HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1993/04/27 CC M/NOTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE crlY COUNCIL/
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE ~'1¥ OF CHULA VISTA
Tuesday, April 27, 1993 Council Chambers
9:30 p.m. Public Services Building
CALL TO ORDER
1. ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Member/Councilmember Horton, Fox, Moore, Rindone, and
Chairman/Mayor Nader
ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, Director/City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, Agency/City
Attorney; Vicki C. Soderquist, Deputy City Clerk
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None submitted.
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. WRITrEN COMMUNICATIONS: None.
4. REPORT PO~ EFFECTS OF THE MA~IIiR FEE SCI-IF2)IJLE UPDATE ON
GENERAL TAXPAYERS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND EXISTING BUSINESSES IN THE PROCESS OF
EXPANSION OR IMPROVEMFJqT - At the meeting of March 23, 1993 the City Council amended the Master
Fee Schedule with the stipulation that no fee adjustments take effect prior to a staff report being received
addressing certain concerns. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Management Services) Pulled
from the Co~sent Calendar.
A. ILESOLLrFION 17086 ]ESTABLISHING A COUNCIL POLICY ON SPECIFIC CATEGORIES OF
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ASSISTANCE OR FEE SUBSIDIES
B. RESOLUTION 1324 ESTABLISHING AN AGENCY POLICY ON SPECIFIC CATEGORIES OF
DEVF2~PMENT PROJECT ASSISTANCE OR FEE SUBSIDIES
Member/Councilmember Moore stated his major concern was the impact on existing businesses. He
questioned if there was any one item that was adverse ro small businesses or smaller property owners of
multi-family units.
Gerald Young, Administrative Analyst, responded there were no items that would fall into that category.
Member/Councilmember Moore stated he was also concerned about taking action on new construction for
iow income housing subsidized by the City; other than what was already done.
Chairman/Mayor Nader stared concern had been expressed as to the impact of the fee increases on low.
income housing. He suggested that either the subsidy come in the form ora rebate to the builder, following
the successful marketing of the unit in the very low-income range, or some sort of enforceable contract that
the developer would sign which would include a penalty. Therefore, the City would have an enforceable
condition that the reduction in fees would only apply to housing available to very low-income people. He
questioned whether the City Attorney had reviewed the resolution to insure they were enforceable.
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated the proposed policy did not have a written agreement tbr the subsidy
after the construction of the low and moderate income housing. If that was the way the Agency/Council
Minutes
April 27, 1993
Page 2
wanted it secured he recommended that it be rewritten to specify that the subsidy would be granted
pursuant to a written agreement.
Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he was open to other enforcement mechanisms and would support a
continuation of the item to allow the Attorney and staff time to develop a policy.
MS (Moore/Fox) amend the staff recommendation, Category 1, 2a on page 11, to read 'very low income
residential at time of major refurbishing'.
Member/Councilmember Moore stated only non-new construction would be subsidized.
Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he could not support the motion due to an attempt to exclude new
construction of very low-income or low-income residential. His intent in the past was to alleviate the fees
so as not to discourage or preclude the construction of affordable housing.
VOTE ON MOTION: failed 2-3 with Horton, Nadex, and Rindone opposed.
MS (Nader/Fox) ~mend Categories 1 and 2 to indicate 'including at time of refugoishing' so it would apply
to new construction and refurbishing.
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard recommended the verbiage be placed in Subparagraph A of Categories 1 and
2.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved 3-2 with Moore and Rindone opposed.
RESOLUTIONS 17086 AND 1324 OFFERED BY CHAIRMAN/MAYOR NADER, reading ofthe text was wa/ved.
Member/Councilman Moore felt ff the motion passed staff should look at a rebate upon proof of sale that
it was below market value equal to the subsidy at the time of sale.
Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he was concerned regarding enforcement of the policy and suggested the
resolutions be continued in order to include the enforcement of the waivers.
