Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1994/08/16 Tuesday, August 16, 1994 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council meeting) Regular Meeting of the Redeyelooment Agency of the City of Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Members Fox -, Horton -, Moore -, Rindone -, and Chainnan Nader - 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 2,1994 CONSENT CALENDAR None Submitted. The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Agency by one motion without discussion unless an Agency Member, a member of the public or City staff requests that the item be pulled for discussion, If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. (Complete the green form to speak in favor of the staff recommendation; complete the pink form to speak in opposition to the staff recommendation.) Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business. 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None . . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR' . PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES The following items have been adveltised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you 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 Redevelopment 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 staffrecommendation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. None Snbntitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an oppoltunity 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. Agenda -2- August 16, 1994 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 attain 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 Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Public comments are limited to five minutes. None Subntitted. OTHER BUSINESS 4. DIRECTOR'S REPORTiS) 5. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTiS) . Ratification of Appointtnent: Cristina Orin to the Otay Valley Road Project Area Conrntittee (continued from the meeting of August 2, 1994) . Ratification of Appointment: DOJUla Hawk to the Town Centre Project Area Conrntittee 6. MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to a Special Joint Meeting of the Redeyelopment Agency/City Council on Tuesday, August 23, 1994 at 6:00 p.m., inmtediately 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 indiyiduals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, actiyity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in adyance for meetings and tiye days for scheduled services and actiyities. Please contact the Secretary to the Redeyelopment Agency for specific infonnationat (619) 691-5047 or Telecommunications Deyices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is also ayailable for the heating impaired. [C :\WP51 \AGENCY\AGENDAS\O8-16-94.AGD] .-- 0- Tuesday, August 2, 1994 Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. Public Services Building Minutes of a Reaular Meetina of the Redevelooment Aaencv of the Citv of Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Members Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Chairman Nader ABSENT: Member Fox ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Executive Director; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency General Counsel; Berlin D. Bosworth, Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 19, 1994 MSC [Horton/Rindone] to approve the minutes of July 19, 1994. Motion was approved 4-0-1 (Fox absent). CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN NADER. reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 (Fox absent). 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 4. RESOLUTION 1414 APPROVING LEASE BETWEEN OT A Y VISTA ASSOCIATES AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR OFFICE SPACE FOR THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT-- The Otay Ranch planning process has been ongoing and the Otay Ranch Team will be preparing a Sphere of Influence Study for the City of Chula Vista as well as processing a Specific Plan for Villages 1, 2, and 3 which necessitates continued use of office space. The proposed lease agreement is for 1934 square feet of office space at $1 .10 square foot for a one year period at the Redevelopment Agency-owned EI Dorado Building, said space currently occupied on a month-to-month basis by the Team. Staff recommends approyal of the resolution. (Community Development Director) . . END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. . PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES None Submitted. ro2 -I Minutes August 2, 1994 Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Joe Garcia, 484 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA noted SR-125 would have a tremendous impact on the community. Senator Steve Peace has raised the issue of the legality of the road. Mr. Garcia's concern was the City was spending money on consultants on the SR-125 project and should the project be declared illegal at a later date, the City would have spent a lot of staff time and consultant fees for nought. He requested the City Council resolve the issue. Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Avenue, Chula Vista, CA considered all of Palomar Street redevelopment from Industrial Boulevard to Broadway. On another issue, she pointed out she backed him (Agustin Reyes) in his fight to stay in business. ACTION ITEMS 5. REPORT RELOCATION OF AGUSTIN REYES (MI CABANA) FROM THE PALOMAR TROLLEY SITE--At its meeting of 7/19/94 the Agency authorized an emergency extension for Mr. Reyes staying on the site until 8/3194 and directed staff meet with Mr. Reyes and Cypress Creek, the developer of the Palomar Trolley Center, to ascertain appropriateness of providing additional time for Mr. Reyes to relocate his business as well as ascertain Cypress Creek's need to obtain the site and return with a report to the Agency at its 8/2/94 meeting. Staff recommends the Agency accept staff report and recommendation. (Community Development Director) Agency