Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1995/07/25 RDA MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF CtlULA VISTA Tuesday, Jnly 25, 1995 C<mncil Chambers 10:38 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Council Members Alevy, Moot, Padilia, Rindone, and Chair/Mayor Hl>rton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Gl>ss, Director/City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency/City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 3, 1995 and Jnly I I, 1995 MSUC (Harton/Rindone) to approve the nfinutes ot' June 3, 1995 and July I 1, 1995 as presented. BUSINESS 3. VVRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 4. PUBLIC HEARING: JOINT REDEVELOI'MENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL HEARING PURSUANT TO TIlE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE AND CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33431 AND 33433 REGARDING TIlE PROPOSED DISPOSITION BY THE AGENCY OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 2.53 ACRES TO BROADWAY VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES, L.P. AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF SAID PROPERTY INTO A 36-UNIT MIXED-USE BUSINESS HOMES PROJECT, SUCH PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER TIlE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC PROPOSED ACTIONS:--The City Council and Redevelopment Agency ar~ requested to hold th~ requisite public hearings and take th~ actions necessary to approve the Broadway Basiness Homes Prqiect and aathorize execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement with Joelen Enterprises (Josef and Lenore Citron) fbr th~ development tlf the prqiect. Actions required include a zoning change for the prqiect froIn Thorunghfare Commercial to Central Commercial-Precise Plan; a Special Use Permit with Shared Parking Agreement to establish the mixed-us~ prqject; and approval of a Precise Plan with Conditions for development of the Prqject and approval of th~ DDA, and sale of the property without public bidding. Staff recommends the Council and Agency approv~ th~ resl~lufitms and plac~ the Ordinauce on first reading. (Community Development Director) 1. Review and adeption ef Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendnm IS-95-03 2. Approval of an amendment to the zonln~ nmp m' tnaps establisl~ed by Section 19.18.010 of the Chula Vista Mnnicipal Code by rezoning the 2.532 acre parcel Iotaled at 760 Broadway within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area from C-T (Connnercial Thoroughfare) to C-C-P (Central Cpmmercial with Precise Plan) 3. Issuance nfa Special Use Permit to construct a 36-unit commercial/residential mixed-use project with Shared Parking Agreement 4. Approval of a Precise Plan ta allaw construction of a 36-unit mixed-use project including associated site improvements 5. Approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement between the Agency and Joelen Enterprises A. RESOLUTION 17964 RESOLUTION 1460 ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDENDUM IS-95-03 FOR A 36-UNIT BUSINESS JHOMES PROJEC'T AT 760 BROADWAY · I Minutes July 25. 1995 Page 2 B. ORDINANCE 2636 AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE BY REZONING THE 2.53 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY WITHlN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FROM C-T (COMMERCIAL THOROUGHFARE) TO C-C-P, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL WITH PRECISE PLAN (First Readtug) C. RESOLUTION 1461 MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED-USE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE BROADWAY BUSINESS HOMES PROJECT, LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO BROADWAY VILLAGE BUSINESS HOMES, L.P. D. RESOLUTION 1462 RESOLUTION 17965 APPROVING A PRECISE PLAN FOR THE BROADWAY BUSINESS HOMES PROJECT AND A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH BROADWAY BUSINESS HOMES, L.P., AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO EXECUTE SAME E. RESOLUTION 1463 WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A TWO-PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS FOR SOIL TESTING AND REMEDIATION CONSULTING SERVICES AT 760 BROADWAY, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR--Demolition of buildings at the Fuller Ford site will neccssatate aem, lval of contaminated soils. It will be necessary to have a qualified hazardous materials consultant present during demolition. Staff recmmnends approval of the resolution. Not a part of the Public Hearing, but a related tiere. (Conmumity Development Director) Mr. Boogaard called fi~r a point iff {lrder which was a conflict issue. Mr. Padilla's l~ther was a high ranking official in Chicago Title which happened to be the title c{ln~pany tile Citron's were dealing with for the