Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1988-13479 Revised 3/3/88 RESOLUTION NO. 13479 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA GRANTING TENTATIVE SITE APPROVAL FOR TWO LARGE FAMILY PUBLIC HOUSING SITES IN CHULA VISTA The City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby resolves as follows: WHEREAS, in 1978, the voters of Chula Vista approved a referendum for the development of 400 publicly-owned housing units in the City of Qhula Vista; and, WHEREAS, 83 such units have been developed to date; and, WHEREAS, the City and the County Housing Authority entered into a Memorandum of Understanding for the development of such publicly-owned housing which calls for the County Housing Authority to seek approval from the City of public housing funding applications to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and of tentative sites for such housing; and, WHEREAS, the City has approved the submittal to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development of an application for funding for 40 units of Large Family Public Housing; and, WHEREAS, the County Housing Authority has requested tentative site approval by the City Council of two sites in Chula Vista, at 778-798 Dorothy Street, and a 1.67 acre parcel on the Third Avenue extension, between "C" Street and Trousdale Drive; and, WHEREAS, the two proposed sites appear to be tentatively acceptable for the development of public housing, subject to further specific analysis and normal development approvals. N(D~, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby grants tentative site approval for public housing development for two sites in Chula Vista, at 778-798 Dorothy Street, and a 1.67 acre parcel on the Third Avenue extension, between "C" Street and Trousdale Drive. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED while reviewing the sites, the County Housing Authority will explore a variety of housing types including duplexes; and in reference to "C" Street, consideration will be given to provide access to that site from Trousdale Street; and that consideration also will be given to providing priority housing to those who may be displaced by trailer park closures as well as those homeless persons involved in programs assisting them, including but not limited to, Project Hand and Episcopal Cor~nunity Services. Presen~eji \ Approved as to form by ~aul G. Desrochers Thomas J. Harron ~ Community Development Director City Attorney WPC 3445H --- ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF b,,OLA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 1st ClOy Of March 19 88 , by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: Councilmembe~'s cox, McCandliss, Moore, Nader NAYES: Councilmembers Malcolm ABSTAIN: Councilmembe~'s None ABSENT: Cound 1 rnember's None o~ ~'~e Chula Vista '~~y/C16r'k ' FE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chulo Visto, Colifornio, DO HEREBY CERTIFY thor the obove ond foregoing is 0 full, true ond correct copy of RESOLUTION N0. 13479 ,ond thor the some hos not been oreended or repeoled DATED City Clerk oF CHUIA VI A CC-660 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY February 16, 1988 E C E V E D ., .. ~.1,, Mr. Paul Desrochers, Director Community Development Department C0filrllU.qity Development Debt. City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Paul: SUBJECT: Tentative Site Approval for an Affordable Housing Development In June of 1987, your Council and the Board of Commissioners of the County's Housing Authority authorized us to pursue the acquisition of sites for the development of two affordable rental housing developments totaling forty units in Chula Vista. Since that time, our staffs have been working together to identify suitable sites for this purpose. Identifying suitable sites has been a difficult task because of the following reasons: 1) the 10-25 units per site limitation; 2) HUD cost "~ containment measures in recent years make many suitable sites financially infeasible without local subsidy, and; 3) the requirement that all units be three bedroom necessitates a fairly low-density project (approximately 15 tin/acre or less). After extensive review of available sites in Chula Vista, the Housing Authority is requesting the City's tentative approval of a very promising site comprised of two adjacent parcels (consisting of 1.86 and .95 acres, respectively) located at 778-798 Dorothy Street (map attached) for the development of up to 22 units. At the time of this writing, we are still finalizing negotiations with the owner of the larger parcel and he appears to want to retain a small lot on the corner of his parcel where his house lies. Therefore, the total unit count might he reduced by one. The site is located in the Montgomery Specific Plan Area in a residential neighborhood just southwest of the Palomar Trolley Station. The proposed density for the site of 8 du/acre is consistent with the newly adopted Montgomery Specific Plan. Development of up to 22 units of affordable housing at that location was recently approved in