Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1991/09/03 RDA 1~ OF A SPF_~ JOINT M~IING OF THE (]'rY COUNCIL/ REDEVELOP~.I~IT AGENCY OF THE ul-l~ OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, September 3, 1991 Council Chambers 5:08 p.m. Public Services Building C_~t m m~n TO ORDER 1. PRESENT: Members Malcolm, Moore, Rindone, and Chairman Nader ABSENT: Member Grasser Hotton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 18, 1991 and August 15, 1991 MSC (Moore/Malcolm) to approve the minutes of July 18 and August 15, 1991. Apprnved 4-0-1 with Member Grasser Hotton absent. CONSENT C_~t-RNDAR (Items pulled: 4 & 5) Chairman Nader excused himself at 5:15 p.m. and Member Moore chaired the meeting. Chairman Nader returned at 5:20 p.m. CONSENT CAt J~-NDAR AS AMENDED OI'FFAED BY MEMBER RINDONE, reading of ten was waived, passed and approved 3-O-1-1 with Ch~irrnsn Nader abstaining because the property was within 300 feet of his former home and Member Grasser Hotton absent. 3. WRIFi'I~I COMMUNICATIONS: None. 4. RESOLUTION 1192 GRANTING AUTHORITY TO STAFF TO UNDERTAKE ACTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING A SITE FOR REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED WITHIN TOWN CENTRE H REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, PREPARING NECESSARY PLANS AND AGI~ RRMENTS THEREFOR-- Staff has been negotiating with Scripps Memorial Hospital, the H Su'eet Coalition, and the Circinus Corporation (Wayne Wencke) for the redevelopmerit of the northeast corner of Fifth Avenue and H Street. In order to carry out negotiations and take certain actions which may be necessary for the acquisition of the 8.8 acre site, staff is requesting authority to undertake certain necessary actions subject to later approval by the Agency. Staff recommends that the Agency adopt the resolution granting authority to staff to undertake actions for the purpose of acquiring a site for redevelopmerit located within the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project Area, and preparing necessary plans and agreements therefor. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated that the item before the Agency was basically to grant staff authority to carry out a number of actions prior to a public hearing and therefore allowing the process to be facilitated toward its time frame. Minutes September 3, 1991 Page 2 Bruce Boogaard, Agency Attorney, stated the adoption of the resolution was strongly suppoKed by his office as a way of avoiding legal problems as staff further develops the Scripps expansion project. Member Rindone stated he had previously asked staff to clarify part of the staff report, on page 4-2, which stated 'retain such consultants and attorneys as staff finds necessary, and obtain expertise as staff determines necessary.' In response, staff had said they did not think additional consulting services would be needed. He wanted to ascertain whether additional consultants and serviees would be needed, not just studies, and asked for clarification. Fred Kassman, Redevelopment Coordinator, responded they were not anticipating additional costs at the time, but as they become closer involved with the property acquisition process it may be necessary to undertake such activities to obtain additional appraisals, title reports, prepare and file for legal proceedings, etc. Specific studies were not anticipated now. Wayne Wencke, P.O. Box 883, Rancho Santa Fe, CA, representing Circinus Corporation, stated that he was upset about receiving notice for the meeting the day of the meeting. He stated he had tried to work with the City and various people involved, but felt they had been excluded from previous participation and this was a violation of the owner participation plan. This was not to be confused with the owner participation agreement. He referred to the plan which basically stated that owners must be given the first fight to participate in redevelopment and that they had been ready, willing and able to do that. He felt that none of the concerns regarding alternative sites or the need for additional consultants had been addressed up front. He believed what had been happening was morally and, possibly, legally incorrect. They wanted to be embraced by the City rather than rejected and that their project needed to be completely analyzed. He stated that the Redevelopmerit Agency was fLrmly backing Scripps Hospital and continuing to ignore their project. Mr. Wencke asked that this item be tabled to a later date so there could be further discussion, that their project truly be considered from start to finish, and that the Agency explain why they had chosen a certain project before entering into other superfluous maneuvers. Member Moore asked Mr. Wencke to tell the Agency who he actually represented, site specific. Mr. Wencke stated the ownership sl2-ucture on the properly had been consolidated to three levels. There was a master ground