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated staff could not grant the waivers, only the Council or Agency could
grant them as per the policy.
Chairman/Mayor Nader questioned whether enforcement conditions could be ar~ached at the t/me of review
by the Council or Agency.
Agency/Ciw Attorney Boogaard responded that was correct.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: (Nader/Moore) continue Resolutions 17086 and 1324 for two weeks; direct staff
to come back with an enforcement mechardsm incolporated into the resolutions.
Chairman/Mayor Nader stated the intent of the motion was to have something incorporated into the
resolutions that would insure that rather than being done on an ad hoc basis, it would be automatically
incorporated in any subsidy before the Counc/l or Agency.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
* * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * *
M~utes
April 27, 1993
Page 3
The Agency/Councilrecessed at9:$2 p.m. and reconvened at 10:07 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
SA. AGENCY
RESOLUTION 1316 FLI~IDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
PALOI~tR TROI~I.IEY crml~]'rF.R PROJECT (EIR 91-02), WITH ADDENDUMS, IS ADEQUATE UNDER GEQA;
MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; AND THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE PALOMAR TROI.I.k~Y CENTER DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -
A disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) was approved between the Agency and Cypress Creek
Company, L.P., on November 10, 1992. That agreement was to be executed within 75 days. Much progress
has been made but the 75 day period expired without completion of all the conditions precedent. Staff is
recommending that the Agency and Council adopt the resolutions which will amend the Palomar Trolley
Center DDA regarding those conditions precedent, complete the amended conditions precedent, execute the
DDA, and approve a new amending DDA. (Community Development Director) (Continued from the meeting
of April 20, 1993)
David Gustafson, Assistant Director of Community Development, stated the recommended steps were: 1) first
amendment to the existing approved Disposition and Development Agreement for the fifteen acre center;
2) approve three resolutions of Necessity; 3) approve the project and executing the DDA; 4) move into a
Joint City Council/Agency hearing to consider the appropriateness of selling the properties acquired through
the condemnation actions to the developer without public bid and at fair market value; and 6) approve a
new agreement which would be an amended Disposition and Development Agreement that would add three
acres to the project at the comer of Broadway and Palomar. He then reviewed the background of the
program.
Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he had been advised by the City Attorney to hold a public hearing for
Resolution 1316.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
Carolyn F. Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, CA, stated she had been approached by the bus drivers
regarding the entrances and exits of the station and questioned if there would be changes in the left tums
into the Palomar Trolley stop.
Mr. Gustafson responded staffwas in negotiations with MTDB, the developer, and Price Company regarding
potential access to the north of Palomar. Staff was looking at all the implications involved.
Mrs. Butler was also concemed regarding the width of the road.
Mr. Gustafson responded that a condition in the EIR was that the developer would widen Palomar to six
lanes.
Mrs. Butler stated she wanted to see a clover-leaf at I-5 and Palomar built as she felt it would alleviate traffic
impacts. She stated there was a signal there but it was not efficient. She was concerned with the addition
of l.Magnum as it was to fancy and would only last a short period of time.
James Moxham, 2801 Albatross Street, San Diego, CA, representing Cypress Creek Company, stated they had
acquired three parcels in Phase I and reached agreement with the Church for the acquisition of the Jehovah
Minutes
April 27, 1993
Page 4
Witness site. One parcel had also been obtained in Phase II and they had made several offers to the other
ownerships and were hopeful in reaching agreement. They had tried very hard to reach agreement with the
three outstanding ownerships in Phase I and there was now an agreement to mediate with the Hendersons.
Mr. Uribe had expressed interest in accepting their last offer and they hoped to finalize that transaction in
the next few days. There was only one parcel they did not feel they would be able to reach agreement.
