Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1999/10/05 CflY OF CHUI. A VISTA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1999 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:00 PM. PUBUC SERVICES BUILDING {IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING) JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIl. OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA 4',1 q I i'-].]: 1. ROLL CALL Agency/Council Members Davis g~, Moot Q, Padilla ~1, Salas Q, and Chair/Mayor Herren ( Item 2 through 4 ) (Will be voted on immediately following the Council Consent Calendar during the C#y Council meeting) The staff recommendations regarding the following item(s) listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Agency by one motion without discussion unless an Agency member, a member of the public or City staff requests that the item be pulled for discussion, lf you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 29, 1999 (Adjourned meeting of the Redevelopment Agency, City Council and Housing Authority) Staff Recommendation: Agency/Council approve the minutes. 3. RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF A DRY DOCK TO THE SOUTHBAY BOAT YARD AND/OR ANY EXPANSION OR INTENSIFICATION OF BOAT YARD OPERATIONS OR OTHER HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT DESIRABLE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS ON THE BAYFRONT--There are unprecedented opportunities to realize redevelopment on the Chula Vista Bayfront. It is important at this time to express a vision for the Chula Vista Bayfrent and to work in cooperation with various public agencies, property owners, and the residential and business community to realize this vision. Staff Recommendation: Agency adopt the resolution. [Director of Community DevelopmentJ 4. RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-00-01 AND APPROVING OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MR. LORETO ROMERO FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 1480 FRONTAGE ROAD WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA..The proposed land use is an allowed use under the General Plan, Montgomery Specific Plan, Southwest Redevelopment Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that there would be no significant impacts. Staff Recommendation: Agency adopt the resolution. [Director of Community DevelopmentJ This is an opportunity for the general public to address the Redevelopment Agency on any subject matter within the Agency's jurisdiction that is no._~t an item on this agenda. (State law, however, generally prohibits the Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Agency on such a subject, please complete the "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and fallow up action. AGENDA .2. OCTOBER S, 1999 The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. lf you wish to speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Redevelopment Agency or the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON OTAY VALLEY ROAD NAME CHANGE RESOLUTION CHANGING THE NAME OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD TO MAIN STREET AND CREATING AN OVERLAY OF AUTO PARK DRIVE FROM 1-805 TO BRANDYWINE AVENUE, AND APPROPRIATING $141,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD PROJECT FUND..On November 24, 1998, Council adopted staffs recommendation to rename a segment of Otay Valley Road, east of 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue, to Otay Valley Road/Auto Park Drive. Council asked staff to return with the costs of implementing the name change, as well as to revisit the issue of renaming Otay Valley Road east of Brandywine. Staff Recommendation: Agency/Council adopt the resolution. [Director of Community Development] 6. DIRECTOR'S REPORT(S) 7. CHAIR(S) 8. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS The meeting will adjourn to a closed session and thence to an Adjourned Redevelopment Agency Meeting on October 12, 1999 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers. ,I (,].1:1 ,i.1:1.-~!.1 [,]; Unless Agency Counsel, the Executive Director, or the Redevelopment Agency states otherwise at this time, the Agency will discuss and deliberate on the following item(s) of business which are permitted by law to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Agency is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Agency is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of final action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Agency's return from closed session, reports of final action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the Office of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Clerk's Office. 9. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR .-Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Property: Agency-owned parcels at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and H Street Negotiating Parties: Redevelopment Agency (Chris Salomone) and Chrismatt Corporation, a California Corporation, dba Pied Company (James V. Pied) Under Negotiations: Price and terms for disposition/acquisition MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY COUNCIL, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA June 29, 1999 6:00 P.M. An Adjourned Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency, City Council, and Housing Authority of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Agency/Council/Authority Members Moot, Padilla, Salas, and Chair/Mayor Horton ABSENT: Agency/Council/Authority Member Davis ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowlands, Agency/Authority/City Attorney Kaheny, City Clerk Bigelow CONSENT CALENDAR 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Housing Authority minutes of July 22, 1997, June 23, 1998 and May 18, 1999 ACTION: Authority Member Salas moved to approve the Housing Authority minutes of May 18, 1999. Authority Member Moot seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0. ACTION: Authority Member Salas moved to approve the Housing Authority minutes of July 22, 1997 and June 23, 1998. Authority Member Moot seconded the motion, and it carried 3-0-1, with Authority Member Padilla abstaining since he was not a member at that time. 3. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 19517, ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 Article XlllB of the California Constitution, approved by the voters in 1979 and commonly referred to as the Gann Initiative, requires each local govermnent to establish an appropriations limit by resolution each year at a regularly scheduled meeting or noticed special meeting. The purpose of the limit is to restrict spending of certain types of revenues to a level predicated on a base year amount increased annually by an inflation factor. ACTION: Deputy Mayor Salas offered Council Resolution No. 19517, heading read, text waived. Councilmember Moot seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 4. CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGETS FOR THE CITY, AND THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 COUNCIL RESOLUTION 19518, APPROVING ADOPTION OF THE FINAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGETS OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1999 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2000 AGENCY RESOLUTION 1635 AND HOUSING AUTHORITY RESOLUTION HA-19, ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BUDGETS FOR FY 1999-00 AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR On May 25, 1999, Council received the proposed budgets for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 from the City Manager. Subsequently, Council conducted three work sessions to consider and deliberate not only on the recommendations contained in those initial documents; but also on a number of additional budget recommendations which came to light during that process. The budgets submitted for adoption represent the City Manager's initial spending plan as amended in accordance with tentative Council direction received during the budget work sessions. Staff recommendation: Council/Agency/Housing Authority accept public testimony and adopt the fiscal year 1999-2000 Operating and Capital Project budgets as amended. (Director of Finance) Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Finance Director Powell noted the corrections to the preliminary budget which were included in the final budget. Mayor Horlon opened the public hearing and asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak. There was no response. Mayor Horton then closed the public hearing. ACTION: Mayor/Chair Horton offered Council Resolution #19518, Redevelopment Agency Resolution #1635, and Housing Authority Resolution #HA-19, headings read, texts waived. The motion carried 4-0. OTHER BUSINESS 5. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS There were none. Page 2 - Council/RDA/Housing Authority 06/29/99 6. CHAIR(S) REPORTS There were none. 7. AGENCY/COUNCIL/AUTHORITY MEMBER COMMENTS There were none. At 6:34 p.m., Chair/Mayor Horton adjourned the Housing Authority and recessed the Adjourned Redevelopment Agency/City Council Meeting. The meeting was reconvened at 8:58 p.m., at which time the Council and Agency recessed to Closed Session. CLOSED SESSION 8. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 Property: 340-368 Bay Boulevard (5 parcels totaling 3.65 acres): 567-022-35 340 Bay Boulevard 1.02 acres 567-022-17 350 Bay Boulevard 0.65 acres 567-022-31 360 Bay Boulevard 0.73 acres 567-022-33 364 Bay Boulevard 0.63 acres 567-022-28 368 Bay Boulevard 0.62 acres Negotiating Parties: City/Redevelopment Agency (Chris Salomone); San Diego Unified Port District, B.F. Goodrich Under Negotiation: Purchase/lease terms and conditions No action was taken. ADJOURNMENT At 10:14 p.m. Chair/Mayor Horton adjourned the meeting to an Adjourned Redevelopment Agency/City Council Meeting to be held July 13, 1999 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, Susan Bigelow, CMC/AAE, City Clerk Page 3 - Council/RDA/Housing Authority c~ -,~ 06/29/99 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM NC). --~ MEETING DATE 10/05/99 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF A DRY DOCK TO THE SOUTHBAY BOAT YARD AND/OR ANY EXPANSION OR INTENSIFICATION OF BOAT YARD OPERATIONS OR OTHER HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT DESIRABLE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS ON THE BAYFRONT SUBM~,, ,:", BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRE :r~'~R ~-~'- '~ ) There are unprecedented opportunities on the Chula Vista Bayfront to realize the redevelopment of this important community asset. Recent acquisitions by the San Diego Unified Port Distdct ("Port"); partnerships between the Port, Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") and private industry; and developer negotiations have made underutilized and undeveloped properties available for development. It is important at this time to express a vision for the Chula Vista Bayfront and to work in cooperation with the various public agencies, property owners, and residential and business community to realize this vision. Staff will be retuming to the Agency in the near future with recommendations for preparing a master plan for the Bayfrent. It has long been a pdority of the Agency to have the Bayfront developed to serve visitors and to reconnect the community to the waterfront maximizing public access and recreational opportunities. The expansion and intensification of operations at the Southbay Boat Yard is not consistent with this direction. Staff is aware that a relocation of a dry dock facility from north San Diego Bay to Southwest Madne is currently being considered. Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency oppose the proposed relocation of the dry dock to the Southbay Boat Yard. It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Resolution opposing the proposed relocation of a dry dock to the Southbay Boat Yard and any expansion and/or intensification of boat yard operations or other heavy industrial uses, and directing staff to take all apprepdate measures to ensure that desirable development occurs on the bayfront. Not Applicable. The Bayfrent Redevelopment Project Area was adopted in 1974 and was amended in 1998 to include the Port Tidelands property. The Bayfront Redevelopment Plan ("Plan") encourages tourism and the development of visitor serving commercial, as well as improvements to the community's recreational and community facilities. The Plan encourages the expansion of developable land by making underutilized land available for redevelopment in addition to stimulating pdvate sector investment. PAGE ,~. ITEM MEETING DATE 10 O.~..~..~.~.~,_. Historically, the Chula Vista Bayfront had a heavy industrial character. The Redevelopment Agency has acquired and relocated many of these uses which were replaced with restaurants, office buildings and a hotel. The Agency and the Port have and continue to make significant investment in the Chula Vista bayfront. The Port pumhased the SDG&E power plant and is in the process of closing on the south campus of BF Goodrich; collectively representing 240+ acres. The Port Master Plan allows development of these properties with commemial uses including hotel, retail, entertainment and office. The Port and Agency defined a framework for coordinated redevelopment efforis on the south campus, including processing a master plan, developing a Request for Proposals for development, selection of the developer as well as project processing. The Redevelopment Agency committed resoumes to BF Gooddch to assist in the consolidation and improvement of the north campus, and has entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement to develop the Uidbayfront. The 130-acre mixed use project (Crystal Bay), including residential, office, entertainment retail and hotel, is expected to break ground in late 2000. The proposal to move a dry dock to the Southbay Boat Yard is a result of the effort to rezone the Campbell Shipyard, adjacent to the San Diego Convention Center, to accommodate a hotel. The Southbay Boat Yard presently utilizes the dry dock at Campbell Shipyard to haul large vessels. When Campbell is closed one of the existing dry docks would be moved to the Southbay Boat Yard. The Port Distdct commissioned a marine related land study to determine if the closure ofthe Campbell Shipyard could be justified. The report, published in December 1997 and amended in February 1998, found that the majedty of boatyards operating on San Diego Bay which specialize in construction and repair of large vessels were operating significantly below capacity, in many cases at or below 50%. The need for this type facility is not expected to significantly grow, and the existing yards are expected to handle any foreseeable increase. The report determined that the Campbell and Fifth Avenue yards were not necessary for repairing and building large vessels. It would stand to reason that the "unneeded" capacity would not have to be moved to another location on San Diego Bay. The Southbay Boat Yard proposes to situate the dry dock adjacent to the breakwater. The dry dock has solid concrete walls and is approximately 389 feet long, 84 feet wide and 30 feet above water level, and would have a 20-30 foot crane located on top of the dry dock wall. The dry dock would be used to service large vessels, in excess of 100 feet, such as megayachts, fishing boats and military vessels. Staff is concemed that there will be many resulting negative impacts including visual and view impacts, and environmental impacts including water, air and habitat quality. Further, the use is inconsistent with the Agency's desired and planned land uses. In addition, the dry dock represents a significant investment at the boat yard which could require an extended lease, beyond 20 yearn, to recoup its investment. This financial investment would dramatically increase the cost to redevelop the property to its highest and best use. The Agency envisions the redevelopment of the Southbay Boat Yard in a manner consistent with the visitor commemial and recreation uses existing and planned on adjacent properties. Intensification of operations at the Southbay Boat Yard is contrary to the goals of the Redevelopment Agency. Staff concludes that the proposal to move the dry dock to the Southbey Boat Yard will not benefit the efforts of the Agency and should not be supported. The present action does not have a financial impact, other than staff time, although if the dry dock relocation was successful there could be significant impacts. The intensification of industrial use could negatively impact the economic viability of commemial and visitor related development, reducing potential TOT and sales tax revenue, in addition to tax increment revenue. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OPPOSING THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF A DRY DOCK TO THE SOUTHBAY BOAT YARD AND/OR ANY EXPANSION OR INTENSIFICATION OF BOAT YARD OPERATIONS OR OTHER HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT DESIRABLE DEVELOPMENT OCCURS ON THE BAYFRONT WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency adopted the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan in 1974, and amended the plan to include the Tidelands in 1998; and, WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan encourages tourism and the development of visitor commercial, making underutilized land available for development, and stimulating private investment; and WHEREAS, the Agency has had a priority to develop the Bayfront to serve visitors and to reconnect the community to the waterfront maximizing public access and recreational opportunities; and WHERAS, the Agency and the San Diego Unified Port District have and continue to make significant investment in the Chula Vista bayfront; and WHEREAS, the Agency envisions the redevelopment of the Southbay Boat Yard in a manner consistent with the visitor commercial and recreation uses existing and proposed; and WHERAS, the relocation of a dry dock and the intensification of operations at the Southbay Boat Yard is contrary to the goals of the Redevelopment Agency and may have negative visual and environmental effects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista approves the Resolution opposing the proposed relocation of a dry dock to the Southbay Boat Yard and/or any expansion or intensification of boat yard operations or other heavy industrial uses, and directing staff to take all appropriate measures to ensure that desirable development occurs on the bayfront. Presented by Approved as to form by Chri~-Salomone J~'fn~.~Kaheny //' .~/ ~ ,. v Director of Community Development ~torney ~~ H:\HOME\COMMDEV~R£SOS~swmarine.doc REDEVELOPMENT AGEN(2Y AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM NO. 4 MEETING DATE 10/05/99 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-00-01 AND APPROVING OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MR, LORETO ROMERO FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 1480 FRONTAGE ROAD WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA SUBMII-FED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRE L~-~ ~,.,_..~ REV~EW~.D BY: EXECUTIVE VOTE: YES__ NO X ! Mr. Loreto Romem is proposing to cons~ct a 11,890 sq. lt. industrial building at 1480 Frontage Road within the boundaries of the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area. The building will be used for the warehousing and exporting of madne equipment. The project is being constructed on a graded vacant lot and includes the construction of a parking lot and landscape areas. The proposed land use is an allowed use under the General Plan, Montgomery Specific Plan, Southwest Redevelopment Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the proposed project pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and determined that it would have no significant impacts and recommended adoption of Negative Declaration IS-00-01. Since the proposed project is within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area, the environmental document and the Owner Participatjon Agreement (which includes the design plans and a list of conditions) are being presented to the Redevelopment Agency for consideration and approval. It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the resolution adopting the Negative Declaration and approving, subject to conditions, the Owner Participation Agreement for the development of an industrial building at 1480 Frontage Road. The Design Review Committee reviewed the proposed project plans on September 20, 1999 (see Minutes, Attachment A), and recommended approval of the project as described in Exhibit A and subject to conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Owner Participation Agreement. Site Characteristics The proposed project is located in the area of Chula Vista known as West Fairfield, near the Western Salt facility adjacent to San Diego Bay. The area has been developed irregularly with a mix of industrial and residential uses PAGE 2~ ITEM ~ MEE'IING DATE 10/05/~g over the past century, most with sub-standard improvements. The area was part of the County of San Diego until the Montgomery Annexation by the City of Chula Vista in 1985. The site for the proposed industrial building is located on the northwest comer of Frontage Road and Dorothy Street (see Iocator map). It is composed of two parcels, which together have an approximate area of 26,250 square feet. The area of the property will be reduced by approximately 3,775 square feet as part of a City required dedica'don ~m the owner for street widening and improvement. The site is relatively level and approximately sixty percent of its surface is covered with asphalt black top. Surrounding land uses include a vehicle storage lot to the north, Interstate 5 to the east, residences and a storage yard to the south, and a single family residence to the west. Project Description The project consists of the construction of a 10,000-square foot building with an 1,890-square foot mezzanine; a parking lot with 12 parking spaces {including 2 handicap spaces); and landscaped areas. The building will be constructed of split- face block with windows and awnings on the east and south sides (see design plans attached to OPA). Roll up doors for loading and unloading will be located on the south side of the building. Street access to the site will be on Frontage Road as well as on Dorothy Street, while the main entrance to the building will be on the east side fronting Frontage Road. The west and north sides of the building will be solid wells (with minor decorative elements). The landscaping will consist of a number of trees and shrubs to be located within and beyond the setback areas surrounding the parking area, including an existing palm tree to be retained. Additional landscaping will be provided in front of the building along the side facing the Frontage Road/I-5 Freeway. Mr. Romero currently operates a marine equipment export business out of a warehouse in National City. When the proposed building is completed, he will relocate his business to Chula Vista. The business has four employees. Land Use Desiqnations The West Fairfield area, where the proposed project is located, is part of the Montgomery territory annexed to the City in 1985. The area is characterized by having a mixture of incompatible and obsolete residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Because of these conditions, the Montgomery Specific Plan designates this as a Special Study Area. This status requires the use of the County's M - 52 zoning designation until the City's zoning designation is applied to the area. The County's M - 52 designation is consistent with the City's I - L zoning designation. Based on this comparison, the proposed building site and the surrounding prope~es are designated as Limited Industrial, which allow the construction of industrial buildings such as the one being proposed. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Montgomery Specific Plan, the Southwest Redevelopment Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. Conclusion It is staff's opinion that the construction of the proposed building will be a positive improvement to this area of the City, which has developed very irregularly and contains an incompatible mixturo of dilapidated and non-conforming buildings. The development of the project will cont~bute to the elimination of blighting infiuencos by providing a new building and putting the vacant parcel to a higher and better use, which furthers the goals and objectives of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. It is hoped that the construction of this building will encourage other property owners in the vicinity to do the same. PAGE 3,~ ITEM MEETING DATE 1 O/OS/SS The proposed project has an estimated valuation of $400,000. This will generate an annual tax-increment revenue of approximately $4,000, which will be distributed as follows: Twenty percent ($800) for the Housing Set-Aside fund; of the remaining $3,200, fifty three percent ($1,696) will be allocated to other taxing entities as part of the Pass-thru agreement; the rest ($1,504) will accrue to the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area fund. Attachment A - Negative Declaration IS-00-01 Attachment B - DRC Minutes of September 20, 1999 Attachment C - Owner Participation Agreement with the following: Locator Map Exhibit A- Design Plans Exhibit B - Design Review and Agency Conditions of Approval (MZT) H:\HOME\COMMDEV~STAFF.REPVI0-05-99\1480FRONTAGE.doc [9/23/1999 9:17 AM] RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-00-01 AND APPROVING OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MR. LORETO ROMERO FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 1480 FRONTAGE ROAD WITHIN THE SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, Mr. Loreto Romero owns the property at 1480 Frontage Road, which is diagrammatically shown in the Locator Map attached to the Owner Participation Agreement and incorporated herein by reference; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Romero has presented development plans for the construction of an 11,890-square foot industrial building and associated lot improvements ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the site for the proposed Project is located within the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area under the jurisdiction and control of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency; and, WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator reviewed the proposed Project and issued Negative Declaration 18-00-01 for the project in accordance with CEQA; and, WHEREAS, the Design Review Committee reviewed and recommended that the Redevelopment Agency approve the proposed Project subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Owner Participation Agreement; and, WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista has been presented an Owner Participation Agreement, said agreement being on file in the Of~ce of the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency and known as document RACO 99-06, approving the construction of an 11,890-square foot industrial building located at 1480 Frontage Road, depicted in Exhibit A and subject to conditions listed in Exhibits B of said agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, order, determine and resolve as follows: 1. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment; accordingly Negative Declaration 18-00-01 was prepared and is hereby adopted in accordance with CEQA. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the Southwest Redevelopment Plan and shall implement the purpose thereof. 3. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista hereby approves the Owner Participation Agreement with Mr. Loreto Romero for the construction of a 11,890-square foot industrial building at 1480 Frontage Road, in the form presented in accordance with plans attached thereto as Exhibit A and subject to conditions listed in Exhibits B of said agreement. 4. The Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency is hereby authorized to execute the subject Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Mr. Loreto Romero. 5. The Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency is authorized and directed to record said Owner Participation Agreement in the O~ce of the County Recorder of San Diego, California. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Chris Salomone J~f~n Kahen~ CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT LORETO ROMERO PROJECTDESCRIP'nON: ~ ,~PU~,~: DESIGN REVIEW ) PROJECT 1480 Frontage Road ADDRESS: Request Proposed construction of a wholesale warehouse ~ SCALE: FILE NUMBER: and storage of marine hardware. NORTH No Scale DRC - 00-03 /7/'- ~ h:\home\plannin ~carlos\locators\drc0003.cdr 7/26/99 negative declaration PROJECT NAME: Southport Marine PROJECT LOCATION: 1480 Frontage Road, Chula Vista, CA. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 622-052-05 & 12 PROJECT APPLICANT: Loreto Romero CASE NO: IS-00-01 DATE: August 3, 1999 A. Project Setting The environmental setting for the project consists of a previously graded vacant industrial 2.95 acre site located at 1480 Frontage Road, Chula Vista, CA. The site is part ora larger area designated for industrial use. Surrounding land uses include a vehicle storage lot to the north, Interstate 5 to the east, residences and a storage yard to the south and a single-family residence to the west. The project site is relatively level and approximately six .ty percent of the property surface is covered with asphalt black top. The remaining area consists of reddish brown clayey sandy soils, typical of marine terrace deposits. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is located about 1.0 mile west of the site along the length of San Diego Bay. The La Nacion Fault Zone is located about 3.5 miles to the east. Surface vegetation at the site is limited to scattered patches of dry non-native grass. The industrial site has previously been used as a truck and equipment storage yard. B. Project Description The proposed project consists of the construction of an industrial warehouse building totaling 11,890 sq. ft. The construction materials will consist of masonry block walls on cement slabs. The roofline will be hidden behind the concrete block walls. Building information is as follows: Number of Floors: 1 Building height: 22 ft. 9 inches Floor area: 11,890 sq. ft. (including a 1,890 sq. ft. mezzanine) The floor space would be used for warehouse storage of marne hardware. Office space and reception/wholesale area will occupy about 1,800 sq. ft. The proposed hours of operation city of chula vista planning department C:ITt'OF environmental review section. (~HUL~ VL~.A ? would be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The proposed use is not expected to generate noise as part of its daily operation. The project site is located in the midst of an indusU-ially desi~ated and multi-use developed area. Interstate 5 is located immediately east of the site. The location of the proposed building in relation to any outdoor activities will serve to buffer any potential noise impacts. All proposed activities and operations will be required to comply with existing noise standards for the IL zone. No potential adverse impacts to sensitive noise receptors are anticipated fi.om the proposed use. The project site will be accessible via two entry driveways one offof Frontage Road and one fi.om Dorothy Street. A total of 12 parking spaces are being provided which will be in conformance with parking requirements per the City's Zoning Ordinance. The applicant will provide landscaping for the parking and perimeter areas in accordance with the City of Chula Vista's Landscape Manual. C. Compatibility with Zonin~ and Plans The existing zoning on the project site is IL (Limited Industrial) and the General Plan designation is Limited Manufacturing. The proposed project will be consistent with these land use designations with the approval ora conditional use permit. The project will subject to the design review comanittee process which will provide for more project specific requirements prior to the submittal of full construction plans. The project will also be subject to the redevelopment review process and the issuance of a permit indicating compliance with the Local Coastal Plan as adopted by the City and the Coastal Commission. D. Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (includ'mg an attached Environmental Checklist Form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Geophysical A Geotechnical Report was completed by Testing Engineers - San Diego, on February 10, 1998. The report concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed structure. The project will as standard building practice comply with the report recommendations. H:\HOM E~PLANNING\ENVIRONM\IS0001 _ND 2 ,/-7 Soils A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report prepared by Testing Engineers-San Diego, on February 10, 1999 found three soil stains made by oil drippings from the trucks and equipment previously stored on-site. No other recognized environmental conditions indicating the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products was found by the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. No evidence was found indicating an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of release of hazardous substances or petroleum products into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the project site other than the mentioned waste oil staining. The applicant is encouraged to participate in a voluntary program administered by the County Environmental Health Department, Site Assessment Division that will provide assistance in implementing various options available to the property owner with respect to any necessary remediation or review of the proposed site plan. Streets/Traffic The City's Engineering Department indicates that street improvements and dedications are required. Specifically, the project will be required to install two 250 watt high pressure sodium vapor street lights, sidewalk, curb and gutter along the property street frontage. No off site traffic/street mitigation will be required. Noise The proposed use will generate little noise as part of its daily operation. The project site is located in the midst of an industrially designated and developed area. Interstate Highway 5 is located to the east of the site. There is a single-family residence adjacent to the project site and there are three residences across the Dorothy Street to the south. The location of the proposed building in relation to any weekly deliveries by local carriers will also serve to buffer any potential noise impacts. All proposed activities and operations will be required to comply with existing noise standards for IL zone ( Not to exceed 70 dB(A) for any 24 hr. period per Table III, Section 19.68.030 of the City's Zoning Ordinance). No potential adverse impacts to sensitive noise receptors are noted fi.om the proposed use. No mitigation will be required. E. Mitieation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects NO MITIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED F. Consultation H:\HOM E~PLANN IN G\ENVI RONM\IS0001 _N D Pa~e3 1. Individuals and Organizations City of Chula Vista: Benjamin Guerrem, Planning Doug Reid, Planning Samir Nuhaily, Engineering Majed A1-Ghafry, Engineering Duane Baz. zel, Planning Garry Williams, Landscape Planner, Planning Brad Remp Assistant Director of Building Division Rod Hastie, Fire Marshal Richard Preuss, Crime Prevention Joe Gamble, Landscape Planner Peggy McCarberg, Acting Deputy City Attorney Chuta Vista City School District: Dr. Lowell Billings Sweetwater Union High School District: Katy Wrig~ht Applicant's Agent: Matthew J Guccione, Desi=maer 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and EIR (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Geotechnical Report, Testing Engineers-San Diego, (Feb. 10, 1999) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Testing Engineers-San Diego, (Feb. 10, '98) 3. Initial Study Tiffs environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. ENVIRO'N/vlENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 5/93) Case No.IS-00-01 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Loreto Romero 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 575 Parkside Drive Chula Vista, CA. 91910 (619) 425-7330 4. Name of Proposal: Southport Marine 5. Date of Checklist: August 2, 1999 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unlesa Significant No Impact Mitigated lmpact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or [] [] [] [] zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental [] [] [] [] plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resoumes or operations [] [] [] [] (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement [] [] [] [] of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Comments: The proposed construction of the warehouse building and parking lot will be in conformity with the Limited Industrial General Plan designation and the M52 Limited Impact Industrial designation by the Zoning Map for this site. The proposed project will be subject to Page No. I Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact projcct will be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or [] [] [] [] local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either [] [] [] [] directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially [] [] [] [] affordable housing? Comments: The proposed project will not induce population growth or displace housing. The project would not have an impact on existing housing stock, or create a demand for additional housing. The project proposes to provide for industrial warehousing needs ora specific business. Ill. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in [] [] [] [] geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or [] [] [] [] overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface [] [] [] [] relief features? d) The destruction, coveting or modification of [] [] [] [] any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of [] [] [] [] soils, either on or off the site? f') Changes in deposition or erosion of beach [] [] [] [] sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a fiver or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? Page No 2 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact g) Exposure of people or property to geologic D [] rn [] hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: The site has been fully graded. Any excavation conducted on-site would be limited to the preparation of the footings. A soils report dated February 10, 1998 and prepared by Testing Engineers of San Diego indicates that the site is suitable for the proposed project and that the structure could be supported by a shallow foundation system. Compliance with the standard report recommendations will ensure that the structure will be properly built. No adverse geophysical impacts are noted. No mitigation will be required. There are no known or suspected seismic hazards associated with the project site. The closest known fault is an extension of the Rose Canyon Fault located along the length of San Diego Bay west of the site and the La Nacion Fault Zone located about 3.5 miles east of the site. The site is not currently within a mapped Earthquake Fault Zone. Project compliance with applicable Uniform Building Code standards will adequately address any building safety/seismic issues. No mitigation will be required. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage [] [] [] [] patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. b) Exposure of people or property to water [] [] [] [] related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other [] [] r~ [] alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in [] [] [] [] any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of r~ [] [] ~ direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, [] [] [] [] either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Page No. 3 Potentially Polentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact g) Altered direction or rate of flow of [] [] [] ~ groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? r~ [] [] [] i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood [] [] [] [] waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water [] [] [] [] otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: Approximately 60% of the project site surface is presently paved and the remaining area is fully graded. The site is relatively level and the sheet flow ls conveyed to the east unto Frontage Road and to the north toward the floor of the Otay River Valley about ¼ mile towards the north west. The addition of one new structure would not impact the drainage flow. The project will be providing approximately 2,665 sq. ft. (18% of the site) of landscaping area, which will also help to absorb much of the on-site runoff. The project will not be required to develop and implement a storm water pollution plan (SWPP), but will be required to comply with Chapter 14.20 of the ChuIa Vista Municipal Code, relating to management practices associated with construction activity. No adverse impacts to water or drainage are noted. No mitigation will be required. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or [] [] [] [] contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [] [] [] [] c) Alter air movement, moisture, or [] [] [] [] temperature, or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? [] [] [] [] e) Create a substantial increase in stationary or [] [] [] [] non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: Grading and construction of the proposed warehouse building and parking lot would temporarily create dust and emissions associated with activity from construction equipment and Page No. 4 Potentially Poten fially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact vehicles. These short-term emissions are not considered significant impacts, however, standard dust control measures would be implemented, and including watering exposed soils and street sweeping as applicable. The Average Daffy Traffic (ADT) calculated to be generated by the proposed project is estimated to be 130. No adverse impacts to air quality are noted. No mitigation will be required. VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [] [] [] [] b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., [] [] [] [] sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uges (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to [] [] [] [] nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- [] [] [] [] site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or [] [] [] [] bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting [] [] [] [] alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? rn [] [] [] h) A "large project" under the Congestion [] [] [] [] Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: The City of Chula Vista Threshold Standards require that all intersections operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. The trip generation rates for a warehouse facility use is 5 trips per 1,000 square feet and 20 trips for every 1,000-sq. ft. of office & wholesale use. Based on this rate, the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 130 daily vehicle trips. No traffic mitigation regarding traffic impacts to Level of Service will be required. Page No 5 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of [] [] [] [] concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage [] [] rn [] trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities [] [] [] [] (e.g, oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, r/parian and [] [] [] [] vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? rn [] [] [] f) Affect regional habitat preservation [] [] [] [] planning efforts? Comments: The project site is located in a fully developed urbanized industrial area that contains no naive habitat. The site has been fully graded and paved. Non-native grasses are located throughout the site. No animal or plant species listed as rare, threatened or endangered by local, State or Federal resource conservation and regulatory agencies are known to be present in this highly disturbed area. No adverse impacts to biological resources are noted. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation [] plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful [] and inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource [] protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: No impacts to non-renewable resources are noted. IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Page No. 6 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant UnLess Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [] [] [] [] hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency [] [] [] [] response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or [] [] [] [] potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of [] [] [] [] potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with [] [] [] [] flammable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: Project implementation would not pose a health hazard to humans. The project involves the construction of a warehouse/office building. The project involves the storage of new boat and marine equipment. The Phase I report prepared by Testing Engineers-San Diego (2/10/98) recommends removal of soil containing oil stains evident in certain areas of the lot which was previously used for the storage of tracks and equipment. The applicant is encouraged to participate in a voluntary program administered by the County Enviroumental Health Department; Site Assessment Division in order to appropriately address the oil stains in the soil. No mitigation will be required. X. NOISE. WouM the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? r2 [] [] [] b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [] [] [] [] Comments: Temporary construction noise would occur at the site, however, the short term nature of the noise, and the fact that residential uses are located over 50 feet away from the proposed location of the warehouse structure render the potential noise factor to less than significant. The structure is proposed to be placed along the westerly property line adjacent to the residential use and thus should act as a buffer to any future activities that may create noise. The proposed operation would not require the loading or unloading of truck trailers. The operation would include the delivery of parts and equipment through small delivery tracks. No mitigation will be required. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal Page No. 7 4.-/6 Potentially PotentiallySignificant Less than SignificantUnless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? [] [] [] [] b) Police protection? [] [] [] [] c) Schools? [] ri D [] d) Maintenance of public facilities, including [] [] [] [] roads? e) Other governmental services? r~ ~ [] [] Comments: The project would not have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. [] [] [] [] XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. a) Fire/EMS [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85% of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista Fire Department indicates that this threshold standard will be met. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Fire Department indicates that the distance to the nearest fire station is 1.5 miles. The Fire Department has made a number of recommendations that will be made a part of the conditions of approval of the Conditional Use Permit. A commemial fire hydrant is located about 50 feet away along Frontage Road. No mitigation is required. b) Police [] [] ~ [] The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The Police Department response time for both Priority 1 and Page No. 8 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact Priority 2 calls within the vicinity of the proposed project complies with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The police Department indicates that adequate service can be provided to the project site. Any additional construction plans should be forwarded to the crime prevention unit for evaluation. c) Traffic [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west ofi-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" dttring the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. This Threshold Standard will be complied with by the proposed project with added mitigation. Comments: No adverse impacts to traffic/circulation are noted from project approval· No mitigation will be required. d) Parks/Recreation [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3-acres/I,000 population. This Threshold Standard does not apply to the proposed project. Comments: No adverse impacts to parks or recreational opportunities are noted. [] [] [] [] e) Drainage The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project does comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Engineering Division indicates that existing off-site street facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project subject to review and approval of all proposed construction plans. f) Sewer o [] o [] The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed Page No. 9 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessar7 improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. Comments: The Engineering Depa~:ment calculates that the project will generate approximately 530 gallons of effluent per day. An 8" sewer line is located in Dorothy Street flows in a westerly direction to another 8" line flowing in a westerly direction located in Bay Blvd. The sewer line eventually connects to the 72" Metro Outfall Sewer Main. The En~neering Department comments that these are adequate to serve the project. No mitigation will be required. g) Water [] [] [] [] The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project does comply with this Threshold Standard. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: No adverse impacts to water quality are noted from project approval. XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? [] [] [] [] b) Communications systems? [] [] [] [] c) Local or regional water treatment or [] [] [] [] distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? [] [] [] [] e) Storm water drainage? [] [] [] [] f) Solid waste disposal? [] [] [] [] Comments: The proposed project will not result in a need for new systems or alterations to any of the above-referenced utilities. Page No. 10 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant ]No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact XIVAESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to [] [] [] [] the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a r~ [] [] [] scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic [] [] [] [] effect? d) Create added light or glare sources that [] [] [] [] could increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 197 e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? [] [] [] [] Comments: The project will be subject to the requirements of the Design Review Committee process and site plan review and will require landscaping and related improvements. The design review process will help ensure that the proposed project complements and enhances the surrounding existing development. As part of site plan/design review attention needs to be provided to ensure that the proposed structures with regards to size, bulk and exterior lighting minimize their impact on nearby residences. XV CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of [] [] [] [] or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical [] [] rn [] or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to [] [] [] [] cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious [] [] [] [] Page No. 11 Potentially Potentlally Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact or sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General [] [] [] [] Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archaeological resources? Comments: The project site has been fully graded and paved. The adjacent lots are all fully utilized and for the most part developed. No adverse impacts to cultural resources are noted. XVI PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 19'ill [] [] [] [] the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? Comments: No paleontological resources have been identified on or near the project site, which is located in a fully developed urban setting. XVII RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or [] regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [] c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation [] plans or programs? Comments: No impacts to Parks or Recreational Plans are noted. XVIII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to [] [] [] [] degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or Page No. 12 Potentially Potentially Significant Less than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: The project site is in a fully developed urban setting. The project site has been completely disturbed by human activity. Non-native weedy grasses are found on-site. No impacts to wildlife population, habitat or cultural/historical resources are noted. b) Does the project have the potential to [] [] [] [] achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of tong-term, environmental goals? Comments: The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. The project is consistent with both the Zoning and General Plan designation for the site. c) Does the project have impacts that are [] [] rn [] individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: The project does not have any impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Project approval will result in the addition industrial/wholesale business and warehouse facilities of benefit to the community. d) Does the project have environmental effect [] [] [] [] which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The analysis contained in the Initial Study found no evidence indicating the project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: NO MITIGATION REQUIRED Project Proponent Date XX. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: NONE The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [] Land Use and Planning [] Transportation/Circulation [] Public Services [] Population and [] Biological Resources [] Utilities and Service Housing Systems [] Geophysical [] Energy and Mineral [] Aesthetics Resources [] Water [] Hazards [] Cultural Resources [] Air Quality [] Noise [] Recreation [] Mandatory Findings of Significance Page No 14 XXI. DETER31INATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the [] environmcmt, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the [] environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, [] and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the [] environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the [] environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. Environn~fital Review Coordinator Date/ City of Chula Vista PagcNo 15 Recording Requested By: CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 When Recorded Mail To: CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Attn: Yolanda Garcia (Space Above This Line For Recorder) APN: 622-052-05 & 12 OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT Mr. Loreto Romero 1480 Frontage Road THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by' the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a public body corporate and politic (hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY"), and Mr. Loreto Romero, Subject Property Owner hereinafter referred to as "DEVELOPER") effective as of October 5, '1999. WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER desires to develop real property within the SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA which is subject to the jurisdiction and control of the AGENCY; and, WHEREAS, the DEVELOPER has presented plans for development to the Design Review Committee for the construction of an 11,890-square foot industhal warehouse and office building (the "Project"); and, WHEREAS, said plans for development have been recommended for approval by said committee; and, WHEREAS, the AGENCY has considered the Design Review Committee=s recommendation and has approved the Project and design plans subject to certain terms and conditions; and, WHEREAS, the AGENCY desires that said Project be implemented and completed as soon as it is practicable in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the AGENCY and the DEVELOPER agree as follows: The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Agreement. 1. The property to be developed is described as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 622-052-05 & 12 located at 1480 Frontage Road, Chula Vista, CA., shown on Iocator map attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein ("Property"). 2. The DEVELOPER covenants and agrees by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns and all persons claiming under or through them the following: A. DEVELOPER shall develop property in accordance with the AGENCY approved development proposal attached hereto as Exhibit "A", which is on file with the AGENCY Secretary, as Document No. RACO-99-06. B. DEVELOPER shall obtain all necessary federal/state and local governmental permits and approvals and abide by all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, policies and approvals. DEVELOPER further agrees that this Agreement is contingent upon DEVELOPER securing said permits and approvals. DEVELOPER shall pay all applicable development impact and processing fees. C. DEVELOPER shall obtain building permits within one year from the date of this Agreement and to actually develop the Property within one year from the date of issuance of the building permits. In the event DEVELOPER fails to meet these deadlines, approval of DEVELOPER's development proposals shall be void and this Agreement shall have no further force or effect. D. In all deeds granting or conveying an interest in the Property, the following language shall appear: "The grantee herein covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, national odgin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the premises herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee himself or any persons claiming under or through him establish or permit any such practice of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenant lessees, or vendees in the premises herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land." E. In all leases demising an interest in all or any part of the Property, the following language shall appear: "The lessee herein covenants by and for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through him, and this lease is made and accepted upon and subject to the following conditions: That there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, national origin, or ancestry, in the leasing, subleasing, transferring use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of the premises herein leased, nor shall the lessee himself or any persons claiming under or through him, establish or permit any such practices of disedmination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number or use, or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants, or vendees in the premises herein leased." 3. The Property shall be developed subject to the conditions imposed by the Design Review Committee and the AGENCY as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. DEVELOPER acknowledges the validity of and agrees to accept such conditions. 4. DEVELOPER shall maintain the premises in FIRST CLASS CONDITION. A. DUTY TO MAINTAIN FIRST CLASS CONDITION. Throughout the term of this Agreement, DEVELOPER shall, at DEVELOPER's sole cost and expense, maintain the Property which includes all improvements thereon in first class condition and repair, and in accordance with all applicable laws, permits, licenses and other governmental authorizations, rules, ordinances, orders, decrees and regulations now or hereafter enacted, issued or promulgated by federal, state, county, municipal, and other govemmental agencies, bodies and courts having or claiming jurisdiction and all their respective departments, bureaus, and officials. If the DEVELOPER fails to maintain the Property in a "first class condition", the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista or its agents shall have the right to go on the Property and perform the necessary maintenance and the cost of said maintenance shall become a lien against the Property. The Agency shall have the right to enforce this lien either by foreclosing on the Property or by forwarding the amount to be collected to the Tax Assessor who shall make it part of the tax bill. B. DEVELOPER shall promptly and diligently repair, restore, alter, add to, remove, and replace, as required, the Property and all improvements to maintain or comply as above, or to remedy all damage to or destruction of all or any part of the improvements. Any repair, restoration, alteration, addition, removal, maintenance, replacement and other act of compliance under this Paragraph (hereafter collectively referred to as "Restoration") shall be completed by DEVELOPER whether or not funds are available from insurance proceeds or subtenant conthbutions. The Restoration shall satisfy the requirements of any sublease then in effect for the Property or improvements with respect thereto or, if no sublease is then in effect, shall be repaired or restored in the building standard shell condition existing immediately prior to the date of such damage or destruction. C. In order to enforce all above maintenance provisions, the parties agree that the Community Development Director is empowered to make reasonable determinations as to whether the Property is in a first class condition. If he determines it is not, he (1) will notify the DEVELOPER in wdting and (2) extend a reasonable time to cure. If a cure or substantial progress to cure has not been made within that time, the Director is authorized to effectuate the cure by City forces or otherwise, the cost of which will be promptly reimbursed by the DEVELOPER. In the event that there is a dispute over whether the Property is in a first class condition or over the amount of work and expense authorized by the Director to cure, the parties agree that the City Manager or his designee, shall resolve that dispute and the City Manager's determination shall be final. All City action to cure shall be suspended pending the outcome of the appeal. In the event that the Director decides without dispute, or the City Manager decides in dispute, that the City has to cure and the amount of cure, then DEVELOPER has to reimburse the City within thirty (30) days of demand. If not reimbursed, it constitutes a lien and City is authorized to record said lien with the County Recorder, upon the Property. D. FIRST CLASS CONDITION DEFINED. First class condition and repair, means Restoration which is necessary to keep the Property an efficient and attractive condition, at least substantially equal in quality to the condition which exists when the Project has been completed in accordance with all applicable laws and conditions. 5. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER expressed herein shall run with the land. DEVELOPER shall have the right, without prior approval of AGENCY, to assign its rights and delegate its duties under this Agreement. 6. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the covenants of the DEVELOPER expressed herein are for the express benefit of the AGENCY and for all owners of real property within the boundaries of the SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA as the same now exists or may be hereafter amended. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that the provisions of this Agreement may be specifically enforced in any court of competent jurisdiction by the AGENCY on its own behalf or on behalf of any owner of real property within the boundaries of the SOUTHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. 7. AGENCY and DEVELOPER agree that this Agreement may be recorded by the AGENCY in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, California. 8. DEVELOPER shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless AGENCY and the City of Chula Vista, and their respective Council members, officers, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and reasonable attomeys' fees (collectively, "liabilities") incurred by the AGENCY adsing, directly or indirectly, from (a) AGENCY's approval of this Agreement, (b) AGENCY's or City's approval or issuance of any other permit or action, whether discretionary or non-discretionary, in connection with the Project contemplated herein, and DEVELOPER's construction and operation of the Project permitted hereby. 9. In the event of any dispute between the parties with respect to the obligations under this AGREEMENT that results in litigation, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs from the non-prevailing party. 10. Time is of the essence for each and every obligation hereunder. 11. If DEVELOPER fails to fulfill its obligations hereunder after due notice and reasonable opportunity to cure, DEVELOPER shall be in default hereunder, and in addition to any and all other dghts and remedies AGENCY may have, at law or in equity. AGENCY shall have the right to terminate its approval of the Project and this Agreement. Signature Page Follows Signature Page IN WITNESS WHEREOF THE PARTIES HAVE ENTERED INTO THIS AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE AS OF THE DATE FIRST WRITTEN ABOVE. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA "AGENCY" DATED: By: Shirley Horton, Chairman "DEVELOPER" DATED: By: Loreto Romem, Property Owner NOTARY: Please attach acknowledgment card. APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: John M. Kaheny, Agency Attomey EXHIBIT A Page 1 EXHIBIT A Page 2 EXHIBIT A Page 3 EXHIBIT A Page 4 EXHIBIT B Conditions of Approval Owner Participation Agreement Mr. Loreto Romero 1480 Frontage Road Chula Vista, CA DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Title 19, and the Montgomery Specific Plan. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 3. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Condition of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Title 19 of the Municipal Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Sectional Planning Area Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 5. AIl ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 6. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and s~ets as required by the Planning Director. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Details shall be included in building plans. 7. A Conceptual landscape plan is required for review and approval prior to review of any construction document submittal (building permit submittal). The plan shall be prepared by a registered Landscape Architect. 8. A Water Management Plan, including the use of reclaimed water for irrigation, shall be required in cenjunction with the Conceptual Landscape Plan development for review by the Landscape Planner pdor to the building permit stage. 9. Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within one year from the date of this approval, unless a wdtten request for an extension is received phor to the expiration date. 10. All requirements of the Public Works Department shall be met at the building permit stage. Improvement plans may be reviewed after this Design Review permit is granted. 11. All building permit plans shall be reviewed for conformance with this Design Review permit. Obtain Building, Electrical, Mechanical, and Plumbing permits. Building Plans shall comply with 1997 Building, Mechanical, and Plumbing Codes, and the 1996 Electrical Code. Building requires a one-hour separation between mercantile and storage or the building shall be sprinklered. Building shall comply with California multi-family disabled access regulations and Title 24 energy requirements. 12. Obtain the necessary permits from the Fire Department. Storage is not allowed over 12 ft. high without a high-piled ? EXHIBIT B Conditions of Approval Owner Participation Agreement Mr. Loreto Romero 1480 Frontage Road Chula Vista, CA storage permit and/or sprinkler system. Sprinkler system plans must be approved pdor to installation. Required water flow is 2250 GPM for 2 hours. If a fire alarm is needed plans must be approved prior to installation. Fire extinguishers must be located every 75 ft., with a minimum rating of 2A 10BC. Provide the required access for fire apparatus. 13. Upon submittal of building permits, the Engineering Department will require fees for sewer connection/participation, development impact, and traffic signal. Also, permits for work in the City right-of way and a grading permit will be required. 14. The Engineering Department will require the applicant to guarantee and install missing street improvements along Frontage Road and Dorothy Street per approved improvement plans, drawing No. 88-63 and 88-64. 15. The applicant shall contact the Sweetwater Authority Water District for availability of water for operational and fire protection purposes. Irrigation plans shall be designed to reclaimed water standards and specifications. All fees and deposits shall be provided at the building permit stage. 16. Obtain a security survey from the Crime Prevention U nit of the Police Department. Specific recommendations shall be provided for access control, surveillance detection, and police response. In addition, training of management and employees in secudty procedures and crime prevention shall coincide with the commencement of operations. 17. The Redevelopment Agency with the recommendation of the Design Review Committee shall approve the project and design plans. 18. Please note that, prior to submitting for building permits, you are responsible for obtaining approval of all changes required by the above conditions of approval. Two sets of revised plans are to be submitted to staff, with one set becoming the approved Design Review file copy. 19. The smooth face block proposed for the intermediate bays between the split-face block shall remain in their natural tone unpainted, but the smooth-face block color shall match the tone of the split-face block. 20. The split-face block shall extend from the top of the building down to the ground, wrapping around the entirety of the southeast comer of the building (facing the northwest corner of Dorothy Street and Frontage Road). [FILE:H:\HOME\COMMDEV~TAPIA\OPAS\1480FRONTAGE.OPA September 17, 1999 11:08 a.m.] z-/'w 5'- JOINT REDEVBLOPM"=NT AOENCY/C~ITY C~OUNClL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM NO. ~" MEETING DATE 10/05/99 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: OTAY VALLEY ROAD NAME CHANGE RESOLUTION CHANGING THE NAME OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD TO MAIN STREET AND CREATING AN OVERLAY OF AUTO PARK DRIVE FROM 1-805 TO BRANDYVVlNE AVENUE, AND APPROPRIATING $141,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD PROJECT FUND SUBMkm mod BY; REVmEWEO BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR VOTE) On Mamh 26, 1996, the City Council requested that staff investigate a proposal submitted by the Auto Park dealers to change the name of Otay Valley Road to Auto Park Drive east of Interstate 805. A number of public meetings were held to receive input. The Planning Commission acted on October 28, 1998 and recommended that Otay Valley Road be renamed to Main Street and that the section of Main Street from 1-805 east to Brandywine have an oveday of Auto Park Drive. The City Council held a public hearing on November 24, 1998. The City Council adopted staffls recommendation to rename only a segment of Otay Valley Road, east of 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue, to Otay Valley Road/Auto Park Drive. Staff was asked to return to the City Council to review the costs of implementing the name change, as well as to revisit the issue of renaming Otay Valley Road east of Brandywine. That the City Council approve changing the name of Otay Valley Road to Main Street and create an oveday of Auto Park Drive from 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue, and appropriating $141,000 from the available fund balance in the Otay Valley Road project fund. A public forum was held on June 13, 1996 at the Otay Community Center. Presentations were also made to the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee on July 15, 1996 and the Otay Valley Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee on August 16, 1996. Comments received at these meetings raised concerns about the cost and inconvenience for businesses located on Otay Valley Road, and the histodc significance of the current name. In addition, concerns were received from owners of property in the eastern territories, which will eventually be accessed by the eastward extension of Otay Valley Road. The Otay Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee voted to recommend changing the name of Otay Valley Road to Otay River Valley Parkway. The Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee made no formal recommendation. On Uamh 10, 1998, the Redevelopment Agency held a workshop on the Otay Valley Road area at which time staff was again directed to process the name change. The auto dealers stated that the name change was necessary due PAGE 2. ITEM ~ MEBTING DATE 10/05/99 to the confusion caused by the number of read names in the area with 0tay; the connotation of being too far south in the market area; and the lack of advance identification signs north and south of 0ray Valley Road on 1-805. The Planning Commission held a noticed public headng on the name change on October 28, 1998 and, following much discussion, voted 7 to 0 to recommend the following: 1. That Otay Valley Road be changed to Main Street; 2. The segment of road between 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue have an overlay name and be known as Main Street/Auto Park Drive; and 3. The north-south segment of 0tay Valley Road be renamed to Paseo Ranchero, as it will eventually tie into the existing street with the same name, The report to the Planning Commission is included as A~tachment 1, As mentioned, the Council approved the oveday of Auto Park Drive from 1-805 east to Brandywine in November 1998. The primary reason for the name change was to provide freeway exposure for the Auto Park. By creating the oveday of Auto Park Ddve, CALTRANS signs will include "Auto Park Drive" for several miles north and south of Otay Valley Road. This improved identification is expected to assist the Auto Park to expand and increase sales. The Council requested that staff return to review the costs of implementing the name change, in addition to revisiting the name change issue. Staff worked with CALTRANS to develop a cost estimates for the name change option, which are detailed below, and found that there is a significant difference. The current staff recommended option, Option 1, will cost approximately $141,000. Option 2, previously adopted by Council, is estimated at $438,000. The cost difference is due to the need for new sign structures to accommodate the larger signs. Due to the extraordinary costs associated with implementing Option 2, staff is recommending that the City Council approve Option 1, changing the name of Otay Valley Road to Main Street and creating an oveday of Auto Park Ddve from 1-805 to Brandywine. Council also has the option to maintain the prior adopted name change. Included as attachments are three maps identifying: 1) the existing condition; 2) staff's recommendation (Option 1); and 3) Council's previous action (Option 2). 1. Main Street/Auto Park Ddve: Changing the name, and extending Main Street to the SR-125 would reduce the confusion caused by the several roads in this area having the name "Otay". This is consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation which also recommended an oveday of Auto Park Drive from Interstate 805 east to Brandywine, as well as changing the name of Otay Valley Road running south towards Otay Mesa to Paseo Ranchero. The present staff recommendation does not address the name change to Paseo Ranchero. The existing CALTRANS signs will likely accommodate "Main Street/Auto Park Ddve" without the need to replace any of the sign structures. The expected cost is $141,000 (replacing 9 CALTRANS signs and 42 City street signs). Several businesses along Otay Valley Road will incur costs to change business stationary etc. due to the change to Main Street. 2. Otay Valley Road/Auto Park Ddve: The oveday of Auto Park Ddve had been recommended by staff and adopted by the Agency last November. This option solved the issue of providing the auto park exposure, as well PAGE 3, ITEM ~ MEETING DATE 10/05/99 as preserved the "Otay" name, The name Otay has historic significance in the region, identifying the Otay River, surrounding valley and the Otay Ranch to the east. Otay Valley Road/Auto Park Drive will not fit on the existing CALTRANS signs. This name will require larger signs and replacement of several sign structures to accommodate the increased weight and wind-load. The need for six new structures increases the cost to approximately $438,000 (replacing 9 CALTRANS signs and 42 City street signs, and sign structures). The oveday will not affect any of the businesses along Otay Valley Road. Staff is requesting an appropriation of $141,000 from the available fund balance of the Otay Valley Road project fund. The use of Agency funds is of benefit to the project area and will assist in the elimination of blight by reducing confusion due to the several roads in the area with the name "Otay"; encouraging attraction of new consumers and new businesses to the area; fostering the expansion of existing businesses~ and is consistent with the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment and Implementation Plans. Staff is recommending use of Agency funds because at this time the is no other reasonable means of financing the project. Staff will be negotiating with the auto dealers for reimbursement of this expenditure in the future. Additionally staff wil~ be presenting an Agency Financial Plan to the Agency in the near future which recommends the issuance of bonds to repay Redevelopment Agency interfund loans and provide discretionary funding for projects. Staff is hopeful that these monies will be available prior to actually expending the requested appropriation. The costs associated with the name change vary depending on the name selected. The cost to change the name to Main Street/Auto Park Drive would require the replacement of nine (9) CALTRANS signs and 36 illuminated and eight regular panel City street name signs. The extent of CALTRANS costs are dependent upon whether existing sign size can accommodate the new name or if new, larger sign boards would be required. The change to Main Street is expected to fit within the current sign. The cost estimate for the replacement of the CALTRANS signs is estimated to be $133,000. The City signs will cost approximately $8,000, for a total cost of $141,000 The second option for the name change to "Otay Valley Road/Auto Park Drive" will require larger signs and six new pole structures. The cost estimate to replace the CALTRANS signs is $430,000 and the City signs will cost approximately $8,000 for a total cost of $438,000. Funds in the amount of $141,000 will be appropriated from the Otay Valley Road project fund. Staff will be negotiating with the Auto Park dealers for reimbursement of this expenditure. 