lease position (which they had an interest in) over the entire site, there was a fee position which covered the entire site, and there was a master sublease position which covered a significant portion (approximately 70%) of the site. The master sublease position and the fee position were now conttolled by the same individual. There were essentially only two people the City was dealing with. The ownership interests were landlord positions, not the retailers on the site, and it was important to note that the balance of the retailers on the site they control were roughly 30% and the other 70% of the retailers on the site were conl~olled by the master sublease. They had the master ground lease and the right of first refusal on purchase of the property. Chairman Nader stated that as he understood, there had not been an exclusive negotiating agreement with Scripps. Agency Attorney Boogaard responded that there had been a semi-exclusive negotiating agreement with Scripps to allow staff to entertain participation rights to the extent that staff wanted to do that. Joe Solomon, 401 B St., San Diego, CA, an attorney, representing Circinus Corporation, stated that his finn had been hired several months ago to evaluate the situation and found that the process which initiated the EIP, was flawed. Circinus had not been properly notified of the proceedings, although they had an interest in the site. He stated that he received a fax the morning of the meeting no '.n~g him. Minutes September 3, 1991 Page 3 Chairman Nader asked if Mr. Solomon understood that the only action before the Agency at that time was to authorize staff to negotiate to obtain consultant services, etc. subject to Council approval of each of those actions. It was not before the Agency at that time to approve any new agreement on an EIR, any specific land use decision, or anything of that nature. Mr. Solomon stated that for the past five years the project had been essentially railroaded through. Chairman Nader asked ff he were alleging that the Agency or members of the Agency, going back to 1986, had been involved with some sort of secret liaison with Scripps or anyone else. Mr. Solomon answered that he was not making any allegations at the time, but from their evaluation of the situation something seemed wrong. He stated that they did have some evidence, as far back as 1988, that there had been some contact between the City and Scripps about the site. Chairman Nader said he assumed when he talked about "contact" he meant staff level and not members of the Agency. He stated that he hoped Mr. Solomon was not alleging there were secret decisions made by the Agency. Mr. Soloman responded that he was not alleging that, not at the time and did not mean to sound like he may do so in the future. He stated that they were fairly new to the case and that something did seem wrong in the sense that Circinus was not notified in 1989, at least not properly. They hoped to convince the City that working within the process they could show that the EIR would indicate the Circinus project to be the best for the City. He requested that the item be continued until certification of the EIR. In the event that it was not continued, he wanted, per Mr. Kassman's commitment to him earlier, the points outlined on the agenda item applied fairly to all three project proponents and not just Scripps. Agency Attorney Boogaard stated that the resolution before the Agency was a broad base delegation of authority to the staff in order for staff to present a staff-sponsored Scripps Hospital expansion project at a hearing where all other participants could come before the Agency. The purpose of the resolution was to give the Executive Director, at the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the independent authority to hire and develop plans without continually bringing them back before the Agency. The reason staff did not want this brought back continually was because they did not want the Agency to have to make project decision commitments to either staff or owner participation plans. The intent was to give final and complete authority to the DIrector to present a decent and competent plan to the Agency for approval. Jim Eischen, 9324 Lake Country Drive, Santee, CA, representing RTM, Inc, spoke in opposition of staff recommendation. He said that he had received notification of this meeting by fax the day of the meeting. Mr. Eischen stated that RTM operates the Arby's on H Sweet. They had a problem with the drafted EIR that was scheduled to be evaluated and felt there was a lot more that needed to be done on it. He asked that this be continued so that others would have appropriate time to present their proposals. Charlie Harmon, 14981 Driftwood Creek Road, San Diego, CA, president of RTM West, Inc., and representing the H Sl~eet Coalition, spoke in opposition of staff recommendation. He stated that the process was never given proper