They had also met with Community Development and the property owner in an effort to achieve the day care
center and a HeadStart program was contemplated. They had met with MTDB and Price Club to coordinate
their access on Palomar. They wanted to make it clear that Palomar Trolley was one development
encompassing the area from the trolley station to Broadway. The project dictated that it be built in two
phases but was one project. The major tenants required the development proceed to Broadway otherwise
they would be unable to achieve the rents required and tenant interest would suffer. Their $17 million
commitment to Phase I would be jeopardized if Phase II was not realized. The economics of the transaction
had been stretched thin and they asked the Agency to hold fees at the November, 1992 level for the entire
project which was in conformance with the budgets provided to the Community Development Departrnent.
Mr. Moxham read a letter submitted by Skip ,/ohnson, President of Sunbelt Management Company,
supporting the project.
Member/Councilmember Fox stated they were required to put in a day care center in the proximity of the
trolley station and questioned whether it was required that it be affordable.
Mr. Mohxam responded that the developeFs requirement on the day care center under the o:igiaal
agreement was to build it at no profit if it could be located on MTDB property. That requirement was not
able to be satisfied due to the power lines and the subsequent requirement became that the developer shall
use good faith efforts to try to facilitate the development of a day care center in close proximity to MTDB.
The originally conceived State subsidized Iow-income day care center had not proceeded and the HeadStart -
facility being proposed was the one that was proceeding.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
RESOLUTION 1216 O~ BY CHAIRMAN/MAYOR NADER: reading of the text was waived.
Mr. Gustafson stated the Attorney felt it important to point out that the DDA approved on 11/10/92 expired
in seventy-five days. That DDA had the condition that the developer was entitled to market slide protection
in case the project did not go forward and that market slide protection could cost the Agency a maximum
of $250,000. Staffs perspective had been that although the DDA was not executed within the seventy-five
day period for completion of conditions precedent, both the developer and the Agency had been operating
on good faith and moving forward at a good rate of speed to accomplish a lot of complex transactions.
Therefore, staff accepted the conditions in the first amendment that acknowledged that although the seventy-
five day period was not adhered to the DDA was still in effect. He felt it important to indicate that from a
legal perspective, if the conditions precedent were not completed within seventy-five days that was grounds
for termination of the agreement. It was important to advise the Agency that the Attorney felt if the Agency
adopted the amendment the Agency would be back on the hook for $250,000. Staff felt the Agency was
never offthe hook in spirit and everyone had been pursuing the project diligently. The Agency did have the
ability to walk away from the project without obligation for the market slide.
Member/Councilmember Moore questioned at what point the Agency would vote on holding the fees at the
November. 1992 level.
Mr. Gustafson stated he was unaware the request was going to be made and therefore it was not included
in the materials provided to the Agency.
Member/Councilmember Rindone questioned why staff felt the Agency was obligated to continue the -
commitment. Obviously, the Agency was committed to the project but to put on a self-constraint did not
seem to be in the best interest of the City.
Minutes
April 27, 1993
Page S
Mr. Gustafson stated staff felt from the beginning that they were in some degree in a partnership in the
project and were sharing risks together as that was the nature of redevelopment. There had been good faith
negotiation when the agreement had been first drafted to include protection and nothing had changed to
make staff feel the condition should be removed.
Member/Cotmcilmember Rindone stated it was a self-inflicted penalty ff the project did not continue. He
felt it was staffs role to act in the best interest of the Agency.
Mr. Salomone stated it was done in the spirit of good faith and negotiations and in staffs opinion the
developer would not have committed $1.3 million to the project if they had not understood that was a
commiU-aent from the Agency.
Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he would not put the Agency's funds at risk but it was his understanding that
the agreement negotiated was a quid pro quo; the Agency would receive some guarantees from the
developer, i.e. a revenue producing project on which one of the conditions was the provision being discussed.
He assumed staff was recommending that the condition continue because nothing had changed in regard
to what the quid pro quo was. On that basis he could suppor~ to continue the original provisions of the
agreement.
Member/Councilmember Rindone felt the commitment was obvious but he was not convinced it was a
necessity that the Agency had to put on penalties that put the City at risk.