principle by a 7-1 vote of the Montgomery Planning Committee. Additionally, please be advised that we have notified surrounding neighbors of the proposed development and a community meeting is scheduled for Wednesday evening, February 17, 1988 to discuss the proposed development. Neighbors within 500 feet of the property have also been informed of the date of the Council meeting to consider this matter. A copy of the letter and a mailing list is enclosed. Additionally, I would request that approximately one and one-half to two acres of the City's Sweetwater River Valley site be considered for development of the remaining 19 units. It is my understanding that the site is to be used for relocation of mobilehome occupants from parks which are closing· Since most /' // Serving the cities of Chula Vista, Coronado. Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, Oceanside, Poway, San Marcas, Santee, Solann Beach, Vista, and Unincorporated County Areas of these mobilehomes cannot be moved, it might be advisable to utilize public housing units to house families being displaced. Our Occupancy Policy gives preference to very-low income households being displaced through no fault of their own. The only possible problem I can see in providing all the units to displacees would be our requirement that a portion of the households pay enough rent to cover operating costs for the project. Also, if the project were to be ready for occupancy at a time when no mobilehome parks were being closed we would have to fill the project and allow future displacees into the project through attrition of existing residents. I have discussed the matter with HUD regarding the lack of a General Plan review. Since we need to purchase the site by June of 1988, HUD indicated it would consider a sale if the City agreed to buy the property back in the event the development did not go through. Both projects, as contemplated, would consist of all three bedroom units, similar in unit design (two-story townhouse) to our Melrose Manor development located at 1670-82 Melrose Avenue. Like Melrose, the development would be managed under contract by a private management firm and there would be an on site manager. Attached is a listing of available or promising sites which the Housing Authority investigated. The reason(s) for not recommending each of the sites is identified. A number of addtional sites not specifically identified were also investigated on a preliminary basis. Those were determined to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons at the initial review stage. Prior to submitting the site to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for approval, our Memorandum of Understanding requires that we receive tentative site approval from the City. I would, therefore, request the City's review of the sites so that a development proposal can be submitted to HUD by the March 1, 1988 deadline. Sincerely, Enclosures M2:Dorothy4 MONTGOMERY F~ANNING COMMITTEE ~:00 p.m. Lauderbach Cor~nunity Center Wednesday, February 3. 1988 333 Oxford Street, Chula Vista ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe A. Berlanga, Tony Castro, Fred Creveling, Robert P. Fox, Nancy L. Palmet, Ben G. Patton, Lee Wheeland MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planning Department Frank J. Herrera-A., Assistant Planner; Julie $chillin~, Assistant Planner; William F. Heifer, Senior Planner Community Development Department - Dave Gustafson, Assistant Director 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of January 20, 1988, were approved as submitted. 2. PUBLIC HEARING PCC-88-23M Major Use Permit application to allow expansion of a mini warehouse facility at 340 Naples Street - Naples Street Investors Ltd. Julia SchillinS, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report (Exhibit "A" attached). In response to a question from the Committee, she explained the zoning status of the existin~ mini-warehouse. Bill Moises, representing Naples Street Investors, presented a brief statement in reference to the recent development history of the site. Using ~raphics, he explained the proposed expansion of the mini-warehouse facility. Gevvy A. Ranglas, part owner of the facility, displayed site photographs, discussed security, and stated that the proposed expansion would improve the neighborhood. A. Vassilisdls stated the property was acquired with the intention of expandin~ the mini-warehouse use. He stated that it would not be feasible to use the site for any other purpose than mini-warehouses. Ed Snyder stated he lives about six houses from the site, snd spoke in favor of the project. Me stated that he believed the project would improve the area. Montgomery Plannin~ Committee -2- February 3, 19S8 The Committee discussed alternative uses of the site, setbacks, the in~pact of the project on adjacent properties, nearby mini-warehouse, vacancy factors, traffic ~eneration, bulk, landscaping, and the relationship of the proposed project to the adopted Montgomery Specific Plan. Committee members Castro and Crevelin~ stated that they did