notification and that the whole project had shown favoritism toward Scripps. Agency Attorney Boogaard stated that staff needed to come up with a Redevelopment Plan and that could only occur if they had the funds. The plan would be presented at a public hearing. He asked that the Agency allow staff to assemble a plan to be presented to the Agency and the item be continued for one week. Minutes September 3, 1991 Page 4 Member Malcolm said that staff needed to bring forth a recommendation, there would be a public hearing and than the Counc~ would decide how they wanted to proceed. He stated that he saw no reason to stop or slow down the process for one week. Chairman Nader apologized to those who received notification of this agenda item the afternoon of the meeting and stated that better notification was needed but did not think a continuance was necessary. If the resolution passed, it would give staff the tools to develop a proposal and recommendation to be presented to the Agency at a later date. A public hearing would be required and notice would be given. He stated that he did not see a need to post-pone this resolution; that he did have a concern as to the extent of authorization that would be given to the appraisers, attorneys, and other unspecified consultants to be hired by staff without specific Agency authorization. Member Malcolm suggested that a limit be set at $30,000, since that was what staff had determined, for staff to spend without Agency approval and that $15,000 had already been appropriated and earmarked. Mr. Salomone confirmed that ff the resolution passed, the DIrector would be allowed to spend the anticipated total cost of $30,000. Agency Attorney Boogaard stated that further appropriation authority would not be needed because the amounts necessary were already voted on by the Agency. Member Malcolm concurred that the Director should be able to approve the contracts without having to go back to the Agency. Chairman Nader asked ff there would be any problem in specifying in the resolution a limit to the amount that had already been budgeted. Mr. Salomone stated that $15,000 had been appropriated for the project and an additional $15,000 could be anticipated for various consultant services as the project moved forward. Thus, approval of $30,000 was being sought. Director Goss stated that adequate money had been appropriated in the budget to handle any kind of study or work required by the Community Development Department. The Agency was being asked to authorize the spending of money as this project was prepared and proposed to the Agency. Staff could keep the Agency notified through informational memos. Agency Attorney Boogaard stated that the reason he was asking for this broad base of authority for the staff was to avoid the Agency from forming any precornmiUnent on either of the three alternatives that would go before the Agency at the public hearing. He wanted the Agency to have an open mind regarding the staff sponsored plan, Mr. Wencke's plan, and the H SWeet Coalition plan. It was more important that staff have the delegation of authority, under the supervision of the Director, than for the Agency to approve the individual contracts. Motion: (Malcolm) to amend the resolution, not to exceed the $30,000 of already appropriated funds. Chairman Nader stated that he thought the appropriated funds were $15,000. Director Goss stated that there were funds appropriated in the economic development accounts, for example, general economic studies and economic development studies. Agency Attorney Boogaard stated that the City Manager is the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency. Minutes September 3, 1991 Page 5 Member Malcolm stated that the City Manager could do contracts up to $15,000 or $25,000 and as a courtesy brought this to the Agency. Director Goss confirmed that he had authority, without the resolution, to approve contracts up to $25,000. Agency Attorney Boogaard stated that he did not know the limits of the contract, but had been advised that no more than an additional $15,000 of appropriation was needed. Authority was needed so that the contracts could be signed at the time needed and not have to be brought back for authorization. Member Moore stated that he was ready to vote on the staff recommendation providing the City Manager kept the Agency informed via memorandums. Agency Attorney Boogaard recommended a subsequent review of the exercise of that authority after the public hearing at which time the Agency would make a selection. He stated that there was a risk of a precommimient appearing when the Agency reviewed and approved an aspect of a staff sponsored plan. Director Goss acknowledged that he did not think the contracts would go over $25,000. He also gave his commitment that ff one of the contracts did exceed that mount, he would go back to Agency, not withstanding the wording of the resolution. Chairman Nader stated