Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1989/08/17 ) MINUTES OF A REGULAR ~1EETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, August 17, 1989 4:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Council Conference Room Ci ty Hall MEMBERS PRESENT: Chai rrnan Cox; Members McCandl i ss, Nader and !'100re. Member Malcolm arrived at 4:17 p.m. MEt~BERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: None Ass i stant City Manager Asmus; Agency Attorney Harron; Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman; Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam; Housing Coordinator Thompson 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 7/13/89, 7/20/89, and 7/25/89 MSC (Moore/McCandliss) to approve the minutes of 7/13/89, 7/20/89 and 7/25/89 as submitted. (The vote was 4-0; Member Malcolm was not present for the vote; Chairman Cox abstained from voting on the minutes of 7/25/89 due to his absence from that meeting.) CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 2 a. through 9) Consent Calendar items 4, 6 and 9 were pulled. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 2 a., 2 b., 3, 5, 7 AND 8 WERE OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN COX, the reading of the text was \~aived by unanimous consent, passed and were approved. (The vote was 4-0; Member Malcolm was not present for the vote.) 2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS a. Letter from Wi 11 i am E. Schaefer and Joan 1. Schaefer, 376 Center Street, Chula Vista 92010 regarding the proposed ~1idbayfront development The letter from William and Joan Schaefer expressed their strong objections to the proposed Midbayfront development plan. The letter was received after the July 13 tlorkshop on this matter. It was recommended that the letter be acknowl edged and that a copy of the mi nutes from the July 13 workshop be forwarded to William and Joan Schaefer. b. Letter from Bob McMains, Chula Vista Downtown Association, 279 Third Avenue, Chula Vista 92010 regarding Christmas decorations The 1 etter from the Downtown Associ ati on requested matchi ng fundi ng from the Agency for the purchase of additional Christmas decorations over the next four years. The cost for this year is estimated at $9,852 of which the Agency was r~i nutes -2- August 17, 1989 requested to contribute $4,926. The request was made on the basis that the proposed Christmas decorations are promotional in nature, improving the image of the City for both residents and visitors. It was recommended that this request be referred to staff for further study and recommendation. 3. RESOLUTION 1025 AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF OPTION WITH CHULA VISTA INVESTORS FOR t1ITIGATION CREDITS IN BAYFRONT PROJECT AREA On August 23, 1988, the Redevelopment Agency entered into a Loan and Option Agreement with Chula Vista Investors (CVI). The Agency agreed to make a loan of $4,300,000 to facilitate CVI's acquisition of the r~idbayfront project and mitigation credits. As part of the Agreement, the Agency was provided an Option and Right of First Refusal on the mitigation credits. The initial Opti on expi red on March 1, 1 989, and was extended for another si x months through September 1, 1989, by Agency action. Two additional option periods of six months each remain pursuant to the Agreement. It was recommended that the Agency adopt the resolution authorizing extension of the Option for mitigation credits for a six month period to March 1, 1990. 5. RESOL UTI ON 1026 APPROPRIATING UP TO $82,000 IN LOI'I/MODERATE ItlCOME HOUSING SET ASIDE FUNDS TO BID AT A TRUSTEE'S SALE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 51 CONNOLEY CIRCLE WITH A PREVIOUS REHABILITATION LOAN Late in 1984, the City approved a rehabil itation loan to the owner of the property located at 51 Connoley Circle. The loan was for $6,010 and is secured by a third trust deed. City staff were notified that the property owner defaulted on the first trust deed and that there is to be a trustee sale (auction) on August 22, 1989. It was recommended that the Agency adopt the resolution appropriating up to $82,000 from the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Set-Aside Funds and authorize staff to bid up to that amount at a trustee sale on the property. 