not consider expansion of the existin~ mini-warehouse facility to be in conflict with the Montgomery Specific Plan and that the excessive bulk and scale of the proposed buildin~ could be reduced through Design Review. Con~ittee members Fox and Palmar stated that the expansion was in derogation of the specific plan and that the bulk and scale of the buildings and their proximity to the street was for too excessive to approve in concept. Committee member Patton expressed doubts about the applicant's assertion that landscapin~ would soften the look of the warehouses. Con~ittee member Palmet referred to an existin~ mini-warehouse facility on Third Avenue between Naples and Oxford, confirminS that setbacks proposed for 340 Naples Street were approximately the same as the Third Avenue facility. Members Palmar, Fox, and BerlanSa commented that the Third Avenue facility was unattractive and whatever landscapin~ was installed had died. MSUC (Fox/Patton) to find that the project will have no si~nificant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-88-33M. MS (Fox/Palmer) to recommend denial of the major use permit application, based upon the findinEs contained in Section "E' of the attached Exhibit "A". Vote: 5-2 (Castro and Crevelin5 opposed). PRESENTATION Consideration of site at 778-798 Dorothy Street, for large family "public housing" for recommendation and approval to City Council Dave Gustarson, Assistant Director, Community Development Department, introduced the item, presented an ovevview of public housing, and discussed the City's public housin~ policy. He stated that the Con~ittee is beinE asked to approve the Senoral concept of public housin~ for the site at 778-798 Dorothy Street. Mitchell Thompson, San Diego County Housin~ Authority, described the proposed project, includinE timinE and other constraints imposed by HUD. He displayed slides of projects similar to the one beinE proposed. One of these was the Melrose Street ~roj ect, and the other was Town Centre Manor. The Committee discussed the social and economic aspects of public housing. The Committee also considered possible impacts of the project on adjacent properties and the neighborhood. There was further discussion relative to Mont~omery's share of public housing, and what opinion neighborhood residents might have reSardinE the project, ,, MontKomery Plannin~ Committee -3- February 3, 1988 MS (Patton/Fox) to approve in concept the proposed public housinR project to be located at 778-798 Dorothy Street. Vote: 6-1 (Palmet opposed). Pacific Scene - Introduction to development proposal for a parcel of land lyin~ southerly of Palomar Street between Broadway and Industrial Boulevard, which will involve an amendment to the Montgomery Specific Plan Jim Moxham, representing Pacific Scene, introduced the item. He stated that he believed the site under discussion was more suitable for commercial use than it was for industrial use. He further contrasted strip co~unercial development versus commercial centers. Usin~ a plot plan of the parcel in question, Mr. Maxhem pointed out a development scheme, which depicted structures and parkin~ areas. Jim Leafy, representinE Pacific Scene, discussed architectural and site design principles applicable to the development of commercial centers. He used slides of the Tetra Nova con=nercial center to illustrate the presentation. The CoTmnittee noted that the foreEoing presentation was an informational item, which did not require a committee action. ADJOURNMENT at 9:45 p.m. to the Workshop Meetin~ of Wednesday, February 17, 1988, at 6:00 p.m. in the Public Services Building, 2?6 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista. William F. Heiter. Recorder WPC 4779P P LOCATOR .-- PGZ-BB-E ATTACHMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES December 15, 1987 22. PUBLIC HEARING REZONE 1.67 ACRES BETWEEN "C" AND TROUSDALE ON THIRD AVENUE FROM R-1 TO R-3-P-21, PIONEER MORTGAGE (Director of O' Planning) 't~/~ OROINANCE AMENDING ZONIHG MAP OR MAPS ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 19.18.010 OF THE CHULA VISTA } MUNICIPAL CODE REZONING 1.67 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN "C" STREET AND TROUSDALE DRIVE ON THIRD AVENUE EXTENDED FROM R-1 TO R-3-P-21 (FIRST READING) This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor pro Tempore Malcolm declared the public hearing open. Planning Director Krempl explained the small lot project and the topography stating the project lends itself well to multi-family dwellings. / Minutes - 12 December 15, 1987 Edwin Laser, architect, lOlO Turquoise Street, San Diego 92109 and Gary Naiman, 5605 E1 Cajon Blvd., San Diego 92115, both representing Pioneer Mortgage, declared their presence to answer questions. Edwin C. Conklin-, 163 North Del Mar, Chula Vista 92010, opposed the ordinance because of his concerns. He believes there should be no change in zoning in the area, the traffic is presently "unbearable" without the addition of apartments, the area would be impacted environmentally and referred to a tree harboring Red Tail Hawks and