proposal. It was not a financial conllict because Mr. Padilia wiltlid not receive any financial gain whatsoever from the transaction. Under the Conflict ot Interest Law, the Political Reform Act, it was not a conflict of interest and he would be entitled to participate. Upon reading page 37 the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement there was a provision on Conflict of Interest which was dialit'd hroader than the Political Reform Act in order to try and achieve a greater sense of propriety in dealing with a Disposition and Development Agreement. That could have been interpreted, Mr. Padilia b~lieves, to include personal lhmilial roterests versus, albeit it indirect, personal financial interests which the Political Refilrm Act dealt with. In the ahsencc or' a proposal to modify paragraph 7.2, it might be interpreted t<l be broader than the plllitical retimn act. Mr. Padilla's concern was that the way it currently read, even thlmgh the contract was not m Illroe, the minute it was approved he might be violating that particular clause. He did not want to do that and prltpltsed t{I abstain t'ron~ participation in the issue. It was his opininn that the personal familial interest was not intended to be covered by the clause and in order to give Mr. Padilia peace of mind to participate he recommended that the words "personal interest" be amended to read "personal financial interest". MSC (Mout/Alevy) to add the word "finmlciul" between "personal" and "intere,st" in paragraph 7.2 of the Development and Disposition Agreemeut. Appruved 4-0-0-1 with Padilia abstaining. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated they were at the end of a very difficult process. Most redevelopment projects had complicatilms and invl~lved innnvative and creative solutions. The main issues unresolved on the Broadway Business Home pr{~ject centered around solne development agreement provisions. The most significant of those dealt with the process tilr the acquisition of the property. Staff was prepared to discuss those with the Agency and make recommendations. That had been done in Closed Session previously and may be the Agency's wish again. Member Rindone stated the Agency/Ciluncil had given direction lo staff at the last meeting and questioned if it was staff's belief that tilere was signilicant new iul~lrmatilm since that direction. Mr. Salomone responded that staff wanted to have the opportunity to articulate the differences. He limit there were fimr different proposals that had be~n slmle,,,,hal de. fined in frlmt of the Agency/Council. The Agency/Council direction had been clearly comnmnicated Ill the applicant. · I Minutes July 25, 1995 Page 3 · Katrina D. Newby, 2270 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, CA, Executive Director of the Home Business Network, supported the Broadway Business Homes. She served as the Home Business Consultant for the Small Business Development Center at Southwestern College where she consulted on a daily basis an average of ten home based business owners. Home based businesses were spreading rapidly and was not just the mom/pop operation. The problem was that they were growing out of their homes. She felt the prqiect was very valuable because it gave people the opportunity to stay in Chula Vista and at the same time have cmmnercial space. She hoped the prqject would not be held up. On an average there were 50-60 new home based businesses started up weekly in the area. · R.E. Chandler, 3971 Darwin Avenue, San Diego, CA, stated he owned a business on Broadway from 1970 - 1979. He t~lt the prqject would oflbr a great opportunity tilt the small businessman. He wanted to see the prqject go forward as he was very interest in possibly parchasing a unit. · Joseph S. Fialho, 723 1/20stend Conrt, San Diego, CA, stated the pr~juct was needed to bring Chula Vista in competition with the bigger cities. · Patty Davis, 1375 ,917 Call~jon Montetrio, Chula Vista, CA, stated at~ur reviewing the prqiect she felt it would be an asset to the western portion of Chula Vista. She had clients that were interested in a home based business. The City was viewed as being very progressive and urged Agency/Council snpport. · Rod Davis, 233 Fonrth Avenue, Chnla Vista. CA, representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, stated the County was building 17 tittits of h>w/low income housing lln Palomar and Broadway which would bring 17 new families to shop at the Broadway Business Homes. The Rcdcvehlpment Agency was not in business to make good deals, that was what private industry was for, they wt-re m business to cur~ blight and improve the quality of life and living conditions in the community and he t~lt that was what the prqicct would do on Broadway. Forty percent of the new business licenses pet' month were home businesses. The prl~ject would