Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1994/08/02 Tuesday, August 2, 1994 Council Chambers 4:00 p.m. Public Services Building (immediately following the City Council meeting) Regu\ar Meetin~ of the Redeve1oDment A~encv of the Citv of Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Members Fox -' Horton -, Moore -, Rindone -, and Chairman Nader - 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 19,1994 CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 3 through 4) The staff recommendations regarding the following iJems 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 CiJy staff requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these iJems, please fill out a "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submiJ iJ 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 opposiJion 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 iJems of business. 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 4. RESOLUTION 1414 APPROVING LEASE BETWEEN OTAY 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 Inflnence Study for the City of Chula Vista as well as processing a Specific Plan for Villages I, 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 E1 Dorado Building, said space currently occupied on a month-to-month basis by the Team. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * .- - Agenda -2- August 2, 1994 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES The following items have been advertised 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 Fonll" 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 illfavorofthe staffrecommendation; complete the pinkfonll to speak in opposition to the staffrecommentlation.) Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. None Submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the general public to adilress 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 illcluded 011 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 alld 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 ami address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limited to three minutes per speaker. ACTION ITEMS The items listed ill this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantÎllI discussions and deliberations by the Agency, staff, or members of the gelleral public. The items will be collsidered illdividually by the Agellcy and staffrecommelldations may ill certaill cases be presellted in the altemative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out a "Request to Speak" foml available in the lobby alld submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meetillg. Public commellts are limited to five minutes. 5. REPORT RELOCATION OF AGUSTIN REYES (MI CABANA) FROM THE PALOMOR 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 devdoper of the Palomar Trolley Center, to ascertain appropriateness of providing additional time tor Mr. Reyes to rdocate 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) 6. RESOLUTION 1411 ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET FOR IT 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 A~encv meetin~ of Au~ust 16. 1994. (Administration) Continued from the meeting of 7/19/94. Agenda -3- August 2, 1994 ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR This is the time the Redevelopment Agency will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent 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 7. DIRECTOR'S REPORT(S) 8. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT(S) . Ratification of Appointment of Cristina Orin to the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee 9. MEMBER COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn 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. ****** COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals 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 infonuationat (619) 691-5047 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing impaired. [C:\ WP51 \AGENCY\AGENDAS\O8-0Z-94. AGDI Thís ,age ínttnüonaIly lift blank. Tuesday, July 19, 1994 Council Chambers 9:06 p.m. Public Services Building Joint Regu\ar Meetin~ of the Redeve10oment A2encv/ Citv Council of the Citv of Chula Vista CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Council Members Fox, Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Chairman/ Mayor Nader ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Executive Director/City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency General Counsel/City Attorney; Chris Salomone, Community Development Director: Dave Gustafson, Assistant Director of Community Development; and Berlin D. Bosworth, Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 12,1994 MSUC [HortonIMoore] to approve the minutes of July 12, 1994 as presented. Approved 5-0. CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN/MA YOR NADER, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None submitted. 4. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1412 APPROVING A SEMI-EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH JOELEN ENTERPRISES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AGENCY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY--As part of the Auto Park project the Agency acquired the Fuller Ford and Southbay Chevrolet dealership sites on Broadway. Joelen Enterprises propose to develop the portion of the Fuller Ford site on the west side of Broadway with approximately 38 business homes. Staff desires to enter into a Semi- Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Joelen Enterprises for six months in order to work out details of this unique project which is a departure from typical strip commercial development along Broadway. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) Member/Council Member Rindone commented this was an exciting, new proposal. Both Josef and Lenore Citron of Joe1en Enterprises, and staff were to be congratulated for exploring the businesshome concept. Member/Council Member Moore thought this an inoovative mixed-use concept. If there were a need for a second six-month negotiating period extension that should be brought back to the Agency for authorization. The intent was to urge completion of these negotiations during the six-month timeframe for semi-exclusive negotiations. Chairman/Mayor Nader stated if Agency/Council Members agreed with that provision it would be incorporated without objection and the resolution amended. Member/Conoci1 Member Rindone wanted assurance the applicant concurred with the proposed amendment. Mr. Josef Citron, the applicant, agreed with Member/Council Member Moore's proposed amendment. oÌ -I Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 2 Chairman/Mayor Nader stated, without objectiou, the amendment would be incorporated into Item #4 on the Consent Calendar. 5.A. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1413 APPROVING FINAL RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND LAST RESORT HOUSING PAYMENTS IN THE AMO1JNT OF $27,869.52 PURSUANT TO THE ADOPTED RELOCATION PLAN FOR THREE RENTAL UNIT HOUSEHOLDS FORMERLY RESIDING AT 459 F STREET WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE ß REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA--The City of Chula Vista and the Redevelopment Agency purchased the property at 459 F Street as part of the adopted Chula Vista Master Plan Expansion Project. The California Relocation Assistance Act mandates the payment of relocation benefits to persons and businesses displaced by actions taken by a public entity. The Council and Agency are requested to approve final Rental Assistance and Last Resort Housing payments for three of the remaining four households. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Community Development Director) [and] B. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17567 AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF $27,869.52 FROM THE CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT (#GG-130) CIP FOR THE PAYMENT OF FINAL RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND LAST RESORT HOUSING PAYMENTS TO THREE RENTAL UNIT HOUSEHOLDS FORMERLY RESIDING AT 459 F STREET 6. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1415 GRANTING A FOUR FOOT BY NINE FOOT EASEMENT ON ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 568-152-29 OWNED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR ACCESS TO ITS EQUIPMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING AT 311 F STREET--The remodelling and expansion of the IDM Building at 311 F Street requires the location of electrical equipment at the northeast comer of the bnilding. The eqnipment, located in a small room recessed into the building, can ouly be accessed from the Redevelopment Agency public parking lot on Landis Avenue. San Diego Gas & Electric is requesting an access easement from the parking lot to the equipment room. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Commnnity Development Director) * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES None submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Agustin Reyes, 96 Sherwood Street, Chula Vista, CA, owner and operator of Mi Cabana La Mision, requested an extension to stay on the property. It was an issue of his right to be on the property--he was the tenant and had a 20-year lease and has complied with all obligations as tenant and businessman. He felt he was deprived of his rights. It was his belief the eminent domain proceedings were prejudicial to him. He was told by Council that Chula Vista Redevelopment was going to assist him in relocation and so far they had not done anything. All relocation had been done by him. He believed he had been acting in good faith but now believed it was the wrong thing to do. He requested the City Council allow him an extension of additional time to relocate his business. Staff said they have helped me in the last 12 months. He disagreed. In the past four months staff had approached him with properties to consider relocating to. He did not like the properties. He had found a property, had a contract which he was ready to sign which he received two days prior. My attorney had a copy to review. He okayed it for me to sign. He needed time to move. He asked not to be put out of business. ChainnanlMayor Nader asked how much time he needed to relocate. Mr. Reyes replied three to six months. ;¿-;¿ Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 3 Member/Council Member Fox stated the one-year extensiou granted by the Council expired on July 27, 1994. Would an extension to August 3, 1994 mean anything to him. Mr. Reyes said he would probably just be putting papers into escrow. Chainnan/Mayor Nader stated Council could grant an emergency extension of one week and the item could be agendized so the Agency could discuss the issue. Staff and Agency would need to have discussions with the developer. That would give staff time to try to work something out with the developer and Mr. Reyes. He would like to give Mr. Reyes time to relocate now he had found a property to relocate to. Would staff have a problem with that course of action. Community Developmeut Director Salomone replied staff would not. 11 would be reasonable to place the item on the Agenda for August 2, 1994 to discuss an extension. MOTION [Fox/Nader] to find emergency exists to place this on tonight's Agenda as Mr. Reyes' eviction was going to occur prior to the August 2, 1994 Agency meeting and as Mr. Reyes had entered escrow after the posting of the Agency Agenda in order to discuss emergency extension. VOTE ON MOTION: Passed, 5-0. Member/Council Member Fox could support an extension although he thought the City had done quite a lot already in granting a 12 month extension. What was important was cooperation by both parties. Mr. Reyes needed to release his tax records to the Agency to review the Goodwill estimate, unless staff already had those records as well as sign the Agency lease. Mr. Reyes said if he signed a month-to-month lease then staff could kick him out any time it wanted. That was why he would not sign the lease. He already had a 10 year lease with another 10 year option. He questioned why he should sign a lease which was on a month-to-month basis. MOTION [Nader/Fox] that an emergency extension be granted to August 3, 1994; staff was directed, in the iuterim, to mect with Mr. Reyes and Cypress Creek to ascertain how much time Mr. Reyes needed to relocate his business successfully; and, to juggle as best staff can that need with the needs of Cypress Creek, the developer, and report back to Council with a recommendation on a further extension. Member/Council Member Fox stated he had commented to Mr. Reyes he needed to cooperate in signing the Agency lease. Mr. Reyes responded he was not sure why he needed to do that. Would staff respond. Assistant Director of Community Development Gustafsou replied at the time Council took action in July 1993 to give Mr. Reyes an additional 12 months, the Agency offered him a lease which he has refused to sign. He has indicated he does not want to do that as he would go on a month-to-month status where currently he has a 10 year lease. In fact, he does not have a lease. The Agency/Council condemned the property and the lease. He was presently on a month-to-month status. He has beeu treated as a month-to-month tenant and the Agency would have the power to give him a 30-day notice at any time. The Agency wanted Mr. Reyes to sign the lease as it gave the Agency additional protection and declarations on his part that staff believe are important to the Agency. Member/Council Member Fox asked if it was a retroactive type lease. Mr. Gustafson stated the lease was identical in its financial tenns to the lease he had with the previous property owner. Chairman/Mayor Nader stated should an additional extension be granted at the next Agency meeting, after staff carried out the motion on the floor, assuming it passed, was it staffs anticipation, supposing, hypothetically, .,2.-3 Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 4 Council decided to give Mr. Reyes an additional three month extension to relocate, did staff anticipate a desire to have the lease executed as part of that. Mr. Gustafson replied staff would like to see the lease executed. Chairman/Mayor Nader suggested any conditions of that sort which staff believed were an important part of the extension should be placed before the Agency at that meeting. Mr. Reyes should have an opportunity to review those conditions well in advance of the meeting so that, should the Agency grant such an extension the conditions would be very clear so there would be no further misunderstandings. Member/Council Member Moore asked staff if Mr. Reyes leased the property as opposed to owning it. Mr. Gustafson said that was correct. Member/Council Member Moore asked if the Agency owned the property since July 1993. Mr. Gustafson replied that was correct also. Member/Council Member Moore asked if the Agency at that time gave Mr. Reyes one year to relocate. Mr. Gustafson stated yes. Member/Council Member Moore asked was the developer promised that property would be ready for grading in one year's time. Mr. Gustafson replied that was correct. Member/Council Member Moore asked if the Agency stated it would assist Mr. Reyes, but did not promise him everything would work well. Mr. Gustafson pointed out that under Redevelopment Law the Agency was required to assist Mr. Reyes, but not technically relocate him. Member/Council Member Moore recapped stating: (I) Mr. Reyes was not in the best position as he was not the owner of the property; (2) Mr. Reyes was leasing from the Agency; (3) Mr. Reyes had a year to move and had not done so; and (4) the developer was ready to grade the property. Whatever the Agency now decided to do was pretty much at the developer's mercy. However, staff was to intercede with the developer to ascertain if there was any extra time which could be squeezed from the developer's time schedule for development. Mr. Gustafson pointed out the developer had complained they would like that structure removed as they have use for the property. The Agency did not technically have an agreement with the developer which stated the property would be available to them at any particular time. It was not part of the Disposition and Development Agreement. It was an understanding the developer had when Council extended Mr. Reyes' tenancy for 12 months. Member/Council Member Moore noted Mr. Reyes had to have made a serious effort to relocate. Chainnan/Mayor Nader asked the minutes of the July 1993 meeting accompany the staff report. Member/Council Member Moore stated a tenant had certain rights and asked what those rights were. Mr. Gustafson said Mr. Reyes had the right to technical assistance to get his business relocated. The Agency needed to show him comparable properties. :2..-1 Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 5 Member/Council Member Moore asked were there any monetary value to relocating a tenant. Mr. Gustafson replied that was rather complicated. It would depend on the value the tenant had on the property--the fixtures and equipment, and whether the tenant had any leasehold bonus value. The Agency's experts have determined Mr. Reyes does not have any leasehold bonus value. The principal compensation Mr. Reyes could look to was Goodwill in case he should suffer a business loss when he was relocated. Member/Council Member Moore asked if both parties understood that. Mr. Gustafson said yes, but staff has had trouble calculating what that Goodwill might be as Mr. Reyes had not relocated. A Goodwill amount could only be posited. There was nothing finite as Mr. Reyes had not yet relocated and it could not be measured how well Mr. Reyes would do as opposed to how well he did at the previous property. Staff has had difficulty getting some business tax numbers from Mr. Reyes. Member/Council Member Moore asked if Mr. Reyes was aware of that. Mr. Gustafson replied he and Mr. Reyes had a discussion on that subject this evening. Mr. Reyes said staff had his tax reports for almost two months now. There was confusion on the numbers but they were being straightened out. He gave those papers to his attorney and his attorney then gave them to the Agency's attorney. Chairman/Mayor Nader pointed out that agendizing the item for the August 2 meeting gave Mr. Reyes more time to work something out with staff in teIll1S of what the final extension should be. Mr. Reyes stated he was never opposed to being relocated. He had found properties he liked but could not relocate to them. ChaiIll1an/Mayor Nader asked why it was not possible to relocate to the properties he was interested in. Mr. Reyes replied the type of business he had required it not be near residential, churches, or schools. VOTE ON MOTION: Passed, 5-0. ACTION ITEMS 7. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1411 ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET FOR IT 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 continuation of this item to the meetinl! of 8/2/94. (Administration/Community Development Director) Continued from the 7/12/94 meeting MSUC [NaderlMoore] to continue to the meeting of August 2, 1994. Approved 5-0. 8. AGENCY/COUNCIL REPORT STATUS OF MIDBAYFRONT NEGOTIATIONS--On 4/5/94 the status of negotiations with Midbayfront developer, William Barkett, was discussed and staff was directed to report back in 60 days as to whether substantial progress had been made towards completion of a Development Agreement (DA). Staff has made substantial progress including the development of a Pre-Construction Phasing Plan and Draft DA including resolution of all but several negotiating issues which are outlined in the report. Staff recommends acceptance of the report and direction by the Agency to continue negotiations with the developer for completion of a Development Agency. (Community Development Director) Colltilluedfrom the meeting of 7/12/94 ;<-5 Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 6 Community Developer Director Salomone informed Agency the negotiators had developed a draft of the Development Agreement as well as a Pre-construction Phasing Plan. Weekly meetings had been held with the developer, William Barkett, and steady progress had been made to this point. Staff believed it needed another 90 days, or perhaps more, to finalize the Development Agreement. Staff would like to diligently pursue that. The staff report addressed several items--Nature Center funding, financial disclosure items typical to a Development Agreement, and evidence of qualified resort operators--which remained unresolved between staff and the developer. Staff had offered recommendations on those items. The proposed Port District acqnisition of the Shangri-La property would take a burden off the project and add to the feasibility of the project. That was park land that would have had to have been developed by the developer. In addition, this developer has agreed tu donate, at this time or a time in the not too distant future, additional acreage adjacent tu those properties in order to develop a park or recreational facility utilizing Port District funds. The appraisal had been completed. A Phase I enviromnental analysis had been done and the Phase 2 enviromnental analysis was expected to be completed by September 1994. At that time staff would return to Council with a recommendation relative to Port's acquisition. Mr. Salomone further informed the Agency with respect to the three outstanding items: (1) Nature Center funding. The issue was initiation of the first payment. Per Council direction that was to occur at issuance of the first Grading Permit. As negotiations continued, the developer recommended that be moved to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. The rationale was the project would then begin tu actually generate revenues. Staff was not opposed to moving the first payment to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. (2) Financial Disclosure of Partners in the Development. This also was addressed by Council. It was typical in a Development Agreement that Financial Statements of partners be disclosed at some point--usnally when the Development Agreement was adopted. The issue was availability of financing which was what the Agency and City were concerned with. Staff felt if it could prove that financing was available for the project and that the project would be bnilt, then that condition would be met. (3) Qualified Hotelier Criteria. Staff wanted a qualified hotelier approved by the Agency. The developer has requested greater flexibility on the issue. The developer contended there were very qnalified first-class hoteliers that were not listed as the Top 5 hoteliers in the nation. Staff wanted to work with the developer to establish objective criteria for each of the hotels within the project. Staff thought with further negotiations with the developer, Issues (2) and (3) would be resolved. Member/Council Member Fox wanted to know at what point the Financial Statements would be forthcoming. His concern was that the Financial Statements showed there was a qnalified developer. Mr. Salomone responded said the Pre-construction Phasing Plan which had been agreed to provided that that information would be given to the Agency prior to the Development Agreement being adopted. Member/Council Member Fox clarified the Financial Statements would come before the Agency prior to presentation to the Agency of the final Development Agreement. Mr. Salomone said that was so. It was a point of contention between the developer and staff. Having the Development Agreement in place would afford the developer the opportunity to market his project and then secure financing. The developer's contention was he would like to have the Development Agreement in place and then prove he has the financial ability. Whereas, staff was requesting his joint partners disclose their financial capability prior to the Development Agreement being adopted. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, speaking on behalf of Crossroads, said any bayfront project was important to the City. For the protection of the City, it certaiuly required and called for an outside financial expert to give the City advise about the feasibility of the project. The last report from Williams Kuebelbeck was issued about 18 months ago. Things have changed significantly since that time. It would be very useful and nice for the citizens of Chula Vista, as well as for the Agency's assurance, to have Williams Kuebelbeck update their Feasibility Study. The plan, compared to 18 months ago, was it more or less feasible. Was it going to require greater or lesser subsidy. We urge the Agency let Williams Kuebe1beck update their Feasibility Study. Chairman/Mayor Nader suggested staff discuss the specific items on which it was seeking guidance. ~ -lc, Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 7 Mr. Salomone thought staff could be directed to continue negotiations. The one issue which staff would like direction was with respect to Nature Center funding. MOTION [Fox/Horton] authorize staff to negotiate such an agreement in accordance with Item 2. on page 8-6, of the staff report. Text of Item 2, page 8-6 of the staff report, is typed hereinafter in its entirety. 2. Favorably consider the developer's request to postpone the commencement of Nature Center payments until the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. The proposed $500,000 allllual payments to the Nature Center is a significant expense for the developer and should most appropriately be timed to coincide with the initiation of an income stream from the project. This project requires an enormous amount of predevelopment expendiJures inclnding $1.5 million in Cultural Arts Center Facilities payments, habitat mitigation and public improvements. Adilitional expenses levied before development occurs will make iJ more difficult to get this project started. Member/Council Member Moore said he did not want to give something without receiving something in return. He requested Agency authorize conceptual approval of that particular item. Chairman/Mayor Nader said one area where the City could get something for agreeing to this proviso would be in the area of the structuring of the tax rebates/subsidies. Member/Council Member Rindone thought the motion was out of order. It was his understanding staff was seeking for the Agency to look at the various different points and then authorize further direction to continue the negotiations and receive Agency input on at least those three decision points. The entire package needed to be looked at and reviewed. Certain conditions should or should not be approved in the preliminary document prior to the Agency knowing the whole picture. Member/Council Member Fox understood Member Rindone's concern. There was going to be give and take in the negotiation process. The Agency was not approving the $500,000 being paid at the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. That would be negotiated. To get the whole picture, it sometimes had to be dealt with piecemeal. VOTE ON MOTION: Passed 4-0, with Rindone opposed. Member/Council Member Moore asked if the developer would donate land to make the anticipated Port District acquisition of the Shangri La property into a larger park area. Mr. Salomone said staff suggested the Port District take on the burden of developing the park, thereby relieving the City and the developer of that expense. The developer would donate land (approximately 5 to 6 acres), to make the size of the park the "right" size according to City standards. Member/Council Member Moore noted the developer would reduce his cost by not having to develop that portion as park land. Mr. Salomone replied at the present time the developer does not have to dedicate any land to park land until he has a final Development Agreement. MOTION [Fox/Nader] move for approval of Items 3. and 4., on page 8-6, of staff report. Text ofltems 3. and 4., page 8-6 of the staffreport, are typed hereinafter in their entirety. 3. Require the developers to provide financial statements of the development entity. This is a standard Development Agreement requirement and will provide the Agency with information concemillg the developer's abiliJy to undertake a project of this magnitude. :2 -7 Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 8 4. Allow the developer flexibiliJy in identifying operators of hotels and sports faciliJies subject to concu"ence of the Agency based upon demonstrated experience and financial capability of selected operators. The staff recommends that objective standards for the operators be included within the Development Agreement. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked if the motion was intended to include both sentences in Item 4. Member/Council Member Fox said both sentences. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked what the first sentence meant. Mr. Salomone replied, typically staff would state one of the Top 5 hoteliers had to build the hotels; otherwise, the Agency would not approve the Development Agreement. Over the years that had been a proven criteria for first- class hotels. The developer made a compelling pojnt--there were a great number of first-class resorts which were not built by the Top 5. The developer's resort was tailor-made for a uuique type operator. ChainnaniMayor Nader asked if the fleÚbility staff was seeking was to have an operator that was not on the Top 5 list but nonetheless was comparable and met criteria which essential described the operations of those Top 5. Mr. Salomone replied that was correct, though it was a departure from the standard Development Agreement. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked who would determine, and at what point, whether the proposed operator met those criteria. Mr. Salomone said the Agency would have unfettered discretion. Staff would work with the developer in developing that objective criteria. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked once the standards are developed and in the Development Agreement, does the developer need to come forward with the specific operator before or after rights vest under the Development Agreement. Mr. Salomone said before. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked if the Agency then made the decision whether the operator met the criteria. Mr. Salomone said that was right. VOTE ON MOTION: Passed 5-0. Member/Council Member Fox asked staff to restate the estimate on how long it would take to reach a final Development Agreement. Mr. Salomone replied staff thought 90 days was reasonable for a final Development Agreement. Staff had the draft Development Agreement, but because of a number of blanks it was not included with the staff report. Member/Council Member Fox asked if the Agency was to agree with staff recommendation, Item I, page 8-6 of the staff report, for the three months to complete the Development Agreement, would staff return in the interim with an additional status report on the negotiations pÚor to the end of the 90 day period. His concern was there be no contested negotiating points remailÙng at the end of the 90 days. Mr. Salomone stated staff would be happy to report back to the Agency in 60-days. r:2. -8 Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 9 Member/Council Member Fox preferred not to have just one report due in three months. MOTION [Fox/Nader] accept staff recommendation (Item 1., page 8-6 of staff report) provided the Agency receives a status report within 60 days as well. Text of Item I, page 8-6 of the staff report, is typed hereinafter in its entirety. Staff to continue to refine and complete the Pre-Construction Phasing Plan and Development Agreement and report back to the Council(4l~lý within three months. [?~!;ì! added text] Member/Council Member Rindone asked why a status report of a status report was being requested. Member/Council Member Fox said staff had indicated the goal was to reach conclusion and actually have the Development Agreement within three months. He wanted to know progress was being made so that in three month's time staff was not coming back to the Agency with more contested points. If the goal was to have the Development Agreement within three months, then should any points hinder that goal, then let the Agency know at the end of the 60-day period. Member/Council Member Rindone understood a status report was being requested within 60 days. Member/Council Member Fox added, and hopefully a Development Agreement at the end of three months. VOTE ON MOTION: Passed 5-0. Member/Council Member Rindone, referring tu Item E. Developer Construction Obligations, page 8-3, staff report. It stated The Development Agreement will require the Developer to comply with the Pre-construction Phasing Plan or the Agreement will be subject to termination. It then stated, The Agreement does not require the Developer to construct the public or private improvements on the Bayfront. Why would the Agency do that? Mr. Salomone noted the structure of a Development Agreement was to provide incentives and entitlements and to take those entitlements away should the developer not perform. A certain amount of flexibility had to be inherent iu the Agreement. The City could require this developer to perform but, in many ways, that would inhibit the developer's ability to get financial partners or parcel off sections of the project to other entities. The Development Agreement was not personal to this developer; rather, it was vested with entitlements and financial incentives that shonld the developer not perform the entitlements and finaucial incemives go away. Member/Council Member Rindone expressed concern the City would represent it had gone through the entire process and then did not have a provision that the public entities would even have to be built. Mr. Salomone pointed out the City would do everything it could to enable a project be built. The City did not require a developer to build the project if he did not have the ability to get financing or the ability to build the project. Member/Council Member Rindone asked if Phase I was permitted to go forward, could not the City not place the public ameuities within Phase I. Mr. Salomone said yes the City could and that was part of the Phasing Plan adopted in the Specific Plan of the Local Coastal Plan. Member/Council Member Rindone asked what was in Phase I of the public amenities. Mr. Salomone replied all parks, streets, bridges, almost every public improvement within the project. These were specifically required of this developer hut the City could not enforce that requirement should the developer not have the ability to do the project. d -1 Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 10 Member/Council Member Rindone understood that but asked if the project were to be built it was essential that the public ameuities, including the infrastructure, was built in Phase 1. He asked if he had the assurance that was included. Mr. Salomone said he did as it was included in the Phasing Plan and was included in the Specific Plan of the Local Coastal Plan. Those public ameuities will be built in Phase 1. Member/Council Member Rindone said he did not have a problem with what staff was saying. Was it correct to say that if the developer did not get financing to be able to construct all of what was targeted for the first phase, then construction would not begin. Mr. Salomone replied that was correct. Member/Council Member Rindone stated he did not have a problem with that. Where he had the problem was if construction began, it has been singled out that the public ameuities not be inclnded. He asked for clarification. Mr. Salomone stated the issue was not whether it was public or private ameuities. The City was not requiring development, as it was a requirement that the City could not enforce. The City could not demand--if the developer did not have financing nor the ability--to require the developer to bnild. The City could do everything but that. That was how every Development Agreement was structured. It does not mean the City would relieve the developer of building any of the public improvements or that the City wonld reduce any of the private improvements. Member/Council Member Rindone said he wanted to assure the public ameuities were built in the first phase should the first phase be funded. Mr. Salomone said they would. The Permits are conditioned upon those public improvements. Chainnan/Mayor Nader inquired about the agreement for Cultural Arts Facility funding. Mr. Salomone noted Council directed staff on that issue. The developer would pay $1.5 million up-front and would guarantee up to $7.5 million on a match basis. There would be a guarantee of $7.5 million by this developer. Chainnan/Mayor Nader asked if that was reflected in the Development Agreement. Mr. Salomone stated that was an item which had been resolved. Chainnan/Mayor Nader asked what was contained in Phase I versus future phases. The City does not want to have a situation where the phasing was such that housing could be built and that would be the end of the project. Does staff feel comfortable that was covered and what was the mechanism by which it was covered. Mr. Salomone responded both the Specific Plan and the Local Coastal Plan as well as the Phasing Plan and the Development Agreement required that the core Phase I include all public ameuities and 50 percent of the central business at the same time 25 percent of the residential was being built. No more than 25 percent of the residential could be built until all ameuities were built. Chairman/Mayor Nader stated that was certainly progress. Member/Council Member Rindone asked if the Development Agreement was exclnsive. Should there be a change of developers, was it only with this developer these agreements had been reached. Mr. Salomone stated that was correct. 