HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1996/05/21 RDAMINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, May 21, 1996
9:32 p.m.
Public Services Building
Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
Agency/Council Members Alevy, Moot, Padilia, Rindone , and Chair/Mayor
Horton
John D. Goss, Director/City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency/City
Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 7, 1996
MSUC (Padilia/Moot) to approve the minutes of May 7, 1996 as presented.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items pulled: none)
3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
4. RESOLUTION 1495 APPROVING FINAL RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PAYMENT TO AUGUSTIN
REYES RESULTING FROM EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION REGARDING PALOMAR TROLLEY
CENTER--The Agency acquired through eminent domain action the La Mission Mi Cabana restaurant and nightclub
from Mr. Reyes in pursuit of the Disposition and Development Agreement for the Palomar Trolley Center. The
Agency's relocation consultant has submitted a payment request to the Agency for relocation costs the Agency
agreed to pay in the stipulation of judgment. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community
Development Director)
5. RESOLUTION 18308 and RESOLUTION 1496 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH LIPMAN STEVENS
MARSHALL & THENE, INC. FOR PROVIDING APPRAISAL SERVICES FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS--Several currently
budgeted capital improvement projects require additional right-of-way for construction. To expedite the acquisition
process, staff must first appraise the value of the property and is requesting to contract for property appraisal
services for a one-year period with a renewable clause for an additional year. Staff recommends approval of the
resolutions. (Director of Public Works)
6. RESOLUTION 18309 and RESOLUTION 1497 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH RYALS AND
ASSOCIATES FOR PROVIDING RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND RELOCATION SERVICES FOR
VARIOUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS--Several currently budgeted capital improvement projects require additional right-of-way for
construction. To expedite the acquisition process, staff proposes to contract for property acquisition and relocation
services for a one-year period with a renewable clause for an additional year. Staff recommends approval of the
resolutions. (Director of Public Works)
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
None submitted.
Minutes
May 21, 1996
Page 2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
ACTION ITEMS
7. A. RESOLUTION 18310 ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-93-07; ADOPTING ADDENDUM
TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-93-07A AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
FINDING NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR TROLLEY TERRACE TOWNHOMES; APPROVING A
CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS WITH SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY
SERVICES WITH RESPECT TO 1.16 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 746 AND 750 ADA
STREET FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN 18 UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLEX;
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS; AND APPROVING A FUNDING
COMMITMENT OF $509,311 FROM THE HOME PROGRAM FUNDS TO BE LOANED FOR SUCH
DEVELOPMENT COMPLEX--The Council on 7/19/94 approved purchase of the two parcels for the purpose of
developing an affordable for sale housing development with associated child care facility as part of the Palomar
Trolley Shopping Center development. South Bay Community Services proposed to build the affordable housing
and intends to develop the child care center. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. [4/5ths Vote Required
on Item ll.B] (Community Development Director)
B. RESOLUTION 1498 and RESOLUTION 18311 APPROPRIATING $643,000 OF HOME FUNDS AND
DEPOSITING THOSE FUNDS IN THE AGENCY'S LOW/MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUND AS
REPAYMENT FOR FUNDS PREVIOUSLY ADVANCED FOR PURCHASE OF PROJECT SITE [4/5ths
Vote Required]
Juan Arroyo, Housing Coordinator, stated it was essential tbr the Council/Agency to take action due to an
established deadline to submit the proposal for a tax credit financing requirement by 5/28/96. The project had
received wide spread community support.
· Chris Moxon, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, South Bay Community Services, stated there was a need
for large units for families. He requested Agency/Council support.
· Ken Sauder, 3 15 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Community Development Director for South Bay Community
Services, requested Agency/Council support.
· Barbara A. Worth, 1260 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, South Bay Community Services, stated the city Housing
Commission supported the project.
·Mitch Thompson, 5110 Glen Verde Drive, Bonita, CA, Bank of America Community Development Bank, stated
they were the proposed construction and permanent lender. He requested Agency/Council support.
Member Rindone commended SBCS for their work in the conununity, but expressed concern about the staffing of
the Agency. The City of San Diego had tied in a new condition, i.e. job or vocational training. He questioned if
there was a linkage between education/training and low income housing in the city.
David Gustafson, Assistant Director of Community Development, responded that Park Village Apartments had an
employment/counseling assistance component. Casa Nueva Vida had a component that provided educational training
for job searches. He felt SBCS would positively respond to include that in the proposed project.
Member Rindone questioned how it was monitored.
Mr. Gustafson responded that city staff monitored the Park Village Apartments project.
Mr. Sauder stated SBCS had the personnel to handle the project. There was a time with all projects when
everything came together and they were able to take on another project. They monitored their time very carefully.
They had a case worker to help identify needs of the residents of Casa Nueva Vida. They were also working on
Minutes
May 21, 1996
Page 3
another proposal where they would be working with a consortium of agencies which would include job training for
victims of domestic violence. They were very concerned in not only providing housing and shelter but services as
needed for the total development of the person.
Member Rindone stated he was pleased to hear the services being oft~red by SBCS. He requested that staff
summarize what was being done regarding the linkage between housing and training. He also wanted to see
everyone with housing projects brought in with the trainers and networking groups.