that he was uncomfortable with the wording of the resolution, but would vote for it reluctantly based on the assurance of the Director that contracts that would otherwise be over his authorization would be sent to the Agency, not withstanding the resolution, and based on the advice of the City Attorney that this was the best way to avoid legal entanglements. He stated that the Agency needed to watch what was being paid for consulting services and what services were being rendered for that cost. RESOLUTION 1192 WAS OI'I,/~IE.D BY MEMBER MALCOLM, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 3-1-1 with Member Rindone voting no and Member Grasser Hotton absent, 5. RESOLUTION 1193 APPROVING AMF_A~MF_24T NO. 1 TO AGI~RRMF. NT WITH WnJJAMS- KUEBRI RECK & ~TES TO PROVIDE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CONSULTING SERVIcK~ FOR TIE BAYFRONT PROJECT AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR -- The Redevelopment Agency is in need of additional economic and fiscal impact analyses relating to the Bayfront Project Area so that critical decisions can be made relating to land use, density, phasing, and possible financial participation by the Agency. Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates provided extensive economic analyses related to the project proposed by Chula Vista Investors under an agreement with the Agency executed in May 1990. The services provided by VVXA to date include developing a model that can eas~y be used to evaluate the economic feasib~ity of additional Bayfront development alternatives. Additional economic analysis is currently required to address revised phasing assumptions, revised parking assumptions, revised capital costs for amenities, potential revisions to market assumptions, and the feasibility of alternative development scenarios for consideration by the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee. Staff recommends that the Agency approve the resolution approving Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with Wffiiams-Kuebelbeck & Associates and appropriate funds therefor. 4/5labs Vote Retmired Pulled from Consent Calendar. Member Malcolm questioned the hiring of a f'mancial consultant to review a plan that was not liked and economically needed to be changed. Lyman Christopher, Director of Finance, answered that Williams-Kuebelbeck had been the economist, had done the economic analysis on the projects and the alternatives over the last several months. What staff was asking for was a continuance of the existing contract. There had already been an economic analysis of the Minutes September 3, 3.991 Page 6 project as submitted, which proved to be a negative impact m the developer. Staff was asking for additional funds to look at additional alternatives and other options anticipated coming out of the Task Force process. The Subcommittee Task Force for the Bayfront had evaluated some alternatives and options. Economic analysis would be done by Williams-Kuebelbeck. Member Malcolm stated that the goal for the Bayfront Plan should be one that would provide a project people would enjoy, i.e. a seaport village on the waterfront, something that would enhance the quality of life in Chula Vista. Hopefully, the City of Chula Vista would get bonds and guarantees to build. RESOLUTION 1193 WAS OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN NADER, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 40-1 with Member Grasser Horton absent. 6. RESOLUTION 1194 APPROVING A SECOND AIVlF~DMENT TO THE AG~-MF_2qT FOR PURCHASE OF SHINOHARA PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4705 OTAY V/~lJ-~Y ROAD (OTAY VAIJ~k'Y ROAD PROJECT ARF. A} -- The Agency authorized the acquisition of the Shinohara parcel on Otay Valley Road for the purpose of developing the first phase of the proposed Chula Vista Auto Park on September 10, 1990. The Agency authorized the First Amendment to the Sales Agreement to provide additional funds for rough grading and compaction of the site. The proposed Second Amendment to the Sales Agreement authorizes the Agency to pay these additional funds for grading on a monthly basis as work is satisfactorily completed. The Second Amendment also authorizes the Agency to obtain fee title to a portion of the site which is necessary for the widening of Otay Valley Road. Staff recommends that the Agency adopt the resolution approving the Second Amendment to the Agreement for the purchase of the Shinohara property located at 4705 Otay Valley Road. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS None submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ACT[ON ITEMS 7. RESOLUTION 1191(A3 APPROVING ENGINEERING-SCmNCE, INC., AS THE CONSULTANT TO PREPARE A REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MOBn~-HOME RELOCATION PARK AND AUTHORIZING THE AGJ~RRMENT -- The Mob~ehome Relocation Park Draf~ Environmental impact Report CEIR) Draft was first submitted for public review in October 1990. During the public review period, and at the Planning Commission public hearing, numerous letters and/or verbal comments were received. In order to adequately respond to those comments, the FIR requires extensive revisions and necessitates a - recirculation of the original Draft FIR. Engineering-Science, Inc. prepared the original Draft EIR which was a subsequent document to the Lower Sweetwater Valley FIR, which they' also prepared. The Lower Sweetwater Valley FIR was prepared for a larger project which included the Mobilehome project area. Thus, Minutes September 3, 1991 Page 7 Engineering-Science, Inc. is very familiar with the project history and issues. Due to their knowledge of the project issues, eontraetLng with Englneering-Scienee, Ine. rather than engaging in the Request for Proposal process would be the most expeditious and cost-effective option for completing and certifying the Final FIR. Staff recommends that the Agency approve Engineering-Science, Ine. as the consultant to prepare the Revised Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report, and authorize the agreement. RESOLUTION llglfB) APPROVING ENGINF-FRING-St:mNCE, INC., AS THE CONSULTANT TO PREPARE THE ALTERNATIVES-BASED REVISED DRAFT AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RF2~RT AND AUTHORIZING THE AGI~I~-I~-MENT -- At its August 20, 1991 meeting Agency also requested that staff return with a list and brief analysis of alternative sites. To accomplish this, staff received an estimate from Engineering-Science to conduct an alternatives-based revised draft and Final FIR that would consider alternative sites. Resolution 1191(b) is the result of that request. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated that this involved the completion of the FIR for the relocation of the Mobilehome Park. Staff had been directed to return with reconsideration of alternative sites, estimates of the cost and brief analysis of the specified alternative sites that were forwarded to the Agency last year by the Housing Advisory Committee. Of the specified alternative sites, the Harbor Drive-In site was the one recommended by the Housing Advisory Committee after an extensive tour and survey of other existing sites within the City. Out of the three alternative sites proposed, this was the only one that had the likelihood of feasibility. Staff had again presented the cost to complete the existing FIR and an alternative cost to complete a full analysis of the alternative sites. Diana Richardson, Environmental Contract Consultant, stated that most of the cost had to do with work that was not in the scope of the original FIR. The original FIR was scoped to provide a subsequent FIR and it was determined that the lower Sweetwater Valley FIR would be substantial enough to provide information that the subsequent FIR could rely on and as it turned out that wasn't the case. The additional money was for new information, but there might be some information that should have been provided in the original scope. The response to corrffnents was included in the original scope. Some of the work that was in the new request for funds was not in the original scope. The original scope relied on work in the lower Sweetwater Valley FIR and when that was prepared, for instance, Highway S4 was not built. Since that time, Highway S4 had been completed and now a noise study from traffic on Highway S4 could be done. Chairman Nader suggested this be sent back to staff to look at again with consultation with the City Attorney's office to break out those aspects of the work which were reasonably contemplated to be within the scope of the original contract. Member Malcolm stated he thought there was an obligation to keep going. If there were questions on a consultant not fulfilling a contract, that portion should be referred back to the City Attorney. He thought staff should look at what needed to be paid and what didn't, but the process should continue. Chairman Nader said of the three alternatives listed on the staff report, staff appeared to have already ruled out two of them. It appeared that it was going to cost a significant mount of money to continue with the alternatives. Ms. Richardson confirmed that it was going to cost approximately $7,000 more. She said that an adequate constraint type analysis was performed. The constraints analysis on the mobilehome relocation park EIR came to the conclusion that each of the four alternatives that they analyzed were environmentally superior to the project and didn't single out any one of those to be alternatively better than any of the others. Chairman Nader asked if there was information staff had that the consultant didn't and if that was why two of the three alternatives had been ruled out. Minutes September 3, 1991 Page 8 Margent Girbes, Housing Coordinator, stated that the EIR didn't necessarily confine an alternative site within the City