Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1995/01/24 Tuesday, January 24, 1995 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council meeting) Special Meeûng of the Redevelopment Agencv of the Citv of Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Members Fox -' Moot -' Padilla -, Rindone -' and Chainnan Horton - 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 17, 1995 BUSINESS 3. REPORT APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE REQUIREMENTS FOR SOUTII BAY CHEVROLET-The auto dealer wishes to appeal the need to install certain paving improvements as approved by the Design Review Committee. Staff recommends the Agency continue the item to the Feb~ 7. 1995 meeûl1Jl III order to allow staff additIonal ÛIDe for nef!OtIatIons. (Commumty Development DIrector) 4. REPORT FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 MID-YEAR AGENCY BUDGET REVIEW --At the ÛIDe the Agency approved the FY1994-95 budget, Members requested a mid- year report be compiled for Agency review and discussion. Staff recommends the A enc continue e item to the meed of Febru 7 1995. (Commumty Development Department 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 Council on such a subject, please complete the yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment 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. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker. "I '~e"'3re un.~er l'.enQlty of pDriury that I am em Ia e! b" He ';¡Iy of C~u'a Vista in the Cor""-::,,, ::ev,,:opmont D~ç.;"'mcnt and that I posted tI1.5',,: an,),s! ,iO! .,e on the E!u::~tin Board at the Pu:J¡,c ~e,'J,ce!.1 i3u¡ktn" anJ at Cit~ DrF./~..;'¿)-15""'N~D~ .. ""'---""'1: Agenda -2. January 24, 1995 OTIlER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR'S REPORTrS) 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTrS) 7. MEMBER COMMENTS CLOSED SESSION Unless Agency Counsel, the Executive Director, or the Redevelopment Agency states otherwise at this time, the Agency will discuss and deliberate on the following items of business which are permitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Agency is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Agency is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports ofiÏ11f11 action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Agency's return from closed session, reports of iÏ11f11 action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Clerk's Office. 8. CONFERENCE WITII LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Exisûng litigaûonpursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 . Wally Bozek; Henry Gonzales v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of ChuIa Vista and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. regarding challenge to Redevelopment Agency's providing subsidy to Wal-Mart Project; alleged violation of AB 1290 9. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeûng on February 7, 1995 at 4:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. ****** COMPLIANCE WITII TIlE AMERICANS WITII DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans With Disabiliûes Act (ADA), request individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, acûvity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the Seçretary to the Redevelopment Agency for specific infonnaûonat (619) 691-5047 or Telecommunicaûons Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. [C:I WP5 1 IAGENCYIAGEND ASIO 1-24-95. AGDJ -. -- MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF TIlE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, January 17, 1995 Council Chambers 8:38 P.M.. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER I. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Members Fox, Moot, Rindone, and Chair Horton ABSENT: Member Padilla (excused) ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 20,1994 MSC (FoxlRindone) to approve the minutes of December 20, 1994 as presented. Approved 4-0.1 with Padilla absent. CONSENT CALENDAR None Submitted PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 3. PUBLIC HEARING ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 818 BROADWAY TO SOUTH BAY CHEVROLET COMPANY, INC. WITHOUT PUBLIC BIDDING PURSUANT TO SECTION 33431 OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LA W--The Agency acquired the leasehold interest in the property as part of the acquisition of the dealership's properties for the Auto Park project. South Bay Chevrolet has decided to continue to sell used cars at the site and requests reconveyance of the lease and leasehold interests. Staff recommends the Agencv open the public hearing and continue same to a date and time certain. that being the Agencv meeting of Tuesdav. Februarv 7. 1995 at 4:00 p.m.. immediately following the Citv Council meeting. (Community Development Director) RESOLUTION 1445 AUTHORIZING TIlE ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE AND LEASEHOLD INTEREST IN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 818 BROADWAY TO SOUTH BAY CHEVROLET COMPANY, INC. AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE SAME This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There was no public testimony. MSC (FoxlHorton) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of 2/7/95. Approved 4-0-1 with Padilla absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ~ --I _. Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 2 ACTION ITEMS 4. REPORT ACCEPTING BANNER PROGRAM TO IDENTIFY DOWNTOWN AREA- A banner program has been developed to delineate the Downtown and to create excitement and a festive environment within the Town Centre Project Area. Staff recommends acceptance of the report. (Community Development Director) Chair Horton stated the Bonita Professional Business Organization purchased similar banners for the Bonitafest activities and they found that certain colors faded easily. She hoped staff would look into that before colors were chosen. Member Rindone stated he supported the recommendation but hoped that "Chula Vista" would be included on the banner somewhere to identify the community. Chair Horton stated if that cluttered the sign a banner with the City name could be placed at the beginning and end of a street. Member Fox expressed concern that the words, "Downtown" would be on the sidewalk side of the banner. Pam Buchan, Principal Community Development Specialist, stated the design was conceptual and staff would look at that in more detail. Member Rindone stated the balance of the $30,000 budget could be used for other funding, i.e. ethics workshop or other needs identified by the Council/Agency. MSC (FoxlHorton) to accept the report. Approved 4-0-1 with Padilla absent, 5. REPORT APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE REQUIREMENTS FOR SOUTII BAY CHEVROLET--The auto dealer wishes to appeal the need to install certain paving improvements as approved by the Design Review Committee. Staff recommends the Agency hear the appeal and require the improvements. (Community Development Director) Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated the Special Certificate of Occupancy was issued. The DRC found that a certain type of enhanced paving recommended was not installed and, therefore, the City required a letter of credit and the applicant was appealing that decision. Chair Horton stated she had driven by the facility and compared the two dealerships and she did not see that there would be any improvement by the addition of the stamped concrete and did not feel it was significant. However, she felt there was a problem with all the cars parked along the side streets. Cars had been parked up to the stop sign and she did not have enough room to keep her vehicle on the right side of the street. Mr. Salomone stated that issue would be discussed at a meeting on 217/95, i.e. street widths, on-street parking, no parking, etc. Member Fox stated he had also driven by the facility and he could not visually see the difference between the two dealerships. He was uncertain as to what was being referred to as "pedestrian areas" and "pedestrian entrance areas". Mr. Salomone replied that the difference between the two was basically color. The treatments were in the driveway entrances only. The pedestrian area at Southbay Chevrolet was between the dealership and the sidewalk, where the cars were. The DRC felt a color treatment would delineate the area for pedestrians. The actual driveway was the area for the special concrete treatment. (2~1- Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 3 Chair Horton questioned if the roadway between Southbay Chevrolet and the Ford dealership was to be upgraded with hardscape design. Mr. Salomone replied that it was not included in the item before the Agency. Member Moot questioned why the work was not originally done at the rime of construction. He was concerned that one dealer was required to do it and another dealer had not. He did not want to encourage people to conveniently forget to put in upgrades that they did not agree with. Mr. Salomone felt the applicant should respond to the question. There were a number of things that were not installed and of all those things, the only one that currently remained not in compliance with the DRC was the specially colored concrete. . Greg Cox, 3130 Bonita Road, Snite 200, Chula Vista, CA, representing South Bay Chevrolet, stated three items were required by the DRC at their 10/3/94 meeting. The southerly perimeter wall was being completed so they were focusing on items I and 2, i.e. the bomanite and pedestrian access areas. The project had taken longer than hoped for and cost more than anticipated. There was an effort to try to speed up the completion of the project in order to allow it to open in October. At the same time that was going on there was an effort to get the road work done. Towards the end of the project the DRC came up with their recommendations and the project manager tried to abide by the conditions as best they could. In the process, a decision was made to not put in the bomanite and not deal with the pedestrian access primarily due to time and the need to get the project completed in a timely fashion. The thought was clearly to return to the Agency. It was not felt that the bomanite would enhance the project and there were ADA concerns with the bomanite because it was rougher and harder to traverse with a wheelchair. The sawcut concrete that was put in with a salt finish was very attractive and integrated well with the building. The side streets had not been accepted by the City and were private streets. Once accepted the City would have complete control to enforce parking regulations. . Tony Collura, Project Manager, stated one of the reasons for not enhancing the concrete was due to maintenance. If completed as planned the owners would have been burdened with the problem of sealing and waxing it every six months which would be several thousand dollars per year. The product was also a very slippery surface and was taken out due to handicap access. The money that was saved by deleting the bomanite was put back into the building. There were no maintenance costs to the saw cut salt finished concrete. They had told the DRC what they were going to do, but it was not approved by the DRC. MOTION: (Fox) to approve the Board and Commission recommendation #3. Motion died for lack of second. Member Moot stated it was his understanding that the Agency had to either grant or deny the appeal. Mr. Salomone responded that was correct. The Agency could role with the applicant that the situation was adequate, over role the appeal, or role with the staff recommendation. Mr. Cox requested that the Agency grant the appeal on items #1 and #2 and release the letter of credit upon completion of item #3, of which they were not in dispute with. Member Rindone stated one of the dealerships was in full compliance and did not appeal and then there was a dealership that did not follow the procedures. He felt the staff recommendation to deny the appeal was in order. There were standards and that was why the City had a design review committee. If the applicant had followed the procedures he would have been more supportive of the appeal. Therefore, he would support the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. MOTION: (Rindone) to approve the stalT recommendation and deny the appeal. Died