HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Packet 1999/07/13TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1999 COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:00 PoM. PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING
(IMA~EDIATELY FOB.OWING THE CiTY COUNCIL MEETING)
ADJOURNED JOINT MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
~ lq ~ i~-I-]_, : t.]~,'
1. ROLLCALL Agency/CouncilMembers Davis~l, Moot~l, Padilla~l, Sa[asQ, and Chair/MayorHorton~l
(Items )
(Will be voted on immediately following the Council Consem Calendar during the City Council meeting)
The staff recommendations regarding the following item 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
puffed 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 puffed by the public will be the first items of
business.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 8, 1999 (RedevelopmentAgency/City Council)
3. AGENCY APPROPRIATING $38,053 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
~ IN THE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUND FOR THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO COLE) WEATHER SHELTER VOUCHER
PROGRAM AND SPACE RENT FOR SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY
SERVICES-On 6/22/99, Council approved the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) FY 199912000 program agreements. The following two programs were
recommended for funding from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund: 1) the
County of San Diego Cold Weather Shelter Voucher Program in the amount of $8,318;
and 2) a request from South Bay Community Service to fund a portion of their space rent
at 315 Fourth avenue in the amount of $29,735. (Community Development Director)
Staff Recommendation: Agency adopt the resolution. '"'
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._fit 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 follow up action.
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.
AGENDA -2- JULY 13, 1999
4. J)~JBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A 24-BED ADULT RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY
AT 275 F STREET
~4~EN(~:Y DENYING A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A 24-BED ADULT
RESOLUTION 1637 RESIDENTIAL FACILITY AT 275 F STREET-- New Beginnings has requested a
land use permit to allow the establishment of a 24-bed adult residential facility [ARF]
located within the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area. An ARF is a State-
licensed residential facility for the care of mentally ill patients. In accordance with the
Town Centre Redevelopment Plan, the land use is not a permitted use within the
commemial area of the Town Centre Redevelopment Project and, therefore, requires
consideration by the Agency.
Staff Recommendation: Agency adopt the resolution.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 33431, 33433,
AND 33444.6 TO CONSIDER A RELOCATION AGREEMENT WITH
BFGOODRICH AND THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT WHICH
INCLUDES THE SALE OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPERTY AT
350-360 BAY BOULEVARD, INDUSTRIAL FINANCING ASSISTANCE,
AND ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF THE RADOS
COMPANIES' PROPERTY AT 798 F STREET TO BFGOODRICH--The City of
Chela Vista, Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, San Diego Unified Port
District, and BFGoodrich Aerospace Aerestructuras Group have negotiated terms and
conditions of a Relocation Agreement under which certain land transfers will occur which
will facilitate the relocation and consolidation of BFG operations north of the planned H
Street extension in the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area. An Initial Study was
completed for this project which resulted in a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (Community Development Director)
Staff Recommendation: That the Agency/Council hold a public hearing to consider the
merits of the BFG Relocation Agreement which includes the sale of Redevelopment
Agency property and a Resolution of Necessity to commence eminent domain
proceedings to acquire property located at 798 "F" Street. Staff recommends approval of
the resolutions, d./ST", VOTE REOLIIRED ON ITEM S.B. ONLY
a) ~GENCY AUTHORIZIHG THE EXECUTION OF THE RELOCATION
RESOLUTION 1638 AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
COUNCIL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, SAN
RESOLUTION 19542 DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT, AND ROHR, INC. OPERATING AS
BFGOODRICH AEROSPACE AEROSTRUCTURES GROUP, AND
ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-99-21 AND
MAIUNG THE REQUIRED FINDINGS UNDER THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
CODE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
b) AGENCY DETERMINING AND DECLARING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY TO
RESOLUTION 1639 ACQUIRE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 798 "F" STREET,
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA FOR THE BFGOODRICH RELOCATION
PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE COMMENCEMENT OF
CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO ACQUIRE
SAID PROPERTY
AGENDA -3- JULY 13, 1999
The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by the Council,
staff, or members of the general public. The items wdl be considered individually by the Council and staff
recommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out a Request
to Speak form available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
6. AGENCY CONDITIONALLY APPROVING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OF $595,000
RESOLUTION 1640 TO AVALON COMMUNITIES, LLC FOR THE ACQUISITION AND
REHABILITATION OF PEARTREE APARTMENTS--The Agency received e
request from Avalon Communities, LLC to provide financial assistance in the amount of
$595,000 to finance a proposed acquisition and rehabilitation project involving a 119 unit
family apartment complex known as Peartree Apartments located at 1025 Broadway.
Avalon is proposing to improve the units and provide quality housing and long-term
affordability to families who are at or under 50% of the area median income. Staff is
recommending that the Agency conditionally approve the resolution as a preliminary
action that is necessary in order for Avalon to submit an application to the State Tax
Credit Allocation Committee for a tax credit allocation which will be used to substantially
finance the estimated $10 million dollar project. (Community Development Director)
Staff Recommendation: Agency/Council adopt the resolutions.
,~, d: I :l :i :l[g~l I: I ~-'~
7. DIRECTOR'S REPORT(S)
8. CHAIR(S)
9. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS
The meeting will adjourn to a closed session and thence to the Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting on July 20, 1999 at
6:00 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, in the City Council Chambers.
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 prote~t 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.
AGENDA -4- JULY 13, 1999
10. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR --Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: Assessor Parcel Nos. 565-310-09; 565-310-25 (approximately 6.35 acres located at the
northwest corner of I-5 and E Street)
Negotiating Parties: Redevelopment Agency (Chris Salomone) and City of San Diego
Under Negotiations: Price and terms for disposition
Under Negotiations: Price and terms for disposition/acquisition
11. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING ANTICIPATED LITIGATION-Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(b).
Contemplated use of eminent domain by the City of San Diego (Metropolitan Waste Water Department or its affiliates) to
acquire Agency owned property.
12. 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 Negotiations: Purchase/lease terms and conditions
13. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(c), Initiation of Litigation
One case.
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AND THE, CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
June 8, 1999 6:00 P.M.
An Adjourned M~eting of the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
was called to order at 8:30 p.m., immediately following the City Council meeting, 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 Members Davis, Moot, Salas and Chair/Mayor Horton
-~ ABSENT: Agency/Council Member Padilla
ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Rowla,nds, Agency/City Attorney
Kaheny, City Clerk Bigelow
CONSENT CgrL-END AR
(Items 2 - 3)
2. AGENCY RESOLUTION 1627 AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 19477, AUTHORIZING
THE DISSOLUTION OFT HE OTAY VALLEY ROAD PROJECT COMMITTEE (PAC)
AND ESTABLISHING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS THE RECOMMENDING
BODY TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR PROJECT
LOCATED WITHIN THE OTAY VALLEY ROAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AREA
At their meeting of May 25, 1999, the Agency/Council reviewed staff recommendations
regarding a variety of Boards and Commissions to determine if any should be consolidated
or eliminated as part of the ongoing effort to streamline City operations and increase staff
efficiency. The Agency/Council requested that staff' return with a resolution dissolving the
Otay Valley Road Project Area Committee (Community Development Director).
Staff recommendation: The Agency/Council adopt the resolution.
3.A. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 19478, TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS OF $578,000
OF TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX FUNDS FROM THE MAIN STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (ST-961) TO PROJECT ST-964 (E STREET
RECONSTRUCTION (4/STH' S VOTE REQUIRED)
' B. COUNCIL RESOLUTION 19479, ACCEPTING BDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT
FOR THE "E STREET RECONSTRUCTION, FROM INTERSTATE-5 TO BROADWAY,
IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA (ST964)" PROJECT TO SCHEIDEL
, CONTRACTING & ENGINEERING, LA MESA, CA, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,379,820
(4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED)
CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued)
C. AGENCYRESOLUTION 1628, APPROPRIATING $30,000 FROM THE OTAY VALLEY
ROAD PROJECT FUND TO THE BAYFRONT PROJECT FUND AS A PARTIAL LOAN
REPAYMENT AND TRANSFERRING FUNDS TO THE PROJECT ST964 (4/5TH'S
VOTE REQUIRED)
On May 5, 1999, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the "E Street
Reconstruction, from Interstate 5 to Broadway" project. The general scope of the project
involves the reconstruction of the existing pavement and the installation of storm drain
facilities. (Director of Public Works)
Staff recommendation: The Agency/Council adopt the resolutions.
ACTION: Chair/Mayor Horton moved to approve staff recommendations and offered the
Consent Calendar, headings read, texts waived. The motion carried 4-0.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, Chula Vista, questioned why items were being approved when
votes were not in from all the cities.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
4. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ALLOWING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
COMBINATION ANTIQUE/VINTAGE GOOD GiFT SHOP AT 329 THIRD AVENUE
TO BE KNOWN AS RHUBARB ROAD
AGENCY RESOLUTION 1629, APPROVING LAND USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMBINATION ANTIQUE/VINTAGE GOODS AND GIFT
SHOP AT 329 THIRD AVENUE TO BE KNOWN AS RHUBARB ROAD SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS
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.
Chair/Mayor Horton opened the public hearing and asked if anyone from the audience wished to
speak. There was no response, and she closed the hearing.
ACTION: Agency/Council Member Moot offered Agency Resolution No. 1629, approving land
use permit to allow establishment of a combination antique/vintage goods and giR
shop at 329 Third Avenue to be known as Rhubarb Road, subject to conditions,
heading read, text waived. The motion carried 4-0.
Page 2 - RDA/Council ~ --~ 06/08/99
OTHER BUSINESS
5. DIRECTOR'S/CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
There was none.
6. CHAIR'S/MAYOR'S REPORT
There was none.
7. A '
GENCY/COUNCIL MEMBERS COMMENTS
There were none.
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~
Closed Session was canceled.
ADJOURNMENT:
At 8:37 p.m., Chair/Mayor Horton adjourned the meeting to an Adjourned Meeting of the
Redevelopment Agency to be held on June 22, 1999 at 6:00 p.m., immediately following the City
Council meeting, in the Council Chambers.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Bigelow, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
Page 3 ~ Pti)A/Council ~ - 3 06/08/99
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE 07/13/99
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION /~' 'j ~' APPROPRIATING $38,053 FROM THE
UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE IN THE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
HOUSING FUND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO COLD WEATHER
SHELTER VOUCHER PROGRAM AND SPACE RENT FOR SOUTH BAY
COMMUNITY SERVICES
SUBMII'rED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIR~ ~--~
On June 22, 1999 the City Council adopted Resolution 19497 approving the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program agreements for fiscal year 1999-00. Outlined in the staff report were two programs being recommended
for funding from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. The first program recommended for Low/Mod funding is
the County of San Diego Cold Weather Shelter Voucher Program in the amount of $8,318. The second program is a
request from South Bay Community Services to fund a portion of their space rent for 315 Fourth Avenue in the amount of
$29,735.
That the Redevelopment Agency approve the resolution appropriating $38,053 from the unappropriated balance in the Low
and Moderate Income Housing fund for the County of San Diego Cold Weather Shelter program and office rent for South
Bay Community Services.
Not Applicable.
As previously discussed, staff has recommended funding two programs from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund
previously approved for CDBG funding. The first program is the County of San Diego Cold Weather Shelter Voucher
Program in the amount of $8,318. This program provides hotel/motel vouchers for homeless families in the City of Chula
Vista during the severe winter months beginning in November and ending in March. Last fiscal year over 71 vouchers
were provided to families. The Cold Weather Shelter Voucher Program is a county-wide effort to provide much needed
shelter to homeless families and a large majority of the cities participate in this program. Upon Redevelopment Agency
approval this will mark the third consecutive year Chula Vista has participated in this program at the recommended level of
funding. Staff recommends appropriating $8,318 from the unappropriated balance in the Low and Moderate Income
Housing fund for this program.
The second program is to pay South Bay Community Services (SBCS) space rent in the amount of $29,735. As a legally
recognized Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO), SBCS is eligible to receive both Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME program funding. SBCS has applied for both CDBG and HOME funding
since 1995 in the amount of $61,200 to pay their space rent at the El Dorado Building located at 315 Fourth Avenue. Last
PAGE ~',, ITEM
MEETING DATE 07/1
year funds were budgeted from both CDBG and HOME program funds in the amount of $71,885. The increase was due to
South Bay Community Services request to rent additional office space for their expanding programs.
This request was originally budgeted under the Administration portion of the CDBG budget. However, it was determined
by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that the program should be budgeted in the Public
Services category of the CDBG budget. It has always been the desire of SBCS that this request not compete for Public
Services funding. Therefore, staff recommends appropriating $29,735 from the unappropriated balance in the Low and
Moderate Income Housing fund for this program which has been determined to be an eligible expenditure under the Health
and Safety Code. The balance of $42,150 is budgeted in the HOME program budget previously approved by Council.
Funds in the amount of $38,053 are available in the unappropriated balance of the Low and Moderate Income Housing
Fund which currently has a balance of approximately $4.5 million. The $38,053 in appropriated funds will be transferred
into the f~scal year 1999-00 Low and Moderate Income Housing budget account 993-9930-5201. Funding for these
programs will not impact other projects anticipated to be funded from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund.
RESOLUTION NO. /'~ 3 (~
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROPRIATING $38,053 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE IN
THE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUND FOR THE COUNTY OF
SAN DIEGO COLD WEATHER SHELTER VOUCHER PROGRAM AND SPACE
RENT FOR SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES
WHEREAS, on June 22, 1999 Council approved resolution 19497 approving the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) program agreements for fiscal year 1999-00 and;
WHEREAS, incorporated within the June 22, 1999 staff report was a recommendation to fund the
County of San Diego Cold Weather Shelter Voucher Program and space rent for South Bay Community Servia;es from
the unappropriated balance in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Sections 33334.3(e)(1)(B) and 33334.2(E)(8)of the Health and Safety Code,
Low and Moderate Income Housing funds can be used to support funding for the County of San Diego Cold Weather
Shelter program and space rent for South Bay Community Services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista does
hereby approve the resolution appropriating $38,053 from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund for the County
of San Diego Cold Weather Shelter Voucher program in the amount of $8,318 and space rent for South Bay Community
Services in the amount of $29,735.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said funds shall be transferred into the fiscal year 1999-00
Housing Division budget Professional Services account 993-9930-5201.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Chds Salomone
Director of Community Development
[(JEA) H:\HOME\COMMDEV~RESOS/SBCS.BUD (July 8, 1999 (9:37AM)1
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM NO. 4
MEETING DATE 07/13/99
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A 24-BED ADULT RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY AT 275 F STREET
RESOLUTION /~' '~ '~ DENYING A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A
24-BED ADULT RESIDENTIAL FACILITY AT 275 F STREET
SUBMII'rED BY; COMMUNITY DEVELOPME,~.~ECTOR L.t~L-C~.-t~
Y._ Nox,
New Beginnings has requested a land use permit to allow the establishment of a 24 bed adult residential facility at 275 F
Street located within the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project Area. The proposed use is an adult residential facility and
requires a State license. According to the applicant's description of the proposed facility, it will constitute a home for
residents; but, it will be similar in nature to a hospital, since doctors will make regular visits. Thus, the proposed use is a
hybrid that includes similarities to residential and hospital type facilities. This land use is not a permitted use within the
commercial area of the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project; therefore, in accordance with the Town Centre I
Redevelopment Plan, the proposal requires consideration by the Redevelopment Agency. The proposal is exempt from
environmental review under section 15303(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act (less than 36 beds).
