Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1990/09/20 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULAVISTA, CAI]~ORNIA Thursday, September 20, 1990 Council Conference Room 4:07 p.m. City Hall 1. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cox; Members Moore, Nadir and Malcolm; Member McCandliss arrived at 5:05 p.m. MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Executive Director Goss; Community Development Director Salomone; Agency Attorney Boogaard; Deputy City Manager Thomson 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 8, 1990 MSC (Moore/Nader) approve the minutes of August 8, 1990 as submitted. (The vote was 4-0; Member McCandliss was not present for the vote.) CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 3 through 5) Item No. 5 was pulled from the Consent Calendar. MEMBER MOORE OFFERED THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR (ITEMS 3 AND 4), the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and was approved. (The vote on item No. 3 was 3-1 with Member Nader opposed and Member McCandliss not present for the vote; the vote on item 4 was 4-0 with Member McCandliss not present for the vote.) 3. RESOLUTION 1116 ADOPTING A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A BILLBOARD LEASE AND IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 186 BROADWAY The City and Redevelopment Agency have undertaken a billboard elimination project. One of the subjects of this project is the billboard located in the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area at 186 Broadway on property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Fogerty and leased to National Neon, a billboard space rental company. At the direction of the Agency, an appraisal was conducted of the billboard lease and improvements and these fair market value offers were conveyed to the respective parties. Both the Fogerty's and National Neon declined to either accept or officially decline the offer. It was recommended that the Agency adopt the resolution of necessity and authorize the City Attorney to pursue Agency possession of the billboard lease and improvements. Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -2- September 20, 199~ 4. RESOLUTION 1117 AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF 315 FOURTH AVENUE On January 5, 1990, the Agency purchased the property at 315 Fourth Avenue from Mr. Richard Zogob. This resolution requested the Agency to authorize use of building rental funds for'ongoing maintenance of the building. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR OTHER BUSINESS 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Hugh Christensen, 376 Center Street, #350, Chula Vista, CA 92010, addressed the Agency concerning the Agency-owned property formerly occupied by Windmill Farms. In his opinion, the proposals received for development of this property are on the wrong track. He pointed out that the Town Centre is already experiencing severe impacts from commercial developments in nearby district shopping centers and that has been exacerbated in the last three years. Storefronts along Third Avenue are again in decline. It is Mr. Christensen's opinion that this property should be developed as high-density residential. Downtown cannot compete with the shopping centers, therefore, the downtown shops must be supported by walk-to-shop customers. He noted that the General Plan needs to be revised to give specific parcels that would be designated for potential high-rise residential use. Mr. Sam Blick, representing the Pieri Company, stated he would like to address the Agency but would like to wait until the full Agency is present. ADDENDUM TO AGENDA RESOLUTION 1120 APPROVING RIGHT TO MARKET AGREEMENT WITH RADOS BROTHERS REGARDING PROPERTY AT 798 F STREET AND AUTHORIZING CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENT In September, the Agency authorized the Chairman and staff to enter into discussions with the Rados Brothers regarding the status of their property at 798 F Street. The recommended Right to Market Agreement is a result of that meeting. Agency Attorney Boogaard stated it is requested that staff be authorized to modify the agreement as follows: (1) to make it in a recordable form, and (2) to make it clear that there will be potential on-site and off-site costs, including the possible realignment of Bay Boulevard, in which either the plant owner or tenant operator would be subject to paying. Mr. Boogaard further Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -3- September 20~ 1990 pointed out that this agreement is in a negotiated state. There is not a firm commitment from the Rados Brothers to execute the agreement. Staff would like to be able to indicate that the form of this agreement has the consent of the Agency. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MEMBER MALCOLM, the reading of the ~ext was waived by unanimous consent, passed and was approved. (The vote was 4-0; Member McCandliss was not present for the vote.) 8. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. 9. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: Chairman cox noted there may be a need for additional lighting at the new parking lot on Landis Avenue. He would like staff to do another assessment to determine if sufficient lighting will exist. 