Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCVRC Min 2007/12/13 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRe) December 13,2007 6:00 P.M. A Regular Meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation was called to order at 6:01 p.m. in the Council Conference Room C-IOI, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. CVRC ROLL CALL PRESENT: Directors: Chair Lewis, Vice Chair Desrochers, Munoz, Paul, Rooney (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), and Salas ABSENT: Directors: Reyes ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director Garcia, City Attorney Moore, Redevelopment & Housing Assistant Director Crockett, Senior Project Coordinator Kluth, Assistant Planning Director Hare, Senior Deputy City Clerk Peoples, Senior Administrative Secretary Fields PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. 1. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. CVRC ROLE IN BA YFRONT DEVELOPMENT Assistant Planning Director Hare provided an overview of the Bayfront Master Plan and responded to questions of the Board. Redevelopment & Housing Assistant Director Crockett explained that the role of the CVRC would be advisory to the Planning Commission, and that the Planning Commission would advise the Council on the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Local Coastal Plan. Chairman Lewis requested staff provide a copy of the Bayfront Master Plan to the Directors. Redevelopment & Housing Assistant Director Crockett then spoke regarding the proposed Gaylord project, explaining that it was a Port of San Diego land use and lease decision contemplated largely on investment of tax increment. Once an agreement is determined, the CVRC role would be to advise the Redevelopment Agency on the merits of the tax increment. With regards to the proposed Pacifica project, if the land swap happens and the State approves it, the CVRC would become the design review body to process the project. Page 1 of 4 CVRC - Minutes - 12/13/07 BA YFRONT DISCUSSION ITEM (continued) Director Desrochers inquired, and staff responded, that there were other properties within the General Plan boundaries that the CVRC would be reviewing in the future, should they come forward with projects. The following people were present wishing to speak: Peter Watry, Chula Vista resident and Vice President of Crossroads II, expressed two concerns. One being that the CVRC would try to redo everything that had already been agreed to, although in compromise, regarding the Bayfront Master Plan; and second, a rumor was circulating that prominent Chula Vistan's were trying to push out Pacifica which should not be allowed as they were participants in the process from the beginning. Laura Hunter, representing the Environmental Health Coalition, stated that her organization reluctantly agreed with the compromises previously reached, and requested the CVRC help keep an eye on the project to ensure that the agreements are kept. Parks Pemberton, Chula Vista resident, spoke regarding concerns with increased traffic along the 1-5 that would effect Chula Vista residents, and expressed his opinion that it was wrong to close down and remove the power plant. Further, that consideration should be given to creating a plant that does not pollute, such as a desalination plant, which would work well on the bayfront with the water and salt being in the same location. In closing, he spoke in opposition to the placement of a Charger stadium on the bayfront. Jennifer Bagley, representing the Electrical Union, prior member of the Citizen Advisory Commission, and member of the San Diego and Imperial County Electricians Union, stated that her organization had recently commissioned a pole of local Chula Vista residents and asked them what they wanted to see on their bayfront. The results indicated that they wanted respect for the environment and something that would bring good local jobs. She stated that she would e-mail a copy of the survey to Chairman Lewis for distribution to the Board. B. SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT WORKSHOP Redevelopment & Housing Assistant Director Crockett provided a brief overview of the Sweetwater Union High School District proposal and project history. He provided a locator map and indicated the current properties owned by the District and their intended uses. He stated that the Third Avenue site was exchanged with the District in the early 1980's with the hopes of movin~ the district offices to that site. The District also wanted to relocate their corporate yards from 5 h A venue. In 2005 the District purchased the L Street site for $28 million during the height of the real-estate boom, with the new intent to relocate all other property uses there, and then sell the original properties for residential use. The Redevelopment Agency had rejected a proposal from the District in 2004 due to the risk to the Agency and City, as well as the District. They also rejected a proposal in 2006 wherein the District proposed a land use change of the L Street property to mixed use for the relocation of the Adult School, Administration Office, and new residential. The estimated cost of the project was $163 million, and their request was for $160 million from the Agency. Then finally, the District came back in October 2007 with a new proposal, which was presented