7. RESOLUTION 1027 GRANTING A 24 SQ. FT. EASEMENT ON ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 568-511-18 LOCATED WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Mr. Roger Gregg proposed constructing four apartments at 273 Alvarado Street. San Di ego Gas & El ectri c Company proposed extendi ng el ectri c servi ce to Mr. Gregg's development from a pol e \~hi ch is located on Agency property at 277 Alvarado. An underground conduit will be installed from the pole to Mr. Gregg's property. Therefore, an easement must be granted to SDG&E for the extension of the service. This underground cable will also be available to servi ce the Agency's property. It was recommended that the Agency adopt the resolution granting a 24 sq. ft. easement on Assessor Parcel Number 568-511-18 located at 277 Alvarado Street to San Diego Gas & Electric Company. ) \ ! ~Ii nutes -3- August 17, 1989 8. RESOLUTION 1028 APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS, AND AWARDING COtHRACT FOR "IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC PARKING LOT AT 281 and 287 CHURCH AVENUE IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA" On August 2, 1989 the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for "Improvement of Publ ic Parking Lot at 281 & 287 Church Avenue in the City of Chula Vista, California". Funds for this project were budgeted in Fiscal Year 1986-87. The work includes removal and disposal of existing improvements, gradi ng and excavati on, constructi on of asphalt concrete pavement, curbs, gutter, sidewalk, driveways, stamped concrete, lighting system, automatic irrigation system, block walls, installation of planting and other miscellaneous work shown on the plans. It was recommended that the Agency appropriate $49,794.14 from the unappropriated balance of the Bayfront/Town Centre Bond Fund to the Town Centre Parking Lot account and to accept bids and award the contract to Southland Paving, Inc. in the amount of $225,168.15. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 10. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. PULLED ITE~1S 4. RESOLUTIotJ APPROVING JAMES LEARY ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING AS THE CONSULTANT TO PROVIDE ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE ANIMAL SHELTER RECONFIGURATION AND AUTHORIZING THE AGREEMENT On June 15, 1989, the Redevelopment Agency authorized staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for architectural and engineering services for the Animal Shelter reconfiguration. The planned reconfiguration includes demolition of the existing office and workroom facilities located north of the kennels and the construction of replacement facilities elsewhere on the site out of the future Otay Valley Road right-of-way. Only one proposal was submitted in response to the RFP. The proposal was reviewed by a committee consisting of five City staff members from the Community Development, Planning, Engineering, and Police Departments. A consensus was reached that the proposal was responsive to the RFP and an agreement was negotiated with James Leary Architecture and Planning. Member Moore commented regarding his concern of potentially relocating the animal shelter. He realizes there may be some modifications because of the Otay Vall ey Road wi deni ng project, however, he questi oned if the Agency/Council would want to consider relocating the animal shelter to another site. He noted there are no community concerns with the present location at thi s time. Minutes -4- August 17, 1989 Assistant City Manager Asmus stated staff has generally been under the impression that looking into the future the present site of the animal shelter is not a good site for the animal shelter. Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam stated the major consideration is that the present site is in the middle of the Walker Scott parcel and that it would not be appropriate for the animal shelter to be located in the middle of a light industrial development. Ms. Putnam further added most of the discussion to date has been that when the Public Works Yard is relocated to a central area that the animal shelter would be relocated as well. Responding further to questions, Ms. Putnam stated the proposed construction costs for the animal shelter reconfiguration is $100,000. The reasons for the high cost are: the project will go through the design review process; landscaping is included; additional parking is included; and the office and work rooms wi 11 be upgraded. Ms. Putnam added that the offi ce woul d be in a trailer facility. Member Nader commented the present si te for the animal shel ter is not a bad site. If the shelter is going to be relocated in the future, it does n)t make sense to spend $100,000 at this time to reconfigure the present animal shelter. Ms. Putnam responded if the animal shelter is not reconfigured at this time, then it will not be possible to move forward with the widening of Otay Valley Road. The animal shelter is located in the critical path for the road wi deni ng project. Member Nader stated he woul d 1 i ke an i ndi cati on from other Agency members whether or not they desired the animal shel ter to be ultimately relocated or to remain in its present location. Member Malcolm stated he would like to keep the animal shelter in its present 1 ocati on. He questi oned why it is necessary to go through an architect for the reconfiguration, suggesting looking for a less expensive means. Chairman Cox stated he is not prepared to say that the present location of the animal shelter should be the permanent location. Having an animal shelter in the