RESOLUTIONS 18310, 1498, AND 18311 OFFERED BY MEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was
waived, passed and approved unanimously.
8.A RESOLUTION 1499 APPROVING RATIFICATION OF A $378,280 COMMITMENT FROM THE
LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUND FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED IN RANCHO DEL REY SPA III--Amendment to the Cordova housing
agreements to enhance the project's competitivehess in the next tax credit application cycle. All conditions
previously approved by Council/Agency remain valid and are not proposed to be changed. Staff recommends
approval of the resolutions. [4/5ths Vote Required on ltem 9.B] (Community Development Director)
B. RESOLUTION 1500 APPROVING A COMMITMENT FOR $100,000 FROM THE LOW/MODERATE
INCOME HOUSING FUNDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED IN RANCHO DEL REY SPA III [4/5ths Vote Required on this item|
C. RESOLUTION 18312 APPROVING RATIFICATION OF A LAND DONATION AND A $160,000
COMMITMENT FROM HOME PROGRAM FUNDS FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT
PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED IN RANCHO DEL REY SPA IlI
D. RESOLUTION 18313 APPROVING [1] AN AMENDED AND RESTATED CONVEYANCE
AGREEMENT AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS WITH RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS; [2] AN
AMENDED AND RESTATED ASSIGNMENT OF CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW
INSTRUCTIONS WITH CORDOVA VENTURES; [3] AN AMENDED AND RESTATED LOW INCOME
HOUSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS AND CORDOVA VENTURES
ALL WITH RESPECT TO 2.97 ACRES OF PROPERTY WITHIN SPA Ill PROPOSED FOR
DEVELOPMENT INTO A 40 UNIT LOW INCOME HOUSING COMPLEX; AND [4] AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AMENDED AND RESTATED CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT AND ESCROW
INSTRUCTIONS AND THE AMENDED AND RESTATED ASSIGNMENT OF CONVEYANCE
AGREEMENT AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
E. RESOLUTION 18314 APPROVING AN AMENDED AND RESTATED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AGREEMENT WITH RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS, L.P.
Member Moot stated he would abstain from participation in order to avoid a conflict of interest
Juan Arroyo, Housing Coordinator, gave a brief history of the project. Staff and Rancho del Rey were in
disagreement regarding the affordable housing delivery schedule. Rancho del Rey felt they should be relieved of
the cap on market rate unit approval until the aftbrdable units were delivered. They were unwilling to participate
in the proposed Cordova project resubmittal unless relieved of the city mandated cap. Staff recommended keeping
the cap on market rate units in place at the present time and revisiting the issue once staff learned whether the tax
credit application succeeded. Staff would know if tax credits were awarded by August 1996. Staff felt the
application was more competitive at the present time and did not want to relinquish city leverage to ensure the
affordable housing units were built. Council was being asked to make a policy decision on the matter. Local
residents had been informed of the process.
David Gustafson, Assistant Director of Community Development, stated between the present time and August 1996
when the tax credit committee decided on whether the project was funded, staff would work with Rancho del Rey
and all other potential participants to develop alternative projects if Cordova did not get a tax credit award. Staff
wanted back-up positions that they could act on quickly. If the state committee awarded the preliminary credits to
Minutes
May 21, 1996
Page 4
the project and if Rancho del Rey was progressing with due diligence, staff would recommend that the
Agency/Council suspend the cap on the maps for the market units that Rancho del Rey wanted to pursue. If the
state committee did not award the credits, staff would recommend that they return to Council the first week in
September with a reconsideration of Rancho del Rey's request to be relieved of the cap. Staff wanted to be as
flexible as possible while still keeping Rancho del Rey a committed and participating member to provide the
affordable housing in Rancho del Rey.
,, Chris Moxon, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, South Bay Community Services, stated they supported the
project and noted the need in the eastern area of the city.
· Craig Fukuyama, 2727 Hoover, National City, CA, Ranch del Rey Investors Limited, stated he wanted to commit
and reaffirm their support fbr the Cordova project. His remarks were focused on the issue on Item E, Rancho del
Rey's affordable housing agreement. In fulfillment of their obligation the partnership had pledged to donate nearly
$1 million in property for the 40 units of which their obligation was only 23 units. They were reimbursing the
city's affordable housing program an additional $238,000. They had completed development of the site and
recorded the parcel map and had spent in excess of $25,000 preparing the conveyance agreements, two
modifications, and amendments before the Agency/Council. In addition, they had granted the city an $805,000 deed
of trust on the Cordova site securing their affordable housing obligation. The city was not without some leverage
over the Ranch del Rey Partnership to fulfill it's obligation. He felt the "leverage" referred to by staff was
effectively a city imposed moratorium on Rancho del Rey. The leverage was punitive and not an inducement or
incentive to comply with the city requirements. They could not commit to the Cordova project again without being
relieved of the moratorium. Even with financial enhancements Cordova's success was uncertain and they could not
seriously pursue alternatives while legally committed to the Cordova project. Other non-profits were not willing
to commit or engage in serious negotiations while the likelihood of a successful outcome regarding the Cordova
project hung over them. Holding them financially hostage was unreasonable and excessive. They could not accept
the terms in the staff~s most recent revisions to the agreement. They desired an affirmative statement in the
agreement that stated "At the end of the period for the tax credit (around September 15, 1996) the final map cap
would be terminated or lifted.' He requested approval of Exhibit F which was their version of the agreement.