Member/Councilmember Moore felt there was a parmership with redevelopment.
Member/Councilmember Rindone questioned what the staff analysis was of the risk.
Mr. Gustafson responded that the market slide provision went to a maximum of $500,000 loss after the
developer was unable to complete the project because condemnation could not be completed or some other
factors in the agreement. The Agency would share 50/50 in that loss up to $250,000. Staffwas comfortable
that the acquisition of the Phase I properties was in the range of fair market values. There was protection
which would allow the Agency to participate in the remarketing of the properties with the developer in order
to recoup any loss and also the right of first refusal to go in and take the properties and market them to
another developer.
Member/Councilmember Rindone stated it appeared the Agency would only have to proceed with one
condemnation.
Mr. Gustafson stated the Agency needed to take action on all three Resolutions of Necessity, but it appeared
the developer would be successful in negotiating one of the three. Another one was a matter of discussing
the price and the ability of taking the property would not be contested by the property owner. There was
only one outstanding parcel that in staffs opinion would go to the full condemnation process.
Member/Councilmember Rindone questioned the timeline if condemnation was necessary.
Mr. Gustafson stated the Agency would take possession of the property within ninety days.
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard responded the Agency would litigate value over the next twelve months.
Member/Councilmember Rindone stated he was still not convinced the risk was a necessity but he was
convinced the Agency had gone into the project as a joint partnership.
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated that in the actual language of the first amendment the reference to
the proposed hearing date was scheduled for 4/13/93. It was the intent of the parties to change that date
to 4/27/93 where ever that date appeared.
Minutes
April 27, 1993
Page 6
Chairman/Mayor Nader incorporated into the motion the change in date from 4/13/93 to 4/27/93 in the
first amendment.
Member/Conncilmember Horton stated the Agency con~'acted with an appraiser and questioned who they
were and where they were located.
Mr. Gustafson responded the Lee $ohnson Company, located in La Mesa, was a well respected appraisal
company particularly in the area of eminent domain. They were recognized as being very good in court
proceedings for condemnation. The Agency and Council had used them a number of times in the past.
VOTE ON MOTION: approved unanimously.
B. AGENCY
RE.SOLUTION 1317 FINDING AND DETERMINING PUBLIG 1~ AND NECESSITY FOR
AGQUIRING AND A~ORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPF. RTY WITHIN THE
SOI3THWF~T REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, CHULA VISTA, GALIFORNIA
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard recommended the Agency incorporate the staff report and all evidence
presented to the Agency in the last public hearing into the present hearing.
Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he would incorporate all information and the staff report for the previous
public hearing into the record for the current public hearing.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public
testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard questioned whether staff had any further evidence on good faith negotiations
or the three findings.
Mr. Gustafson stated Parcel #6 was a residential parcel, 9,560 sq. ft. with a 1,250 sq. ff. wood frame home
which was occupied as a rental. The Agency had extended good faith negotiations in offers to purchase
at fair market value to the property owner by certified letter. In that letter the Agency requested a meeting,
which was somewhat difficult as the property owner was in Los Angeles. The Agency fullowed-up with
phone calls and additional certified letters. The Agency provided them, as required by law, with a
Resolution of Necessity Notice. The Agency did not come, in his estirnation, close to what could be
considered a successful negotiation. Staffwas offering fair market value and the best counter offer they had
was in the neighborhood of 160o/o of that fair market value. Staff then concluded, based on the
communications both by telephone, letters, and required notice, that they had completed negotiations in
good faith. Staff felt the property was necessary for the project and the project was aimed at the elimination
of blight. The project was an area, including the property, that was zoned Cen~'al Commercial with a
Modifier. The existing uses were non-conforming although grandfathered. The parcel had constrained
access and was under utilized in a commercial zone. If it were left in the comer by itself, without the
taking, there would not be practical access to the property. Staff felt there was also public good in providing
the necessary amount of depth for the shopping center to be a high volume national retailer it was necessary
to take the property. Without doing so the best that could hoped for the property would be development
as a neighborhood shopping center which was a redundancy of a commercial type in the area and could lead
to additional vacancies. Staff felt no practical way to design around the property as they were isolated, there
were access problems, the center needed the depth, and there were no nearby alternative properties that
could be used for the shopping center that appeared on a commercial street and had available properties.