middle of a redevelopment district may not be the best location. Member McCandliss commented the animal shelter needs to be rebuilt eventually whether it is kept at its present location or relocated. If it is rebuilt on site, it could be moved around and incorporated into the area. Mr. Asmus suggested not taking action on this matter at this time. He further suggested scaling down the ideas for the reconfiguration and involve appropriate staff in reviewing the idea of keeping the animal shelter in its present location. MOTI ON MS (Cox/McCandliss) refer this item back to staff for further evaluation of other alternatives. Minutes -5- August 17, 1989 Member Malcolm stated he would like staff to seek more bids since only one person responded to the RFP for this project. Mr. Asmus stated he would look into the possibility of doing the work in-house. Member Nader suggested this item be brought back in conjunction with a recommendation on the ultimate location of the animal shelter. VOTE ON t~OTI OtJ The motion passed unanimously. 6. RESOLUTION 1029 APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A MOBILEHOME ON AN AGENCY -miNED SPACE I N THE ORANGE TREE r10BILEHO~1E PARK, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR It was requested that the Agency acquire a mobilehome on an Agency-owned space in the Orange Tree t,10bilehome Park. The purpose of acquiring the space is to provide a relocation unit for a household in one of the three parks that are cl osi ng in the Ci ty. The space and mobil ehome woul d be hel d by the Agency until the relocation site was no longer needed to satisfy a relocation need. The uni t woul d be managed by Tyco Management whi ch' currently is managi ng all the space rentals for the Agency in the park. Mr. Asmus referred to a memorandum before the Agency indicating that the cost of renovation of the mobilehome was increased from $3,000 to $4,000. Member Moore commented he approves of this action. However, he believes there shoul d be an Agency/Council pol icy of how thi s mobil ehome, and any future acquisitions, would be used. The philosophy of how far the City should be involved with a trailer park closure and the relocation of its occupants needs to be addressed. He suggested making a referral to staff to come back with an Agency/Council policy on this matter. Mr. Asmus requested that the resol ution be amended to increase the amount of the appropriation to $14,000. THE RESOLUTION WAS OFFERED AS AMENDED BY MEMBER MOORE, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent. t~OTI ON MS (Moore/Cox) refer to staff to bri ng back a pol icy regardi ng the type and depth of City assistance when there is a closure of a trailer park. Chairman Cox clarified that the intention of the motion is to have recommendations come back to the Agency and to refer this matter to staff, the Mobilehome Relocation Task Force and the Mobilehome Issues Committee. Chairman Cox further noted it would be advisable to have this mobilehome available for those parks that have been properly noticed for closure. ~'_.~-'--".-"ï-" "'...- m__'______.__._.._~._ - Minutes -6- August 17, 1989 VOTE ON THE MOTION The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Sid Christianson, representing the Board of Directors of the Orange Tree Homeowners Association, stated he polled the members of the Board and received concurrence from all members that they 1 ike the program that City staff has proposed for the purchase of thi s mobil ehome. He appreci ated that he was kept informed of the process by City staff. REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT RFP FOR PROPOSED SOUTHWEST CITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA 9. REPORT: Staff was directed to begin the process of implementing a Redevelopment Project Area in the southwest area of the City, including but not limited to former County lands in the Montgomery area, West Fairfield, Broadway south of I Street and Main Street. A Request for Proposals for a redevelopment consultant to assi st City staff in the formati on of a new redevelopment area was prepared for the Agency's review. Member Nader noted the Agenda Statement referenced a map that was not attached. Redevelopment Coordinator Kassman stated it was initially intended to provide a map with the packet, however, staff did not want to give the impressi on that areas for the redevelopment di stri ct had been presel ected. Presenti ng a map to the Agency, Mr. Kassman poi nted to areas recommended by the Planning Department that might require redevelopment action including West Fairfield, areas along Broadway, and the Castle Park area. Member Nader commented he would like to be sure that it is clearly understood and made a criteri a in the RFP, that any redevelopment proposal that wi 11 be considered will have some provision that will assure that people will not be removed from thei r homes (unfri endly condemnati on) . He woul d al so 1 i ke to have No. 10 on page 