Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1990/10/18 Mi?qUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, October 18, 1990 Council Conference Room 7:00 p.m. City Hall 1. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cox; Members Moore, Nader and Malcolm MEMBERS ABSENT: Member McCandliss STAFF PRESENT: Deputy City Manager Krempl; Community Development Director Salomone; Agency Attorney Boogaard 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 9/6/90, 9/11/90 and 9/18/90 MSUC (Moore/Cox) to approve the minutes of 9/6/90, 9/11/90 and 9/18/90 as submitted. 3. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY a. REPORT: QUARTERLY REPORT OF THE PORT COMMISSIONER Port Commissioner Robert Penner was present and gave the following update on Port District activities as they affect Chula Vista. (1) 6/12/90 - All financial assistance requests by Chula Vista (six items) were approved for anapproximate' total amount of $150,000. (2) 7/10/90 - Construction of Marina View Park required geotechnical consultation; a professional services agreement was executed with Applied Earth Technology ($2,750.00). (3) 7/24/90 -(a) Bull Fence was accepted as low bidder to create fencing and gates at the Chula Vista Tidelands in an amount not to exceed $30,754.00. -(b) The Commissioners considered the final draft agreement between the Port and five member cities for funding to off-set the services that the various cities rendered to the Port District. -(c) $15,000 was approved for the hosting of the 10K run at the Chula Vista Harbor. (4) 8/7/90 - Mitigation credits was discussed. It was recommended that staff be directed to negotiate with Chula Vista Investors to extend the option to purchase. Since that meeting, Chula Vista Investors has stated that they are no longer interested in an extension of the mitigation credits to the Port because they are not sure what they will need for projects that they have elsewhere. Dr. Penner noted the door is open for the Port District to see what is Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -2- October 18, 1990 available in mitigation credits when the time comes that the Port would actually need them. (5) 9/11/90 -(a) The Port Commissioners directed staff to develop RFPs for both a restaurant and a hotel for the southern arm of Chula Vista Harbor. -(b) The Commissioners authorized issuance of a request for proposals for soil testing services with regard to the Second Harbor Entrance Project - Crown Cove site. -(c) The Commissioners adopted an agreement to authorize a sediment transport and distribution study of San Diego Bay in connection with the Second Harbor Entrance Project for a fee not-to-exceed $10,000. (6) 9/25/90 - The Commissioners adopted an ordinance granting a one year extension to Chula Vista Marina's obligation to construct a marine service station - completion date of 7/1/91. Responding to questions, Dr. Penner stated the Attorney General has not submitted an opinion at this point concerning revenue sharing. **The Agency recessed at 7:19 p.m. to an adjourned meeting of the City Council. The Redevelopment Agency reconvened at 7:21 p.m.** 5. RESOLUTION 1125 ACCEPTING THE GRANT DEED AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $275,320 FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 568-270-11 In accordance with the Owner Participation Agreement entered into in November 1989 between the Agency and Mr. Robert Kolkey, owner of Chula Vista Center, the Agency is purchasing the Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way. The right-of-way will be leased to Mr. Kolkey under terms of the existing lease with Santa Fe Railroad until such time as the property is sold by the Agency. RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MEMBER MALCOLM, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and was approved unanimously. 4. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT WITH SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FIFTH AVENUE AND H STREET WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA At its meeting of October 5, 1989, the Agency entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Scripps Hospital to develop an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) for the redevelopment of 8.9 acres at the northeast corner of Fifth Avenue and H Street. Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -3- October 18~ 1990 On March 1, 1990, the Agency approved the extension of the agreement which expired on September 30, 1990. It was recommended that the Agency extend the negotiation agreement with Scripps for a maximum additional period of six months. The agreement was amended to a Semi-Exclusive Negotiation Agreement in order not to preclude other owners and tenants on the site from submitting redevelopment plans if they so choose. Member Nader commented that it is his understanding that the details of potential agreements to accomplish relocation of businesses at the site will be a subject of closed session at this meeting. He would prefer knowing the details of that discussion before voting on the extension of the Semi-Exclusive Negotiation Agreement. Agency Attorney Boogaard stated it is necessary to go into closed session to discuss the relocation agreements. In order to comply with