1. Maps 2. Council Agenda Statement from 11/24/98 meeting (DinA) H:IHOMEICOMMDEV~STAFF.RE?I618/9910TVRNAME.CI~ G [Septa~be~ 30, 1999 (12:4§PM)] JOINT RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CHANGING THE NAME OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD TO MAIN STREET AND CREATING AN OVERLAY OF AUTO PARK DRIVE FROM 1-805 TO BRANDYWINE AVENUE, AND APPROPRIATING $141,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD PROJECT FUND WHEREAS, the street which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as Otay Valley Road; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 1996, the Redevelopment Agency directed that a street name change for the east/west segment of Otay Valley Road between 1-805 and Brandywine Avenue to Otay Valley Road/Auto Park Drive be brought forward to Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that this project is exempt from environmental review under guidelines found in Section 15061(b)3 of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the project on October 28, 1998, and voted 7-0 to approve: 1) that Otay Valley Road be changed to Main Street all the way to proposed SR-125 so that the road will have the same name from I-5 to SR-125; 2) the segment of road between 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue will have an "overlay" name and be known as Main Street/Auto Park Way Drive; and 3) the north-south segment of Otay Valley Road be renamed Paseo Ranchero as it will eventually tie into the existing street with the same name; and WHEREAS, the City Council held an advertised public hearing on the project on November 24, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed; and WHEREAS, the City set the time and place for another public hearing on said road name change and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, in accordance with City policy, to the property owners of the affected portion of Otay Valley Road at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council held the advertised public hearing on the project on October 5, 1999 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, considered all evidence presented by staff and the public, and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista do hereby: 1. Incorporate (a) the proceedings and all evidence on the proposed name change before the Planning Commission at their public hearing held on October 26, 1998, and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom; and (b) the proceedings and all evidence on the proposed name change before the City Council at their public hearing held on November 24, 1998, and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom into the record of this proceeding. 2. Approve the changing of the name of Otay Valley Road to Main Street and create an overlay of Auto Park Drive from 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue. Pursuant to Chapter 12.44 of the Chula Vista Municipal code, the City Council finds that the name change is in the public interest and will help eliminate confusion and uncertainty. 3. Appropriate $141,000 from the available fund balance in the Otay Valley Road project fund to finance the cost of the name change. Such funding is based on the following findings of the Redevelopment Agency: a. Use of Redevelopment Agency funds for the name change are of benefit to the Project Area and will assist in the elimination of blight by reducing confusion due to the several roads in the area with the name "Otay"; encouraging attraction of new consumers and new businesses to the area; fostering the expansion of existing businesses; and b. The use of Redevelopment Agency funds to eliminate blight is consistent with the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment and Implementation Plans; and c. No other reasonable means of financing the project are available to the community. Staff is hereby directed to negotiate with the auto park developers/operators for reimbursement of this expenditure. Presented by Approved as to form by Chris Salomone Jof~n Kahen~ ~ Community Development Director II / Z.< ;Or= mr= mm -i =< /~ , ~ 0>~, ~, g;I '1 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item / / Meeting Date ~ ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: OTAY VALLEY ROAD NAME CHANGE RESOLUTION ,-J ~-~ ~'~'~CHANGING THE NAME OF THE SEGMENT OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD FROM 1-805 TO BRANDYWINE AVENUE TO OTAY VALLEY ROAD/AUTO PARK DRIVE SUBMITTED BY: Community Development ~)irector ~/'S' Planning and Building Director ('-~ , REVIEWED BY: City Manager i' i---'~__~._.~~~ (41§tbs Vote: Yes No X) BACKGROUND: On March 26, 1996, the Redevelopment Agency requested that staff investigate a proposal submitted by the Auto Park dealers to change the name of Otay Valley Road to Auto Park Ddve {or something similar) from 1-805 east. Staff studied a number of issues associated with this request and developed several alternative solutions which are described below. Staff recommends renaming only a segment of Otay Valley Road east of 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: That the City council hold the Public Hearing, and approve the following three actions: 1. Rename the segment of Otay Valley Road from 1-80§ to Brandywine Avenue to "Otay Valley Road/Auto Park Drive" subject to City Council approval of final cost of same; 2. Defer changing the leg of Otay Valley Road extending south into the City of San Diego until Otay Ranch and the extension of Paseo Ranchero are further along; 3. Defer consideration of changing the name Df Otay Valley Road west of 1-805 and east of Brandywine. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: A public forum was held on June 13, 1996 at the Otay Community Center. Presentations were also made to the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee on July 15, and the Otay Valley Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee on August 16 of that year. Comments received at these meetings raised concerns about the cost and inconvenience for businesses located on Otay Valley Road, and the historic significance of the current name. in addition, concerns were received from owners of property in the eastern territories which will eventually be accessed by the eastward extension of Otay Valley Road. Page 2, Item 1___~ Meeting Date ~ On March 10, 1998, the Agency held a workshop on the 0ray Valley Road area at which staff was again directed to process the name change. The auto dealers continued to request a name change due to the confusion caused by the number of road names in the area with 'Otay" in them, the connotation of being far south in the market area, and the lack of advance identification signs north and south of Otay Valley Road on 1-805. A name change including the name "Auto Park" would address these issues. A name change without "Auto Park" would address the first two issues. Better identificatiDn' could be an advantage to the City, increasing sales spending development and, consequently, tax revenues from the auto park. However, the name '0toy' does have historic significance in the region, identifying the Otay Rive~, surrounding valley and the 0toy Ranch to the east. The 0toy Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee voted to recommend changing the name of 0toy Valley Road to Otay River Valley Parkway. In doing so, they indicated that the road follows the Otay River Valley which has been designated as a regional park. The 0toy Valley Road Project Area Committee discussed the name change at their meeting of October 26, 1998, but made no formal recommendation. The Ptanning Commission held a noticed public hearing on the name change on October 28, 1998 and, following much discussion, voted 7 to 0 recommending the following: 1. That Otay Valley Road be changed to Main Street all the way to proposed SR-125 so that the road will have the same name from I-5 to SR-125; 2. The segment of road between 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue will have an "overlay" name and be known as Main StreetlAuto Park Drive; 3. The north-south segment of Otay Valley Road be renamed Paseo Ranchero, as it will eventually tie into the existing street with the same name. The report to the Planning Commission is included as Attachment 1. DISCUSSION: Any name change for 0toy Valley Road would involve the modification of freeway signs on 1-805, signs along Otay Valley Road both east and west of 1-805, and could require affected businesses currently located on Otay Valley Road to change their address identification. Thus, there would be some expense and inconvenience associated with any name change. ANALYSIS: The primary reason for considering a street name change at this time is that there is no immediate exposure for the auto park from 1-805 because billboards and reader signs are eot permitted by C attrans north or south of 0toy Valley Read. Staff is recommending to change the segment of Otey Valley Road between 1-805 and Brandywine Avenue to "gray Valley Road/Auto Park Drive". By taking this approach, the concerns of the auto park dealers are addressed, yet the historic name remains. Page 3, Item __ Meeting Date 1-t/1'7798~ In addition, the effect on addresses is minimal. The staff recommended name change affects only those addresses in the quarter mile east of 1-80~. It is assumed that mail addressed to Olay Valley Road will continue to I~ delivered to those sites even after the change to the dual designation. In light of the complexity of the other remaining issues noted above and the northlsouth connector, staff recommended to the Planning Commission that these not be addressed at this time. The Planning Commission recommended that it would be better to resolve all of the issues now rather than a more incremental approach as proposed by staff. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impacts from the staff recommended street name change is thecost to install new street name signs. The cost to change street name signaoe would include approximately eleven (11) Caltrans signs on the freeway and offramps, and City street name signs. The extent of Ca]trans costs are dependent upon whether existirg signs can be overlayed, or new, larger sign boards required. 3'he change of names proposed would result h changing the freeway signs which now read "Main StreetlOtay Valley Road" to "Otay Valley RoadlAuto Pad~ Drive" which should not require replacement of existing sign boards. Thus, costs should be at the lower end of the estimated range of ,2o,ooo to ,2oo,ooo. Exact costs will not be known until Caltrans has been advised of the new street names and inspects each sign to be changed. The cost of replacing the City street name signs which would have to be replaced including approximately 36 illuminated and eight regular panels should not exce~l $5,000. Staff will return to Council once the furl fiscal impact of this action is determined. Although the Auto Park dealers have indicated that they would contribute to the cost of changing the signs, the amount has not been determined. (FK} H;IHOMEIC OMMD~VXSTAFF.REPI11-17-9810TVRNAME.CHG [November 9, 1998 {4:55pm)] ATTACHMENTS: 1) Planning Commission Agenda Statement dated 10/28/98 2) Davies Enterprises Letter dated 10/27/98 3) October 28, 1998 Planning Commission Minutes RESOLUT,ON NO. Z" RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CHANGING THE NAME OF OTAY VALLEY ROAD BETWEEN 1-805 AND BRANDYWINE AVENUE TO OTAY VALLEY ROAD-AUTO PARK DRIVE RECITALS WHEREAS, the street which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as Olay Valley Road; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 1996 the City's Redevelopment Agency directed that a street name change for the east/west segment of Olay Valley Road between 1-805 and Brandywine Avenue to Otay Valley Road-Auto Park Drive be brought forward to Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that this project is exempt from environmental review under guidelines found in Section 15061 (b)3 of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on October 28, 1998 and voted 7-0 to approve: (1) that Olay Valley Road be changed to Main Street all the way to proposed SR-125 so that the road will have the same name from I-5 to SR-125; (2) the segment of road between 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue will have an "overlay" name and be known as Main Street/ Auto Park Way Drive and (3) the north-south segment of Otay Valley Road be renamed Paseo Ranchero as it will eventually tie into the existing street with the same name; and WHEREAS, the City set the time and place for a hearing on said road name change and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, in accordance with City policy, to the property owners of the affected portion of Olay Valley Road at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely November 17, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence on the proposed name change before the Planning Commission at their public hearing held on October 28, 1998 and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. H :\HOMEiPLA N NING'~M ARTIN\Ovrnc~,9902CC RES Resolution No.__ Page #2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT based on all reports, evidence and testimony presented with respect to the road name change, the City Council finds that the proposed change will benefit property owners in the vicinity of Otay Valley Road and hereby renames the portion of Otay Valley Road between 1-805 and Brandywine Avenue "Otay Valley Road/Auto Park Drive". This nam~ change shall not take effect until staff analyzes, submits for City Council consideration, and obtains City Council approval of the cost for such name change. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Leiter Director of Planning and Building ~thynAt~torKaeh:r(~,~ ATTACHMENT I PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Item: 4 Meeting Date: 10/28/98 IFEM TITLE: Public Hearing: Otay Valley Road Name Change Between 1-805 and Brandywine Avenue On March 26, 1996, the Redevelopment Agency requested that staff investigate a proposal submitted by the Auto Park dealers to change the name of Otay Valley Road to Auto Park Drive (or something similar) from 1-805 east. As follow-up to the Agency's direction, staff has focused on renaming the portion of Otay Valley'Road east of 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue (see Ananhment A). However, a number of other relevant issues are addressed so a clear picture of the issues is available to the reader. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission hold the Public Hearing, consider the testimony of staff and the public and recommend the following three actions: 1. Rename the segment of Otay Valley Road from 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue "Otay Valley Road-Auto Park Drive." 2. Defer changing the leg of Otay Valley Road extending south into the City of San Diego 'until Otay Ranch and the extension of Pasen Ranchero are further along. 