02 -/0 Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 11 Chairman/Mayor Nader seeked clarification as he had a differeut understanding. Was staff saying if the Development Agreement was ultimately approved that it would be nontransferable. If Mr. Barkett had another developer he wanted to bring in or sell some of IDS interest to, he could not do that. Mr. Salomone pointed out the City had developed some criteria for transferability which would be contained in the Development Agreement. It was a point, that once again, the City retained unfettered discretion to approve the transfer of that property when the Development Agreement was adopted. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Items pulled: none. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 9. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) None. 10. CHAIRMANIMAYOR'S REPORT(S) None. 11. MEMBER/COUNCIL MEMBERS' COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 10:08 P.M. to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on August 2, 1994 at 4:00p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, \;ff~ A.. ~ Berlin D. Bosworth Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency [C:I WP51 IAGENCYIMINUTESIO7-19-94.MIN) e2 -/1 Thís ¡age íntt11tfunaIly lift blank. 02 -/~ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item tJ Meeting Date 8/02/94 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION /1/¡APPROVING LEASE BETWEEN OTAY VISTA ASSOCIATES AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR OFFICE SPACE FOR THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT SUBMITTED BY: Comm,,;ty ""'I",m~œ"" C.'> . REVIEWED BY: City Manage~ I¡;.~ /J (4/Sths Vote: Yes - No XJ Council Referral Number: - BACKGROUND: When plans were developed for processing the Otay Ranch Project, it was agreed that the consultants and staff would occupy offices separate from Public Services because 1) there is no space available in City Hall, and 2) it was thought to be desirable to have the work unit as a separate and discreet unit for the most expeditious and thorough processing of plans for the Otay Ranch project. The lease agreement for the Otay Ranch project's office space in the El Dorado building between the Redevelopment Agency and the City of Chula Vista (as the Otay Ranch Team Tenant) expired in 1992. Since that time, rental of the office space has been on a month- to-month basis. A new, revised lease has been prepared and is attached for the Redevelopment Agency's consideration. RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency approve a resolution approving a lease between Otay Vista Associates for office space for the Otay Ranch project. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Implementation of the general development plan for the Otay Ranch has been ongoing. During 1994-95, the Otay Ranch Team will prepare a Sphere of Influence Study for the City of Chula Vista and will process a Specific Plan for Villages I and 2 for the Otay Ranch project which will necessitate the continued use of office space for the Otay Ranch Team. The proposed lease agreement is basically the same lease as previously used for the Otay Ranch project but with three significant modifications. The team will continue to lease the same general office space in the Agency owned El Dorado building at 315 Fourth Avenue; but, the floor area will be reduced from 2,400 sq. ft. to 1,934 sq. ft. The new lease will be for a I2-month period. The lease rate will be modified from $1.20/ sq. ft. to $1.10/ sq. ft. to reflect current fair market rates. In addition to the lease cost, the tenant also will pay utilities and janitorial services. 1-1 -- - Page 2, Item L Meeting Date 8/02/94 atay Vista Associates is fully responsible for all project costs, including rent for office space. Baldwin has been paying the rent charges since August 1989. They will continue to pay rent plus utilities & janitorial services under the corporate name of atay Vista Associates. FISCAL IMPACT: The Agency will receive $25,529 for the one year lease term. Ic:\wp5l \Buchan\AI13s\Leasel 'I- -.:L COpy lEASE OF SUITE "A" Rht./J-.2J-9'f This "lease" is made this ~day of August, 1994 between the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHLJlA VISTA (Agency), hereinafter sometimes referred to as "landlord", and OTAY VISTA ASSOCIATES, hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Tenant". landlord hereby leases to Tenant and Tenant hereby hires from landlord, subject to the provisions of this lease, those certain premises commonly known as 315 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE "A", CHUlA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Premises", together with the right, in common with others, to the use of all common entranceways, lobbies, ramps, drives, stairs and similar access and serviceways, and common areas in and adjacent to the building of which the Premises are a part. A floor plan showing the location of the Premises, (portions of offices 105, 106, and 107) is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. 1. TERM: The "Term" of this lease shall commence on August -1......., 1994, hereinafter the "commencement date". The Term shall end one minute before midnight twelve months following the commencement date. 2. RENT: The rent for the Premises during the term hereof shall be $1.10 per square foot of floor area twenty-five thousand, five hundred and twenty-nine dollars ($25,529) annually. Said rent shall be payable in monthly installments of Two thousand one-hundred and twenty-seven dollars ($2,127.00). Any payment of rent not received by landlord within ten days after date due will be subject to a charge of 3% per month until received. Rent paid by checks not honored by the bank will not be deemed paid until check is made good, and may be subject to a returned check charge at the rate charged by landlord's bank at option of landlord. Said rent shall be payable on the twenty-fifth day of each month commencing with the month immediately succeeding the Commencement Date. In the event that the term hereof begins or expires on a day other than the first day of a month respectively, the rent for the fraction of the month during which said beginning or expiration occurs shall be prorated on the basis of a 3D-day month. .-r- f ---3 In addition to said rent, Tenant agrees to pay the additional rent as and when hereinafter provided in this lease. Said rent and additional rent are hereinafter sometimes referred to collectively as the"Rent". The rent shall be payable at the address of the landlord set forth herein or at such address as the landlord may from time to time hereafter designate in writing. 3. SERVICES AND UTILITIES: landlord and Tenant respectively shall furnish and pay for services and utilities as set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Utilities and services paid for by landlord shall be furnished to the premises only during reasonable building hours as the same may be determined from time to time by landlord, and while Tenant is not in default under any of the provisions of the lease, and subject to the regulations of the building. landlord shall be the sole judge as to the amount and kind of services and utilities to be provided under the provisions hereof. Any additional services or utilities required by Tenant shall be at its sole expense. Tenant agrees not to connect to or alter any utilities or equipment provided by landlord without the written consent of landlord. If, in the sole judgment of landlord, Tenant wastes or uses an excessive amount of air conditioning, heating, gas, electricity or water, landlord reserves the privilege to charge Tenant for such waste or excess amount of gas, electricity or water, which charge Tenant agrees to pay within 30 days of a receipt therefor. All janitorial service for the leased Premises shall be performed during non- business hours (between 6:00 p.m. and 8:30 a.m.). All persons or firms performing janitorial services must be approved by landlord prior to commencement of work. landlord shall not be liable for any failure to furnish any of such services or utilities when such failure is caused by accidents, strikes, lockouts, other labor troubles or other conditions beyond landlord's reasonable control, and Tenant shall not be entitled to any damages nor shall any such failure relieve Tenant of the obligation to pay the full rent reserved herein or constitute or be construed as a constructive or other eviction of Tenant. 4. USE: Tenant shall use and occupy the Premises for Professional Offices only and shall not use or occupy the Premises in violation of law or of the certificate of occupancy issued for the Building of which the Premises are a part, and shall, upon (5) days written notice from landlord, discontinue any use of the Premises which is declared by an governmental authority having jurisdiction to be a ~ 1-1 violation of law or of said certificate of occupancy. Tenant shall comply with any direction of any governmental authority having jurisdiction which shall, by reason of the nature of Tenant's use or occupancy of the Premises, impose any duty upon Tenant or Landlord with respect to the Premises or with respect to the use or occupation thereof. Tenant shall not do or permit to be done anything which will invalidate or increase the cost of any fire and extended coverage insurance policy covering the building and/or property located therein and shall comply with all rules, orders, regulations and requirements of the Pacific Fire Rating Bureau or any other organization performing a similar function. Tenant shall within 30 days from receipt of a bill therefor reimburse Landlord for any additional premium charged for such policy by reason of Tenant's failure to comply with the provisions of this paragraph. 5. CONDITION OF PREMISES: Tenant acknowledges that neither Landlord nor any agent of Landlord has made any representation or warranty with respect to the Premises or the building or with respect to the suitability of either for the conduct of Tenant's business. The taking of possession of the Premises by Tenant shall conclusively establish that the Premises and said Building were at such time complete and in satisfactory condition (except for latent defects) unless within thirty (30) days after such date Tenant shall give Landlord written notice specifying in reasonable detail the respects in which the Premises or the Building were not complete and in satisfactory condition except for any work to be completed by the Landlord as set forth in this Lease. 6. ALTERATIONS - EQUIPMENT: (a) Tenant shall make no alterations, additions or improvements to the Premises without the prior written consent of Landlord, and Landlord may impose, as a condition of such consent such requirements as Landlord in its sole discretion may deem reasonable or desirable, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, requirements as to the manner in which, the time or times at which, and the contractor by whom such work shall be done. All such alterations, additions or improvements shall become the property of the Landlord, and shall be surrendered with the Premises, as a part thereof, at the end of the term hereof, except that Landlord may, by written notice to Tenant given at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of term, require Tenant to remove any or all partitions, counters, railings and other improvements installed by Tenant, and to repair any damages to the Premises from such removal, all at Tenant's sole expense. (b) All articles of personal property and all business and trade fixtures, ~ 1-5 machinery and equipment, cabinetwork, furniture and moveable partitions owned by Tenant or installed by Tenant at its expense in the Premises shall be and remain the property of Tenant and my be removed by Tenant at any time during the Lease term when Tenant is not in default hereunder. landlord may, by written notice to Tenant upon the termination of this lease require Tenant upon the termination of this Lease require Tenant to remove all of such property and to repair any damage to the Premises or the Building caused by such removal, all at Tenant's sole expense. 7. LIENS: Tenant shall keep the Premises and building, and the property on which the Premises are situated, free from any mechanic's liens arising out of any work performed, materials furnished or obligations incurred by Tenant, and failure by Tenant to immediately reimburse Landlord growing out of any such liens shall be a material breach of this Lease. 8. CARE OF PREMISES: Tenant shall take good care of the Premises and fixtures therein and shall reimburse Landlord for all repairs thereto or to the building which are made necessary as a result of any misuse or neglect by Tenant or by its agents or employees or by its visitors while in the Premises. 9. MAINTENANCE: landlord shall repair and maintain the Premises and the building including the plumbing, air-conditioning and electrical systems, windows, floors (excluding floor covering), parking areas, landscaping, restrooms and other common areas and facilities, and all other items which constitute a part of the Premises and are installed or furnished by Landlord. Landlord shall not be liable for any failure to make any repairs or to perform any maintenance unless such failure shall persist for an unreasonable time after written notice of the need for such repairs or maintenance is given to landlord by Tenant. Except as provided in Article 16 hereof there shall be no abatement of rent and no liability of Landlord by reason arising from the making of any repairs, alterations or improvements in or to any portion of the Building or the Premises or in or to the fixtures, appurtenances and equipment therein that merely causes Tenant some minor inconvenience during the tenancy. 10. ENTRY AND INSPECTION: Tenant will permit Landlord and its agents to enter into and upon the Premises .....r- 1/ - ~ upon reasonable advance notice during normal business hours for the purpose of inspecting the same, or for the purpose of protecting the interest therein of landlord, or to post notices of nonresponsibility, or to make alterations or additions to the Premises or to any other portion of the Building in which the Premises are situated, including the erection of scaffolding, props or other mechanical devices, or for maintaining any service provided by landlord to Tenant hereunder, without any rebate of rent to Tenant or quiet enjoyment of the Premises, or inconvenience thereby occasioned, and will permit landlord, upon reasonable advance notice within thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of this Lease, to bring upon the Premises, for purposes of inspection or display, prospective tenants thereof. 11. HOLD HARMLESS AND NON-LIABILITY OF LANDLORD: Tenant agrees to hold landlord harmless from and to indemnify landlord against any and all claims arising from injury to persons, loss of life or damage to property occurring in or about the Premises and from and against any and all costs, expenses and liabilities incurred by landlord in or in connections with any such claim or any proceeding based thereon, to the extent such injury, loss of life or damage arises out of the willful act or negligence of Tenant, or its officers, employees, servants, agents, contractors, invitees or licensees. Tenant agrees at all times during the term of this Lease to keep in full force a liability insurance policy satisfactory to landlord with single limit liability of not less than Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,OOO) and naming landlord as an "also insured." Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant for any damage to the Premises or for any loss, damage or injury to any property of Tenant therein or thereon except as specifically herein provided. Landlord hereby waives the requirement for insurance, understanding that Tenant is a self-insured public entity. 12. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION: Each party hereby waives its right of recovery against the other for any losses insured against under the standard form of fire insurance policy with extended coverage endorsement approved for use in California by the Pacific Fire Rating Bureau or its successor, provided this is permitted by its insurance policies, or by endorsement thereon which such waiving party may obtain at no cost and without invalidation of the policies. 13. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING: (a) Tenant shall not, either voluntarily or by operation of law, assign, encumber, pledge or otherwise transfer all or any part of Tenant's leasehold estate hereunder, or permit the Premises to be occupied by ~ ~-7 anyone other than Tenant or Tenant's employees, or sublet the Premises or any portion thereof without Landlord's prior written consent in each instance. Any collection or acceptance of rent by Landlord from any person other than Tenant shall not be deemed a waiver of any provision of this Article, nor shall any such acceptance of rent on behalf of Tenant be construed as Landlord's consent to any assignment or subletting. (b) No consent by landlord to any assignment or subletting by Tenant shall relieve Tenant of any obligation to be performed by the Tenant under this Lease, whether occurring before or after such consent, assignment or subletting. The consent by landlord to any assignment or subletting shall not relieve the Tenant from the obligation to obtain Landlord's express written consent to any other assignment or subletting. Any assignment or subletting which is not in compliance with this Article shall be void. 14. TRANSFER OF LANDLORD'S INTEREST: In the event of any transfer or transfers of Landlord's interest in the Premises or in the real property of which the Premises are a part, other than a transfer for security purposes only, the transferor shall be automatically relieved of any and all obligation and liabilities on the part of landlord accruing from and after the date of such transfer, provided such obligations and liabilities are assumed in writing by the transferee. 