The following staff report provides a land use analysis and a recommendation that the Redevelopment Agency deny the
applicant's request based on certain findings included in the following staff report. (If the Redevelopment Agency believes
that the proposed use is appropriate, the applicant will be required to process the necessary plans and associated
applications.)
That the Redevelopment Agency:
1. Hold a public hearing and take public testimony; and,
2. Adopt a resolution denying the applicant's request based on findings listed therein.
On March 17, 1999, the Town Centre Project Area Committee voted 6-0 to recommend that the Redevelopment Agency
deny the applicant's request to establish a 24 bed adult residential facility at 275 F Street based on certain findings (stated
in following staff report).
4-/
PAGE 2, ITEM
MEETING DATE 07/13/99
The applicant's request entails the establishment of a twenty-four bed adult residential facility in an existing commercial
building located at 275 F Street (northeast corner of F Street and Church Avenue) (See Exhibit A, Iocator map). Physically,
the facility is planned to house twenty-two private rooms and two semi-private rooms; a kitchen; and dining, laundry,
medication, and recreation rooms. Two offices and doctor's consulting rooms are also planned.
According to the applicant, "an adult residential facility is a place where doctors and/or social workers place clients
(between the ages of 18 and 59) after they have met all criteria in a locked, long-term mental facility. Most clients are not
capable of returning to their homes due to their mental instability and their lack of knowing how to deal with main stream
society. The clients are generally under heavy medications and are placed in an "ARF" (Adult Residential Facility)."
The applicant indicates further, that the clients, while in the adult residential facility, learn to adjust to an unlocked facility
and are taught skills for employment and how to care for themselves including when and how to take their medications.
The goal of the facility is to advance the client to a level of independent living. Doctors visit the facility and a doctor sees
most clients every two weeks on the weekly clinic day. Also, clients may be under conservators which would involve social
workers.
Adult residential facilities are governed by the State of California Code of Regulations, Title 22 (Licensing of Community
Care Facilities). Under the State's regulations, "an 'Adult Residential Facility' means any facility of any capacity which
provides 24-hour a day non-medical care and supervision to adults except elderly persons." The Chula Vista Municipal
Code Section 19.04.110 defines Hospital as an institution in which patients are given medical or surgical care and which is
licensed by the State to use the title" hospital" without qualifying descriptive words.
Land Use Desiqnation
The Town Centre I Redevelopment land use designation for the site is central commercial. This land use designation
allows a mixture of commercial uses, including but not limited to retail, office, hotel, service, entertainment, educational,
and auxiliary uses. "The Redevelopment Agency, on special request, may allow residential development in the central
commercial area, provided that the proposed residential development is compatible with surrounding areas and manifests
adequate internal residential order and amen¥." To establish the proposed hybrid medical-residential land use at 275 F
Street, a special land use permit from the Redevelopment Agency is required for the residential aspect of the project. The
Redevelopment Plan is silent regarding hospital uses; therefore, the Municipal Code is used for guidance. Section
19.54.020 of the Municipal Code which references Unclassified Uses (copy attached as Exhibit "E") includes hospitals as a
conditional use. The requirement for a land use permit for both the residential and the hospital aspects of the proposed
use is consistent. (For informational purposes, the City Zone underlying the Redevelopment plan commercial land use
designation is Commercial Office.)
Copies of the applicant's letter of request, staff schedule, prQposed rules and procedures, and letters of reference have
been included as Exhibit B, for your information.
Analysis
The existing building at 275 F Street is one story. It is approximately 5500 sq. ft. and located on a site that is about 13,000
sq. ft. in land area. The property is located directly on F Street about 300 ft. from the intersection of Third Avenue and F
Street, the main and central intersection of the Downtown commercial district. Adjacent land uses include a financial
institution across Church Avenue to the west, business and professional offices to the north and east, and the
1 Excerpt from Town Centre Redevelopment Plan Section 600.2
PAGE 3, ITEM
MEETING DATE 07/13/99
Congregational Church and Norman Park Senior Center across F Street to the south. (See Exhibit C - Land Use
designation map.)
Generally, Church Avenue to the north of F Street has been transitioning from older, small-lot single family homes to
business and professional offices which contribute to the economic viability of the Town Centre Redevelopment Project by
conducting business in the commercial district. These businesses provide a significant employee base and, importantly, a
customer base to the commercial establishments in the Downtown area. Del Mar Avenue, the next street to the east and
parallel to Church Avenue is a residential neighborhood with small single and multi-family homes whose residents also
help support the Downtown commercial district.
The Congregational Towers, a H.U.D sponsored residential high-rise building for senior citizens, is located south and west
of the proposed project site. This multi-tenant building provides individual apartment units for seniors. And, though these
residents are on limited income, they are self-sufficient and spend a significant amount of their income in the Downtown
area, which contributes to the suppod of the Downtown businesses and restaurants.
Recently, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency adopted a "Vision" statement for the Downtown to further focus
and reinforce the Town Centre Redevelopment Plan goal and objectives. This statement also is consistent with the Town
Centre Project Area Committee's (TCPAC) adopted land use policy for the Town Centre. All three documents define the
Town Centre or Downtown area as a commercial focus for the community. (Copies of the goal and objectives, Downtown
Vision Statement, and TCPAC land use policy are attached as Exhibit "D".)
The location of the proposed project is a visible and viable commercial site. From a land use aspect, the highest and best
use of the site to effectuate the goal of the Town Centre Project would be to intensify the retail or professional commercial
potential of the property. Creation of a higher density commercial development would be in keeping with the stated goal
and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan, Downtown Vision Statement, and land use policy.
Based on the attached application and testimonials, it is apparent that the applicant has been successful in operating the
proposed type of residential care facility. Although there may be a need within the community for the proposed use, staff
does not believe the subject site is appropriate.
Based on the analysis, it is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency adopt the following findings and deny the
applicants request.
Based upon Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19, there are four findings which must be made to approve the proposed
use. Review of the project proposal indicates the following three findings cannot be made:
Findings
A. The proposed use at the particular location is not necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which
will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community.
An adult residential facility at an appropriate location in the City may provide a necessary or desirable service or facility to
the community; however, at the proposed location, the residential use would preclude commercial development on a
commercially viable property within the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project. The objectives of the Town Centre I
Redevelopment Plan include the strengthening of the mercantile posture and the improvement of the retail trade therein,
the establishment as the South Bay's principal center for specialty goods and services, and the reorientation of the people
of Chula Vista to their core area.
PAGE 4, ITEM
MEETING DATE 07/13/99
The proposed adult care facility requires an inward focus on the needs of its clients, The applicant states that their
clientele generally require heavy medication and lack the knowledge of how to deal with mainstream society. The goal of
the redevelopment project is to revitalize the Town Centre area as the commercial-civic focus of the City. While all
residents are encouraged to share in this experience, not all uses are conducive to accomplishing these objectives. This
use, while necessary and laudable in purpose, would not meet the objectives of the Town Centre I Redevelopment Project.
B. The proposed use will not comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the Municipal Code and
the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan for such use.
The proposed use does not comply with the intent of the Town Centre Redevelopment Plan and the adopted Downtown
Vision Statement to revitalize the Town Centre area as the commercial-civic focus of the City and will preclude commercial
development on a commercially viable parcel. In areas designated "central commercial," the Town Centre Redevelopment
Plan allows a mixture of commercial uses such as retail, office, and entertainment toward meeting the Project's
revitalization goals.
C. Granting the requested special use permit Mil adversely affect the General Plan of the City or the adopted
plan of any governmental agency.
The proposed use is inconsistent with the goal of the Town Centre Redevelopment Plan, the Downtown Vision Statement,
and Town Centre Project Area Committee land use policy which call for the revitalization of the Town Centre and
Downtown as a commercial district. Granting a special use permit for the proposed use will reduce the effectiveness of the
land use provisions of those documents.
Denial of the applicant's request for a special land use permit will not impact the fiscal status of the Town Centre
Redevelopment Project.
H:\H OME\COMMDEV~STAFF.RE P\07-13-99~275 F STREET3.doc
RESOLUTION /"& "~ ?
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA DENYING A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A 24
BED ADULT RESIDENTIAL FACILITY AT 275 F STREET
WHEREAS, Ms. Barbara Nelson has requested a special land use permit to allow the
establishment of a 24 bed adult residential facility at 275 F Street located within the Town Centre
Redevelopment Project Area; and,
WHEREAS, on March 17, 1999, the Town Centre Project Area committee held a duly
noticed public hearing on the subject special land use permit application, considered information
presented, and subsequently voted 6-0 to recommend that the Redevelopment Agency deny the
applicant's request based on certain findings; and,
WHEREAS, on April 20, 1999, the Redevelopment Agency continued to a dated uncertain a
duly noticed public hearing on the subject special land use permit application; and,
WHEREAS, on July 13, 1999, the Redevelopment Agency he~d a duly noticed public hearing
on the subject Special Land Use permit application and considered information presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby deny the request to establish a twenty-four bed adult residential facility at
275 F Street in accordance with the following findings:
A. The proposed use at the particular location is not necessary or desirable to provide a
service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or
the community.
An adult residential facility at an appropriate location in the City may provide a necessary or
desirable service or facility to the community; however, at the proposed location the residential
use would preclude commercial development on a commercially viable property within the Town
Centre I Redevelopment Project. The objectives of the Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan
include the strengthening of the mercantile posture and the improvement of the retail trade
therein, the establishment as the South Bay's principal center for specialty goods and services,
and the reorientation of the people of Chula Vista to their core area.
The proposed adult care facility requires an inward focus on the needs of its clients. The
applicant states that their clientele generally require heavy medication and lack the knowledge of
how to deal with mainstream society. The goal of the redevelopment project is to revitalize the
Town Centre area as the commercial-civic focus of the City. While all residents are encouraged
to share in this experience, not all uses are conducive to accomplishing these objectives. This
use, while necessary and laudable in purpose, would not meet the objectives of the Town Centre
I Redevelopment Project.
B. The proposed use will not comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the
Municipal Code and Town Centre I Redevelopment Plan for such use.
The proposed use does not comply with the intent of the Town Centre Redevelopment Plan and
the adopted Downtown Vision Statement to revitalize the Town Centre area as the commercial-
civic focus of the City and will preclude commercial development on a commercially viable
parcel. In areas des'gnated 'central commerc'al,' the Town Centre Redevelopment Plan allows
a mixture of commercial uses such as retail, office, and entertainment toward meeting the
Project's revitalization goals.
C. Granting the requested special use permit will adversely affect the General Plan of the
City or the adopted plan of any governmental agency.
The proposed use is inconsistent with the goal of the Town Centre Redevelopment Plan, the
Downtown Vision Statement, and Town Centre Project Area Committee land use policy which
call for the revitalization of the Town Centre and Downtown as a commercial district. Granting a
special use permit for the proposed use will reduce the effectiveness of the land use provisions
of those documents.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
Director of Community Development Agency Attorney
H:\HOME\COMMDEV~RESOS~275 F St.doc
City of Chula Vista Town ~--~'¢A,~/~-/I ~
Redevelopment Areas Centre I -"~t~,~,,8,g0
SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION
CiE, of Chula Vista COMMUNITY 0EV[-~d~tENr ] Case No'
PNnMng Depmtment [ I | rmng Date:
, - | | Receipt #: '
. } | [] Z.A. [] PAC'
This form shall be used for projects wiflfin l~d:v=luymci,t ,u~ wldch are subject to processing
tkrough the Redevelopment Agency, in lieu of the Conditional Use Permit application form.
M~iiing Address: /m~c774f ~~z.( Work Phone: ~[~,- ~ ~ ~ r~
Appl/cant's Interest: [DOwn ~Lease []In Escrow [DOption to purchase
Redevelopment Area: Town Centre I ~' Town Centre II __ Bayfront
Southwest __ Otay Valley __
Project Address & Location'
Legal Description of Site:,,~ 3~,
of
ALL LETTERS, PLANS, ELEVATIONS, AND SHEETS SUBMITTED WITH TH/S
APPLICATION ARE AN INTEGRAL PART THEREOF.
Print Name of Applicant/Agent Si~ature / ' Date
t
Not:: In order for a Special Land Usc Permit to b~ grained, lh~ foUowlng findings must be rmade:
pc~ons residing or working in ~c vicinity, or injurio~ m pmpcn7 or improvcmcnm in the viciniv.
plau of any govcrarncnud agency. ~/__~
Ty¥eC°f Project:~Residential ~comm'l ~Industrial ~-~Other
' ' ' (Explain)
Project Location: ~7 ~ ~ 5~-~
Project ~ea: ~53~ sq. ft. .acres
RESIDENTIAL:
Number Density ! BR 2 BR 13+
BR
Apartments __Units du's/acre
Single Family Attached __Units du's/acre
Other Units du's/acre
PARKING Total on-site: I~ Total on-street: %- Total: I7
Ratio per unit. Garages Carports Open
Open Space .sq. ft.'/unit. Patios sq.'ft. Balconies sq. ft.
Storage ~eas cu.ft./unit Total Bldg Coverage %
NON-RESiDENTIAL:
Hours of Operation~"~/~. to p.m. ? ~_~/~
thru
__a.m. to P.m. thru
Number of Shifts: _~ Employees/Shift.~-/~-/ Total Employees: ~
Gross Floor Area: Existing: ~3~ .sq.ft. Proposed: ~F3 sq.ft.
Seating Capacity Number of students/Children
If applicable When applicable
Building Coverage ~5 % Landscaping. ~ % of the site
NOTE:
FAILURE ~0 USE A PERMIT - Failure to use a conditional use permit within one (1) year after
the effective date ~hereof shall make said permit null and void. However, the Planning
Commission or Zoning Administrator may grant an extension of time if requested by the
applicant, provided no changes have occurred that would affect the original findings which
justified the approval. The permit is considered to have been used if the applicant has
completed the project or spent substantial money toward construction of the project, but if
work stops for th_tee (3) months after starting and one(l) year has pass~d, said permit
becomes null and void.
