member Malcolm stated that if it is not possible to obtain the services of a qualified person in San Diego County then it is acceptable to go out of San Diego for such services. He believes the money should be spent in Chula Vista first, San Diego second, and the State of California third. When the firm of McDonough, Holland and Allen was initially hired there was a need to go out of the County of San Diego to obtain services that required expertise not available here; however, that is not true at this time. Member Malcolm commented that it is not a good use of taxpayer's money to pay a consultant $155 an hour to travel from Orange County, etc. VOTE ON THE MOTION The motion passed. (The vote was 4-1; Member Malcolm opposed.) 3. REPORT: AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING STUDIES FOR THE ANIMAL SHELTER RECONFIGURATION Executive Director Goss recommended that this item be deleted from the agenda. At this point, Chairman Cox noted that an Auto Park Status Report Presentation was listed on the Agenda under Closed Session, however, it was desired to give a portion of the presentation in open session. AUTO PARK STATUS REPORT PRESENTATION Mr. Gustafson stated the portion of the presentation for the public session deals with the design of the proposed auto park and design alternatives. He introduced Mr. Bill Carlson of M.R. Farrell & Associates, the Agency's consultant on this project. Mr. Carlson stated his firm was asked to analyze the developer's site plan and to propose an alternative site plan using an internal concept rather than the more traditional "auto row" concept presented by the developer. On Tuesday, May 30, 1989, he met with the developers and their consultant, James Salter, to review the plan. Redevelopment Agency Minutes -5- June l, 1989 Using the overhead projector, Mr. Carlson displayed the proposed auto park site located at 1-805 and Otay Valley Road. In looking at the site plan proposed by the developers, the main access road coming off of the freeway into the site is at Oleander. Locating the road at this point is good from a traffic engineering stand point; however, it makes the lots very deep for auto uses. The solution that the builder came up with was to put the proposed parking garage against the freeway. The orientation is very similar to the National City Mile of Cars with the dealerships facing toward the street and their primary orientation of car display would be along Otay Valley Road. There is a traditional loop road coming in to the auto park and circulating to Brandywine. He would recommend that there be some place at both ends of the internal road for an ability to turn around within the project. There is no access into Phase 2 of the project except by going back out to Otay Valley Road. Mr. Carlson recommends that a right-of-way through the site be allowed without blocking Brandywine. Mr. Carlson stated that he does not believe the parking structure Ilocated at one end of the site) is particularly viable for off-street parking beyond the dealerships which are close to the parking structure. Off-street parking can be very useful for employee parking in an auto center and it would be desirable if it could be accommodated throughout the site. Mr. Carlson further noted the site is a very challenging site. It is difficult to do an internally oriented site and make it work with the proper depths on the different parcels. The alternative concept entrance is closer to the freeway. The alternative concept also has "turn-arounds" within the site and parking nodes for customer parking. There is an internal street with the auto dealerships facing to the internal street. Along Otay Valley Road there would be a masonry wall with heavy landscaping and very attractive entrances. This proposal contains 6 parcels rather than seven. Some of the land is lost in this proposal because of the additional land used for the "turn-arounds." In presenting the alternative plan to the developers, Mr. Carlson stated they had objections to the entrance location and to the internal orientation of the center. The developers would like to display their cars along Otay Valley Road; the internal orientation concept does not allow them to do that. The dealers also expressed concern with having the parking around the parking nodes on the street. Their proposal is to ban all on-street parking. The dealers did not have objections to the "turn-arounds" in the center. Regarding the landscape setback along Otay Valley Road, Mr. Carlson noted there has been an issue raised. Under the existing Redevelopment Plan, a 40 foot setback, in addition to a 12 foot right-of-way Ipark way and sidewalk), is required. It is recommended that the required setback be a total of 25 feet. In talking with the dealers, Mr. Carlson reported they indicated that a 25 foot landscape setback would be acceptable. This would represent a loss of property to the Agency of approximately 20,000 - 25,000 square feet in Phase I of the project. Redevelopment A~ency Minutes -6- June 1, lgSg Another issue addressed in the alternative plan was the possibility of developing to the south and extending the dealerships. Mr. Carlson suggested that there is the possibility of expanding Parcels 5 and 6 to the south Ithe "filled bench area") if studies prove this to be viable. Deputy City Manager Morris added that the siting of Parcels 5 and 6 was also a concern of the developers. It will be recommended to the Agency that an existing contract with Dames & Moore be expanded to look at the viability of expanding onto the "filled bench area" and give a better picture as to what can be done with that site. Mr. Morris stated this is a concept plan. Mr. Carlson's firm was asked to look at an alternative concept to the proposal submitted by the developers. The subcommittee asked staff to present this alternative simply as a concept proposal to the developer's proposal for consideration but not necessarily something submitted as an alternative plan that is being proposed. Mr. Carlson stated that the developers expressed an interest to include in the design concept along Otay Valley Road "pods" for car display every 100 feet (in the landscaped area out