15. DAMAGE-DESTRUCTION: Except as provided in Article 8, if the Premises or the Building of which they are a part are damaged by fire or other casualty of the type insured against under the standard form of fire insurance policy with extended coverage endorsement, the damage shall be repaired by and at the expense of Landlord, provided such repairs can, in landlord's opinion, be made within ninety (90) days after the commencement of repairs without the payment of overtime and other premiums, and until such repairs are completed the rent shall be abated in proportion to the part of the Premises which is unusable by Tenant in the conduct of its business (but there shall be no abatement of rent by reason of any portion of the Premises be unusable for a period equal to one day or less). If the damage is due to the fault or neglect of Tenant or its employees, or agents, there shall be no abatement of rent. If Tenant can reasonably continue to occupy and use the Premises in its course of business, then Tenant shall continue to pay rent. landlord shall be given 90 days from the occurrence of the damage to make repairs. If such repairs are not completed within the 90-day period, Landlord, shall begin abating Tenant's ~ 1-1 rent until such repairs are completed or if landlord elects not to abate Tenant's rent, Tenant shall have the right to terminate the remaining portion of the Lease. Landlord's election to make such repair must be evidenced by written notice to Tenant advising Tenant within thirty (30) days after the occurrence of the damage whether or not Landlord will make such repairs. With respect to any damage which Landlord is obligated to repair or elects to repair, Tenant waives the provisions of Sections 1932 (2) and 1933 (4) of the California Civil Code. If landlord does not elect to make such repairs, then either party may, by written notice to the other, cancel this Lease as of the date of the occurrence of such damage. A total destruction of the Building and/or the Premises shall automatically terminate this Lease. 16. DEFAULTS: The occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a material default and breach of this Lease: (a) The vacation or abandonment of the Premises by Tenant for more than (10) consecutive days. (b) A failure by Tenant to pay the rent, or to make any other payment required to be made by Tenant hereunder, where such failure continues for ten. (10) days after written notice thereof by Landlord to Tenant. (c) A failure by Tenant to observe or perform any other provision of this Lease to be observed or performed by Tenant, where such failure continues for thirty (30) days after written notice thereof by Landlord to Tenant; provided however, that if the nature of such default is such that the same cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty-day period, Tenant shall not be deemed to be in default if Tenant shall within such period commence such cure and thereafter diligently prosecute the same to completion. (d) The making by Tenant of any general assignment for the benefit of creditors; the filing by or against Tenant of a petition to have Tenant adjudged a bankrupt or if a petition for reorganization or arrangement under any law relating to bankruptcy (unless, in the case of a petition filed against Tenant, the same is dismissed within sixty (60) days); the appointment of a trustee or receiver to take possession of substantially ..q--- 1-? all of Tenant's assets located at the Premises or of Tenant's interest in this Lease, where such seizure is not discharged within thirty (30) days. Landlord shall not be deemed to be in default in the performance of any obligation required to be performed by it hereunder unless and until it has failed to perform such obligation within thirty (30) days after written notice by Tenant to Landlord specifying wherein Landlord has failed to perform such obligation; provided, however that in the nature of Landlord's obligation is such that more than thirty (30) days are required for its performance then Landlord shall not be deemed to be in default if it shall commence such performance within such thirty-day period and thereafter diligently prosecute the same to completion. 17. REMEDIES: In the event of any such material default or breach by Tenant, Landlord may at any time thereafter, at Landlord's option and without limiting the Landlord in the exercise of any other right or remedy which Landlord may have by reason of such default or breach, with notice. (a) Retain and exercise any right or remedy permitted by law for such material default or breach of Lease by Tenant including all expenses, commissions and charges, including reasonable attorney's fees, which Landlord may have paid or incurred in connection with such action. (b) Give written notice to Tenant of Landlord's election to terminate this Lease, re-enter the Premises with or without process of law and take possession of the same and of all equipment and fixtures herein, and expel or remove Tenant and all other parties occupying the Premises, using such force as may be reasonably necessary to do so, without being liable to any prosecution for such re-entry or for the use of such force. In such event, Landlord shall thereupon be entitled to recover from Tenant the worth, at the time of such termination, of the excess, if any, of the rent and other charges required to be paid by Tenant hereunder for the balance of the term hereof (if this Lease had not been so terminated) over the then reasonable rental value of the Premises for the same period. 18. REMOVAL OF PROPERTY: Whenever Landlord shall re-enter the Premises as provided herein, Landlord may remove any property of Tenant from the Premises and store same elsewhere for the account, and at the expense and risk of Tenant, and if Tenant shall fail to pay the cost of storing any such property after it has been stored for a period ~ 7' -/¿) of ninety (90) days or more, landlord may sell any or all of such property at public or private sale, in such manner and at such times and places as landlord, in its sole discretion, may deem proper, without notice to or demand upon Tenant, for the payment of any part of such charges or the removal of any such proPlty, and shall apply the proceeds of such sale; first, to the cost and expe se of such sale, including reasonable attorneys fees actually incurred; second, to the payment of the cost of or charges for storing any such property; their, to the payment of any other sums of money which may then or thereafter be due to landlord from Tenant under any of the terms hereof; and further, the balance, if any, to Tenant. 19. WAIVER OF DAMAGES FOR RE-ENTRY: Tenant hereby waives all claims for damages that may be caused by landlord's re-entering and taking possession of the Premises or removing and storing the property of Tenant as herein provided, and will save landlord harmless from loss, costs or damages occasioned landlord thereby, and no such reentry shall be considered or construed to be a forcible entry. 20. COST OF SUITS: (a) If Tenant or landlord shall bring any action for any relief against the other, declaratory or otherwise, arising out of this lease, including any suit by landlord for the recovery of rent or possession of the Premises, the losing party shall pay the successful party a reasonable sum for attorneys fees in such suit and such attorneys fees shall be deemed to have accrued on the commencement of such action and shall be paid whether or not such action is processed to judgment. (b) Should landlord, without fault on landlord's part, be made a party to any litigation instituted by Tenant or by any third party against Tenant, or by or against any person holding under or using the Premises by license of Tenant, or for the foreclosure of a lien for labor or material furnished to or for Tenant or any such other person or otherwise arising out of or resulting from any act or transaction of Tenant or of any such other person, Tenant covenants to save and hold landlord harmless from any judgment rendered against landlord or the Premises or any part thereof, and all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred by landlord in or in connection with such litigation. 21. WAIVER OF BREACH: The waiver by landlord of any breach of any term, covenant or condition herein contained shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant or ~ 7' -II condition of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition herein contained. The subsequent acceptance of rent hereunder by Landlord shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by Tenant of any term, covenant or condition of this Lease, other than the failure of Ttnant to pay the particular rental so accepted, regardless of Landlord's kno ledge of such preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such rent. 22. SUBORDINATION: Tenant agrees that upon written request of Landlord, this Lease shall be subject and subordinate to any mortgage, trust deed or like encumbrance hereafter, placed by Landlord or its successors in interest upon its interest in said Premises to secure the payment of moneys loaned, interest thereon, and other obligations. Tenant agrees to execute and deliver, within ten (10) days of demand of Landlord any and all instruments desired by Landlord subordinating in the manner requested by Landlord this Lease to such mortgage, trust deed or like encumbrance. 23. RULES AND REGULATIONS: Such reasonable and non-discrimatory rules including but not limited to those set forth in Article 34 herein and other reasonable regulations as may be hereafter adopted and published by written notice to Tenant by Landlord for the safety, care and cleanliness of the Premises or the Building and the preservation of good order therein, as expressly made a part hereof, and Tenant agrees to comply with them, Landlord's remedies for any failure by Tenant to comply with them, Landlord's remedies for any failure by Tenant to comply with such a rule or regulation shall not include termination of this Lease. Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant for any violation of such rules and regulations by any other Tenant. 24 DEFINED TERMS: The words "Landlord" and "Tenant", as used herein, shall include the plural as well as the singular. Words used in neuter gender include the masculine and feminine and words in the masculine or feminine gender include the neuter. If there be more than one Landlord or Tenant, the obligations hereunder imposed upon Landlord or Tenant shall be joint and several. The marginal headings or titles to the articles of this Lease are not a part of this Lease and shall have no effect upon the construction or interpretation of any part thereof. -W- tf- /:(., 25. ALTERATIONS, ADDITIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS BY TENANT: (a) TENANT IMPROVEMENTS: If any alterations, additions or improvements are to be installed by Tenant or its contractors, such work shall be done in compliance with the following: (1). No such work shall proceed without Landlord's prior written approval of (j) Tenant's contractor, (ij) Certificate of Insurance from an approved company, furnished to Landlord by Tenant's contractor, in an amount acceptable to Landlord for public liability and automobile liability, endorsE¡!d to show Landlord as an additional insured, and (iii) detailed plans and specifications for such work. (2). All such work shall be done in conformity with a valid building permit when required, a copy of which shall be furnished to Landlord before the work is commenced, and any work not acceptable to the Chula Vista Department of Building and Housing, or not reasonably satisfactory to Landlord, shall be promptly replaced at Tenant's expense. Notwithstanding any failure by Landlord to object to any such work, Landlord shall have no responsibility therefor. (3). All work by Tenant or its contractors shall be scheduled through Landlord. (4). Tenant shall reimburse Landlord for any extra expense incurred by Landlord by reason of faulty work done by Tenant or its contractors, or by reason of inadequate cleanup. (5). Tenant or its contractors will in no event be allowed to install plumbing, mechanical, electrical wiring or fixtures, acoustical or integrated ceilings, or partitions over 5' - 10" in height, unless approved by Landlord. (6). All data processing and other special electrical equipment shall be installed only with prior written approval of and under the supervision of Landlord or its electrical contractor. (7). Landlord hereby approves installation by Tenant of moveable office partitions not less than 5 feet 10 inches nor greater than approximately 7 feet in height. 26. PARKING AND COMMON AREAS: Landlord grants to Tenant during the term hereof the right of non-exclusive use, --H::-' J./- - J.!3 in common with other tenants of the building, of all automobile parking areas provided for the Building for the accommodation and parking of passenger automobiles of the Tenant, its officers, agents, employees and customers. Landlord's designation of any specific tenant parking spaces, including those of Tenant, shall be in consultation with, and subject to the approval of, Tenant. Tenant and its subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, employees, agents, customers and invitees shall have the non-exclusive right, in common with Landlord and all others to whom Landlord has granted or may hereafter grant rights, to use the common areas as designated from time to time by Landlord subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as Landlord may from time to time impose, including the designation of specific areas in which cars owned by Tenant, its subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, employees and agents must be parked and including the right to assign specific parking spaces to various Tenants. Tenant agrees after notice thereof to abide by such rules and regulations and to use its best efforts to cause its subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, employees, agents, customers and invitees to conform thereto. Landlord may upon reasonable prior notice close temporarily common area to make repairs or changes therein or to effect construction, repairs, or changes upon the site where the Building is located to prevent the acquisition of public rights in such areas, or to discourage noncustomer parking, and may do such other acts in and to the common areas as in its judgement may be desirable to improve the convenience thereof. Tenant shall upon request promptly furnish to Landlord the 'license numbers of the cars operated by Tenant and its subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, and employees. Tenant shall not at any time interfere with the rights of Landlord and other occupants of the Building their subtenants, licensees, concessionaires, officers, employees, agents, customers, contractors and invitees to use any part of the parking areas and other common areas. Tenant, its subtenants and concessionaires shall not solicit business or display merchandise within any of the common areas or distribute handbills or other advertising material therein. Landlord reserves the right to have any vehicle impounded at the expense of the owner if said owner is parked in violation of any rule regulating said parking. 27. MERGER: The voluntary or other surrender of this Lease by Tenant, or a mutual cancellation thereof, shall not work a merger, and shall, at the option of the Landlord, terminate all or any existing subleases or subtenancies, or may, the option of Landlord operate as an assignment to it of any or all such subleases --t2-" 4- /1 or subtenancies. No provision of this Lease shall be construed insuch a manner as to make the Landlord a partner of Tenant, it being expressly agreed that the relationship between the parties is and shall remain at all times that of Tenant and Landlord. 28. HEIRS AND ASSIGNS: Subject to the provisions hereof relating to assignment, mortgaging, pledging and subletting, this Lease is intended to and does bind the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of any and all of the parties hereto. 29. TIME OF ESSENCE: Time is of the essence of this Lease. 30. SURRENDER: The Tenant at the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, and subject to provisions hereof, will surrender and deliver up said Premises to the Landlord, or those having the Landlord's estate therein, in the same condition as the Tenant now receives the Premises, ordinary wear and tear and damage by fire and the elements alone excepted. 31. INVALIDITY OF PARTICULAR PROVISIONS: If any term or provision of this Lease shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable. the remainder of this Lease shall not be affected thereby, and each term and provision of this Lease shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extend permitted by law. 32. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This instrument along with any exhibits and attachments hereto constitutes the entire agreement between Landlord and Tenant relative to the Premises herein described, and this agreement and the exhibits and attachments may be altered, amended or revoked only by an instrument in writing signed by both Landlord and Tenant. Landlord and Tenant agree hereby that all prior or contemporaneous oral agreements relative to the leasing of the Premises are merged in or revoked by this agreement. 33. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE: Tenant shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to Landlord at any time within ten (10) days after request by Landlord, a statement in writing certifying, if ~ 4- - ;.5 such be the case, that this Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect (or if there have been modifications that the same is in full force and effect as modified), the date of commencement of this Lease, the dates to which rent has been paid, and such other information as Landlord shall reasonably request. It is acknowledged by Tenant that any such statement is intended to be delivered by Landlord and relied upon by prospective purchasers, mortgagees, beneficiaries under deeds of trust or assignees thereof. 