Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1994/12/20 Tuesday, December 20, 1994 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council meeting) Re!!Ular MeetinQ of the RedeveloDment AQencv of the Citv of Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Members Fox -' Moot -, Padilla -, Rindone -, and Chairman Horton - 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 15, 1994; December 13, 1994 CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 3 through 4) The sIllff ",cummerulotiom "'garding the foUowing items listed lUIIkr the Consent Colendor will be e1Uldd by the Age"", by one motüJ" without discussio" rm/ess oø Age"", Member, a member of the publk or City sIllff "'quests that the item be pulled for discussio". If you wish to sped 0" one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak Form" availDble in the lobby tmd submit iJ to the SecTl!tllly of the Redevelopmeat Agem:y or the City Cleric prior to the meeting. (Complete the gree" form to speak in favor of the sIllff ",commerulotiora; complete the pürJc form to speak in oppositio" to the sIllff ",cummerulotio".) Items pulled from the Comeat Colendor will be discussed after Actio" Items. Items pulled by the publk wiU be the first Uems of business. 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None 4. RESOLUTION 1444 APPROVING SIGN PROGRAM FOR FULLER FORD/HONDA/KIA DEALERSHIPS ON OT A YV ALLEY ROAD.. The Chula Vista Auto Center Master Plan for the Chula Vista Auto Park requires that the Agency approve sign programs for the new auto dealerships. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Commuuity Development Director) * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES The following iJems have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. lfyou wish to speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary of the Redevelopmeat Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak infavorofthe staff recommendation; complete the pinkform to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Commeats are limited to five minutes per individual. None Submitted. Agenda -2- December 20, 1994 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. 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 recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopmeat Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Public comments are limited to five minutes. None Submitted. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR This is the time the Redevelopment Agency will discuss items which have been removed from the Conseat Calendar. Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Agency Members. Public comments are limited to five minutes per individual. OTHER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR'S REPORTiS) 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT(S) 7. MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on January 17, 1995 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. ****** COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), request individnals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, 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 Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency for specific information at (619) 691-5047 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. IC:\ WP51 \AGENCY\AGENDAS\12-20-94. AGD] Tuesday, November 15, 1994 CoUDcil Chambers 11:17 p.m. Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council meeting) Joint MeetinQ of the RedeveloDment AQencv/Citv CoUDcil of the City of Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Council Members Fox, Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Chairman/Mayor Nader ABSENT: None. ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Executive Director; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency CoUDSel; Chris Salomone, Community Development Director; Bob Powell, Director of Finance: and Berlin D. Bosworth, Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November I, 1994 MSUC [Nader/Rindone] to approve minutes of November 1, 1994, passed 5-0. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 3 through 4) 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 4.A. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17712 APPROVING THE SECOND RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT AS FIRST AMENDED WITH ADVOCATION, INC., FOR THE 1995-1996 LEGISLATIVE SESSION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA--On 12/31194 the current agreement with Advocation, Inc., expires. The Agreement provides for two 2-year extensions to coincide with the State legislative sessions, and Advocation has formally requested the existing Agreement be extended. Advocation is higWy instrumental in the success of the City's lobbying efforts on various issues at the State level, including redevelopment and State budget legislation. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Legislative Subcommittee/Adruiuistration) B. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1433 APPROVING THE SECOND RENEWAL OF AGREEMENT AS FIRST AMENDED WITH ADVOCATION, INC., FOR THE 1995-1996 LEGISLATIVE SESSION, AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Joe Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, stated on page 4-2 and 4-3 of the staff report, items I, 3, 5, 6a.b.,c., and 9 are available and accessible at the Assembly offices. It was time to economize. The elected representatives in Sacramento could handle the City's representation that was necessary. The Redevelopment Agency cannot afford c2 ~/ Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 2 the $150,000. It was an extravagance; and willie it was something that was uice to have and they were doing a pretty fair job, the Agency does not have the money. There was a conceptually strong standard against using bond money for operating expenses. Future taxpayers should not pay for sometlúng for which they are not receiving any benefits at the present time. Please continue the matter. Member/CoUDcihnember Moore said the City was quite successful using Advocation to protect the interests of the City. Chairman/Mayor Nader noted that what the City's paid representatives in Sacramento did for the City was far and beyond what the elected officials do on the City's behalf. The City does not have a representative in the Legislature. The City was split between two districts. This agreement was a good deal for the people of Chula Vista. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17712 and AGENCY RESOLUTION 1433 OFFERED BY MEMBER/COUNCILMEMBER HORTON, reading of the text was waived and passed 4-0-1, with Rindone opposed. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 5. JOINT COUNCIL/AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING A 31.63 ACRE SITE OF VACANT LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF STATE ROUTE 54 BETWEEN BROADWAY AVENUE (NATIONAL CITY BOULEVARD) AND FIFTH A VENUE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: [Continued from the meeting of 11/1/94] 1. Review and certification of Final Enviromoentallmpact Report (EIR 94-02), Addendum to the FEIR (EIR 94-02A), Findings of Feasible Mitigation Measures, Mitigation and Mouitoring Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for a proposed 220,000 sq. ft. commercial retail shopping center to be anchored by a "Wal-Mart" store; and 2. General Plan Amendment (GP A 94-04) for the project site to change the General Plan designation from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial Thoroughfare"; and 3. Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA #12) for the project site (the "Inland Parcel") to change the land use designation for both the Bayfront Land Use Plan and the Bayfront Specific Plan from "Industrial General" to "Commercial Thoroughfare" subject to the "Central Commercial" zoning designation criteria of the Chula Vista Muuicipal Code; and 4. Zouing Map Amendment (PCZ-94-C) for the project site to change the zouing designation from "Limited Industrial - Precise Plan Modifier" to "Central Commercial - Precise Plan Modifier": and 5. Coastal Development Permit (#068) for construction of the Channelside Shopping Center consisting of approximately 220,000 sq. ft. of commercial-retail floor area anchored by a "Wal-Mart" store at the project site. It is recommended that the Citv Council and Redevelopment Aeencv open the public hearine take testimonv close the public hearine and approve the resolutions and place the ordinances on first readine in the followine seQuential order: ,;Jr-::J- -. -. Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 3 [A] Agency Resolution # 1430 and Council Resolution # 17705 which: (1) certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report #94-02 and adopts Addendum EIR 94-02A, (2) makes Findings of Fact on the feasibility of mitigation measures and project alterrwtives, (3) Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations [B] Council Resolution # 17706 which Amends the General Plan land-use designation for the project site from "Research and Limited Manufacturing" to "Commercial-Thoroughfare" [C] Ordinance # 2613 which amends the Certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program and Bayfront Specific Plan in accordance with Amendment #12 reclmsifying 31.63 acres of the "Inland Parcel", Subarea 4from "Industrial-General" to "Commercial-Thoroughfare" subject to the "Central-Commercial-Precise Plan" modifying District pursWIllt to Chapters 19.36 and 19.56 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code [D] Ordinance # 2614 which amends the Zoning Map established by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to rezone the 31.63 acre project site located at the terminus of North Fifih Avenue from "Industrial-Limited with Precise Plan Modifier" to "Central-Commercial-Precise Plan" [E] Council Resolution # 17707 which authorizes the issuance of Coastal Development Permit #068 for the construction of the Channelside Shopping Center located at southeast quadrant of National City Boulevard (Broadway) and State Route 54 subject to Conditions of Approval [F] Agency Resolution # 1431 which approves the Channelside Shopping Center project and Precise Plan, subject to Specific Project Conditions; and declares that Certain Conditions Precedent to effectiveness as set forth in the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency, Chula Vista Town Center Associates, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. have been satisfied A. JOINT AGENCY RESOLUTION 1430 COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17705 CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT (EIR 94-02) FOR THE CHANNELS IDE SHOPPING CENTER; ADOPTING ADDENDUM EIR 94-02A; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT RELATING TO THE FEASŒILITY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT ALTERNATIVES; ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS B. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17706 AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN FOR 31.63 ACRES LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF NORTH FIFTH A VENUE FROM "RESEARCH AND LIMITED MANUFACTURING" TO "COMMERCIAL-THOROUGHFARE" C. COUNCIL ORDINANCE 2613 AMENDING THE CERTIFIED CHULA VISTA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND BA YFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH AMENDMENT #12 RECLASSIFYING 31.63 ACRES OF THE "INLAND PARCEL", SUBAREA 4 FROM "INDUSTRIAL- GENERAL" TO A COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE LAND USE DISTRICT SUBJECT TO CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN MODIFYING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 19.36 AND 19.56 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE (First Readinl!) D. COUNCIL ORDINANCE 2614 AMENDING THE ZONING MAP ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO REZONE 31.63 ACRES LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF NORTH FIFTH A VENUE FROM I-L-P (LIMITED INDUSTRIAL-PRECISE PLAN) TO C-C-P (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL-PRECISE PLAN) Œirst Readinl!) ,¿( -,3 -- Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 4 E. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17707 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #068 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHANNELSIDE (W AL-MART) SHOPPING CENTER CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 220,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF NATIONAL CITY BOULEVARD (BROADWAY) AND STATE ROUTE 54 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL After the Citv Council takes the above recommended actions it is recommended that the Redevelooment Avencv then aoorove: F. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1431 APPROVING THE PROJECT AND THE PRECISE PLAN THEREFOR SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC PROJECT CONDITIONS; AND DECLARING THAT CERTAIN CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO EFFECTIVENESS AS SET FORTH IN THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CHULA VISTA TOWN CENTER ASSOCIATES, AND WAL-MART STORES, INC., HAVE BEEN SATISFIED Mr. Salomone presented a brief staff update. Mr. Salomone pointed out Agency Attoruey Boogaard had furnished a memorandum which listed a structured format which was recommended to be followed for the hearings and consideration of the project. Revisions were made to the Corulitions which dealt with acquisition of property for traffic access and deposit of certain fees. Staff made the changes in response to negotiations with the developer to clarify the issues. Staff and the developer were now in agreement. Chairman/Mayor Nader noted the Agency Members had been given an II page document, within the last two minutes which contained the revised Conditions of Approval. When was the document fiuished? Mr. Salomone replied the document was literally completed one hour prior to the meeting. The project had a number of Conditions which staff and the developer resolved. The developer wished a more specific defiuition of the use of eminent domain to acquire access from Fourth Avenue, a more specific definition of the amoUDt of monies to be deposited for those improvements, as well as the desire to predetermine the cap on the amoUDt of money which would be expended for those improvements. Meetings were held daily since the previous Agency meeting in order to negotiate these items. Staff and the developer were now in agreement. The City Attorney has reviewed the Conditions. Member/CoUDcihnember Fox asked if the item could be continued one week so the Members could review the revised Conditions. Mr. Salomone stated he would like to defer that question to the developer. The Corulitions were basically the same as those presented previously to the Agency. What staff and the developer have done was to clarify acquisition-- which was already a Condition of the project which was presented to the Agency at its meeting two weeks prior. The developer wanted a more finite clarification of expenditures, a fiuite time schedule for use of eminent domaiu, and, with the City Attorney, staff clarified those items for the developer. Chairman/Mayor Nader inquired if there was an Agency meeting scheduled for next week. Mr. Salomone said he believed so. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked if it would kill the project if the item was continued one week. Mr. Salomone replied the document was a clearer defiuition of the Conditions in the original proposal brought to the Agency at its prior meeting two weeks ago. cR-1f Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 5 Member/Councilmember Moore pointed out one of the things staff had done was to take the onus was taken off the developer as far as getting the right-of-way. Mr. Salomone responded the developer had to make every effort to acquire the right-of-way. What the negotiations did was to put a time period and some constraints on that aspect. At that point, the developer would have to deposit 150 percent of the amount for the acquisition and improvements, and then staff would proceed with eminent domain. That was a fairly standard process. What the negotiations did was to define that and not leave it vague in the Conditions. Mr. Phil Adams, representing Gatlin Development, 12665 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, stated the project was on a very tight time constraint for various reasons--the developer was going through the Enviromnental Impact Report review process which needed to be certified in order to get through the mitigation for the work along the Sweetwater Creek. The process was rather lengthy because of the number of agencies involved. Delaying the process touight could be detrimental to the Enviromnental Impact Report process with respect to the time constraints of such agencies as the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Fish & Wildlife. With the holidays coming up, a delay of one week could conceivable push back the project until Spring of 1995. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked if the delay of one week would throw off the schedule UDtil Spring of 1995. Mr. Adams replied it could very well do that because of the schedules of the different agencies. The agencies have a 3D-day tumaroUDd to respond after the developer filed the application. The application would not be accepted UDtil there was a Certified Enviromnental Impact Report. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked staff what substantive areas of the project were changed by the revisions which were just presented to Agency Members. Agency Counsel Boogaard responded, stating that the risk of not being able to acquire the parcel of property in the northeast comer of Target has shifted more to the City/Agency than was previously set forth in the agreements. The City/Agency has taken a slightly greater, but staff still felt a very manageable risk associated with not being able to acquire and realign that intersection. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked if that was pretty much it. Mr. Salomone stated the developer was not happy with that. The developer felt they had made a concession to staff. It was a very effective negotiation. Chairman/Mayor Nader said he heard Agency Counsel say the City/Agency was taking more risk with the revision and Mr. Salomone said the developer made a concession to the City/Agency. Mr. Salomone noted the original Conditions placed total responsibility on the developer--that was why the item was continued from a prior Agency meeting. What Agency Counsel has said was correct. Staff clarified the process, staff told the developer when the City/Agency would invoke eminent domain. In doing that, staff might have taken a minor responsibility for that taking which was not in the original approval. Staff believed that was an acceptable risk. Agency CoUDSel Boogaard stated he believed he and Mr. Salomone were saying the same thing. Mr. Adams said it had been a complicated procedure and project. The developer has been working daily with staff and the Attoruey's Office to rectify and clarify this particular off-site Condition which involved other properties. Both parties looked at the Condition from a legal and financial aspect and the developer now believed a compromise was reached which benefitted the City/Agency and the developer. :< -5 Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 6 Mr. Salomone stated staff wanted to make a brief project description presentation at which point Agency Counsel had a very organized process to be followed. Chairman/Mayor Nader suggested the project description be confined to a description of whatever had changed since the last time the item appeared before the Agency. General COUDSei Boogaard strongly encouraged the presentation be made for the record since there had been some hint of litigation earlier in the proceedings. The proper record needed to be created for these hearings. Lyle Haynes, Principal Community Development Specialist, made a brief project description presentation. Using slides which showed the project, Mr. Haynes pointed to the Dixieline property which was the subject site for the adjoiuing National City Marketplace; the intersection at Brisbane--which was the subject of the recent ongoing negotiations--needed to be acquired in order to make a concentric intersection. The substance of the changes to the Conditions presented, which the Agency was concerned with, centered on the ability or lack thereof to acquire the property from Target and what would be the alternative traffic impact mitigation measures should the property not be acquired. Prior to recent negotiations, it was the developer's risk that they would not be able to build out the remaining portion of their project in the event the access was not acqnired. That risk was shifted to the Agency and would require the Agency to acquire the right-of-way to allow the project to continue. The main access to the project would come through Fifth Avenue. The other major access point would be from 35th Street, across a bridge over the wetlands area. Staff felt it could acqnire the property from Target--either through private negotiations or, as a worst case, through eminent domain. Member/CoUDcilmember Moore asked if the portion of Target's property was a piece of its parking lot. Mr. Haynes replied yes. Member/Councilmember Moore inquired if access had to be at that location or could it be further north. Mr. Haynes noted the object was to make it concentric with Brisbane, to make it a signalized four-way intersection. Mr. Haynes concluded the presentation, referred to slides which described the visual access points, the joint site plan, the Brisbane intersection, the bridge across the wetlands, parking for the GES facility, the rendering of the project superimposed on an aerial photograph which showed the actual project as it would be "in place", and the signage for the project. Agency COUDSei Boogaard pointed out the major project defiuition had been presented by staff, but throughout the process staff may need to supplement through each of the hearings additional information. The reason the Agency would go through the structure touight was similar to the reason the Scripps public hearing was structured--and that was that State law set up a certain scheme between the Coastal Act, the Government Code, and CEQA that required certain things to be consistent with other things. The sequence was, by State law, the Agency needed to have a General Plan and the actions tonight would require a General Plan amendment which amended the property from Limited Manufacturing-Research to Commercial Thoroughfare. Another hearing would be to amend the Local Coastal Program and that had to be consistent with the General Plan, the Coastal Program, and the Coastal Act. That amendment would amend the current designation in the Local Coastal Program from General Industrial to Commercial Thoroughfare subject to Central Commercial with a Precise Plan or P Modifier. Thereafter, staff would ask the Agency to consider amending the Zouing Map to be consistent with both the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program. That Zoning Map would be changed from Limited Industrial with P Modifier to Central Commercial with a P Modifier. Staff would then ask the Agency to issue a Local Coastal Permit, and, of course, that has to be consistent with the Zouing and Local Coastal Program Amendment and then the terms and conditions for a Precise Plan pursuant to the new Zoning designation. That was why the Agency was requested to go in a specified sequence so that everything would be consistent with the prior act. The first legal requirement was the California Enviromnental Quality Act, whereby the Agency was to review the enviromnental impacts. There are two resolutions--one by the City Council, as the responsible agency and one by the Redevelopment Agency, as the d, -¿ Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 7 lead agency--those being Council Resolution 17705 and Agency Resolution 1430. Staff might wish to summarize the Findings of Siguificant Impact, if any, that the environmental review process has, and then the Agency could open the public hearing on the CEQA document. Mr. Salomone informed Agency Members the environmental specialist's wife went into labor about an hour ago. Staff could summarize the impacts should the Agency like. Agency CoUDSel Boogaard stated he UDderstood all siguificant impacts had been mitigated except for air quality and that, only because the air basin had cumulative impacts from the project, and there was a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Was that correct Mr. Salomone? Mr. Salomone replied that was correct. Agency Counsel Boogaard asked that the Environmental Impact Report (ErR) and all Findings be incorporated into the Record and the Council/Agency consider and adopt after the hearing, Resolutiou 17705 and Resolution 1430. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked if the ErR was in front of the Council/Agency. Agency CoUDSel Boogaard said the ErR was available. Mr. Haynes informed the Members the ErR was provided under separate cover in late October. Chairman/Mayor Nader said it had been separated from his packet and uot provided. Agency Counsel Boogaard asked the date of the prior hearing that the Disposition and Development Agreement was heard. Mr. Haynes replied August 23, 1994. Agency CoUDSel Boogaard asked if the CoUDcil/ Agency reviewed and certified the EIR at that time. Mr. Haynes replied no. Mr. Salomone pointed out the Planning Commission reviewed it and unanimously recommended certification to the Council/Agency. Mr. Haynes pointed out when the Fiual EIR was available, Joe Monaco (Environmental Projects Manager) forwarded that to the Agency Board under separate cover. Chairman/Mayor Nader noted when the Scripps project came before the Council/Agency, and koowing it was going to be a very complex series of hearings, staff had provided him with an advance briefing on the complexities so the hearing could be conducted appropriately. Agency CoUDSel Boogaard said the problem was the ErR presenter has had a persoual family crisis which took him away from the meeting. CoUDSel has tried to summarize from what he had been briefed on, on the environmental impacts, that is, that all significant environmental impacts have been mitigated fully except for air quality. The project was, of course, an in-city development that does not have any of the typical raw land type development activities that the Council/Agency would be typically concerned about. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked if it was Agency Counsel's recommendation to go ahead and open the hearing. Agency CoUDSel Boogaard said it was. 1- 7 .?