of Chula Vista and the Rios Avenue site was actually in San Diego. The other site was in Raneho del Rey and that site had now been parceled out and developed as a project, Also in the EIR, there was an alternative site at Eastlake which also had been developed. Chairman Nader stated that he could not stress s~ongly enough how important he thought it was that an honest analysis of realistic alternatives m the Sweetwater Valley location be done. The Harbor Drive-In site should be analyzed just as thoroughly as the Sweetwater Valley site. He does not see the point of doing a full analysis to two other alternatives that were not really alternatives. Mr. Salomone stated that an extensive analysis of sites throughout the City were undertaken last year. Every mobilehome park owner in the City was contacted to ascertain if they would consider selling and the response was negative. The Housing Advisory Committee helped conduct that study and they ultimately recommended the Harbor Drive-In site. Chairman Nader said that if more than one alternative were going to be analyzed, they should be ones that might actually come to fruition, not ones that staff was already prepared to rule out. He asked about the concept of using sites in the eastern territories to help developers meet their affordable housing requirements. Mr. Salomone responded that staff had not anticipated that there were appropriate sites in the eastern territory for a mobilehome reloeation park. Negotiations were ongoing with those developers to provide affordable housing, On two projects, and a third in progress, staff had been able to get Council to consider priority for mobilehome relocatees. One was in the Civic Center Barrio which was a 28 unit project, one was in the Board of Realtors "L" S~reet 16 unit family project and the third was with J. Bay Mobilehome Park where staff was investigating vacating a eul-de-sae and creating up to 8 mobilehome sites that would be used exclusively for mobilehome park reloeatees. That was a total of S2 units that would at least be g/yen priority for this particular problem of displaced mobilehome park tenants, Chairman Nader suggested that alternatives 2 and 3 on page 7-2 of the staff report be ruled out and that the last option be considered for analysis, Member Malcolm stated that in the EIR, staff needed to state they had looked elsewhere, where they looked and why it would not work. Ms, Richardson said the alternative sites analysis when the EIR was prepared was following the then rule that feasible sites did not need to be looked at, but to compare whether some other site might be environmentally better. The law had now changed and it was not now required for every project. It could be done if there were sites the City had decided were suitable. Member Malcolm stated that a decision needed to be made, The City Council voted to set up a policy to allow closure of mobilehome parks and progress was suppose to be made on a reloeation park being created. The policy should either be stopped or Couneil's previous actions rescinded. A commitment was made to homeowners that money had been spent to buy a site out of the Low-Moderate Income Housing Fund and that site will now be used for mobilehomes, A decision needs to be made to either move to the Harbor Drive-In site or stay at the current location. The project needs to be completed or previous actions rescinded. Chairman Nader stated that he had previously moved to suspend that policy until an actual operating reloeation fac~ity had been found. He did not want to see this delayed but a decision facilitated later. All that was being voted on at the time was the scope of the environmental review, on which a decision would Minutes September 3, 1991 Page 9 later be based. Since an environmental review needs to be done, it should be one that would help to make the best decision possible. MS (Malcolm/Nader) that the policy regardin_,~ the elosT~re of mobilehome parks be rescinded. Member Rindone stated that the options before them were an "either/or' situation and he sensed the majority of Agencymembers were not in favor. He could not vote on either resolution at this time and felt the policy should be suspended or a determination should be made on a site, or at least a study for a site. Even though staff pointed out that the Housing Authority favored the Harbor Drive-In site there was still a question of cost. He would suppor~ suspension of the policy. Member Malcolm stated that he was recommending: 1) that the environmental process on the project be stopped, and 2) staff bring back a resolution rescinding the ordinance that allowed the closure of mobilehome parks. Chairman Nader asked the Agency Attorney if consideration could be made under this item on the policies concerning closure of the mobilehome or tra~er parks. Agency Attorney Boogaard answered that in his judgement the agenda item was too narrowly drawn to permit that