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated there was rarely an eminent domain proceeding before the Agency
and that in addition to the finding offered, good faith negotiations to the property owners, there were three
critical findings: 1) public good required the project; 2) it was situated in a manner to maximize public good
and minimize private injury; and 3) the property that was the subject matter of the taking was in fact
required to perform the project. Mr. Gustafson had supplied evidence to make the three findings included
Minutes
April 27, 1993
Page 7
in Resolution 1317. He had also concluded, based on his knowledge of the case and Mr. Gustafson's
evidence, that the Agency had exhausted good faith negotiations in the case.
Chairman/Mayor Nader questioned whether the owner resided on the property.
Mr. Gustafson responded that he did not, he lived in Hunnington Beach, CA.
Member/Counciimember Fox stated he was led to believe the developer's final offer had not been accepted
nor rejected.
Mr. Gustafson responded the developer's final offer to the property owner had been rejected.
RESOLUTION 1317 OFFERED BY MEMBF~ MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved
unanimously.
C. AGENCY
RESOLUTION 1318 FINDING AND DETER_MINING PUBLIC I~ AND NECESSITY FOR
ACQUIRING AND AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE
SOLrI'h'WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard requested that all prior e~dence be entered into the record for the current
public hearing.
Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he wou]d incorporate all information and the staff reports for the previous
public hearings into the record for the current public hearing.
Mr. Gustafson stated the property was Parcel #7, 26,000 sq. ff. parcel with a 12,060 sq. fr. home on the
property that had been converted into commercial offices. Those offices were occupied. The Agency made
good faith offers by certified letter to purchase the property and meet and confer with the property owner,
at the appraised value. There were cwo meetings with the property owner and two certified letters which
were followed up with the formal resolution notice. The public hearing on the Trolley Center Project had
been continued from 4/13/93 as a result of staffs feeling that they needed to go back and do additional
negotiation with the property owner and their attorney. Staff did so with another meeting offering fair
market value and the property owner to date had not named a number in terms of a counter offer and staff
felt they were not getting any further and felt the Resolution of Necessity needed to be adopted. It was the
property upon which staff had an agreement with the property owner regarding the action of the Resolution
of Necessity.
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated the letter of agreement, which he wanted incorporated into the record,
from Cliff Reed, Attorney for the Hendersons, stated they agreed to withdraw any objections to the conduct
of the Resolution of Necessity at the hearing and furthermore agreed to waive the claim of the right to take,
reserving all the rights to fi/al, and the Agency would agree to diligently meet and confer and mediate
pursuant to an arbitration type procedure the issue of value in the next ninety days. The Agency would not
take possession of the property sooner than the ninety days as permitted by law except in the case of an
emergency.
Chairman/Mayor Nader requested the Agency/City Attorney supply the Clerk with the letter in order to
incorporate it into the proceedings.
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated staff had discussed good faith negotiations sufficient to make a finding
that good faith negotiations had been engaged in. He requested further evidence of the requirement of the
parcel on the implementation of the proposed overall project.
Minutes
April 27, 1993
Page 8
Mr. Gustafson responded that the property sat in the middle of the proposed trolley center. There was no
practical way to accommodate the industrial use in the middle of a proposed commercial shopping center.
There was also no practical way to provide access to the property if it remained in it's current usage.
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated there was sufficient evidence, in his opinion, for the passage of
Resolution 1318.
