Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1992/03/24 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE ~1-1¥ OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, March 24, 1992 Council Chambers 10:32 p.m. Public Ser~ces Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Members Grasser Horton, Malcolm, Moore, Rindone, and Chairman Nader ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF M1NUTES: September 3, 1991; O~tober 8, 1991; November 26, 1991; December 10, 1991; February 4, 1992; February 25, 1992; and March 3, 1992 MSUC (Moore/MalcoLm) m approve the minutes as presented, Member Grassex Horron abstained on the minutes of September 3, 1991. CONSENT C~t .RNDAR 3. WRfFIELIq COMMUNICATIONS: None 4. RE. SOLUTION 1242 APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH CINTI AND ASSO~TES FOR PLANNING SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE IN THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND DOCUMEIqTS FOR THE M1DBAYFRONT, AND APPROPRIATING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMF_aNT FL1NDS THEREFORE -The Council approved the Conceptual Plan for development of the Midbayfront. To carry out this Plan it is necessary to amend the City's Local Coastal Plan, prepare a Development Agreement, amend the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan, and prepare a General Plan amendment. Council indicated that these activities move forward quickly. Planning consulting services will be necessary to establish planning guidelines, standards, and consols, assist in preparation of an amended LCP, and to ensure that all relevant documents are properly coordinated. Staff is recommending retention of Cinti and Associated based upon their past experience and familiarity with the Midbayfront project, and performance on past Agency contracts. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. 4/5th's vote required. Chairman Nader questioned whether the item was time sensitive, as he felt several inembers of the Planning Subcommittee would have concerns with the item, i.e. the way the work with the Planning Subcommittee was done. He questioned whether it could be continued to allow staff to talk to members of the Subcommittee and revise the recommendation in any way. Member Malcolm stated the Subcommittee's recommendations had been changed in numerous areas. The Agency needed someone to do the job as he did nor feel that the City had the expertise or the time. It was a very complicated document and very intense resulting in a lot of meetlngs with the Coastal staff. If there was a problem with the particular firm, staff had made very good arguments as to why they were the best. The property owner felt it was time sensitive and the Agency had made a commitment to get the LCP amendment before the Coastal Commission some rime next year. Every time it was delayed was a problem. Chairman Nader stated that the property owner had indicated, as to this consultant, he would not follow what in most cases would be customary practice and agree to pay for the work. Minutes March 24, 1992 Page 2 Member Malcolm stated customary practice was that the cities paid for LCP submittals and could petition the Coastal Commission to reimburse all or a portion of those fees to the City. The property owner had stated he would pay his attorney to do it. chris Salomone, Director of Gommtmity Development, responded that the project was on a very aggressive schedule, he hesitated to state that it was urgent and needed to be decided tonight, but felt that the firm had been working for over two years on the project and to replace them with a new firm, bring them up to speed on the Local Goastal Plan, the impact of that would be more than the two or three weeks the Agency was discussing to poll the Subcommittee. Chairman Nader stated he was surprised at the report as he had seen the frustrations in the Subcommittee. He would like the process from here to be handled differently. Mr. Salomone stated that the role of the consultant from here would be to review the submittal of the applicant's attorneys and consultants. It was no longer to take a proactive roll but to review the submittal. Chairman Nader stated he had several concerns and was not prepared to vote on the Resolution tonight. After discussing it with other Subcommittee members there could possibly be some conditions that would reassure him. He apologized that he did not have time to go into that with staff before the meeting. Member Rindone stated that when the Subcommittee was established it was with a very defined task which it had completed, i.e. recommendation to the Council. Staff had stated clearly that they could do the job ff necessary without assistance in a very delayed process and 'the amount of time necessary to complete the ?roject would be approximately the same as for the contractor - five months'. He felt staff was requesting 3~e expertise and assistance. No one had been harsher on the Council than he had regarding contractors/consultants but in this particular case that was acceptable. What was not acceptable was the position that the developer had taken which was agreeing to consider reimbursing the consultant costs as part of the DDA negotiations. He felt it was beneficial to the developer as well as the City. MS (Rindone/Malcolm) to approve the item pending an agreement by the developer to pay 50% of the Mayor Nader expressed the following concerns: 1) he did not want to pay for any work that did not comply with the direction given by the Council and/or staff; 2) he did not want surprises, the consultant agreed to do all work needed to be done to complete the LCP submittal; and 3) he did not want to be charged for additional amounts beyond what was being contemplated tonight for work that everyone should know would be included. Agency Attorney Boogaard responded to Chairman Nader's fu-st