Blue Herons in the open space, and the noise which will be caused by the building of apartments. Mr. Conklin stated it is one of the last areas that has a nice view and zoned for single-family homes and the residents would like to keep it that way. Paul Leukifer, 172 North Del Mar, Chula Vista, questioned the traffic routes. When it was related there would be a private access via "C" Street he questioned possible future plans, reminding Council that the residents were assured the area would remain an R-1 zone. (~r. Naiman answered these concerns by stating that no apartments buildings are planned for Del Mar Street.) There being no further testimony either for or against the item, the public hearing was closed. Councilwoman McCandliss agreed with the concerns of the residents regarding conversion from R-1 to Multi-family and urged the Councilmembers not to support this ordinance. Councilman Moore added his concern about traffic is a primary reason for him to not support the ordinance. MSUC (McCandliss/Nader) to deny the rezoning. Director of Planning Krempl recommended Council direct staff to look at the General Plan and to change the zoning to single-family residences rather than multi-residences as presently designated. Councilman Malcolm stated he was more bothered by the bulk of the project than with the multi-family and agreed with Councilman Moore that this is an unique site. Mr. Naiman again appeared before City Council and complained of what he termed a "lack of communication", stating his frustration over the last two years when trying to do something with this property. MSUC {Malcolm/McCandliss) to direct staff to meet with Mr. Naiman and direction to the Planning Commission to work this out and have a look at this particular project and the rezone request and after tht, to bring the issue back to the Council without the applicant having to pay the fees. ATTACHMEN' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: NOVEMBER ].8, ],987 ' 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCZ-88-E: Consideration to rezone 1.67 acres located between "C" Street and Trousdale Drive on Third Avenue ' extended from R-1 to R-3-P-21 - Pioneer Mortgage Associate Planner Griffin pointed out the location of the property, 800 feet north of "C" Street. and s.rro..ded by a mobile home park on the west, light industrial use on the north, single family homes on the north eastern part of this property will separate the buildings on this property from the single family homes to the east. The proposed zoning will allow 21 units per net Ac. and is in conformance with the General Plan. Mr. Griffin displayed precise plan drawings for the project which will include a total of 35 units in one two-story and two three-sorry structures, with a common recreation area to the east and south of the buildings, with the major portion of the easterly slope to be retained as permanent open space, which will provide a physical separation from the single family area. This area is in transition and the proposed develop will provide a buffer between existing uses. The staff recommends approval of the request subject to the recordation of a final map for the Las Brisas subdivision. Commissioner Tugenberg asked about the site being in the flood zone. --- Mr. Griffin acknowledged that is true and while the flood control project is not totally complete, the channel is at a stage where it would hold any flow of water so this site would not be adversely affected. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was opened. Edwin Laser, lOlO Turquoise Street, San Diego, architect for the applicant, stated that he and the engineer, Steve Nasland, are present to answer any questions concerning the project. Gary Naiman, 5605 E1 Cajon Boulevard, San Diego, owner of the property, announced that he, too, would be happy to answer any questions, but had nothing to add to the staff's presentation. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. MSUC (Tugenberg/Fuller) to find that this project will have no significant environmental impacts and adopt the Negative Declaration issued on IS-85-12(A). MSUC (Tugenberg/Fuller) to recommend that the City Council enact an ordinance to change the zone on 1.67 acres from R-1 to R-3-P-21 as shown on Exhibit A, subject to the recordation of a final map for Las Brisas. DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION 13480 BE IT RESOLVEDBY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (Governing Body) (Public Entity) THAT CLIFFORD SWANSON ,DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/OPERATIONS * (Name of Incumbent) (Official Position) OR , Governor's Authorized Representative, , (Name of Incumbent) is hereby authorized to execute for and in behalf of THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA , a public entity established under the laws of the State of CALIFORNIA , this application and to fi}e it in the appropriate State office for the purpose of obtaining certain Federal financial assistance under the Disaster Relief Act (Public Law 288, 93rd Congress) or otherwise