TP~bNSFER OF PERMIT TO FU~N3RE OWNERS - Unless the conditions of approval specify ~hat the
permit cannot be transferred, the permit applies to the property and is transferable to
future owners, provided the permit has not become null and void. The new owner may request
an extension if the permit is still valid. ~! ~
7
.., THE CITY OF CHUI..A VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
'You arc required to file a Statcmcnl of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial mterests,;paymcnts, or campaign
contributions, on all matters which will rcquirc discretionary action on thc parl of thc City Council, Planning Commission, and
all olher official bodies. The following informalion must be disclose, gl:
1. last the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject 'of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicmnt, ?mractor, subcontractor, material supplier·
/
2. If any person* identified'pursuant Io (1) above La a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning
more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any parmer~hip interest in Ihe partnership.
3. If any person* identifi~:d pursuant to (1) :above is hon-profit organization or a Irust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or truslor of the trust.
4. Have you had more than S250 worth of business w, insactcd with any member of thc City staff, Boards, Commissions,
Committee-<:, and Council within the pasl twelve months.'? Yes No.~/' If yea, please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each find every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who
you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter·
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggre~a~, contributed more than :$1,000 to a Councltmember in the
current or preceding election period.'? Ye.i__ No ,,~ If yes, state whi.ch Councilmember(s):
* * * (NOTE: Attach additional pa~s as ne'r't~ry)
SignaJure of contractor/applicant
/ Print or type name of contractor/applicant
· per'st~, is deft.cd ar: 'Arty btd~,.id~al, tint. co.parmerzMp, joint vouurc, tuzociatio~ social clul~, fraternal orga~izatio~t corporatiot~ astat~
~ arid troy otis' courtly, thy mM cowuo; city ms~ticipalio; dizm'cg or otI~cr political .~ul~d~,isiot~ or
May 4, 1998
City of Chuta Vista
Community Development Dep.
Atto: Pamela R. Buchan, Development Specialist
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula vista, Ca. 91910
Re: Adult Residential Care Facility
New Beginnings
Adult Residential Care Facility
275 "F" street
Chula Vista, Ca. 91910
Barbara J. Nelson, Administrator
Dear Ms. Buchan,
An adult 15,esidential Facility, (ages 18-59) is a place where doctors and/
or social workers place clients after they have met all criteira in a locked long
term mental facility. Most all clients are not capable of returning to their
homes due to their mental unstability and their lack of knowing how to deal
with main stream society. The clients are generally under heavy medications
and are placed in an "ARF" (Adult Residential Facility).
Once there, they learn to adjust to an unlocked facility. They are taught
how to care for themselves, which includes everything from when and how to
take their medications to learning skills for employment. Some clients stay
for several years and some stay only a few months depending on their
individual advancement level. Our goal is to help them advance to a level of
independent living.
Our facility is visited by doctors, which is concidered clinic day, because
most clients are seen by doctors every two weeks. We do also have clients
that are on conservatorship, gravely ill and cannot make decisions for
themselves, so for these clients a conservator is appointed by the courts to 'be
in charge, generally it is their social worker. For these clients the
conservator chooses their doctors.
The facility is owned by Dr. Y. Kushnir. I will be leasing the property.
We will have twenty private rooms and two semi-private rooms for a total of
24 beds. The building will be equipted with a kitchen. It will also have
dinning , laundry, medication, recreation, rooms and a doctor consulting
room. There will be two offices, one general and one private office on the
premises.
All "ARF" facilities are governed by Community Care Licensing and Title
Twenty Two.
Sincerely,
Barbara J,/Nelson
New Beginings
Residential care facility
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
STAFF SCHEDULE
morning shift
1st person - 7:00a.m. - 3:30p.m.
2nd person - 8:00a.m. - 4:00p.m.
late afternoon
1st person - 4:00p.m. - 12:a.m.
2nd person - 4:30p.m. ~ 8:30p.m.
one person - 12:00a.m. - 8:00a.m.
Administrator - varied hours (24 hours on call)
Administrative assistant - 9:00a.m. - 5:00p.m.
Housekeeper - 8:00a.m. - 12:00p.m.
Cook (split shift) - 6:30a.m. - 10:30a.m.
3:30p.m. - 7:30p.m.
Activities Director - Varied hours
*weekend relief staff for saturdays and sundays same hours as
above*
NEW BEGINNINGS
ADULT RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY
275 "F" STREET
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910
"RULES AND PROCEDURES"
Welcome to NEW BEGINNINGS Adult Residential Care Facility. For the mutual benefit of
maintaining peace and harmony within our facility, this manual sets forth general guidelines to be
followed in a day - to - day operation. It does not cover every incident, nor does it answer every
question about NEW BEGINNINGS policies. Management will be available 24 hours a day to
answer any questions you may have.
Rules and Procedures is made a part of your rental agreement. Read this mahual thoroughly and
completely since you are held responsible for compliance to NEW BEGIlqNINGS Rules and
Regulations.
INDEX
#1.Daily Schedule //8. Telephone Calls
g2.Rules of Conduct gg. Visitors/Guests
#3.Cleanliness #10.ClinicfHeulth
#4.Inspections #11.Medications
#$.Laundry/Linen #12.Banking
#6.Meeting #13.Activities
#7.Coffee
#1 Daily Schedule
Morning
Wake up ................................... ~ ........................................ 7:00 to 7:15am
Breakfast / Medications. (Mon-Fri) ..................................... 7:30 to 8:00 am
(Sat -Sun) .................................... 7:30 to 8:00 am
Room clean up ........................................................................... 9:30 am
Coffee: When all Meds are taken and clean up is finished.
Banking (Mom to Fri.) ................................................... 9:00 to 11:00 am
(Sat.-Sun.) ...................................................... 10:00 to I1:00 am
Lunch / Medications ................................................... 11:30 to 12:00 Noon
Afternoon
Planned Activities ........ ~ ................................ am & pm (Mon thru Sun)
Dinner ! Medications ......................................................... 4:30 to 5:00 pm
Evening
Coffee will be served when all Meds are taken and Staff is finished in the
dinning hall.
Snacks ! Medication .................................................................. 8:00 pm
Bedroom lights out, radio & T.V. sound is limited to the person listening
only ........................................................................................ 10:00 pm
Dayroom closes and all T.V. & radios off. ........................ 12:00 Midnight
g'2 RULES OF CONDUCT
For the mutual benefit and maintenance of safety, peace and harmony within our
facility, any one of the following behaviors/actions are grounds for immediate
eviction:
#1.Destruction of property.
g2.Possession or use of alcohol, drugs, or weapons
g3.Refusal to take prescribed medications
g4.Refusal to obey board and care rules and regulations.
g5.Trespassing Entering any other unit, bedroom or living room
other than your own, without being escorted by a person from that unit.
#&Unruly behavior quarreling or fighting.
g7.Loud music, noise or Obscene language.
g8.Gambling.
#9.Inciting, provoking or instigating any kind of conflict.
#10.Threatening any resident / staff mentally or physically
gl 1.Violation of any federal, state or local law or ordinance
#12.Nuisance Anything which is injurious,indecent or offensive to
yourself or to others.
Community Care Facility Regulations provides that you may be evicted in
three (3)days if you engage in behavior which is a threat to the mental and/or
physical health and safety to yourself or to others in this facility.
(Title 22 Cai Code of Regulations. Section 85068.5 (b) (2) ,Code of Civil
Procedure, Section 1161.4 Health and Safety Code, Section 1530) Also see your
Rental Agreement., Section 5(b)
As a Condition of our Rental Agreement: I agree not to become involved in
any of the above mentioned behavior/actions in whole or part and to fully comply
with all other rules that may be posted from time to time. I clearly understand that
I may be evicted for violation of NEW BEGINNINGS Rules or Regulations.
Date Resident Counselor
#3 Rules and Procedures
gl. Cleanliness: Keep your room and person clean and free from offensive odors,litter and
disorder, ie. Bath each and every day, wear only clean clothes, use only clean linen and keep your
living room, bathroom and bedroom clean and neaC
g2.lnspections: There is a household inspection of your unit once each week. The day of the
inspection is determined by which unit you ~tre living in. All Residents are required to participate in
cleanup and inspections.
#3.Laundry/Linen: A washer, dryer and laundry soap are provided to you on the property for
your use. Wash, dry, fold neatly and hang up your clothing. Change your linen Monday morning
after breakfast. Place dirty linen outside of the dinning hall patio for cleaning.
g4. Meetings: NEW BEGINNINGS holds a meeting every Monday afternoon from 12:30 pm to
lpm in the dayroorm All Residents must attend this meeting.
gS. Coffee is served in the dayroom area to .residents every day. Coffee is a privilege which can
be temporarily suspended for disciplinary reasons. No coffee will be served until all meds have
been taken and cleanup has been finished. For times see gl.Daily Schedule.
#6. Phone Calls: NEW BEGINNINGS telephone is available for you to mal~e two (2) phone
calls each shift. Telephone hours are 9:30 am to Il:am &l I:00 to 2:00 pm & 6:00 to 7:00 pm. If
you need to make additional phone calls at other times exceptions may be made for a bonafide
urgency.
#7. Visitors/Guests: Your visitors are not allowed in any units at all. You must visit with your
guest in the dayroom or outside own areas. You must check in before visiting.
g8. Clinic/Health: For medical concerns that are not emergencies, he following arrangements
have been made for your convenience: Dr. Knslmir (Psychiatrist) is here every other Friday
afternoon from 12:30 pm until finished. We also have a Foot Doctor,Eye Doctor and Medical
Doctor (Dr. Graham) here every three months. However, you must immediately bring to the.
attention of Staff "Any medical problems or concerns that may arise.
g9. Medications: must be taken as prescribed by your doctor any possession/use of unauthorized
medications or re~ to take prescribed medications are grounds for an immediate
eviction (see,g2 Rules of Conduct)
g10. Banking: NEW BEGINNINGS can hold money for you. You can withdraw cash from
your account Monday - Friday 9 -1 lam. Plan your money aoco~ing to your needs'as you can
withdraw money during these hours only Sat, Sun and Holidays 10 to 11arm
gll. Activities: NEW BEGINNINGS provides reereafion and activities for your enjoyment and
for serf actualizing human potential. Activities are initiated from residents proposals. You are
required to aRend at least two activities each week. We have activities morning and evening and also
on the weekends.
AGREEM E NT
I have read and understand this document. I have received a copy of NEW BEGINNINGS Rules
and Procedures #1 through #11 herein set forth and made a part of out rental agreement. As a
condition of our rental agreement, I agree to cooperate fully with all niles and procedures of this
facility.
DATE RESIDENT COUNSELOR
4-/7
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
May 1, 1998
TO: To Whom It May Concern
FROM: Robert Daren, LC..,SV~';~Vlental Health Case Management Clinician
RE: Barbara Nelson
As a Social worker serving the severely mentally ill, I have never known of a residential care
facility that better served clients than the one managed by Barbara Nelson. Barbara exercises
excellent judgement in providing a caring but disciplined environment as well a maintaining
close working relationships with service providers who serve mutual clients. Client needs are
always the determining factor in policy decisions. Whether it be the food, the .staff she
chooses, the cleanliness and orderliness of the surroundings or the caring expressed in so
many ways by her management, there is no comparison of the quality of care Barbara provides
and expects, and the care and quality in any other facilities known to me.
4-2_3
Bayview Hospital & Mental Health System
330 Moss S[¢eet
Telephene: (619) 426-6310
Fax: (6~9i 476-0685
May 4, 1998
To Whom It May Concern:
Working with the mentally ill is both a challenging and unique occupation which
requires someone with very specialized skills. Few people can effectively
operate a residential care facility and even fewer excel at this task Within the
past few years we have had the pleasant opportunity and great pleasure to work
closely with such an individual, Barbara Nelson. Barbara has earned herself an
outstanding reputation in the community of being a being a care provider who not
only gives the highest quality of care, but also sets the standard for the industry.
Barbara has been the administrator of a large residential care home for many
years, and allowing her to open the proposed home would be a great service to
our community. Bayview Hospital & Mental Health System is in full support of
Barbara Nels. on's application for opening a residential facility, and we are excited
to potentially'have such a dynamic person continuing to provide such high quality
services to this special and deserving population.
Sincerely,
Roy Rodriguez
CEO/Administrator
ROBERT D* ROSS, M.D. PUBLIC CONSERVATOR
DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 0950 Levant $~ree~
San D~eg~. CA 921 ~ ~-6098
JEAN SHEPARD MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES (6~9) 694-5447
ASSISTANT D[RECTOR FAX ~ 694-51 ] 3
April 30, 1998
TO: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
FROM: Ruth Singer, MEW/BCD
RE: Barbara Nelson
I have been working with the mentally ill people for over 20 years as a social worker in the:
San Diego County Department of Social Services. For ten of these years it has been my
pleasure to be in~'olved closely with Barbara Nelson, the Director of Casa Wil Char Board
and Care facility.
She is an extraordinary individual, very capable, thoughtful, energetic, skillful, and patient
but firm. She makes sure her clients, staff and the community get the best quality of service
and attention. She has managed superbly a 40+ bed facility to the satisfaction of clients,
their families, and the medical and psychiatric staff. The closing of Casa Wil Char was a
great loss to all.
Frankly, if my colleagues and t could choose any placement, it woutd be Barbara Nelson's
place. Her reputation for providing all-around quality care and supervision is unequaled.
Sincerely,
Ruth E. Singer, MEW/BCD
Case Managment Services
(619) 694-5391
"Prevention Comes First" p.~_ Z~'
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Medical Center
3350 La Jolla Village Drive
San Diego CA 92161
May 1, 1998
In Reply Refer To:
664/122
TO whom it may concern,
Subject: Support of Residential Care Home.
AS the Coordinator of Residential Board and Care for
Veterans Affairs for the San Diego Healthcare System I have been
asked to express my support for the need of a B&C Home in the
Chula Vista area. Being responsible for the placement of Veterans
from both the medical and psychiatric units of this health care
facility I am keenly aware of the need for both Residential Care
Facilities for Elderly (RCFEs) and Adult Residential Care (ARCs)
B&C Homes licensed by the State Community Care Licensing.
