Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1995/05/23 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, May 23, 1995 Council Chambers 9:38 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Members Alevy, Moot, Padilia, Rindone, and Chair Herton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency Attorney; and Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.: None submitted. BUSINESS 3. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None submitted. 4. REPORT RESULTS OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR THE SALE OF EL DORADO PLAZA BUILDING AT 315 FOURTH AVENUE UNDER THE OWNERSHIP OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY -- The Agency directed staff to issue an RFP for the sale of the El Dorado Plaza Building. Three proposals were received by staff and are described in the report. Staff recommends that the Agency reject all proposals received and direct staff to explore one of the alternatives discussed in the report. (Community Development Director) MSUC (Rindone/Padilla) to approve the staff recommendation. 5. RESOLUTION 1454 APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS, AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR DEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARANCE OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AT THE FULLER FORD SITE AT 760 BROADWAY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA (RD-133)--The work includes removal of buildings and disposal of existing improvements, excavation, grading, and other miscellaneous work. The clearance of the site is being done to facilitate the c6nstruction of the Broadway Business Homes project. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Community Development Director/Director of Public Works) · Mike Vogt, 2320 Paseo, San Diego, CA, Commercial Real Estate Broker, representing Mr. Jim Courtney owner of Courthey Tire, stated they had contacted staff several years ago to let them know that they would be very interested in expanding Courthey Tire on the Fuller Ford site. They had been informed they would be notified when the site became available. Approximately 7-8 months ago they found out that the property was under contract and they were quite disappointed. They had followed the progress of that transaction and having heard of the proposal to raise the buildings they wanted to reiterate their interest in purchasing the building for $700,000 on an all cash basis, not contingent upon demolition of the building, not contingent upon fmancing, and only contingent upon standard site investigation and title issues. He requested Council consider the offer before approving the demolition of the existing improvements which from their perspective would diminish the value of the property. Member Moot questioned if the Citrons had made a firm commitment in writing to purchase the property. Minutes May 23, 1995 Page 2 Fred Kassman, Redevelopment Coordinator, stated the Agency had a semi-exclusive negotiating agreement with the Citrons. Other than that he did not believe there was anything in writing. They had spent considerable sums of money to hire architects and engineers and the proposal was currently going through design review. They appeared very cornnutted to the project. Member Moot questioned if they had actually offered to purchase the property. Mr. Kassman replied that there was an original offer to purchase the property which led to the semi-exclusive negotiating agreement. The original offer was for $5.00 sq. ft. or $550,000. Member Moot questioned if that offer had been accepted. Mr. Kassman replied that the Agency was not in the position to accept the offer.. By entering into the negotiating agreement it gave the Citrons time to develop plans and for staff to review and consider the plans and present them to the Agency. He felt the plans would be presented to the Agency in about two months. Member Moot questioned if the price could be lower than the $550,000. Mr. Kassman replied that it was conceivable. The Citrons wanted to hold the prices of the units to an affordable range and if the cost of the project exceeded their current estimates it was conceivable that they could request a lower price. They had not requested that to date. Chair Horton questioned if staff anticipated that the Citrons would request that the Agency reduce or waive certain fees. Mr. Kassman replied that he could not answer that question although it had been discussed with staff. Member Alevy stated it was his understanding that the price was $550,000 and the Agency would pay for the demolition of the existing structures which was approximately $110,000. Mr. Kassman responded that was correct. Member Alevy questioned if there was any estimation what the tax base would be on the business homes versus the expansion of Courthey Tires. Mr. Kassman replied that would be hard to indicate because staff was uncertain how the 36 business homes would u,sed. An autoreotive business would more than likely generate more sales tax revenues. Member Moot questioned if the property tax increment would be different. Mr. Kassman replied that he felt the property tax increment would be substantially different and favorable toward the business home project. That revenue would be generated directly to the Agency although there was a split with the County. · Craig Citron, 13978 Amber Sky Lane, San Diego, CA, stated he was unaware of any conversation regarding the reduction of the offer. He wanted to assure the Agency that his parents were committed to moving forward with the project and were at the present time at a meeting regarding financing. Member Padilia felt the general policy direction of the Agency was clear regarding the business home project, i.e. to be creative and take some risks. The question was what degree of risk was prudent. He recommended that the item be continued for one week in order to obtain more information from the Citrons. He felt questions needed Minutes May 23, 1995 Page 3 to be answered before negatively impacting the property. He also wanted to be careful about sending a negative message or being inconsistent because how the Agency dealt with the Citrons would send a message to other developers. He also wanted staff to pursue the issues outlined by the City Attorney in his memorandum. Chair Hotton questioned if staff had come to terms on the semi-negotiating agreement. Mr. Kassman responded that staff was meeting with the Citrons, the project was going through design review, and staff felt they would be back before the Agency with a Disposition and Development Agreement and other discretionary approvals on July 11, 1995. Chair Horton stated if staff came forth with recommendations the Agency did not feel advantageous they would not be in a binding situation. Mr. Kassman stated that was correct, except if the buildings were demolished the site would be cleared. The demolition would take approximately six weeks. Chair Horton did not want to go forward with the demolition at the present time until there was a firm agreement on both sides as to what would and would not happen on the site. Mr. Kassman stated there was no commitment and would not be until the documents were brought back to the Agency. Member Rindone stated the Agency had made it clear to staff and staff was trying to be responsive to move the project forward in a timely manner and there appeared to be a serious question regarding the appropriateness of the timing of the demolition in order to move the project forward. That tied into the memorandum from the City Attorney which gave the Agency a reason to reflect on their previous action. It was clear that the Citrons were offering a whole new concept which required more risk on the part of the developer and the City. He hoped the Agency would not do anything to deter that direction which had clearly been given. He questioned how soon the semi-negotiating agreement could be completed. Mr. Kassman replied staff needed another two weeks in order to reach agreement on the major terms. Member Rindone questioned if the item was delayed two weeks, until the major terms were negotiated, if it would have any negative impact on moving the project forward. Mr. Kassman responded that under the present circumstances he felt that would be acceptable. Chair Horton stated there was no agreement so she did not feel that any process was being slowed down. If the agreement, when brought forward, was not beneficial to the Agency or if the figures continued to go down she was not sure she would support the project. Mr. Goss stated the testimony received from the Citrons at a prior meeting was to have the demolition begin because they wanted to get model products on-line in August· He was uncertain how responsive the Citrons would be to a two week delay. He recommended that it be brought back in one week. MS (Padilia/Moot) to continue the item for two weeks. Member Moot stated he did not have a problem in setting a special meeting for 5/30/95 as the Council would be attending a budget worksession. He felt the Agency needed to be fiscally prudent. Minutes May 23, 1995 Page 4 SUBSTITUTE MOTION: (Moot/Padilla) to call a special meeting of the Redevelopment Agency for 5130195 to hear Resolution 1454 only. Approved unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None OTHER BUSINESS 6. DIRECTOR'S REPORTIS) - None 7. CHA1R'S REPORT(S) - None 8. MEMBER COMMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT ;ADJOURNMENT AT 10:01 P.M. to a Special Redevelopment Agency Meeting on May 30, 1995 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, m the City Council Chambers, and thence to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on June 6, 1995 at 4:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk by: Vicki C. Soderquist, CMC, Dep ty tty Clerk u C