Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA MINUTES 1990 05 21 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA MAY 21, 1990 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Edgar at 9:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. 2. ROLL CALL ~ ! Members Present: Richard B. Edgar, Chairperson Charles E. Puckett, Chairperson Pro Tem Leslie Anne Pontious Jim Potts 'Earl J. Prescott Members Absent: None Others Present: William A. Huston, Executive Director/City Manager James G. Rourke, City Attorney Mary E. Wynn, Recording Secretary/City Clerk Christine Shingleton, Dir./Community Development W. Douglas Franks, Chief of Police Dana Kasdan, Engineering Services Manager Susan Jones, Recreation Superintendent Rita Westfield, Asst. Dir./Comm. Development Dan Fox, Senior Planner Susan Tebo, Senior Planner Melissa O'Neal, Recreation Supervisor Valerie Whiteman, Chief Deputy City Clerk Approximately 20 in the audience 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 7, 1990, REGULAR MEETING It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Pot~, to approve the Minutes Of May 7, 1990. Motion carried 5-0. 4. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Pott~, to approve demands in the amount of $66,297.37. Motion carried 5-0. 50 5. DESIGN REVIEW 89-57 (HOME SAVINGS) It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Pott~, to continue this item to the June 4, 1990 Redevelopment Agency meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 81 6. REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (DPA) WITH RED HILL EDINGER PARTNERSHIP FOR PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CENTER AT 1421-1481 EDINGER Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development, reported this was a request for modification to a Development Participation Agreement with the Red Hill Edinger Partnership at the Pacific Center Commercial Center on the corner of Red Hill and Edinger Avenues. There were covenant restrictions in the development agreement that mandated uses be preserved in the manner that was instituted in the agreement, which was limited to research/ development and retail uses that were current uses. Under the agreement, as a contingent aspect of receiving those covenant restrictions from the developer, the Agency committed to reimbursing the developer approximately $250,000.00 for the full cost of public improvements adjacent to the project. The argument for that particular contribution was not only the land-use restrictions that were imposed, but it was estimated that the sales tax return and tax increment would be returned to the City in approximately five years from project completion. The developer was now requesting that the uses be expanded to include all authorized uses permitted in that particular zoning district, which would include churches. Staff had REDE~rELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES Page 2, 5-21-90 submitted a revenue analysis indicating the project to date had generated approximately $80,000 less in revenue than the original $250,000 and, at this time, staff did not believe a full return on the City's financial contribution to the project had occurred. Staff would not support an expansion of permitted uses because the covenant restrictions were in place until 2006, it could represent a precedent for other similar requests, and the effect it could have upon traffic. The following members of the audience spoke in favor of the __ modification request: Jim Biram, representing Resco Financial/Red Hill Edinger - partnership Michael Ralston, 14721 Livingston Rd., Tustin, representing Harvest Fellowship International Mr. Wolfe, representing Harvest Fellowship International Mayor Edgar said he had no misgivings of permitting a church in an industrial area, but did have considerable concern in reopening a contractual agreement that was negotiated years before. particularly an agreement that had a commitment of considerable tax dollars and by modifying the agreement, the City set a precedent. Mayor Pro TemPuckett agreed with the Mayor's concerns. He welcomed church use, but did not want the agreement modified. Councilmember Prescott stated the subject property was only half leased and the City should encourage churches in Tustin, not make their establishment impossible. He did not feel loss of potential sales tax revenue should be a deciding factor and he wanted the contract amended. A brief Council/staff discussion followed regarding Conditional Use __ Permit provisions for churches. William Huston, City Manager, stated the issue of precedent was a major concern. Aside from this project, the Tustin Plaza and Plaza Lafayette were projects where the Agency invested a substantial amount of money and both of those properties had covenant agreement restrictions on use. The City's concern was that every time a project was in financial difficulty, the developer would request agreement modifications and that was a precedent that could be very expensive. If precedence was established for developers to introduce uses that were not originally contemplated, then zoning issues, traffic problems and the potential for significant financial impact to the City was created. Christine Shingleton suggested, recognizing the legal constraints present on this particular sight and that staff had informed Harvest Fellowship International representatives of those constraints, that numerous other properties were available in the City that were equal in terms of lease rates and square footage but without the legal constraints- She would be willing to assist Harvest Fellowship in referring them to those property brokers. Councilmember Pontious stated when she was a Planning Commissioner, she had encouraged the finalization of church guidelines to accommodate churches within the City and recognized their importance to the community, but was concerned with modifying the agreement. It was moved by prescott, seconded by Potts, to amend the Development participation Agreement allowing churches in the Pacific Commercial Center under proposed guidelines. James Rourke, City Attorney, commented that in order to assist the property owner, amending the agreement was required. But it appeared that amending the agreement would not be in the best interest of the Redevelopment Agency and the Agency could not take action to simply assist a property owner who was experiencing financial problems. He did not view an amendment as a benefit to the Agency and, in fact, it seemed to be a detriment. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES Page 3, 5-21-90 Council/speakers/staff discussion followed regarding property valuation, project performance, and rarity of renegotiating financial terms. Mr. Huston suggested, due to the nature of the property and the involvement of serious issues, that the matter be continued for two weeks and permit staff to assist the applicant in locating alternative sites. The following member of the audience spoke regarding alternative modifications: Zipora Shifberg-Mencher, 16282 Main Street #3B, Tustin As a substitute motion, it was moved by Puckett, seconded by Pontiou__s, to continue the matter to the June 18, 1990 Council meeting. Substitute motion carried 4-], Prescott opposed. 45 OTHER BUSINESS - None ADJOURNMENT At 9:55 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to the next Regular Meeting on June 4, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. CHAIRPERSON