<¡ -- Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 8 Chairman/Mayor Nader declared the public hearing open and asked Agency Counsel if the Council! Agency could simultaneously hear all items. Agency Counsel Boogaard said he was asking all hearings be opened and then closed sequentially. Chairman/Mayor Nader declared the public hearing open for all items UDder Number 5 of the Agenda. Phil Adams, representing Gatlin Development, 12665 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, thanked the Council/Agency for the opportuuity for the presentation of the project. If there were any questions, he was available to answer them with respect to the on- and off-site work. It was a complicated project, from the standpoint that it involved both Chula Vista and Natiooal City as well as dealing with several adjacent property owners--Target Stores being one of them. The developer agreed with the City that the concentric intersection would be best suited not ouly for the project but the adjacent project, as well as Target. The developer felt confident that would be accomplished. The developer met with the fee owners of the property and believed acqnisition of the property would be accomplished. Jerald A. Alford, representing Natiooal Avenue Associates, 2445 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, requested the project be approved and advised he was available to answer any questions. There being no additional members of the public desiring to speak, Chairman/Mayor Nader declared the CEQA (Item 5.A) public hearing closed. Agency Counsel Boogaard supplemented his prior statement, noting pages 5-37 through 5-50 of the staff report contained the summary of the enviromoental consequences, and page 5-53 contained the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the singular cumulative air qoality impacts. That does summarize the Enviromoental Impact Report and the Mitigation Measures being recommended be imposed on the project. Staffs recommendation was that the Agency adopt Resolution 1430 and the Council adopt Resolution 17705. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1430 and COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17705 OFFERED BY MEMBER/COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reading of the text was waived and passed 4-0-0-1, with Nader abstaining. There being no members of the public desiring to speak, Chairman/Mayor Nader declared the public hearing on Item 5.B on the General Plan Amendment closed. Member/Councihoember Rindone asked Chairman/Mayor Nader why he abstained. Chairman/Mayor Nader replied he abstained because he had not fully reviewed the Enviromoental Impact Report. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17706 OFFERED BY MEMBER/COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reading of the text was waived and passed unanimously. There being no members of the public desiring to speak, Chairman/Mayor Nader declared the public hearing on Item 5.C on the Chula Vista Local Coastal Program and Bayfront Specific Plan in Accordance with Amendment #12 closed. ORDINANCE 2613 OFFERED FOR FIRST READING BY MEMBER/COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reading of the text was waived and passed unanimously. There being no members of the public desiring to speak, Chairman/Mayor Nader declared the public hearing on Item 5.D on the Zouing Map Established by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Muuicipal Code to ReZone closed. ,:< -I Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 9 ORDINANCE 2614 OFFERED FOR FIRST READING BY MEMBER/COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reading of the text was waived and passed unanimously. There being no members of the public desiring to speak, Chairman/Mayor Nader declared the public hearing on Item 5.E on the Authorizing the Issuance of Coastal Development Permit #068 closed. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17707 OFFERED BY MEMBER/COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reading of the text was waived and passed unanimously. There being no members of the public desiring to speak, Chairman/Mayor Nader declared the public hearing on Item 5.F closed. Agency Counsel Boogaard requested that on Resolution 1431, which was to approve the Precise Plan and the Project subject to Conditions of Approval, that the Agency/Council amend Conditions of Approval in the manner recommended by the handout (and made a part of these proceedings) that was included at this eveuing meeting. Were there Conditions of Approval that were negotiated after the meeting started, Mr. Haynes? Mr. Haynes replied there were not. Agency CoUDSel Boogaard asked if the handout contained the new Conditions which were referred to as accepting slightly greater risk on the aligmnent. Mr. Haynes replied that was correct. Agency Counsel Boogaard noted they were identified as Attachment I to Resolution 1431 and there were seven pages of Conditions that were marked for changes. Mr. Haynes replied that was correct. The only changes occurred with Conditions B.7 through B.IO. Agency Counsel Boogaard asked if that dealt with the realigmnent of the Brisbane intersection. Mr. Haynes concurred and noted it also dealt with the Fourth Avenue widening. Agency Counsel Boogaard said staff was requesting the Agency adopt Resolution 1431, as modified by the Conditions that were handed out this eveuing. The siguificant change in the risk was that if there was a failure to acquire that slight parcel of property, south of the Dixieline driveway, that would not stop the additional construction on the shopping center site but the City/Agency would be required--if the City/Agency was unable to acquire the property by eminent domain--to meet and confer and there would have to be a good faith effort to try and acqnire the property. If the City/Agency cannot acquire the property in that four month period, then the City/Agency would have to obtain suitable replacement mitigation in the viciuity as outlined by Mr. Haynes. The City/Agency will have the developer's money, and staff believed it would be able to acquire through eminent domain. If that failed, there was now a fairly adequate back-up measure of being able to negotiate the suitable replacement mitigation with the developer's funds. If that failed, at the end of a two-year period the City/Agency may end up having to return the developer's money. The intersection would remain as it currently appears. Member/Councilmember Moore stated there would be access, but not,ideal access. Agency CoUDSel Boogaard concurred and noted it would not be ideal because there would be cross-traffic turning one way, westward on the Dixieline driveway, and eastward on Brisbane, which could cause a traffic conflict. The mitigation measure was designed to avoid that and traffic stacking. Member/Councilmember Moore asked about the bridge across the wetlands. ,c2 - c¡ Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 10 Me Salomone informed the developer would take full responsibility for the bridge. Member/CoUDcilmember Moore asked if the City/Agency was proceeding with friendly eminent domain. Me Salomone replied it was possible the City/Agency would use friendly eminent domain as there was an advantage to do so. Agency Counsel Boogaard stated it was built into the settlement requirement that there be a good faith effort to acquire, first by the developer, and then by the City/Agency. There was a statutory requirement to try and confer in good faith. Member/CoUDcihnember Fox asked if the Fourth Avenue property was not obtained for mitigation, would the suitable replacement property the City/Agency would try to obtain subject the City/Agency to some additiooal exposure. Agency CoUDSel Boogaard said it was not so much replacement property as it was replacement mitigation. For example, to avoid the traffic conflict of two cars crossing, there could be an island divider which restricted left-hand turns. It was a manageable risk. The developer gave a security deposit of 150%. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1431 OFFERED BYMEMBER/COUNCILMEMBER FOX, reading of the text was waived. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked that the Enviromnental Impact Report be placed in Member packets when the Ordinances are returned for second reading. Member/Councilmember Fox requested that, in future, all Enviromnental hnpact Reports always be placed in Member packets. Chairman/Mayor Nader believed the Enviromnental hnpact Report was included in Member packets some weeks ago, which was a good thing as it was a long document and Members should have ample time to review it, but it somehow was not included in subsequent staff submittals. Member/Councilmember Rindone suggested the new Councihnember-elect be given all agendas for Council and Agency meetings starting now. VOTE ON MOTION: 5-0, passed unanimously. 6. PUBLIC HEARING LEASE OF THE STRUCTURES AT 801 BROADWAY IS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND FINDING, PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33431, THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY THAT THE STATED PROPERTY BE LEASED TO THE URBAN CORPS FOR USE AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER FOR AN OIL RECYCLING EDUCATION PROGRAM AND BE LEASED WITHOUT PUBLIC BID--The City's Recycling Coordinator obtained a $371,850 grant to promote used oil recycling. The programs to be funded by the grant and adruiuistered through the Urban Corps will make a substantial contribution to the City's residential and commercial recycling and watershed oil programs. The Urban Corps requests use of the South Bay Chevrolet dealership as an office/warehouse facility. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Commuuity Development Director) A. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1434 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A LEASE FOR STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 801 BROADWAY WITH THE URBAN CORPS FOR USE AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER FOR AN OIL RECYCLING EDUCATION PROGRAM d - /¿) Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 11 Chairman/Mayor Nader declared the public hearing open. There being no members of the public desiring to speak, the public hearing was declared closed. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1434 OFFERED BYMEMBERICOUNCILMEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived. Agency CoUDSel Boogaard noted staff would try and set the rent so that the Agency would be able to get, for the use of the building, whatever was left in the grant amoUDt, which could amoUDt to between $3,000 and $6,000. Chairman/Mayor Nader noted the market value of the lease income potential of the property was estimated by staff at $269,000 year. Community Development Specialist Rofoli said that was the case were the Agency able to find a tenant willing to pay market rate. There was a very uncertain timeline for development of the property. Any tenant the Agency secured for the property the Agency would have to evict when the Agency had a developer. VOTE ON MOTION: 5-0, passed unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ACTION ITEMS 7. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1435 AMENDING RESOLUTION 1419 APPROVING SALE OF 1994 TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BONDS--On 9/24/94 the Redevelopment Agency and Council authorized the issuance of 1994 Tax Allocation Bonds for advance refunding of the 1986 Tax Allocation Bonds previously issued by the Agency for the Bayfront/ToWD Centre Redevelopment Project. The primary purpose of the proposed refunding is to achieve savings in annual debt service payments. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Executive Director) Member/CoUDcilmember Fox asked if the $10,000 fee for Standard & Poors was normally paid out of the bond proceeds. Finance Director Powell replied that was ouly the case should the Agency decided not to go forward with the bond Issue. Member/Counciimember Fox said should the Agency go forward with the Issue, then would the fee be paid from bond proceeds. If the Agency did not restructure, would the Agency likely face a downgrade from Standard & Poors. Mr. Powell said that was very true. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1435 OFFERED BY MEMBERICOUNCILMEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived. Member/Councilmember Rindone stated he wanted to hear the City Manager's recommendation and justification for the bond sale. c:<-// -~ Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 12 Executive Director/City Manager Goss said the bond market bad deteriorated since the item was last presented to the Agency. The ceiling, 7.5 percent, which was approved by the Agency at that time, would need to be adjusted. The basic rationale was the overall cost of the bonding was more expensive than what was originally projected. There would be some immediate savings which were projected to the Agency. The Agency does not have the luxury of waiting two or three years to see if the market improved. Both Underwriters on this particular Issue advised that given the nature of the bond market, to achieve the savings staff projected on the short-term, over the next several years, it would be better to act in the immediate future than to wait. Another factor why the Agency should proceed with this was that by exteuding the debt service, it would extend the life of the project area. The Underwriters advised it would be to the advantage of the Agency to proceed given the immediate need for the savings to the Agency, not only this year but for the next several years. It was a very difficult Issue, one that was not contemplated in August when staff was proceeding with the Agency's authorization. The final point to make, was that with the action taken by the Fed today, since the Issue was loaded more toward the end of the term, an Underwriter advised that that could benefit interest rates toward the tail end of the bond Issue. Member/Councihoember Rindone asked if Mr. Northcross, the financial adviser, would be recommending the sale at this time. Mr. Powell stated that, in a memorandum Mr. Northcross wrote to him, he basically summarized the numbers entailed with the deal. Mr. Northcross's recommendation reads: The Agency should only do this rtfwuJing if a value short-term cash flow savings above all else. This refunding is a case of creating a long-term financial burden to achieve a short-term financial benefit. It is true that under present economic and fiscal conditions many public agencies are doingjust that. However, if there are reasonable alternatives to addressing the City's cash flow needs that do not add to its long-term financial burden, these alternatives should be selected instead of this refunding. Mr. Goss said in addressing that recommendation it was his judgment that it was more than just short-term savings. There wonld be short-term and mid-term savings. Also, he agreed with Mr. Northcross that if there were reasonable alternatives addressing the cash flow needs in order to avoid a long-term financial burden, they should be selected. At this point, he did not feel the Agency had those alternatives. Member/CoUDcihoember Rindone wanted to hear the recommendation of the Grigsby Brandford & Company representative. Steve Neilson representing Grigsby Brandford & Company, 750 B Street, Suite 3130, San Diego and Mark Hughes, Los Angeles Office, stated their recommendation was that going forward with the refunding provided the short-term cash benefits that the City Manager was speaking of. On a long-term basis, a figure that we use as the Present Value Cost of the overall refunding, was a negative number, it was upwards of $3 million. That was not too surprising, from the point of view that the Agency would be taking a loan which was about a 17 year loan and extending it to a 30 year loan. Our recommendation, as far as timing was--given our UDderstanding of the Redevelopment Agency budget has been set with the anticipation that the refunding would go forward producing some $800,000 in savings. We do not feel there will be a siguificant reduction in rates between now and May of next year and any opportuuity for siguificant correction will not occur until six to uine months out. Member/Councihoember Rindone said it was his UDderstanding the Net Present Value was going to be closer to $3.5 million instead of $3 million. Was that UDderstanding correct. Mr. Neilson said Grigsby Brandford estimated at market levels, as of last Friday, the Present Value Cost was about $3.3 million. Member/CoUDcilmember Rindone asked the industry standard in making a determination to go forth with the actual sale or not with the Present Value Cost being backloaded. Mr. Neilson said a refunding was done for the purpose of restructuring. He did not think there was an industry standard. The policy decision the Agency would have to make touight was whether these cash flow savings now ,-J~ /2-- Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 13 through 20ll--which would be roughly $800,00 to $1 million this year and on average, about $150,00 a year after that through 20ll--cash relief provide a benefit that outweighs the cost of extending the debt out to 2024. Mr. Neilson said they started on the restmcturing three months prior with the expectation of being able to give the Agency the assurance for the transaction by being able to effect the restmcturiug to give the Agency the cash relief and achieve interest rates low enough. For several reasons, the deal was not able to qualify for insurance. The revenue streams for the Agency have deteriorated significantly from when the bonds were first issued. Absent this restmcturing, the bonds will be downgraded. If the Agency wanted to lock-in those near-term savings through 2011 and would want to do that iu a manner which would provide the savings for the 1995 Budget, we would recommend going forward as soon as possible. Member/Councilmember Rindone said he thought it was year 2016 when the negative Present Value Cost kicks in. Is it 20ll? Mr. Neilson replied the maturity on the 86 Bonds which were in place was 2011. Under the stmcture being proposed, the Agency would have some level of savings through 2011 and then dis-savings from that period going forward to the final maturity of the refunding bonds to 2024. Member/Councilmember Rindone asked if the approximate $3 million to $3.5 million loss in savings was the aggregate from 2011 to 2024. Mr. Neilson said yes. Mr. Powell presented an overhead chart illustrative of subject UDder discussion. Said chart has been made a part of the official documents of record for this item. Member/Councilmember Rindone asked if the City's financial advisor would recommend this. Mr. Neilson replied if the Agency came to the opinion that there was no value associated with the cash relief the transaction would provide through 2011 then Grigsby Brandford nor the financial advisor would recommend it. Member/Councilmember Rindone said he was trying to find a way possible to support the recommendation, but the Agency was putting the Agency's future at stake. The numbers looked hefty. While he concurred with Grigsby Brandford there would be a chance of short-term relief, it did not seem to be a good deal in the long-term. Mr. Goss pointed out the actual debt service that would have to be paid during the latter years was comparable to what was being required of the Agency at this time. One of the things which was changing which was not reflected on the chart--but how much it will change was a matter of anyone's guess--that is, to the extent what the Agency would expect would be the tax increment would be expanding during that period of time. By 2011 the Agency should see some major development on the MidBayfront which would bring in additional tax increment. In the overall perspective, what was shown on the chart in years 2012, 2013 and such, was what the Agency was paying in 1995/1996 about $3.1 million. The obligation for the debt service from the tax base during those future years would be smaller because the tax base would be larger. Relatively speaking, the amount of debt service would be smaller than the actual base. The other advantage would be to extend the life of the project area. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked if that met the Agency would pick up 13 additional years of tax increment revenue that the Agency would otherwise not receive. Mr. Goss said that was his UDderstanding. Chairman/Mayor Nader said that needed to be factored into the discussion. Member/Councilman Rindone asked if Mr. Powell agreed with that. OI'Î ~ /.3 Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 14 Mr. Powell deferred to Mark Hughes. Mark Hughes, Grigsby Brandford and Company, Los Angeles Office, said, essentially, there were two components which needed to be looked at in terms of the life of the redevelopment project: [I] the existing land use controls which expire in 1999, unless the project was amended. What that meant was that in 1999, for all intents and purposes, the project was done except for paying the debt service through 2011. By extending the debt service all the Agency was really doing was saying was that from now to 2024 the Agency would contilUle to get all the tax increment that the project generates. The Agency would not necessarily have control over the project area, the Agency would have control over the dollars which come in. Assuming revenues grow that would be what the Agency would gain by extending debt service. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked if the Net Present Value loss estimate in excess of $3.5 million was an estimated based on the assumption that there was no continued tax increment during those last 13 years. If doing this would enable the Agency to get tax increment for an additional 13 years, and such tax increment does exist, then, in fact, was not the Net Present Value loss reduced or possibly negated by that fact. Mr. Hughes said a more accurate portrayal would be to add up all the tax increment the Agency would get between now and 2011 and compare it to all the tax increment the Agency would get between now and 2024, that would give the Agency an idea of the excess revenues the Agency would generate by extending the life of the project area. Chairman/Mayor Nader said the Present Value of the additional 13 years worth of tax increment would need to be subtracted from the Present Value of the additional payments the Agency would make during the final 13 years to get a truly accurate figure. There was no way of doing that because the amoUDt of those tax revenues iu those last 13 years was extremely speculative. It was an important point for the discussion because that changed the picture. Rather than a sure fire $3.5 million Present Value loss, what existed was a speculative situation, depending upon the success of the MidBayfront project, may be a Present Value loss or may not be. Member/CoUDcilmember Rindone said that was a defiuite reason to ensure a successful MidBayfront project. If the MidBayfront project does not materialize with siguificant revenues by 2011, it would create insolvency. Member/Counciimember Moore pointed out if the MidBayfront Plan proceeded decently, the Agency would make money. If the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area came alive because the economy changed, the Agency could become solvent as far as having money to subsidize redevelopment as well as pay debt. Member/CoUDciimember Rindone asked the Executive Director if he saw any other viable alternative at this time to realize those savings than what was proposed. Mr. Goss stated he had not been able to find a viable alternative. Member/Councilmember Rindone asked, given the muuicipal bond market was at 6.6, why was staff saying the Agency had to raise the cap from 7.5 to 9. Mr. Neilson replied the structure contemplated three series of bonds, one series of which would be sold taxable at an interest rate of 10 % or so; a seuior lien portion, which has received a rating from Standard & Poors of B +, which was below A level; and, a small non-rated piece at a yield of about 8.5 percent on the long end. The combined and weighted interest cost of those three pieces at today's levels was about 8.3 or 8.4 percent. Member/Counciimember Rindone requested that the chart being shown be included in the report whenever these type items come before the Council/Agency. The Fiscal Impact Statement did not address the cost to the Present Value Costs in the long fUD and that information should be reflected in staffs report. It was critical and mandatory that Council/Agency have that type information before them when making a decision of this type. 0\1-// Minutes November 15, 1994 Page 15 Member/Couucihoember Horton stated she strongly agreed with the comment made by Member/CoUDcihoember Rindone. That type information should have been provided to help the Members UDderstand the full picture of what Members are being asked to make a decision on. Chairman/Mayor Nader requested best and worst case scenarios of tax increment be furnished in future staff reports. Member/Councihoember Rindone asked the revenue flow projections. Mr. Neilson said Grigsby Brandford prepared a whole variety of projections: some based on no-growth, assuming revenues stay flat; some based on 2 percent; another based upon historical growth rate of about 4.1 percent. Those projections indicated--out to fiscal year 24 the project was generating a little over $6.6 in tax increment, which excludes uuitary revenue and based on subventions having fallen away--the Agency would be looking at about $8.3 million on a 4.1 percent growth on the life of the project. That was no guarantee, that was historical. Member/CoUDcihoember Rindone said the only way one conld vote for this was with the understanding that the Agency had a commitment to have the MidBayfront project become a reality. Anything short of that, need the Members needed to vote No. If it was not accomplishable to have the MidBayfront project built by 2011 and bring in revenue, then he would vote No. VOTE ON MOTION: 5-0, passed unanimously. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Item pulled: 4. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 8. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) None. 9. CHAIRMAN'S/MAYOR'S REPORT(S) None. 10. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 1:03 A.M. to a Special Joint Redevelopment Agency/City Council meeting on November 22, 1994 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City CoUDcil Chambers. [C:\WP5l \AGENCY\MINU1ES\ll-15-94.MIN] ,-) - /5 Clhu þCUj£ Clank! ,:l~ /b SPECIAL MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, December 13, 1994 Council Chambers 9:16 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Members Fox, Moot, Padilla, Rindone, and Chairwoman Horton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director; Bruce M. Boogaard; Agency Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 6,1994 MSC (Padilla/Horton) to approve the minutes of December 6, 1994 as presented. Approved 4-0-0-1 with Moot abstaining. CONSENT CALENDAR None Submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 3. PUBLIC HEARING REVIEW OF FIVE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR THE FOLLOWING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 33490 OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW (HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33000 et seq.): BA YFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; OT A Y V ALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; TOWN CENTRE IREDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT; --Section 33490 of the Community Redevelopment Law requires that on or before 12/31/94, and each five years thereafter, each redevelopment agency that has adopted a redevelopment plan prior to 12/31/93, shall adopt, after a public hearing, an Implementation Plan and Housing Implementation Plan therefor that shall contain the specific goals and objectives of the agency for the project area, programs, projects, and expenditures proposed to be made during the next five years, and an explanation of how the goals and objectives, projects, and expenditures will eliminate blight within the project area. Staff has prepared the Implementation Plan and Housing Implementation Plan therefor for each of the Agency's five project areas. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Continued from the meeting of December 6, 1994.) (Community Development Director) A. RESOLUTION 1438 ADOPTING THE FIVE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN INCLUDING THE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN THEREFOR FOR THE BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTION 33490 OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW B. RESOLUTION 1439 ADOPTING THE FIVE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN INCLUDING THE HOUSING IMPLEMENT A TION PLAN THEREFOR FOR THE OT A Y V ALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTION 33490 OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW C. RESOLUTION 1440 ADOPTING THE FIVE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN INCLUDING THE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN THEREFOR FOR THE SOUTHWEST cJ r /7 Mioutes December 13, 1994 Page 2 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTION 33490 OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW D. RESOLUTION 1441 ADOPfING THE FIVE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN INCLUDING THE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN THEREFOR FOR THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTION 33490 OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW E. RESOLUTION 1442 ADOPTING THE FIVE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN INCLUDING THE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN THEREFOR FOR THE TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTION 33490 OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW Fred Kassman, Redevelopment Coordinator, gave a brief staff report. Chair Horton stated she was concerned with the direction Town Centre I was going. They were in the process of hiring a town manager and she wanted to postpone that until it could be analyzed where the area had been, was presently, and would be going. She felt there were a lot of talented people in the community workiog very hard tryiog to help briog more busioess to the Third Avenue area, however, even with their efforts they were not making a lot of headway. There were other cities with good plans and goals which could help to eliminate some of the problems Third Avenue was dealiog with and overcoming some of those problems. She felt the downtown area needed a feeliog of "place" and a new direction and focus. MS (Horton/Fox) to direct staff to prepare a report; staff is to look at hiring a professional consultant, a new plan, recommendations from the Economic Development Commission, input from the Town Centre Committee, Chamber of Commerce, and other appropriate agencies. Member Fox stated the proposal was sigoificant and hoped staff would return with input regarding the impacts on delayiog the hiring of a town manager. Input should also be received from the Down Town Business Association. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated the process had already begun for the hiriog of the town manager. Pam Buchan, Priocipal Community Development Specialist, stated it had been narrowed down to the final three candidates with the fmal decision being made on Thursday. Member Fox stated the DBA should be given the opportunity to address the Agency regarding their concerns of delaying the hiring of the town manager. He requested that the item be agendized under his comments, ifnecessary, for the 12/20/94 meeting if there were objections. Chair Horton stated she was asking for postponement on the hiring of a town manager because the money that was being spent for the position could be used to hire a consultant specializing in down town revitalization. In discussing the issue with several EDC members they had stated they did not see a measurable improvement in that area. Ms. Buchan stated it was staff's understaoding of the motion that staff would take the Agency's recommendation to the DBA and have them appear before the Agency at the 12/20/94 Council meeting to comment. Chair Horton stated it should be postponed until the Agency could discuss the proposal with the organization. It was also the direction the EDC wanted to go. The City needed to address the need and make it a more viable business community. Mr. Salomone responded that staff would need more time and felt they could return in January with a report. d~// Mioutes December 13, 1994 Page 3 Member Rindone questioned if any of the final applicants would not be available if the process was delayed and if they would have to start the process over. Ms. Buchan responded that she did not feel it would impact the one applicant ioterviewed and she would be talking with the other two applicants on Wednesday and Thursday. Member Rindone stated he would support the motion with the caveat that if staff ascertaioed there would be a detrimental effect it would be shared with the Agency at the 12/20/94 meeting and the Agency would be allowed to reconsider it at that time. The intent of his conunent was that it would only come back next week if staff felt there was a negative aspect to the interview process and that it could not be delayed until January. Member Fox suggested that if the DBA or any other organization felt there would be harmful effects due to the delay that they would present those to the Agency at the meeting next week. Chair Horton stated that was clear. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. This beiog the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There beiog no public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTIONS 1438, 1439, 1440, 1441, AND 1442 OFFERED BY MEMBER FOX, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING LEASE OF THE PROPERTY AT 753 BROADWAY TO BUDGET RENT A CAR AND FINDING, PURSUANT TO SECTION 33433 THAT TillS LEASE WILL ASSIST IN THE ELIMINATION OF BLIGHT AND THAT CONSIDERATION OFFERED IS NOT LESS THAN MARKET V ALUE-- The Agency acquired the property as part of the Auto Park project. Budget Rent A Car has approached the Agency with an offer to lease the property. Staff negotiated the terms of the proposed lease and believe the terms agreed upon constitute a market rate for the property. Staff reconunends approval of the resolution. (Continued from the meeting of December 6, 1994.) (Conununity Development Director) RESOLUTION 1443 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRWOMAN TO EXECUTE A LEASE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 753 BROADWAY WITH BUDGET RENT A CAR Member Rindone referred to page 4-3 and questioned why the commission rate was so large and on-going. Chris Salomone, Director of Conununity Development, responded that the commission rate was actually a standard commission brokerage rate. Staff had met with the brokerage firm and had negotiated a different schedule for payment. It was only on-going until it paid the full commission which was approximately $10,000. Chair Horton questioned if staff had negotiated the fee. Mr. Salomone responded that staff had negotiated the fee. It was basically the same commission except they would be paid one-half of the commission up to the 25 month period where the tenant had the ability to cancel the lease. At that point the City took over the option and could cancel the lease if there was a redevelopment opportunity that would produce more iocome or would be of more benefit to the Agency and City. At that poiot they would elect to pay the balance of the commission and the applicant had agreed to that. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony, the public heariog was declared closed. RESOLUTION 1443 OFFERED BY MEMBER PADILLA, reading of the text was waived. J ~/f Minutes December 13, 1994 Page 4 Chair Horton questioned where the information was obtained to substantiate the figures regarding the market rates. Daniel Rofoli, Community Development Specialist 1, responded that he had talked with representatives from Joho Burnham & Company and Pacific Scene Real Estate as well as analyzing the commercial brokerage mailings received in the office. VOTE ON RESOLUTION 1443: approved unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ACTION ITEMS None Submitted. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR'S REPORT(S) - None 6. CHAIRWOMAN'S REPORT(S) - None 7. MEMBERS' COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 9:38 P.M. to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on Tuesday, December 20,1994 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk by: ~.~ d~r2û - -- AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT ItemL Meeting Date 12/20/94 ITEM TITLE: Resolution ¡J./#APproving Sign Program for Fuller Ford/Honda/Kia Dealerships on Otay Valley Road SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director C.t;. ~¿ REVIEWED BY: Executive Director r",çl, (4/5ths Vote: Yes- No_2LJ BACKGROUND: The Chula Vista Auto Center Master Plan for the Chula Vista Auto Park requires that the Agency and the Design Review Committee approve sign programs for the new auto dealerships. The Fuller Ford/Honda/Kia sign program, attached hereto, is presented to the Agency for approval. RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency adopt the resolution. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Design Review Committee (DRC) reviewed and conditionally approved the Fuller Ford/Honda/Kia sign program at their meeting of November 14, 1994. The minutes of the DRC meeting are attached as Exhibit B. DISCUSSION: Fuller Ford/Honda/Kia has opened at their new location on Otay Valley Road. Although the plans for the new dealership were previously approved by the Agency, the sign program was only recently submitted for review. The sign program consists of dealer identification on the facade of the building as well as a free standing monument sign at the entrance to the dealership (renderings attached as Exhibit A). Internal directional signs are also included. The Chula Vista Auto Center Master Plan for the Auto Park requires that the sign program be reviewed by the Design Review Committee and approved by the Agency. The DRC reviewed and recommended approval of the sign program with conditions which have been accepted by the dealer. The sign program and conditions recommended by the DRC are presented to the Agency for review and approval. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. c:\kassmanlra4slford.ra4 ¡f-- / -. .- ~ þaf¡ ¿; blank ! /f-)-- -""'~" ~ MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE [j,.;(:'; D .;==r . .~-( ¡ , 1:.3 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE .'J; 'Wi Mondav. November 14. 1994 Conference Rooms 2 and 3 4:30 p.m. A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Spethman, Vice Chair Rodriguez, Members Way and Kelly MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Duncanson, willi notification STAFF PRESENT: Principal Planner Steve Griffm Associate Planner Luis Hernandez ? 2. PSP-95-05 Fuller Ford/Honda 540-560 Auto Park Drive Planned SÌlm Program Staff Presentation Principal Planner Steve Griffin reviewed the proposed planned sign program for -the Fuller Ford and Fuller Honda auto dealerships within ihe Chula Vista Auto Park. He reviewed ihe signage proposed, which includes boih primary and secondary wall signs, as well as monument signs. Mr. Griffm indicated that the signage proposed generally meets the criteria for the Auto Park, willi the exception of a proposed third monument sign to identify Fuller Kia. He noted that the criteria call for only one monument sign and one primary wall sign per dealership, whereas the Kia operations have been combined willi ihe Honda operations and are not handled as a separate dealership. Mr. Griffm stated that the issue is a matter of interpretation, and advised the committee that if they disagreed willi staffs interpretation they could approve the third monument sign; staff would note this and handle future proposals consistently. ApDlicant Presentation Business owner Doug Fuller addressed the committee, flfSt stating his appreciation of the work of both the committee and staff in handling previous issues relating to the dealership site. He advised ihe committee that Kia corporation had rejected the signage proposed, adding that every car manufacturer will undoubtedly require individual product identification in the auto park. He provided copies of ihe auto park regulations defInitions, stating that it is clear that each individual brand is considered a dealership, and that he would therefore be penalized for having more than one on the same property. Mr. Dirk Niemeyer representing Kia cited the J.D. Powell company's studies pointing out that consumers need to know clearly where to go for the particular car they are seeking. He stated that from the consumer's standpoint as well as the manufacturer's, Honda and Kia are separate dealerships. -1-_3 --- -- " DESIGN REVIEW COMM:ITTEE -5- NOVEMBER 14. 1994 Committee Discussion Member Kelly asked if the service areas for Honda and Kia are in the same location; Mr. Fuller stated that both the showroom and service areas are divided between Honda and Kia. Chair Spetlunan stated that having visited the site, he didn't have a problem with the third monument sign. He felt that it made sense for providing direction to the customer. Member Rodriguez pdinted out that there is sufficient frontage on the property so that a third sign would not seem to crowd the area. He asked about the combining of the business identification signs with the directional signage. Mr. Fuller responded that staff had requested the combination to reduce the number of freestanding signs, adding that he was flexible on this point. Mr. Fuller explained the various sales, service, and body shop activities on the site, adding that he felt that direction was needed at the comer of Auto Park Way and Brandywine, but was flexible as to how to provide this. Member Way stated that he was comfortable with the proposal. Mr. Griffm pointed out that primary wall signage for Kia was being requested as well, although specific infonnation had not been provided (Mr. Fuller noted that this was still being discussed with Kia). Members indicated that they would be comfortable with primary identification wall signage for Kia, with the specific sizes to be worked out at staff level. MSUC (SpetlunanlWay) (4-0) to approve PSP-95-05 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report with the following modifications: delete condition #1; add condition #4 - "A fascia sign shall be approved for Kia, with dimensions to be approved at staff level." F. STAFF COMMENTS Recorder Patty Nevins asked for clarification of the committee's approval of the Planned Sign Program for 630 Bay Blvd., PSP-95-04, reviewed at the October 24, 1994 meeting. It was clarified that the approval was granted as follows: 1. The white triangles shall be deleted. 2. Letter sizes to be accepted as presented. 3. Triangle canopy entry elements accepted with materials as called out on plans (fabricated aluminum canopy acceptable). Approval of the "floating triangles" was such that one of the triangles may project a maximum of 1/2 above the roofline. 4. Approval of PSP-95-04 is subject to the approval of a conditional use pennit for the retail use of the building. G. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:46 p.m. ~~~ 1-1 --. - ~ l;:í~ ~~f? þ~~, CJ {//¿ "" 1 ~'l 1v~ ::;-,--= -- -- ON OF CHUlA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 17, 1994 Fuller Ford/Honda/Kia Attn: Doug Fuller 540 Auto Park Drive Chula Vista, CA 91911 Subject: PSP-95-05; Planned Sign Program for Fuller Ford/Honda/Kia Dear Mr. Fuller: On November 14, 1994, the Chula vista Design Review Committee voted 4-0 to approve Planned Sign Program PSP-95-05, subject to the following conditions: 1. A wall (fascia) sign shall be approved for Kia, with dimensions to be approved by staff; 2. The placement of all freestanding signs shall be subject to detail review and approval to ensure that they do not obstruct visibility or create a traffic hazard; 3. The applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of a building permit and sign permit consistent with the planned sign program as conditioned. It is my understanding that this item will be forwarded by the Community Development Department to the Redevelopment Agency for final approval on December 20, 1994. Failure to use this permit within one year from the date of Agency approval shall cause the permit to become null and void unless a written request for an extension is received and granted prior to the expiration date. If you have any questions in regards to this matter, please call me at 691-5257. ' ~ Steve Griffin Principal Planner - cc: Signtech, 6618 Federal Blvd., Lemon Grove, CA 91945, Attn: Peggy Anderson Community Development Department, Fred Kassman -I ~ 276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA 91910/(6191 691-5101 CJhi~ þlUJE- 6!:ankf I-b RESOLUTION /144- RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS THE FULLER FORD/HONDA/KIA SIGN PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Agency approved the Chula Vista Auto Center Master Plan on October 13, 1993 which requires that the Plans, including sign programs for new auto dealerships within the Chula Vista Auto Park be submitted to and approved by the Design Review Committee and Agency; and, WHEREAS. the plans for the Fuller Ford/Honda/Kia dealership were approved by the Agency on September 7, 1993; and, WHEREAS. the sign program for Fuller Ford/Honda/Kia was submitted to and conditionally approved by the Design Review Committee on November 14. 1994. NOW. THEREFORE. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find. order. determine and resolve as follows: 1. The Fuller Ford/Honda/Kia sign program for the auto dealership located at 560 Auto Park Drive. attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby approved with the following conditions: a. A wall (fascia) sign shall be approved for Kia. with dimensions to be approved by staff; b. The placement of all freestanding signs shall be subject to detail review and approval to ensure that they do not obstruct visibility or create a traffic hazard; c. The applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of a building permit and sign permit consistent with the planned sign program as conditioned. Presented by: Approved as to form by: ~,ç~ Chris Salomone Community Development Director ak:kassmanlreoos\ford.res I~ 7 -. fJhi1- pa;¡E. C!a.n.kf ~~f