succeed and made the City of Chula Vista a leader attd model throughout the State. The Chamber urged Agency/Council support. · Joanne Clayton, 760 Fitlit Avenue, Chnla Vista, CA, President ot the Broadway Business Association, stated Broadway with over 650 businesses represented a large percentage oI the business revenne in the City. The Broadway Business Home prqiect had the full snpport <If the Association becanse it represented a new and unique opportunity for the area. They lblt it was necessary li3r all basiness projects wanting to locate in the City to know that the City was business friendly and could work with the developers in a pl~sitive and rapid way. The Broadway Business Association urged the Agency/Cmmcil to move tilr,.vard with the prl!lect. · Josef Citron, 761 Golden Park, San Diego, CA, Applicant, revisited th~ project. Two weeks ago he felt everyone was a victim of a misunderstanding. They had sptlken witIt most of the Agency/Conncil Members individually tu shed light on the prqicct. They were dedicated ttl the prl~iect and had made a proposal on their proposal which they l~lt went a long way in meeting the concerns expressed as the restlit of the last m~;eting. He was appealing tbr the Agency/Council to work with them. They had not advertised the prqject, but word-of-mouth had already brought thein interest in purchase of time of the first six nnits. They felt the prqiect would be an enormous snccess and the benefits t{i the City wllu]d be quile glcal. Chair/Mayor Horton qnestioned if it could be discussed in op~'n sessitln. Mr. Boogaard respunded that it could but if the Agency/Council gave staff new instructions the applicant wonld be hearing them. If the Agency/Council wanted staff tll achieve any negotiating advantage it wonld be lost by discussing it publicly. He recommended that staff descril~e the n¢,~otiating ml~vement in Closed Session. * * * Council met iu Closed Se_ssimt n/11:02 p.tn. nod recmn'ened ut 11:52 p.m. * * * Mr. Salomone stated it was the position uf the Agency/Council that in their prevums deliberations that the Agency/Council considered all the elements of the pr{~iect, i.e. the demolition uf the site, remedialion work, cost and value of the land. In that meeting staff conveyed to the developer the Agency/Council recommendation that the land be acquired in two parts, $275,000 ti~r the first half and $275,000 lilt the second halt li~r a total land cost of $550,000. They revisited all those items in Closed Session and a new proposal the appIicant offered and the Agency/Council reiterated the position that they came to previously. After reviewing that the write down and · T' Minntes July 25, 1995 Page 4 participation on the part of the City~ the demolitilm of the site, risk the City was taking and the opportunity costs that the City was involved in they still wanted to see the site purchased in two phases with $275~000 in advance of the first half and in advance of the demolititlu. Mr. Citron stated they had arrauged financing tilt six units first. They did not have the financing arrangements to take down half the property at the present time. II that was the Council's position they would have to go back to the Iender and re-look at the financing and inv~sln~nt ~ituation. It Began to ~et less aftBrdahle to be able to sell the units at a reasonable price which was what lhcy wanted to do. He questioned it there was a way the Council cnuld consider the reqnest, at least tier then~ t{i take d{lwu the ploperty with the six nnits and then do the other two portions which would allow theIll to do the marketing aud tn{~di l~ the rest of units to accommodate the buying public and keep it market driven. As thr as the Agency nl~t hemg willing to participate as had been part of their understanding originally, it was slmlcthmg that they timid hlok at and do what they could, but to require that they change from three phases to two would make Iheln go back to square one with the financing. They had already lost three lenders and the prt~ject was under hardship at the present time. He strongly requested that the Council allow thein to take down the property in three phases. TIle pay down suggested in their proposal was $92,000 which would be the biggest part, if uot all. tit the demolition costs. That wonld be paid in cash up front in order to get the project underway. They would get the prQject underway just as soon as the demolition was completed. If the Council could not do that they wlmld have to see it' there was some other way of doing the prqject under the new terms. Chair/Mayor Horton stated with the $275,000 it did uot mean they had to build the whole 50% at one time. They would have the option to build six nnits. Mr. Citron stated he understood that, but to tally that pnrchase price during that period of time would boost the price and the buyer would