Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1994/07/19 RDA Minutes of a Joint Regular Meetins, of the RedeveloDment A~encv/ City Council of the City of Chula Vista Tuesday, July 19, 1994 Council Chambers 9:06 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Council Members Fox, Hotton, Moore, Rindone, and Chairman/ Mayor Nader ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Executive Director/City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency General Counsel/City Attorney; Chris Salomone, Community Development Director; Dave Gustafson, Assistant Director of Community Development; and Berlin D. Bosworth, Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 12, 1994 MSUC [Horton/Moore] to approve the minutes of July 12, 1994 as presented. Approved 5-0. CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN/MAYOR NADER, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None submitted. 4. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1412 APPROVING A SEMI-EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH JOELEN ENTERPRISES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AGENCY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY--As part of the Auto Park project the Agency acquired the Fuller Ford and Southbay Chevrolet dealership sites on Broadway. Joelen Enterprises propose to develop the portion of the Fuller Ford site on the west side of Broadway with approximately 38 business homes. Staff desires to enter into a Semi- Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Joelen Enterprises ibr six months in order to work out details of this unique project which is a departure fi-om typical strip commercial development along Broadway. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) Member/Council Member Rindone commented this was an exciting, new proposal. Both Josef and Lenore Citron of Joelen Enterprises, and staff were to be congratulated for exploring the businesshome concept. Member/Council Member Moore thought this an innovative mixed-use concept. If there were a need for a second six-month negotiating period extension that should be brought back to the Agency for authorization. The intent was to urge completion of these negotiations during the six-month timefYame for semi-exclusive negotiations. Chairman/Mayor Nader stated if Agency/Council Members agreed with that provision it would be incorporated without objection and the resolution amended. Member/Council Member Rindone wanted assurance the applicant concurred with the proposed amendment. Mr. Josef Citron, the applicant, agreed with Member/Council Member Moore's proposed amendment. Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 2 Chairman/Mayor Nader stated, without objection, the amendment would be incorporated into Item #4 on the Consent Calendar. 5. A. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1413 APPROVING FlNAL RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND LAST RESORT HOUSING PAYMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $27,869.52 PURSUANT TO THE ADOPTED RELOCATION PLAN FOR THREE RENTAL UNIT HOUSEHOLDS FORMERLY RESIDING AT 459 F STREET WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE II REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA--The City of Chula Vista and the Re, development Agency purchased the property at 459 F Street as part of the adopted Chula Vista Master Plan Expansion Project. The California Relocation Assistance Act mandates the payment of relocation benefits to persons and businesses displaced by actions taken by a public entity. The Council and Agency are requested to approve final Rental Assistance and Last Resort Housing payments for three of the remaining four households. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Community Development Director) [and] B. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 17567 AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF $27,869.52 FROM THE CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT (#GG-130) CIP FOR THE PAYMENT OF FINAL RENTAL ASSISTANCE AND LAST RESORT HOUSING PAYMENTS TO THREE RENTAL UNIT HOUSEHOLDS FORMERLY RESIDING AT 459 F STREET 6. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1415 GRANTING A FOUR FOOT BY NINE FOOT EASEMENT ON ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 568-152-29 OWNED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR ACCESS TO ITS EQUIPMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING AT 311 F STREET--The remodelling and expansion of the IDM Building at 311 F Street requires the location of electrical equipment at the northeast corner of the building. The equipment, located in a small room recessed into the building, can only be accessed from the Redevelopment Agency public parking lot on Landis Avenue. San Diego Gas & Electric is requesting an access easement from the parking lot to the equipment room. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director) * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES None submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Agustin Reyes, 96 Sherwood Street, Chula Vista, CA, owner and operator of Mi Cabana La Mision, requested an extension to stay on the property. It was an issue of his right to be on the property--he was the tenant and had a 20-year lease and has complied with all obligations as tenant and businessman. He felt he was deprived of his fights. It was his belief the eminent domain proceedings were prejudicial to him. He was told by Council that Chula Vista Redevehipment was going to assist him in relocation and so far they had not done anything. All relocation had been done by him. He believed he had been acting in good faith but now believed it was the wrong thing to do. He requested the City Council allow him an extension of additional time to relocate his business. Staff said they have helped me in the last 12 months. He disagreed. In the past four months staff had approached him with properties to consider relocating to. He did not like the properties. He had found a property, had a contract which he was ready to sign which he received two days prior. My attorney had a copy to review. He okayeLi it for me to sign. He needed time to move. He asked not to be put out of business. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked how much time he needed to relocate. · r Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 3 Mr. Reyes replied three to six months. Member/Council Member Fox stated the one-year extension granted by the Council expired on July 27, 1994. Would an extension to August 3, 1994 mean anything to him. Mr. Reyes said he would probably just be putting papers into escrow. Chairman/Mayor Nader stated Council could grant an emergency extension of one week and the item could be agendized so the Agency could discuss the issue. Staff and Agency would need to have discussions with the developer. That would give staff time to try to work something out with the developer and Mr. Reyes. He would like to give Mr. Reyes time to relocate now he had found a property to relocate to. Would staff have a problem with that course of action. Community Development Director Salomone replied staff would not. It would be reasonable to place the item on the Agenda for August 2, 1994 to discuss an extension. MOTION [Fox/Nader] to find emergency exists to place this on tonight's Agenda as Mr. Reyes' eviction was going to occur prior to the August 2, 1994 Agency meeting and as Mr. Reyes had entered escrow after the posting of the Agency Agenda in order to discuss emergency extension. VOTE ON MOTION: Passed, 5-0. Member/Council Member Fox could support an extension although he thought the City had done quite a lot already in granting a 12 month extension. What was important was cooperation by both parties. Mr. Reyes needed to release his tax records to the Agency to review the Goodwill estimate, unless staff already had those records as well as sign the Agency lease. Mr. Reyes said if he signed a month-to-month lease then staff could kick him out any time it wanted. That was why he would not sign the lease. He already had a 10 year lease with another 10 year option. He questioned why he should sign a lease which was on a month-to-month basis. MOTION [Nader/Fox] that an emergency extension be granted to August 3, 1994; staff was directed, in the interim, to meet with Mr. Reyes and Cypress Creek to ascertain how much time Mr. Reyes needed to relocate his business successfully; and, to juggle as best staff can that need with the needs of Cypress Creek, the developer, and report back to Council with a recommendation on a further extension. Member/Council Member Fox stated he had commented to Mr. Reyes he needed to cooperate in signing the Agency lease. Mr. Reyes responded he was not sure why he needed to do that. Would staff respond. Assistant Director of Community Development Gustafson replied at the time Council took action in July 1993 to give Mr. Reyes an additional 12 months, the Agency ofti~red him a lease which he has refused to sign. He has indicated he does not want to do that as he would go on a month-to-month status where currently he has a 10 year lease. In fact, he does not have a lease. The Agency/Council condemned the property and the lease. He was presently on a month-to-month status. He has been treated as a month-to-month tenant and the Agency would have the power to give him a 30-day notice at any time. The Agency wanted Mr. Reyes to sign the lease as it gave the Agency additional protection and declarations on his part that staff believe are important to the Agency. Member/Council Member Fox asked if it was a retroactive type lease. Mr. Gustarson stated the lease was identical in its financial terms to the lease he had with the previous property owner. Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 4 Chairman/Mayor Nader stated should an additional extension be granted at the next Agency meeting, after staff carried out the motion on the floor, assuming it passed, was it staft's anticipation, supposing, hypothetically, Council decided to give Mr. Reyes an additional three month extension to relocate, did staff anticipate a desire to have the lease executed as part of that. Mr. Gustarson replied staff would like to see the lease executed. Chairman/Mayor Nader suggested any conditions of that sort which staff believed were an important part of the extension should be placed before the Agency at that meeting. Mr. Reyes should have an opportunity to review those conditions well in advance of the meeting so that, should the Agency grant such an extension the conditions would be very clear so there would be no further misunderstandings. Member/Council Member Moore asked staff if Mr. Reyes leased the property as opposed to owning it. Mr. Gustafson said that was correct. Member/Council Member Moore asked if the Agency owned the property since July 1993. Mr. Gustarson replied that was correct also. Member/Council Member Moore asked if the Agency at that time gave Mr. Reyes one year to relocate. Mr. Gustarson stated yes. Member/Council Member Moore asked was the developer promised that property would be ready for grading in one year's time. Mr. Gustafson replied that was correct. Member/Council Member Moore asked if the Agency stated it would assist Mr. Reyes, but did not promise him everything would work well. Mr. Gustafson pointed out that under Redevelopmerit Law the Agency was required to assist Mr. Reyes, but not technically relocate him. Member/Council Member Moore recapped stating: (1) Mr. Reyes was not in the best position as he was not the owner of the property; (2) Mr. Reyes was leasing from the Agency; (3) Mr. Reyes had a year to move and had not done so; and (4) the developer was ready to grade the property. Whatever the Agency now decided to do was pretty much at the developer's mercy. However, staff was to intercede with the developer to ascertain if there was any extra time which could be squeezed from the developer's time schedule for development. Mr. Gustafson pointed out the developer had complained they would like that structure removed as they have use for the property. The Agency did not technically have an agreement with the developer which stated the property would be available to them at any particular time. It was not part of the Disposition and Development Agreement. It was an understanding the developer had when Council extended Mr. Reyes' tenancy for 12 months. Member/Council Member Moore noted Mr. Reyes had to have made a serious effort to relocate. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked the minutes of the July 1993 meeting accompany the staff report. Member/Council Member Moore stated a tenant had certain rights and asked what those rights were. Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 5 Mr. Gustati~on said Mr. Reyes had the right to technical assistance to get his business relocated. The Agency needed to show him comparable properties. Member/Council Member Moore asked were there any monetary value to relocating a tenant. Mr. Gustafson replied that was rather complicated. It would depend on the value the tenant had on the property--the fixtures and equipment, and whether the tenant had any leasehold bonus value. The Agency's experts have determined Mr. Reyes does not have any leasehold bonus value. The principal compensation Mr. Reyes could look to was Goodwill in case he should suffer a business loss when he was relocated. Member/Council Member Moore asked if both parties understood that. Mr. Gustafson said yes, but staff has had trouble calculating what that Goodwill might be as Mr. Reyes had not relocated. A Goodwill amount could only be posited. There was nothing finite as Mr. Reyes had not yet relocated and it could not be measured how well Mr. Reyes would do as opposed to how well he did at the previous property. Staff has had difficulty getting some business tax numbers from Mr. Reyes. Member/Council Member Moore asked if Mr. Reyes was aware of that. Mr. Gustafson replied he and Mr. Reyes had a discussion on that subject this evening. Mr. Reyes said staff had his tax reports for almost two months now. There was confusion on the numbers but they were being straightened out. He gave those papers to his attorney and his attorney then gave them to the Agency's attorney. Chairman/Mayor Nader pointed out that agendizing the item for the August 2 meeting gave Mr. Reyes more time to work something out with staff in terms of what the final extension should be. Mr. Reyes stated he was never opposed to being relocated. He had found properties he liked but could not relocate to them. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked why it was not possible to relocate to the properties he was interested in. Mr. Reyes replied the type of business he had required it not be near residential, churches, or schools. VOTE ON MOTION: Passed, 5-0. ACTION ITEMS 7. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1411 ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET FOR FY 1994-95 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR--The FY 1994-95 Redevelopmerit Agency Budget was reviewed as part of the City budget approval process. As the Redevelopment Agency is a separate legal entity, it is necessary to approve the budget separately as required by Califbrnia Community Redevelopment Law. Staff recommends continuation of this item to the meeting of 8/2/94. (Administration/Community Development Director) Continued from the 7/12/94 meeting MSUC [Nader/Moore] to continue to the meeting of August 2, 1994. Approved 5-0. 8. AGENCY/COUNCIL REPORT. STATUS OF MIDBAYFRONT NEGOTIATIONS--On 4/5/94 the status of negotiations with Midbayfront developer, William Barkett, was discussed and staff was directed to report back in 60 days as to whether substantial progress had been made towards completion of a Development Agreement Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 6 (DA). Staff has made substantial progress including the development of a Pre-Construction Phasing Plan and Draft DA including resolution of all but several negotiating issues which are outlined in the report. Staff recommends acceptance of the report and direction by the Agency to continue negotiations with the developer for completion of a Development Agency. (Community Development Director) Continued from the meeting of 7/12/94 Community Developer Director Salomone informed Agency the negotiators had developed a draft of the Development Agreement as well as a Pre-construction Phasing Plan. Weekly meetings had been held with the developer, William Barkett, and steady progress had been made to this point. Staff believed it needed another 90 days, or perhaps more, to finalize the Development Agreement. Staff would like to diligently pursue that. The staff report addressed several items--Nature Center funding, financial disclosure items typical to a Development Agreement, and evidence of qualified resort operators--which remained unresolved between staff and the developer. Staff had offered recommendations on those items. The proposed Port District acquisition of the Shangri-La property would take a burden off the project and add to the feasibility of the project. That was park land that would have had to have been developed by the developer. In addition, this developer has agreed to donate. at this time or a time in the not too distant future, additional acreage adjacent to those properties in order to develop a park or recreational facility utilizing Port District funds. The appraisal had been completed. A Phase 1 environmental analysis had been done and the Phase 2 environmental analysis was expected to be completed by September 1994. At that time staff would return to Council with a