Veteran's Affairs has an ongoing need for placement~
resources for both our Inpatient and Outpatient Programs.(]
personally am responsible for approximately 250 Veterans
currently in residential Care Homes and are required to place
from six to a dozen new patients a month. I am keenly aware from
27 years experience with Community Care Placements in San Diego,
of the need for quality B&C Homes to meet the placement needs of
our Veterans.
While there are over 700 licensed facilities in this
county, many are of questionable quality and others are
completely priced out of the price range of our veterans. The
greatest need for B&C Home by the VA would be for quality homes
that would work cooperatively with our treatment staff and accept
our vets at affordable rates. Speaking from experience, the
majority of the Veterans that I work with would prefer a sa'fe and
secure place where they can expect to receive appropriate care
and supervision from concerned staff. (Given their preference
they would prefer to be in an urban setting close to Ptlblic
Transportation, which would accept them at the SSI rate).
The VA Board and Care Program was severely hampered by the
recent closing of the Casa Wil-Char Board & Care Home in National
City. This was an extremely valuable resource to us and it's
untimely closing has left a void in our program that we are
attempting to fill. We had been associated with and utilized
this home for many years. I have personally worked witi~ Barbara
Nelson, its manager, for the past 7 years and had been aware of
and placed Veterans there for the ten years preceding my presenc
assignment as Community Care Coordinator.
I can personally testify to the top quality ~>~ care ouu
veterans received while in the homes operated by Barba~'a Nelson.
I know that she has consistently shown care and concer~ for her
residents above and beyond the call of duty. Having worked with
her in many difficult situations which would have ended in
unfortunate terminations of placement for my clients were it not
for her true interest in the individuals she had J~n ~er home.
Given the opportunity to place veterans I would ~o~. hesitate
making referrals with complete confidence that residc~ts needs
would be more than adequately meet.
~ending the opening of the California State Veterans Home
in Chula Vista, there is a dire need to address the needs of
Veterans in this community (many of whom require psychiatric
~reatment and or placement to prevent them from being Homeless).
I would strongly support an ARC B&C Home in the Chula Vista area.
The purposed home that Barbara Nelson is attempting to establish
seems to ideally fit the needs of the veterans I must place in
the community. Given the recent establishment of a VA ~tpatient
Clinic in Chula Vista and the forthcoming co~st~ct~.~l~ o£ the
Chula Vista Veterans Home, this B&C would certainly ~ utilized
by the Department of Veterans Affairs and I would see it as a
great asset to the VA and the Community at large.
I trust that you can take positive action upou thls request
as the type of Service that is purposed to be offered is in great
demand. The addition of this B&C Home to the VA Residential Care
Program would go a great way in filling a void in our available
'~ )I 23 ~ 57~54
~ 261
29 63, 48
~QSEC 137
Exhibit D
Town Centre I
Goal and Objectives
(Excerpt from Town Centre Redevelopment Plan)
The goal of the Town Centre Redevelopment Plan is to revitalize the Town Centre area as
the commercial-civic focus of the City. To implement the goal the following objectives
were adopted in the Plan:
A. Eliminate blighting influences, including incompatible and noxious land uses, obsolete
structures and inadequate parking facilities.
B. Eliminate environmental deficiencies including, among others, small and irregular lot and
block subdivisions, several poorly planned streets, and economic and social deficiencies.
C. The strengthening of the mercantile posture of Town Centre and the improvement of
retail trade therein.
D. The renewal of Town Centre's physical plant and the improvement of its land use
patterns and spatial relationships.
E. The retention and expansion of viable land uses, commercial enterprises, and public
facilities within the area.
F. The attraction of capital and new business enterprises to the core area.
G. The comprehensive beautification of the area, including its buildings, open space,
streetscape, and street furniture.
H. The encouragement of multi-family, middle-income residential units in and near the core
area.
I. The possible accommodation of future local and regional mass transit and related
facilities; improvement of off-street parking areas and provision for a mini-transit intra-
project system.
J. The establishment of Town Centre as the South Bay's principal center for specialty
goods and services.
K. The establishment of design standards to assure desirable site design and
environmental quality.
L. The reorientation of the people of Chula Vista to their core area, and the resultant
promotion of a sense of "towness" (towness is a unique feeling spawned by an emotional
relationship between people and their city. This feeling is founded upon a.sense of
belonging. When the people feel that they belong to their city and that their city belongs
to them, a state of towness exists).
Downtown VISION Statement
Establish
Downtown as the Business, Entertainment and Social
Center-point of ~e
Community
I
Downtown Management
Downtown Business Association (DBA)
Via Main Street Concept
Full-time Town Manager
Coordination & Maintenance of Area and Programs
I
I. Oraanb:atlqq 2. Economic ReetructuHng 3. Deslan 4. Promotion
DBA Board / Property Values · Enhance historic, eclectic S~ecial Events
Develop Partnerships V' Lease Rates architectural composff[on · Farmers Mad(et
v/~th: V' Tenant Mix · Lemon Festival
· C~ty · Vacancy Index / Re-evaluate: / International Film Festival
· Agency ,/ Void Analysis Design Manual · Starlight Yule Parade
· Chamber v' Business Recruitment Sign Policy
/ SBA/SWC Daytime Market Land Use Poricy Onaoino Promotion~
· School Districts Evening Mad(et In-lieu Fee Parking Policy · Advertising
· Fdends of the Arts / Tourism Pad(lng Disthct · Grand Openings
Etc. · Cleanliness
V' Unification of Merchants and ACTION · Pedestrian Orientation V' Image
property owners · Public Spaces
PLAN · sffeetscepe
FOCUS ~' Ent~/ways
· Banner Program
· Holiday Lighting Program
H :~'lome\Comm Dev\G arda~Roundtfol~O rgchar t
Chula Vista Town Centre Project Area Committee
"Land Use Policy'
A. General Statements of Policy
The Town Centre Project Area Committee accepts the land-use goals and objectives embodied in the Redevelopment Plan, and the
developmental guidelines and concepts constituent to the Town Centre Design Manual. The Committee, therefore, shall encourage
the Project Area's redevelopment into the South Bay's principal mercantile center for the purveyance of specialty goods and services.
In furtherance of this policy, the committee will base its land-use decisions end recommendations upon the principles of sound city
planning and community development.
The Project Area Committee, furthermore, recognizes that land-use order and good town scape planning are one and inseparable, and
that its land-use decisions must be coordinated with the decisions and recommendations of the Town Centre Design Review Board.
The Committee, therefore, will require each land-use applicant to meet the requirements of the Design Review Board as a condition
of Committee approval.
B. General Policy Guidelines
1. The Committee will not approve land uses which would preclude or deter the effective redevelopment of the Project Area.
2. The Committee will not approve commercial land uses which would place the economic vitality of the Town Centre in jeopardy.
3. The Committee will not approve commercial land uses which would imperil residential enjoymeet within the Town Centre.
4. The Committee will not approve commercial [and uses which wou(d adversely affect the fluid movement of traffic within the
Project Area.
5. The Committee will net approve commercial land uses which tend to create abnormagy high levels of noise.
The Committee will not approve commercial land uses which would discourage the purveyance of qualitative speciality goods
and services in the Town Centre.
7. The Committee wil[ not approve commercial land uses which are incompatible with the concept of "townness."
8. The Committee will not approve commercial land uses, proposed for location in Subarea 1, unless they are consistent with the
pedestrian orientation of the Central Business District.
9. The Committee wig not approve commercial land uses which would promote unsupervised juvenile recreation.
C. Specific Policy Guidelines
As a general rule, the Project Area Committee will not approve the following land uses:
1. Commercial juvenile recreation centers
2. Pawn shops
3. Card rooms, other than bridge studios
4. Secondhand merchandise stores
5. Massage parlors, adult movie houses
6. Beer and wine bars, unless appurtenant to bonafide food service
7. Drive-throughrestaorants(Subarea 1)
8. Bailbond Offices (Subareas 1, 2 & 3)
9. Car washes
10. Self-service filling stations
11. Used car sales
12. Automobile and Motorcycle repair shops
13. Automobile body, fender, and paint shops
"Suggested Land Uses: Chula Vista Town Centre" (Subarea 1)
1. Chicken Pie Shop (Restaurant)
2. House of Golf
3. Archery Shop
Apparel Shops
'5. Family Shoe Store
6. Photographic Equipment Store
7. Art Supply Store
9. Ceramic & Hobby Shop
10. Book Store
11. TravelAgency
12, Interior Designer's Shop
13, Marie Callender's Pie Shop & Restaurant
14. Bohemian Bakery
15. Beer Garden
16. Outdoor Cafes
17. Optician's Shop
18. High-Fidelity Store
19. Toy Store
20. Sewing Center
21. Health foods Store
22. Custom Jewelry Stores
23. Children's Toggery
24. Restaurants
25. Cafeteria
26. Day Care Center
27. Ticket Agency
28. Hardware Stores
29. Stationers
30. Tobacco Shop
31. Wine and Spirits Shop
32. Leather Goods Shop
33. Small Appliance Sales & Repair Shop
34. Professional & Administrative Offices
35. GeneraISporting Goods Stores
36. Tennis Shop
37. Cyclery
38. Artist Studies & Galleries
39. Gift Shops
40. Florist
41. Furniture Stores
42. Garden Shop
43. Tailor Shop
44. Theaters
45. Candy Store
46. Pharmacies
47. Barber &Beauty Shops
48. Fancy Food Stores (Gourmet Shops)
49. Hand Laundries, Cleaning Agencies, Shoe Repair Shops
50. Map House
RESOLUTION NO. 96
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF TIqE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE LAND USE POLICY
FOR THE TOWN CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for the Town Centre Redevelopment
Project promulgates land uses consistent with a Central Business District; and
WHEREAS, in order to promote the Redevelopment Plan's goal of
"Towness" it is necessary to establish a definitive criteria for Land Uses; and
WHEREAS, persons wishing to conduct new establishments in the
project, should be aware of the types of businesses that would be consistent
with the Redevelopment Plan's Goals and Objectives; and
WHEREAS, the Town Centre Project Area Committee provides the
initial review of business applications in cases wherein there is a question as
to compatibility with the Redevelopment Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Chula Vista concurs in the proposed Land Use Policy as adopted by
the Town Centre Project Area Committee and as shown as Exhibit A and incorporated
herein.
Presented by Approved as to form by
· ~/ /s/ George D. Lindberg
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, this
l~t -day of g~p~mh~r , 19~7~, by the following vote,
to-wi t:
.AYES: Members Hobel. Hyde. Scott. Cox
NAYES: Members Nnn:
Absent: Members Egdahl
/s/ Will T. Hyde
Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency
ATTEST: ~' ~:~:Z~,.;~-~,..../~!]-
Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Paul G. Desrochers, Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Chula Vista, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full,
true and correct copy of Resolution No. 96 and that the same
has not been amended or repealed.
DATED: g~pt~m~r ~: 1~77
Secretary
SEAL
Exhibit E
Chapter 19.54
UNCLASSIFIED USES
Sections:
19.54.010 Authorized when-Purpose of review.
19.54.020 Designated-Limitations and standards.
19.54.030 Yard requirements.
19.54.040 Height regulations.
19.54.050 Off-street parking and loading facilities.
19.54.060 Site plan and architecturaI approval.
19.54.010 Authorized when-Purpose of review.
A.
All of the following, and all matters directly related thereto are declared to be uses possessing
characteristics of such unique and special form as to make impractical their being included
automatically in any classes of use as set forth in the various zones herein defined, and the authority
for the location and operation thereof shall be subject to review and the issuance of a conditional use
permit; provided, however, that conditional use permits may not be granted for a use in a zone in
which it is specifically excluded by the provisions of this title.
II
II
B. The purpose of this review shall be to determine that the characteristics of such use shall not be
incompatible with the type of uses permitted in surrounding areas and for the further purpose of
stipulating such conditions as may reasonably assure that the basic purposes of this title shall be
served. Factors to be considered and the manner in which conditional use applications are to be
processed shall be as set forth in Sections 19.14.060 et seq. of this title.
II
(Ord. 1281 ~2 (part), 1970; Ord. 1212 ~1 (part), 1969; prior code ~33.535(part)).
.
19.54.020 Designated-Limitations and standards.
.
The following uses may be considered for location in any zone, subject to the provisions set forth
herein, and additional conditions set forth in Chapter 19.58 (references indicated for uses):
III
~
A.
Borrow pits and quarries for rock, sand and gravel;
B.
Campgrounds: See Section 19.58.040;
C.
Cemeteries: See Section 19.58.080;
III
.
D. Colleges, universities, private schools, elementary and secondary public schools;
E. Columbariums, crematoriums and mausoleums, provided thatthese uses are specifically excluded from
all R zones unless inside of a cemetery: See Section 19.58.080;
F. Churches: See Section 19.58.110;
.
G. Dumps, public or private;
II
.
H. Hospitals, including, but not limited to, emergency, general, convalescent, rest homes, nursing homes
(for the aged, crippled, mentally retarded of all ages), psychiatric, etc.: See Section 1.9.58.110.
1251
4'-3~
(R 12/91)
1. The size of the parcel to be used shall provide adequate light and air in proportion to the number
of residents.
II
I
II
,
,
~
.1
I
I
Further, that approval shall not be granted until the following findings can be made (homes for
mentally retarded children):
2. The location of windows and open play areas shall be so situated as to not adversely impact
adjoining uses.
3. Spacing between these facilities shall be such that the character of the neighborhood is not
affected by.the grouping of these homes;
l. Mortuaries: See Section 19.58.080;
J. Establishments or enterprises involving large assemblages of people or automobiles, as follows,
provided that these uses shall be deemed to be generally undesirable in the R zones:
1. Airports and heliports: See Section 19.58.180,
2. Amusement parks and amusement enterprises: See Section 19.58.040,
3. Arenas: See Section 19.58.040,
4. Fairgrounds: See Section 19.58.040,
5. Museums,
6. Open air theaters, except drive-in theaters: See Section 19.58.120B,
7. Race tracks and rodeos: See Section 19.58.040,
8. Recreational centers, commercially operated: See Section 19.58.040,
9. Stadiums,
10. Shooting clubs: See Section 19.58.200,
11. Ambulance service (excluded from all residential zones unless located within a hospital complex);
1<. Golf courses: See Section 19.58.090;
L. Passenger stations for rail or bus travel;
M. Public and quasi-public uses;
N. Radio or television transmitters;
O. Trailers (commercial coaches): See Section 19.58.330;
P. Senior housing developments: See Section 19.58.390.
Q. Recreational vehicle storage yards: See Section 19.58.400.
(R 12/91)
1252
-
.
R.
Offsite advertising signs: See Section 19.58.225.
.
5. Water distribution facilities: See Section 19.58.420.
-
.