34. RULES AND REGULATIONS: Tenant agrees in the exercise of the rights granted Tenant by the terms hereof that: (a) No sign, placard, picture, advertisement, name or notice shall be inscribed, displayed, printed or affixed on or to any part of the outside or inside of the Building without the written consent of Landlord, first had and obtained, and Landlord shall have the right to remove any such objectionable sign, placard, picture, advertisement, name or notice, without notice to and at the expense of Tenant. (b) The bulletin board or directory of the Building will be provided exclusively for the display of the name and location of Tenant only; and Landlord reserves the right to exclude any other names therefrom, and also make a reasonable charge for each and every name, in addition to the name of Tenant, placed by it upon such bulletin board or directory. (c) When wiring of any kind is introduced, it must be connected as directed by Landlord and no boring or cutting for wires or exposed wiring will be allowed except with the prior written consent of Landlord. The location of telephones, call boxes, and other office equipment affixed to the Premises shall be prescribed by Landlord. Any installation in violation of this paragraph may be removed by Landlord at Tenant's expense. (d) Tenant shall not allow anything to be placed against or near the windows, in the doorways or in the halls, corridors, walkways or balconies. The exterior doors of the Premises shall be kept closed at all times, except when in actual use for ingress and egress. (e) The entries, passages and stairways shall not be obstructed by Tenant, or used for any other purpose than ingress or egress to and from their respective offices. Tenant shall not bring into or keep within the Building any animal or vehicle without the prior written consent of Landlord. (f) Tenant shall see that the doors of the Premises are closed and securely -M- 4-/t> -. .. locked before leaving the Building and shall exercise extraordinary care and caution that all water faucets or water apparatus are entirely shut off before Tenant or Tenant's employees leave the Building, and for any default or carelessness Tenant shall make good all injuries sustained by other Tenants or occupants of the Building or by landlord. (g) No furniture, freight or equipment of any kind shall be brought into or removed from the Building without the knowledge of landlord or its agent; and all moving of same, into or out of Building, by tenants or their agents, shall be done at such times and in such manner as landlord shall designate. landlord shall have the right to prescribe the weight, size and position of all safes and other heavy property brought into the Building, and also the times and manner of moving the same in and out of the Building. landlord will not be responsible for loss of or damage to any such safe or property from any cause; but all damage done to the Building by moving or maintaining any such safe or property shall be repaired at the expense of Tenant. (h) landlord reserves the right to exclude or expel from the Building any person who, in its sole judgement, shall in any manner do any act in violation of any of the rules and regulations of the Building. (i) The requirements of Tenant will be attended to only upon application at the office of the Building. Employees of landlord shall not perform any work or do anything outside of their regular duties unless under special instructions from the office, and no employee will admit any person (Tenant or otherwise) to any office without specific instructions from the office of the Building. (j) Rooms used in common by Tenants shall be subject to such regulations as are posted therein. (k) landlord reserves the right to install security gates or doors and to close and keep locked all said doors of the Building during such hours as landlord may deem to be advisable for the adequate protection of the Building. All Tenants, their employees, or other persons entering or leaving the Building at any time when it is so locked may be required to sign the Building register when so doing, and the watchman in charge may refuse to admit to the Building while it is so locked, Tenant or any of Tenant's employees, or any other person, without a pass previously arranged. landlord assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable for any damage resulting from any error in regard to any such pass or from the admission of an unauthorized person to the Building. 45-- ~-:l7 (I) No awnings, window shades or draperies will be installed or permitted to be installed by Tenant without prior written consent of Landlord. (m) All approved signs or lettering on doors or windows shall be printed, painted, affixed or inscribed at the expense of Tenant by a person approved by Landlord. (n) Tenant shall not place or allow anything to be placed near the glass of any window, door, partition or wall which may appear unsightly from outside the Premises. (0) The toilet rooms, urinals, wash bowls and other apparatus shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which they were constructed and no foreign substance of any kind whatsoever shall be thrown therein and the expense of any breakage, stoppage or damage resulting from the violation of this rule shall be borne by the Tenant who, or whose employees or invitees shall have caused it. (p) Tenant shall not overload the floor of the Premises or mark, drive nails, screw or drill into the partitions, woodwork or plaster or in any way deface the Premises or any part thereof. (q) Tenant shall not store or keep in the Premises or the Building any inflammable or combustible fluid or material, or use any method of hearing or air conditioning other than that supplied by Landlord. (r) No vending machine or machines of any description shall be installed, maintained, or operated upon the Premises without the written consent of the Landlord. (s) Tenant shall not create nor permit any excessive noise or other nuisance detrimental to the other occupants of the Building or the surrounding area. (t) Tenant shall not disturb, solicit, or canvas any occupant of the Building and shall cooperate to prevent soliciting or canvassing by others. 35. NOTICES: Any notice, demand, or communication under or in connection with this Lease may be served upon Landlord by personal service, or by mailing the same by registered mail in the United States Post Office, postage prepaid, and directed to Landlord at 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite E, Chula Vista, CA 91910, and likewise may be served on Tenant by personal service or by mailing the same ~ 4-lf by registered mail in the United States Post Office, postage paid, and directed to Tenant; Otay Vista Associates, at 11975 EI Camino Real #200, San Diego, CA 92130, or at such other place or places as either party may from time to time designate in writing. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE OTAY VISTA ASSOCIATES CITY OF CHULA VISTA (LANDLORD) (TENANT) By: BY~ Tim Nader Kim Kilke Chairman Vice President Approved as to form by: Bruce M. Boogaard Agency Counsel --H- 1-/9 -"- .. This yage íntentíonaIIy left blank. 1-')IJ I "-' I EXHIBIT "a" 30' / -/ --- /. I , -. ~ " : r I' , ~ i q i ~~ ~ ~¡ ~~ ~ <:> ! Q.n , I' '; ~ ~~ , ' ~.~ " - ~ - /-~- ~ ~ -- ~~ - ~~3\¡ ~ ~ ~ ~o- .:5~- \)1. \]\ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~. - -. ..;'°- r~ ~ ~~ , ~ ~ ~ -~ / I ~ ~. ~~, /-~-.// I~. . '~', -: ' j ""'" I -¡ ~!.)' i) , I" I ~~ I'~ ' .Þ : ",' i 't , j~ ' ." "'" I 'j' ~~ = ~ , II. '(- ":-c::l ( " ....., /I . I I ~ '-> ,.-' ~~--õ-, 1: I : I ,-(.:,... t . ,> I ! -'--L-- - -- --~ +- ---'~- - . iI i ~~ Q:t\ -'" ~ ~~ ~ I f, 'to I ---->- 20:"-'____/_2-0' -/-------- - -_..2q-----~ /70' ----'-'__h______r- / 4- -:LJ Thís ¡age íntentíonilly lift blank. 1--.1-6 ~ ~ ~ . i . , EXHIBIT B ~';. ~ EXHIBIT "B" - UTILITIES AND SERVICES: -: LANDLORD (L) and TENANT (T) agree that each shall furnish and pay for services as indicated below before delinquency: ELECTRICITY.........--.-..-..-..........--...............-.-.-..-..( T ) *AIR CONDITIONING & HEATING ~~INTENANCE........................._..( L ) WATER.............-...--..-..............................---....-..( L ) RUBBISH R~ OVAL (from common receptical).....................,.....( L ) TELEPHONE...........................................................( T ) JANITOR SERVICE..........................................._........( T ) : WINDOW CLEANING (externaI),...................................._...( L ) IHNDOI~ CLEANING (interior)_.................._.....................( T ). CO~WON AND PARKING AREAS CLEANING........................._...._...( L ) Cm!.\ION AND PARKING AREAS LIGHTING.................................. ( L ) LANDSCAPING AND GARDENING....................._.................-..( L ) * Tenant shall use air conditioning, electrical fixtures and any other Landlord furnished services only during normal working hours and/or in normal use. Landlord shall pay for all expenses related to maintenance of ¡¡ir conditioning units which is considered the result of "normal wear and tear" - Tenant shall pay for any expenses caused by other than normal use, negligent use or wilfull misconduct: 1-).3 ...-. Thís 'page ínttntíonaIly lift blank. 4-:2-'1- RESOLUTION /114 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING LEASE BETWEEN OTAY VISTA ASSOCIATES AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR OFFICE SPACE FOR THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista owns the EI Dorado Building located at 315 Fourth Avenue; and, WHEREAS, Otay Vista Associates desires to lease 1,934 sq. f1. of office space at 315 Fourth Avenue to house the Otay Ranch project team. NOW THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby resolve as follows: the Redevelopment Agency authorizes the Chairperson to enter into the twelve-month lease (on file in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and known as Document RACO-21-94) with Otay Vista Associates for the use of 1,934 sq. f1. of office space at 315 Fourth Avenue. PRESENTED BY: ~~~ Chris Salomone, Executive Secretary and Community Development Director [c:lwp51IBuchanIResosILease] 1--.25 Thís rage íntenäonaIly lift blank. .L)-~~ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item ----L... Meeting Date 08-02-94 ITEM TITLE: Report Relocation of Agustin Reyes (Mi Cabana) from Palomar Trolley Center Site SUBMITTED BY: Community Development D~ REVIEWED BY: Executive Director~ '(5 ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes - No L) BACKGROUND: At the Agency meeting of July 27, 1993 (minutes attached as Attachment 1), the Agency adopted a Resolution of Necessity exercising eminent domain on the property leased by Mr. Reyes for his business, the La Mision/Mi Cabana night club (603 Broadway; see map, Attachment 2). At that time, the Agency allowed Mr. Reyes a period of twelve months to relocate his business and vacate the property, based on the Palomar Trolley Center developer's indication that the property would not be needed for development for approximately twelve months. On July 12, 1994, Mr Reyes appeared before the City Council under Oral Communication to indicate that his tenancy was being ended on July 27, 1994, that he had been unable to relocate, and that if he had to leave on July 27, he would be put out of business. He asked the Council for a further extension (minutes attached as Attachment 3). Council deferred the issue to the Agency meeting of July 19, at which the Agency took the action of extending Mr. Reyes tenancy to August 3, 1994. The Agency directed staff to return to this Agency meeting of August 2 with a report that included information about Mr. Reyes need for additional time and the developer's need to have access to the property, so that the Agency could consider Mr. Reyes request for additional time to relocate. Staff was requested to meet with Mr. Reyes and the developer, to provide conditions for any additional extension, and to provide minutes of the original extension action on July 27, 1993. RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency take no action to extend the tenancy of Agustin Reyes at 603 Palomar beyond August 3, 1994. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable DISCUSSION: In analyzing the suitability of further extending the tenancy of Agustin Reyes at the Agency-owned property at 603 Palomar Street, this report discusses the following issues: 8 Eligibility of Mr. Reyes to relocation benefits 8 History of tenancy and relocation efforts of Mr. Reyes 8 Viability of Mr. Reyes's identified relocation site and escrow 5-1 Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date 08-02-94 . Developer's need to have access to 603 Broadway at this time 8 Recommendation 8 Process 8 Recommendation if tenancy extended Eligibility to Relocation Benefits: As a tenant on property acquired by the Redevelopment Agency, Mr. Reyes is potentially entitled to certain relocation benefits, as follows: 1. He is entitled to technical assistance in finding a suitable relocation site, meaning that the Agency must attempt to refer him to comparable replacement sites, but not that the Agency is required to do all the work or successfully relocate him. 2. If he is unable to take certain fixtures, furniture, and equipment (FF&E) from the existing site, he is eligible to receive some compensation for those items. It appears likely that there will be some dispute between Mr. Reyes, the lessee, and Japanese- American Citizens League (JACL) , the lessor, over the ownership of some of the fixtures; as a result, no definitive calculation has been made regarding allocation of the FF&E value between Mr. Reyes and JACL. 3. He is entitled to the actual and reasonable Cost of physical relocation. 4. He is entitled to a Loss of Goodwill payment which represents compensation for lost business goodwill due to the relocation of his business. Mr. Reyes will have the burden of proof that an unavoidable loss actually occurs after he has relocated. This potential payment is not accurately calculable until he has relocated and operated the business at the new location, although estimates are being prepared by a goodwill appraiser for purposes of possible settlement. 5. A lessee can sometimes be eligible to some of the compensation for the taking of the property if it determined that the lessee has real estate value due to the lease. Although the issue is between JACL and Mr. Reyes, the Agency's special counsel for eminent domain feels comfortable that Mr. Reyes's previous lease with JACL has a strong condemnation clause in favor of JACL which disallows any leasehold bonus value to Mr. Reyes. History of Tenancy and Relocation Efforts: Mr. Reyes has occupied 603 Palomar Street and operated Mi Cabana since 1990. When the Agency adopted the Resolution of Necessity on the property on July 27, 1993, the Agency provided Mr. Reyes with an extra twelve months of tenancy to assist him in successfully relocating. He was offered a lease with the Agency to cover that additional period which was comparable in financial terms to the lease he had with JACL. The lease also had protective provisions that assured the Agency that Mr. Reyes would 5-2 Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date 08-02-94 not contaminate the property, that he would not seek additional relocation compensation from the Agency, as a result of the new lease, beyond the relocation compensation to which he was already entitled, that he would be responsible for paying possessory interest taxes, and that he would not "hold over" after the term of the lease. To date, Mr. Reyes has refused to sign the lease. He indicates that he does not want to sign the lease because it would subject him a thirty-day notice to vacate at any time. In fact, Mr. Reyes is currently a month-to-month tenant without the offered lease. His previous lease with JACL no longer exists. Mr. Reyes has had the benefit of legal advice on the lease and his tenancy status, as the lease has been offered to Mr. Reyes through his attorney. Mr. Reyes has been paying his monthly rent to the Agency through the Agency's special counsel, although the initial months's rental payments after Agency acquisition were made to JACL, which will be recovered by the Agency through the final determination of value in the pending valuation litigation between the Agency and JACL. The Mi Cabana business is somewhat difficult to relocate, given the nature of the business and the volume of business. The business is a night club/dance hall that serves liquor and draws large crowds, and the hours of operation are approximately 9:00 PM to 2:00 AM. Significant noise is generated. A liquor license is required. At the current location, parking is inadequate. The current facility is approximately 4500 square feet. The type of business operation is allowed by right in the CB, CC, and CT zones, and through conditional use permit in the CV zone. Obviously, it would be important to locate the business away from residential uses. Mr. Reyes is looking for a replacement site of 4500-5000 square feet in a commercial district on a street with high traffic volume. The building needs to have or be modified to have few interior partitions. He wishes to buy. Mr. Reyes has been assisted with relocation efforts by Jim Moxham, and by the Agency's relocation consultant, Pacific Relocation Consultants (PRe). Mr. Moxham indicates that he made Mr. Reyes aware of a number of possible relocation options, but that Mr. Reyes was generally unresponsive. He indicates that it generally took five or six phone calls per day to reach Mr. Reyes. Mr. Moxham, who is a commercial real estate broker, did submit a purchase offer for Mr. Reyes on a property at 626 "E" Street, but that complications with Mr. Reyes good faith deposit and Mr. Reyes decision to renegotiate the purchase contract caused the owner to reject the offer. Additionally, Mr. Reyes indicates that the property was not large enough, that it would have been necessary to add approximately 1000 square feet to the building, and that there was inadequate parking available