Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1990/12/20 MINUTES OFAREGULARMEETING OF THEREDEVELOPMENTAGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, December 20, 1990 Council Conference Room 4:05 p.m. City Hall 1. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Pro Tempore Moore; Members Rindone and Nader MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairwoman McCandliss; Member Malcolm STAFF PRESENT: Executive Director Goss; Community Development Director Salomone; Assistant City Attorney Rudolf; Assistant Community Devel~opment Director Gustafson CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 2 and 3) Item No. 3 was pulled from the Consent Calendar. 2. RESOLUTION 1140 ADOPTING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE Government Code Section 87300 et seq. requires public agencies, including the City and the Redevelopment Agency, to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code. Member Nader commented that under State law the majority of the City's consultants do not meet the State law definitions of consultants which would require disclosure of conflict of interest. He pointed out consultants often provide information under which the Council/Agency base policy decisions. He noted that he was previously informed by the City Attorney that there is a policy being worked on stating that even though state law does not require it, there may be disclosure of potential conflict of interests required from consultants. Mr. Nader stated he had asked that this policy be given to him and at some point he may want to bring this issue back. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf added that the State definition of a consultant is very restrictive. Currently, there is standard language used in all contracts/agreements that states that despite the fact the contractor is not a "consultant" according to state law for reporting purposes, nevertheless the contractor promises that they do not have a conflict of interest and will not have a conflict of interest throughout the performance of the contract. MOORE OFFERED THE RESOLUTION, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and was approved unanimously. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -2- December 20~ 1990 ****JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL**** PUBLIC HEARING 4. a. PUBLIC HEARING: THE PROPOSED SALE OF PROPERTY, PARCEL NO. 568-270-11 TO THE CHULA VISTA CENTER PARTNERSHIP b. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF PARCEL NO. 568-270-11 TO THE CHULA VISTA CENTER PARTNERSHIP California Redevelopment Law requires that the legislative body approve any sale of property by the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Goss noted that Member Malcolm requested that this item be continued. In addition, Member Rindone pointed out the notice for the public hearing stated in error the wrong time for the meeting. MOTION MSUC (Moore/Nader) to reschedule this item to January 15, 1991. 5. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF PARCEL NO. 568-270-11 TO THE CHULA VISTA CENTER PARTNERSHIP MOTION. MSUC (Moore/Nader) to reschedule this item to January 15, 1991. 6. a. RESOLUTION 15997 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO TROLLEY CENTER EXPANDED PLAN AGREEMENT b. RESOLUTION 1143 OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO TROLLEY CENTER EXPANDED PLAN AGREEMENT On August 28, 1990, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency entered into an agreement with Pacific Scene, Inc. to pursue an expanded plan for the Trolley Center commercial project on Palomar Street between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway. The expanded plan allowed for negotiation and analysis that would lead to an Owner Participation Agreement for an approximately 18- acre commercial center, rather than the proposed 12-acre center. ? Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -3- December 20~ 1990 Assistant Community Development Director Gustafson reported the EIR for the project will not be completed until June, 1991. The requested amendment to the agreement is to accommodate that date, thereby requiring Pacific Scene to refrain from pursuing their original 12-acre proposal until the EIR process has been completed. Mr. Jim Moxham, Senior Vice President, Pacific Scene, Inc., addressed the Agency. Mr. Moxham stated they are systematically trying to acquire the expansion parcels according to their size. This effort is being closely coordinated with the Redevelopment Agency to ensure that any offers they would make would not adversely be utilized in any condemnation proceedings if such action is required. They are also approaching the acquisition of these properties with the understanding that condemnation adds cost to the process and Pacific Scene should be prepared to pay between the fair market value and the anticipated cost of condemnation. Mr. Moxham further reported that Pacific Scene strongly supports the relocation of the church to the Ridgeback site. Pacific Scene will be accelerating their efforts in the first quarter of the year to bring the majority of the expansion acreage under contract. At that point in time they will have a clearer idea as to what extent the City may need to exercise their power of eminent domain. Mr. Moxham added that the agreement stipulates that 65% of the leasable area of the shopping center be occupied by high sales tax generating businesses. These businesses are defined in the agreement as having taxable sales in excess of $275 per square foot. They are continuing to pursue the limited number of firms that fit this category. One of the most talked about is WalMart. ~They are doubtful that WalMart will be able to fit on this site because of the physical constraints of the site. Several site plans have been sent to WalMart which have been unacceptable to them. Pacific Scene is in negotiation with Ross Stores for a 26,000 sq. ft. store on the basis that they will be an acceptable major tenant regardless of who the key anchor is. Nordstram Rack has been pursued, however, they have currently put a freeze on all locations south of I-8. Mr. Moxham stated they are not sure who will anchor the center at this time. They are pursuing discussions with Bill Thompson, the founder of Home Club~ for three of his company operations. Pacific Scene has also received interest from Service Merchandiser, a 54,000 square foot catalogue store. Mr. Moxham pointed out that the Council previously indicated that they did not want a grocery store on the site. Pacific Scenes would like to ask if that view still holds true since Mega Foods, Lucky's, and Albertsons are interested in the site. Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -4- December 20, 1990 Mr. Moxham noted it is anticipated that a workshop will be scheduled in February with the Redevelopment Agency to resolve as many of the outstanding issues as possible. The EIR is not expected to come before the Council until June of 1991, after which they would submit plans for design review and start construction drawings. They hope to start building in January 1992 with completion in the Fall of 1992. Member Nader commented that the staff report indicated that the daycare center is dependent upon land being available from MTDB. He asked about the status of any negotiations with MTDB in this regard. Mr. Moxham responded that they have met with MTDB on this matter. MTDB was not comfortable with the proposed location of the daycare center in proximity to the overhead power lines. In looking for a solution, Pacific Scene has met with property owners who have approximately two acres of property on the corner of Aida Street. The property owners are receptive at this time to selling 25,000 square feet on the corner. They are working with the County Daycare Coordinator and looking into the for- profit daycare operators. They have not reached a decision but are making progress. Member Nader further commented that the report points out there are unresolved safety concerns with the overhead power lines with respect to the proposed park. If it is not possible to include the park where proposed, he would like to see the final result be softened with greenery and park-like landscaping along the pedestrian access. ~Member Nader stated that a portion of this project is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. He pointed out he owns property located in the Project Area. The property is located at least three-quarters of a mile away this proposed project. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf stated that the project before the Agency is an amendment of a contract with regard to a particular site which is more than 2,500 feet from Member Nader's property; therefore, Member Nader is presumed not to have a conflict of interest. Chairman Pro Tempore Moore noted his major concern with this project has to do with traffic. Is it the staff's and applicant's intention that Palomar will be widened the full length of the block from Industrial Boulevard to Broadway? Mr. Gustafson responded this is correct. Mr. Moore further noted he believes there should be some other escape valve. He suggested an escape route via Jayken Way still be considered. He pointed Redevelopment Aqency Minutes -5- December 20, 1990 out there is not an escape valve for the trolley station or the western end of the development. Member Nader commented he is concerned at the direction staff is going concerning the entertainment center, that it is being given a low priority for consideration. He believes it would be incumbent on the Agency to view the provision of entertainment facilities, in particular youth-oriented and family-oriented entertainment facilities, in western Chula Vista with a higher priority. Member Rindone suggested that if a major retailer does not come through for this project, which is the Agency's primary objective, then it would be a viabl~ option to consider an entertainment facililty/center. Executive Director Goss commented that at the time the input of an entertainment center was given to staff and the developer, there were some uncertainties as to where the roller skate rink, the theaters, and the bowling alley would relocate. It appears that all three of those entities at this time have viable options. RESOLUTIONS A AND B WERE OFFERED BY MEMBER NADER, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and was approved unanimously. The City Council adjourned to the regular meeting of 1/8/91 at 6:00 p.m. **END OF JOINT MEETING** OTHER BUSINESS 7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. 8. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 3. RESOLUTION 1142 ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-90-11 AND APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH JOSEF AND BONNIE SEDIVEC, DEVELOPERS OF A 13,800-SQUA1AE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Joseph and Bonnie Sedivec proposed to build a 13,800-square foot industrial building at 1881-1885 Nirvana Avenue within the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project Area. The proposed building will be occupied by Mr. Sedivec's company, SEDA Products, Inc., which manufactures, imports and distributes canoes and racing kayaks. Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -6- December 20, 1990 Mr. Salomone stated the applicant has asked to appeal some of the conditions required by the Design Review Committee. Assistant Planner Hernandez reported that the development proposal consists of an approximate 14,000 square foot light industrial facility. The project is elevated in relationship to 0tay Valley Road approximately 20-25 feet; therefore, the project becomes very predominant travelling east and west on Otay Valley Road. The Design Review Committee (DRC) had concerns revolving around site design issues. The DRC requested that the south side of the building be treated to provide some articulation and break the monotony that was created with a single plane. The DRC directed the project architect to reduce the number of windows and increase the width of the concrete panels. This is what the applicant disagrees with. Mr. Marvin Cohen, 1420 Kettner Boulevard, San Diego, 92101, architect for the applicant, stated that when this project was first brought to the Planning Department, one of the concerns raised was the view of the air conditioning equipment which is placed on the roof. As a result of that, the building was raised from 20' to 24' in order to conceal the air conditioning equipment. This gave the building proportion greater height. The sills of the windows are three feet from the floor, and the head is at 8 feet. Mr. Cohen noted that the Design Review Committee was concerned about the proportion of the windows to the building. He noted the windows are in proportion, but the building is quite high. Changing the width of the panels is an economic problem. The panels are pre-cast, constructed off-site, trucked in and erected. Mr. Cohen added that what is before the Agency is a question of whether the Design Review Committee should suggest a design of a building that has no relation to what is going on inside the building; or whether the building should suit the purpose for which it is being designed. Mr. Hernandez pointed out that a formula was suggested by the DRC to correct the design concerns. How to make the corrections is up to the project architect. Mr. Cohen stated the other concerns he and the developer had with the DRC recommended size of the windows of bringing them lower to the floor were: (1) unable to put furnishings against the windows; and (2) that area has a high crime rate which will ultimately require bars on the windows. Mr. Mike Spethman, member of the Design Review Committee, addressed the Agency. It is the contention of the Committee that the proposed windows are out of scale to pedestrian traffic. They feel that if the size of the windows increase and the amount Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -7- December 20, 1990 of windows decrease, there would be more articulation to the building. In addition, Mr. Spethman noted that two of the architects on the Committee have expressed that the concrete panels for the building could be built to a different specification. Mr. Hernandez stated one of the roles of the DRC is to see a visual composition of the building. The Committee does not get involved in the function of the building because it then becomes a variable problem. The main purpose of going through the design review process is to determine how the building will be perceived from the public view. The Committee has adopted some basic policies, one of which is that the building should have proportion. The building should have harmony; a visual balance. The whole idea is to make a balance of materials; the materials are windows, treatment, walls, etc. Mr. Cohen added that the form of the building and exterior expression of the building expresses what goes on inside the building. The building has been designed to meet the needs of the client. The windows in question are windows in the office area. Member Rindone commented he believes that at this point in time, while the design is always critical, the basic principal that form follows function cannot be negated. Chairman Pro Tempore Moore commented he is in agreement with Member Rindone's comments. He noted that the applicant has complied with a number of DRC's recommendations. Member Rindone commented that there have been a number of areas of concerns already agreed upon by the DRC and the owner; because there is an area of disagreement does not mean that someone is not doing their job. The DRC is to be commended for their efforts as well as the owner and architect. Assistant City Attorney Rudolf pointed out that Exhibit B of the Owner Participation Agreement contains 12 conditions of approval. The conditions in question are numbers 9 and 12. Deputy City Manager questioned if staff and the applicant are in agreement on the remaining conditions. The response was affirmative from all parties. Member Nader commented when a recommendation comes to the Agency from staff, a commission or board, he would like them to take into consideration as big a picture as possible in formulating their recommendation. He does not think the Agency can make responsible decisions without regard to economics and function of the building. Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -8- December 20~ 1990 Mr. Salomone reported that he and the Planning Director are going to propose to the Council and Agency that a workshop be held with the Design Review Committee. MOTION MS (Moore/Rindone) amend Exhibit B (Conditions of Approval) to the Owner Participation Agreement to delete conditions 9 and 12. Mr. Joseph Sedivec addressed the Agency. He expressed his appreciation of the action being taken by the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Sedivec also expressed his frustration with the process involved in getting the approvals for his project as well as the length of time. VOTE ON THE MOTION The motion passed unanimously. CHAIRMAN PRO TEMPORE MOORE OFFERED THE RESOLUTION AS AME~iD~D, the reading of the text was waived by unanimous consent, passed and was approved unanimously. 9. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. 10. CHAIR'S REPORT: None. 11 o MEMBERS ' COMMENTS: None. ADJOURNMENT to closed session at 5:51 p.m. to discuss: Property Neqotiations: 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.); and Property Disposition: 200 Block Landis Parking Lot (Assessor Parcel Numbers 568-152-1, 2, 3, 14, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27) pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 (Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, owner). ADJOURNMENT from closed session at 6:12 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Agency on Thursday, January 17, 1991 at 4:00 p.m. Chris Salomone Community Development Director (Min5)