available from the President's Disaster Relief Fund. THAT THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA , a public entity established under the laws of the State of CALIFORNIA , hereby authorizes its agent to provide to the State and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for all matters pertaining to such Federal disaster assistance the assurances and agreements printed on the reverse side hereof. Passed and approved this 1st day of March , 19 88 AYES Cox~_Moore~ McCandliss, Nader (COuncilpersons/ (Name and Title) ~ NAYES Malcolm (Councilman) (Name and Title) ABSENT NONE (Name and Title) CERTIFICATION L Jennie M. Fulasz , duly appointed and c~ ty c] or~ of (Title) The City o£ Chula Vista , do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution passed and approved by the City Council of The C]tv Of C,h},] ~ Vq~ra (Governing Body) (Public Entity) on the 1st !~ of Mnreh , 19 88 . · Date: 4-13-88 C__it~Cle k C~ ~ ' ta (official Position) · Nome of incumbent need not be provided in these cases where the governmy body of the public entity desires to Qu~horize any incumbent of the designated official position to represent ~MA Form ~63, MAR 81 APPLICANT ASSURANCES The Applicant hereby assures and certifies that he will comply with the FEMA regulations, policies, guidelines, and requirements including OMB's Circulars No. A-95 and A-102, and FMC 74-4, as they relate to the application, acceptance and use of Federal funds for this Fedorally- assisted project. Also, the Applicant gives assurance and certifies with respect to and as a condition for the grant that: ~ 1. It possesses legal authority to apply for the grant, and to finance 15. It will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act which limit ~ and construct the proposed facilities; that a resolution, motion or the political activity of employees similar action has been duly adopted or passed as an official act of the appllcant's governing body, authorizing the filing of the 15 It will comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours application, including all understandings and assurances contained provisions of the Federal Fair Labor Standards AcL as they apply to therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the hospital and educational institution employees of State and official representative of the applicant to act in connection with local governments. the application and to provide such additional information as may be required. 17. (To the best of his knowledge and belief) the disaster relief work described on each Federal Emergency Management Agency 2. It will comply with the provisions of: Executive Order 11988, (FEMA) Project Application for which Federal Financial as- relating to Floodplain Management and Executive Order 11990, sislance is requested is eligible in accordance with the criteria relating to Protection of Wetlands. contained in 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 295, and applicable FEMA Handbooks. 3. It will have sufficient funds available to meet the non-Federal share of the cost for construction projects. Sufficient funds will 18. The emergency or disaster relief work therein described for be available when construction is completed to assure effective which Federal Assistance is requested hereunder does not or operation and maintenance of the facility for the purpose will not duplicate benefits received for the same loss from constructed. another source. 4. It will not enter into a construction contract(s) for ~he project or 19. It will (l) provide without cost to the United States all lands, undertake other activities until the conditions of the grant pro- easements and rights-of-way necessary for accomplishment of the gram(s) have been met. approved work; (2) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the approved work or Federal funding. 5. It will provide and maintain competent and adequate architectur- al engineering supervision and inspection at the construction site 20. This assurance is given in consideration of and for the purpose of to insure that the completed work conforms with the approved obtaining any and all Federal grants, loans, reimbursements, ad- plans and specifications; that it will furnish progress reports and vancos, contracts, property, discounts of other Federal financial such otber information as the Federal grantor agency may assistance extended after the date hereof to the Applicant by FEMA, that such Federal Financial assistance will be extended in 6. it will operate and maintain the facility in accordance with the reliance on the representations and agreements made in this as- minimum standards as may be required or prescribed by tbe surance and that the United States shall have the right to seek applicable Federal, State and local agencies for the maintenance judicial enforcement of this assurance. This assurance is binding and operation of such facilities. on the applicant, its successors, transfercos, and assignees, and the person or persons whose signatures appear on the reverse as an- 7 It will give the grantor agency and the Comptroller General, thorfred to sign this assurance on behalf of the applicant. through any authorized representative, access to and the right to examine all records, books, papers, or documents related to the 2l. It will temptS' with the flood insurance purchase requir~raents ~f grant. Section 1O2(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, Public Law 93-234, 87 Star. 975, approved December 3ll 1973. 