to support that addition. Mr. Reyes was also involved in negotiations on a property on Bonita Road (the old North Island Federal Credit Union building); apparently, that site ultimately proved to be too small, with inadequate parking for expansion, and it was too expensive. Pacific Relocation Consultants has assisted Mr. Reyes with understanding his relocation benefits and with the identification of relocation sites. A list of sites provided to Mr. Reyes by PRC is 5-3 Page 4, Item ~ Meeting Date 08-02-94 pending and will be provided to the Agency at the meeting. PRC also indicates that it has been very difficult to get in touch with Mr. Reyes to discuss possible relocations with him. Staff has had periodic discussions with Mr. Reyes regarding his tenancy and his relocation. Regarding certain sites Mr. Reyes has been looking at recently that were smaller than he desired, staff arranged to meet with Mr. Reyes and Planning Department staff to explore answers to the inadequate parking issues. Staff has not undertaken to direct Mr. Reyes to specific relocation sites, depending instead on the professional consultants under contract for that purpose and on Mr. Moxham. Although staff wishes that a successful relocation site could have been quickly identified for Mr. Reyes, or that Mr. Reyes would have secured a site to which staff could have assisted his relocation, it is felt that an appropriate effort has been made under difficult circumstances (limited viable locations for the specific business and limited availability of Mr. Reyes). The Agency's special counsel for eminent domain is comfortable that the Agency's actions to relocate Mr. Reyes have been legally adequate. Viability of Relocation Site and Escrow: No details are available to date regarding the escrow Mr. Reyes indicated he was about to enter into on the property at 975 Broadway (old Chef Frank restaurant). The Agency's special counsel has requested information through Mr. Reyes attorney, but no information has been obtained to date. Staff hopes to provide information to the Agency by the meeting date. It is staff's desire to have enough information to provide the Agency with an assessment of the viability of that escrow. There is some ambiguity about the viability of the site itself. Prior to the July 19, 1994, meeting, Mr. Reyes indicated to staff that the restaurant on the site was too small (approximately 3400 square feet) and that he would only take the site if he could expand to approximately 5000 square feet. However, it was established in consultation with Mr. Reyes and the Planning Department that there was not adequate parking on site for such an expansion and that a variance on parking was unlikely. At that time, it was indicated to Mr. Reyes that it might be acceptable for him to obtain parking easements nearby for the required additional parking. Mr. Reyes indicated to staff at the July 19 meeting that he was unable to discover any interest on the part of nearby property owners to grant parking easements. Although Mr. Reyes did indicate to staff at the July 19 meeting that he fully intended to complete the acquisition of the subject property, there still seems to be some confusion about whether Mr. Reyes considers it acceptable without expansion. As of the July 28 contact with Mr. Reyes, he indicated that he had signed all escrow papers and submitted them, but that escrow had not been opened. At the time, he indicated to staff that he is seeing several other viable properties coming on the market that he is interested Ill. Developer's Need for 603 Broadway: The developer is strongly opposed to the any extension of the tenancy of Mr. Reyes and feels that the Agency made a commitment to removing the Mi Cabana use from the property by July 27, 1994. The developer identifies the following implications of leaving Mr. Reyes in place for a further period of time: 5-4 Page 5, Item ~ Meeting Date 08-02-94 8 It would add about $25,000.00 to project costs based on the following: The subject site is lower that the graded Palomar Trolley Center Phase I site, and excess dirt from Phase I needs to be placed on the subject site to grade it and elevate it to the same level as Phase I and as the property to the west at the corner of Palomar Street and Broadway. The dirt from Phase 1 must be moved now to allow the opening of the center in September. If it has to be hauled off- site, stored, and returned to the Mi Cabana site at a later date, it will cost approximately $22,500.00. Additionally, the street improvements in front of Mi Cabana need to be made as part of the existing improvement contract prior to the opening of the center. The plans call for no curb breaks in front of Mi Cabana. If Mr. Reyes is left in place, the improvements will have to be made with a driveway break for parking access to Mi Cabana, and that driveway break will have to be replaced at a later date, at an estimated cost of $2,500.00. The developer expects the Agency to pay these additional project costs. 8 Leaving the Mi Cabana site at its current elevation and grading configuration leaves it in jeopardy of flooding from the higher ground on either side. Leaving Mr. Reyes in place into the upcoming rainy season would be risky. If the property floods, it could create liabilities for the developer, the Agency, and the City. 8 When the developer executed leases with the major tenants (Ralph's, Office Depot, and Ross), the tenants were promised that Mi Cabana would be removed prior to the September opening. It is perceived by the tenants and the developer as an eyesore and as blocking views of the center form Broadway. the developer feels that he made a strong commitment to the tenants. Staff agrees with the developer that these are legitimate implications of leaving Mr. Reyes in place any longer and that they unfortunately argue strongly for not extending Mr. Reyes's tenancy. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Agency not further extend Mr, Reyes tenancy for the following reasons: 8 Mr. Reyes has received an exceptional period of time to relocate, much longer than afforded to the other displacees on the project 8 Mr. Reyes has not demonstrated to date a strong effort to help himself relocate 8 Mr. Reyes has refused to date to sign a reasonable lease with the Agency. 8 Leaving Mr. Reyes in place longer would cost the project developer an estimated $25,000.00, which the developer feels the Agency should be responsible to pay. 5-5 ~.~- - Page 6, Item ~ Meeting Date 08-02-94 8 Leaving Mr. Reyes in place creates the risk of his business being flooded and the Agency and the developer being liable for damages. 8 There is some concern about Mr. Reyes commitment to the relocation site. The site had recently been judged inadequate by Mr. Reyes. After it was indicated to Mr. Reyes that the Agency might consider some extension of tenancy if he had a viable site in escrow, Mr. Reyes indicated that he was going in to escrow on the previously inadequate site. Mr. Reyes has indicated to staff that the best solution to the entire issue was to "buy him out." He said he knew he had the power to hold up the project, and it would be in everyone's best interest to pay him at this point and resolve the problem, rather than delay the project and have to pay him later anyway. Mr. Reyes indicated that his asking price for the business was $500,000, and he invited an offer in response to that. Process: If the Agency does not further extend Mr. Reyes's tenancy, he would be obligated to vacate the premises on August 3, 1994. It seems likely that Mr. Reyes would not vacate by that date. The Agency response would be to bring an unlawful detainer action before the judge who is already hearing the valuation proceedings in the condemnation suit on the property. The Agency could subsequently have Mr. Reyes removed from the property in as little as fifteen days after the filing of the unlawful detainer. The Agency should rightfully be concerned about the implications for Mr. Reyes. It would be hoped that he would make practical arrangements to store his fixtures and supplies pending reopening his business. Mr. Reyes recently opened a similar business in San Diego (Macho's on Home Avenue), so it may be possible that perishable supplies could be transferred to that business. When Mr. Reyes has successfully relocated the Mi Cabana business, it will be possible to calculate and provide him with the relocation benefits to which he is entitled. Given adequate information and the resolution of some legal matters between the affected parties (Mr. Reyes, JACL, and the Agency), it may even be possible to provide Mr. Reyes with cash advances to facilitate his entry into another property. Recommendation if Tenancy Extended: If the Agency wished to further extend the tenancy of Mr. Reyes, the following recommendations are made: 8 Mr. Reyes's tenancy should be extended temporarily to August 16, 1994. 8 Staff should be directed to return to that meeting with a lease agreement executed by Mr. Reyes which: 8 is retroactive to the beginning of Mr. Reyes's tenancy with the Agency 8 in which Mr. Reyes agrees to pay all necessary possessory interest taxes 5-6 Page 7, Item ~ Meeting Date 08-02-94 . in which Mr. Reyes stipulates to provide all reasonable information necessary to establishing his relocation benefits (the tax information has been recently received, but certain information regarding fluctuations in income and expenses is outstanding, which is necessary to make estimates of Goodwill). . in which Mr. Reyes agrees not to hold over and stipulates to unlawful detainer if he does not vacate by the term of the lease, which would be October 19, 1994 (90 days from the meeting of July 19, 1994). . in which Mr. Reyes holds the Agency and the developer harmless from liability for any damages incurred by Mr. Reyes as a result of the developer's inability to fill and grade the property due to Mr. Reyes's extended occupancy. It is felt that the above conditions are essential to protect the Agency in the event of a further extension of the tenancy of Mr. Reyes, although it is reiterated that an extension is not recommended. FISCAL IMPACT: The Palomar Trolley Center project is projected to yield net tax revenues of $4 million to the City and the Agency over a ten-year period. If the Agency does not extend the tenancy of Mr. Reyes, his entitlement to relocation benefits from the Agency will survive his termination of tenancy and will depend on his subsequent relocation arrangements. If Mr. Reyes tenancy is extended for 90 days under the condition that he execute the recommended lease, the Agency will be involved in a dispute with the developer of the Palomar Trolley Center over an estimated $25,000.00 in additional project costs resulting from the extension of Mr. Reyes's tenancy. Mr. Reyes entitlement to relocation benefits from the Agency will continue. If the Agency extends the tenancy of Mr. Reyes without the recommended lease conditions, the Agency would have the same dispute with the developer over the additional project costs and would be potentially exposed to unknown liability over the flooding issue. The same relocation benefits would pertain. [DGIDISK3\ WP5¡ \A:PTCREYES.RA4l 5-7 Thís ,age íntenüonally lift blank. S-! ATTACHMENT 1 JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL MEETING EXCERPT OF MINUTES * rent, when ast increased, what the rent is today, and are we going to reco ' , creasing it again. Chris Salomone, Community Devel ector, stated that staff understoo . There was currently a~ onsidered by the Home Owners Association of Orange Tree to purc ase ~e spaces. 5. AGENCY/COUNCIL PUBUC HEARING REGARDING DISPOSITION OF ACQUIRED PROPERTIES (APN 622-041-20,622-041-21,622-041-22, AND 622-041-23) WIlHam PUBUC BIDDING, PURSUANT TO CAJJFORNIA HEALTIi & SAFETI CODE SECTION 33431 -- The Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the Redevelopment Agency and Cypress Creek Company, L.P., for a IS-acre Palomar Trolley Center retail project was approved by the Agency on 11/10/92. The Agency, on 4/27/93, approved the Amended Palomar Trolley Center DDA (ADDA) which would add approximately 3 acres to the project. The ADDA is required to be executed by the Agency on or before 7/30/93, after certain conditions precedent are accomplished. If the Agency concurs with staff recommendations before it, then all of the conditions precedent will have been accomplished and the ADDA can be executed by the Chainnan. The ADDA replaces all previous agreements and will govern the development of the proposed 18-acre commercial center. Staff recommends approval of this and all related resolutions. (Community Development Director) AGENCY/COUNCIL PUBUC HEARING REGARDING DISPOSITION OF ACQUIRED PROPERTIES (APN 622-041-20, 622-041-21, 622-041-22, AND 622-041-23) ACQUIRED WlTIi TAX INCREMENT FUNDS, PURSUANT TO CAJJFORNIA HEALTIi & SAFETI CODE SECTION 33433 A AGENCY RESOLlJI10N 1341 FINDING AND DETERMINING PUBUC IN'ŒREST AND NECESSITI FOR ACQUIRING AND AUTI-IORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTI WITHIN THE SOUTI-IWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, CHUIA VISTA, CA [pARCEL 12] This resolution does not require a public hearinsr but is a related item. B. AGENCY RESOLlJI10N 1342 FINDING AND DETERMINING PUBUC IN'ŒREST AND NECESSi1Y FOR ACQlRRING AND AUTI-IORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTI WI1HIN THE SOUTI-IWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, CHUIA VISTA, CA [PARCEL 13] - This resolution does not require a public hearinsr but is a related item. C. AGENCY RESOLlJI10N 1343 FINDING AND DETERMINING PUBUC IN'ŒREST AND NECESSi1Y FOR ACQUIRING AND AUTI-IORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTI WITHIN THE SOUTI-IWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, CHUIA VISTA, CA [pARCELS 14 AND 15] - This resolution does not require a public hearinsr but is a related item. D. COUNCIL RESOLlJI10N 17178 APPROVING THE SALE OF AGENCY-OWNED PROPERTI (APN 622-041-20, 622-41-21, 622-041-22, AND 622-041-23) TO CYPRESS CREEK COMPANY, L.P., AND FINDING THAT CONSIDERATION IS NOT LESS TIIAN FAIR MARKET VALUE E. AGENCY RESOLlJI10N 1344 APPROVING THE SALE OF AGENCY-OWNED PROPERTI (APN 622-041-20, 622-041-21, 622-041-22, AND 622-041-23) TO CYPRESS CREEK COMPANY, L.P., AND FINDING THAT CONSIDERATION IS NOT LESS TIIAN FAIR MARKET VALUE F. AGENCY RESOLlJI10N 1345 FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PALOMAR TROLLEY CENTER PROJECT (ElR-91'{)2), WlTIiADDENDUMS, IS ADEQUATE UNDER CEQA; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; AND AUTI-IORIZING THE QWRMAN TO EXEClITE THE AMENDED PALOMAR TROLLEY CENTER DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 5-1 MINUTES July 27, 1993 Page 3 David Gustafson, Community Development Assistant Director, stated the Council/Agency was being asked to conduct hearings and adopt three resolutions of necessity for four properties not acquired through negotiations and to consider the appropriateness of selling the four condemned properties and an additional condemned property to the developer without bid at a fair market value and to accept the environmental documents for the project and approve the execution of the amended Disposition and Development Agreement. Mr. Gustafson stated that the Resolution of Necessity No.1341 is regarding the Disposition and Development Agreement Parcel No. 12 and known as APN 622-041-20, was owned by the Japanese American Citizen League consisting of 32,670 square feet with a 4600 square foot structure on it. It was currently occupied by the Mi Cabana Restaurant and Bar. Mr. Gustafson stated that staff has engaged in the following: Good Faith Neswtiations: The Agency has offered to purchase the property from the Japanese American Citizens League at fair market value based upon an Agency appraisal. Staff has met with the League. The position of the League was that they do not want to sell the property. They have made a proposal to panicipate in the project through a long-term lease of their property to the developer if building space could occur over their property; if not, to configure their ownership interest somewhere in the project and lease it on a 10ng-tenn basis back to the developer. A meeting had been set up between the League and the developer to discuss that possibility. Staff recommends that the Council/Agency go folWard with the Resolution of Necessity to keep on schedule, not to seek immediate possession, and to continue the dialogue between the developer and the League. The project provides public srood: The Palomar Trolley Center project has been designed to create a highly desirable level and quality of retail commercial development on a site which has incompatible uses and under utilization in land use and tax generation. It enhances the gateway to the southwestern redevelopment project area, generates employment opportunities for the community, and generates a more appropriate tax revenue from the commercially zoned property. It also avoids commercial redundancy because what is proposed is high volume national retailers rather than strip commercial. It would help to minimize increased vacancy factors in the area. The Center has been desismed for the least private injury: If the comer property Was not incorporated intO the design of the Center, it would create access problems to the Center off Broadway which was critical to the Center and its ability to attract quality tenants at a desirable lease rate. It would create a visual block so people using Broadway could not see into the Center, and it basically would not provide for the ability anywhere else on the comer for the additional commercial development which was being proposed in the Center. Mayor/Chair Nader opened the meeting for public hearing on the entire project, including all six resolutions. Addressing the Council/Agency were: . Jim Moxham, 2801 Albatross Street, San Diego, 92103, representing Cypress Creek. Mr. Moxham stated that Cypress Creek looked upon the project as one development processed into two phases. The two phase approach allowed them to proceed with the initial 155,000 square feet while working to resolve the complex issues associated with the Phase 2 properties. He stated they had made good faith offers to all of the owners at or above the appraised value without success except for the one parcel which they have already acquired. Their offer to the Japanese American Citizen League would have significantly