have to pay mllre tier nil mine prigduct. They wanted to make them affordable. Member Moot questioned if they ct~uld d¢l~r the cost to the secoud phase. Mr. Citron responded that they would try to amlu'tize it over the entire project, but they already had over $86,000 in costs which had to he added on to the price tilt which the buyers were getting no benefit. It had been sixteen months and to add that on would be one mute straw ttl break the caulels back. The amortization of that over the 36 units would mean they would have t{i get a great d~al mllre finaucing. The City's risk was minimal. They also l~lt their risk was minm~al because ot the sahtl~ility i,t the prl~lect as long as they could hold their prices. Member Rindone stated the Agency/Cimncil was nl~t couvinced at the present time that the risk to the City was minimal. He questioned if there w{luld he an interest in doing a third of the pr<~ject with 12 units instead of six. Mr. Citron responded that they would have tl~ redesign the prQject. The first building was six units and the next building was eight units. They were ready to go fi~r building permits once the decision was made. Member Rindone stated the m~iority of the meulhers ot the Agency/Conncil were still interested in the project, but were not convinced that the risk was as minimal as heiug prnjected. The description of the proposed terms by staff did truly retlect the majority of tile Agency/Council. Mr. Citron stated they wonld only be taking down the land fi~r the first six tinits and would in no way be hurting the rest of the land. It was his understanding that the tire store owner to the north wanted to take all or as much of the property he could get. The Community Development Director expressed to him that he felt the risk was minimized because there was another buyer. Chair/Mayor Horton stated that other illt~rs did not play into the decision made by the Agency/Council. They were two totally different issnes. Their elmtern was their lmaucial responsibility to the taxpayers. Member Moot stated the Agency/City demolition costs and out of pocket expenses exceeded what the Citron's were willing to pay and that jeopardized the taxpayers money. That did not look like a good economic deal to the Agency/Council. Minutes July 25, 1995 Page 5 Mr. Salomone stated the total contract was fc~r $107,000 and the. site remediation brought it tap to $124,000 which was the total up ti'ont costs to the City. Mr. Citron stated they had been working with the demolition contractor and they lelt by working together they could save money for the City and the pr<~iect. It was his understanding that they expected the costs to be around $86,000. The amount of money tier the release on the six units of land wonld be almost $92,000. The City would only be releasing that portion of land and most of that did not have a lilt of demolition reqnired. Member Moot stated the Agency/Council would lose money it' they only built six units. Mr. Citron stated they had been in the business tier over thirty years and had been building in San Diego since 1972. They had yet to start a project they did not finish or purchase anything that they did not complete. They were basing all of the their projections and their willingness to gll into the prqiect on their experience. They would build 36 business homes and sell them. He projected they wonld be out of there by next March. He requested that the Agency/Council help them. By making one slight comprlm~ise to their position and allow them to go ahead with a loan that was already set they con[d gl~ lklrward with the six units. TIle change would take theIn as much as three or four months to start over again. They wonld bnild the 36 units and pity the City tile the land. If they made any more money the City had a recapture in the agreement. He rel. lucstcd that they be allowed to take down the project in three phases, i.e. six, twelve, and eighteen units. Member Padilia stated there was a great deal of respect tilt' Mr. Citron, his inveslors, and their accomplishments. The Agency/Council had to reach a decision as to what was a prudent risk Ill take and where the risk appropriately belonged. Members had given staff direction and he did not t~,Icl it prudent fi~r the Agency/Council to publicly debate the staff estimates of potential costs, risks, or losses or to rcnegotiate the p~sition taken. The integrity of the Agency/Council needed to be solid when a decision ,.,,'as m:~dc and to be consistent in order to maintain credibility. He t~lt the m~iority of the Agency/Ctuulcil wanted to s~c the pr~iect work but there were responsibilities that were real, risks that were real, clmsitleratitlns that were real and they would be remiss in their responsibilities if they ignored thenl. Mr. Citron appreciated Member Padilla's comments. lie lelt the written recltrd and