Conditional use permit applications for the uses listed in this section except campgrounds, recreational
vehicle storage yards, churches, amusement arcades and centers, trailers (commercial coaches), water
distribution facilities and borrow pits of not more than two acres, shall be considered by the city council
subsequent to its receipt of recommendations thereon from the planning commission.
.
(Ord. 2449 ~1, 1991; Ord. 2296 ~6, 1989; Ord. 2169 ~1, 1986; Ord. 2075 ~3, 1984; Ord. 2054 ~1, 1983;
Ord. 1878 ~2, 1979; Ord. 1711 ~1, 1976; Ord. 1697 ~1 (part), 1976; Ord 1626 ~~1, 2,1975; Ord. 1464 ~2,
1973; Ord. 1456 ~2, 1973; Ord. 1356 ~1 (part), 1971; Ord. 1281 ~2 (part), 1970; Ord. 1246 ~2, 1969; Ord.
1232 ~2, 1969; Ord. 1212 ~1 (part), 1969; prior code ~33.535(A)).
.
.
19.54.030 Yard requirements.
.
The requirements for front, side, and rear yards applicable to the particular property and zone in
which such use is proposed shall prevail unless, in the findings and conditions recited in the resolution
dealing with each matter, specific exceptions, additions or modifications are made with respect thereto.
(Ord. 1281 ~2 (part), 1970; Ord. 1212' ~1 (part), 1969; prior code ~33.535(B)).
.
19.54.040 Height regulations.
.
The requirements for building height limit applicable to the particular property and zone in which
such use is proposed shall prevail unless, in the findings and conditions recited in the resolution dealing
with each matter, specific exceptions, additions or modifications are made with respect thereto. (Ord. 1281
~2 (part), 1970; Ord. 1212 ~1 (part), 1969; prior code ~33.535(C)).
.
19.54.050 Off-street parking and loading facilities.
.
Off-street parking and loading facilities for specific use proposed shall be determined by the planning
commission in the event such requirements are not enumerated in Chapters 19.62.010 through 19.62.140.
(Ord. 1356 ~1 (part), 1971; Ord. 1281 ~2 (part), 1970; Ord. 1212 ~1 (part), 1969; prior code ~33.535(D)).
.
19.54.060 Site plan and architecturaI approval.
II
Site plan and architectural approval are required for all uses, as provided in Sections 19.14.420
through 19.14.480. (Ord. 1281 ~2 (part), 1970; Ord. 1212 ~1 (part), 1969; prior code ~33.535(E)).
.
.
.
.
I
1253
4-31.
(R 12/91)
JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM No.
MEETING DATE 07/13/99
ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS
33431, 33433, AND 33444.6 TO CONSIDER A RELOCATION AGREEMENT WITH
BFGOODRICH AND THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT WHICH
INCLUDES THE SALE OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPERTY AT 350-360
BAY BOULEVARD, INDUSTRIAL FINANCING ASSISTANCE, AND ACOUISITION
BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF THE RADOS COMPANIES PROPERTY AT 798 "F"
STREET TO BFGOODRICH
a) COUNCIL RESOLUTION
AGENCY RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF THE RELOCATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT, AND ROHR, INC.
OPERATING AS BFGOODRICH AEROSPACE AEROSTRUCTURES GROUP,
AND ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-99-21 AND
MAKING THE REOUIRED FINDINGS UNDER THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
CODE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 1.3/S?Hs VOTE REOUIREU ON a.t
b) AGENCY RESOLUTION DETERMINING AND
DECLARING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 798 "F" STREET, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
FOR THE BFGOODRICH RELOCATION PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE
COMMENCEMENT OF CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS BY OUTSIDE
COUNSEL TO ACQUIRE SAID PROPERTY /.4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED ON
SUBMI'I'TED BY-' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR L~
R~vi~w~ BY: CITY MANAGER (4/5TM VOTE: YES][ NO )
This item will be deliver under separate cover on Friday, July 9, 1999.
CHULA VISTA
TO: The Hon/~. ble Mayor and City Council
VIA: David D."R'owlands, Jr., City Manager
Chris
FROM: omone, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: PORT/CITY/BFG Agreement
The Relocation Agreement provided in this packet is substantially in final form.
Minor modifications are under review by the City Attorney's office. Any changes
will be provided to Councilmembers before or at the City Council meeting on
Tuesday.
BFGoodrich
Aerospace
Aerostructures Group
David R. Watson
Group Vice President
850 Lagoon Drive
Chula Vista. Calitornia 91910
Tel: 619-691-3554
Fax: 619-691-2222
July 6, 1999
-.-
_"._fc::.. rs n "/7
to _ i-:._" \~
Mayor Horton and City Council Members
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
JUl - 9 1999
- -._~---
;Nf.i; OHiI;E<::
RE: BFGoodrich-<:hula Vista CamDus I Relocation Proiect
Dear Mayor Horton and City Council Members,
It is my understanding that on July 13, 1999, public hearings will be held regarding approval of the joint
Relocation Agreement with Rohr, Inc. (operating as BFGoodrich Aerospace Aerostructures Group), the City
of Chula Vista, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista and the San Diego Unified Port District.
This Agreement proVides for the terms under which Rohr is willing to relocate, develop, and consolidate its
manufacturing"and industrial business operations north of H Street. This Agreement represents the
culmination of a "win-win-win" vision for the City, Port and Rohr.
Critical provisions of the Agreement for Rohr are the financing assistance provided and the acquisition and
transfer to Rohr of the City and Rados parcels by the Agency. As you know, these have been essential
elements of the overall relocation project for Rohr since discussions began on this project with the Agency
last summer. Based upon these discussions and the Letter of Intent signed by both the Port and the City,
Rohr has made substantial investment commitments and work transfer commitments to the Chula Vista site.
These investment and work transfer commitments would not have been possible without the assistance
provided by the City and Port by the provisions of the Relocation Agreement.
Rohr has been a strong community member as well as one of Chula Vista's largest employers since moving
here in 1941. Rohr currently employs approximately 2500 highly skilled and paid employees at the Chula
Vista site. A substantial number of these employees live in Chula Vista. In addition, a large number of
retired employees continue to be a vital part of the community. These past and present employees as well
as the impact of goods and services that are provided to Rohr have a major positive economic impact on
the City of Chula Vista.
A lot of hard work from all of our collective Staff has gone into negotiating this agreement so that a "win-
win-win" situation remains. As you consider your position on the proposed Relocation Agreement, please
take into account the almost 60 years of positive impact that Rohr and its employees have had on this
community. Supporting this agreement and the economic assistance provided will help retain jobs and
continue our successful economic partnership.
Thank you for your help and support.
Sincerely,
~/;d6i.
Rohr.lnc.. a wholly owned subSidiary ofThe BFGoodrich Company
~~~ 1,~g4'
~~.-,:~t, :-;:../ ,;~~~<'"
,,~"'c." -" '~ " l p/,~'1-
.Q:;' -:~---. /:~,.).
o :,'.," ,-"~.,,.,..
'" BECAi~
('>
o
~~ ....
<-11 dE
'"
u
~
,_.:\,\.'"
f>,\.
BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMERCE ALUANCE (BECA)
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910 \
619/585-5710
FAX 585-5698
BECA RESOURCE CENTER
477 Marina Parlway
Chula Vista, CA 91910
619/498-4970
FAX 498-4969
BECA BUSINESS CLUSTER
477 Marina Parkway
Chula Vista, CA 91910
619/498-4960
FAX 498-4969
FOUNDING SPONSOR
City of Chula Vista
FOUNDING CO-SPONSORS
US Department of Commerce
California Trade and Commerce Agency
Rohr,lnc.
San Diego Unified Port District
July 7, 1999
~~I~@~3wf
) ,J ,-,.-" '~.._-
.Al-91999 II!
Il
111;
I
Mayor Horton and City Council Members
City ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
~_.
""JNCilOFFICES
. ':" A ViSTA CA
RE: BFGoodrich/Citv ofChula VistalPort District Ae:reement
Dear Mayor Horton and City Council Members:
On July 13, 1999, the Council will hear public comments regarding approval of the
joint Relocation Agreement with BFGoodrich, the City of Chula Vista, the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of ChUla Vista and the San Diego Unified Port
. District.
,
This Agreement finally provides for improved access to the Chula Vista Bayfront by
_allowing H street to go through BFGoodrich property and make land available for
redevelopment to the Port District. This single large parcel of land can now be
developed into higher and better uses for the benefit of the people of the City ofChula
Vista.
BFGoodrich has been a strong community member and more specifically one of the
original founders ofBECA. Their support for BECA has had measurable economic
impact for the City of Chula Vista.
We believe that approval of this proposed Agreement, would be a win-win for all
parties, especially for the Chula Vista Community. I hope that you can support this
Agreement.
Sincerely,
.,,~ ,'"
: ,j II!! '':(1 ,i (I
M. OTIoilnell
Executive Director
BECA
"A Public/Private Partl1ers!/Ij:J DediuJtcd to Increasing the Success o(Tlte Ellvironmenral Talmofogv Industrv"
ASARO. KEAGY. FREELAND & MCKINLEY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ROSCOE D. KEAGY
RICHARD R. FREELAND
STEVEN A_ MCKINLEY.
EVAN M_ HIMFAR
FOURTH FLOOR
FRANK L. ASARO
OF COUNSEL
3170 FOURTH AVENUE
SAN DIE::GO, CALIFORNIA 92103
"ALSO ADMITTED IN NEVADA
TELEPHONE (619) 297-3170
FACSIMILE (619) 299-4268
July 13, 1999
Redevelopment Agency
ofthe City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Re: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
Proposed Condemnation Resolution No. 1639
Our firm represents the Rados Bros, concerning the threatened condemnation of its
property located at the intersection of Bay Boulevard and F Street.
The Redevelopment Agency is considering the condemnation of our client's property to
comply with the provisions of a proposed Relocation Agreement with the San Diego Unified
Port District and B. F. Goodrich Company. The Relocation Agreement does not require that B.
F. Goodrich construct any particular project on the Rados Bros. property. In addition, there is
no guarantee pursuant to the proposed agreement with B. F. Goodrich that the subject property
will ever be redeveloped.
Our client objects to the Agency enacting a condemnation resolution to acquire the
subject property for the following reasons:
L Our client has planned the demolition of the improvements situated on the
property and has advised the Redevelopment Agency and City staff of that intention; thus, the
described property is not subject to acquisition by the power of eminent domain for the alleged
stated purpose;
2. The alleged proposed uses to be made of the subject property are for private uses;
not public uses; therefore, the Agency has no authority to condemn the property;
3. There is no specific project proposed on the subject property. Therefore, the
acquisition of the property is not necessary and the Agency has no authority to condemn the
property;
4. The Redevelopment Agency is attempting to exercise its power of condemnation
for the Port of San Diego but does not have substitute condemnation authority,
5. There is no reasonable probability that the Agency will devote the subject
T
Community Redevelopment Agency
Page 2
July 13, 1999
property for a public purpose within seven years;
6. The Agency has failed to comply with the requirements ofthe California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) relating to the alleged proposed use of the property.
Based upon our client's objections to the Agency's right to take the subject property and
the facts contained in the Agenda Statement, the proposed relocation agreement, and other
related documents, the Agency lacks the authority to condemn the Rados Bros. property.
Very truly yours,
ASARO, KEAGY, FREELAND & McKINLEY
/~7 /
/; .'
/~1/~ pC:JW
Roscoe D. Keagy ;/'/'
RDK/mad
I
MAIL TO: City of Chula Vista 7~
276 Fourth Avenue ~: ,.,county
Chula Vista, CA 91910 o~
Attn: Joe Monaco 3~3~ ~-~
NOTICE OF REVISED HEARING DATE FOR
PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT)
NOTICE IS ItEREBY GIVEN that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista is considering
a recommendation that the project herein identified will have no significant environmental impact in
compliance With Section 15070 of State CEQA guidelines. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
(tiMing of no significant impact) and the Initial Study, which supports the proposed findings, are on file
in the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910.
A previous notice announcing the public review period for the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
indicated adate for consideration of adoption of the document of March 30,1999. The Mitigated Negative
Declaration is tentatively scheduled for consideration of adoption on June 22, 1999, at a meeting of
the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Anyone interested in
participating in that meeting should call Lyle Haynes at (619) 691-5047 to confirm the date and time.
This proposed finding does not constitute approval or denial of the project itself; it only determines if the
project could have significant environmental impact. Projects which could have significant impact must
have an Environmental Impact Report prepared to evaluate those possible impacts in compliance with
Section 15064 of State CEQA Guidelines.
If you wish to challenge the City's action on this Negative Declaration in Court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised in written correspondence during the public review
period, which closed on March 30, 1999.
PROJECT LOCATION: Generally south of Lagoon Drive, West of Bay Boulevard, and north and east
of Marina Parkway, City of Chula Vista County of San Diego
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involves the transfer of eight non-contiguous parcels
located within the City's Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area for the purposes of relocating and
consolidating the operations of BF Goodrich Aerospace, Aerostructures Group, an industrial manufacturing
facility, onto a smaller area of land and allowing for demolition, and redevelopment of undemtlized areas.
The following is a list of potentially significant impacts that would result from implementation of the
project: Geophysical impacts, hydrologic impacts, air quality impacts, biological impacts, hazards, noise
impacts.
DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: San Diego Unified Port District
California State Lands Commission
INITIAL STUDY NO.: IS-99-21 DATE: June 11, 1999
FILED iN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK
SAN DIEGOCOUNTY ON auN 1 4.
POSTED_ 0~;~! ~ ~ REMC~VED JUL
JUL ~
RETUR!,h4) ~iO AGENCY ON
DEPUTY
JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM NO,
MEETING DATE 07/13/99
mTEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS
33431, 33433, AND 33444.6 TO CONSIDER A RELOCATION AGREEMENT WITH
BFGOODRICH AND THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT WHICH
INCLUDES THE SALE OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROPERTY AT 350-360
BAY BOULEVARD, INDUSTRIAL FINANCING ASSISTANCE, AND ACQUISITION
BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF THE RADOS COMPANIES PROPERTY AT 798 "F"
STREET TO BFGOODRICH
a) COUNCIL RESOLUTION /
AGENCY RESOLUTION / ~' ~ <~ AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF THE RELOCATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT, AND ROHR, INC.