Mr. Gustarson responded that if staffs language was added to Section 2 of the document, it would be the staff
recommendation. If it was left the way it was in the Agency/Council packet it would reflect Mr. Fukuyama's
request.
Chair/Mayor Horton stated that Rancho del Rey had done tremendous things for the community and she wanted to
work out a resolution. She supported Mr. Fukuyama's requested because it did not jeopardize the city's goal.
Member Rindone stated there were conflicting interests between a respected company and protecting the city's
interests. It was his understanding that during the period of time, i.e. until September, if the cap was terminated
the projection was approximately 400 additional units to be processed.
Mr. Fukuyama stated the subdivision map would be before Council in July/August for approximately 400 lots which
he felt would be the final tentative subdivision map for Rancho del Rey. They were currently negotiating a project
that abutted the affordable housing site that could conceivably be a condominium project for about 200 more units.
They were reluctant to negotiate because of the pending Cordova action and the possibility that there was a final
map limit in place.
Member Rindone stated felt the proposal was reasonable and questioned what the downside was for the city.
Mr. Gustarson responded that there were two concerns: 1) staff wanted Rancho del Rey to continue to be committed
to the project and the caps had been placed at the mid-point of the project so that when they reached the end of the
project they would have affordable housing and not have to make compromises that the city would not normally
make; 2) the setting of a precedent, if Council did remove the cap he recommended that it be put on the record that
it was extraordinary circumstances, i.e. Rancho del Rey had made an extraordinary effort to make it happen, but
had been held captive by a tax credit process beyond their control. Staff had searched for alternatives and had not
found any. The city had security on the site but it was not sufficient to ensure that the affordable housing units
would be built.
Minutes
May 21, 1996
Page 5
Member Padilia agreed that an incremental lifting of the cap would be impractical. The city had dealt extensively
with the developer over the years and felt there was a good faith situation. He understood the incompleteness in
terms of the value on the deed of trust, but felt the willingness was significant and should be taken into
consideration. He felt the Agency/Council should move forward with Mr. Fukuyama's recommendation.
· Ken Sauder, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, Community Development Director for South Bay Community
Services, stated there was a tremendous need for affordable housing on the East side of I-805, particularly in the
Rancho del Rey area. They enjoyed working with McMillin Company and Rancho del Rey. He requested
Agency/Council support of the project.
· Mitch Thompson, 5110 Glen Verde Drive, Bonita, CA, Bank of America, felt the project would be a positive
attribute for the community. He requested Agency/Council support of the project.
Member Alevy stated he had concerns with the project. When the item was previously before the Agency/Council
he was the no vote. The education process that had been conducted evidently worked because there was no one
present in opposition to the project. It was unfortunate that more people were not given an opportunity to buy a
home the first time. The co-op program for the trolley project was admirable and he questioned the possibility for
such a program for the Cordova project. There was a real difference in pride in ownership from pride in rentership.
Mr. Sauder responded that they could look at such a co-op. When the tax credit period of 15 years ran out the
residents could organize in some way regarding purchase. South Bay Community Services was not just looking at
putting roofs over people's heads but helping them meet all their needs.
Member Alevy stated he lived beyond the 300 ft. area, but within the 2,500 ~. area and had been assured that it
would have little, if any, effect on the value of his home. The city should be very proud of the quality of the
affordable housing in the city and the fact that the city was way ahead of the threshold of the rest of the county and
region. The project abutted to an existing neighborhood which did not fall under the disclosure requirement when
they purchased their homes. The city needed to give the neighborhood every opportunity to give input and be
educated regarding projects in order to lessen the impacts. The developer had gone way beyond the norm to make
the eastern part of the city a wonderfully planned community. He supported Mr. Fukuyama's request as they had
made a sincere effort. He did not want government to stand in the way of progress.
Member Rindone felt it was a unique situation and did not set a precedent. The community interest was best served
when there was a responsible developer that provided the jobs, opportunities, and advancements which impacted
the economy of the city. He believed McMillin's commitment.
RESOLUTION 18314, EXHIBIT F, OFFERED BY MEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived,
passed and approved 4-0-0-1 with Moot abstaining.
RESOLUTIONS 1499, 1500, 18312, AND 18313 OFFERED BY CHAIR/MAYOR HORTON, reading of the
text was waived, passed and approved 4-0-0-1 with Moot abstaining.
1TEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
None
OTHER BUSINESS
9. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S} - None
10. CHAIR'S/MAYOR'S REPORT(S) - None
11. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS - None
Minutes
May 21, 1996
Page 6
ADJOURNMENT
ADJOURNMENT AT 10:47 P.M. to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on June 4, 1996 at 4:00 p.m.,
immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers.
By:
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
Vicki C. Soderquist, CM~,~uty City Clerk