Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1997/10/28 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, October 28, 1997 Council Chambers 8:23 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency members: Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Chair Horton ABSENT: Agency members: None ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Executive Director, Sid W. Morris; Legal Counsel, John M. Kaheny; and City Clerk, Beverly A. Authelet. CONSENT CALENDAR (Item pulled: 3) 2. RESOLUTION 1564 WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A TWO PARTY AGREEMENT WITH KEA ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. RELATED TO CONSULTING SERVICES FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BAYFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR - On 10/7/97, the Agency approved Preliminary Plans tbr the Bayfront and Town Centre project areas, as the first step ~n the plan amendment process. Amendment to the Plans is considered to be a project under CEQA and an Environmental hnpact Report needs to be prepared~ Consultant services are required for preparation of an EIR as staff does not have adequate resources to complete the study. Resolution was approved. (Community Development Director 4/Sth's vote required. 3. RESOLUTION 1565 AUTHORIZING THE COMPLETION OF SOIL REMEDIATION ON AGENCY-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 760 BROADWAY, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ARRANGE FOR CONTRACTUAL SERVICES FOR REMEDIATION, APPROVING A LOAN FROM THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FUND TO THE SOUTHVgEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA FUND AND APPROPRIATING I?IJNDS THEREFOR FROM THE SOUTHVVEST PROJECT AREA FUND - Contaminated soils from both Phase I and II of the Broadway Business Homes site at 760 Broadway were excavated and stockpiled on the Phase I1 site. Excavation and treatment costs of this material was to be split equally between the developers and the Agency, but the developer is not able to commit these funds in the necessary timeframe t~r remediation. Additional Agency funds are required to complete the remediation. Resolution was approved. (Con~anunity Development Director) 4/Sth's vote Joe Monaco, Environmental Projects Manager, clarified that this item was related to clean up of the 760 Broadway site, and not to the Business Homes project. It is an action that needs to be taken by the Agency regardless of any progress that might be made on the Business Homes project. Addressing the Agency was: Josef Citron, 765 Banter Road, San Diego, 92106, stated he had heard that there was an understanding by the Agency that their project was dead and they had abandoned it. He stated that the prc~ject was not dead, and they have not abandoned it. The fact is they have been working tbr the past year to overcome the impact of the negative f:acts that were taken by a fbrmer member of city staff who had subsequently bragged that he had killed the prqject. It has impacted the actions that they have been working on since that time. They now have new lit~ and have every indication that they can finance the project. They have cleared the site, put a sales building on the site, have been Minutes October 28, 1997 Page 2 working to have water run to it, and have hired an organization, Vince Davies ERA Real Estate Company, to handle the sales of the project. What they are working on is the pre-sales of the project so they can be sure that the financing will go through. People who have looked at the project have asked about the pile of dirt on the site. His response is that it was occasioned by the former owner of the property who by federal law is responsible for its removal and the cost of the remediation. He was not aware of any action by the City to see that the proper individual is taking care of this. Their position is that if they have 120 days from now, they feel that they will be able to consummate their duties under the DDA and go forward with the project. Member Salas stated the reason she pulled this item was on the matter of the remediation. She ~lt the citizens of Chula Vista were tired of seeing that dirt mound on Broadway. Actually, the project was supposed to alleviate blight and yet it has become blight itself. She asked why was this taking so long when the responsibility was on someone else to take care of it. Mr. Monaco responded that Fuller Ford was responsible l'br the clean up. The purpose lbr the Agency and the developer agreeing to proceed with the clean up in advance of Fuller Ford's action on the site was to lacilitate the development project which at the time had been under extreme time constraints. We are working with Fuller Ford and with their insurance agents to see if insurance coverage is accessibl~ and if not pursuing other mechanisms to seek reimbursement. Member Salas stated that if we knew all along that it was Fuller Ford's responsibility to clean it up, and this project has been going on for a long time, why have we had to wait tbr anything to get started on this particular project before Fuller was responsible for cleaning it up. Chris Salomone, Community Development Director, stated that the process that we