General Counsel Boogaard concurred with, and urged Agency acceptance of, staff's recommendation not to grant the requested extension. Mr. Reyes had been given a one-year notice of the obligation to leave the premises. Relocation law does not obligate the Agency to find relocation sites for commercial tenants. Nevertheless, Mr. Jim Moxham, acting as Mr. Reyes' broker, had endeavored to find sites for him. Staff reported Mr. Moxham had experienced complete lack of cooperation by Mr. Reyes in responding to Mr. Moxham's actions in that regard. Staff believed Mr. Reyes had not pursued his relocation efforts in good faith; although, on his own, Mr. Reyes has tried to find relocation sites of which staff was aware. In fact, staff believed Mr. Reyes had a relocation site established in the nature of a bar called Macho's which was on Home Avenue in San Diego that was consistent with the market area he previously described his restaurant, Mi Cabana, drew from. Mr. Reyes had an escrow on E Street which fell out due to, staff believed, a lack of ability to consummate the terms on which he had opened escrow. Mr. Reyes has made statements to staff he would like to be bought out for cash. Though staff had evaluated his interest, in that regard, at $175,000, Mr. Reyes had stated if the City gave him $500,000 he would go away. Mr. Reyes also said if the City did not give him the $500,000 he could hold the Palomar Trolley Center Project up for months and months. When the City entered into the Disposition and Development agreement with Sunbelt, the City made a commitment to them that it would use good faith to deliver the site. In reliance on that, Sunbelt promised its major anchor tenants to deliver the site by September 15, 1994. Any delay from this point on in removing Mi Cabana could delay Sunbelt's commitment to deliver a clean site to those major anchor tenants. Staff believed, balancing the equities, an extension of additional time should be denied. Member Horton asked if the relocation site had to be within the City's boundaries. Agency General Counsel Boogaard replied no. The Agency did not have to tender relocation sites for commercial tenants such as it would for residential tenants. The Agency had to agree to cover Mr. Reyes' business relocation expenses, perhaps make special adjustments in a new place on which he found on his own. The Agency could, but was not required to, go out and find relocation sites. 02-.2.- Minutes August 2, 1994 Page 3 Member Horton asked if the purchase by Mr. Reyes of another similar business outside the City's boundaries would qualify as a relocation site. Agency General Counsel Boogaard stated that would qualify as a relocation site but the criteria as to whether Mr. Reyes was expanding his business, or was relocating the Mi Cabana business, depended on whether he offered a similar establishment and it drew from the same market area the first establishment drew from. There could be an argument for a continuation of Goodwill from the first establishment. Mr. Reyes has made representations that his market area draws from as far south as Tijuana, as far north as San Diego, and points north and east. The new location on Home Avenue would qualify under that market area as a possible relocation site. Member Horton asked why the Agency would not consider that the relocation site. Agency General Counsel Boogaard said the Agency could do that in Court and it was a good and very strong argument the Agency would have. However, if the argument were not successful, then the Agency would be required by the Court to pay whatever Goodwill Mr. Reyes might suffer as a result. Staff had evaluated that as an acceptable risk and within the pricing terms discussed in the original Disposition and Development Agreement. If Mr. Reyes has suffered a loss from his dislocation--and staff thought that speculativenthen he would be receiving compensation. Member Moore noted that within Redevelopment Law there were checks and balances to protect all parties. When did the Agency become the legal owner of the property? Agency General Counsel responded he was not exactly certain, but he believed it was about one year ago today the Agency received an Order for Possession from the Courts. Member Moore asked when did the Agency have the legal right to raze the building. Agency General Counsel said then, but the Agency gave Mr. Reyes an extension to allow him time to try and relocate. Community Development Assistant Director Gustafson expressed staff's concurrence with the recommendation of the Agency General Counsel. Randall L. Mason, Esq., 550 west C Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA, representing Agustin Reyes. He pointed out the Order of Possession was issued approximately November 1993. In the July 1993 Agency meeting the question was asked by Agency General Counsel of Mr. Moxham, who was representing the developer, whether they would need the property Mr. Reyes occupied within 12 months from that date. Member Horton asked the same question. The response of Mr. Moxham was "No, 12 to 18 months would be an acceptable timeframe." Now, 12 months later the rest of the 18 months was magically, indispensably evaporated. There seemed to be a question of creditability. Additionally, Mr. Moxham was never retained by Mr. Reyes. Rather, Mr. Moxham always represented the Agency and it was represented to Mr. Reyes his being a representative who was assisting on behalf of the Agency in fulfilling its relocation responsibilities on his behalf. Mr. Reyes had worked diligently but the first offers he got for relocation, the first properties Mr. Moxham provided him, were approximately four months ago. Mr. Reyes was having difficulty relocating as he was on a lease basis trying to convert to an ownership basis. He has found a site for relocation on Broadway. What Mr. Reyes was seeking was time to relocate--time to come before the Agency and get a Conditional Use Permit, to negotiate with the neighbors to meet the