OPERATING AS BFGOODRICH AEROSPACE AEROSTRUCTURES GROUP,
AND ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-99-21 AND
MAKING THE REOUIRED FINDINGS UNDER THE HEALTH AND SAFETY
CODE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 13/57Hs vo'rs
b) AGENCY RESOLUTION / ~ ~-~ ') DETERMINING AND
DECLARING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 798 "F" STREET, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
FOR THE BFGOODRICH RELOCATION PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE
COMMENCEMENT OF CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS BY OUTSIDE
COUNSEL TO ACQUIRE SAID PROPERTY 14/57~s
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY D~)/-E~OPMENT DIRECTOR c//'.~'
REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER'- (4/5TM VOTE: YE$__X NO )
The City of Chula Vista ("City"), Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency"), San Diego Unified Port
District ("Port") and BFGoodrich Aerospace Aerostructures Group ("BFG"), have negotiated the terms and conditions of a
Relocation Agreement ("PA"), included as Exhibit "D", under which certain land transfers will occur to facilitate the
relocation and consolidation of BFG operations north of the planned "H" Street extension in the Bayfront Redevelopment
Project Area. The consolidation would result in a reconfigured campus for BFG generally bounded by Bay Boulevard
(east), "F" Street/Lagoon Drive (north), a realigned Marina Parkway (west) and the proposed "H" Street extension (south).
An Initial Study (IS-99-21) was completed for this project which resulted in a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit E). A Iocator map as well as site maps identifying the existing and proposed
BFG campuses are included as Exhibits "A,' "B" and "C."
PAGE 2, ITEM ~"
I~1EE'rlNG DATE 07/1 .~/99
The proposed RA includes Agency and Port financial assistance to BFG as incentives to consolidate their operations,
modernize their plant and equipment~ and assist in funding the environmental evaluafion and ultimately the clean-up of
their property south of "H" Street ("South Campus"). In addition to the financial assistance, the project also contemplates
the sale and transfer of the Agency's Bay Boulevard properties (350-360 Bay Boulevard) and the privately owned Rados
Companies property (798 "F" Street) to BFG.
This report presents for Council/Agency consideration the RA and Mitigated Negative Declaration with supporting
documents as well as a Resolution of Necessity ("RON") to commence eminent domain proceedings for the Rados
property acquisition.
It is recommended that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency conduct a Public Hearing and adopt:
a) A resolution authorizing the execution of the Relocation Agreement by and between the City of Chula Vista,
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, San Diego Unified Port District, and Rohr, Inc. operating as
BFGoodrich Aerospace Aerostructures Group, making the required findings under the California Health and
Safety Code, and adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-99-21 and the associated Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program
b) A resolution adopting a Resolution of Necessity to commence eminent domain proceedings with respect to
property located 798 "F" Street, Chula Vista
Not applicable.
Negotiations for this project began last summer primarily between BFG and Port officials. City staff was brought into the
process by virtue of BFG's stated need to acquire the Agency's Bay Boulevard properties, the privately owned Rados site,
as well as financial assistance to accommodate the relocation. The initial negotiations resulted in a staff level non-binding
Letter of Intent (LOI) provided to Council in August 1998. The LOI set forth basic parameters of the financial deal and
environmental management plan from which the final RA was negotiated.
PROJECT BENEFITS
Prior to discussing the specific elements of the PA, it is important to understand the importance and significance of this
project and why staff is recommending approval of the PA. The following provides a bullet point list of the project benefits:
1. Retention of a major aerospace corporate presence in the Chula Vista community.
2. An expected private investment of approximately $47 million in the modernization and physical improvement of a
major manufacturing facility and employer in Chula Vista.
3. Providing for the characterization and ultimately the clean-up of soils and groundwater contamination on the South
Campus consistent with future development that otherwise would not have occurred in the foreseeable future.
4. The potential demolition of underutilized old industrial buildings on the South Campus over the four year relocation
period creating an opportunity for redevelopment opportunities adjacent to the Chula Vista Marina.
5. Providing the impetus for improving traffic circulation, currently constrained by poor east-west vehicular access, that
will eventually include the extension of "H" Street and a realigned Marina Parkway as South Campus or other Bayfront
development projects emerge.
PAGB 3, ITBM ~
MEETING DATE O7/13/99
6. Utilization of Port funds to sell the Agency's vacant Bay Boulevard property ($1,27 million) at Fair Market Value (FMV)
and transfer to BFG,
7, The demolition of vacant, dilapidated, and burned out industria] buildings on the Rados property and transfer to BFG
as part of their consolidated campus,
8. Furthers the goals and objectives of the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan, Bayfrent Specific Plan, and Bayfront
Implementation Plan.
LAND TRANSACTIONS
The proposed RA contemplates the sale of Agency, Port and BFG properties to effectuate a consolidation of the BFG
campus north of the proposed "H" Street extension. The property transfers are genererly as follows:
1. BFG will transfer their fee owned land (37.58 acres) south of "H' to the Port.
2. BFG will vacate, over a four year relocation period, their leased Port property south of "H'.
3. Port will transfer various properties north of "H' to BFG totaling 26.51 acres: Port Pamels 1 and 2 (16.66 acres),
SDG&E property (7.41 acres) and make best efforts to transfer the MTDB property (2.44 acres).
4. Pod will provide the Agency compensation totaling $3 million for the Agency's "Bay Boulevard' properties (3.65
acres valued at $8/s.f.) and the privately owned Rados Companies property (3.02 acres valued at $8/s.f.) and
cover all other related site costs necessary to then transfer them to BFG in a developable condition. The
expected site costs include demolition of existing structures, grading, and soils romediation. Excess funds can
be retained by the Agency; however, costs incurred above $3 million must be borne by the Agency.
ARency Disposition of Properties at Fair Market Value
As identified in the Summary Report of Agency Property Disposition and Financial Assistance (Exhibit G), the Agency is
selling its property at the established fair market value as determined by a MAI appraiser. The Summary Report was
prepared pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section(s) 33431 and 33433 with the findings that the Agency is selling its
properties at the "highest and best use' and is being properly compensated at fair market value. Therefore, there is not an
Agency land write down subsidy contemplated in this transaction. The Agency's assistance to the project is described
later in the report. If the Agency adopts a Resolution of Necessity with respect to the Rados properties, these will also be
transferred to BFG at fair market value based upon the price the Agency itself will pay for the property.
RELOCATION PERIOD
BFG is committed to complete its relocation over a four year period. During this period, efforts will continue to assess and
characterize the environmental condition of the South Campus while also preactively trying to bring in development
interest.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
The RA sets forth a program for environmental investigation and romediation for properties involved in the transfer. BFG is
currently under a Cleanup and Abatement Order issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Order
addresses concerns relating to potentiaJ groundwater contamination beneath the BFG campus. The Port has additional
concerns regarding environmental liability under the current legal framework that assigns liability to property owners
regardless of their responsibility in causing contamination. Because of these concerns, BFG is agreeing to allow the Port
to conduct environmental investigations of the South Campus, including soil and groundwater testing, prior to the dose of
escrow. The purpose of these investigations is to provide the Port with information regarding the extent of any
contamination and to enable the Port to assess potential cleanup costs.
07/! 3/99
All parties are agreeing to cooperate in working with the appropriate reguratory agencies for the purposes of achieving the
most cost effective and reasonable cleanup standards available. This is defined in the Agreement as a "risk-based
approach", meaning that the parties will pursue oversite agency approval of cleanup standards that take into account the
ultimate use of the property and establish cleanup levels based on such use that will ensure that no exceptional health
risks will result when the cleanup is completed. If an oversite agency requires a higher level of cleanup, the parties must
comply. If the Port itself desires a higher level of cleanup, it can pursue such higher level, but at its sole cost.
The RA commits the Port to share in environmental remediation costs up to $2.8 million. The actual contribution received
is determined by a formula based upon actual cleanup costs incurred. Nevertheless, above the Port's contribution, BFG
will be ultimately responsible for the costs of cleanup of the property to "industrial use" standard as defined in the RA in
coordination with development projects as they emerge. The "industrial use" standard, as defined, includes all uses under
the Port Master Plan "Industrial - Business Park" designation including hotels, retail, commercial and ancillary uses. Upon
development, or after 15 years, BFG's clean-up obligations on the South Campus shall cease.
The Agreement addresses the Rados and Bay Boulevard Properties in a similar manner, however, the City would be
responsible to remediate contaminated soil conditions only. The RA does not obligate the City/Agency to share in any
costs associated with future cleanup actions related to ground water contamination on either the Rados/Bay Boulevard
parcels, or the South Campus.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
In consideration of the capital investment by BFG (estimated at $47 million), the parties have negotiated a financial
package with BFG which includes the Port providing assistance for site remediation, land lease write downs, and a cash
payment equal to the difference in value between BFG's property they are transferring to the Port and the Port property
they ara receiving. The Agency's contribution is in the form of cash payments measured by the amount of increased
property taxes paid by BFG on their "new" investment to effectuate the relocation (discussed later). The BFG investment
and Port/City assistance is approximately as follows:
Expected BFG Investment
Building Improvements $20,700,000
Machinery and Equipment 18,900,000
Soft Costs 7,400,000
Total Costs $47,000,000
Port Cash Contribution to BFG
(Net of Land Transaction)
Site Remediation: $2,800,000
Cash payment interest differential: 2,500,000
Lease write-downs (South Campus): 1,300,000
Paving Allowance (Ratios/Bay Bivd.) 871,000
South Campus Property Taxes
(during relocation period): 652,000
Total Cash $8,123,000
PAGE 5, ITEM ~,~
MEETING DATE 07/13/99
Agency Cash Contribution to BFG
Financing subsidy measured by
increase in North Campus Taxes
after the relocation is complete $3,830,000*
*Present value of $305,507 over 24
years @ 6% interest
Total Cash Contributions $11,953,000
A.qency Financial Assistance
The Agency proposes to financially assist this project pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33444.6 which allows
the Agency to assist in the financing of facilities or capital equipment that will be used for industrial or manufacturing
purposes. The Agency is contemplating assistance deemed to be necessary in order to facilitate the pdvate investment
necessary for the consolidation. Without the financial assistance as described below, BFG has stated that the
consolidation would be infeasible and would not approve their approximate $47 million private investment (copy of BFG
letter attached as Exhibit F).
Pursuant to the non-binding LOI, BFG negotiated for "no increase in property taxes as a result of the relocation". This
"intent" was negotiated into a formula that provides financial assistance to BFG measured by the total property taxes paid
by BFG on the facility and equipment investment they make during the four year relocation period with a capped
investment of $55 million eligible for rebate. The "new" investment that will trigger payment of the financing assistance is
the increase in the taxes paid by BFG above an agreed upon taxable property base during the four year relocation period.
The taxable property base (estimated to be $1.555 million) on which BFG will continue to pay taxes is equivalent to the
estimated value of the property they will own on their new North Campus (including the Rados and Bay Boulevard
properties) as well as the capital and equipment they relocate from the South to the North Campus. The financing
assistance is then measured by the taxable value of new investment above this base. In essence, any taxes paid above
that base within the four year relocation period should accurately reflect their "new" investment associated with the
relocation. This assistance is to be paid in annual installments over the remaining life of the project area (24 years).
BFG has advised that their current plans include an estimated $47 million investment in the project, of which approximately
$40 million is taxable capital investment in building improvements ($20.7 million) and new machinery and equipment
($18.9 million). The following table quantifies what the projected annual amount of financing assistance subsidy will be
given BFG's stated $47 million investment ($305,507) as well as the maximum subsidy at the $55 million capped
investment amount ($459,704).
BFG INVESTMENT $47 MILLION $55 MILLION
BFG Tax Payments after Relocation $1,860,852 $2,015,049
BFG Agrees to Pay after Relocation $1,555,345 $1,555,345
Annual RDA Rebate to BFG $305,507 $459,704
It is important to note that new investment above the $55 million cap during the 4 year relocation period, and any and all
new investment after the 4 year relocation period, will accrue to the benefit of the Agency and will not result in any
additional subsidy to BFG. Furthermore, any decrease in the value of the relocation period new investment will reduce the
BFG annual subsidy on a dollar for dollar basis.
PAGE 6, ITEM _ ~
MEETING DATE 07/13/99
VESTING OF ENTITLEMENTS
The RA also contemplates a statutory development agreement which would vest BFG's existing industrial land uses on the
consolidated North Campus for a period of 20 years (see Section 6 of the RA). The development agreement will include
fairly standard provisions including the reservation by the City of the right to change land use rules in the future to the
extent required to preserve public health and safety. The final vesting agreement will be brought back at a later date for
City/Agency consideration, BFG has indicated the need for the vesting agreement to guarantee their ability to implement
their proposed consolidation improvements, and to assure industrial operations on the North Campus will be a "conforming
use" for enough time for it to amodize its investment,
AGENCY REVENUE GAP
The Summary Report of Agency Property Disposition and Financial Assistance is included as Exhibit (G). As indicated in
that report, a significant financial issue is that the proposed property tax payments to BFG will exceed the property tax
revenue received by the Agency from the North and South Campus combined. BFG is receiving financial assistance
generally equivalent to the amount of increased property taxes from their relocation investment. However, the Agency
does not receive all of the property taxes BFG pays. Therefore, a gap exists between what the Agency will pay to BFG
and the amount of revenue received from BFG taxes. The table below identifies the projected revenue "gap" under the
current $47 million expenditure plan (-$129,279) and the maximum $55 million investment (-$160,118):
BFG INVESTMENT $47 MILLION $55 MILLION
BFG Tax Revenue to RDA after Relocation $850,855 $974,213
Less:
Current Revenue for Debt Service (Current BFG Campus) ($674,627) ($674,627)
Rebate to BFG (identified above) ($305,507) ($459,704)
Net Annual Revenue Loss to RDA (Port Loan Amount) ($129,279) ($160,118)
PORT DISTRICT LOAN
To mitigate this risk, staff negotiated for the gap to be made up by a loan from the Port to be repaid from future revenues
generated from post relocation period North and South Campus development. The Port has agreed to provide the loan for
a period of 10 years (2000 to 2010). The amount of the Port loan or "gap" will be primarily dependent on the timing and
amount of development on the South Campus and/or the amount of subsequent BFG development on the North Campus
after the relocation period or above the $55 million capped investment amount. In essence, a portion of future South
Campus revenue is being used to subsidize the BFG relocation without additional development on the North Campus as
described above.
The 10-year loan from the Port District (if the Agency elects to borrow funds) will accrue interest at a floating variable rate
based on the Port District's pooled investment rate (currently at approximately 6%). The Agency is obligated to begin
repaying the loan plus interest, if any, after the first ten years of the EA from the increased property tax revenue received
from North and South Campus development. Pursuant to a formula in the PA, in the event that revenue from new North
and South Campus development during the years 2010 through 2020 is not sufficient for repaying the loan, any unpaid
balance is forgiven.