concern, Page 3, Exhibit A, Hourly Arrangement, the Agency had the commitment to pay for only productive hours of time spent by the consultant, so that ff unproductive hours were spent the City would not be obligated to pay. The General Work Assignment was as directed by the Community Development Depa~ h~ent Director. Member Malcolm stated the Agency Attorney would add language to the Resolution to address Chairman Nader's concerns. Mr. Salomone responded to Chairman Nader's second concern, the consultant would be reviewing work done by Mr. Barketl's consultant and anything in addition to the LCP amendment, i.e. General Plan Amendment, Redevelopment Plan Amendment, and the Development Agreement. There was a clause that stated 'to ~nsu~.e. that the applicant is clear on staff intent and the proposed amendment is consistent with the )rov~slons General Plan'. Minutes March 24, 1992 Page 3 Agency Attorney Boogaard stated it was a time and materials contract. If they were assigned to do a job it was at an hourly rate and there was a maximum compensation clause of $64,200. Chairman Nader questioned whether the $64,200 was an ironclad maximum. Agency Attorney Boogaard responded that it was not as ironclad as one would be led to believe because it was an assigned hourly rate. Chairman Nader requested that it be incorporated into the motion that the Agency Attorney would incorporate language to cover that concern. Member Rindone stated he had asked staff that specific question and was given assurance that the cost would not exceed $64,200 because he had concurred with Ghairman Nader. Agency Attorney Boogaard stated it would not exceed the $64,200 but the question was whether the entire work product they wanted done would be at that price. Member Grasser Horton noted that the staff response stated that if the Agency wanted additional work done they would have to renegotiate the contract based on an reassessment of man hours required. Member Rindone responded that he had read ~additional work' as work beyond the scope of work proposed. Agency Attorney Boogaard stated he had misunderstood and the Agency would have the advantage of a lower hourly rate not to exceed the maximum and they would do the entire scope of work identified on pages 1-7 for that maximum. Ghairman Nader questioned whether the Agency would have the right to accept or reject the work as being consistent or inconsistent with the Agency/staff direction. Mr. Salomone felt that the Agency would have that authority as explained by the Agency Attorney. Agency Attorney Boogaard stated that if the consultant did the work as assigned by the Agency, the Agency would have to pay whether or not they liked the results. Ghairman Nader stated he wanted the staff or Agency to have that right, just as they had if there was a sidewalk repair they were unsatisfied with. They would refuse the work and pay them after it was done to their satisfaction. Agency Attorney Boogaard responded that there was a certain amount of discretion in the professional arrangement that required the consultant to use his expertise/judgement as opposed to a public works project where hard and fast quantifiable results. Chairman Nader felt ff there was a discrepancy between what someone was told to do and what was received back it would be quantifiable. He requested that the motion include direction to the Agency Attorney to draft language addressing his concerns. Member Moore stated that he understood that the consultant was being hired to review what Barkett's staff submitted. Mr. Salomone stated the consultant's role would go a little beyond that in assisting staff and it would ultimately be a City sponsored LGP amendment, not Mr. Barkett or the property owners. He would review Minutes March 24, 1992 Page 4 -- the preparation of the document, as prepared by Mr. Barkett's consultant and attorneys. Mr. Cinti's firm would review that document for compliance with the City's General Plan and meet with Coastal staff to ensure that it met with Coastal Commission criteria. Member Moore questioned whether Mr. Cinti's firm would have the authority to change the document if it did not comply. Mr. Salomone responded that they would, in meetings with staff, recommend revisions, make revisions, and ultimately come up with a document that the City could support. Chairman Nader felt that the wording incorporated into the motion by Member Rindone would tighten up the contract. He was concerned that in reviewing the submittals of the applicant, it needed to conform with the direction given by the Agency. The key point was that it had to be reviewed to ensure conformance with the Agency's direction. Therefore, ir had to be clear what the Agency's direction was. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. Mr. Salomone stated it was his understanding of the motion that Mr. Barkett would pay 50% of the consultant and questioned if the Agency was to be reimbursed 50% or did the Agency appropriatc 5CP,6 of the amount. Chairman Nader responded that the motion was to require an agreement from Mr. Barkett to reimburse the Agency for 50%. '.!Member Rindone stated that was the correct understanding of the motion. If Mr. Barkett did not agree up front the consultant would then not be hired. Member Moore questioned whether it was staffs intent that the Agency not pay anything. Mn Salomone responded that it was staffs original intention that it be a negotiable reimbursement in the Development Agreement. The applicant had agreed to that. RESOLUTION 1242, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN NADER, reading of the text was waived. Member Malcolm stated he supported staff unless he felt they had gone totally overboard but he was disappointed in the fact that Mr. Cinti had never appeared before the Coastal Commission. Staff had not contacted him regarding this item. Member Rindone felt Member Malcolm had raised a valid point and if he had other information he felt important to ensure the success of the project, the Agency needed to look into that. Member Malcolm responded that Mr. Cinti may have other people on his staff that had worked with other firms or been before the Coastal Commission. If staff had a problem with it they should bring it back for review. Mr. Salomone stated Mr. Cinti had been with the Bayfront project for over two years and had worked on the LCP for the Rohr project. Staff had met with the local Coastal staff members on how to proceed with the amendment and had brought them into the Task Force process to analyze the amendment. The real ~!