developed tbr mediation was based on expediency of the imminent development of the site. We were told that the site was going to develop and lets do the most expedient remediation in order to allow the first phase to be cleared and for the project to go forward. There have been a number of deadlines and a number of imrmnent schedules of development that haven't occurred. We were abiding by those schedules and creating a remediation that was expedient to meet those schedules. We stopped when we thought that the financial situation was not imminent. Now we are trying to come to a more reasonable way of remediating the site rather than the costly exportation of that material. Glen Googins, Deputy City Attorney, stated that there are a couple of policy and legal lssnes involved. In the City's agreement with Fuller Ford, there were indenmity agreements that Fuller Ford executed that committed them to being responsible for remediating any hazardous materials that were left on the site that they vacated. Those would be the indemnities that the City would proceed to eni'Brce against Fuller Ford in order to obtain reimbursement tbr amounts spent by the City in remediating the site. The process in entbrcing the indemnity and the involvement of insurance companies was not conducive to the pace of development as it was originally proposed. Those types of law suits and the actual remediation can drag out fBr years. The approach that was taken when the project came forward with the developer was to indicate to the developer that on an upfi'ont basis the City and the developer would share the cost of remediating the soils. The scope of that problem wasn't defined until the buildings were demolished and the maintenance bays were removed and the amount of soil was determined. This was well into the project before we had a good handle on what the clean up cost would be. The City comrmtted to the developer as part of that process, acknowledging the fact that Fuller Ford did owe us an obligation to remediate the site, but that we would proceed in ~ood faith in order to obtain reimbursement tor the site that would reimburse us and reimburse them IBr costs th~at we had asked them to expend in connect~tm with that remediation. It was a question of timing. We do believe we have good and rightful authority to obtain reimbnrsement [?om them and are attempting through consultations with their insurance brokers to determine whether or not there is available insurance that would avoid the costliness of commencing litigation and in occurring legal costs. Chair Horton stated that we were getting off the sul2ject being considered. The [hcts are that we have to continue with the mediation process and then negotiate with the prior owner to be reimbursed lbr the expenses that we have incurred. It is clear that we have to go forward with the cnmpletion of the soil remediation. RESOLUTION 1565 OFFERED BY CHAIR HORTON, heading read, text waived. Minutes October 28, 1997 Page 3 Member Rindone asked what are we voting on and who are we mediating with. Mr. Monaco responded that this item is related to the completion of the clean up.' What has been done on the site todate has been the subsurface contamination i'Bund on the site on both Phase I and Phase 11. It was removed and stockpiled to certain locations on the Phase II, Agency owned portion of the site. The total cost l~or completion of the remediation was anticipated to be split between the Agency and the developer on an ongoing basis. In lieu of' the developer's contributions to that effort, the Agency expended their half of the funds on the excavation of the soils and stockpiling. The removal of the soils could not have been completed within the budget that we had established originally. This item is requesting additional funds to complete that remediation either on site remediation of those soils or removal of the soils and importation of clean fill. This is required because it is a liability for the future owner and users of the site. This is intended to be a quasi residential development. If it were a commercial development or industrial development, the concern would not be so great. Member Rindone clarified that basically the City is going to upi'¥ont the other halt' of the costs, to get it done, and then we will move on the original owner for a full reimbursement. Mr. Monaco replied that was correct. Member Moot felt that we had a contract, and the contract had m)t been fulfilled. He ~lt that it was important that when we have public testimony from one side of this dispute that the record fairly reflect what was his memory over many discussions about how we were going to work the remediations and what we were going to do abont it. The agreements were committed to writing and both parties agreed to them in writing. VOTE ON RESOLUTION: Passed and approved unanimnusly 5-0. * * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (Item 3 was pulled, but the minutes will reflect the published agenda order) OTHER BUSINESS 4. DIRECTOR'S REPORT(S) - none 5. CHAIR'S REPORT(S) - none 6. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS - none AD,|OURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beverly A. Authelet, CMC/AAE City Clerk