parking requirements, and to get a business license. He had applied for a Small Business Administration loan and was expecting an answer next week as to whether he would have financing, and to transfer his existing liquor license. The issue with respect to Macho's will be fought in the appropriate forum--that being before Judge Haller, the Judge 02-.3 Minutes August 2, 1994 Page 4 who would be handling the matter as to whether that is, in fact, the relocation site or a separate parallel business. Chairman Nader asked if the case had already been assigned to a Judge. Mr. Mason said yes. There was a trail date set at the end of September. Chairman Nader asked Mr. if it would not have been reasonable for Mr. Moxham or the redeveloper, after the Agency said the extension period was 12 months, to have gone out and talked to major anchor tenants based on, and in reliance on, the 12 month period. Mr. Mason said he would not say that would be inconsistent, but that was not fully consistent with staff's report. He cited the staff report, page 6, second bullet, that "the Agency might consider some extension of tenancy if he had a viable site in escrow." He now had another site in escrow. Chairman Nader pointed out should they Agency follow that advice, the redeveloper might have an action against the Agency because they relied on the 12 month period. Mr. Mason said it was also in the staff report no promised timeframe was ever given to the developer. Agency General Counsel Boogaard noted the July 27, 1993 minutes cited by Mr. Mason indicated Mr. Holmes, a principal of redeveloper, stated "they would like to get possession in the 90 days, but they do not have to move his business for a 12 month period." In that same meeting Mr. Holmes corrected the agent's 12 to 18 month representation to a 12 month period. In fact, that was almost 12 months to the day, and the developer was on schedule. These representations have been made to their anchor tenants. Staff believed the reason Mr. Reyes' previous escrows fell out had to do with Mr. Reyes' culpability in failing to perform. He asked Mr. Mason if he could shed light on that. Mr. Mason said that information was erroneous. There was a full explanation giyen at the time the check was presented. What was being looked at tonight was the cost for a little bit of dirt or grading versus a business survival. Macho's was a different business. What was being discussed was the Mi Cabana trying to stay in Chula Vista. Mr. Reyes had a location and was requesting enough time so he could move. He was requesting another 90 days. Chairman Nader stated he understood why Mr. Mason was taking that position but was not sure that was the balance the Agency was talking about, given the representations and reliance to the anchor tenants. The culpability or non-culpability of Mr. Reyes for the escrow falling through was not particularly relevant in this forum. He asked Agency General Counsel, giyen the matter was already in Court and a Judge has been assigned, under eminent domain law, how did the parties get into Court without having taken over the interest. Agency General Counsel Boogaard reported the Agency filed the eminent domain action and the Agency was entitled to an Order for Immediate or Delayed Possession on "x" date. The Agency has the Order for Possession. The Agency granted a delay in taking possession to accommodate Mr. Reyes' relocation efforts. Chairman Nader asked if that meant the Agency had not yet bought out Mr. Reyes' interest or tendered an offer. Agency General Counsel Boogaard was sure the Agency had deposited with the Court the required amount the Agency's appraisal showed. At trial the fee will transfer. The trial was set for later in the year. 02 -If Minutes August 2, 1994 Page 5 Chairman Nader understood Mr. Reyes only had a tenancy interest as opposed to a fee interest. Agency General Counsel Boogaard said that was correct. Mr. Mason said Mr. Reyes had a 10 year lease with a 10 year option, which was non- cancelable. Agency General Counsel Boogaard stated the property was condemned and the lease had a Condemnation Clause which, essentially, evaporated Mr. Reyes' interest if it were taken by condemnation. Mr. Mason said that was Mr. Boogaard's opinion. The Judge would have to make that determination. Agency General Counsel Boogaard pointed out if the Agency was wrong, the division between the landlord and tenant would be adjusted by the Judge. Chairman Nader said the bottom line, even though the parties were in Court, was that the Agency had not yet tendered to Mr. Reyes any compensation for eminent domain. Agency General Counsel Boogaard noted the Agency had placed the fair market value the Agency had appraised with the Court. If Mr. Reyes and the landlord could have agreed on the distribution of that, Mr. Reyes could actually have pulled the money out. Chairman Nader asked if Mr. Reyes could pull the money out and still maintain an action against the Agency. Agency General Counsel Boogaard said yes, for things such as Goodwill, and F&E (fixtures and equipment). Chairman Nader asked Mr. Mason if he was maintaining, as part of the current Court action, or was threatening to institute against the Agency, an action contesting the Agency's right to take your client's interest, assuming the Agency duly and legally compensated him; or, was he only asking the Agency to delay taking his interest, but in Court only contesting what that interest was worth. Mr. Mason said the second, not the first, with a third aspect. That being, the timeliness of the transition. If the Agency was not willing to give Mr. Reyes the ability to save his business, then the Judge would be asked to do so. It seemed to him that the Agency, talking about a Chula Vista resident of over 20 years who had a business in Chula Vista and wanted to keep it in Chula Vista, would simply have the greatest vested interest in trying to keep the business here. Chairman Nader pointed out that was why the Agency