vid~l} would show that was his concern, i.e. the consistency. He was questioning the ctmsist~'ncy ot' acttim due to the change of position taken by the Agency/Councih It was not consistent with what they had been told, prl3mised, or what action was taken. If they had known that six to nine mlmths ago when they first came be~re the Agency/Council or fifteen months ago when they presented their written propl~sal and had it respond~'d to in May, June, or July rather than the following Febrnary they could have made their plans perhaps to do the deal as currently requested. Because it was not presented to them that way he reqnested the Agency/Council consideration. All of the work that was done was based on what they understood the Agency/Council wanted. Chair/Mayor Horton stated the financial aspects disclosed to the Agency/Conncil were a great surprise. The majority of the Agency/Council l~lt it was a full cash transacttim, i.e. that the City was being paid the titll purchase price up front. The Agency/Connci[ never acted im tile type ill' tinancm~, payment, or how the property would be brought down tier the units. Direction was never ,given. Mr. Citron stated he had been told that and inl~st Menli~t. rs had hccn documents they had been working under. He was trying to pitt the best tare on it and call it a misunderstanding. It was a very embarrassing situation tier them as well and they came back with a cotinter offer. It was now set up to do six units with two other phases. · Lenore Citron, 761 Golden Park, San Die.,2o, CA, Applicant, stated no one brought up the price other than the letter that had been written to them. No one bronghl up the price tff $275,000. They had a letter that said one thing and it got all mixed np and they ended up with egg on ll3eil' tares and she resented it. They were good business p~ple and they had done what they said they v',.,.re goin~ Io dll. At the eleventh hour it was not a good thing to do to people that wanted to do a gotld thing fi~r tile Chair/Mayor Horton stated they were ntlt disputing the th,:t that thQ,/ were golld business people. She was sorry that there was a problem with mis-comnmnicatitln, but it v~as s{imethmg the Agency/Council never discussed. I I Minutes July 25, 1995 Page 6 Mrs. Citron stated it was not something thai they were thinking hut sumcthing that they had read that came from the City staff. Chair/Mayor Horton stated sta/t had reiterated tile Citron's request. TIle letter contained a disclaimer at the beginning of the letter that stated it was not an i~t]~r~ had not been to Council. or discussed by the Council. They were reiterating the Citron's discussions with stair. Mrs. Citron stated that was not hllw the letter read. Mr. Boogaard read the paragraph fron~ the letter: "Deal Jiiscf and Lemn'e, This letter responds to the various issues which you have raised concerning tile ahove rel~lcnced prt~posah This respnnse is not to be considered an offer on the part of the Agency or the City to enter into an agreement with yon regarding yonr proposal. but merely represented a stmunary of the current status iff the mare points of a Disposition and Development Agreement that you have prnposed between you and tile Agency clmcerning the project.' Mrs. Citron stated that was not the whole letter. She stated that it was reqnired that land be delivered that was clean and that the land was not clean or the Agency/City wlmld not have had people out exan~ning it. It was a responsibility that hehmged to whoever tile I~revitnls ilwner wax. Some of which the Agency/City was making their responsibility was not their responsd~ility. The leHcl said "It is contemplated that tile site will be delivered to the developer demolished and cleared at tile Agcncy's c×pense". City people wrote it she did not. It also said "On the price reduction, the Agency acquired the site fi~r $1.8 million and presently contemplated to permit development on the site. The Agency would convey tile sale to the devehlper lbr a purchase price which is something less than that anlonnt. One-half ill this imrchase price ',~{luld bc paid upl~ll clm',cyance of each half of tile site. Purchase price payment will be deferred until produclion unit sales," Slit stated that was very confilsing to her and she did not understand hnw that was interpreted tl, cl,n~' up with $275,000. In gnod fidth they had stated they would pay fbr the first six nnits with cash and asked the Agency/Cinmcil tll ,,vork with them. Mr. Boogaard advised the Agency/Conncil nol to aletie the point fi'onl the dais although there were very valid connterpoints. It would not behoove anyline t{i argue the points publicly. Mrs. Citron qnestioned why not. she f~lt tile taxpayers should know what was going on. Chair/Mayor Horton did not feel a response was necessary. She was sorry there had been a mis-conununication