As provided in Exhibit A of the Summary Report, the maximum loan amount is projected to be $1.15 million (not including
interest) over the ten year period. Exhibit B of the same report indicates however, that with conservative development of
PAGE 7, ITEM
MEDINa DATE O7/1 3/99
the South Campus ($50 million in total valuation occurring in year 5) the revenue gap is covered and the oumulatiYe Joan
over the first five years (without interest) is approximately $504,000, The tables below identify the positive revenue results
from $50 million and then an additional $50 million of taxable investment on the South Campus (see footnotes below),
RDA TAX REVENUE WITH SOUTH CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT ~7 MILLION $55 MILLION
Net Annual RDA Revenue Loss without Development ($129,279) ($160,158)
Phase (1[~] $50 million in taxable value) $158,835
Phase II (I2] additional $50 million) 404,028
Total Additional South Campus Revenue $562,863
Net RDA Annual Tax Revenue after Rebate $433,584 $402,705
SOUTH CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT
South Campus development is critical to this project, and in many ways, is the main "upside" benefit that the City and the
Agency receive from this project. It has been identified as a potential significant benefit to this project since the relocation
sets the stage for cleanup and development of the South Campus adjacent to the Chula Vista Marina. However, in
addition to the risk relative to loss of land use control (discussed next), it should be noted that South Campus may not be
developable for the foreseeable future given the current level of uncertainty of the level of property contamination and
cleanup costs. However, the Port District will be conducting a Phase II environmental analysis and retains the right, in its
sole discretion, to not proceed with the transaction if there are contamination issues and concerns it is not willing to
address within the framework of the PA.
Another RA provision which mitigates the potential lack of South Campus development provides as follows. After year
2010, the Agency's obligation to fund the BFG annual subsidy is limited to tax revenues the Agency actually receives
above the "base." If at the end of 2024 (at which point the Agency no longer receives tax increment), Agency revenues
have not been sufficient to pay any outstanding BFG subsidy, any remaining subsidy obligation shall be forgiven.
LAND USE CONTROL OF THE SOUTH CAMPUS (SECTION 6.4)
The sale and transfer of BFG properties will result in the Port District asserting land use control of the South Campus. A
similar land use authority transfer occurred recently when the Port purchased the SDG&E power plant. This issue is
significant in many respects, but primarily from the following:
1. The City will not have the legal jurisdiction to consider and exercise authority over development proposals as they
may emerge.
2. The Port District may not have or maintain the same "vision" for the Chula Vista Bayfront and are not necessarily
motivated by the same financial and development concerns as the City.
3. The Port District does not have the same institutional powers and authorities as the City and Redevelopment Agency
to help finance and assist development. The Port District can typically only lease property as an example.
Staff has been concerned about this issue from the beginning of the negotiation process. In order to help mitigate this
impact, City staff proposed a "meet and confer" provision whereby the City and the Port would develop, prior to property
closings, a "shared vision" and related development guidelines which will then be incorporated into a Request for
Proposals ("RFD") for South Campus development. Tentative agreement has been reached on this concept and final
Assumes 250,000 s.f. of office (115/sq. ft.), 150 hotel rooms ($65,0001room) and 140,000 s.f. of retail ($95/sq. ft.)
Assumes the above plus an additional 200,000 sq. ft. of office, 215 hotel rooms and 140,000 s.f. of retail
1~2e~-r:~ DAT~ O~/~/~S~
and confer" provision to develop an RFD for Pod Board consideration and to limit uses of the South Campus, after the
relocation period, to shod term interim uses. Additionally, the City/Agency can request a joint public hearing with the Pod
Board for the purposes of receiving City/Agency and public input on proposed projects.
FUNDING AND TIMING OF "H" STREET (SECTION 4.2)
The rerocation of BFG operations to the nodh provides the impetus to get "H" Street funded and built in conjunction with
South Campus development and/or other potential developments that may arise on the bay[rent site. Without this project,
"H" Street cannot be built without significant additional public funding to condemn the right-of-way through the BFG
campus and the potential significant costs and damages to BFG that could occur as a result of the condemnation.
The RA calls for "H" Street to be built "at the Pod's sole cost." If for whatever reason, the Pod has not identified funds to
complete the project, the Pod and City will meet and confer to develop a funding plan including consideration of City funds
allocated by the Pod for City use on capital projects in the Bay[rent. Additionally, the RA calls for the Pod to use "best
effods" to complete the project on or before the earliest to occur of (a) December 31, 2009; or (b) completion of Bay[rent
development (i.e, Uidbayfront) projects that require the "H" Street extension to address cumulative traffic impacts.
NO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR RADOS/BAY BOULEVARD PROPERTIES
The RA does no require that BFG construct any particular project on the prepedies to be transferred by the Agency. Thus,
while BFG have expressed every interest and intention to develop these pamels into high quality office facilities, there is no
guarantee under the RA that those propedies will be developed to their highest and best use in the shod term. A number
of RA provisions mitigate this risk, however. First, BFG's interim uses of the prepedies for parking and open storage are
limited to 6 years. Open storage on the Rados prepedy, if transferred, is prohibited. Second, the Agency reserves the
right to condemn the transferred propedies and, after 6 years, if the Rados parcel is not developed, the Agency has the
option to reacquire the Rados pamel at a pre-determined price. This serves as a hedge against BFG's not developing the
properly and instead holding it for a subsequent sale at a speculative price that might result in "excess profitmaking in
undeveloped land." Such provisions are required by Health and Safety Code Section 33437. Third, the Agency has
reserved an easement on the nodheast corner of the prepedies that the Agency can improve as a quality "entry statement"
to the Bayfront.
Additional Costs and Risks
Additional costs and risk are outlined in the project's "Summary Repod" attached as Exhibit G.
In the event that the RA is approved, staff recommends the Council/Agency consider the merits of a Resolution of
Necessity (RON) to commence eminent domain proceedings for acquisition of the privately owned Rados properly at 798
"F" Street (southwest corner of Bay Boulevard and "F" Street). Pursuant to California Government Code Section 7267.2,
the Agency made an offer to acquire the property at an appraised FMV of $972,400 ($8.00/sq. ft. less $80,000 in
demolition costs). The Agency's original offer to purchase the properly was made by cedified mail on November 30, 1998.
Concurrently with the offer to purchase, the Agency extended owner participation rights pursuant to the Bay[rent
Redevelopment Plan and California Health and Safety Code Section 33339. The properly owner did not respond to the
offer or elect to exercise their owner padicipation rights which are now deemed to have been waived.
The Agency notified the properly owner by cedifled mail on June 4, 1999 and on June 18, 1999 of the scheduled public
hearing to consider the RON. At that time, the properly owner was advised that the Council will be asked to determine the
appropriateness and merit of the RON (i.e., the Agency's "right to take"), but not the "just compensation" for the properly.
All of the above referenced letters to the properly owner are included as Exhibit H.
PAGE g, ITEM . ~
MEETING DATE 07/13/99
Only recently has staff heard from the property owner. Staff was advised verbally that the owner is not interested in
challenging the Agency's "right to take," but wants to negotiate the purchase price. Staff will negotiate with the property
owner as the project moves forward. However, in the interest of project necessity and timeliness, the Agency is asked to
consider the merits of the "taking~ with the understanding that just compensation is not part of the hearing. The property
owner has the right to just compensation which will be determined through the negotiation process or in an eminent
domain court proceeding if a settlement is not reached.
FINDINGS
Resolution of Necessity for Acquisition of the Rados Parcel
The Agency has the right to acquire the property through eminent domain, if the following findings are made. Provided
below are the principal findings to be considered by the Agency:
(a) Finding as to whether the public interest and necessity require the project;
The BFG Relocation project, for which the Rados properb/is being acquired, serves the public interest and necessity
by allowing for:
1) Retention of a major aerospace corporate presence in the Chula Vista community.
2) Substantial private investment of approximately $47 million in the modernization and physical improvement of a
major manufacturing facility and employer in Chula Vista.
3) Providing for the characterization and ultimately the clean-up of soils and groundwater contamination on the
South Campus consistent with future development that otherwise would not have occurred in the foreseeable
future.
4) The potential demolition of underutilized buildings on the South Campus over the four year relocation period
creating an opportunity for redevelopment opportunities adjacent to the Chula Vista Marina for the benefit of the
public.
5) Providing the impetus for improving the traffic circulation, currently constrained by poor east-west vehicular
access, that will eventually include the extension of "H" Street and a realigned Marina Parkway.
6) The demolition of vacant, dilapidated, blighted and burned out industrial buildings on the Rados property and
transfer to BFG as part of their consolidated campus. BFG needs the property for interim parking uses and
ultimately for new office/industrial development.
Without this project, redevelopment efforts throughout the Bayfront project area adjacent to the Chula Vista Marina will
continue to be hampered by precluding the ability to extend "H" Street (without future condemnation and additional
financial expense to the public) and the environmental investigation, characterization and ultimately the cleanup to the
South Campus and subsequent development to its highest and best use for the benefit of the public.
(b) Finding as to whether the project is planned or located in the manner that will be the most compatible with
the greatest public good and the least private injury;
The Project has been planned and located to be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury
in that the property to be acquired as a single pamel owned by one party and is in a blighted and dilapidated condition with
a vacant, burned out industrial building which is a public nuisance,
(c) Finding as to whether the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project;
PAGE 10, iTEM_
MEETING DATE 07/13/9~1
The Rados property at 798 "F" Street is necessary for the project. The property is located immediately adjacent to the
BFG corporate office building at the corner of Bay Boulevard and "F" Street. The consolidation of the BFG campus nodh
of "H" Street requires BFG to vacate approximately 60 acres and 800,000 sq. ft. of building facilities. Such a massive
consolidation is not possible without additional land assemblage north of "H" Street to help make up for some of the lost
acreage including the Rados property (3.02 acres), the Agency's Bay Boulevard properties (3.65 acres), as well as other
properties from the Port, SDG&E and MTDB (26.51 acres). The acquisition of the Rados parcel, a corner parcel, at "F'
Street and Bay Boulevard is necessary for BFG to consolidate their operations and master plan their new campus to its
highest and best use.
(d) Finding as to whether the offer for purchase required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to
the owner of record;
On November 30, 1998, in accordance with Government Code Section 72672, the Agency made an offer to the owners of
the property (Rados Brothers) to acquire the property for an amount constituting just compensation, as determined by an
appraisal.
All conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exemise the power of eminent domain ("the right to take') to
acquire the property described herein have been compried with by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista.
Based upon the above referenced findings and others contained in the attached ResoJution of Necessity, staff
recommends adoption of the RON to continue with the project while negotiations with the property owner continue relative
to property valuation. Additional information regarding the above findings is contained in the attached Resolution of
Necessity.
Aqency rndustrial Financinq Assistance
The RA proposes that the Agency provide financial assistance to the BFG pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
33444.6 which allows the Agency to assist in the financing of facilities ;or capital equipment that will be used for industrial
or manufacturing purposes. In general, the Agency is contemplating assistance deemed to be necessary in order to
facilitate the private investment necessary to effectuate the consolidation. Without the financial assistance as described
below, BFG has stated that the consolidation would be infeasible and it would not proceed with the approximate $47
million pdvate investment contemplated by the Relocation Agreement. BFG has a substantial investment in its
improvements on the South Campus. Much of that would be lost in the relocation process unless financial assistance
were provided.
Based upon the above needs and analysis, and that contained in the attached Summary Report (Exhibit G), the Agency's
approval of this project includes an Agency finding that the financial assistance being offered by the Agency is necessary
for the economic feasibility of the development and that the assistance cannot be obtained on economically feasible terms
in the private market.
SUMMARY
This project represents a significant opportunity for two public entities to work together to provide the public assistance
necessary to stimulate substantial private investment by a major industriaJ employer in the City and, in essence, make a
recommitment to the community by consolidating their operations and modernizing their plant. The consolidation by BFG
to the North Campus will then allow for tremendous development opportunities adjacent to the Marina that otherwise may
not occur without this PA. Additionally, the project provides the impetus for the construction of the planned "H" Street
extension which will be necessary to serve other developments in the Bayfront project area.
PAGE I I, ITEM
MEETING DATE 07/13/gg
There are significant issues which have been discussed, disclosed, and diligent efforts made to mitigate them as much as
possible. On balance, this RA represents a tremendous oppoJtunity to move forward and set the stage for future
development and buildout of the Chula Vista waterfront that will benefit the Chu[a Vista community and greater San Diego
region.
The Agency cost of this Agreement has been outlined in the Summary Report. There has not been any outside consultant
costs on this project for legal or financial consultant services. The only consultant cost has been for the appraisal of the
Rados property ($5,000). Significant amounts of staff time has been expended since July of last year to negotiate this
agreement. The staff time is eligible for reimbursement by the Bayfront Project Area.
A. Locator Map
B. Map - BFG Campus (Existing)
C. Map - BFG Campus (Proposed)
D. Relocation Agreement
E. Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program
F. BFG Letter
G. Summary Report
H. Rados Letters
H:\H OME\COMMDEV~STAFF.REP\06-22-99\BFG Relocation Project- A113.doc
,5--/(
AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 1638
AND
COI/NCIL RESOLUTIONN NO. 19542
JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE RELOCATION
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT,
AND ROHR, INC. OPERATING AS BFGOODRICH
AEROSPACE AEROSTRUCTURES GROUP, AND ADOPTING
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAR3~TION IS-99-21 AND
MAKING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS UNDER THE HEALTH
AND SAFETY CODE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista ("City"), Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Chula Vista, and San Diego Unified Port
district ("Port"), and Rohr, Inc. operating as BFGoodrich Aerospace
Aerostructures Group (BFG) have negotiated the terms and conditions
of a Relocation Agreement ('~RA"); and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of the P~A is to provide the public
assistance necessary from the Port, City and Agency to stimulate
the private investment by BFG to vacate underutilized properties
south of the proposed "H" Street extension ("South Campus") to
consolidate their operations and modernize their plant north of the
proposed "H" Street extension ("North Campus") all located in the
Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the
Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the project
required preparation of an Initial Study, such study (IS-99-21) was
prepared, and based on such study a Mitigated Negative Declaration
was prepared and circulation for public review; and,
WHEREAS, the project is located within the Bayfront
Redevelopment Project Area and the benefits associated with the P~A
help advance the goals and objectives of the Bayfront Redevelopment
Plan, Bayfront Specific Plan, and Bayfront Implementation Plan;
and,
WHEREAS, the P~A contemplate the sale and transfer of
Agency property at 350-360 Bay Boulevard ("Agency Parcels") to BFG
and, contingent upon the Agency's adoption of a Resolution of
Necessity which the Agency reserves the right to do in its sole
discretion, property located at 798 F Street (the "Rados Parcel"),
to be used by BFG as part of its consolidated campus; and,
WHEREAS, the RA contemplates industrial financing
assistance pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33444.6 which
allows for the Agency to assist in the financing of facilities or
1
capital equipment to be used for industrial or manufacturing
purposes; and,
WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared, pursuant to Health and
Safety Code Section 33433 the "Summary Report" of Agency Property
Disposition and Financial Assistance" which was made available for
public review at least 15 days prior to the noticed public hearing;
and,
WHEREAS, the Summary Report and staff report presented
therewith, contain the basis for making all required findings under
the Health and Safety Code for the RA project; and,
WHEREAS, the Agency held a properly noticed public
hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 6067 on July 13, 1999
to consider the Summary Report, the RA, Resolution of Necessity and
the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-99-21; and,
WHEREAS, the Agency and City have considered all the
evidence submitted at the hearing including the staff report and
the Summary Report which are incorporated herein by this reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment
Agency and City Council of the City of Chula Vista do hereby find,
order, determine and resolve as follows:
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-99-21, and the
associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are hereby
adopted and determined to be prepared in full compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
2. All required owner participation rights pursuant to
Health and Safety Code Section 33339 with respect to the owners of
the Rados Parcel have been extended and waived.