improved their net operating income on reinvestments over their current existing income. They were continuing the dialogue in hopes of reaching an agreement. Regarding the Day Care Center, he stated that the original provision for Day Care was limited to the MTDB property. Since that turned out to be an unacceptable site, the developer has worked with staff to facilitate an alternative development. They have put together a plan 5- Ie) MINUTES July 27, 1993 Page 4 " to Episcopal Community SelVÌces. The obstacle had been getting the property owner to allow Episcopal Community SelVÌces the time to put together a development plan for a Head Start facility and housing project, however, both the property owner and Cypress Creek have executed the option agreement and have scheduled to bring back an amendment to the DDA fonnalizing the agreement within three weeks. On behalf of Cypress Creek, he requested the Council! Agency's support of staft's recommendation. Mr. Gustafson stated that another property subject to Resolution of Necessity No 1342 was Parcel 13 of the DDA and APN 622-041-21. That property was also owned by the Japanese and American Citizen League. It has 22,651 square feet and has a structure on it of 5,040 square feet which was occupied by the 7-11 Convenience Store and the MLV Coin Launchy. The good faith negotiations, the public good, and the least private injury issues on that property were identical to the ones on the previous property, and Mr. Gustafson requested that the same testimony apply to this case. Council/ Agencymember Horton stated that in talking with staff, she understood that there may not be a necessity to acquire this property in the near future. She asked if it could be made more time specific; perhaps after the five year period when the building reverts back to the property owner. Mr. Moxham stated that the developer's position was that they will be prepared to move foIWard on Phase 2 as soon as all the respective interest of the parties, the Japanese American Citizen League, Southland, MLV, and the franchise interest, were clearly established. They anticipate that it could be accomplished within twelve months. From that point they would proceed to develop the property. City/Agency Attorney Boogaard asked Mr. Moxham if the project needed those parcels within a twelve month period? Council!Agencymember Horton added if they were going to develop them within a twelve month period? Mr. Moxham responded that twelve to eighteen months would be an acceptable time period. Mr. Gustafson stated the Resolution of Necessity 1343 pertains to two parcels, 13 and 14, APN 662-041-22 and -23. They were owned by James and Sandra Williams. The total square footage was 47,480 and their structures were approximately 6500 square feet. They house Sams Trailer Repair which was owned by the Williams where they also reside. In tenns of good faith negotiations, an offer was made to purchase at the Agency's appraised value. The Williams, based upon their appraisal, feel the property was worth more than twice the Agency's appraisal. It has been concluded by all parties that we were too far apart to further negotiate a purchase. Both the public good and the design of the Center for the least private injury were identical to the previous Resolution. Mr. Gustafson stated that the Council! Agency needed to make findings that sale of Agency acquired property was done appropriately without public bid and at the market value. In tenns of it being appropriate to sell these properties to the developer without public bid, the parcels were acquired solely to convey to the developer using the developer's funds and under teTInS of the DDA to allow the shopping center. There was no benefit or practicality to attempt to dispose of the property through public bid. As to fair market value, the Agency was selling to the developer the properties at fair market value through using the developer's deposit to purchase them. Subsequent project subsidies could occur based upon total acquisition costs beyond the fair market value acquisition price for the land. Those subsidies, if they occurred, would be paid by the City through sales tax rebate. Mr. Gustafson stated this concluded the necessary public testimony for these actions. . David Karamoto, 6917 Town View Lane, San Diego, 92120, current president of the Japanese American Citizens League. He stated the property was income property donated to the Chapter as a gift and &/1 MINUTES July 27, 1993 Page 5 owned for some time by members of the community. The property was their sole source of income for the organization which funded numerous programs. To be without the property, their community would suffer. The developer stated that his offer would increase the income they would realize. They have a long-tenn lease on the comer lot with the Southland Corporation. Under the tenns of the lease agreement, within five years, they will assume ownership of the buildings on that property. At that point, the monthly fees would be up for renegotiation. He read the following statement from their attorney into the record: 'With respect to the findings which must be made by the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.230, it is our belief they cannot be made in good faith. The public interest and necessity do not require acquisition of JACL's fee interest. Since the JACL is willing to negotiate a ground lease on reasonable tenns for its property as a free standing building site integrated within the project, either in its present configuration or in a different configuration or location, such a 10ng-tenn ground lease should pose no hardship to the Agency or the developer since it can be financed easily as a fee and would also, therefore, 'be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury'. Also, while the use of our property may be necessary for the proposed project, obtaining the property in fee and depriving the JACL of all of the income from the property which it has used for decades to support a variety of worthwhile charitable efforts, is not necessary for the Success of the project." Council/Agencymember Horton asked if on Parce112 they felt that their return would be greater with the proposal made by the developer than have the City condemn the property? Mr. Karamoto replied that if the parcel was to be sold or claimed by the City, and they were given fair market value, its likely they would realize greater returns. Council/Agencymember Horton asked that if the Council/Agency left Parcel 13 in tact at this time and proceeded with what was recommended with Parcel 12, would that be acceptable. Mr. Karamoto stated that on behalf of the organization, they would like to retain the entire property. To lose only half would be better than losing the entire property. If they had their choice, they would prefer retaining Parcel 13 at this time because of the way the lease was written. Mayor/Chair Nader asked how wide Broadway and Palomar were ultimately expected to be at the intersection? Mr. Gustafson responded that Broadway would remain as it was currently. Palomar would be expanded to six lanes. Only a small portion of the property was needed for the widening for mitigation measures. The remainder of the property was needed for the development of the shopping center. On those parcels, there would probably be a parking lot. Mayor/Chair Nader asked why it was necessary for redevelopment to have fee title rather than a 10ng-tenn lease? Mr. Gustafson stated it was a concern on the developer's part that they have fee ownership control of their entire property. He stated that one of the problems was that fee ownership in itself would solve the problem. If a long-tenn lease occurred on Parcels 13 and 14, there wouldn't be a whole lot of economic return on those leases to the League because it would be a parking lot. If the lease were done at market value, the parking lot would have less market value than a more desirable portion of the Center that had buildings over it and was producing income. 5-/;2.. MINUTES July 27, 1993 Page 6 Mayor/Chair Nader stated that you don't pay for a property interest be it fee ownership or long tenn lease based on the use the buyer intended to make of it, you pay for it based on its market value. Michael Homes, representing-Sunbelt Management Company, stated their preference was to own the property in fee. It was brought up at the last minute regarding the possibility that the League was interested in transferring it into a lease situation. They would entertain that; perhaps there would be a way to work this out. . Masaaki Hironaka, 2640 National Avenue, San Diego 92113, Executive Director of the San Diego Chapter of the JACL. He stated that the proposal declared the property would be free of contaminants, free of leases, and free of any liens. There was a Shell Oil Station on that property. Therefore, there was a gasoline tank there. To get this free of contaminants and free of leases would cost them more than it was worth. This was one of the reasons they resisted selling the property. Council/Agencymember Moore asked if the cost of buying out leases were negotiated in any way. Mr. Gustafson stated that they have had their condemnation special counsel look at this. His opinion was that the League appears to be in good shape on Parcel 12, but have a greater problem on Parcel 13. City/Agency Anorney, Bruce Boogaard, stated that the courts would divide the fee value between the lease holder and the remaining property holder. They value the lease hold. A portion of the fee value was attributable to the tenant and a portion to the property owner. Generally, the court makes a final detennination if it is not resolved by consensus. . Roy Muraoka, 1478 First Avenue, Chula Vista 91911. He stated his concern was that the JACL was a non profit organization which did not have the finances to fight the condemnation. He asked the Council/Agency to eliminate the "walk away" clause. In the resolution it stated the buildings were a blight. They were built fifteen years ago, but he did not feel they could be considered a blight. He wanted that cotTected. Mayor/Chair Nader asked for an explanation of the walk-away clause. Mr. Gustafson stated he was referring to a clause in the DDA that the developer has the right to walk away from the project if environmental clean up costs were estimated to exceed a threshold on any of the properties. We would not move forward on seeking possession on any of the properties until we had received a 1ener that was required in the DDA from the developer accepting the properties "as is" and taking on the responsibility for any contamination. We have received a lener like that for Parcel 12 because we were intending to seek immediate possession of that parcel. Mayor/Chair Nader asked Mr. Muraoka what his objection was to the clause. Mr. Muraoka responded that in Section 8.4, he thought it meant that after it went over $20 per square foot, they could walk away from it. Mr. Gustafson stated there was a different provision in the environmental contamination provision which was a walk away right by either party if they discover property was going to exceed $20 per square foot for total acquisition cost in the aggregate in Phase 2. At that point, if the developer owned any of the parcels, the Agency would buy those parcels back and remarket them. If the Agency owned the parcels, they would simply remarket them. 5-/3 MINUTEs July 27, 1993 Page 7 . Agustin Reyes, 96 Sherwood, Chula Vista, 91911, owner of the Mi Caban La Mision. He asked what was he going to do when they took possession of his business; where was he going to go? How long would it take? He would not only lose his business, but also his customers. Mr. Gustafson stated that Mr. Reyes would be eligible to all the relocation rights, good will, fIXtures and equipment, and relocation benefits which were required by law. We have a relocation consultant who was attempting to find a relocation site for Mr. Reyes. Mr. Reyes' business was on Parcel 12. Mr. Holmes responded they would like to get possession in the 90 days, but they do not have to move his business for a twelve month period. In regards to the possible soil contamination, he stated they had put in two test wells at the comer of Broadway and Palomar and did not find anything. However, they needed to do some additional testing. Southland Corporation will be the responsible party for cleaning up any contamination in the ground. . Clifton Reed, 357 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, 91910, attorney representing Paul and Dorothy Ireland and James and Sandra Williams. He asked for a clarification of the Council/Agency's intent on the Southland parcel. He was asking because his clients, the Irelands, were the lessees and the franchisees of the 7-11 Store. Nobody from the Agency has been talking to them. There was litigation pending in Superior Coun against the Agency which he was representing the lrelands on. His clients have relocation benefits coming, and they shouldn't have the property sold out from underneath them since they have a significant interest in that property. He was prepared to dismiss that law suit if there was going to be an unequivocal commitment to go forward with condemnation, then he could protect his client's interest in that condemnation action pending. City/Agency Attorney Boogaard recommended that once the Resolution of Necessity was filed, to move forward with the condemnation action and work out the rights of occupancy in the interim while the litigation was pending. We will not just sit on the Resolution of Necessity, we have hired outside counsel. Mr. Reed addressed the issue regarding the Williams' parcel. He stated that before the Agency has the jurisdiction or authority to hold a public hearing, the Agency has to get an appraisal. The owner has a right to have input into the appraisal. There was an appraisal. He has been infonnally infonned by Mr. Gustafson that the appraisal represented by the letter dated December 25, 1992 was the appraisal upon which the offer was based. If the Agency would confirm that was the appraisal that they have relied on for the record, then he would withdraw any objection to the Agency's jurisdiction to proceed under the Eminent Domain Code. Although they have not been provided the basis by letter, he did have a copy of the appraisal. However, the appraisal did not represent the Redevelopment Agency, but the Community Development Department. City/Agency Attorney Boogaard asked Mr. Gustafson if that was the appraisal upon which the decision was I based to establish the value at $415,000 and an offer was made. I Mr. Gustafson responded that it was. . Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, 91910. She stated there were four tanks on this property. She did not believe there was a need for another shopping center. She felt they were over developed. AGENCY RESOLUTIONS 1341, 1342, 1343, 1344, 1345, AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17178 OFFERED BY MAYOR/CHAIR NADER. reading of the text was waived. Council/ Agencymember Horton requested that Resolution 1342 be bifurcated and dealt with last. 5-/1/ MINlITES July 27, 1993 Page 8 } 1 AMENDMENT TO MOTION REGARDING RESOLUTION 1341, Parcel 12, (Nader/Moore) to provide that Mr. Reyes' business could remain on the parcel for twelve months beginning with the effective date on the Resolution.. Motion carried 5-0. VOTE ON MAIN MOTION passed and approved 5-0. B. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1342 M (Horton) to continue the item and have staff come back with a possible alternative worked out with the developer and property owner to postpone any type of condemnation proceeding for the next few years, or as an alternative, work on a lease situation. City/Agency Attorney Boogaard recommended that staff be instructed to negotiate as part of a settlement discussion and the eminent domain action, and that there be consideration of a long-tenn lease or ground lease option with the property owners. AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (NaderlFox) to authorize condemnation of interest in the property but direct staff to work with the owner, franchisee, and the developer to determine what the appropriate interest should be to acquire the parcel. Prior to ruing the authorized suit, the matter be returned to the Agency for further consideration.. Amendment approved 5-0. VOTE ON APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 1342 carried 5-0. _.~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. ACIlON ITEMS MSUC (Nader/Rindone) to contin items 6 and 7 to the August 3, 1993 meeting. 7. COUNCIL/AGENCY REPORT ROLE OF '!HE MONfGO YPLANMNGCOMMTITEE AND '!HE POSSIBLE MERGER 0 MPC WI1H '!HE SOUlHWEST PRO CT AREA COMMTITEE PURSUANT TO CIiULA VISTA NOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (£DC) P T STREAMLINING RECOMMENDATION #17 e Chula Vista EDC established a subcommittee to develop ecommendations to streamline the City's velopment review process to create a more "user friendly" environm for business development. On the recommendations (#17) concerned the future role and function of the tgomery Planning Co ttee and the possible merger of the MPC with the Southwest Project Area Comm! e. It is recom ded that Council! Agency discuss the alternatives presented in the report and provide additi a1 direc' to staff. (Community Development Director/Planning Director) Staff recommends this item bè tinued to the meeting of August 3,1993 [continued from the meetin" of June 22. 1992] 6"-/5 Thli !age íntenffonaIly ltft blank. 5-/6 ( "'" w a:: N ~ ~ > " C . - e ~ ~ ' " ~ . " " x " ~ <t: ( --.. '" ? ~ ----------- ,t AREA ------------------- , If!OLLEl ---~- ...----:- I ..---: - ..---: - B L \{ 0 . ...-::-..---:- fNDU5íR(PJ- 3-17 This ,age ínttntíonnlly lift blank. J-/g ATTACHMENT 3 JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL MEETING "DRAFT" EXCERPT OF MINUTES = without objection, the amendment would be incorporated into Item #4 on 5.A. A CY RESOLUTION 1413 APPROVING FINAL RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND TRESORT HOUSINGPA S IN THE AMOUNT OF $27,869.52 PURSUANT TO THE ADO LOCATION PLAN FOR THRE NTAL UNIT HOUSEHOLDS FORMERLY RESIDING AT 45 STREET WITHIN THE TOWN CE n REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA--The Cit f Chula Vista and the Redevelopment Agency pure ed the property at 459 F Street as part of the a ted Chula Vista Master Plan Expansion Project. The CalifomI e10cation Assistance Act mandates the pa nt of relocation benefits to persons and businesses displaced by actions ta by a public entity. The Council Agency are requested to approve final Rental Assistance and Last Resort Housi . ayments for three of the r airnng four households. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Commurnty D lopment Director [and] 6. AGENCY RESOLU 1415 GRANTING A FOUR FOOT NINE FOOT EASEMENT ON ASSESSOR PARCEL ER 568-152-29 OWNED BY THE REDEVE MENT AGENCY TO SAN DffiGO GAS & ELE C COMPANY FOR ACCESS TO ITS EQUIPMENT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING 311 F STREET--The remodelling and expansion of the IDM lding at 311 F Street requires the 10 on of electrical eqrnpment at the northeast corner of the brnlding. The eq . ment, located in a small roo cessed into the building, can only be accessed from the Redevelopment Agency puti. arking lot on Landi venue. San Diego Gas & Electric is requesting an access easement from the parking lot to eqrnpment . Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Commurnty Development Director) * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES None submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Agustin Reyes, 96 Sherwood Street, Chula Vista, CA, owner and operator of Mi Cabana La Mision, requested an extension to stay on the property. It was an issue of his right to be on the property--he was the tenant and had a 20-year lease and has complied with all obligations as tenant and businessman. He felt he was deprived of his rights. It was his belief the eminent domain proceedings were prejudicial to mm. He was told by Council that Chula Vista Redevelopment was going to assist him in relocation and so far they had not done anything. All relocation had been done by mm. He believed he had been acting in good faith but now believed it was the wrong thing to do. He requested the City Council allow mm an extension of additional time to relocate his business. Staff said they have helped me in the last 12 months. He disagreed. In the past four months staff had approached him with properties to consider relocating to. He did not like the properties. He had found a property, had a contract which he was ready to sign wmch he received two days prior. My attorney had a copy to review. He okayed it for me to sign. He needed time to move. He asked not to be put out of business. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked how much time he needed to relocate. Mr. Reyes replied three to six months. 5-/9 Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 3 Member/Council Member Fox stated the one-year extension granted by the Council expired on July 27, 1994. Would an extension to August 3, 1994 mean anything to him. Mr. Reyes said he would probably just be putting papers into escrow. ChainuanlMayor Nader stated Council could grant an emergency extension of one week and the item could be agendized so the Agency could discuss the issue. Staff and Agency would need to have discussions with the developer. That would give staff time to try to work something out with the developer and Mr. Reyes. He would like to give Mr. Reyes time to relocate now he had found a property to relocate to. Would staff have a problem with that course of action. Community Development Director Salomone replied staff would not. It would be reasonable to place the item on the Agenda for August 2, 1994 to discuss an extension. MOTION [Fox/Nader] to find emergency exists to place this on tonight's Agenda as Mr. Reyes' eviction was going to occnr prior to the August 2, 1994 Agency meeting and as Mr. Reyes had entered escrow after the posting of the Agency Agenda in order to discuss emergency extension. VOTE ON MOTION: Passed, 5-0. Member/Council Member Fox could support an extension although he thought the City had done quite a lot already in granting a 12 month extension. What was important was cooperation by both parties. Mr. Reyes needed to release his tax records to the Agency to review the Goodwill estimate, uuless staff already had those records as well as sign the Agency lease. Mr. Reyes said if he signed a month-to-month lease then staff could kick him out any time it wanted. That was why he would not sign the lease. He already had a 10 year lease with another 10 year option. He questioned why he should sign a lease which was on a month-to-month basis. MOTION [Nader/Fox] that an emergency extension be granted to August 3, 1994; staff was directed, in the interim, to meet with Mr. Reyes and Cypress Creek to ascertain how much time Mr. Reyes needed to relocate his business successfully; and, to juggle as best staff can that need with the needs of Cypress Creek, the developer, and report back to Council with a recommendation on a further extension. Member/Council Member Fox stated he had commented to Mr. Reyes he needed to cooperate in signing the Agency lease. Mr. Reyes responded he was not sure why he needed to do that. Would staff respond. Assistant Director of Community Development Gustafson replied at the time Council took action in July 1993 to give Mr. Reyes an additional 12 months, the Agency offered him a lease which he has refused to sign. He has indicated he does not want to do that as he would go on a month-to-month status where currently he has a 10 year lease. In fact, he does not have a lease. The Agency/Council condemned the property and the lease. He was presently on a month-to-month status. He has been treated as a mouth-to-mouth tenant and the Agency would have the power to give him a 30-day notice at any time. The Agency wanted Mr. Reyes to sign the lease as it gave the Agency additional protection and declarations on his part that staff believe are important to the Agency. Member/Council Member Fox asked if it was a retroactive type lease. Mr. Gustafson stated the lease was identical in its financial terms to the lease he had with the previous property owner. ChainuanlMayor Nader stated should an additional extension be granted at the next Agency meeting, after staff carried out the motion on the floor, assuming it passed, was it staff's anticipation, supposing, hypothetically, 5-02Ò Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 4 Council decided to give Mr. Reyes an additional three month extension to relocate, did staff anticipate a desire to have the lease executed as part of that. Mr. Gustafson replied staff would like to see the lease executed. Chairman/Mayor Nader suggested any conditions of that sort which staff believed were an important part of the extension should be placed before the Agency at that meeting. Mr. Reyes should have an opportunity to review those conditions well in advance of the meeting so that, should the Agency grant such an extension the conditions would be very clear so there would be no further misunderstandings. Member/Council Member Moore asked staff if Mr. Reyes leased the property as opposed to owning it. Mr. Gustafson said that was correct. Member/Council Member Moore asked if the Agency owned the property since July 1993. Mr. Gustafson replied that was correct also. Member/Council Member Moore asked if the Agency at that time gave Mr. Reyes one year to relocate. Mr. Gustafson stated yes. Member/Council Member Moore asked was the developer promised that property would be ready for grading in one year's time. Mr. Gustafson replied that was correct. Member/Council Member Moore asked if the Agency stated it would assist Mr. Reyes, but did not promise him everything would work well. Mr. Gustafson pointed out that under Redevelopment Law the Agency was reqnired to assist Mr. Reyes, but not technically relocate him. Member/Council Member Moore recapped stating: (I) Mr. Reyes was not in the best position as he was not the owner of the property; (2) Mr. Reyes was leasing from the Agency; (3) Mr. Reyes had a year to move and had not done so; and (4) the developer was ready to grade the property. Whatever the Agency now decided to do was pretty much at the developer's mercy. However, staff was to intercede with the developer to ascertain if there was any extra time which could be squeezed from the developer's time schedule for development. Mr. Gustafson pointed out the developer had complained they would like that structure removed as they have use for the property. The Agency did not technically have an agreement with the developer which stated the property would be available to them at any particular time. It was not part of the Disposition and Development Agreement. It was an understanding the developer had when Council extended Mr. Reyes' tenancy for 12 months. Member/Council Member Moore noted Mr. Reyes had to have made a serious effort to relocate. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked the minutes of the July 1993 meeting accompany the staff report. Member/Council Member Moore stated a tenant had certain rights and asked what those rights were. Mr. Gnstafson said Mr. Reyes had the right to technical assistance to get his business relocated. The Agency needed to show him comparable properties. 3-oZ/ -"".- Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 5 Member/Council Member Moore asked were there any monetary value to relocating a tenant. Mr. Gustafson replied that was rather complicated. It would depend on the value the tenant had on the property-the fixtures and equipment, and whether the tenant had any leasehold bonus value. The Agency's experts have determined Mr. Reyes does not have any leasehold bonus value. The priucipal compensation Mr. Reyes could look to was Goodwill in case he should suffer a business loss when he was relocated. Member/Council Member Moore asked if both parties understood that. Mr. Gustafson said yes, but staff has had trouble calculating what that Goodwill might be as Mr. Reyes had not relocated. A Goodwill amount could ouly be posited. There was nothing finite as Mr. Reyes had not yet relocated and it could not be measured how well Mr. Reyes would do as opposed to how well he did at the previous property. Staff has had difficulty getting some business tax numbers from Mr. Reyes. Member/Council Member Moore asked if Mr. Reyes was aware of that. Mr. Gustafson replied he and Mr. Reyes had a discussion on that subject this evening. Mr. Reyes said staff had his tax reports for almost two months now. There was confusion on the numbers but they were being straightened out. He gave those papers to his attorney and his attorney then gave them to the Agency's attorney. Chairman/Mayor Nader pointed out that agendizing the item for the August 2 meeting gave Mr. Reyes more time to work something out with staff in tenus of what the final extension should be. Mr. Reyes stated he was never opposed to being relocated. He had found properties he liked but could not relocate to them. Chainuan/Mayor Nader asked why it was not possible to relocate to the properties he was interested in. Mr. Reyes replied the type of business he had required it not be near residential, churches, or schools. VOTE ON MOTION: Passed, 5-0. ACTION ITEMS 7. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1411 ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDG R IT 19 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR--The FY 1994-95 Redevelopment ncy Budget was reviewed rt of the City budget approval process. As the Redevelopment Agency i eparate legal entity, it is necessary to app the budget separately as required by California Commu' edevelopment Law. Staff recommends continuation this item to the meetin of 8/2/94. (A strationlCommuuity Development Director) Coutinued from the Z 4 meeting MSUC [Nader/Moore] to continue to the m Angust 2, 1994. Approved 5-0. 8. AGENCY/COUNCIL T STATUS OF A YFRONT NEGOTIA TIONS--On 4/5/94 the status of negotiations with ayfront developer, William Barkett, discussed and staff was directed to report back in 60 days as ether substantial progress had been made towards letion of a Development Agreement (DA). S made substantial progress including the development of a Pre-Co ction Phasing Plan and Draft D uding resolution of all but several negotiating issues which are outlined in the ort. Staff recommends acceptance of the report and direction by the Agency to continue negotiations with the develo or completion of a Development Agency. (Commnnity Development Director) Coutinued from the meeting of 71 ~::o<>~ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date 07/19/94 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION 1411 ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR SUBMITTED BY: Executive Direct°íf' (4/5ths Vote: Yes- NoX) BACKGROUND: L/ The Redevelopment Agency, at its meeting of June 21, 1994: (1) reviewed and approved the FY 1993-94 Agency budget; (2) reviewed the FY 1994-95 Agency Operating Budget; (3) directed the City Attorney to analyze the legal aspects of a proposal to invest City funds in acquisition of Agency-owned real estate; and (4) directed staff to further refine the estimates of value of three Agency-owned properties being considered for possible purchase by the City. Staff recommends this item be continued to the regular Agency meeting of August 16. Staff needs to receive the consultant's final analysis of the Bayfront 1986 Bond Refunding which will provide the necessary information to formulate a recommendation for the long-term Agency Financial Plan. As previously indicated, the majority of the Budget staff report has been completed. However, the preliminary numbers provided by the consultant indicate the potential for significant savings in the current fiscal year which will be of vital import in Agency deliberations with respect to the 1994-95 Agency Budget. [c:\ WP51 \AGENCY\RA4S\9495BUD2.RA4l (;,-1 X-- Thís yage íntentíonn11y ltft blank. ~ -:ù (~ ,e', - '" r;.' \ r¡; Ie:! I' \ lë ,'1): ~{ft.. ~I.-""'--~'~-'-~~~-¡,'!.:,:H -.- \~" " ~¡:I r~-= ...,¡:"~ - Ii:;' l 1993 ji.::J ~~ BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMIITEE ÄPt~ICA TION . ---' cm OF c. oj , CHUIA VISTA Please blllicaJe Your Interest By Checking rhe APplm;i¡¡,œ .Line(s). ~ '..e.- If You Check More Than One Line, Please prioritize Your /meresr. ~ - Aging (Cmsm on) - Growth Mgmt Cmsm - Safety Cmsm - Appeals (Board of) - Human Relations Cmsm - Southwest PAC Cmt - Charter Review [nl'[ Friendship Cmsm - Town Centre Ptj Area Cmt - Child Care Cmsm 2 Library Board of Trustees ~ - CV - Civil Service Cmsm - MobiIehome Rent Review Cmsm ~ted ~ions ~ Cmt - Cultural Arts Cmsm - Otay Valley Proj Area Cmt ~ffairl'l'1 - Design Review Cmsm - Parks & Rec Cmsm ~ER g Economic Dev Cmsm Planning Cmsm v=;¡=; 0 <- - - > - Ethics (Board of) - Resource Consev Cmsm ~~ ~ ~ ë'>~ UI C . '. PLEASE PR[NT CLEARLY m> (II NAME: ~IS~ ~ ~7~ HOME ADDRESS: ) &)55- J57 Mel'ì~~Y:~ ZIP:3....i:L!.J.. RES PHONE #: 4:) J -(.,K'f:¡ BUS PHONE #: Y.:?/-51.5/ REGISTERED VOTER IN CHULA VISTA: V YES NO DO YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF CHULA VISTA'? V - HOW LONG'? / / J V.s YES NO .Yooth Comw...<ioo Applicants ONLY: &1I0oI A"""""f Gnode:- COLLEGES AITENDED & DEGREES HELD: South Ú)p'ç-t~i"v) ~ J ~j e.. :.«) (Jln;t~ ¡In C~(!U...v..I"f..rnp",-r PRESENT EMPLOYER: CL"k V¡<;fã FjÞYn S-t",j JJ,sf..,ð posmON: £5 L j),Je WHAT ARE YOUR PRINCIPAL AREAS OF INTEREST IN OUR CITY GOVERNMENT AND WHAT EXPE~ENCE(S) OR SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE CAN YOU YOU BRING TO THOSE AREAS'? I", "" f ...... ~.....-f Q. Pífl ('Q--R"S'/J",,-t: I Lr",.. ~p.""" a f>r/l7wn<¡wPIr .:{Jvs,,/ . T a~ 0- ~ W1Pw>h~v 4 -fit" S-kn-J ,çJ! rM~( ~ \klk. LffJ.o rIm ~~ {)e.r fo>^1'11 -Foy- -/i-te ~11 iC;"jð Li """'/$ fs"":Je.. IJr-&lS .s..~. "'51;$ '" Spo."'3 . WH'jI)~OULD YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH B)"YOUR PAltT[ClPATlON,? , -Yr~¥¡í ~e Oð/~ ".,f \~'Pu~iY-om G\ ~e¥ l C<lV? -f)Y1/n',nalll I f..om C\. ~ . ",j <:.. 11 Jr.n~r lam ramiliar wilb Ibe rclponsibilitieoa..igned 10 lb. Boanl/Commi..ioofCommiu.. on whicb I wioh 10 IOrve. ~,~t~ - ~, 10/;;'7/13 SWN~U~ D~t . . . PLEASE SEE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS APPLICATION FOR VERY IMPORTANT LEGAL INFORMATION. . . R-I ' Thís yage íntentíonaIly lift blank. ;-;¿ August 1, 1994 MEMO TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Patty Wesp (}Jpf SUBJECT: OTAY VALLEY PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE With respect to the 8/02/94 Redevelopment Agency packet, I inadvertently distributed Ms. Cristina Orin's Librarv Board application rather than her Otav Vallev Proiect Area committee application. As a result, I am herewith attaching Ms. Orin's application, dated 7/18/94, indicating her interest in serving on the Otay Valley Project Area Committee. pw Attachment ~~It-- L""" ---: '--' "" ...,., "" ~~ BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION CllY OF CHUIA VISTA Please bwicate Your /merest By Checking the Appropriate Line(s). If You Check More Than One Line, Please Prioritize Your Interest. - Aging (Cmsm on) - Growth Mgmt Cmsm - Safety Cmsm - Appeals (Board of) .- Human Relations Cmsm - Southwest PAC Cmt - Charter Review - In!,1 Friendship Cmsm - Town Centre PJj Area Cmt - Child Care Cmsm - Library .Board of Trustees - UC - CV - Civil Service Cmsm - Mobilehome Rent Review Cmsm - United Nations Day ClI1t - Cultural Arts Cmsm L Otay Valley Proj Area Cmt - Veterans Affairs .' - Design Review Cmsm - Parks & Roc Cmsm ---HE~ - Economic Dev Cmsm - Planning Cmsm ~~" Ethics (Board of) Resource Consev Cmsm Os¡;: "" ",,' - - ;"'0 ... n :::ID::r - FI1 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY ~~ C» <: Q . ~. 0 . oÞ a JT1' NAME: Y' \ Co \ VI (). i{' \ VI ~~ c 1::1 0' .. HOME ADDRESS: IS SS - \ ç:; Î Mel/\do(' i Y)() þV-. CITY: C \,.u\'~1 ~ë:: ZIP:-=u..i/ \ . RES PHONE N: Y~\-Ui1.."I?. BUS PHONE N: 4a \- ;),5\REGISTERED VOTER IN C¡:j'ULA VISTA:--Lé' YES NO DO YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF CHULA VISTA? ~ - HOW LONG? / ~ yt".c.v"S YES NO .Youth COIOIOl'..OIl Applica..l' ONLY: SchlKIi Aueudi... . Grad",- COLLEGES ATTENDED & DEGREES HELD: South \kle<.\f.v"1 f oH...~ ~() Ult'llt's C\'\I'à 'bev. > PRESENTEMPLOYER:ê.\',,\, \I\"t~. <:>('\"(;r'\ "bA'l'\£~ POSITION: £~\ Å.,>'e Ih1Q'r~ ',v-.-t"""^,,,,- -tall" età,,¡nc:a-\p fo'1 , 1/\ 011 v- 11m familia, with tho rel",,",ibilili« mign<d 10 tho Bt>ard/Conuni",il,"/Conuniu« on which I wi... 10 .."w. 11, 04J~d;u).) ~, 7/ /55 Io,~ \ SIGNATURE {DATE . . . . PLEASE SEE THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS APPLICATION FOR VERY IMPORTANT LEGAL INFORMATION. . .