between the Redevelopment Agency and tile devehlper. Member Rindone had been the strongest proponent for the prqject and he did not know the proposal lilt' financing the prl~iect. Mr. Citron stated that was not in their proposal. it came from the Agency. Their original proposal was to bny the property and the letter was a connter prl~posal h'ou~ the Redevelopment Agency. He requested that they get back to operating on good faith. They wonld pay cash file the first phase. Chair/Mayor Hoeton stated th~ paragraph read hy the Agency/City Attorney prefaced the letter by stating it was the Citron's proposal to the City. Never in the letter did it say that the Agency/Council agreed to any of the items listed. Mr. Salomone clarified that one of the things that was being represented and important to state was that any project, and this prqiect was extremely difficult because there was no nmdel fi~r it, began with various negotiations. The original prQiect did not begin hloking anything like the prlfiect presented at the present time. The developer worked countless hours with the stafi't{~ deal with issues such as parking. set backs, open space, and arechilies. The project was hlling apart week by week. Staff changed tile things ill the letter substantially. Staff agreed to make a public street at the developers request and agreed to work with a maintenance district. Thnse were all unique to the project and things staff had never encountered. To have docnments such as tile letter and meetings held and not know whether or not there was a prQiect until late in the prncess and then to sit down and negotiate a development agreement and get the devdopment fi-om the agreement that did not replicate that method of acquisition was normal. Prqjects evolved and changed and to say that there was had t:aith or misrepresentation because of a document early on in the process begged to open np the other issnes Illat also changed thronghout the process. It was a good Minutes July 25, 1995 Page 7 process and there was good faith on both sides, but it was bein~d mis-characte~ized that the process was somehow breached because of the letter. Mr. Citron stated he respected Mr. Salonsone very highly. The only reason they bronght up the letter was because he thought the Agency/Council t~lt they had been sandbagged by the change in what they understood the deal was at the very last minute. They had told staff that and told them why that happened. They were acting in good faith and used the letters as proof of that. It was nnt who was right but what was right. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OTIIER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(SI - Nim~ 6. CHAIR'S/MAYOR'S REPORT(S) a. Discussion of Broadway Bnsiness Homes Projct (Citrom). TIle re,-lu~st is to discuss in Closed Session. 7. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS Member Rindune a. Member Rindone stated the Agency had received a mcmorandnm fi-om the City Attorney regarding the issue of spending tax increment outside of a prt~cct arca and it was his und~.rstanding that the Agency had asked the staff for a report. He questioned when they could anticipalc the report. Mr. Goss stated it was staffs interrotation that it had alr~'ady been deal~ with. Member Rindone stated he did not know how much money was applicable to the previous or cnrrent budget years and what that implication would be to tl~e Redeveh~pment A~cncy. Mr. Goss responded that would hav~ to bc bronght back. It was Ins understanding that the A~ncy took action that instead of incrementally phasing out the tax incrcnlcnt paying tot genera[ economic d~vch~pmcnt that it all be done one time. Chris Salomone, Director of Conmmnily Development, statrd staff was preparing th~ report and it wonld have a criteria for the amount that was attributable to the redcvelopmcnt :u'eas directly under AB 1290 and the amount that should be paid fbr by the General Fund. Staff' was still r~scarchm~ that and developing the criteria and he t~lt it could be brought back in 2-3 weeks. Member Rindone requested that il bc an agendizcd item hn' review hy the Rcdcvelopment Agency. Mr. Goss stated he appreciated the enthusiasm of the Community Development Director, but he insisted that they give it budget review and the Budget Director was on vacatnm. [1~ t~l~ it would he approxin~alely one month befi~r~ returning to the Agency. Member Rindone stated one month was acceptable bttt he did not want to let it go longer than that. Minutes July 25, 1995 Page 8 AD.IOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 12:25 A.M. to the R~gular Agency Meeting on Au.gust I. 1995 at 4:00 p.m., immediately i'Z~llowing the City Council meeting. in the City Council Chambers. Re~,pecttitlly submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk by: Vicki C. Sl~derquist. CMC~ek;~tty City Clerk