granted the 12 month extension. Agency General Counsel Boogaard said the proposed escrow on the Broadway site was contingent on getting zoning. It was not presently zoned. If that failed, then that escrow would collapse. Chairman Nader asked the location on Broadway. Agency General Counsel Boogaard replied it was the Chef Frank's Restaurant building at 975 Broadway. Mr. Gustafson explained he had talked with Mr. Reyes recently about the conditions under which staff would contemplate recommending an extension beyond the 12 month period. Staff informed Mr. Reyes that if he was in a viable escrow and just needed a little more time, staff would consider 02-5 Minutes August 2, 1994 Page 6 recommending an extension to the Agency. Shortly thereafter, he advised staff he was entering into an escrow on a property he had previously discussed with staff but had explained it was not large enough for his operation. Community Development staff, Planning Department staff, and Mr. Reyes held a meeting to discuss whether a waiver could be issued on the required parking to add square footage to the building. Staff determined the only way Mr. Reyes could do that was if he were able to secure some sort of parking easement from a neighbor. Shortly thereafter Mr. Reyes informed staff he was entering into escrow. Escrow instruction were received late today. Mr. George Rodriguez, the broker for Mr. Reyes on that property, and staff have had a number of conversations. While the escrow instructions have not been signed by the seller due to logistics, the seller has signed the Purchase Contract. Staff's main concern about this particular escrow--in helping the Agency deal with whether or not the Agency should extend time to Mr. Reyes to move to that property--was that it was so contingent. Not only does the escrow require that he receive all City permits to occupy that property and use it as a replacement site for Mi Cabana, it also required he be able to expand the property by 1500 square feet which necessitated the parking easement which has not yet been secured. Additionally, escrow required him to be able to transfer his liquor license and go through a Conditional Use Permit process. He has until August 29 to do that or he could leave the escrow. Staff did not feel, and in previous conversations with Mr. Reyes, he did not feel he could accomplish those tasks within that timeframe. Staff was concerned about the substance of that particular escrow. Member Rindone wanted to know what timeframe to which staff was alluding. Mr. Gustafson responded that one of the conditions of escrow was that the buyer could walk away from the escrow if Mr. Reyes did not have all permits, including transferring his liquor license as well as all zoning and building permits and the building permit for the 1500 square foot addition 30 days from the opening of escrow. There was, staff believed, a date-specific mentioned in the escrow documents. Agency General Counsel Boogaard pointed out that if the Agency was to grant the additional 90 days there was no legal assurance Mr. Reyes would be off the site at that time. In fact, he could pursue certain legal maneuvers to resist dispossession at that time. The Agency would then be well behind the promised opening date of September 15, 1994 to the anchor tenants. If everything moved full speed ahead now, there may be difficulty for the Agency in meeting its commit to the redeveloper. There would be a certain amount of the Agency's creditability and reputation on the line with the development community if the Agency were to enter into Disposition and Development Agreements with these representations. Chairman Nader asked if that was because the law gave Mr. Reyes the ability to use certain legal procedures to stay there somewhat beyond the time the Agency actually set. Agency General Counsel Boogaard said yes. Jim Moxham, 2801 Albatross Street, San Diego, CA, representing Sunbelt Management Company. As Mr. Holmes was out of state at the present time, he had asked that Mr. Moxham speak in his absence. For the record, he did not work for the Agency and had never represented himself in that position. He took no action on Mr. Reyes' behalf that he did not have authorization for. Sunbelt very strongly supported staff's position. The Agency had very generously, one year ago, gave Mr. Reyes the time to wind down his operation, relocate, and vacate the premises. To date, none of that had occurred. Mr. Reyes had also refused to sign the Agency's lease which was presented to him last November. The lease covered the period of time from when possession was granted to the Agency for the property, roughly 120 days from July 27, 1993. As has been indicated to the Agency at the meeting, Sunbelt, based upon the actions taken a year ago and the representations made that Mr. Reyes could remain on the property for 12 months, made those same representations to Ralph's, Ross, 02-(." Minutes August 2, 1994 Page 7 Office Depot and a significant number of their other tenants. Sunbelt told the tenants they could rely on it that Mr. Reyes would not be there when the Center opened. Ralph's was set to open on September 15, 1994. Sunbelt wanted possession of the property prior to that time to allow for demolition and the orderly clean-up of that property. There are some additional costs Sunbelt would incur if the holding over carried on much longer. Those costs would be approximately $34,000. Sunbelt planned its entire construction project on the basis the building would be demolished while the contractor was on-site and the work for the final part of the street improyements could be done at one time. Sunbelt would certainly feel that they should not have to bear the additional costs if Mr. Reyes was allowed to stay. It was a true statement to say Sunbelt had made every effort to meet their obligations in all regards with the Agency under the terms of the Disposition and Development Agreement. Sunbelt has invested $17 million cash in the project