2 of the proposed RFP be amended to add that mailing labels would include all residential addresses for all parcels within the proposed project area so that residents as well as owners would be notified of any public hearings. ~1ember Nader further noted that for each fi rm that submits a proposal, he would like to see a summary of their background, qualifications and approach and philosophy. MOTION MSC (Nader/Cox) amend the RFP by amending No. 10 on Page 2 of the RFP to require preparation of a master list and mailing labels for addresses of residents in addition to owners within the proposed project area. (The vote was 4-0; Member Malcolm was not present for the vote.) - Mi nutes -7- August 17, 1989 Member Nader suggested adding a condition tJo. 21 to the RFP stating that the work wi 11 be done with the criteri a in mi nd that the redevelopment project ultimately adopted by the Agency will not require involuntary condemnation of residential homes. Chairman Cox commented it may be premature to add this condition. He does not disagree with the intent, however, he does not want to preclude involuntary condemnation as an option at this point. Member ~1cCandl i ss suggested wordi ng the condition to say the redevelopment plan or strategy be designed to avoid unfriendly condemnation of residences. MOTI ON MSC (Nader/Cox) to add Condition No. 21 to the RFP requlrlng a plan to be presented with the aim of avoiding the involuntary displacement of residents. (The vote was 4-0; Member Malcolm was not present for the vote.) Member Moore commented he has a problem with a study of this size. He noted concern with the current staffing level. He does not have a problem tlith Hest Fairfield; it should be contiguous with the present Bayfront Plan. Chairman Cox noted the Agency needs to be aware of the fact that redevelopment can be a fundi ng tool for the City. There may be publ i c improvements and ameni ti es that are not goi ng to be pi cked up through de vel opment fees and normal processing requirements. t~OTI ON Chairman Cox moved that the staff report be accepted as amended. Responding to questions, ~1r. Kassman stated staff will work closely with the Pl anni ng Department and communi ty groups before desi gnati ng any areas for redevelopment. The areas presented to the Agency at this meeting were designated by the Planning Department as opportunities for redevelopment. There are other areas on Broadway that are not reflected on the map before the Agency at this meeting which would warrant redevelopment activities. ~1ember Moore stated he could not support this motion. It is too vague with regard to the proposed areas for redevelopment. He could support a motion of pursuing a consultant. Mr. Kassman stated the RFP includes identification of redevelopment areas within the Survey Area. The Survey Area was established in 1973 and was extended in 1986 to include the Montgomery area. The Survey Area indicates the area within which the Agency coul d look to establ ish a new redevelopment area. Community Development Specialist Abbott clarified that the Survey Area was previously identified and approved. The first step in the process of establishing a redevelopment area is to look at a Survey Area and identify the redevelopment project area. Respondi ng to questi ons, Mr. Abbott stated the Minutes -8- August 17, 1989 consultant would be directed to look at certain segments of the Survey Area. A map of the exi sti ng Survey Area and a map showi ng the areas wi thi n the Survey Area i dentifi ed by the Pl anni ng Department wi 11 be i ncl uded with the RFP. MOTI ON MSC (Cox/Nader) to amend the RFP to specify that the proposed Survey Area for this consultant would be I Street southward including the previously approved boundaries east and west. (The vote was 4-0; Member Malcolm was not present for the vote.) MOTI ON MSC (Moore/Nader) direct staff to bring back copies of the minutes indicating when staff was directed to pursue an additional project area as referred to in paragraph one of the agenda statement. (The vote was 4-0; Member Malcolm was not present for the vote.) MOTI ON MSC (Cox/Moore) to accept the report as amended. (The vote was 4-0; Member Malcolm was not present for the vote.) MOTI ON MSC (Nader/McCandliss) direct staff to provide the Agency with a short summary of the qualifications, background and approach submitted by each of the firms responding to the RFP. Direct staff to also provide the Agency at that time and at any other time with directions that they propose to give to the consultant as to any material fact affecting the redevelopment project (either the area to be looked at, the type of redevelopment to be promoted, or any other pol icy matter that is ultimately for the determination of the Agency). (The vote was 4-0; Member Malcolm was not present for the vote.) 11. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. 12. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: a. Nautical Activity Center Chairman Cox referred to a packet of information he distributed to Agency members regarding a proposal for a Nautical Activity Center. He noted that since March 1989, a group of 24 interested citizens, representing 18 organizations, have met to discuss the possibil ity of creating an aquatic center in Chula Vista. At this point, the committee would like to suggest that the Port District look at two potential sites for this center, one being on the west side of the existing boat launching facility; and the other site would be at the north end of Bayside Park at the foot of G Street. Minutes -9- August 17, 1989 Chai rman Cox presented a draft 1 etter to the Port Di stri ct regardi ng thi s project which the Committee would like to have the Council's/Agency's concurrence to send. If it is approved to forward the letter, it could likely be on the Port agenda for thei r meeti ng of Tuesday, August 22. The Port Di stri ct woul d be asked to do a feasi bil i ty study, and to enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista to build this facility with the understanding that the City of Chula Vista would be doing the ongoing operation and maintenance of the facility at a nominal annual lease payment. MSUC (Mal colm/t~oore) approve submi tta 1 of the 1 etter to the Port Di stri ct regarding the Nautical Activity Center. b. Funding for Little America's Cup Chairman Cox stated when the Redevelopment Agency budget was considered, potential funding for the Little America's Cup was also considered. At that time, the proposal was to underwrite the cost of the design of a competition boat to compete in the Little America's Cup. Since that time, there has been a request by the San Diego America's Cup Task Force to ask the City of Chula Vista to take over the request for funding from the Port District. The funding requested of the Port District would not be to build a new boat, but instead to focus on a request for $50,000 to orient an effort toward bringing an international sailing cup competition to Chula Vista and the South Bay. Ms. Patti Krebs, representing the America's Cup Task Force, stated the overall budget for this project is $900,000. One third of the budget would be developed by "in-kind services" toward the actual construction of the boat. One thi rd of the budget woul d come from corporate sponsorshi p; they are working with proposals from organizations that would tailor a package made for television. One third would be local support from governmental agencies and the pri vate sector. The County of San Di ego has al ready approved $25,000; $25,000 has been requested from the City of Chula Vista; and $50,000 will be requested from the Port District. Responding to questions, Ms. Krebs stated the Chula Vista Yacht Club will be the challenger of record. All of the supporting activities will take place on the Chula Vista water front. If Chula Vista is successful in the challenge, Chula Vista would become the host. Chai rman Cox cl arifi ed that thi s competiti on woul d not be rel ated to the competition that would have to take place in Australia in order to win the Cup. This would be a sanctioned competition. Chai rman Cox presented a draft 1 etter to the Agency that he asked for authorization to submit to the Port District. The letter indicates the City woul d be taking on the responsi bi 1 i ty of admi ni steri ng the City's funds as well as the Port District's funds. It would be the intent of the America's Cup Task Force to take on a leadership role as far as the promotion of the event, subject to an agreement. t~i nutes -10- August 17, 1989 Member r~cCandl iss commented this may be an interesting project that may have value in funding from a promotional point of view. She was concerned that sending this letter would be a prelude to releasing the $25,000 from the Agency. She di d not want thi s to happen at thi s poi nt. She desi red to have more information and have a full discussion on this matter. Nember f'1alcolm also desired to have more information. However, he felt by authorizing submittal of this letter it would not commit the Agency to releasing the $25,000 funding. MOTION MS (Malcolm/Moore) authorize submittal of the letter to the Port District. Chairman Cox suggested adding another paragraph to the letter stating the City of Chula Vista would expect that before any funds are released by the City or the Port District that there would be an acceptable agreement approved. Member Nader noted concern with one sentence in the letter, sté\tfng that it gives the impression that the Agency has already decided to appropriate the $25,000 toward this event. That decision has not been made yet; more i nformati on was requested. He suggested rewriti ng the sentence stati ng that any funds from the City of Chula Vista and the Port District will be pooled in a joint account. Chairman Cox responded to questions and stated at the budget session there was $25,000 set asi de subject to an agreement comi ng back for Agency consideration. The approach is now different; the funds would not go towards constructing a yacht for the competition; the funds woul d go towards funding the staging of an international sailing event in Chula Vista. SUBSTITUTE MOTION Member McCandl i ss moved that thi s item be pl aced on the agenda for Tuesday, August 22, 1989. The motion died for lack of a second. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION MSC (Nader/Cox) change the first line of the last paragraph on page one of the 1 etter to read "The City of Chul a Vi sta funds and the Port Di stri ct funds wi 11 be pooled into a joint account". (The vote was 4-1; Member McCandliss voting no. ) Mi nutes -11- Auc ust 17, 1989 j VOTE ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED The motion passed. (The vote was 4-1; Member McCandliss voting no.) c. Signalization of I-805 and Otay Valley Road Cha i rrnan Cox provi ded a 1 etter to Agency members from CalTrans regardi ng the; r position on the signalization of 1-805 and Otay Valley Road. CalTrans stated they woul d not take any responsi bil i ty for provi di ng the signals at thi s location. Chairman Cox pointed out funds have been included in the budget for thi s purpose. He suggested di recti ng staff to move forward with the work on the design and engineering of this project. Responding to questions, City Traffic Engineer Rosenberg stated CalTrans was asked to look into the possibility of providing an interim traffic signal at Palomar and 1-5. In the meantime they are also engaging in a project study report for the ultimate sol uti on to the interchange whi ch mi ght i ncl ude a wi deni ng of the bri dge and other modifi cati ons to the traffi c si gnal . A response has not yet been received with regard to the request for the interim traffic signal. MOTION MS (Cox/Malcolm) direct staff to begin the design of the traffic signals at I-805 and Otay Valley Road. City Engineer Swanson suggested staff also work with William Dotson of CalTrans to try to get the State to fund thei r share of the cost of the traffic signals at this location. The approximate cost of the signals will be $240,000. Funds are budgeted for traffic signal s at three locations in the City: I-805 at Otay Valley Road, 1-805 at Orange Avenue, and I-5 at Palomar. These funds could be used for Otay Valley Road. Staff plans to work with CalTrans to get an agreement to reimburse the City at a later point. Member Malcolm questioned if it would be possible for the Redevelopment Agency to fund the signals. Mr. Kassman stated it is possible; the Agency would need to make a fi ndi ng on the 1 i ght that woul d be outsi de of the Project Area (noting one signal would be located within the Project Area and one outside). Mr. Kassman stated the funds in the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area are in a deficit position. Member Malcolm suggested lending funds from the General Fund to be paid back. Mr. Kassman al so suggested including the cost in the Assessment District for Otay Valley Road. Chairman Cox clarified his motion noting that staff is to pursue other funding sources (i.e., CalTrans, Redevelopment Funds, or Assessment District). VOTE ON MOTI ON The moti on passed. The vote was 4-0; Member Nader was not present for the vote. Minutes -12- August 17, 1989 13. MEMBERS' COMMENTS: None. Before adjourning to Closed Session, Agency Attorney Harron stated the City of Chula Vista was served on this date with a lawsuit - SDG&E vs. City of Chula Vista. Because this matter came up after the Agenda was prepared, he requested the Agency/Council make such a finding and consider this matter in Closed Session. t·1üTI Of! MSUC (Cox/t,1cCandliss) to consider SDG&E vs. City of Chula Vista in Closed Session. The City Council/Redevelopment Agency adjourned to Closed Session at 6:10 p.m. to discuss the following: Potential Acquisition of Property Located at: 430 F Street (Security Title Insurance, Co., owners - Anthony Schools) 311 F Street (Hugh Christensen, owner) 275 F Street (Kushnir Yaroslav, Inc., owner) 798 F Street - Risi Industries (Rados Brothers, owners) 4555 Otay Valley Road (Shell Oil Co., owner) 45Dl Otay Valley Road (Roderick and Patricia Davies, owners) Parcel 624-060-27 on Otay Valley Road (Vincent & Margaret Davies, owners) Parcel 624-060-09 on Otay Valley Road (Vincent & Margaret Davies, owners) 47D5 Otay Valley Road (Jimmie & Judi Shinohara, owners) Parcel 644-04D-14 (N & S Materials, owner) Parcel 644-040-40 (Walker Scott Properties/South Bay, owner) Parcel 624-040-45 (Atomic Investments, Inc., Leonard Teyssier, owner) East H Street - Paseo Del Rey and Tierra Del Rey (Rancho Del Rey Partnership, owner) ) Potential Litigation Li ti gati on: SDG&E vs. City of Chula Vista ADJOURNMENT at 7:00 p.m. from Closed Session to the regular meeting of Thursday, September 7, 1989 at 7:00 p m kl! /Davl ustafson Acting Community ¡t/) Devefopment Director WPC 4200H ,,--.,~,.~--~ .