previously established policy, he recommended that the Agency allow presentation of the staff report and receive public input before going into closed session. Community Development Director Salomone stated Scripps has performed a number of actions in investigating the suitability of the site and the project that has been proposed. Those actions include committing funds to site investigation, design development, design review and investigation of the owners and tenants rights, as well as appraisals of the properties. It is staff's opinion that the one year time frame of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement for a project of this size was very optimistic and at this point the Environmental Impact Report has still not been completed. It is scheduled to be completed in January. Staff believes the reasons for the extension of the agreement are valid, having to do with traffic and circulation. It is desired to have a six month extension of this agreement in order to allow ample time for any other contingencies that may come up and to return to the Agency with an Owner Participation Agreement. Mr. Salomone further reported that the Town Centre Project Area Committee has recommended that every effort be made to incorporate existing commercial uses into any final plans for the redevelopment of the site and that the tenants should be fully apprised in writing of the status of any plans for redevelopment of the site. Mr. Boogaard stated that the agreement before the Agency at this time changes the status of the negotiating agreement from exclusive to semi-exclusive. This agreement will permit the Agency staff to negotiate with those persons who are entitled to exercise owner participation rights. Those persons may then present a plan that they feel is appropriate for the redevelop- Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -4- October 18, 1990 ment of the site if they so desire. They would be entitled to have environmental review of that plan conducted, and to have the plan presented to the Redevelopment Agency at the same time the Scripps expansion plan is presented. It is staff's recommendation that the Agency approve the agreement in the semi- exclusive form. Member Malcolm commented that for practical purposes no one could afford to take the risk of developing a plan and bringing it forward for the Agency to review; it is too expensive. He believes that by the Agency's action to date, they have cut off and stifled other owners from coming forward with a plan. If this agreement is approved tonight, it will have the same practical effect of stifling the people from coming forward. Responding to questions raised by Member Malcolm, Mr. Boogaard stated Scripps is proposing to provide certain assurances to two of the youth serving facilities, Rollerskate Land and Fiesta Twin Cinemas with regard to relocation. Scripps is asking that the Agency provide some assurances in addition to the assurances they are providing in order to try to relocate these two facilities. The actual legal parameters of those assurances should be discussed in closed session. Member Nader commented that ultimately he will not vote for this plan unless relocation aspects have been satisfactorily taken care of by the applicant. He suggested that a cut off date be established such that if assurances are not received that relocation can be accomplished then the agreement would terminate (rather than continue through the expensive environmental review process). Gail MacLeod, 6363 Greenwich Drive, Suite 250, San Diego 92122, representing RTM West (Arby's), stated that she is a planning consultant. She pointed out that 6 months ago the Agency discussed the subject agreement and at that time the Agency could not terminate the agreement or even substantially modify it unless Scripps was found in default. At this time, the Agency is in a position to amend the agreement. Also, 6 months ago Agency members commented on the lack of communication and specifically asked for this to be rectified. Scripps has had a series of meetings; however, the meetings have all been "one way". MS. MacLeod distributed a cody of Arby's recommendation for an amendment to the agreement. The recommendation suggested that the Agency amend Section 104 of the agreement. This section is a project description that states what the Agency expects Scripps to do. In addition to the medical facilities that Scripps proposes, the amendment would have the Agency specify that buildings accommodate existing businesses that wish to remain on site. Redevelopment Aqency Minutes -5- October 18, 1990 Ms. MacLeod further stated that at the Town Centre Project Area Committee meeting of this date, Scripps presented their reasons why it is impossible to have a mixed-use on the site. At the meeting, Scripps stated that they could not accommodate all the existing businesses. Ms. MacLeod noted that not all of the businesses want to stay, only a few do. She suggested a few of the businesses could be accommodated on the site. Also, at the meeting, Ms. MacLeod noted Scripps stated it would be incompatible to do this because it is necessary to separate hospital traffic from commercial traffic. Ms. MacLeod pointed out there are multiple opportunities with unlimited options for handling