without any financing and strongly encouraged the Agency to petition the condemnation Judge for immediate possession of the property. Member Horton asked how long it would take to transfer a liquor license. Mr. Moxham responded that in previously working with Mr. Reyes as a broker and not representing Sun belt or the Agency, he had called the ABC and was informed by a clerk at that agency it was a 45 to 60 day process that could quite possibly run beyond that. Member Horton inquired what type business license this type business required. Mr. Moxham replied Mr. Reyes had the ability to transfer the Mi Cabana liquor license. Member Horton asked if Mr. Reyes would be required to get any other type license. Mr. Moxham did not think so but thought Mr. Reyes could best answer that question. Agustin Reyes, 96 Sherwood, Chula Vista, CA, owner and operator of Mi Cabana La Mision. Mr. Moxham always told him he would find him a place. For seven months he did not hear from Mr. Moxham or anybody. He called Mrs. Mary O'Toole and she came and saw him. She started working with him on the project about four months ago. There have been no places available in Chula Vista to which to relocate the business. Places haye become available recently. He did not want the place on E Street because he did not want their liquor license as he had his own which he could transfer. He found the Chef Frank property and thought he could work with that property. He was working to rent a vacant lot to use for additional parking. If he did not get the additional parking space he would accommodate his business in the existing building and not expand. He was asking the Agency for extra time in order to move his business. Escrow instructions and contract to buy are in process. Member Horton noted Mr. Reyes recently acquired another similar type business within San Diego County. Mr. Reyes said it was not recently, that that business was acquired almost two years ago. It was acquired because he wanted to expand his business. Member Horton explained she was given information that the business was recently acquired. Mr. Reyes said he just opened it recently because he had been remodelling the space. He had to wait a long time to get a building permit to remodel. Member Horton asked if Mr. Reyes owned the building. Mr. Reyes said no. ~-? Minutes August 2, 1994 Page 8 Member Horton stated it did not take two years to remodel a building. Mr. Reyes said it took him a long time if he did it himself. Agency General Counsel Boogaard informed Agency one of the reasons staff formed the opinion it was not a good faith effort in trying to pursue a relocation site was based on evidence which Mr. Moxham proyided regarding his efforts to keep in contact, or make contact, with Mr. Reyes. He requested that Mr. Moxham explain that effort to the Agency. Chair Nader asked if there was some reason of legal relevance as to why Agency General Counsel wanted that on the record. In terms of the Agency's vote, if he voted to move Mr. Reyes off the property now or very soon, that did not necessarily mean Mr. Reyes acted in bad faith. If he voted to give Mr. Reyes an extension, that did not necessarily mean he acted in good faith either. Agency General Counsel Boogaard replied he did not want the Agency to believe staff was recommending that it would want to put a Chula Vista business out of business because staff was cold hearted. Staff had formed an independent belief that Mr. Reyes did not use good faith efforts to relocate in the period of time the Agency gave him. Chair Nader said the Agency had been familiar with the project for some time. It was a project which the Agency had been in a long-term partnership with the redeveloper. It had enormous community benefit--child care, Head Start facilities, affordable housing, as well as those anchor tenants who would provide significant income to the City as well as significant business opportunities to the private sector. The public interest represented by the adyancement of that partnership was the issue and weighed against that was whether that partnership was harmed unjustifiably by giving Mr. Reyes an extension which would enable him to have more time to relocate or could he be accommodated without jeopardizing the project. Those are the issues before the Agency. He would have to take someone's word for it, at this point, as to whether Mr. Reyes acted in good faith or not, or what Mr. Moxham did on his behalf. Unless there was some legal reason why the Agency should consider that, or unless another Agency Member wanted to hear all about it, he did not know that that entered into the decision. If he voted not to grant the extension and to support the staff recommendation he hoped it was understood he was not necessarily, as far as he knew, making a finding that anybody acted in bad faith. That was not necessarily the issue at the moment. Unless. you. as our attorney, said otherwise. Agency General Counsel Boogaard answered it depended on whether any Member was attaching any credibility to the argument that Mr. Reyes raised. If Members were not, then it had no value. But, if the Members believed there was an effort to relocate which failed, then the evidence of no effort having been made then became relevant to the Agency. Victor M. Reyes, Esq., 298 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA. He apprised the Members he received his law degree in Mexico and has been a practicing attorney in Mexico since 1977. He has resided in the United States since 1978. He believed the Agency's General Counsel had a conflict of interest, instead of representing the people he was representing the interests of the developer. The staff report, though hostile, stated the Agency had the technical obligation to assist Agustin Reyes to relocate. Where did staff and the Agency General Counsel draw the line on what constituted the technical obligation? Agency General Counsel should state the facts. Why was Agency General Counsel why