~!basis for h/ring Mr. Ginti was his longevity on the project. Minutes March 24, 1992 Page 5 Member Grasser Horron questioned why Member Malcolm had not brought his concerns forward earlier in the project. Member Malcolm responded that there were different portions, the land use plan was reviewed by the Goastal Gommission and now the implementing ordinances were to be developed. The Gity would have to educate Mr. Ginti on Coastal Commission regulations or a new person on the plan. When the original plan for Gunpowder Point was done, a consultant from San Francisco was utilized and then a firm from Sacramento prepared the LCP amendment and submittal because they were separate and difficult jobs. This time the Agency had decided to use the same person and he was unaware of that until he had received his Agency packet. He would have utilized someone that regularly had projects and represented cities up and down the coast before the Goastal Gommission. This was not being prepared for the City of Chula Vista but for the Coastal Commission and should be prepared so that they understood it. Member Grasser Horton questioned whether it was in th~ best interest of the City to look at someone with that expertise. Member Malcolm stated he did not know all the employees at Cinti and Associates and hoped that staff would look at that. He recommended that the final vote be continued to Thursday to allow staff to review and report back to the Agency. Member Rindone felt that Member Malcolm had raised a valid point and that he was not questioning the capability of the particular firm. He was stating that there was a historical track record of those that had been successful and it required a different type of expertise, it was a question as to whether that would be more valuable that hiring someone that had worked with the project for two years. Therefore, he would support the continuation of the final vote to Thursday with a recommendation back from staff at that time. SUBS-I'I'IlJT~ MOTION: (RiudonedMalcolm) to continue Resolution 1242, as amended, to a meeting on Thursday, March 26, 1992 following the Regular Council Meetlng/Worlcsession. Approved unanimously. Agency Attorney Boogaard stated it was rarely one of the most advantageous contractual arrangements the City could hope to achieve from a consultant and apologize to Mr. Salomone and the Agency for mis- characterizing it initially, VOTE ON SLIBSIrr0TE MOTION: approved unanimously. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND R~T~.~ RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANt"~-q 5. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER GRANTING A VARIANCE TO RETAIN AN EXISTING SIGN IDENIlP'YING DOCICS COCKTAIL LOUNGE RESTAURANT AT 317 THIRD AVENUE - The business owner at 317 Third Avenue is requesting a variance which will permit him to retain the projecting sign; the sign is currently non-conforming with existing sign ordinance; therefor the Agency is requested to hold a public hearing to receive public input to consider granting the variance. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. RESOLUTION 1243 MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND APPROVING VARIANCE TO RETAIN A SIGN IDEN-I'IFIqNG DOCK'S COCKTAIL LOUNGE RESTAURANT AT 317 THIRD A~ This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. Donald M. Swanson, 187 Murray Street, Chula Vista, GA, representing the Downtown Business Association, stated there was no opposition to the request. It had been approved by the Downtown Business Association, Minutes March 24, 1992 Page 6 - the Project Area Committee, the Redevelopment staff, and he also had a petition also in support. He felt the sign should be preserved. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTION 1243 OI~P-Ic~RED BY GHAIRMAN NADER, readin~ of the text was waived, passed and approved .n~nlmously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ACTION rFEMS 6. RESOLUTION 1244 APPROVLN'G A SUBORDINATION AGRF. F. MENT WITH CIVIC CENTER BARRIO HOUSING CORPORA'rlON C'CORPORATIOIq'}, AND A LOAN ASSIG~ AND ASSiJMFrlON AGREEMENT WITH CORPORATION AND PARK VILLAGE APARTMENTS LIMrlPiD PARTNERSHIP ALL [lq FURTHERAN(~ OF A DEVELOPMENT AGR~-~mNT HERETOFORE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN AGENCY AND CORPORATION - On 6/4/91, the Agency approved a loan to the Civic Center Barrio Housing Corporation for the propose of building 28 family units for low-income households. The developer is requesting subordination of the Agency loan to construction loan from Security Pacific Bank. Staff recommends approval of the resolution and authorize the Executive Director to execute these agreements and related documents. MSUC (Nade_r/Grasser Horton) to conliuue Resolution 1244 to Thursday, March 26, 1992 following the Council Meeting/Worksesalon. OTHER BUSINESS 7. D1RECrOR~ REPORT(S) - None 8. CHAIRMAN~ REPORT(S) - None 9. ~ER'S COMMFAN'TS - None ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT ll:0S p.m. to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on Tuesday, April 7, 1992 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Glerk by: Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy C~lerk