to the CVRC. Mr. Crockett stated that there have been two goals since the land swap in 1995 between the District and the Agency: 1) to relocate the Administration Office to Third A venue, and 2) to get the Corporate Yard off of 5th. None of the proposals thus far have addressed these goals, and what is needed is a common understanding regarding land use and the process to be followed. SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT WORKSHOP (continued) Chairman Lewis, as a member of the appointed subcommittee who met with the SUHSD representatives, stated that the proposed project, if done correctly, could be a nice starter project for the CVRC and would kick-start revenues. The applicant needs assistance in understanding the right way to approach the project. He then stated that he had invited Director Paul to join the subcommittee. Director Desrochers, subcommittee member, stated that he concurred that the Third Avenue property was bought specifically to stimulate the area, as was the moving of the 5th Avenue Corp. Yard. He expressed concerns with the amount of tax increment funding the District wants from the Agency as the State Law is specific with regards to use of tax increment, and it appears that the District wants the Agency to contribute to the entire development, which is not legally feasible. He then expressed hope that an acceptable project could be developed. Executive Director Garcia stated that the frustration being expressed by the District was due to their plans being rejected, but he also stated that the percentage of monetary participation the District expects from the Agency is growing, with Chula Vista being the major investor, and with no accountability of the players. A constructive discussion needs to be made to determine the best way to proceed. Mr. Garcia further stated that the District wants a private deal with a developer using Redevelopment Agency funds. Director Munoz stated that he had done some research into the process for this type of project, and the apparent discrepancy is that the District does not appear to want to follow the City review process like everyone else, which is a different process than the process for building a school. Director Salas stated that he would like to see the emphasis on the Corporate Yard and the Moss and 4th Avenue properties, as it appeared that the focus was all on L Street, and that that was what was dragging the project down. Redevelopment & Housing Assistant Director Crockett stated that the concerns with L Street are that although the property has potential, they have bonds with capitalized interest that will become due in 2011 at approximately $32 million. He also stated that the Third Avenue property only has nine years left for investment. Once it expires in 2013, no more money can be put into it. Director Munoz inquired as to why the move of the District Administrative Offices to Third A venue had not occurred. Director Desrochers responded that he recalled parking had been an Issue. Chair Lewis stated that he understood that the District wanted to retain ownership of the Corporate Yard on 5th Avenue and was concerned with what the motive behind the reasoning was. The current bottom line on the proposal was that it was a very costly endeavor with very little return. He then proposed that the next step be for the Subcommittee to get back together with the District representatives and create a proposal to start working on. Page 3 of 4 CVRC - Minutes - 12/13/07 SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT WORKSHOP (continued) Executive Director Garcia stated there needed to be a reasonable pro-forma, and a reasonable partner. 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS There were none. 3. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTS Chairman Lewis stated that the Subcommittee was going to move forward on the items that came out of the workshop held with the RAC. They will address those issues and bring a report back to the full Board. He stated further that he had requested Directors Munoz and Salas, along with Lisa Moctezuma to iron out the roles and responsibilities. Chair Lewis then stated he had been invited to attend a citizen brainstorming session on the potential uses for the old Social Security Building. He spoke regarding the Citizen Advisory Commission that had worked on the Bayfront Master Plan and how it had been a 3-4 year project with diverse personalities and levels of education and opinion, and that in the end, 22 people came together to create the Master Plan, proving miracles do happen. He then wished everyone a wonderful holiday. 4. DIRECTORS' COMMENTS Director Desrochers proposed consideration by the Urban Land Institute Advisory Council for one development in the City, perhaps the Superior Court at Third and H Street. He stated that it would be an advisory service at a minimal cost, but might provide a good opportunity for a property that needs involvement. He then requested a report back by staff on the potential use. Director Salas commented on the workshop setting for meetings, and requested that the format be continued into the new-year, where every other meeting be held in a similar setting. ADJOURNMENT At 7:31 p.m., Chairman Lewis adjourned the meeting to the Regular Meeting of January 10, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. ~rt~