RESOLUTION 1318 OIWliRED BY MF2~IBFe~ FOX, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved
unanimously.
D. AGENCY
RESOLUTION 1319 FINDING AND DETERMINING PUBLIC INTFJlF.,~r AND NECESSITY FOR
ACQUIRING AND ALrrI-IORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN ~ PROPERTY WlIIdlN THE
SOUTI-II/VEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard requested that ali prior evidence be entered into the record for the current
public hearing.
Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he would incorporate all information, and the staff reports for the previous
public hearings, into the record for the current public hearing.
Agency/City AXorney Boogaard stated evidence needed to be presented regarding good faith negotiations
and situation of the parcel.
Mr. Gusrafson stated the Agency engaged in good faith negotiations with the property owner. Certified
letters were sent offering fair market value. Staff requested a meeting which occurred and was followed-up
with a letter offering fair market value. Another meeting occurred and the formal Resolution of Necessity
Notice was provided, as per law and another meeting occurred. Out of all the meetings no Etna counter offer
could be obtained. The owner was requesting somewhere in the neighborhood of 150% of the fair market
value. Staff felt they had exhausted their ability to negotiated in good faith. It was Parcel #9 and it sat in
the middle of the proposed shopping center. It was an industrial use and would be incompatible with the
shopping center use and would not have any practical access when the shopping center was completed.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public
testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard requested that the record reflect, in his opinion, sufficient evidence existed
to permit the Agency to pass Resolution 1318.
RESOLUTION 1318 OFFERF~ BY MEMBER HORTON, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved
un~mhnously.
E. AGElqCY
RESOLUTION 1320 APPROVING THE PALOMAR TROII,EY CENTER PROJECT AND ITS SCOPE
OF DEVELOPMENT AND SCHEDULE OF COMPLETION AND AUTHORIZING CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
PAt. OMAR TROLLEY CENTER DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he had been advised by the Agency/City Attorney that the resolution did not
require a public hearing.
RESOLIJ~ON 13;20 OFFERED BY MFAVIBER MOORE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved
unanimously.
Minutes
April 27, 1993
Page 9
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING DISPOSITION OF ACQUIRED PROPERTIES (APN 622~30-15,
622-0.30-22. 622-030-2S) WITHOUT PUBLIC BIDDING, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE SECTION 33341
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING DISPOSITION OF ACQUIRED PROPERTIES (~APN 622-O30-15,
622-030-22, 622-O30-23) ACQUIRED WITH TAX INCR.EMENT FUNDS, PURSUANT TO CAI2FORNIA HEALTH
& SAFelY CODE SECTION 33433
F. COUNCIL
RESOLUTION 1?0SS APPROVING THE SALE OF AGENCY-OWNED PROPERTY (APN 622_030-1S,
622,030-22, 622-030-23) TO CYPRESS CRRRK COMPANY, L.P., AND FINDING THAT CONSIDERATION IS
NOT I J~-qS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE
G. AGENCY
RESOLUTION 1321 APPROVING THE SALE OF AGENCY-OWNED PROPERTY (APN 622-030-1S,
6~.-030-22, 622-030-23) TO CYPRESS C~F.I~K COMPANY, L.P., AND FINDING THAT CONSIDERATION IS
NOT LESS THAN 'ITIE FAIR MARKET VALUE
Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he had been advised by the Agency/City Attorney that Resolutions 17055 end
1321 could be heard together.
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated the purpose of the 33431 hearing, identified on the agenda as the first
public hearing, was to permit the public to protest that a sale of the three parcels the Agency had
condemned was going to occur without public bidding. The purpose to achieve redevelopment was to sell
them to a particular developer with a particular development project. Nonetheless, the law was written to
allow the public to protest the sale without public bid if they so desired. If the public wished to protest, or
ff there were no protests, the Agency/Council should close the hearing and conclude that it was in the
public's best interest not to sell the properties pursuant to the public bidding procedure.