showing hate and malice in pressing the fact of culpability, the fact that Agustin Reyes had been unreasonable, and that he had shown bad faith? Member Horton asked Victor Reyes if he understood it was not the Agency's full obligation to find Agustin Reyes a site. In this situation all parties have to work cooperatively and Agustin Reyes also :¿-ð' Minutes August 2, 1994 Page 9 had an obligation to find another site. He found a site for another business but had not made it a priority during the last 12 months to relocate this particular business. However, he may have relocated as he had leased another space within the past 12 months. City staff tries very hard to work well with the public. They have done everything in their power to try and help get this situation resolved to the benefit of us all. Victor Reyes said the Agency should have evidence it made the effort. He was not saying Agustin Reyes had no fault at all. He assumed Agustin would bear some of the fault. Member Horton explained when Agustin Reyes came before the Agency one year ago the Agency endeavored to give him due process. Chair Nader pointed out there was no way legally the Agency could "throw out" a business without due compensation. If the Agency and the business owner did not agree on what was just compensation, then a Court would decide that. The Agency was legally bound to give him what the Court instructed and nobody was contesting the Agency had that obligation. However, the Agency did not have a legal obligation, except where a residence was concerned, to successfully relocate a business. The Agency obligation was to compensate the business for its loss. The business person had requested he be given an opportunity to relocate as opposed to taking cash and leave. Those were the choices the law provided in regard to business Goodwill. In redevelopment there was a partnership between the government agency and the redeveloper with whom there was a redevelopment agreement. That partnership was made because the Agency came to the conclusion it was in the public interest to go forward with the project. In the case of this particular project, it was in the public interest to see that the project be successful. Member Moore noted the minutes of the July 27, 1993 meeting reflected the Agency's concern for the fair treatment of all parties. At that meeting the Agency went from a 90 day extension to a 12 month extension for Mr. Reyes. The redeveloper wanted possession in 90 days. The Agency extended the 90 days to 12 months. There was an agreement with both parties: an agreement with the business to vacate the building in 12 months, and an agreement with the redeveloper the Agency would guarantee the business would be out by the end of the 12 month period. Both agreements should be met. The Agency has allowed in excess of 12 months to Mr. Reyes. There needed to be fairness to both parties. Member Rindone believed Member Moore expressed the key factors which the request for an another extension weighed upon. The Agency acted very judiciously in giving an additional extension beyond what was contemplated by the redeveloper last July. There have been conditions and legal contracts signed and the Agency needed to weigh all components when coming to a conclusion. Chair Nader noted Agency General Counsel referred earlier to the fact that should the Agency act to remove Mr. Reyes immediately he had legal rights that would, in fact, allow him to stay some period of time beyond whatever deadline the Agency set. Was it possible for Mr. Reyes to waive those procedures in return for some minimal extension, or were those rights not waiveable? Agency General Counsel Boogaard replied the only technique which could be used would be to Stipulate to Judgment for Possession. If another 90 day extension was granted, no matter what, the Agency could not commit to the September 15, 1994 opening date. Chair Nader pointed out if legal procedures were used to delay actual possession that would cause the same type difficulty for Sun belt that an extension granted by the Agency would cause. He asked Mr. Moxham if it might be in the redeveloper's interest to accept a Stipulated Judgment of Possession for some other date than today or tomorrow which would still allow the opening of the Center on time. 02- r Minutes August 2, 1994 Page 10 Mr. Moxham said it was difficult for him to answer that question from the perspective of the redeveloper. He did not know the construction "window" the redeveloper would need. Also, he did not know if there was a Stipulated Judgment for Possession in exchange for some precise period of time, whether there was additional legal recourse ayailable to Mr. Reyes that he could use to extend that time beyond the date of the Stipulated Judgment. Chair Nader stated the decision to enter into a Stipulated Judgment should be left between the redeveloper and Mr. Reyes and not one the Agency should work out at the eleventh hour for the parties. It might be to both Sunbelt's and Mr. Reyes' advantage to work out a Stipulated Judgment rather than have Sunbelt suffer the uncertainty of how long a Court might take to resolve the issue and have Mr. Reyes suffer from similar uncertainty and perhaps be out much sooner as a result. Chair Nader requested consideration of adopting staff recommendation but with the proviso that staff would not act to take possession sooner than requested by the redeveloper. In other words, if the redeveloper wished to enter into a Stipulated Judgment for Possession for some later period of time with Mr. Reyes, Agency staff would accommodate that. That would leave it up to the redeveloper and Mr. Reyes if they wished to enter into a Stipulated Judgment. Mr. Moxham thought that would be fine. Mr. Holmes would be returning to California on Wednesday, August 3, 1994 and he would have Mr. Holmes get with staff and discuss the schedule in order to give whatever flexibility could be provided within the constraints of the Center's opening