recommendation relative to Port's acquisition. Mr. Salomone further informed the Agency with respect to the three outstanding items: (1) Nature Center funding. The issue was initiation of the first payment. Per Council direction that was to occur at issuance of the first Grading Permit. As negotiations continued, the developer recommended that be moved to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. The rationale was the project would then begin to actually generate revenues. Staff was not opposed to moving the first payment to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. (2) Financial Disclosure of Partners in the Development. This also was addressed by Council. It was typical in a Development Agreement that Financial Statements of partnero be disclosed at some point--usually when the Development Agreement was adopted. The issue was availability of financing which was what the Agency and City were concerned with. Staff felt if it could prove that financing was available for the project and that the project would be built, then that condition would be met. (3) Qualified Hotelier Criteria. Staff wanted a qualified hotelier approved by the Agency. The developer has requested greater flexibility on the issue. The developer contended there were very qualified first-class hoteliers that were not listed as the Top 5 hoteliers in the nation. Staff wanted to work with the developer to establish objective criteria for each of the hotels within the project. Staff thought with further negotiations with the developer, Issues (2) and (3) would be resolved. Member/Council Member Fox wanted to know at what point the Financial Statements would be forthcoming. His concern was that the Financial Statements showed there was a qualified developer. Mr. Salomone responded said the Pre-construction Phasing Plan which had been agreed to provided that that information would be given to the Agency prior to the Development Agreement being adopted. Member/Council Member Fox clarified the Financial Statements would come before the Agency prior to presentation to the Agency of the final Development Agreement. Mr. Salomone said that was so. It was a point of contention between the developer and staff. Having the Development Agreement in place would afford the developer the opportunity to market his project and then secure financing. The developer's contention was he would like to have the Development Agreement in place and then prove he has the financial ability. Whereas, staff was requesting his joint partners disclose their financial capability prior to the Development Agreement being adopted. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, speaking on behalf of Crossroads, said any bayfront project was impeat to the City. For the protection of the City, it certainly required and called for an outside financial expert to give the City advise about the feasibility of the project. The last report from Williams Kuebelbeck was issued about 18 months ago. Things have changed significantly since that time. It would be very · [ Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 7 useful and nice for the citizens of Chula Vista, as well as for the Agency's assurance, to have Williams Kuebelbeck update their Feasibility Study. The plan, compared to 18 months ago, was it more or less feasible. Was it going to require greater or lesser subsidy. We urge the Agency let Williams Kuebelbeck update their Feasibility Study. Chairman/Mayor Nader suggested staff discuss the specific items on which it was seeking guidance. Mr. Salomone thought staff could be directed to continue negotiations. The one issue which staff would like direction was with respect to Nature Center funding. MOTION [Fox/Horton] authorize staff to negotiate such an agreement in accordance with Item 2. on page 8-6, of the staff report. Text of Item 2, page 8-6 of the staff report, is typed hereinafter in its entirety. 2. Favorably consider the developer's request to postpone the commencement of Nature Center payments until the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. The proposed $500,000 annual payments to the Nature Center is a significant expense for the developer and should most appropriately be timed to coincide with the initiation of an income stream from the project. This project requires an enormous amount of predevelopment expenditures including $1.5 million in Cultural Arts Center Facilities payments, habitat mitigation and public improvements. Additional expenses levied before development occurs will make it more difficult to get this project started. Member/Council Member Moore said he did not want to give something without receiving something in return. He requested Agency authorize conceptual approval of that particular item. Chairman/Mayor Nader said one area where the City could get something for agreeing to this proviso would be in the area of the structuring of the tax rebates/subsidies. Member/Council Member Rindone thought the motion was out of order. It was his understanding staff was seeking for the Agency to look at the various different points and then authorize further direction to continue the negotiations and receive Agency input on at least those three decision points. The entire package needed to be looked at and reviewed. Certain conditions should or should not be approved in the preliminary document prior to the Agency knowing the whole picture. Member/Council Member Fox understood Member Rindone's concem. There was going to be give and take in the negotiation process. The Agency was not approving the $500,000 being paid at the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. That would be negotiated. To get the whole picture, it sometimes had to be dealt with piecemeal. VOTE ON MOTION: Passed 4-0, with Rindone opposed. Member/Council Member Moore asked if the developer would donate land to make the anticipated Port District acquisition of the Shangri La property into a larger park area. Mr. Salomone said staff suggested the Port District take on the burden of developing the park, thereby relieving the City and the developer of that expense. The developer would donate land (approximately 5 to 6 acres), to make the size of the park the "right" size according to City standards. Member/Council Member Moore noted the developer would reduce his cost by not having to develop that portion as park land. Mr. Salomone replied at the present time the developer does not have to dedicate any land to park land until he has a final Development Agreement. Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 8 MOTION [Fox/Nader] move for approval of Items 3. and 4., on page 8-6, of staff report. Text of Items 3. and 4., page 8-6 of the staff report, are typed hereinafter in their entirety. 3. Require the developers to provide financial statements of the development entity. This is a standard Development Agreement requirement and will provide the Agency with information concerning the developer's ability to undertake a project of this magnitude. 4. Allow the developer flexibility in identifying operators of hotels and sports facilities subject to concurrence of the Agency based upon demonstrated experience and financial capability of selected operators. The staff recommends that objective standards for the operators be induded within the Development Agreement. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked if the motion was intendexl to include beth sentences in Item 4. Member/Council Member Fox said both sentences. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked what the first sentence meant. Mr. Salomone replied, typically staff would state one of the Top 5 hoteliers had to build the hotels; otherwise, the Agency would not approve the Development Agreement. Over the years that had been a proven criteria for first- class hotels. The developer made a compelling point--there were a great number of first-class resorts which were not built by the Top 5. The developer's resort was tailor-made for a unique type operator. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked if the flexibility staff was seeking was to have an operator that was not on the Top 5 list but nonetheless was comparable and met criteria which essential described the operations of those Top 5. Mr. Salomone replied that was correct, though it was a departure from the standard Development Agreement. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked who would determine, and at what point, whether the proposed operator met those criteria. Mr. Salomone said the Agency would have unfettered discretion. Staff would work with the developer in developing that objective criteria. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked once the standards are developed and in the Development Agreement, does the developer need to come tierward with the specific operator before or after rights vest under the Development Agreement. Mr. Salomone said before. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked if the Agency then made the decision whether the operator met the criteria. Mr. Salomone said that was right. VOTE ON MOTION: Passed 5-0. Member/Council Member Fox asked staff to restate the estimate on how long it would take to reach a final Development Agreement. Mr. Salomone replied staff thought 90 days was reasonable for a final Development Agreement. Staff had the draft Development Agreement, but because of a number of blanks it was not included with the shaft report. I[ Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 9 Member/Council Member Fox asked if the Agency was to agree with staff recommendation, Item 1, page 8ql of the staff report, for the three months to complete the Development Agreement, would staff return in the interim with an additional status report on the negotiations prior to the end of the 90 day period. His concern was there be no contested negotiating points remaining at the end of the 90 days. Mr. Salomone stated staff would be happy to report back to the Agency in 60-days. Member/Council Member Fox preferred not to have just one report due in three months. MOTION [Fox/Nader] accept staff recommendation (Item 1., page 8-6 of staff report) provided the Agency receives a status report within 60 days as well. Text of item 1, page 8-6 of the staff report, is typed hereinafler in its entirety. Staff to continue to refine and complete the Pre-Construction Phasing Plan and Development Agreement and report bacl~ to the Council~;l~ within three months. [~added text.] Member/Council Member Rindone asked why a status report of a status report was being requested. Member/Council Member Fox said staff had indicated the goal was to reach conclusion and actually have the Development Agreement within three months. He wanted to know progress was being made so that in three month's time slaff was not coming back to the Agency with more contested points. If the goal was to have the Development Agreement within three months, then should any points hinder that goal, then let the Agency know at the end of the 60-day period. Member/Council Member Rindone understood a status report was being requested within 60 days. Member/Council Member Fox added, and hopefully a Development Agreement at the end of three months. VOTE ON MOTION: Passed 5-0. Member/Council Member Rindone, referring to Item E. Developer Construction Obligations, page 8-3, staff report. It stated The Development Agreement will require the Developer to comply with the Pre-construction Phasing Plan or the Agreement will be subject to termination. It then stated, The Agree.tent does no__t require the Developer to construct the public or private improvements on the Bayfront. Why would the Agency do that? Mr. Salomone noted the structure of a Development Agreement was to provide incentives and entitlements and to take those enfitlements