and advised that the item be docketed for the next Council meeting. There would be so many people affected by a policy change and entified to more adequate notice that it should be deferred for a week. MSC (Malcolm/Rindone) that staff bring back an ordinance or resolutinn that would prohibit the continued closures, other than those already started, of the mobilehome parks in the City of Chula VIsta. Approved 4-0-1 with Member Grasser Hotton absent. Member Moore remarked that he was a member of the previous Council when the policy was made. He stated that the policy was not to close the mobfiehome parks or trailer parks. The policy was made to protect the participants and homeowners in trailer parks if a park did close. Initially that Council did not agree to buy the county properly to put a relocation park there, they were going to buy it because they thought it would be a great deal and Council would be able to control what went there. It doesn't necessarily mean you have to put low income people there. The land was bought with that money and Councfi could turn around and take that 20% income money out of there and use other money. Mr. Salomone stated that the City could purchase the land with other funds to displace the funds set aside and use it for another purpose. The general fund would have to be replenished. Member Moore stated that this had been going on for a number of years and never had come to fruition. Motion: (Nader) to direct staff to come back with an agreement to do an environmental review of the Harbor Drive-In site with the standard sequel alternative review of a southern mobilehome park site and an eastern territory site for consideration by the Council. Mr. Salomone remarked that the Harbor Drive-ln site was purchased for $2.2 million in 1988 and that was before Highway 54 was completed. It was suspected that the property had gone up in value. The same ov~ner owns 11 adjacent parcels to the site. Staff considered that a drawback to the site and not necessarily environmental. The Harbor Drive-In site was 12 acres and the Sweetwater site was 14 acres. MOTION WITHDRAWN: (Nader) Minutes September 3, 1991 Page 10 MSC (Nader/Rindone) to defer decision on the environmental work until the policy decision was made. Appn~-.d 40-1 with Menbe' ~ Horron abmmt. Chalrma~ Nader lef~ at 6:23 p.m. and renirned at 6:25 p.m. 8.A. AGENCY 1195 ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS=88-77 AND AUTHOIflZING THE APPROPRIATION OF $114,000 FROM THE LOW-MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUND TO THE u'lY ON BEHALF OF THE SALVATION ARMY FOR APPLICATION TO TI~ VARIOUS PEE ACCOUNTS ASS(X3ATED WITH THE SILVERCREST APARTMENTS LOW INCOME HOUSING PROJECT -- The Salvation Army has requested that the Council assist by waiving Public Facilities Development Impact Fees and that the Agency provide financial assistance to offset pan of the Sewer Facfiities Participation Fee for their HUD 202 project, Sfivercrest Apartments. Staff recommends that Councfi waive the PFDIF of $161,250 and that the Agency appropriate $114,000 to provide f'mancial assistance to offset the Sewer Facilities Participation Fee. d}/Sths Vote Reauired B. COUNCIL 16337 WAIVING, UNDER SPEf~IFIC CIRCUMSTANCF_~ THE PUBLIC FACHA'III~S DEVELOPMENT IMPACT F~F-~ FOR THE SALVATION ARMY IN CONNECTION WTH-I THEIR CONb'IKUCTION OF THE SILVERCREST APARTMENTS PROJECt -- The Salvation Army has requested that the Council assist by waiving Public Facilities Development Impact Fees and that the Agency provide financial assistance to offset part of the Sewer Facfiifies Participation Fee for their HUD 202 project, Silvercrest Apa~h.ents. Staff recommends that Council waive the PFDIF of $161,250 and that the Agency appropriate $114,000 to provide financial assistance to offset the Sewer Facfiities Participation Fee. (15610) Member Malcolm stated that his office was across the street, therefore, had been abstaining. He lef~ at 6:22 p.m. and returned at 6:35 p.m. Mr. Salomone stated that there were two actions recommended for the Salvation Army Project regarding relief from fees. One of them would require four votes and that was an appropriation of low-moderate funds. The other would requke three votes and that was a waiver of fees. Staff understood that continuation of this item for two weeks would not jeopardize the project. It was an approval project of 75 very low senior housing units and in the 202 application to HUD, the budget was established and allowed for approximately $100,000 anticipated at that time in City fees. The ~otal fees, not just City fees, totaled about $375,000. The Salvation Army had gone to City staff and asked for relief from those fees in order m make the project feasible and not jeopardize losing their funding. Two ways to accomplish this had been presented to the Council. One was to use the balance of the low-moderate funds to direcfiy offset the fees that they had enumerated