date. MOTION [Nader/] adopt staff recommendation but with the additional direction that if the redeveloper informs staff that it was their wish to enter into a Stipulated Judgement for Possession on a specific possession date with Mr. Reyes that staff would respect, abide by, and facilitate the terms of that Stipulation. Member Horton seeked clarification on which staff recommendation. Mr. Gustafson thought the staff recommendation referred to by the Chairman was the one alluded to by the Agency General Counsel which was consistent with staff's original recommendation in the staff report which was to let the tenancy expire. Chair Nader asked if Agency General Counsel concurred with that. Agency General Counsel Boogaard said the original recommendation was to not grant any extension. The new proviso was that staff would take no action to take possession sooner than requested by the redeyeloper. Chairman Nader said that was correct. The idea was to allow the redeveloper and Mr. Reyes to enter into a Stipulation that would perhaps result in providing more certainty as to when Mr. Reyes would leave, but would also give Mr. Reyes some legal certainty as to having some additional time. Agency General Counsel Boogaard asked Mr. Scott Noya of Daley & Heft, the Agency's condemnation counsel, if he foresaw any legal problems with the motion. Mr. Noya said no, assuming the developer agreed and the Agency could have the Stipulated Judgment actually signed and entered. ..2 -1° Minutes August 2, 1994 Page 11 Chairman Nader said it was not his intent to have a Stipulated Judgment or to direct that one be negotiated or entered into. The motion was for staff to not take any action not requested by the redeyeloper that would preclude such a Stipulation. The Stipulation would be left between those two parties. Agency General Counsel Boogaard requested--in order to avoid a possible contention that the Agency had now delegated its eminent domain authority to a developer--that the Agency just instruct staff to consider the request of the redeveloper for extension in taking eminent domain action to seek possessIon. Chairman Nader asked if the motion was seconded. Member Horton asked the motion be restated. MOTION [Nader/Horton] to accept staff recommendation with a proviso that staff would take no action for possession without the reconsideration of the redeveloper's desires should the redeveloper wish to enter into a Stipulated Judgment of Possession with Mr. Reyes. Member Moore said the Agency should make the decision, not the redeveloper. If the Agency was to give the tenant the impression that the Agency was leaving it up to the redeveloper and the redeveloper did not do what Mr. Reyes desired, then the wrong party would be taking the repercussIons. Agency General Counsel Boogaard assured the Agency that if it simply granted no extension, staff would consult on its own with respect to the schedule of the developer in order to take the necessary possession. Chairman Nader said that was fine. His concern was it sounded like staff was determined, if the Agency voted for the staff recommendation, to move for immediate possession from Mr. Reyes. The potential consequence of that was that Mr. Reyes, as the Agency General Counsel pointed out, had certain legal remedies available by which he could delay possession. He did not want staff to be so gung ho to immediately implement possession that precluded a Stipulated arrangement in which the possession could occur in a more orderly way to the advantage, and at some cost savings, to both parties. Agency General Counsel Boogaard stated that would be done at a staff level. If it were not included in the motion then the risk of assignment of eminent domain authority was mitigated. Member Rindone conveyed he was comfortable in supporting the staff recommendation. It was clear that it was to all three parties' interest that if there was further clarity when possession was taken, then everybody could turn it into a situation which was more amenable. It had to be very clear that no additional extension was being granted by the Agency. He would only support staff's recommendation. Chairman Nader declared it was clear the Agency was not ordering any additional extension. He did not want a situation where the parties said they agreed to a Stipulated Date for Possession and staff believed it had direction from the Agency to take possession immediately. AMENDED MOTION [Nader/Horton] to accept staff recommendation. Member Moore remarked staff members could work with Mr. Reyes and perhaps he could have his brother available. 02 -/1 Minutes August 2, 1994 Page 12 VOTE ON MOTION: Approved 4-0-1 (Fox absent). 6. RESOLUTION 1411 ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET FOR FY 1994-95 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR--The FY 1994-95 Redevelopment Agency Budget was reviewed as part of the City budget approval process. As the Redevelopment Agency is a separate legal entity, it is necessary to approve the budget separately as required by California Community Redevelopment Law. Staff recommends this item be continued to the AQencv meetina of Auaust 16. 1994. (Administration) Continued from the meeting of 7/19/94. MOTION [Nader/Moore] to continue to the meeting of August 16, 1994 meeting, approved 3-0-1-1 (Fox absent, Rindone opposed). OTHER BUSINESS 7. DIRECTOR'S REPORTIS) None. 8. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT(S) . Ratification of Appointment of Cristina Orin to the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee Chairman Nader continued the item to the next Agency meeting. He requested staff prepare an accurate appointment dates, term dates, seat restrictions, Council-adopted ordinances, resolutions and policies that relate to appointment authority, and to eligibility for the three Project Area Committees. 