8. It will require the facility to be designed to comply with the Section 102(a) requires, on and after March 2, 1975, the purchase ~ "American Standard Specifications For Making Buildings and of flood insurance in communities where such insurance is Facilities Accessible to, and Usable by the Physically Handi- available as a condition for the receipt of any Federal financial capped," Number Al17.1-1961, as modified (41 CFR 101-17- assistance for construction or acquisition purposes for use in any 7031 ). The applicant will be responsible for conducting in- area that has been identified by the Director, Federal Emergency spections to insure compliance with these specifications by Management Agency as an area having special flood hazards. The the contractor. phrase "Federal financial assistance" includes any form of loan, grant, guaranty, insurance payment, rebate, subsidy, disaster 9. It will cause work on the project to be commenced within a assistance loan or grant, or any other form of direct or indirect reasonable time after receipt of notification from the approving Federal a~sistance. Federal agency that funds have been approved and will see that work on the project will be prosecuted to completion with 22. It will comply with the insurance requirements of Section 314, reasonable diligence. PL 93-288, to obtain and maintain any other insurance as may be reasonable, adequate, and necessary to protect against further loss 10. It will not dispose of or encumber its title or other interests in to any property which was replaced, restored, repaired, or con- the site and facilities during the period of Federal interest or strutted with this assistance. while the Government holds bonds, whichever is the longer. 23. It will defer funding of any projects involving flexible funding 11. It agrees to comply with Section 3ll, P.L. 93-288 and with until FEMA makes a favorable environmental clearance, if this Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1994 (P.L. 83-352) and in is required. accordance with Title VI of the Act, no person in the United 24. It will assist the Federal grantor agency in its compliance with States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be Section Ii)6 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or as anxended, (16 U.S.C 470), Executive Order 11593, and the activity for which the applicant receives Federal financial as- Archedogles} and Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 46Do-1 et seq.) by (a) consulting with the State Historic Preser- sistance and will immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate this agreement. If any real property or structure is vation Officer on the conduct of investigations, as necessary, to identify properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the provided or improved with the aid of Federal financial assist- National Register of Historic places that are subject to adverse ante extended to the Applicant, this assurance shall obllgate the Applicant, or in the case of any transfer of such property, any effects (see 36 CFR Part 800.8) by the activity, and notifying transferee, for the period during which the real property or the Federal grantor agency of the existence of any such proper- structure is used for a purpose for which the Federal financial ti~s, and by (b) complying with all requirements established by assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the the Federal grantor agency to avoid or mitigate adverse effects provision of similar services or benefits. upon such properties. 12. It will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from using 25. It will, for any repairs or construction fnanced herewith, comply their positions for a purpose that is or gives the appearance of witb applicable standards of safety, decency and sanitation and being motivated by a desire for private gain for tbemselves or in conformity with applicable codes, specifications and start- others, particularly those with whom they have family, business, dards; and, will evaluate the natural hazards in area in which or other ties. the proceeds of the grant or loan are to be used and take ap- propriate action to mitigate such hazards, including ~afe land 13. it will comply with the requirements of Title 1l and Title Ill of use and construction practices. ~" the Uniform Roleration Assistance and Real Property Acqui- sitions Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provides for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced as a result of Federal and Fedcrafty-assisted programs. STATE ASSURANCFS 14. It will comply with all requirements imposed by the Federal