for lack of second. MS (Horton/Fox) to grant the appeal on items #1 and #2 and when item #3 was completed the City would release the letter of credit. '7 ,~~-) Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 4 Member Fox stated he would reluctantly support the motion. He was uncomfortable with one dealer being required to do something and another dealer not being required to do the same thing. After visiting the facilities he could see no justification for the statement that the dealership was less attractive and that the pedestrian areas and entrances were unarticulated. If it was going to be required of future dealerships he wanted to know exactly what the requirement did to make it so much more attractive because he could not see the difference. Chair Horton could not see where one area was more enhanced than the other. She had not specifically looked at the entrances of the buildings so there could possibly be some visual enhancement. She had a problem in walking on the bomanite with heels and felt there could be a safety concern. Therefore, she supported the appeal on items #1 and #2. Member Rindone stated his concerns were with the procedures and expectations of staff. The design concepts should have been fully developed at an earlier stage. There was also a responsibility by the dealership to address those issues at an earlier stage. He was concerned with tbe precedent the Agency would be setting. It was also unfair to Fuller Ford. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Rindone/Fox) tbe savings tbat resulted in not doing items #1 and #2 would be sbared between the two dealersbips, Mr. Collura stated Fuller Ford was not in compliance regarding the stamped concrete either if the plans were reviewed. The approacbes visible from the street were a dust on color concrete. The approacbes probably cost Fuller Ford an additional $1,500 and it cost Southbay Chevrolet more money to saw cut and salt the concrete. There were no cost savings to share with Fuller Ford. Member Rindone stated he did not have the technical expertise regarding those issues and they should have been discussed with staff and not on an appeal. When the Agency set expectations they sbould bave been met. Member Moot agreed with Member Rindone, someone should not be allowed to make unilateral decisions that they were not going to do something and then ask the City for relief. The staff recommendation was appropriate, but be felt asking them to correct items #1 and #2 would be an idle act that would not have the benefit that was intended. He felt there should be some type of constructive penalty and his preference was to see if tbere was a legitimate way that they could contribute money to the community development block grant funds for other worthy projects. There needed to be a creative solution that created a disincentive for people to chose not to comply. Mr. Boogaard requested that the item be referred to staff to ¡:heck into the specifics of legality. Member Moot suggested that the appeal be granted with the understanding that item #3 be complied with and the funds would not be released. He would ask that the applicant and Mr. Salomone meet to see if there was some creative plan to create a disincentive for people to ignore the regulations. Member Fox stated he was uncomfortable witb the direction being taken. It was apparent that the applicant had agreed beforehand to the improvements and did not complete them and was now asking for a waiver. The statement that the dealership was less attractive was not correct, but he did not like direction to staff to create disincentives. He felt the staff recommendation was correct and did not want to set a precedent. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: (Fox/Rindone) to deny tbe appeal. Chair Horton felt Member Moot's recommendation had a lot of merit and she wanted staff to return at the 1/24/95 meeting. She hoped staff would meet with the applicant to see if there was some type of resolution to the issues evaluating possible cost savings to the developer, if any, from their deviation from the original plans. VOTE ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION: (to deny appeal) failed 2.2-1 with Horton and Moot opposed and Padilla absent. ,;Z - r -. Minutes January 17, 1995 Page 5 MSC (Horton/Moot) to refer the appeal back to staff for one week; staff to take into consideration comments by Members and try to resolve the issue in a manner that could benefit the community. Approved 3-1-1 with Rindone opposed and Padilla absent. OTIlER BUSINESS 6. DIRECTOR'S REPORT(s) - None 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT(s) - None 8. MEMBER COMMENTS Member Rindone a. Member Rindone questioned when the January report for the Redevelopment Agency budget would be brought forward for review. Mr. Goss stated that it was tentatively set for the 1/24/95 agenda. Member Rindone requested that it be delivered to Council prior to Saturday. ADIOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 9:25P.M. to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on February 7,1995 at 4:00p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk by: "~~~ ;; ~-5 '- MEMORANDUM January 13, 1995 TO: The Honorable Mayor Shirley Horton VIA: John D. Goss, City Manager¿i2 FROM: Chris Salomone, Community De~elopment Director ¿-~ , SUBJECT: Request for Special Agency Meeting - January 24, 1995 Staff requests your consideration to call and convene a Special Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on Tuesday, January 24, 1995 immediately following the City Council meeting. Items on the Agenda will include: . Agency participation in property acquisition costs for Phase 2 of the Palomar Trolley Center in excess of thresholds identified in the Amended Palomar Trolley Center Disposition and Development Agreement . Report: Fiscal Year 1994-95 Mid-Year Agency Budget Review By signing below you will authorize the calling of the meeting and a copy of the memorandum will then be forwarded to Agency Members. APPROVED: ~ Copies to: Councilmember Bob Fox Councilmember John Moot Councilmember Steve Padilla Councilmember Jerry Rindone City Clerk [C:\WP51 \AGENCY\MEMOS\MAYOR-l.MEMI --