3. Defer consideration of changing the name of Otay Valley Road west of 1-805 and east of Brandywine until the road is extended out to SR-125. BOA1RDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: As of the writing of this report, the proposed name change was scheduled to be discussed by Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee discussed at their meeting of October 26, 1998. A verbal report of that discussion, and any recommendation resulting therefrom, will be given on October 28, 1998. A public foxa~m was held on June 13, 1996 at the Otay Comm~mity Center. Presentations were also made to the Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee on July 15, and the Otay Valley Re~onal Park Citizens Advisory Committee on Augnst 16. Comments received at these meetings raised concerns about the cost and inconvenience for businesses located on Otay Valley Road, and the historic significance of the current name. In addition, negative comments were received from owners of property in the eastern territories which will eventually be accessed by the eastward ex-tension of Omy Valley Road. On March 10, 1998, the Agency held a workshop on the Otay Valley Road area at which staff wa s again directed to process the name change. The auto dealers continue to request a name change due to the confusion caused by the number of road names with "Otay" in them in the area, the connotation of being far south in the market area, and the lack of advance identification sigus Omy Valley Road Name Change Item No. 4, Page No. 2 10/28/98 would solve all of these problems. A name change without "Auto Park" would address the first two issues. Better identification could be an advantage to the City, increasing sales and, consequently, mx revenues from the auto park. However, the name "Otay" does have historic si~mificance in the region, id~mifying the Otay River, surrounding valley and the Otay Ranch to the east. DISCUSSION: Any name change for Otay Valley Road would involve the modification of freeway sigus on 1- 805, signs along Otay Valley Road both east and west of 1-805, and require businesses currently located on Otay Valley Road to change their address identification and marketing materials. Thus, there would be expenses and inconvenience associated with the name change. What to Name the Road Changing the name of Otay Valley Road involves a number of issues, as discussed below: · The Auto Park dealers would like to have the name "Auto Park" included in any change. · The various developers of the Otay Ranch do not appear enthusiastic about the major entryway to their new projects being named "Auto Park Drive" (or something similar). They will soon be promoting all of their projects using the name "Otay Ranch" as a form of identification similar m the use of the name "Fast_Lake." · The Otay Regional Park Citizens Advisory Committee voted to recommend changing the Name of Otay Valley Road to Otay River Valley Parkway. In doing so, they indicated that the road follows the Omy River Valley which has been designated as a regional park. · Businesses in the area east of 1-805 will be inconvenienced and suffer the expense of having to change their addresses on all identifying materials including letterhead, brochures, em. This can be expensive for large, international businesses such as Gold Coast F.n~oSneering, JT Racing, and Nypro. There are also business and residences west of 1-805 where Otay Valley Road extends 2,000 feet to meet (and briefly parallel) Main Street. Businesses located here and addressed on Otay Valley Road include a retail center, service station and the Otay Valley Inn. · There is some concern over favoring the auto deal,s. Changing the name to identify the Auto Park does not help the. Amphitheater, Water Park or any other business or attractions located (or to be located) in the area. To the extent that the name change complicates directing people to these facilities from I-5, 1-805 and SR-125, it may in fact, be a Ex'tent of the Road Name Change There is an issue concerning what section of Omy Valley Road will be changed and, consequently, how many names the roadway will have from ,Bay~Boulevard west of I-~ to proposed SR-125, a 75/- Ora3' Valley Road Name Change Item No. 4, Page No. 3 10/28/98 distance of about eight miles. Currently, Main Street extends eastward almost to 1-805 where Otay Valley Road begins. Otay Valley Road continues eastward for several miles to the former corporate boundary where it turns south, crosses the Otay River and runs into the City of San Diego to Datsun Street. A connecting road is planned north of the river from Otay Valley Road to proposed SR-125, a distance of approximately 2.5 miles. Beyond SR-125, the name of the road may identify the proposed university o[ become an ex'tension of Hunte Park~'ay which eventually nmq to the north. Thus, ft Oray Valley Road east ofi-805 is changed to, say, Auto Park Drive, the various names of this arterial could include the following: 1. Main Street from west of Bay Boulevard to Otay Valley Road; 2. Otay Valley Road from Main Street to 1-805; 3. Auto Park Drive will continue eastward to SR-125, or, due to protests from developers, thi~ segnlenI may be called Otay Ranch Road (or something similar); 4. From the intersection with the north/south connector, the segment running south into the City of San Diego will either be called Otay Valley Road or Pasco Ranchero; and 5. University Drive or Hume Parkway from SR-125 east and then north (see Attachment A and Artavhment B). Needless to sa3,, other changes would also have to take place both east and west of 1-805 in order to make this approach workable. In addition, Pasco Ranchero, planned to extend from the north and tie into Otay Valley Road where the latter turns to the south, raises the question as to how many nmnes the north/south connector wi/1 have. Such a combination of road names is not recommended due to the confusion it causes for the pubhc and emergency services. In order to minimi?e confusion, a number ofbnsiness owners and staff would like to see the number of names minimized. Thus, Main Street would be one of the logical choices. However, Otay Valley Road would still exist both west of 1-805 (where it parallels Main Street) and south of the bridge (both the Amphitheater and Water Park are addressed on Olay Valley Road) into the City of San Diego. ANALYSIS: The primary reason for considering a street name change at Ihis time is that there is no mediate exposure for the auto park from 1-805 because billboards and reader si~kms are not permitted by Calrrans north or south of Otay Valley Road..an option that staff believes would address this concern would be to change Otay Valley Road to a hyphenated name, Otay Valley Road-Auto Park Drive, from 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue. By taking this approach, the concerns of the auto park dealers are addressed, yet the historic name remains. In light of the complexity of the other remaining issues noted above and the north/south connector, staff is recommending that these not be addressed at this time. Om)' Valley Road Name Change ltem No. 4, Page No. 4 10/28/98 CONCLUSION: In consideration of the foregoing i~fformation, staff has concluded that the following is an interim solution: 1. Rename the segment of Otay Valley Road from 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue ~Otay Valle y Road-Auto Park Drive." 2. Defer changing the leg of Otay Valley Road extending south into the City of San Diego until Otay Ranch and the extension of Paseo Ranchero are further along. 3. Defer consideration of changing the name of Otay Valley Road west of 1-805 and east of Brandywine until the road is extended out to SR-125. RESOLUTION NO. PCM-99-02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE RENAMING OTAY VALLEY ROAD BETWEEN 1- 805 AND BRANDYWINE AVENUE TO OTAY VALLEY ROAD-AUTO PARK DRIVE RECITALS WHEREAS, on March 26, 1996 THE City's Redevelopment Agency directed that a street name change for the ea§t/west segment of Otay Valley Road between 1-805 and Brandywine Avenue to Otay Valley Road-Auto Park Drive be brought forward for consideration; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that this project is exempt from environmental review under guidelines found in Section 15061 (b)3 of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, in order to render a recommendation to the City Council on this matter, set the time and place for a hearing on said road name change and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given ' by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within __ feet of the effected portion of Otay Valley Road at least ten days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 7:00 p.m. October 28, 1998, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, from the facts presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission has determined that the road name change of Otay Valley Road between 1-805 and Brandy Avenue to Otay Valley Road-Auto Park Drive is consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area and all other applicable Plans, and that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice support the approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the road name change in accordance with the findings contained in the attached City Council Resolution No. __ And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the owners of the property in the affected area along Otay Valley Road and the City Council. H:\HOME\PLANNING~MARTIN\DVRNC\BgO2PC.RES Resolution No. PCM-99-02 Page No. 2 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 28th day of October 1998 by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Pa~y Davis, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary H:\HOME\PLANNIN G~MARTIN\[}VR N C\9902PC.RES .~ ~ ATTACHMENT 2 DAVIES ENTERPRIS. ES 4.501 Olay Valley Road - Chula VIsta3, CA 91 gl I -- (61 g) 421-~501 - Fax Cel 9) 421-S 1 32 PoSt-E'"' brand Tax transmitlal memo 7671 ] # City elann~g Commission ~''{~=tt ~1'-%1 ~ ~.-~-~t~ 2?8 Fourth Ave. Chula ~ta, Ca- Re; Case S~-99-02 ~reposal ~e r~name Ot~ ~;~ll~Y Ho~d East 1-805. De~ M~bers of ~he Fla~n~ Co~ission; ~ %,haunts ~oe more for %he record. and energy arc bafn~ u~d here with only %h~ ao~o dealers' inter- is %o do awa~ with Ot~ Valle~ ~oad as a nam~ (~xcept where ~i~h a~ other streets in Ghula ~ista. ~ain Street ~ (and all bopu will continue to be), on~ of Chula Vis%a'a mos~ commer- cial. areas .... ~e na~e "Main Street" suits it. Don"~ wait until more new bus.eases on O~ay Valley ~d. aru faced /4-/? [~004 DAVIES ENTERPRISES 4501 Olay Valley Road - r'hula Vlsi% CA gl g 11 - (81 ~) 4; 1-4501 - F-~z ($19) 421-5132 I2 the sole intent of thl~ chang~ i$ to provide the "/Auto Pa~k~ay" ~o Haln Stre~.will cmrtainly b~ ~d_/Auto ~o~ ~m= bas be~n ~en~ on ~...~ $~'s been enough .... FIX ~T~ MINUTES OF THE ATiACHMEN ~ :~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA~ CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednescla¥, October 28, 1998 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROI, I, (;ALU MOTIONS TO EXCUSE:' Present: Chair Davis, Commissioners Aguilar, Ray, WiHett, Tarantino, and Thomas, and O'Neill Staff Present: Robert Leiter, Director of Planning and Building Martin Miller, Acting Senior Planner Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development Fred Kassman, Redevelopment Coordinator Richard Whipple, Associate Planner Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Davis APPROVAl. OF MINUTES: ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Bob Leiter, Director of Planning reported that staff is recommending that items 1,2, and 3 be continued to November 4, 1998 based on the unexpected change in status of the Otay Tarplant from a candidate species to a threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species ACt, and allow staff time to prepare an addendum to EIR 97-03 to address the change in status. MSC (Willett/Ray) (7-0) to continue these three items to the meeting of November 4, 1998. Motion carried. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Otay Valley Road Name Change between 1-805 and Brandywine Avenue Background: Fred Kassman, Redevelopment Coordinator gave a historical perspective on the naming of Otay Valley Road and stated that the area was originally inhabited by the Dieguefio or Kumaiyey Indians and they established a village at the end of the South Bay and named it Otay. Otay is an Indian word meaning either a level knoll, a bushie place, or a place of reeds, which is descriptive of the area. In the mid 19th Century the area, under the ownership of Mexico was granted to the Dona Magdalena Estudillo family as Rancho de Otay. Later under Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - Wednesday, October 28, 1998 the ownership of Mary Birch, it became known as the Otay Ranch. Early land uses were ranching, farming, mining and dumping. With urbanization of the area, a number of roads were constructed and were called Otay Valley Road, Otay Mesa Road, and Otay Lakes Road. Urbanization brought industrial and residential land uses to the area, and later land uses included commercial, which 'the Redevelopment Agency was effective in bringing out there the Chula Vista Auto Park, Coors Amphitheatre and Whitewater Canyon Water Park. Recent development in the area includes: the City of San Diego's residential development south of the Otay River; Otay Ranch developing to the east; and the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego and the County of San Diego are planning a regional park in the area which will follow the Otay River Valley to the Reservoir. There are multiple conflicting issues because of the different types of land uses. The Auto Park clearly needs identification from the freeway and the amphitheatre and water park would like simplicity and consistency in directions and would like to have the same name whatever it is, at 1-805, I-5, and SR-125. The multiple street names with the word "Otay" in them, have become confusing to find for people who are not familiar with the area. The new developing communities are concerned with their image and the idea of having a road named Auto Park Way, leading into a major new developments, has not been weil received. There is concern with the use of multiple names for a section of roadway, which is problematic and creates confusion for newcomers to the area, emergency response and to the Post Office. Finally, the expense of installing the signs could be as Iow as a few thousand dollars if only a few letters are changed and the size of the sign remains the same, or it could be exceptionally high if the size of the sign is increased. Staff has explored various alternatives which included changing the name to Otay Auto Park Drive, River Road, River Park Way and Main Street. Staff is recommending an interim alternative which deals only with the section of Otay Valley Road from 1-805 to Brandywine Avenue and is proposing to rename that segment Otay Valley Road-Auto Park Drive. This addresses some of the identification concerns that the Auto Park has, however, it does not eliminate the confusion issues, as well as changes in the area as development occurs, which will eventually need to be addressed. Martin Miller, Acting Senior Planner, stated that the Planning Department received a letter from Mr. Tom Davies recommending that Otay Valley Road be renamed Main Street for the entire length of Otay Valley Road. Plannin~ Commission Minutes - 3 - Wednesday, October 28, 1998 Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the following three actions: 1. Rename the segment of Otay Valley Road from 1~805 to Brandywine Avenue "Otay Valley Road-Auto Park Drive"; 2. Defer changing the leg of Otay Valley Road extending south into the City of San Diego until Otay Ranch and the extension of Paseo Ranchero are further along; and 3. Defer consideration of changing the name of Otay Valley Road west of 1-805 and east of Brandywine until the Road is extended out to 5R-125. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Aguilar asked what staff meant by "interim solution". Mr. Kassman responded that the name change to Otay Valley Road-Auto Park Drive from 1-805 to Brandywine is permanent for that segment, however, the entire road name change will need to be considered incrementally as issues arise with build out of the area and the construction of SR-125. Commissioner Ray asked what the high-end costs could be. Mr. Kassman responded that if the approximate same number of letters are kept, and Caltrans can salvage the existing sign by overlaying a metal strip, the cost could be $15,000 to $20,000 per sign. If you get into replacing the entire sign board with a larger one, which involves Caitrans doing the work in the middle of the night with special equipment, dosing down freeway lanes, and designing and constructing the signs, could cost as much as $200,000.00. The City changed signs on 1-5 for Marina Parkway and the cost was approximately $150,000 to $175,000. Commissioner Ray asked how many signs would need to be replaced if the name was changed to Main Street all the way through. Mr. Kassman responded that there are approximately 18 signs that have the name Otay Valley Road, including signs on the freeway and small signs that are on the off-ramps that would need to be replaced. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated that his experience in another jurisdiction with changing signs has been that the high costs are due to Caltrans having to re- engineer the poles and sign boards that hang over the freeway, which have incredible specs and characteristics. The engineering process involves testing for wind sheer and other weather conditions; they cannot in any way allow those to fall on the freeway. If these measures do not have to occur, then the cost is very reasonable and they just place a band over the words "Otay Valley Road" and use the same signs. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - Wednesday, October 28, 1998 Mr. Salomone further stated that staff is recommending a policy decision at this point, minus the fiscal impact; that will need to be determined with Caltrans. Once we know how much it will cost, then staff will return to the City Council to determine who will pay for it. Commissioner O'Neill stated' he opposed piece-mealing even further, and recommended changing it once and for all. Mr. Salomone responded there are too many ~ssues to address, and not knowing the impact on the Ranch, or future SR-125, s~ff feels it would be premature to commit to changing it now to one name for the entirety of Otay Valley Road. What staff is recommending now, addresses the competitive economic development issues of the Auto Park. The Statewide trend is that the Auto Parks have freeway reader boards and signs. National City is a perfect example with having reader boards visible from every freeway; the City of Chula Vista cannot have reader boards visible from the freeway under Caltrans rules. Escondido has Auto Park Way, which most auto parks have, and it gives them an economic advantage. With staff's recommendation, only the half-mile strip from 1-805 to Brandywine, which is the Auto Park strip will need to change their address; everyone else will continue to receive their mail at Otay Valley Road. Mr. Kassman interjected that the amphitheatre and water park address is Otay Valley Road and any change has to take into consideration their operating season and that they be granted enough time to change their promotional materials for the coming year. Commissioner Tarantino asked if it is feasible to place a sign off of the freeway which states, "Auto Park Next Exit". in addition, he asked if there was any statistical data which supports and/or attributes the success of an Auto Park to having the street name in front of their business be Auto Park Drive, Avenue or Street. Mr. Salomone stated that Ca]trans has criteria that has to be met in order to place these signs and they are based on the number of people that frequent these facilities and for traffic control reasons. The City was successful in being granted a sign that states "Amphitheatre Next Exit" or "Plaza Bonita Next Exit" because of the high volume of traffic that is generated. They will not do it for a private commercial enterprise. In addition, he is not aware of any data that measures the success of an Auto Park in relation to whether the street is named Auto Park Way, however, it is his opinion that it is a matter of perception, and signs are viewed as a positive thing for any commercial enterprise. Commissioner Thomas asked if Caflsbad and Escondido had a similar situation where there is residential on one side and commercial on the other side. Director Leiter responded that Escondido does not have residential on Auto Park Way, and the way that they were able to get Auto Park Way on the freeway sign board is similar to what is Planning Commission Minutes ~ 5 - Wednesday, October 28, 1998 being proposed here. They have one link that is 9th Avenue, a major east/west street and one link of that is adjacent to the freeway and is named Auto Park Way, which wanders into the auto park, but the remainder of it, east and west of the freeway is 9th Avenue. Commissioner O'Neill asked how much the City has subsidized the auto dealers to date with new construction toans and the purchase of the old dealerships. Director Salomone stated that the auto park was opened in part, because the downtown dealers would eventually be closing on Broadway due to the corporation headquarters' direction in moving the dealerships to other existing auto parks. Secondly, the Auto Park was opened at the height of the recession, although they are doing better, therefore, it is hard to quantify. The City did assist in acquiring the dealerships on Broadway and one of them is in the process of being developed and the other has been redeveloped. The City did facilitate a loans which are to be paid back out of a portion of the sales tax and that process is underway. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 7:05. Doug Fuller, Fuller Ford, 560 Auto Park Drive, Chula Vista, gaYe a historical perspe~tiYe of the partnership that developed between the City of Chula Vista and Fuller Ford, a business that has existed for over 50 years in Chula Vista. Approximately 13 years ago, he was approached by Ford Motor Company requesting that he look for new locations for a Ford dealership. One ideal site which was picked out was on East H Street, the Terra Nova site. However, at that time, he was approached by the City of Chula Vista and was asked if he would help the City in exploring establishing an ;~uto park, and that endeavor was embarked upon. The City has been very interested in a successful auto park for a number of years and certain representations have been made to the dealers throughout the years. The dealerships have cooperated, though not totally altruistically, because they are in business to make a profit, however there exists an allegiance to the City and a mutual recognition that the benefits of a successful auto park are great. When discussing the costs involved in changing the signs, whether it be $1 $,000 or $1.50,000, it seems out of balance because the reality is that the dealerships in the auto park generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in sales t~x revenue to the City of Chula Vista. In order to be competitive with other auto parks and be able to attract the other dealers, the name change is necessary. In conclusion, Mr. Fuller stated that the City of National City has just recently approved renaming 24th Street off of I-5 to Mile of Cars Boulevard. In addition they are allowed to have reader boards off of the freeways. This goes hand-in-hand with the Mission Valley Auto Circle, which has name recognition on I-8, and Auto Park Way in Escondido. Commissioner Ray stated that a new car is not an impulse purchase, and most people plan out the different dealerships they want to visit, therefore, they know exactly where they are going. Having a freeway sign that says "Auto Park Drive", will not necessarily make them pull off the freeway and go to the auto park to look for a car. Planning: Commission Minutes - 6 - Wednesday, October 28, 1998 Mr. Fuller stated that the auto park is losing business from Chula Vista residents to the National City Mile of Cars. One of the biggest disadvantages the Chula Vista Auto Park has is that five years ago they went out to pioneer a new retail area on Otay Valley Road. Mr. Fuller stated that the auto park needs to distinguish themselves as a marketing area in Chula Vista. One of the biggest obstacles of that location is that people who are looking for them get off at Otay Lakes Road, or they go ~past them looking for Otay Mesa. There exists a stigma with the name "Otay~ which has been a real road block because people associate it with Otay Mesa, the landfill, traffic accidents, border patrol and immigration problems. It is critical to the survival of the auto park that they be able to market themselves as a retail area in Chula Vista. They need to be able to compete with the Mile of Cars; presently they are out-matched; they have 22 dealerships, Chula Vista has 3. Another reasons is that they cannot attract other dealerships because they do not see a commitment to Chula Vista and the lack of infrastructure that is needed. Commissioner Thomas stated that he understands the issues and is sympathetic, however, he has concern with the fragmentation/phasing part of this proposal. Commissioner Aguilar asked Mr. Fuller is he could cite any data that supports the idea that the name Auto Park Drive actually increases sales. Mr. Fuller responded that he had not done any research on this subject, but his general experience in the automobile industry has been that the most successful auto parks throughout the State have freeway designation and visibility. Commissioner Tarantino asked if he had any commitments from other dealerships to locate to the Chula Vista Auto Park if the name change is approved. Mr. Fuller responded that he has no guarantees, but that there is a great deal of interest with the growth in this area. He stated that in the State of California, Toyota has two "open points~, which means that they have a named sited location for a new Toyota dealership; one is an auto park in Indio and the other is Chula Vista. They have indicated to him that they would like to be in Chula Vista, but they feel it is not full~ developed and they are going to see what happens in the future. Chrysler has had their reps visit the auto park and they have conducted market analysis, and believe they will be in the Chula Vista Auto Park in the near future. Furthermore, he has first hand knowledge that the high-end dealerships like, infiniti, Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, would prefer to be in Chula Vista rather than in National City. The demographics, growth and trends are better in Chula Vista and firmly believes that the opportunity exists to have the high-end vehicles present ir~ the auto park in the near future. Ed Wesche, 1012 Acero Street, Chula Vista, Chevrolet, stated he is new in Chula Vista and has been here for 1 year; his two predecessors went out of business at that location. He stated he did not have the historical insight, however, it is his understanding that promises were made, and signage was one of them. Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - Wednesday, October 28, 1998 He stated that the National City Mile of Cars supports 40% of the overhead of that City. Mr. Wesche came from probably the most successful auto park in the State of California which is just outside of Sacramento, Roseville Auto Mall They have approximateiy 22 franchises represented there and sell in excess of 4,000 vehicles per month at retail with gross sales in excess of a billion dollars a year, and they have freeway signage. People who drive by an auto mall exit are not necessarily in the market for a car today, but they might be six months from now; speaking for himself and the other dealers in the auto park, he would like to be considered. Mr. Wesche reaffirmed what Mr. Fuller stated earlier, that Chrysler is definitely interested in locating in Chula Vista, but they would like to see a little more establishment. With the City supporting a name change and with freeway identification, this would be an outstanding message to those dealers who are considering relocating. The amphitheatre, which is a seasonal operation, has signage from the freeway; yet, the auto park is a retail operation that is opened year-round and they do not have signage. Next to payroll, the next largest expense he has is advertizing because he has an awareness problem with people not knowing where they are located, it is not only the car sales he is trying to attract, but also as the only GM dealer in this area, the other back-end operation like servicing center and auto parts department are equally as important and his competition is National City. Walter Fischer, P.O. Box 3666, Chula Vista, CA, member of the Otay Valley Project Area Committee, stated that Mr. Davies suggestion to change the name to Main Street was discussed and the committee agreed that it is probably the least expensive way to go because you could probab]y overlay the new name and not have to go to the larger size sign. In addition, although he does not speak for his employer, he does work for the amphitheatre and it is his opinion that the general consensus is that they are not as concerned with what it is named, but rather, that the education process is not disrupted or shortened. Glenn Davidson, 2052 Otay Valley Road, General Manager Whitewater Canyon Park stated that they too have experienced some location identification problems and recommended that whatever the change is, do it all at one time now rather than incrementally. Whitewater Canyon will have committed themselves by January 1999 to $650,000 worth of advertizing and media for the coming year. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8:00 Commissioner O'Neill stated that he could support having the hyphenated name from 1-805 to Brandywine, and strongly recommends that whatever it is changed to that it be done now, the full length of Otay Valley Road, and not incrementally by phases. Commissioner Thomas concurs with Commissioner O'Neill that it all should be done now, rather than later. If we wait until later, it will be more expensive and there will most likely be more players who have a vested interest in their piece of the pie. Plannin[~ Commission Minutes - 8 - Wednesday, October 28, 1998 Commission Tarantino thanked the speakers for helping him understand the economic issues of this proposal and supports changing it now and be done with it. Commissioner Aguilar echoes and support the statements made by her colleagues. MSC (Aguilar/Ray) that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council: 1. that Otay Valley Road's intersection with Main Street going east to 1-805 be cl~anged to Main Street; 2. that 1-805 going east to Brandywine Avenue be changed to Main Street-Auto Park Drive; 3. that Otay Valley Road's intersection with Brandywine Avenue going east until it turns south over the river be changed to Main Street; and 4. that from where Otay Valley Road turns south and goes over the Otay River that it be renamed Paseo Ranchero to the City limits. RECEIVED November 16, 1998 KIIV 16 P12:01 Ms. Beverly Authelet CITY OF CHULA VISTA Office of the City Clerk CiTY CLERK'S OFFICE City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 SUBJECT: PCM-99-02 Dear Ms. Authelet: I recently received a public hearing notice for November 17, 1998 at which time the City Council will be considering road name changes for portions of Otay Valley Road. The following name changes would be much more logical than the existing situation: A. From Otay Valley Road's intersection with Main Street going east until 1-805 to Main Street. B. From where Otay Valley Road tums south and goes over the Otay River to Paseo Ranchero to the City limits. Thank you for the opportunity of letting me voice my opinion. Respectfully submitted, Linda Bond 1673-G Melrose Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91911 South Bay Auto Wreckers, Inc. 811 Energy Way Chula V~ta, CA 91911 November 17, 1998 City of Chula ~r~sta Attention: City Clerk Re: Street name change. .4 a business owner dkecrly affected by any name change, we request rlmt you choose any appropriate new name for the entire strexch of mad from 805 to the proposed Paseo Ranchero. The proposed change is confusing and totally unwarranteck If the name 'Otay Valley Road' must be changed, we insist that it be changed to one name only. Sincereb', Douglas Kaul Michael S. Kaul O~mers: South Bay Auto Wreckers, Inc. Daytime Phone 619.421.5565 Fax Line 619.421.5673 Nov 1~ ~80l:2Sp ED & VICKY IJESCHE 81G 781 G~L MOTORS ACCEPT.~ CO~O~ON Nov~ ~6, City o~Chu~ V~ ~a Vi~ CA 919~0 cc: Council City Manager Planning Comm Dev