9. MEMBER COMMENTS Member Rindone voted no on the extension of Item 6 because it was a key issue that had come before the Agency which had agreed to a first and second extension. This was a third extension of time with no information provided as to the reason why. This was an important issue and he wanted it brought back to the Agency. Executive Director Goss replied the budget condition, as staff was working with the new Finance Director, seemed to be getting better as staff was looking at opportunities. He had asked staff to look at different issues regarding ways to reduce costs, particularly the debt service. Staff has been working through issues which had not been totally put together that staff would feel comfortable bringing back in a report. Staff expected to have that soon. The Director of Community Development would be on vacation and unable to attend the August 16 meeting. The reason for delay in terms of getting the Agency a complete budget was because the budget was heading in the right direction. Chairman Nader thought it should be extended if the Director was not going to be at the August 16 meeting. Member Rindone noted last year's budget was extended to the last week of the fiscal year. Right now, that put the Agency 42 weeks ahead. MOTION [Nader/Moore] schedule the Agency Budget for a Special Meeting on the Agency for August 23, 1994, passes 4-0-1 (Fox absent). 02 -/¿ Minutes August 2, 1994 Page 13 ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 9:55 P.M. to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on Tuesday, August 16, 1994 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully Submitted, ~.u6 -ð, d~ Berlin D. Bosworth, Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency IC:\WP51 \AGENCYIMINUTESIO8-02-94.MINI 02 -13 .---.. This page intentionally left blank. .:2 -If ~\1J~ -.-- r....;:"""",--...¿:"';:: ~"""'--=.::- BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICA nON CllY OF CHUIA VISfA Please ¡ndicme Your ¡lIleresl By Checking Ihe Appropriate Line(s). 1/ You Check More Than One Line, Please Prioritize Your ¡nleresi. - Aging (Cmsm on) - Growth Mgmt Cmsm - Safety Crnsm - Appeals (Board of) ---- Human Relatioos Cmsm - Southwest PAC Cmt - Charter Review - Int'l Friendship Cmsm - Town Centre PIj Area Cm! - Child Care Crnsm - Library .Board of TNstees - UC - CV - Civil Service Cmsm - Mobilehome Rent Review Crnsm - United Nations Day C"\t - Cultural Arts Crnsm .L. Otay Valley Proj Area Cmt - Veterans Affairs - Design Review Cmsm - Parks & Rec Crnsm ---HE~ - Economic Dev Cmsm - Planning Crnsm ~~:::. - Ethics (Board of) - Resource Consey Crnsm ~~ ¡:: ~' ::c :r - I'll PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY ~~ C» < G . j"- 0 0»>- a m-- NAME: Y' \ c:. \ V\ (A y-- \ Y1 ~~ 0 Q ~ ~ HOME ADDRESS: 15SS- \1')7 Mel/)doclY}() ~v-. CITY: (\",\1\' 1~ë: ZIP:...3.l.5J\ . RES PHONE #: ya\- (.S1.4" BUS PHONE #: 4~ \- tit S\REGISTERED VOTER IN Cj:¡'ULA VISTA:---1L' - YES NO DO YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF CHULA VISTA? ~ - HOW LONG" I;), y.-.c.v5 YES NO -Ylluth CIIIUIUi"iulI Appli<alll' ONLY: Sch,.,l AUelldi". . Grado:- COLLEGES ATIENDED & DEGREES HELD: South \~!e¿\t.v'1 f 0 H..~t --;}.o U\nits c"',~ 'be..;. , PRESENT EMPLOYER:ê.\',.\. '/,<.,1'(, <:)r\"ç~\ 'b, <:t -r \ ¿-\, POSITION: £c, \ Å\~P ~~'r~ " ",-to"'wð. -1"'°"- o.d.\loca-1p -to'l"' \ ,/\ OilV' I am familiar wiJh the """,",ibili'iea a..igned III the lk",rdICon"ni"ionICononinee on which I wi>ll 10 'cr'" - U, 04J~d-~ÁÀ) ~~, 7/ I?J !g ~ \ SIGNATURE (DATE . - - PLEASE SEE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS APPLICATION FOR VERY IMPORTANT LEGAL INFORMATION - - - 5-/ This page intentionally left blank. 5-,,6 - N .cw ~ I-U C (1)- - -LL ., au ~ >u.. .cO ~ '" -1<4 BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITIEE APPUCA TION ::>" I.&J z::':: 0 ~ <->ffi Please IndicøJe Your Inlenst ðy Checking the Appropriate Line(s). I.&J LL-I 0<-> ff YOII Check More 17tan One Line, Please Prioritize Your Inlerest. , a:: >->- - Aging (cmsmi!) ¡¡ - Growth Mllllt Cmsm - Reøource Conserv Cmsm - Appeals (Board of) - HOlISm. AdviSOl}' Cmsm - Safety Cmøm - Chartet Review - HUDIIII RelaliDO Cmsm - Soutbwest PAC Cmt - Child Care Cmsm - Int'l Frielldsbip Cmsm - UC" CV - Ciyil Service Cmsm - Ubnry Board of Trustees - United Nalioos Day Cmt - Cultural Arts Cmsm - Mobilehome Rent Review Cmsm - Veterans AdviSOl}' Cmsm - Design Reyiew Cmsm - Otay Valley Proj Area Cmt - Youth Cmsm - Econontic Day Cmsm - Pub &. Ree Cmsm L OTHER fz;¡/',lj CE¡lJTLê- - Ethics (Board of) - PlllllÙn¡ Cmsm /'4:J£C1 /ufi!) PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY NAME:"]) 'D)JN/f- L, J! fi /.{Ae HOME ADDRESS: CjLj.J. ,/110//íEi?ey è:t- CITY:(1.k111 UIJ1'1t ZIP:C¡I'JI/ RES PHONE #:fJ 7- J ?51 BUS PHONE #: Jj;;JJ.-I7"}1 lŒGISTEIlED VOTER IN CHULA VISTA: ,/ YES NO DO YOU UVE WITHIN THE CITY UMITS OF CHULA VISTA? ~ - HOW LONG? ;)ù,?/Z,r YES NO .YCNtb CammisoioD A~ ONLY: ~ i'H-- Gradr,------ COLLEGES ATTENDED Ii. DEGIlEES HELD: Ú;f/iVELf I' t:>¡:: .sÌffo-ll)/Ú¿7 P, S l;.v ßwf¿"'i'r.s- ,,-,,¡-/¡ £::A""J1.<IJI..v I!c~C'I4-vf¡'.III, y - PRESENT EMPLOYER.: -thi121} !J¡/,¿"tIuE ,4/éwS POSmON: Oú',vFIZ... WHAT ARE YOUR PRINCIPAL AREAS OF INTEREST IN OUR CITY GOVERNMENT AND WHAT EXPERIENCE(S) OR SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE CAN YOU YOU BIlING TO THOSE AREAS? I.:, f'" < 1.J¿¡¿.tr..n-a-z./ t!20#2-¡O¿J¿:: O)¡Z';;-c-n¡¿> DJ-lAe. Dv~w;v.&4J/¡1.-N.s4S$.('.;41i()~, .()'MS7l!-~..,U-fi.-- , dýú 1R,f:AJ.NZ~~,.:;T¿;/e¿e1 ~i/VD.."V£ ;1:Jl2-c/'l?J C-ð WOVC/ '- WHAT WOULD YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPUSH BY YOm PARTICIPATION? -:f'Y!: IJU/Alen /1- ßû.J./>vers ,'AJ --!/.t,~éfJEJI.tt-o/7l1C,..l1' JJ,S1IUCí.fò"" 7 y,es- 1/0'>'0 )¥'& 7'¡, "t-u'p ';/1.,. Æ"..6'.¿ /'9L/ J/i.- Æ//VO :~¿f/I./¡e/J',t/)N <; í IV /1-1'--,// lc/A¡1 ;¡: (* /?,-v. - ( I am familiar wid> !he _oililiea uai¡ned 10 !he IoaNl~CommiaM 011 wIûoh I """ 10 _rve. ~ 7.4,.;2 ~?L- f!ç~)/ / SIDNATIߌ DATE Rev 7/1- ... PLEASE SEE THE REVERSE SIDE or mlS APPLICA110N FOR VERY IMPORTANT LEGAL INF'ORMA110N'" $-3 This page intentionally left blank. 5-1