Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/28/83 MINUTES RA MINUTES BAKERSFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Regular Meeting--September 28, 1983 The Regular Meeting of the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency was called to order by Chairman Barton on Wednesday, September 28, 1983 at 5:05 p.m. The Secretary called the roll as follows: [.1EMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Payne John [4eans James Barton Art Rockoff Chris Christensen MEMBERS ABSENT: Donald Ratty ~INUTES [4inutes of the Regular Meeting of September 14, 1983 were approved as presented. SCHEDULED PUBLIC STATEMENTS ~lr. Tom McBride, Developer of the Bakersfield Sheraton Hotel Projectg introduced Mr. Gordon Bell, Director of West Coast Deve]c.?-- ment for AIRCOA. Mr. Bell stated that AIRCOA is one of the larg- est hotel management firms in the United States. It operates 43 properties with over 12,000 rooms and is the largest franchise operator of Sheraton Hotels in the United States. He s~_ated that the October 17th date that has been set for showing evidence of financing will be met. He is optimistic that they will be participating in the Project. Mr. Bell stated that AiRCOA has made their own marketing and financial analyses of the project. One of 'the most positive items AIRCOA likes about the Hotel Project is the teamwork that is involved with the three-way partnership involving the City and the Agency, local investors and professional development. Between now and the 17th of October they will be presenting some ideas that they feel will enhance the project to the City's investmen~ counselors and staff. Agency Member Christensen asked !4r. Bell who the local in- vestors are. iJr. Bell responded that he was not in a position to identify the local J_nvestors at this time. Agency [~emoer Christensen then asked what percentage o~ the financing comes from local investors. l]r. Bell responded that a large percentage of 'the equity would come from the local investors. He stated that if AIRCOA is in- volved, they would agree to cover some of the percentage of the equity if it cannot be raised locally. Lgency ?[ember Christensen then questioned staff who the local investors are. Executive Director Kelmar stated that they were not prepared ho name them at this time. Agency Member Christensen then asked if there were local investors. Executive Director Kelmar stated that when AIRCOA presents their evidence of financing that it will indicate how and where the money is coming from. Agency ~[ember Rockoff then questioned staff as to where the Agency is concerning acquiring the land. Mr. Kennon stated that the offers have been drafted and staff is waiting for the completion of the Developer's financing package to move on the project. The property appraisals have been completed. Mr. Kennon stated that offers have not been made to the property owners. However, the Agency staff have had num- erous conversations with 'the property owners and they do not fore- see any major problems. Staff anticipates expediting that portion of the Hotel Project in an expeditious manner. Agency Member Rockoff questioned staff as to how long after the October 18, 1983 meeting before action on this project would take place. Executive Director Kelmar responded that the Agency would have to review the inforn~ation that was presented and then the Agency has to approve the financing and then proceed. Agency Member Rockoff asked if the Agency is presently acting in the best interests of the City by fulfilling all the requirements stipulated in the existing Disposition and Develop- ment Agreement. ~qr. Kennon replied in the affirmative. Agency Member Christensen stated that since the Agency has been so close on the Hotel Project several times before, he would like to know if staff foresees any problems now, and if so, what thev are. Executive Director Kelmar stated that as long as the evidence of financing is there and is found to be satisfactory, he cannot foresee any stumbling blocks. REPORTS 1. Oral Report by City Attorney Oberholzer The City Attorney reported that when the City acquires land, they use various title companies to do title work for them. They try to alternate the work among all the title companies, especially those located downtown in the redevelopment area. It has been brought to the City Attorney's attention by the Economic Develop- ment Department that in 1979 the City entered into an exclusive contract with Title Insurance and Trust Company that prohibits the Agency with going to any other title company with title work. %:flere is, however, a provision for a ten-day termination notice and he would like to have the Agency's permission to send Title Insurance and Trust Company the ten-day notice of termination. That doesn't mean that the City wouldn't use Title insurance and Trust Company~ but it woulG eliminate the exclusive contract. The staff doesn't feel that it is fair to the other title companies as they all do basically the sa~i~e thin% and the fees charged are pretty much the same. Agency Member Rockoff questioned the City Attorney as to why the Agreement was entered into at that time. City Attorney Oberholzer responded that at that time the Agency probably felt 'that they got the best deal from Title