traffic. She noted another point Scripps brought up was that the site is already too small and. that there is an acreage deficit with no room for other uses. She concluded that it is physically possible to accommodate the businesses. Finally, Ms. MacLeod noted Scripps stated that they had evaluated keeping commercial uses on the site and that it doesn't work. Ms. MacLeod stated there is no evidence of this. Scripps has made no effort to sit down with businesses to try to work out a site plan that includes any of them. Scripps has ~ejected the alternative out of hand and there is no reason for them to do otherwise because the agreement specifies that they only have to deal with the project description which fits their expanded hospital needs. Jim Eischen, Attorney representing RTM West (Arby's), 2729 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3, San Diego, stated this Exclusive Negotiation Agreement should lapse due to violations of California State Law, violations of the Town Centre II Redevelopment Plan Amendment, violations of the reports that underlie the Redevelopment Plan that state why the Plan was adopted, and violation of the rules that guide the redevelopment of the project area. The agreement as it is currently drafted and the underlying project excludes all business tenants from remaining on the site. Business tenant participation, reentry and existence as a business on the site is required by California Law. A review of the Redevelopment Plan, the reports that support that plan, and the rules that govern that plan, state very clearly what the intent was when the project area was included in this redevelopment site. The concept was the redevelopment of an urban core; to reconfigure a badly configured parcel of property that is zoned commercial retail. He pointed out that the property is listed in the General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan as commercial retail. The project and the agreement evict every business on that site. This should be corrected as a matter of law and complicity with the Redevelopment Plan. In looking at the rules that guide the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, they clearly state that business tenant participation on the site is preferred. Mr. Eischen further stated the Agency should allow the agreement to lapse because it is not legal, even if it is opened up as Semi-Exclusive, because the opportunity that one has as a busi- Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -6- October 18~ 1990 ness or an owner to economically pursue redevelopment is limited. If the Agency is not inclined to allow this agreement to lapse, they then recommend a proposed amendment that will allow business tenants to remain on the site if they so desire which will comply with California law. Responding to questions of Member Nader, Mr. Eischen stated what they are looking for with the amendment to the agreement is that if this project is going to continue, that it is stated clearly, that business tenants who wish to remain on the site can and will remain on the site. It is their hope that this will lead to compliance with the law, the Redevelopment Plan, the rules and reports that all say that business tenants should be allowed a preference to remain on that site and participate in the redevelopment. Member Malcolm asked Mr. Eischen if this amendment was put into the agreement, would the agreement be legal in Mr. Eishen's opinion. Mr. Eischen responded probably yes. Charles Harmon, representing the owner of Arby's Restaurant, commented that a mixed-use development is possible. He presented to the Town Centre Project Area Committee (PAC) on this date a suggested plan that allows certain business tenants to remain on site. Using the overhead projector, Mr. Harmon presented the same proposal to the Agency. A mixed-use project that he is suggesting can accommodate Scripps needs, although it may not be everything that Scripps wants. According to Mr. Harmon, this plan would reduce Scripps' relocation expenses if some of the tenants can remain on site and it would stop a costly and lengthy legal dispute. It addresses the Design Review Committee's (DRC) concerns with the parking garage and traffic issues. Mr. Harmon noted another DRC concern was with the medical office building and its five story vertical impact fronting H Street. This proposal moves it back out of view and replaces it with one story buildings. This proposal meets the PAC's recommendation of 10/4/90 and 10/18/90 that every effort be made to incorporate existing tenants into the project if they want to remain on site. It increases City revenues by having additional retail parties paying taxes on the site. It is fair to all the parties involved in that they all have some compromise. He believes a mixed-use alternative is a win-win situation. Arby's clearly wants to remain on site. Arby's needs to be adjacent to H Street, adjacent to Chula Vista Shopping Center, and next to the hospital. He does not believe that in the last year that Scripps has shown a willingness to compromise. Mr. Harmon added that outright termination of the amendment will only lead to a court battle and hold up the project. He stated he has both the resolve and the resources to go through a