Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1995/08/01 RDA MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF TIlE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CtlULA VISTA Tuesday, August 1, 1995 Council Chambers 5:13 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Council Membcrs~ Alevy, Moot, Padilia, Rindone, and Chair/Mayor Horton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director/City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency/City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 25, 1995 MSUC (Horton/l%!oot) to apprnve the miuutes of July 25, 1995 as presented. CONSENT CALENDAR (Item pnlled: 4) 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 4. RESOLUTION 1464 APPROVING LEASE BETWEEN OTAY VISTA ASSOCIATES AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR OFFICE SPACE FOR THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT--The current lease agreement between the Agency and Otay Vista Associates (Otay Ranch Project) will expire 8/2/95. A revised lease has been prepared and is beti/re the Agency tilt consideration. Staff rccmumends approval of the resolution. (Community Developn~ent Director) Pulled h'om the Cm~sent Calendm'. Member Moot questioned the relationship hetween Otay Vista Associates and the Baldwin Company and to what extent that entity was related to the entities that wer~ in bankruptcy. He agreed with the Agency Attomey's notation that the bankruptcy issee did afl~ct the potential ability ol the City to evict a non-paying tenant. Mr. Goss stated it was his understanding that Otay Vista was a partnership and not currently subject to the bankruptcy with its source of revenue coming from tile c{inq~any that was snhiect to bankruptcy, i.e. the Baldwin Company. Member Moot questioned who the general partner was. Chair Horton responded that it was Jim Baldwin and his brother. Member Moot felt it was important tt~ knoxv whll tile genural partner was because they were the ultimate person liable for the debt. If that was not a person or entity likely to go into bankruptcy then he fdt they did not have any real concern. However, if the general partner was a partnership that clluld easily be taken into bankruptcy he would have more concern about having a tenant in the space. Under the terms of the bankruptcy laws the Agency may not be able to easily evict. Chair Horton stated it was her understanding that over the last several weeks the Bankruptcy Court had allowed approximately $85,000/week to flow through to Otay Vista Associates to help keep them cnrrent. Mr. Goss stated they had been approved tier their processing or "go fi~r~vard" costs of $85,000/week. It was not just Chula Vista and Otay Ranch, it also included other prt~iects. Mr. Boogaard recommended that the proposed resohltion be alnended to clin~inatc any risk by saying that the Agency approved the three month lease with Otayy Vista with tile advance written approval of the bankruptcy trustee. Minutes August 1, 1995 Page 2 That way it would be a clearly current cost of the Ranch project and the Agency would be protected. Member Rindone stated he wanted clarilication of Member Moot's concerns. He questioned if the item was time sensitive. Mr. Goss did not libel there would be a problem with a one week delay. Member Moot stated the lease expired 8/2/95 and that norn~ally leases provided that they would renew automatically on a month-to-month basis. Mr. Boogaard stated he would be leery about evicting a month-to-month tenant protected under bankruptcy laws than a term tenant. He had researched tile bankruptcy issne and was convinced by counsel in those areas that if the Agency had the written approval of the bankruptcy trustee that the Agency wonld be protected. Staff limit they also mitigated the risk by recommending a three n~{inth lease rather than a twelve month lease. He did not feel the Agency would be well served by letting it g{i to a mlmth-to-month tenancy because the Agency may then be subject to the antornatic stay that would prevent any eviction proceedings. Member Rindone stated he was comlin'table with that m{~dilicatil~n. He requested that alter doing that if staff had any thrther concerns that it be br{inght back to the Agency. He I~lt the Agency needed the answers to Member Moot's questions. RESOLUTION 1464. AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY MEMBER RINDONE, reading tff the text was waived. Staff to return next week with a writleu repm't regarding the liduciary relatiunship between Otay Vista Associates and the Baldwin Company. Member Moot fblt it would be helpful lilr tile Agency to understand the relationship between the different Baldwin [""' entities. There were several entities that were mlt in bankruptcy which the Agency did not ned to be overly concerned about. He f~lt that would help to clear up math of the public confission. VOTE ON MOTION: appruved mmnimously. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 5. PUBLIC HEARING SALE OF AGENCY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 315 FOURTH AVENUE WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, WITHOUT PUBLIC BIDDING--Staff infi~rmed the Agency at its 5/23/95 meeting the three proposals received tbr purchase of tile beilding were unacceptable. The Agency directed staff to prepare a Purchase and Sale Agreement lbr Agency/Council review and approval. Staff requests continuance of the Public Heariw, tn the Allencv meetin~ nf August 15. 1995. Cnntinued frnm the meeting of June 20, 1995. (Community Development Director) A. RESOLUTION 1458 APPROVING SALE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 315 FOURTH AVENUE WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA WITHOUT PUBLIC BIDDING, APPROVING PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH TttE CITY OF CItULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE SAME B. RESOLUTION 17926 APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 315 FOURTH AVENUE WITHlN THE TOWN CENTRE I REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FROM THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, APPROVING A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAME Minutes August 1, 1995 Page 3 MSUC (Rindone/Alevy) to continue the public bearing to the 8/15/95 meeting. ORAL COMMtlNICATIONS None ACTION ITEMS 6. RESOLUTION 1465 AND RESOLUTION 17985 APPROVING SUBSTITUTION OF PROJECT UNDER A LEASE AGREEMENT (TOWN CENTRE II PARKING PROJECT - PHASE TWO) AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS THEREWITH--The Agency and City issued $3.1 million in Certificates of Participation in 1993 to pay the Agency's share of costs related to the construction of the parking structure at Chula Vista Center. For the purpo>~ <if issuing th~ bonds, three City-owned properties were leased to the Agency and leased hack by the City. Th~ City now wishes to sell one of those properties, Marina View Park, to the San Diego Unified Port District, wl' ich will necessitate substituting a property of equal or greater value in the Site Lease Agreement. Staff recordmends approval of the resolotion. (Community Development Director) Member Rindone questioned where the line of demarcation was tbr the eastern pllrtion of the park. Fred Kassman, Redevelopmeat Coordinator, stated it fidlowec a notch in the park and was just about the center. The City's section of "J" Street Marina View Park was presently in the bond documents and and staff was recommendin the substitntion ofone*halfof Memorial Park, wb ch was approxm~ately the same size, but would have a greater value. Staff had ordered a CLTA policy which would map it out and legally describe the parcel. RESOLUTIONS 1465 AND 17985 OFFERED BY MEMBER RINDONE. reudiug nf the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. ITEMS PULLED FROM TIlE CONSENT CALENDAR Item pulled: 4. The minutes will reflect the puhlished agenda order. OTIIER BUSINESS 7. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) - None 8. CHAIR'S/1MAYOR'S REPORT(S) - NIme 9. AGENCY/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS Member Rindone a. Member Rindone stated the concept of th~ approval of the Bayfront project had been brought before the Agency and was conceptually approv~d on a 4~1 vote and fi-o n there it went hetbre the Coastal Commission tbr approval. He questioned if there was a condition that bctbre ~- Bayfront plan was approved that a DDA had to be approved by the Agency. Fred Kassman, Redevelopment Coordinator, respomled that it had always heeu staWs understanding that a DDA was required for the prQiect. There was more planning that was required and a Specific Plan had to be brought back to the Agency. Minutes August 1, 1995 Page 4 Member Rindone qnestioned if it was appnlpriate to say that the Agency did not have an approved Bayfront plan since the DDA was part of the clmdition. Mr. Goss stated he was not certain technically what it wonld mean. There was a plan that was approved by the Agency and Coastal Colmission. It was not in a position to go fin~vard and be implemented because there was no DDA or Specific Plan and additional approwds were needed. Member Rindone stated lie had received an inquiry h'on~ a constituent and he wanted to provide clarification. There was conceptual approval, I~ut not an ifff'icially adl~pted Specific Plan for the Bayfront. Mr. Goss stated there was an approved plan. Mr. Boogaard stated he concurred with Mr. GiIss' assessment that the first level nf entitlements had been granted. The last level had not been reached. One or' the clmditilms was the requirement of a DDA and that further planning had to occur belbre building permits could he drawn. They could not go fbrward, but it could not be put in a use that required new planning. If they wanted a new use, other than what was planned, they would have to get approval of the first level on entitlements i.e. General Plan amendments and Coastal Commission approval. AD.IOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 5:30 P.M. to a Joint Red~velopn~ent Agency/City Council Meeting on August 15, 1995 at 6:00 p.m., immediately fi.~llowing the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. R~sp~ctfully sulmfitted, ~ BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk by: Vicki C. Soderquist, CM~uty City Clerk