and the other was to waive a specific fee, the Public Facfiities Development Impact Fee, based on the fact that it was an affordable housing project. Arthur Stillwell, 825 7th Ave., San Diego, CA, stated that the "Request to Speak Slips" for Capt. Bell, Ms. Gilljam and Ms. Reed would all be part of one presentation but that all were available to answer questions if needed. Acting Chairman Moore asked if the Salvation Army had funds to cover the $98,920 if the Council approved staff recommendations. Mr. Stiltwell stated they were committed to this project at $800,000 which the Salvation Army invested when the property was purchased about four years ago for this purpose. They anticipated putting in an additional _ $464,000 which would include the $98,000 to $100,000 fees. The Salvation Army was committed for approximately $1.26 m~lion to bu~d this project. The HUD commitment, along with the Salvation Army Minutes September 3, 1991 Page 11 money and any fee waive that the City would grant, or conversely any grant from the Low Housing Development Fund, would constitute the total mount necessary to build the project. Acting Chairman Moore asked ff in that $1.26 million it included the fact that HUD does not fund balconies and so forth and ff the Salvation Army could contribute toward that to make sure there were balconies. Mr. Stillwell answered yes and that he would call on Priscilla Gilliam or Margo Reed from the consulting firm of Faikenburg-Gilliam. They were a consulting firm and had built a number of HUD projects and could answer more specifically what HUD would do and what the sponsoring agency must do. The Salvation Army commitment was basically to make it more than just a box in which people would live and balconies and other, what they considered necessities but HUD considered extras, was what their money would be for. Member Rindone stated that he understood that it would be more than the $98,000 because the Salvation Army had already paid their planned check deposit of about $10,000 or $11,000 and he wanted to clarify that for the record. City staff did progress as rapidly as possible and were not at fault for any delays and that was important in the consideration. Mr. Stillwell stated that ff the Salvation Army could have the commitment from the City Council to waive the fees then they could move ahead with the project, as far as their relationship with HUD was concerned. He commended the City staff for working with them on the project. Maggie Halton, 162 Mankato Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated that at the time this item first came up, she was a member of the Commission on Aging and was one who approved the proposal. She stated that she felt it was a shame that this item had to be carried on this long. She talked in favor of approving this so that the Salvation Army could move forward. Member Rindone stated that this was an opportunity for the community to have a HUD project and that it should not be lost. The proactive effort of the Salvation Army in seeking the needed funds spoke very well of the Salvation Army and their collaborative effort with the City in working to make this a quality project. RESOLUTION 16337 OFFERED BY COUNCILMAN RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 3-0-1-1 with Councilwoman Grasser Horton absent and CouDe~m~,ll Malcolm abstajlliIlg. Member Moore stated that there were no, or very few, low income housing units available in Chula Vista. In this case there were 75 units for very low income seniors, mostly widows and widowers, living in a project with one of the best landlords and he supported it. Chairman Nader stated that in the staff report he thought he read that at the time this proposal was initially approved by the Council fees of approximately $100,000 were anticipated. Mr. Salomone answered that was the estimated amount budgeted for fees because there was no determination at that time of the actual fees. MSC (NaderAVloore) to continue Resolution 1195 until 9/17/91. Motion apprnved 3-O-1-1 with Member Grasser HorKon absent and Member Malcolm abst~inlng. ITEMS pULI.m FROM CONSENT CALENDAR Items pulled: 4 & 5. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. Minutes September 3, 1991 Page 12 OTHER BUSINESS 9. DIRECTORS REPORT - None. 10. (~IAIRMAN'S RF. PORT- None. Member Malcolm: Stated that he would like to see the project at the comer of Davidson and Landis brought forth at the earliest possible time and presented to the Agency. Member Rindone: Stated that he would like to see staff examine the possibility of an amendment to include the area north of "E" Street in the redevelopment area. ADJOURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 7:46 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency on Thursday, September 19, 1991 at 4:00 p.m., in the Council Conference Room, City Hall Building. Respectfully submined, BEVERLY A. AUTH~I.~T, CMC, City Clerk by: /' //:'/' ~ ~ '