away should the developer not perform. A certain amount of flexibility had to be inherent in the Agreement. The City could require this developer to perform but, in many ways, that would inhibit the developer's ability to get financial partners or parcel off sections of the project to other entities. The Development Agreement was not personal to this developer; rather, it was vested with entitlements and financial incentives that should the developer not perform the entitlements and financial incentives go away. Member/Council Member Rindone expressed concern the City would represent it had gone through the entire process and then did not have a provision that the public entities would even have to be built. Mr. Salomone pointed out the City would do everything it could to enable a project be built. The City did not require a developer to build the project if he did not have the ability to get financing or the ability to build the project. Member/Council Member Rindone asked if Phase 1 was permitted to go forward, could not the City not place the public amenities within Phase 1. Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 10 Mr. Salomone said yes the City could and that was part of the Phasing Plan adopted in the Specific Plan of the Local Coastal Plan. Member/Council Member Rindone asked what was in Phase 1 of the public amenities. Mr. Salomone replied all parks, streets, bridges, almost every public improvement within the project. These were specifically required of this developer but the City could not enforce that requirement should the developer not have the ability to do the project. Member/Council Member Rindone understood that but asked if the project were to be built it was essential that the public amenities, including the infrastructure, was built in Phase 1. He asked if he had the assurance that was included. Mr. Salomone said he did as it was included in the Phasing Plan and was included in the Specific Plan of the Local Coastal Plan. Those public amenities will be built in Phase 1. Member/Council Member Rindone said he did not have a problem with what staff' was saying. Was it correct to say that if the developer did not get financing to be able to construct all of what was targeted for the first phase, then construction would not begin. Mr. Salomon6 replied that was correct. Member/Council Member Rindone stated he did not have a problem with that. Where he had the problem was if construction began, it has been singled out that the public amenities not be included. He asked for clarification. Mr. Salomone stated the issue was not whether it was public or private amenities. The City was not requiring development, as it was a requirement that the City could not enfume. The City could not demand--if the developer did not have financing nor the ability--to require the developer to build. The City could do everything but that. That was how every Development Agreement was structured. It does not mean the City would relieve the developer of building any of the public improvements or that the City would reduce any of the private improvements. Member/Council Member Rindone said he wanted to assure the public amenities were built in the first phase should the first phase be funded. Mr. Salomone said they would. The Permits are conditioned upon those public improvements. Chairman/Mayor Nader inquired about the agreement fur Cultural Arts Facility funding. Mr. Salomonenoted Council directed staffon that issue. Thedeveloperwouldpay$1.5millionup-frontandwould guarantee up to $7.5 million on a match basis. There would be a guarantee of $7.5 million by this developer. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked if that was reflected in the Development Agreement. Mr. Salomone stated that was an item which had been resolved. Chairman/Mayor Nader asked what was contained in Phase 1 versus future phases. The City does not want to have a situation where the phasing was such that housing could be built and that would be the end of the project. Does staff feel comfortable that was covered and what was the mechanism by which it was covered. Mr. Salomone responded both the Specific Plan and the Local Coastal Plan as well as the Phasing Plan and the Development Agreement required that the core Phase I include all public amenities and 50 percent of the central business at the same time 25 percent of the residential was being built. No more than 25 percent of the residential could be built until all amenities were built. Minutes July 19, 1994 Page 11 Chairman/Mayor Nader stated that was certainly progress. Member/Council Member Rindone asked if the Development Agreement was exclusive. Should there be a change of developers, was it only with this developer these agreements had been reached. Mr. Salomone stated that was correct. Chairman/Mayor Nader seeked clarification as he had a different understanding. Was staff saying if the Development Agreement was ultimately approved that it would be nontransferable. If Mr. Barkett had another developer he wanted to bring in or sell some of his interest to, he could not do that. Mr. Salomone pointed out the City had developed some criteria for transferability which would be contained in the Development Agreement. It was a point, that once again, the City retained unfettered discretion to approve the transfer of that property when the Development Agreement was adopted. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR Items pulled: none. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 9. DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) None. 10. CHAIRMAN/MAYOR'S REPORT(S) None. 11. MEMBER/COUNCIL MEMBERS' COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 10:08 P.M. to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on August 2, 1994 at 4:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, Berlin D. Bosworth Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency