Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1995/04/04 RDA MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, April 4, 1995 Council Chambers 4:57 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Council Members Moot, Padilia, and Chair/Mayor Hotton ABSENT: Agency/Council Member Rindone (excused) ALSO ABSENT: John D. Goss, Director/City Manager; Bruce M. Bungnard, Age~tcy/City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 21, 1995 Member Moot requested that the minutes be amended to reflect Moot and not Moore in the motion to excuse the absence of Member Rindone on 4/4/95. MSC (Moot/Horton) to approve the minutes of March 21, 1995 as amended, approved 3-0-1 with Rindone absent. CONSENT CALENDAR (Item pulled: 4) 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None 4. REPORT APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE REQUIREMENTS FOR FULLER FORD/HONDA -- Fuller Ford/Honda received a temporary Certificate of Occupancy (COP) to allow the dealership to open and time to complete site improvements. All the improvements were completed or under contract to be completed with the exception of painting of the south boundary wall. Mr. Fuller has chosen to appeal this requirement and has been granted a continuation of his temporary COP until this issue is resolved. Staff recommends that the Agency consider the appeal and support the DRC recommendation that the south facing side of the southerly Auto Park boundary wall be painted white to match the color of the adjacent South Bay Chevrolet wall. (Community Development Director/Director of Planning) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. ® Tony Collura, 1978 Lake Drive, Cardiff, CA, representing Fuller Ford, stated the dealership had not been painted and was a natural gray. Mr. Fuller chose not to paint the wall so it would match the dealership and due to extra maintenance costs. Originally, the back of the wall was to have a smooth face but had been turned around so it had a split face as did the building. The Southbay Chevrolet dealership had a split face which was white and their wall was also white so it matched their building. There was a street in between the two parcels which split the wall. Brookwood Landscaping would be planting the hillside which would eventually cover the wall. It was not a cost savings as it was never in the budget to paint the back of the wall. Because both sides of the wall were split faced there was an added cost to Mr. Fuller. Chair Horton requested clarification regarding the landsoaping. Minutes April 4, 1995 Page 2 Mr. Collura stated most of the wall would be covered by shrubs. At the end of Brandywine, at Southbay Chevrolet, they put in additional landscaping on the easement so the white wall would eventually be covered. Chair Horton questioned if it was highly visible from the freeway. Mr. Collura replied that Southbay Chevrolet's wall was highly visible because it was painted white, but Fuller Ford's wall was not as visible because it blended in with the terrain. Chair Hotton questioned if white was the original color designated for the back of the wall or if it was being designated white to be consistent with Southbay Chevrolet. Steve Griffin, Principal Planner, replied that the original proposal was to have the split faced side of the wall face the valley, i.e. public view, but the wall was installed "outside-in" with the split face to the dealerships. After that was done, Southbay Chevrolet painted the smooth part of the wall (outside) to match the dealership. It was originally intended to remain the natural block which was the color of the Fuller Ford block. It was painted to enhance the appearance at the direction of the Design Review Committee. Fuller Ford was now being required to paint their section so it would all blend and match as a perimeter wall for the entire auto center. Chair Horton noted the landscaping would cover the wall. Mr. Griffin stated it was staff's opinion and the DRC's opinion that the landscape would do some screening of the wall but at the present time the sections were very visible and the difference was significant and that a consistent color would be important. Chair Hotton felt it more desirable to have a wall that blended into the landscaping than having a white wall. Member Padilla stated that as a result of a subcontractor error/mistmderstanding the opposite side of the wall facing the approach to the preject was not split faced, Southbay Chevrolet decided to paint their wall and, therefore, Mr. Fuller would have to pay $3,000 to paint his wall to match it. He questioned if that was correct. Mr. Griffm stated after it was discovered that the wall was constructed 'outside-in" the dealerships went to the DRC for modifications to the plan to endorse the mistake as well as several other items. The DRC stated they could live with the wall being constructed "outside-in", but felt it important to paint the exterior to provide a consistent color on the back of the wall. The DRC required that of both dealerships. Southbay Chevrelet complied with the DRC direction and Fuller Ford was appealing that direction. Fred Kassman, Redevelopment Coordinator, stated the south facing wall for Southbay Chevrolet was multi. colored due to the type of block used, i.e. four of five different colors that was very unappealing. Therefore, the DRC determined that the Southbay Chevrolet wall should be painted. Member Padilia questioned whether Fuller Ford had agreed to the condition, if they were now appealing that decision, and if they were part of the original discussions. Mr. Griffin replied that Fuller Ford had been included in the discussions. Chair Horton stated it was her understanding that Fuller Ford never agreed to paint the wall. Mr. Kassman replied that Southbay Chevrolet addressed the DRC tirst and Fuller Ford came in independently at a different time. A letter had been sent to Mr. Fuller regarding the DRC requirements. Mr. Fuller was aware of the requirement but did not agree with it. m I Minute8 April 4, 1995 Page 3 Member Padilia questioned if the DRC recommendation was as a result of what Southbay Chevrolet had done. Mr. Kassman felt that was the moro important factor, i.e. making a consistent appearance in the valley. Chair Horton stated she had a problem in creating an additional hardship for the dealer when it was not truly necessary and not part of the original aggx:ment. MSC (Horton/Padilia) to overturn the Design Review Committee recommendation and not require Fuller Ford to paint the wail white. Approved 3-0-1 with Rindone absent. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES None submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None ACTION ITEMS 5.A & B. RESOLUTION 1448 AND 17852 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, ESTABLISHING THE CHULA VISTA FINANCING AUTHORITY - -0 a 11/1/94, the Agency/Council adopted Resolutions 1432 and 17708 tentatively approving a refinancing of the outstanding debt of several Assessment Districts in order to achieve savings in annual assessments for property owners. Staff was directed to conduct a competitive process for the selection of an underwriting firm and to return to Council for approval of that selection and to establish a Marks-Roos Joint Power Authority as the conduit for the pooled refunding. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Finance) C. RESOLUTION 17853 APPOINTING THE TEAM OF STONE & YOUNGBERG AND GRIGSBY BRANDFORD & CO., INC. TO SERVE AS UNDERWRITERS FOR THE PROPOSED NEGOTIATED SALE OF BONDS FOR ADVANCE REFUNDING OF VARIOUS ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DEBT UNDER THE MARKS-ROOS LOCAL BOND POOLING ACT D. RESOLUTION 17854 INTENTION TO LEVY REASSESSMENTS AND TO ISSUE REFUNDING BONDS UPON THE SECURITY THEREOF Council/Agency Member Padilia requested clarification of the competitive process that was utilized in choosing the underwriters. Robert Powell, Director of Finance, stated a Request for Qualifications had been sent to ten underwriting firms asking for in depth detailed information on their experience in the complex type of refinancing that the transaction would entail. They received three bids which were reviewed and arrived at the recommendation before the Agency/Council. Minutes April 4, 1995 Page 4 Council/Agoncy Member Padilia questioned if the te~m of Stone & Youngberg and Grigsby Brandford & Co. originally bid as a joint venture or if they were originally an independent bid for the entire issue. Mr. Powell replied that Stone & Youngberg and Grigsby Brandford & Co., Inc. bid as a team originally. Council/Agency Member Padilia requested clarification regarding the junior lien bonds and senior lien bonds. Mr. Powell responded the assessment districts would be evaluated, i.e. each parcel would b~ evaluated as to its stares and development. Those that were fully developed and sold by private owners would provide better security for the bond holders and, therefore, those parcels would form the basis for senior lien bonds. They hoped to obtain insurance on those parcels because of the higher level of security. The junior lien bonds would bo placed on those parcels that were still owne~t by a developer or undeveloped. Council/Agency Member Padilia questioned if the agreement between the joint venture firms was a private matter, i.e. how the fees paid to the underwriter were allocated. Mr. Powell responded that was correct. Staff could address that but his preference was to leave that between the two firms. Staff had made it very clear that they expected Stone & Youngberg to take the lead and that was their proposal. Council/Agency Member Padilla questioned if there was any possibility for hidden costs. Mr. Powell replied there would bo one purchase contract for the team, one fe~, and they would determine how to spread that fee between the two firms. Council/Agency Member Moot questioned if the underwriting fees were subject to a competitive bid or if they were standard. Mr. Powell responded that the price was not part of the qualification process. Typical fees for the last two assessment districts completed were 3 % because they were commercial type districts. The information given to Council/Agency In November was that staff anticipated they would conclude them at less than 2%. Because of the complex nature staff Indicated in the RFQ that they would not be negotiafmg any fee in excess of 2%. With the senior lien bonds being fairly marketable, it was felt a 1% fee was reasonable and very low. The junior lien bonds would require more of a marketing effort and, therefore, staff felt 2% was also low. Council/Agency Member Moot questioned what it would cost the City to do the refinancing and how much the City would save. Mr. Powell stated there would be no cost savings to the City. The debt on assessment districts was letally funded by assessments on property owners. The cost to the City for the refunding would be his time, staff time in the Finance and Public Works departments, and a minor amount of time by the City Attorney. That was the time that would be captured and recovered by the bond proceeds. Council/Agency Member Moot stated the property owners in the assessment district would pay the underwriting fees. Mr. Powell replied that was correct. The bonds would be issued in an amount sufficient to cover not only the outstanding debt on the existing bonds, but also the cost to issue the new bonds. The market had only recently improved enough to have a savings that could be offered to the property owners. · I Minutes April 4, 1995 Page 5 Council/Agency Member Padilia questioned if them had been an agreed upon credit value to the City in terms of the ledger agreements for areas of assessment district refinancing that could fall within the high tech/biotech zone. Mr. Powell replied there was not an agreed upon value. That was an item that had been discussed at length in recent weeks. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated it was still on the Concessions Menu. Staff maintained that there was a value to the proposed action. Council/Agency Member Moot questioned if the property owners in the assessment districts were notified or their input received. Mr. Powell responded the City was the moving force behind the proposal to provide property owners with the savings. There had been no notification to property owners because they were not extending the life of the debt and were not issuing new money debt against the property. They would be reducing the liens and payments so notice was not required. MSC Olorton/Moot) to approve Resolutions 1448, 17852, 17853, 17854, and direct staff to include any savings to EastLake Development Company us a result of the refunding in the Concessions Menu currently under consideration for the High Tech/Biotech Zone. Approved 3-0-1 with Rindone absent. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Item pulled: 4. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 6. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER REPORT(S) - No report given. 7. CHAIR/MAYOR REPORT(S) - No report given. 8. MEMBER COMMENTS - No report given. CLOSED SESSION The Agency met in Closed Session at 5:31 p.m., and reeonvened at 6:29 p.m. 10. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Disposition/Sale of Agency property pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 · 801 Broadway, Chula Vista (former South Bay Chevrolet site) 11. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN 1N CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in Closed Session. Minutes April 4, 1995 Page 6 ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 6:30 P.M. to the Regular Re, development Agency Meeting on April 18, 1995 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy Ci~erk