In- surance. Mr. Oberholzer felt that it would be in the Agency's best interests if the exclusive contract was terminated as all of the title companies can basically provide the same service at competitive prices. Agency Member Christensen questioned whether or not the Agency is required to accept the lowest bid. City Attorney Oberholzer stated that since this is not a PUblic Works contract, the Agency is not required to accept the lowest bid, the Agency can select a competent company to perform the work. - 2 - Agency Member Christensen made a motion to issue the ten-day notice of termination to Title Insurance and Trust Company. The motion carried by a voice vote. AGENCY ACTION 1. Consent Calendar (a) Approval of Vouchers No. 68 through 99 totaling $303,942.23. Agency Member Means made a motion to approve item (a) of the Consent Calendar. Agency Member Rockoff verified with staff that the invoice from Parr Contracting for $257,705.10 was correct and that all work had actually been performed. Agency Member Rockoff then seconded the motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Rockoff, Means, NOES: None ABSTAINS: None ABSENT: Ratty Christensen, Barton, Payne (b) Approval of Design Review Board recommendations relative to projects in the Redevelopment Project Area. 1. Sign for Tandy Leather, 2021 Chester Avenue Recommendation: approve sign. 2 o Exterior renovation (painting) of Bakersfield Hotel, 1202 19th Street This item has been deleted from the agenda. 3. Sign for California Republic Bank, 17th and Chester Avenue Recommendation: disapprove due to excessive existing signage. 4. Planters along 17th and "K" Streets (East side of "K" Street, north of 17th Street and south of an alley) Recommendation: approve planters. Agency Member Means made a motion to adopt the Design Review Board's recommendations. The motion carried by the following roil call vote: AYRES: l',~ean s, Rockoff, ~O:~S: ~one A~STAINS: N one ABSENT: Ratty Payne, Christensen, Barton 2. New Business (a) Letter from ~.iilazzo & Associates Architects dated September 19, ].983 agreeing to provide Plan Check Review for the lSth & Eye Street Parking Structure. Agency ldember Rockoff stated that documents received by Agency ~lembers listed a fee of $5,000 for this service. He stated that he would like an explanation from staff as to why it's necessary to go outside our own department when we already have people to do this type of work and make an additional expend~ture. Executive Director Kelmar stated that at this time there is approximately a six to eight week backlog in the Building Depart- ment for Plan Check services. The Agency really has no other - 3 - alternative at and feels that performed. this time. Mr. Bidwell has reviewed the proposal it is a reasonable fee for the amount of work to be Agency Member Rockoff stated that he wasn't questioning the amount of the fee, but rather whether the situation in the Build- ing Department warranted looking into to determine if additional personnel was needed. Executive Director Kelmar responded that Mr. Bidwell is monitoring the situation and will advise him if the backlog appears to be an ongoing situation. Agency Member [ieans stated that he had a problem approving the firm of Mr. Milazzo to do the work (not because of any personal reasons as Milazzo & Associates is probably one of the best archi- tectural firms in town) because of [~r. Milazzo's position on the Planning Commission. City Attorney Oberholzer stated that Mr. Milazzo is not entering into an agreement with the City that would be prohibited by section 1090 of Lhe Government Code. Agency Member Means stated that he was sure that it was legal for Mr. Milazzo to do the work. However, since Mr. Milazzo had attended meetings with the Planning Commission, he just didn't feel it was right to approve Mr. Milazzo's firm to do the Plan Check Review. Agency Member Christensen asked if [dr. Milazzo had partici- pated in any discussions. City Attorney Oberholzer responded that he had not. Agency Member Christensen also asked if this project had gone before the Planning Commission. City Attorney Oberholzer replied that it had not because it is an Agency project. Agency Member Christensen asked if the project went before the Design Review Board. City Attorney Oberholzer responded that it had. Agency Member Christensen asked if Mr. Milazzo had participated in any discussions along the way and if Mr. Milazzo has a conflict. City Attorney Oberholzer stated that ~4r. Milazzo had partici- pated, buk as a consultant retained by the Ci~y~ not as a Planning Commission member and that he does not have a conflict. Agency Member Payne asked if anyone on staff knew whether or not this project had been approved by the time Mr. Milazzo was appointed to the Planning Commission or whether he was on the Planning Commission at the time this project was approved. City Attorney Oberholzer responded that Mr. Milazzo was on · the Planning Commission before this project came to the Redevelop- ment Agency. Agency Member Payne questioned whether or not this project, once approved by the Agency, was subject to conditions or approval or design review or anything by the Planning Commission at any stage. City Attorney Oberholzer answered that it was his understand- ing that the project didn'~ go to the Planning Commission at any stage. Agency Member Payne questioned staff as to whether or not any Redevelopment Agency projects are going to go before the Planning Commission such as the Galleria Project for design review, approval or anything. City Attorney Oberholzer stated that he couldn't foresee it happening as the Redevelopment Agency short-circuits the Planning Commission. Agency Member Rockoff made a motion 'to approve the proposal from Milazzo & Associates Architects dated September 19, 1983 to provide the Plan Check Review for the 18th & Eye Street Parking Structure. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barton, Rockoff, NOES: Means ABSTAINS: Christensen ABSENT: Ratty Payne Agency Member Christensen questioned City Attorney Oberholzer as to whether or not Mr. Ratty is a member of the Redevelopment Agency~ and if so, why he doesn't attend the meetings. City Attorney Oberholzer responded that there has been a rul- ing made that there is a conflict because Mr. Ratty owns property downtown. The Agency heard comments from Mrs. ~4artha Walters regarding certain environmental issues that relate to the Galleria Project, and responses were given by various members of the Agency and staff. Mr. Wal'ters also questioned the Agency and staff on various issues concerning the proposed Galleria Project. Mrs. Walters asked if the final decisions on the Galleria Project could be delayed for a certain period following the Public Hearing of October 18, 1983 to allow the people who attend the Hearing time to contact their elected representatives and offer their opinions. Chairman Barton respondea that the issue should be brought up at the October 18, 1983 Public Hearing. ~rs. Walters questioned the Agency as to whether or not the 15-month option to the developer affords the developer an oppor- tunity to continue, regardless of the outcome of the agreement, to have the 15 months to interest others to perform something we don't agree to or is it possible that other proposals can be submitted for consideration, but no action taken before the 15-month option is up and after the October 18th date (depending on the outcome), could other proposals be considered. Mrs. Walters also asked about what the criteria is for the individual land selection for the cifferent phases so that perhaps the ~]erchants and city pro- percy owners could have some idea of what particular areas are going · i~c ]3e affected. ~rs. %~alters verified ~..~[~ staff that the property for the ~irst phase of ~ne Galle~-i~. ~zoject would be acquired by Moreland Corporation for $I. ~[rs. ii,alters questioned whether the closure cf Eye Street would affect the response time of the Police Depart- ~nent to certain p~3ts of downtown and if it was addressed in the EIR. Agency Member Christensen asked staff who did the EIR. [{r. Xennon responded that it was a team of consultants com- prised of QUAD, Barton-Aschman and Martin Wiel. Agency Member Christensen stated that the reason why he asked was that he did not remember %he EIR addressing that aspect of 'the closure of Eye Street and that it sounds very log4cal to him. Mr. - 5 - Christensen also questioned the materials to be used in the pro- posed building. [~r. Kennon stated that the reflective qualities of the material to be used on 'the proposed building were addressed in the EIR and as a mitigation measure in the Development Standards of the DDA. The developer is required to use a light absorbent type of material. It was also indicated that all impacts upon the circulation patterns in the downtown were discussed in detail and it was determined 'that the closure of Eye Street would not have a negative impact on down- town circulation. The Agency also heard comments from Mrs. Elizabeth Van Alstyne. Mrs. Van Alstyne asked who makes up the Agency; appointed members or the City Council? She also questioned when the change took place. Agency members replied that the City Council has been ~he Redevelopment Agency since last December. ~rs. Van Alstyne wished to know why it is called the Redevelop- ment Agency when it is the City Council. Chairman Barton answered that the Agency Sta~e Redevelopment Laws and operates under a rules and laws than the City Council. has -to operate under different set of City Ah2orney Oberholzer verified Chairman Barton's answer and stayed that the powers of hhe Redevelopment ~gency are differ- ent from the City Council. Redevelopment law states that Redevelop- ment Agency members may be appointed or may be 'the City Council memoers. The majority of cities in the country are functionin9 with the City Council members as the Redevelopment Agency members. Mrs. Van Alstyne questioned staff as ~o where she could find the law. City Attorney Oberholzer replied that it is found in 'the Health aad Safety Code part of Community Develop~ent Law, in Section 33000. lirs. Van i lstyne asked if the new Butterfield Savings building would be part of the proposed Galleria Project. l~r. Kelmar responded that it would. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Redevelopment Agency, ~]r. Christensen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 5:55 p.m. 'A~ES J. B~TON.~ Chairma~ B~akersfield RedeYelopmenc Agency ~'~. D. ~W~NBOi~i, ~R.~/~ecreLary Baker~f~6~d Redevelop~c Agency