10. MEMBERS' COMMENTS: Member Malcolm reported a letter was rece~ived from Chris Crottie of the Yes on 138 Committee, reporting that he has trees for free if the City is willing to plant them in Chula Vista. Member Malcolm noted the Navy Housing project on Otay Lakes Road is in need of landscaping. Mr. Goss pointed out that the City has an agreement with McMillin Development that will provide $50,000 towards landscaping of that project. The Agency members discussed going into Closed Session at this time, desiring to have Member McCandliss present before discussing item No. 5 on the agenda. MOTION MSC (Cox/Nader) to go into closed session to discuss: Potential Acquisition of Property Located at: The Northeast Corner of Fifth Avenue and H Street - 8.82 acres (Fee owner: Garrstt, Ltd., a California Limited Partnership, David S. Casey, Sr., Wayne P. Lill, and Metropolitan Shopping Square, Ltd.) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8; and Disposition of Property Located at: Northeast Corner of H Street and Ridgeback Road (City of Chula Vista; owner) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. (The vote was 4-0; Member McCandliss was not preset for the vote.) The Agency adjourned into Closed Session at 4:35 p.m. Member McCandliss arrived during the Closed Session meeting at 5:05 p.m. The meeting reconvened in open session at 5:22 p.m. Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -4- September 20, 1990 Chairman Cox reported that the Agency did not take any action on the items that were discussed in Closed Session. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Continued) Sam Blick, representing the Pieri Company, addressed th~ Agency regarding the Agency-owned property formerly occupied by Windmill Farms. He stated that it came as a surprise to Mr. Pieri for his proposal to be excluded from consideration due to the fact that his proposal was recommended by Agency staff as well as the Town Centre Project Area Committee as the selected proposal. Mr. Blick asked the Agency to consider all of the work that has gone into the preparation of the Pieri Company proposal and to keep their proposal in the competition. Member Malcolm responded to concerns raised regarding discussion of this matter at the meeting of September 18, 1990. He noted that he had transcripts of that meeting prepared so that there would not be any misunderstanding. The direction of the Agency to staff was that they are to come back and make a recommendation on the Flagship and Pacific Scene proposals. The Agency has the flexibility of rejecting those two proposals and going back to the Pieri Company proposal, or even rejecting all three proposals. He noted that Mr. Pieri of the Pieri Company withdrew his proposal. Member Malcolm noted concern with the building height in Mr. Pieri's proposal and stated that this proposal is not acceptable to him. Chairman Cox commented that based on the comments made at the meeting on Tuesday, he was under the impression that the action of the majority of the Agency was that it was precluding the Pieri Company from further consideration. It was made even more confusing by the subsequent action of Mr. Pieri of removing his proposal from consideration. Member McCandliss commented she had concerns about the Pieri Company proposal. It is unfortunate that more direction was not given to staff as to what was desired by the Agency for this site; it was left completely open-ended. She stated it was her understanding that before Mr. Pieri withdrew his proposal, the Agency was headed in the direction of making it clear that they still wanted the flexibility to go back and consider the Pieri project. Chairman Cox suggested that Mr. Pieri provide a written request indicating that he would still like his project to be considered. Executive Director Goss stated that from the discussion at this meeting, he understands that the intent is that all three proposals would still be considered. If that is correct, he does not believe that any further action is needed. Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -5- September 20. 1990 Member Nader commented that it was his understanding that the motion on Tuesday was to have staff compare the ether two proposals, and that did not preclude a consideration by the Agency of all three proposals. 7. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR ' 5.A. RESOLUTION 1118 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE PRELIMINARY REPORT, DRAFT METHODS FOR RELOCATION, DRAFT OWNER PARTICIPATION. RULES, DRAFT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA B. RESOLUTION 1119 REMOVING ALL PROPERTY NORTH OF SWEETWATER RIVER FROM CONSIDERATION FOR INCLUSION IN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA For adoption of the new Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, Redevelopment Law requires that the Agency prepare and distribute a Preliminary Report that contains: 1) the reasons for selecting the Redevelopment Project Area, 2) a description of conditions in the Project Area, 3) a preliminary assessment of the method of financing the redevelopment project, 4) a description of the specific projects to be pursued by the Agency, and 5) a description of how these projects will improve the identified blighting conditions in the project area. The law also requires that the Agency distribute the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Draft Methods for Relocation, Draft Owner Participation Ru%es, and the Draft Redevelopment Plan to all affected taxing agencies, and to make these documents available for public comment. Resolution B removes two areas of Chula Vista that extend north of the Sweetwater River Valley from the project area. These areas are non-contiguous and would hinder prospects for project adoption approvals by the State and taxing agencies. Member Malcolm stated that he would abstain from voting on this matter due to a potential conflict of interest. He noted he owns property located near the proposed Redevelopment Project. Member Malcolm left the meeting at 5:44 p.m. Member Nader noted that he also owns property near the Redevelopment Project Area. He stated he would like to have the matter bifurcated so that he may participate in discussion on the matter as it pertains to property south of L Street. Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -6- September 20~ 1990 MOTION MSC (Cox/Moore) to bifurcate discussion of this matter to focus on the area south of L Street. (The vote was 3-0; Member Nader abstained and Member Malcolm was not present for the vote.) Mr. Boogaard stated it is his opinion that Member Nader'can now participate in discussion of this matter as it pertains to the area south of L Street. Community Development Director Salomone stated the process involved in establishing this project area is on a very tight schedule. The schedule is predicated on getting the ordinance in effect and adopted before December 31, 1990. This will allow the Agency to collect tax increment a year earlier. Mr. Salomone further stated the Agency is being asked to approve draft documents for transmittal to the taxing agencies. One of these documents, the Preliminary Report, will be seen by the Agency again, however, this will be the Agency's final action on this document. The rest of the items will go to the various committees for review and will be brought back to the Agency for final consideration. The Agency is also being asked to delete part of the preliminary survey area, which includes parcels near National City. Finally, the Agency is being asked to extend the negotiating period with the taxing agencies. Carlos Flores, representing Rosenow Spevacek Group, consultants for the project, distributed a time line to the Agency indicating the milestone dates for processing the establishment of the project area. Responding to questions of Member McCandliss, Mr. Flores stated there has not been any indication of opposition or concern at this point from the various agencies who review the proposed project area, however, the preliminary reports and draft Redevelopment Plan will go out for distribution on Monday, September 24. Mr. Flores stated that four of the five documents that the Agency is being asked to approve the transmittal of are the Preliminary Report, the Draft Redevelopment Plan, the Draft Methods for Relocation, and Draft Owner Participation Rules, and are required by Redevelopment Law for adoption of the project area. The Preliminary Report is the precursor to the report to Council that will be seen at the public hearing scheduled for November 13. It is directed toward the affected taxing entities so that they can decide what the potential impact of this area will be on them. These documents must be made available for review and comments for the people in the proposed project area. Mr. Flores added that the Draft Redevelopment Plan will go to the taxing entities and also to the Project Area Committee. A key Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -7- September 20f 1990 issue addressed in the Plan is eminent domain. Mr. Flores noted that the use of eminent domain will be excluded in three areas, Broderick's Otay Acres, Woodlawn Park and Harborside "B". If a structure is residentially used and within a residentially zoned area, then the Agency will not have the power of eminent domain in these three areas. Everywhere else in the Project A~ea, the Agency will have an unrestricted power of eminent domain as allowed by Redevelopment Law. John Bridges of Cotton Beland, the firm that prepared the EIR, stated that this EIR is designed to ,cover a series of actions that will occur over an extended period of time; in this case, the life of the redevelopment project which is 40 years. The EIR estimates impacts over that entire period of time. Mr. Bridges pointed out that it is important to recognize that private and public projects that come before the Agency in the future as a part of this project area will require additional environmental review. In preparing the EIR, Mr. Bridges stated that the future planned land use for the project area is looked at and impacts are estimated by looking at the change that will occur under General Plan build out. Mr. Bridges next discussed the conclusions reached in the Draft EIR. Two of the four categories used to identify impacts were: unavoidable significant impacts, and significant impacts that can be avoided or mitigated. Air quality has been identified as one impact that is not fully mitigable. A statement of overriding considerations would need to be adopted. Significant impacts that can be mitigated are land use, traffic, noise, schools and recreation. Responding to questions of Member Nader, Mr. Bridges stated that in looking at the change that will occur over a 40 year period of time, the impact to air quality is a result of both vehicular and non-mobile emissions. He added that air quality is a cumulative impact that covers the entire region. If nothing else happens within the Redevelopment Project Area to impact air quality, the impacts will still be there as a result of occurrences outside the project area. The Agency does not have direct control over all of the air quality impacts. Member McCandliss commented that the documents that will be provided to the residents and business owners of the project area should be prepared in language that is easily understood. Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -8- September 20, 1990 Member McCandliss further commented that she is willing to consider using eminent domain to take a residential unit only as a last resort. Mr. Boogaard recommended bringing back a policy statement to be adopted by the Redevelopment Agency with regard to th~ use of eminent domain. Me suggested the Redevelopment Plan state that the power of eminent domain will be applied to areas that are not planned residential. The policy statement would say that where the power of eminent domain is granted by the Plan, eminent domain would be used only in cases of extreme caution and as a last resort measure. Member Nader commented that he does not support the staff recommendation because he does not believe that it goes far enough in protecting residents. He believes the Agency needs to spell out which areas are potentially subject to eminent domain and which are not. Another concern he has is with regard to the "last resort" language in the suggested policy statement. He could support it if he had confidence that it would mean the same thing to everyone. Member Moore commented the policy needs to address how the City is going to handle instances when the power of eminent domain is used. What are the steps that the policy makers ensure will occur; for example: personal contact, invitation to attend a meeting with full explanation, ensured relocation. MOTIO~ MS (Cox/Moore) that in addition to the language in Section 502 (Property Acquisition) of the Proposed Redevelopment Plan, that a statement be included as follows: The use of eminent domain would not be utilized on any parcels that are designated in the General Plan for residential uses (list specific areas that this would apply to); direct staff to develop policy statement to be brought back outlining procedures to be used in the event that eminent domain action is considered. Member Moore added that there should be a caveat that in this particular document there should be a referral to this particular policy statement. Chairman Cox stated that is the intent of the motion. Member Nader stated that in addition to listing those areas which are excluded from eminent domain because they are planned residential, he believes the residential areas that are not planned residential and will be subject to eminent domain should also be listed. Member Nader added he would also like to see the policy statement address how it is determined that eminent domain will be exercised (define what a last resort is). Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -9- September 20, 1990 AMENDMENT TO MOTION MS (Nader/Moore) to amend the motion to (1) spell out those residential areas which are not planned residential and (2) to include in the policy statement a definition of "last resort". Responding to concerns raised, Member Nader stated he would limit the amendment to the motion to listing existing legal residential uses which are in areas that are not planned residential under the existing General Plan. Mr. Salomone suggested attaching . a map designating the residences. Two exhibits will be prepared; one showing the properties that will be exempt from the power of eminent domain, and one showing those properties that are non-conforming residential uses that will be subject to eminent domain. In addition, a statement will be added to the Redevelopment Plan referring to a policy statement regarding the use of eminent domain. VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION The amendment to the motion passed. (The vote was 4-0; Member Malcolm was not present for the vote.) VOTE ON THE MOTION The motion passed. (The vote was 3-1; Member Nader opposed and Member Malcolm was not present for the vote.) Member Nader left the meeting at 6:42 p.m. The Agency at this time dealt with the portion of the proposed project area north of L Street. MOTION MSC (Cox/McCandliss) adopt the same language clarification for the area north of L Street that was adopted for the portion of the project area south of L Street. (The motion passed; the vote was 3-0; Members Nader and Malcolm were not present for the vote.) MOTION MSC (Cox/Moore) authorize extension of the negotiation period for fiscal review with the taxing agencies to October 9, 1990 for both areas of the project area (north and south of L Street). (The motion passed; the vote was 3-0; Members Nader and Malcolm were not present for the vote.) RESOLUTION "A" OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN COX, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and was approved. (The vote was 3-0; Members Nader and Malcolm were not present for the vote.) Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -10- September 20, 1990 RESOLUTION "B" OFFERED BY MEMBER MOORE, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and was approved. (The vote was 3-0; Members Nader and Malcolm were not present for the vote.) 10. MEMBERS' COMMENTS Member Moore commented regarding the Southwest Project Area Committee. He suggested that the City Attorney and City Clerk meet with this committee to explain the rules and regulations of a committee. Member Moore further noted concern with 3 members of the Montgomery Planning Committee being members of the Project Area Committee. Mr. Salomone stated that he and the Planning Director are developing a policy that will be forwarded to the Agency regarding those two committees. ADJOURNMENT at 6:50 p.m. to the regular meeting of Thursday, October 4, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. Chris Salomone Community Development Director (Minute20)