Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1993/04/27 RDA MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF TIIE t;HY COUNCIl_./ I~_.DEVELOPMF~N'T AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, April 27, 1993 Council Chambers 9:30 p.m. Public Services Building CAIL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Member/Councilmember Hotton, Fox, Moore, Rindone, and Cha/rman/Mayor Nader ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director/City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency/City Attorney; Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted. CONSENT C~I.~.NDAR 3. WRI'I'H~ COMMUNICATIONS: None. 4. REPORT POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE MASTER FEE S(]'IF~ULE UPDATE ON GENERAL TAXPAYERS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND EXISTING BUSINESSES IN THE PROCESS OF EXPANSION OR IMPROVEMENT - At the meeting of March 23, 1993 the City Council amended the Master Fee Schedule with the stipulation that no fee adjustments take effect prior to a staff report being received addressing certain concerns. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Management Services) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. A. RESOLUTION 17086 ESTABHSHING A COUNCIL POLICY ON SPECIFIC CATEGORIES OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ASSISTANCE OR FEE SUBSIDIES B. RESOLUTION 1324 ESTABLISHING AN AGENCY POLICY ON SPECIFIC CATEGORIES OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ASSISTANCE OR FEE SUBSIDIES Member/Councilmember Moore stated his major concern was the impact on existing businesses. He questioned if there was any one item that was adverse to small businesses or smaller property owners of multi-family units. Gerald Young, Administrative Analyst, responded there were no items that would fall into that category. Member/Councilmember Moore stated he was also concerned about taking action on new construction for low income housing subsidized by the City; other than what was already done. Chairman/Mayor Nader stated concern had been expressed as to the impact of the fee increases on low- income housing. He suggested that either the subsidy come in the form of a rebate to the builder, following the successful marketing of the unit in the very low-income range, or some sort of enforceable contract that the developer would sign which would include a penalty. Therefore, the City would have an enforceable condition that the reduction in fees would only apply to housing available to very low-income people. He questioned whether the City Attorney had reviewed the resolution to insure they were enforceable. Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated the proposed policy did not have a written agreement for the subsidy after the construction of the low and moderate income housing. If that was the way the Agency/Council Minutes April 27, 1993 Page 2 wanted it secured he recommended that it be rewritten to specify that the subsidy would be granted pursuant to a written agreement. Chainnan/Mayor Nader stated he was open to other enforcement mechanisms and would support a continuation of the item to allow the Attorney and staff time to develop a policy. MS (Moore/Fox) amend the staff recommendation, Category 1, 2a on page 11, to read 'very low income residential at time of major refurbishing'. Member/Councilmember Moore stated only non-new construction would be subsidized. Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he could not support the motion due to an attempt to exclude new construction of very low-income or low-income residential. His intent in the past was to alleviate the fees so as not to discourage or preclude the construction of affordable housing. VOTE ON MOTION: failed 2-3 with Horton, Nader, and Rindone opposed. MS (Nader/Fox) amend Categories 1 and 2 to indicate *including at time of refurbishing' so it would apply to new constniction and refurbishing. Agency/City Attorney Boogaard recommended the verbiage be placed in Subparagraph A of Categories I and 2. VOTE ON MOTION: approved 3-2 with Moore and Rindone opposed. RESOLUTIONS 17086 AND 1324 OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN/MAYOR NADER, reading of the text was waived, ] Member/Councilman Moore felt if the motion passed staff should look at a rebate upon proof of sale that it was below market value equal to the subsidy at the time of sale. Chainnan/Mayor Nader stated he was concerned regarding enforcement of the policy and suggested the resolutions be continued in order to include the enforcement of the waivers. Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated staff could not grant the waivers, only the Council or Agency could grant them as per the policy. Chairman/Mayor Nader questioned whether enforcement conditions could be attached at the time of review by the Council or Agency. Agency/City Attomey Boogaard responded that was correct. SUB~'II'I ~ MOTION: (Nader/IVloore) continue Resolutions 17086 and 1324 for two weeks; direct staff to come back with an enforcement mechanism incorporated into the resolutions. Chairman/Mayor Nader stated the intent of the motion was to have something incorporated into the resalutions that would insure that rather than being done on an ad hoc basis, it would be automatically incorporated in any subsidy before the Council or Agency, VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * Minutes AprL127, 1993 Page 3 recessed at 9:52 p.m. and reconvened at 10:07 p.m. PUBHC HEARINGS AGF_~CY RESOLDTION 1316 FII~IDING THE FINAL ENV/RO~AL IMPACT REPORT FOR ~ PALOMAR TROIJ~Y CraN'TER PRO3ECT (EIR 91-O2), ~ ADDF_.a~IDL/MS, IS ADEQUATE ~F_.R ~i~4 MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING MITIGATION MONITORIhlG PROGR/~; ~ THR FIRST AMF, NDMF, NT TO ~ PALOMAR TROt.~.KY CF, NTFA DISPOSITION AND Dh'VF, I,OPMF2CT AGI~RRMF, N'T - A disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) was approved between the Agency and Cypress Creek Company, L.P., on November 10, 1992. That agreement was to be executed within 75 days. Much progress has been made but the 75 day period expired without completion of all the conditions precedent. Staff is recommending that the Agency and Council adopt the resolutions which will amend the Palomar Trolley Center DDA regarding those conditions precedent, complete the amended conditions precedent, execute the DDA, and approve a new amending DDA. (Cornrnunity Development Director) (Continued from lhe meeting of April 20, 1993) David Gustarson, Assistant Director of Community Development, stated the recommended steps were: 1) first amendment to the existing approved Disposition and Development Agreement for the fifteen acre center; 2) approve three resolutions of Necessity; 3) approve the project and executing the DDA; 4) move into a Joint City Council/Agency hearing to consider the appropriateness of selling the properties acquired through the condemnation actions to the developer without public bid and at fair market value; and 6) approve a new agreement which would be an amended Disposition and Development Agreement that would add three acres to the project at the corner of Broadway and Palomar. He then reviewed the background of the program. Chainnan/Mayor Nader stated he had been advised by the City Attorney to hold a public hearing for Resolution 1316. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. Carolyn F. Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated she had been approached by the bus drivers regarding the entrances and exits of the station and questioned ff there would be changes in the left turns into the Palomar Trolley stop. Mr. Gustarson responded staff was in negotiations with MTDB, the developer, and Price Company regarding potential access to the north of Palomar. Staff was looking at all the implications involved. Mrs. Butler was also concerned regarding the width of the road. Mr. Gustafson responded that a condition in the EIR was that the developer would widen Palomar to six lanes. Mrs. Butler stated she wanted to see a clover-leaf at I-5 and Palomar built as she felt it would alleviate traffic impacts. She stated there was a signal there but it was not efficient. She was concerned with the addition of I.Magnum as it was to fancy and would only last a short period of time. James Moxham, 2801 Albatross Street, San Diego, CA, representing Cypress Creek Company, stated they had acquired three parcels in Phase I and reached agreement with the Church for the acquisition of the Jehovah Minutes April 27, 1993 Page 4 Witness site. One parcel had also been obtained in Phase II and they had made several offers to the other ownerships and were hopeful in reaching agreement. They had tried very hard to reach agreement with the three outstanding ownerships in Phase I and there was now an agreement to mediate with the Hendersons. Mr. Uribe had expressed interest in accepting their last offer and they hoped to finalize that transaction in the next few days. There was only one parcel they did not feel they would be able to reach agreement. They had also met with Community Development and the property owner in an effort to achieve the day care center and a HeadStart program was contemplated. They had met with MTDB and Price Club to coordinate their access on Palomar. They wanted to make it clear that Palomar Trolley was one development encompassing the area from the trolley station to Broadway. The project dictated that it be built in two phases but was one project. The major tenants required the development proceed to Broadway otherwise they would be unable to achieve the rents required and tenant interest would suffer. Their $17 million commiunent to Phase I would be jeopardized if Phase II was not realized. The economics of the transaction had been stretched thin and they asked the Agency to hold fees at the November, 1992 level for the entire project which was in conformance with the budgets provided to the Community Development Deparunent. Mr. Moxham read a letter submitted by Skip Johnson, President of Sunbelt Management Company, supporting the project. Member/Councilmember Fox stated they were required to put in a day care center in the proximity of the trolley station and questioned whether it was required that it be affordable. Mr. Mohxam responded that the developers requirement on the day care center under the original agreement was to build it at no profit if it could be located on MTDB property. That requirement was not able to be satisfied due to the power lines and the subsequent requirement became that the developer shall use good faith efforts to try to facilitate the development of a day care center in close proximity to MTDB. The originally conceived State subsidized low-income day care center had not proceeded and the HeadStart facility being proposed was the one that was proceeding. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. RF. SOLUTION 1216 OFFF_.RED BY CHAIRMAN/MAYOR NADER: reading of the text was waived. Mr. Gustafson stated the Attorney felt it important to point out that the DDA approved on 11/10/92 expired in seventy-five days. That DDA had the condition that the developer was entitled to market slide protection in case the project did not go forward and that market slide protection could cost the Agency a maximum of $250,000. Staffs perspective had been that although the DDA was not executed within the seventy-five day period for completion of conditions precedent, both the developer and the Agency had been operating on good faith and moving forward at a good rate of speed to accomplish a lot of complex transactions. Therefore, staff accepted the conditions in the first amendment that acknowledged that although the seventy- five day period was not adhered to the DDA was still in effect. He felt it important to indicate that from a legal perspective, if the conditions precedent were not completed within seventy-five days that was grounds for termination of the agreement. It was important to advise the Agency that the Attorney felt if the Agency adopted the amendment the Agency would be back on the hook for $250,000. Staff felt the Agency was never off the hook in spirit and everyone had been pursuing the project diligently, The Agency did have the ability to walk away from the project without obligation for the market slide. Member/Councilmember Moore questioned at what point the Agency would vote on holding the fees at the November, 1992 level. Mr. Gustarson stated he was unaware the request was going to be made and therefore it was not included in the materials provided to the Agency. Member/Councilmember Rindone questioned why staff felt the Agency was obligated to continue the commitment. Obviously, the Agency was committed to the project but to put on a self-constraint did not seem to be in the best interest of the City. Minutes April 27, 1993 Page 5 Mr. Gustarson stated staff felt from the beginning that they were in some degree in a partnership in the project and were sharing risks together as that was the nature ofredevelopment. There had been good faith negotiation when the agreement had been first drafted to include protection and nothing had changed to make staff feel the condition should be removed. Member/Councfimember Rindone stated it was a self-inflicted penalty if the project did not continue. He felt it was staffs role to act in the best interest of the Agency. Mr. Salomone stated it was done in the spirit of good faith and negotiations and in staffs opinion the developer would not have committed $1.3 million to the project if they had not understood that was a commitment from the Agency, Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he would not put the Agency's funds at risk but it was his understanding that the agreement negotiated was a quid pro quo; the Agency would receive some guarantees from the developer, i.e. a revenue producing project on which one of the conditions was the provision being discussed. He assumed staff was recommending that the condition continue because nothing had changed in regard to what the quid pro quo was. On that basis he could support to continue the original provisions of the agreement. Member/Councilmember Rindone felt the commitment was obvious but he was not convinced it was a necessity that the Agency had to put on penalties that put the City at risk. Member/Councilmember Moore felt there was a partnership with redevelopment. Member/Councilmember Rindone questioned what the staff analysis was of the risk. Mr. Gustafson responded that the market slide provision went to a maximum of $500,000 loss after the developer was unable to complete the project because condemnation could not be completed or some other factors in the agreement. The Agency would share 50/50 in that loss up to $250,000. Staff was comfortable that the acquisition of the Phase I properties was in the range of fair market values. There was protection which would allow the Agency to participate in the remarketing of the properties with the developer in order to recoup any loss and also the right of first refusal to go in and take the properties and market them to another developer. Member/Councilmember Rindone stated it appeared the Agency would only have to proceed with one condemnation. Mr. Gustafson stated the Agency needed to take action on all three Resolutions of Necessity, but it appeared the developer would be successful in negotiating one of the three. Another one was a matter of discussing the price and the ability of taking the property would not be contested by the property owner. There was only one outstanding parcel that in staffs opinion would go to the full condemnation process. Member/Councilmember Rindone questioned the timeline if condemnation was necessary. Mr. Gustarson stated the Agency would take possession of the property within ninety days. Agency/City Attorney Boogaard responded the Agency would litigate value over the next twelve months. Member/Councilmember Rindone stated he was still not convinced the risk was a necessity but he was convinced the Agency had gone into the project as a joint parmership. Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stared that in the actual language of the first amendment the reference to the proposed hearing date was scheduled for 4/13/93. It was the intent of the parties to change that date to 4/27/93 where ever that date appeared. Minutes April 27, 1993 Page 6 Chainnan/Mayor Nader incorporated into the motion the change in date from 4/13/93 to 4/27/93 in the Member/Councilmember Horton stated the Agency contracted with an appraiser and questioned who they were and where they were located. Mr. Gustarson responded the Lee Johnson Company, located in La Mesa, was a well respected appraisal company particularly in the area of eminent domain. They were recognized as being very good in court proceedings for condemnation. The Agency and Council had used them a number of times in the past. VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimottsly. B. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1317 FINDING AND DETnRMINING PUBLIC INTEREST AND NEI1SSITY FOR ACQUIRING AND AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, CHIJLA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Agency/Cit~ Attorney Boogaard recommended the Agency incorporate the staff report and all evidence presented to the Agency in the last public hearing into the present hearing. Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he would incorporate all information and the staff report for the previous public hearing into the record for the current public hearing. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Agency/City Attorney Boogaard questioned whether staff had any fln~er evidence on good faith negotiations or the three findings. Mr. Gustarson stated Parcel #6 was a residential parcel, 9,560 sq. ft. with a 1,250 sq. ft. wood frame home which was occupied as a rental. The Agency had extended good faith negotiations in offers to purchase at fair market value to the property owner by certified letter. In that letter the Agency requested a meeting, which was somewhat difficult as the property owner was in Los Angeles. The Agency followed-up with phone calls and additional certified letters. The Agency provided them, as required by law, with a Resolution of Necessity Notice. The Agency did not come, in his estimation, close to what could be considered a successfu~ negotiation. Staff was offering fair market value and the best counter offer they had was in the neighborhood of 160% of that fair market value, Staff then concluded, based on the communications both by telephone, letters, and required notice, that they had completed negotiations in good faith. Staff felt the property was necessary for the project and the project was aimed at the elimination of blight. The project was an area, including the property, that was zoned Central Commercial with a Modifier. The existing uses were non-conforming although grandfathered. The parcel had constrained access and was under utilized in a commercial zone. If it were left in the comer by itself, without the taking, there would not be practical access to the property. Staff felt there was also public good in providing the necessary amount of depth for the shopping center to be a high volume national retailer it was necessary to take the property. Without doing so the best that could hoped for the property would be development as a neighborhood shopping center which was a redundancy of a commercial type in the area and could lead to additional vacancies. Staff felt no practical way to design around the property as they were isolated, there were access problems, the center needed the depth, and there were no nearby alternative properties that could be used for the shopping center that appeared on a commercial street and had available properties. Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated there was rarely an eminent domain proceeding before the Agency and that in addition to the finding offered, good faith negotiations to the property owners, there were three critical findings: 1) public good required the project; 2) it was situated in a manner to maximize public good and tuinimize private injury; and 3) the property that was the subject matter of the taking was in fact required to perform the project. Mr. Gustafson had supplied evidence to make the three findings included Minutes April27, 1993 Page 7 in Resolution 1317. He had also concluded, based on his knowledge of the case and Mr. Gustafson's evidence, that the Agency had exhausted good faith negotiations in the ease. Chairman/Mayor Nader questioned whether the owner resided on the property. Mr. Gustarson responded that he did not, he lived in Hunnington Beach, CA. Member/Councilmember Fox stated he was led to believe the developer's final offer had not been accepted nor rejected. Mr. Gustarson responded the developer's final offer to the property owner had been rejected. RESOLUTION 1317 OFFI~tED BY MEMBER MOORE, reading of lb_e text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. C. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1318 FINDING AND DETF3~MINING PUBLIC INTF. REST AND NI~f~-~SI'IY FOR ACQUIRING AND AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, CIqULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Agency/City Attorney Boogaard requested that all prior evidence be entered into the record for the current public hearing. Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he would incorporate all information and the staff reports for the previous public hearings into the record for the current public hearing. Mr. Gustarson stated the property was Parcel #7, 26,000 sq. ft. parcel with a 12,060 sq. ft. home on the property that had been converted into commercial offices. Those offices were occupied. The Agency made good faith offers by certified letter to purchase the property and meet and confer with the property owner, at the appraised value. There were two meetings with the property owner and two certified letters which were followed up with the formal resolution notice. The public hearing on the Trolley Center Project had been continued from 4/13/93 as a result of staffs feeling that they needed to go back and do additional negotiation with the property owner and their attorney. Staff did so with another meeting offering fair market value and the property owner to date had not named a number in terms of a counter offer and staff felt they were not getting any further and felt the Resolution of Necessity needed to be adopted. It was the property upon which staff had an agreement with the property owner regarding the action of the Resolution of Necessity. Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated the letter of agreement, which he wanted incorporated into the record, from Cliff Reed, Attorney for the Hendersons, stated they agreed to withdraw any objections to the conduct of the Resolution of Necessity at the hearing and furthermore agreed to waive the claim of the right to take, reserving all the rights to trial, and the Agency would agree to diligen~y meet and confer and mediate pursuant to an arbitration type procedure the issue of value in the next ninety days. The Agency would not take possession of the property sooner than the ninety days as permitted by law except in the case of an emergency. Chairman/Mayor Nader requested the Agency/City Attorney supply the Clerk with the letter in order to incolporate it into the proceedings. Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated staff had discussed good faith negotiations sufficient to make a finding that good faith negotiations had been engaged in. He requested further evidence of the requirement of the parcel on the implementation of the proposed overall project. Minutes April 27, 1993 Page 8 Mr. Gustarson responded that the property sat in the middle of the proposed trolley center. There was no practical way to accommodate the industrial use in the middle of a proposed commercial shopping center. There was also no practical way to provide access to the property if it remained in it's current usage. Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated there was sufficient evidence, in his opinion, for the passage of Resolution 1318. RF_BOLUTION 1318 Ol~l"/~a~) BY MF. aMBER FOX, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanin~ously. D. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1319 FINDING AND DETERMINING PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSffY FOR ACQUIRING AND AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST lIEDEVELOPMENT PRO~CT ARF/~ CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Agency/City Attorney Boogaard requested that all prior evidence be entered into the record for the current public hearing. Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he would incorporate all information, and the staff reports for the previous public hearings, into the record for the current public hearing. Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated evidence needed to be presented regarding good faith negotiations and situation of the parcel. Mr. Gustafson stated the Agency engaged in good faith negotiations with the property owner. Certified letters were sent offering fair market value. Staff requested a meeting which occurred and was followed-up with a letter offering fair market value. Another meeting occurred and the formal Resolution of Necessity Notice was provided, as per law and another meeting occurred. Out of all the meetings no firm counter offer could be obtained. The owner was requesting somewhere in the neighborhood of 150% of the fair market value. Staff felt they had exhausted their ability to negotiated in good faith. it was Parcel #9 and it sat in the middle of the proposed shopping center. It was an industrial use and would be incompatible with the shopping center use and would not have any practical access when the shopping center was completed. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony, the public hearing was closed. Agency/City Attorney Boogaard requested that the record reflect, in his opinion, sufficient evidence existed to permit the Agency to pass Resolution 1318. RESOLUTION 1318 OIq, P_,RED BY MEMBER HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved nDan~moUSly. E. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1320 APPROVING THE PALOMAR TROt .I.R"Y CENTER PROJECT AND ITS SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT AND S(~IEDULE OF COMPLETION AND ALrrHORIZ]NG CHAIRMAN TO F.J~CIJTE THE PALOMAK TROLLEY ~ DISPOSFF[ON AND DEVELOPMENT AGB~RMENT Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he had been advised by the Agency/City Attorney that the resolution did not require a public hearing. RESOLUTION 1320 Olq, l~qEO BY MEMBER MOORE, reading of the text wa~ waived, passed and appreved tman~meusly. Minutes April 27, 1993 Page 9 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING DISPOSITION OF ACQUIRED PROPERTIES (APN 622-030- 622-030,22, 622-030-23) WITHOUT PUBLIC BIDDING, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH & SAFP-'IY CODE SECTION 33341 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING DISPOSITION OF ACQUIRED PROPERTIES (APN 622-030-15~ 622-030-22, 622-030-23) ACQUIRED WITH TAXINCREMENT FUNDS, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIAI-11~ALTH & SAFETY CODE SECTION 33433 F. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17055 APPROVING THE SALE OF AGENCY-OWNED PROPERTY (APN 622-030-15, 622,030-22, 622030-23) TO CYPRESS CREEl( COMPANY, LP., AND FINDING THAT CONSIDERATION IS NOT LKe-5 THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE G. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1321 APPROVINGTHESALEOFAGENCY-OWNEDPROPERTY (APN622-030-15, 622-030-22, 622-030-23) TO CYPRESS CBF. F.I( COMPANY, LP., AND FINDING THAT CONSIDERATION IS NOT I-F-e-S THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he had been advised by the Agency/City Attorney that Resolutions 17055 and 1321 could be heard together, Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated the purpose of the 33431 hearing, identified on the agenda as the first public hearing, was to permit the public to protest that a sale of the three parcels the Agency had condemued was going to occur without public bidding. The purpose to achieve redevelopment was to sell them to a particular developer with a particular development project. Nonetheless, the law was written to allow the public to protest the sale wi~out public bid if they so desired. If the public wished to protest, or if there were no protests, the Agency/Council should close the hearing and conclude that it was in the public's best interest not to sell the properties pursuant to the public bidding procedure. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. RESOLUTIONS 17055 AND 1321 OFFFRED BY MEMBER/COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reacting of the tezI was waived, passed and approved unanimously. Agency/City Attorney Boogaard requested that as part of the public hearing process the Agency find that it was in the public's interest not to sell the properties pursuant to the public bidding procedure. MINUTE RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MEMBER MOORE/RINDONE: the Agency found tha~ it was in the publiCs interest llot to sell the properties pursuant to the public bidding procedure. Approved nnanlrnously. H. AGENCY RESOLIJTION 1322 FINDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ~ PALOMAR TROLLEY CEhrrER PROJECT (EIR 91-02), WITH ADDENDUMS, IS ADEQUATE UNDER (~.QA; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; AND APPROVING THE AMENDED PALOMAR TROLLEY CENTER DISPOSITION AND DEVF. I.OPMENT AGIIF. EMENT Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated Resolution 1322 was a public hearing item due to the CEQA proceedings. Mr, Gustarson stated the final EIR and CEQA documents all accommodated the proposed three acre addition to the trolley center. The amended Disposition and Development Agreement for the tittee acre addition would replace the Disposition and Development Agreement. Therefore, it would void that agreement and the amended agreement would govern the development of the entire eighteen acre parcel. Minutes April 27, 1993 Page 10 This being the time and place as advertised, the public heating was declared open. Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, questioned whether the project completely stopped the trolley as far as fLxing up the trolley area. She recommended that before work was done on Palomar it should be widened from Fourth or Fifth to the freeway. Chairman/Mayor Nader stated it would not stop the trolley, He requested that staff clarify the roadwork that would be done east to west. Mr. Gustarson stated Palomar would be widened from the intersection of Broadway and Palomar to the intersection of Palomar and Industrial Boulevard which was on the east side of I-S. Chairman/Mayor Nader requested staff provide information to Council on the work for the signalization at I-5 and Palomar and when it was expected to be fully operational. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Member/Couneflmember Moore stated one of his s~ong emphasis on the project was to make sure there would not be a node at Industrial and Palomar at the trolley station or at Broadway and Palomar, The widening would be done one way or another through either the Agency and/or the developer which would make it a full six lanes. With the node still in place there would be a pinch at both ends. The speaker had a point as to what would happen when traffic crossed Industrial heading to I-S. He questioned whether that was covered in the EIR. Mr. Gustarson stated staff would have to report back on the improvements west of Industrial It was his understanding they were scheduled as a CIP project. Agency/City Attorney Boogaard requested the Agency incorporate all prior evidence in the evenings meeting into the current proceeding. Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he would incorporate all information, and the staff reports, for the previous public hearings into the record for the current public heating. RESOLLrFION 1322 Ot, I,I~RED BY MEMBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived. Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated among other risks outlined Ln the staff report, as to the particular agreement, staff would be bringing back to the Agency before 7/30/93, a proceeding not dissimilar to the one just held regarding the three parcels on the eastern most side of the project if voluntary acquisition could not be achieved. VOTE ON RESOLLrflON 1322: approved unanimously. ORAL COIVIIMUNICATIONS None ACTION ITEMS None submitted. Minutes April 27, 1993 Page 11 OTHER BUSINESS 6. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT - None 7. CHAIRMAN/MAYOR'S REPORT - None 8. MEMBERS/COUNCILMEMBERS' COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 11:12 P.M. to a special joint meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency on Tuesday, May 4, 1993 at 4:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, Council Chambers, Public Services Building. Respectfully submitted, ~x~VE.~LY A. A~UTT~LET, CMC, City Clerk by: Vicki C. Soderquist, DenSity Clerk