legal Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -7- October 18r 1990 battle if necessary. He does not want to do that, rather, he is hoping for cooperation to allow the project in some form. Chairman Cox noted that the language submitted by Arby's is different in verbiage from what the PAC recommended, yet the basic thrust is the same. The PAC's language is perhaps more permissive than the language submitted by Arby's. Chairman Cox asked if the language proposed by the PAC would be acceptable to Arby's? Mr. Harmon responded no, because of a concern that everything is so abstract that it allows a maneuvering behind the scenes to remove them from the project without full public disclosure. Anything short of direct language coming from this body will not serve his needs of being on the site. Member Malcolm stated he has felt from the beginning that there are two unique tenants on the site that need to be relocated in order to have the Scripps proposal go forward. He stated that the Agency laid out the rules very clearly. Two tenants had to be accommodated and relocated. There is work going on to try and accommodate and relocate the other tenants. It would not be fair to change the rules on Scripps at this point and make them put something into a project that is not compatible. He believes the wording proposed by the PAC is proper, but the mandatory wording of Arby's would not be appropriate. Donald W. Penn, 2600 Michelson, #1130, Irvine, CA, representing Readi Care, stated he is a Vice President of the Corporation that owns and operates the facility at 499 H Street. He stated that Readi Care has talked to the hospital about being included in their project noting that incorporating Readi Care would not be a mixed-use. They have always wanted to stay and feel it is the same type of use. They would like to stay in the same location where they are. Optional sites for relocating their business are not available. Jerry Willitts, 475 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010, representing Fiesta Twin Cinemas, commented that he is not against Scripps coming into the location. However, there has been a deadline put forth before him by Homart Development with regard to relocation. If staff is recommending to renew the Semi-Exclusive Negotiation Agreement, he believes that additional wording needs to be added which would make Scripps take a position to either relocate the business or inform the businesses that they are not going to do so. Augie Carniglia, 455 Fifth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010, representing Rollerskate Land, noted he is also on a very short time deadline with regard to the relocation proposal. He has property in escrow on L Street and he has a $25,000 deposit which will be lost if he does not have a decision by November 15. He Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -8- October 18~ 1990 prepared a statement that he asked be taken into Closed Session by the Agency and asked the Agency to respond to it. MOTION MSUC (Malcolm/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: Garrett, Ltd., a California Limited Partnership, David S. Casey, Sr., Wayne P. Lill, and Metropolitan Shopping Square, Ltd.) **The Agency recessed at 8:30 p.m. to go into Closed Session. The meeting reconvened at 9:16 p.m.** Agency Attorney Boogaard stated that the substance of the closed session was the proposal to negotiate the relocation subsidy agreements with Rollerskate Land and Fiesta Twin Cinemas. In this regard, three motions are recommended by staff. The first motion is as follows: (1) That the Agency authorize staff to neqotiate relocation subsidy aqreements in the manner directed by the Agency Board in Executive Session with ScripDs and, if in staff's judqement, is determined to be necessary with Rollerskate Land and Fiesta Twin Cinemas; and to return those relocation subsidy a~reements to the Aqenc¥ Board when neqotiated. MOTION MS (Cox/Malcolm) to approve motion Number 1 as recommended by staff. Member Malcolm commented he believes the record is very clear that he has been a strong proponent of the relocation of these two uses referred to in the motion. However, at no time, he indicated, nor does he think it is fair, that they are given an open check book. All sides, Rollerskate Land, Fiesta Twin Cinemas and Scripps, need to negotiate in good faith and be fair in the amount that they are asking for. He encouraged both Rollerskate Land and Fiesta Twin Cinemas to work as closely as they can with staff to come up with some type of compromise. Member Nader agreed with Member Malcolm's comments. He noted it is incumbent upon all parties to be reasonable. He is willing to consider some city obligations to the extent that they are beneficial to the City; they need to be justified on their own and not just for the sake of getting a project. VOTE ON THE MOTION The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Boogaard stated the second motion addresses the Semi- Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. He noted staff will subsequent- Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -9- October 18~ 1990 ly be asking that the Agency direct staff to consider in good faith all owner participation rights of owner participants who wish to present a plan. As a result of that, it is Mr. Boogaard's opinion that the language recommended by the Project Area Committee or by Arby's is not needed. There is an alternative whereby Arby's can, under the terms and conditions of the following motion, present an owner participation plan in a way that is economically feasible for them to do so, by helping to reduce the environmental review cost of their plan. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the Agency approve the following motion: (2) The Aqencv authorize the Chairman to execute the Semi Exclusive Ne~otiatinq Aqreement that is in the staff report as modified by the Aqenc¥ General Counsel so as to permit the A~ency Board to review and terminate that aqreement if within 30 da¥:~ the relocation subsidy aqreements are not returned to the Aqency executed by the aDDroDriate Darties MOTION MSUC (Moore/Nader) approve motion number 2 as recommended by staff. Mr. Boogaard stated motion number 3 is as follows: C3) The Aqenc¥ direct staff to invite owner particiDants submit plans and to have staff consider them in ~ood faith, a~ least from those Dersons who are or may be entitled in thn judqement of Aqenc¥ staff to exercise owner DarticiDation riqhts, and to cause an environmental review to occur of these owne~ particiDant Dlans with the cost of same bein~ absorbed by the owner participant applicant unless based on the nature and extenl. of the owner participant plan submitted, staff determines tha{. environmental review can be accommodated as an alternative to th,~ ScriDDs project and then, only if the owner participant shares i~, a fair proDortion of the cost of same MOTION MS (Nader/Cox) approve motion number 3 as recommended by staff. Member Nader commented that any alternatives would have to include similar relocation provisions. Mr. Boogaard noted this statement would be received as a statement of preference by an individual member. VOTE ON THE MOTION The motion passed unanimously. Responding to questions, Chairman Cox clarified the action that the Agency took. He noted direction was given to staff to negotiate with Scripps on possible Agency participation in Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -10- October 18 1990 assisting relocation of Fiesta Twin Cinemas and Rollerskate Land. Chairman Cox further stated the Agency would welcome any tenant, property owner or lessee/lessor on that property to submit a redevelopment proposal for that particular site. To the extent that the existing EIR that is being done by Scripps could be applicable, it would be made available, so that there could be some partial savings on the EIR work. Any other direct cost would be borne by the proposer. Responding to questions of Mr. Harmon, Mr. Boogaard stated that in order for Mr. Harmon to have a plan considered, it would have to be presented officially in writing to the Agency staff. All plans will be brought back to the Agency for consideration. Mr. Eischen noted that the Agency declined to adopt the language proposed by Arby's or the recommended language by the Town Centre Project Area Committee. He questioned if it is the position of the Agency that there need not be a preference for businesses to reenter and participate in redevelopment. Mr. Boogaard stated the Agency does not wish to comment on this. It is not the duty of the City Attorney to give advisory legal opinions to members of the public. Mr. Eischen also asked to place on the record a request that information that is subject to an exemption of the Brown Act be disclosed to business tenants. Before the closed session, the City Attorney noted some of the discussions that have to do with responding to the letter submitted on behalf of Arby's, which may be subject to exceptions to Brown Act privilege. He wanted to request on the record dissemination from the City Attorney to Mr. Eischen those matters that were discussed that would be subject to those Brown Act exemptions. Mr. Boogaard stated those are matters of strict confidential privilege and would require a unanimous vote of the Agency for him to release any information as to what occurs in Executive Session. Everything that was discussed in closed session was privileged for discussion in closed session. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. 7. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. 8. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: Chairman Cox requested an update regarding the status of the Landis parking lot completion. Mr. Salomone reported that Engineering staff is exploring an obligation on the contractor's part to find a suitable temporary light fixture while they await the custom designed light fixtures. Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -11- October 18~ 1990 9. MEMBERS' COMI~ENTS: None. **The Agency recessed at 9:45 p.m. to convene an adjourned meeting of the City Council. The Agency reconvened at 9:52 p.m.** The Redevelopment Agency adjourned to Closed Session at 9:52 p.m. to discuss potential acquisition of property located at 459 F Street (Mr. and Mrs. Ignacio Adamo, owners) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. Closed Session adjourned at 9:55 p.m. to the regular meeting of Thursday, November 1, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. Chris Salomone Community Development Director (MIN2)