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public
testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
RESOLUTIONS 1705S AND 1321 OFFERED BY MEMBER/COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text
was waived, passed and approved unanimously.
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard requested that as part of the public hearing process the Agency find that it
was in the public's interest not to sell the properties pursuent to the public bidding procedure.
MINUTE RESOLUTION OFFERED BY MF-aMBER MOORE/RINDONE: the Agency found that it was in the
public's interest not to sell the propenfies pursuant to the public bidding procedure. Approved unanimously.
AGENCY
RESOLUTION 1322 FINDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
PALOMAR TROI.L~Y CENTER PROJECT (EIR 91-02), WITH ADDENDUMS, IS ADEQUATE UNDER CEQA;
MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT; ADOPTING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; AND APPROVING THE
AMENDED PALOMAR TROIJ-~t' CENTER DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREF. MENT
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated Resolution 1322 was a public hearing item due to the CEQA
proceedings.
Mr. Gustafson stated the final EIR and CEQA documents all accommodated the proposed three acre addition
to the trolley center. The amended Disposition and Development Agreement for the three acre addition
would replace the Disposition and Development Agreement. Therefore, it would void that agreement and
the amended agreement would govern the development of the entire eighteen acre parcel.
Minutes
April 27, 1993
Page 10
This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open.
Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop S~reet, Chula Vista, CA, questioned whether the project completely stopped the
trolley as far as fixing up the volley area. She recommended that before work was done on Palomar it
should be widened from Fourth or Fifth to the freeway.
Chairman/Mayor Nader stated it would not stop the trolley. He requested that staff clarify the roadwork
that would be done east to west.
Mr. Gustafson stated Palomar would be widened from the intersection of Broadway and Palomar to the
intersection of Palomar and Industrial Boulevard which was on the east side of I-5.
Chairman/Mayor Nader requested staff provide information to Council on the work for the signalization at
1-5 and Palomar and when it was expected to be fully operational.
There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed.
Member/Councilmember Moore stated one of his strong emphasis on the project was to make sure there
would not be a node at Industrial and Palomar at the ~rolley station or at Broadway and Palomar. The
widening would be done one way or another through either the Agency and/or the developer which would
make it a full six lanes. With the node still in place there would be a pinch at both ends. The speaker had
a point as to what would happen when traffic crossed Industrial heading to I-5. He questioned whether that
was covered in the EIR.
Mr. Gustafson stated staff would have to report back on the improvements west of Industrial. It was his
understanding they were scheduled as a CIP project.
Agency/City Attomey Boogaard requested the Agency incorporate all prior evidence in the evenings meeting
into the current proceeding.
Chairman/Mayor Nader stated he would incorporate all information, and the staff reports, for the previous
public hearings into the record for the current public hearing.
RESOLUTION 1322 OFFERED BY MEMBER MOORE, reading of the tex~ was waived.
Agency/City Attorney Boogaard stated among other risks outlined in the staff report, as to the particular
agreement, staff would be bringing back to the Agency before 7/30/93, a proceeding not dissimilar to the
one just held regarding the three parcels on the eastern most side of the project if voluntary acquisition
could not be achieved.
VOTE OINI RESOLUTION 1322: approved unanimously.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
ACTION ITF. MS
None submitted.
Minutes
April 27, 1993
Page 11
OTHER BUSINESS
6. DIRECTOR/CrlY MANAGER"S REPORT - None
7. CHAIRMAN/MAYOR'S REPORT - None
8. MEMBERS/COIJNCIIaMEaMBERS' COMMENTS - None
ADJOURNMF2qT
ADJOURNMENT AT 11:12 P.M. to a special joint meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency on
Tuesday, May 4, 1993 at 4:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, Council Chambers,
Public Services Building.
Respectfully submitted,
BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk
by: , ~ ~ ,~.x~ [ ~,~ \
Vicki C Soderquist, Dep City Clerk