of the right-of-way). Mr. Carlson felt this was a good suggestion as long as the "pods" are nicely landscaped and attractively done. Summarizing the developers' comments, Mr. Carlson stated their concerns about the alternative are: (1) they do not want any on-street parking; 12) maintain the Oleander Street entrance into the center so they can have a car display along Otay Valley Road; 13) accepted the 25 foot landscaping setback; (4) asked for display "pods" every 100 feet; (5) accepted the entryways as being attractively designed; (6) opposed to having the road internally oriented because of the size of the parcels and the depth of the parcels Ithey did not want to lose one of the parcels in the first phase); (7) concern about visibility from the freeway as well as along Otay Valley Road; 18) concern about the cost of fill in the future development area. Member McCandliss commented that the concept alternative looks very constrictive. It would be possible to work with the plan as proposed by the developer and if there is a concern about landscaping, visibility, or too much emphasis onto Otay Valley Road, then that could be dealt with but still maintain their basic site plan. Member Moore commented that the subcommittee does not agree 100% with either plan. He likes the orientation of the buildings to the street, however, he does not like them completely reversed. There does need to be a place for "turn-arounds." The parking structure in the developer's proposal is under 1-805; however, the dealerships located further from the parking structure may ~ot use it. He suggested that if Parcel 2 cannot be cleaned-up for a dealership, it could be a parking lot. Redevelopment A§ency Minutes -7- June 1, 198g Doug Fuller, Fuller Ford, representing Chula Vista Auto Center, Inc., clarified that in the proposal submitted by the developers the marketing strategy is all internal. The dealerships have to market toward the main traffic flow which would be the internal street. No one will be able to enter into the auto center except by through the internal roads. He noted that he has a serious question about redesigning the center based on the "filled bench area". It is questionable whether or not that area could ever be used. Their proposal only goes up to the historic wetland boundary. Responding to questions, Mr. Fuller stated for the Ford dealership, 5 acres is the minimum amount of land needed as well as for the Chevrolet dealership. Toyota would accept 4 acres; Honda would possibly accept a 3 acre site depending on the location within the auto park. For any kind of a volume dealership the minimum amount of land needed is 3 acres. Chairman Cox asked llr. Fuller if he felt comfortable that the seven sites proposed in his plan would be filled in an initial phase. Mr. Fuller stated the feeling that he has, based on interest and responses received to date, is that seven dealership sites would be filled very easily. At this point, Mr. Gustafson stated this concluded the portion of the presentation for open session. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. 5. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Executive Director Goss stated June 15, 1989 is the next Agency meeting and it is currently scheduled to bring back discussion of the Midbayfront. Ne apprised the Agency that this is a very tight time frame to process the requested reports. The Gruen Gruen + Associates report will be available in a timely fashion on the economics. The report from USA Ideveloper s traffic consultant) will be completed with a minimal amount of review by JHK (the Agency's traffic consultant). In terms of their ability to develop traffic engineering analysis on the other alternatives, it will probably not be available. Mr. Goss noted staff recommended that discussion of this item be continued to July 20; however, he does not believe this fits in with his understanding of the direction of the last meeting. I~ember McCandliss commented that if all the information needed is not available, she would rather have the meeting put off a couple of weeks. 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: None. 7. MEMBERS' COM~ENTS: Member McCandliss asked if a presentation regarding the auto center had been given to the Project Area Committee. Mr. Gustafson stated the committee has been provided with regular status reports, however, there has not been an opportunity due to time constraints to take the information presented at this meeting to them. A presentation will be made in the near future. Redevelopment Agency Minutes -8- June l, 1989 -- Member Malcolm commented that he has not seen anything in the documents that have been presented to him at the confidential level on the auto park that should be kept from Chula Vista Auto Center, Inc. This is a major partnership that the Agency will be entering into. It would be better served by working with the developers and disclosing all the information. Chairman Cox stated he disagrees with Member Malcolm's comments in that the Agency has not been involved in all of the developer's strategy sessions in developing the proposal for the City. What staff is doing now is reviewing the information available to decide on a negotiating strateg~v. The Agency will be dealing with acquisition of property which is another side of negotiation. Chairman Cox suggested looking at the issues in Closed Session to decide what information should be confidential and what should be made available. ADJOURNMENT at 8:55 p.m. to Closed Session to discuss: Auto Park Status Report Presentation - Instructions to Negotiators; Potential acquisition of property located at: 4501 Otay Valley Road (Vince Davies, owner); 4705 Otay Valley Road IJimmie and Judi Shinohara, owners); and 275 F Street IF Street Corporation, owner) 430 F Street (Security Title Insurance Co., owners - Anthony Schools) 354 Church Avenue (Miguel A. & Fernandez A. Cardenas, owners) Parcel No. 568-420-15 located in the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area (Sarah Smith, owner) ADJOURNMENT from Closed Session at 11:30 p.m. to the regular meeting of Thursday, June 15, 1989 at 4:00 p.m. ADca~li~gG~oS~t~S~y ~evelopment Director WPC 4095H