3. The hearing required by the Health and Safety Code
Section 33431 and 33433 was duly called, noticed and held in the
manner required by law, and all conditions precedent required by
law to be performed have been duly performed.
4. The Section 33433 Report has been prepared, and filed
in the Office of the City Clerk and in the Office of the Executive
Director, and made available for public inspection and copying, all
in the manner required by law.
5. All protests, if any, to the proposed Project, and
the transfer of the properties contemplated therein, were made and
received at said public hearing.
6. The City Council does hereby find that the
consideration to be received for the Agency Parcels which is the
subject matter of the RA is not less than fair market value in
accordance with covenants and conditions governing the transfer;
and further, if the transfer of the designated parcels should be
determined to be at less than estimated value, determined at the
2
highest use permitted under the plan, such lesser consideration is
necessary to effectuate the purposes of the plan.
7. The City Council does hereby approve the transfer of
the Agency Parcels in the manner set forth in the
8. It is in the best interests of the community, the
City and the Agency that the Agency Parcels be transferred to BFG
without public bid.
9. The financial assistance provided to BFG under the
RA pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33444.6 is necessary
for the economic feasibility of the development and the assistance
cannot be obtained on economically feasible terms in the private
market. BFG has indicated that it could not and would not proceed
with the RA project without such financial assistance based upon
its analysis of the investment value being lost in the relocation
and the new investment required. The Agency has considered and
approves this analysis. Furthermore, the nature of the financing
assistance is unique and could not be duplicated in the private
marketplace.
10. The PJI is consistent with and implements the
Bayfront Redevelopment Plan and Implementation Plan. The RA
contributes to the elimination of blight in the following ways:
a. The demolition of vacant, dilapidated, and burned
out industrial building ion the Rados property and
subsequent transfer to BFG as part of their
consolidated campus.
b. The transfer of the unimproved Agency's Bay
Boulevard properties to BFG as part of their
consolidated campus.
c. The clean-up of soils contamination, if any, on the
Rados and Bay Boulevard properties.
d. The demolition of underutilized buildings on the
south campus over the four year relocation period
creating an opportunity for planned and coordinated
redevelopment adjacent to the Chula Vista Marina.
e. The investigation, characterization and ultimately
the clean-up of soils and groundwater contamination
on the south campus consistent with future
development that otherwise would not have occurred
in the foreseeable future.
Potential for improving the traffic circulation,
currently constrained by poor east-west vehicular
access, including the extension of "H" Street and
realignment of Marina Parkway that will increase the
developability of vacant and/or underutilized
properties.
3
g. Private investment of approximately $47 million in
the modernization and physical improvement of a
major manufacturing facility and employer in Chula
Vista.
11. In consideration of the above, the City Council and
Agency hereby approve and authorize the execution of the Relocation
Agreement by and between the City of Chula Vista, Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Chula Vista, San Diego Unified Port District,
and Rohr, Inc. operating as BFGoodrich Aerospace Aerostructures
Group in substantially the form presented with such minor
modifications as may be required or approved by the City Attorney.
12. Staff is authorized and directed to take all such
actions as are reasonably necessary to implement the terms of this
Resolution and the RA.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
Director of Community Development ~tK~oher~Y~ ~
AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. /~ 3 9
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA DETERMINING AND DECLARING THE
PUBLIC NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 798 "F" STREET, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
FOR THE BFGOODRICH RELOCATION PROJECT AND
AUTHORIZING THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO ACQUIRE SAID
PROPERTY
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") has
authorized the execution of the Relocation Agreement ("RA") by and between the City, Agency,
San Diego Unified Port District ("District"), and Rohr, Inc., operating as BFGoodrich Aerospace
Aerostructures Group ("BFG"); and
WHEREAS, the RA contemplates the acquisition of real property located at 798 "F"
Street, Chula Vista, ("Property") to effectuate the relocation and consolidation of BFG operations
north of the proposed "H" Street extension Jn the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area; and
WHEREAS, on November 30, 1998, in accordance with Government Code
Section 7267.2, the Agency made an offer to acquire the property to The Rados Brothers, the
owner thereof; such offer was based on an appraisal and constitutes just compensation for the
Property; and
WHEREAS, such letter also extended to the Rados Brothers owner participation
rights in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33339 requirements and the Bayfront
Redevelopment Plan; the Rados Brothers did not respond to such letter and thereby waived their
owner participation rights effective as of January 4, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Agency has been unable to reach terms for the voluntary
acquisition of the Property in a timely fashion after good faith efforts to do so; and
WHEREAS, in order to acquire the necessary interest in the Property, it is
necessary that the Agency conduct a public hearing on the matter of adopting a resolution of
necessity to commence the eminent domain process; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to a certified letter dated June 4, 1999, the owner of record
of the affected Property, Rados Brothers, was duly notified of the public hearing and their right to
appear and be heard on the matter of interest to adopt the resolution of necessity; and
WHEREAS, the owner was also informed that the adoption of the resolution of
necessity will authorize the acquisition of the necessary property rights through eminent domain;
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure Section
1245.235 the Agency properly noticed, and on July 13, 1999, properly conducted a public
hearing to consider the adoption of this Resolution; and,
Resolution No.
Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, at such public hearing the Agency considered all of the evidence
submitted including all relevant staff reports, and all evidence relating to the need for the Project
and the Property; and,
WHEREAS, the Agency possesses the right to acquire said Property by the use
of the power of eminent domain pursuant to the California Constitution and the California
Eminent Domain Law, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1230.010 et. Seq., including inter alia
Sections 1240.010, 1240.110 and 1240.120, and in furtherance of redevelopment pursuant to
California Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et. Seq., and in accordance with California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.030 which provides that the power of eminent domain
may be exercised to acquire property for a proposed project if the following conditions are
established:
a) the public interest and necessity require the project;
b) the project is planned or located in a manner that will be the most
compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury;
c) the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA DO HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND DETERMINE, BY A VOTE OF NOT LESS
THAN TVVO-THIRDS OF ITS MEMBERS, AS FOLLOWS:
1. PROPOSED USE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED
The Property, as more particularly described in the above recitals and on Exhibit
A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, shall be acquired for the purposes
of transferring it to BFG as part of their relocation project to consolidate and modernize their
campus north of the proposed "H" Street extension subject to the terms and conditions of that
certain Relocation Agreement by and between the City of Chula Vista, Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency, BFG and Port. The Property is necessary for the interim use of
parking and for the ultimate development of additional office/industrial facilities on the
consolidated BFG campus.
2. FINDINGS RELATED TO NECESSITY
a. Public Interest and Necessity Require the Project.
The public interest, convenience and necessity of the Agency, and its
residents, require the acquisition of the property for the stated purpose for reasons including but
not limited to: 1) allow for the potential redevelopment of the property being vacated by BFG
south of "H" Street, including the environmental investigation, characterization and ultimately the
cleanup in accordance with appropriate development standards; 2) create the opportunity to
extend "H" Street which is necessary for better public access to the waterfront as well as for
other development projects in the Bayfront project area without additional and unnecessary
public expense associated with condemning the right-of-way through the middle of the existing
BFG campus, and any potential relocation costs and damages that could arise; 3) stimulate the
private investment in the modernization and capitalization of the BFG industrial campus which is
a major corporate entity and employer in the City of Chula Vista; and 4) promote the
redevelopment of the Property into office/industrial uses whereas the Property is currently in a
blighted and dilapidated condition.
Resolution No.
Page 3 of 5
b. Proiect Planned and Located for Greatest Public Good and Least Privat~
Iniury.
The Project has been planned and located to be most compatible with the
greatest public good and the least private injury for reasons including, but not limited to, that the
property is currently a public nuisance under single property ownership in a blighted and
dilapidated condition with a vacant, burned out industrial building.
c. Property to be Acquired is Necessary for the Proiect.
The Rados property at 798 "F" Street is necessary for the project. The Property
is necessary for the Project for reasons including, but not limited to, because it lies immediately
adjacent to BFG's existing corporate administrative office building at the southwest corner of
Bay Boulevard and "F" Street and needs to be included to properly master plan BFG's new
North Campus. The consolidation of the BFG campus north of "H" Street requires BFG to vacate
approximately 60 acres and 800,000 sq. ft. of building facilities. Such a massive consolidation is not
currently possible without additional land assemblage north of "H" Street including the Rados
property (3.02 acres), the Agency's Bay Boulevard properties (3.65 acres), as well as other
properties from the Port, SDG&E and MTDB (totaling 26.51 acres). The Property is necessary for
the interim uses of parking and staging relocation activities. The acquisition of the Rados parcel is
also necessary over the long-term for BFG to consolidate their operations and master ptan their new
campus to its highest and best use.
d. Public Use Property.
To the extent that any portion of the Property includes property previously
dedicated to public use, the taking by the Agency as to any such portion is either for a
compatible public use consistent with and authorized by Code of Civil Procedure Section
1240.510, or for a more necessary public use consistent with and authorized by Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1240.610.
e. Compliance with Right to Take
All conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of
eminent domain ("the right to take") to acquire the property described herein have been
complied with by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista.
3. VOLUNTARY OFFER TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY MADE
As set forth in the recitals above, an offer to purchase the Property for an amount
constituting just compensation, as determined by an appraisal, has been made to the owner(s)
of record of the Property in accordance with Government Code Section 7267.2.
4. AUTHORITY TO PROCEED IN EMINENT DOMAIN GRANTED
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, as the designated
responsible lead agency for the Project, and all appropriate officers, representatives and
attorneys, are hereby authorized and empowered, as provided by and in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the Constitution of California, Government Code, Code of Civil
Procedure, the City Charter and Municipal Code related to eminent domain, to acquire the
Resolution No.
Page 4 of 5
necessary easements to the Property by condemnation is the name of the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Chula Vista to be used for the municipal purpose of enhancing a
transportation facility, and for Health and Safety purposes, as and to that end, it is authorized
and directed to commence and to prosecute an action or actions in eminent domain for the
purpose of acquiring easements to the Property.
5. RETENTION OF EMINENT DOMAIN COUNSEL AUTHORIZED
The Agency Attorney as General Counsel, and the law firm of Daley & Heft,
special attorneys for City, are hereby authorized to prepare and prosecute in the name of the
Agency, such proceeding or proceedings in the proper court having jurisdiction thereof, as are
necessary for such acquisition; and to prepare and file such pleadings, documents, briefs, and
other instruments and to make such arguments and to take such actions as may be necessary
in the opinion of said attorneys to acquire for said Agency the said real property. Said attorneys
are specifically authorized to take whatever steps and/or procedures are available to them
under the Eminent Domain Law of the State of California including but not limited to Code of
Civil Procedure, Title 7, Chapters 1-12, sections 1230.010-1273.050).
Resolution No.
Page 5 of 5
6. APPROPRIATION OF NECESSARY PROCEEDS
The proceeds required to fund the Project is contemplated to come from the San
Diego Unified Port District as provided in the BFG Relocation Agreement authorized for
execution by the City Council and RDA of the City of Chula Vista at the same scheduled public
hearing July 13, 1999.
7. ISSUES OF URGENCY, EXPEDIENCY, DESIRABILITY AND NECESSITY
The acquisition of the Property is urgently needed to expediently complete the
Project and is manifestly desirable and essential to the declared objects of the Agency. The
Agency has urgent need for the immediate possession of such Property, and the designated
attorneys on behalf of the Agency are authorized and directed to secure an order of court
authorizing the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista to take possession of said
Property at the earliest possible date.
8. CEQACOMPLIANCE
The Agency has concurrently reviewed and adopted a Mitigated Negative
Declaration IS-99-21 for the Project and made all appropriate findings and adoptions required
by the California Environmental Quality Action ("CEQA") in connection therewith. To the extent
that the adoption of this Resolution in and of itself will not generate any significant
environmental impacts, this action is exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061 (b)(3).
9. INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT
The Agency hereby find and determine that their approval of eminent domain
proceedings, adoptions of this Resolution and related findings made in connection therewith,
were the product of their exercise of their independent review and judgement.
Presented by: Approved as to form by:
EXHIBIT A
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL MAP
Lipman Stevens Marshall & Thene, Inc. 19
~-~/
EXHIBIT C ~ ~--~'
EXHIBIT D
RELOCATION AGREEMENT
by and between
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
and
ROHR, INC.,
operating as BFGOODRICH AEROSPACE AEROSTRUCTURES GROUP
10671100001517240504 ~ 07/09/99 10:48AM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
' PAGE
Section 1, RECITAI_S .................................................................................................. 1
1,1 Existing BFG Campus ................................................................................ ~1
1.2 Rede',elopment and Eminent Domain ......................................................... 1
1.3 Purpose of Agreement and Related Agreemems ......................................... 1
1.4 Reservation of Discretion ............................................................................ 2
Section 2. DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................. 2
Section 3, LAND TRANSFER AGREEMENTS .................. } .................................... 13
3.1 Land Transfer Agreement Between Port and BFG .................................... 13
3.1.] South Calnpus Transfers ................................................................ 13
3, 1.2 Port Parcels .................................................................................... I3
3.l.3 SDG&E Property ........................................................................... 14
3.1.4 MTDB Property ............................................................................. 14
3.1.5 Approval ot'[.,m~d Transfer by State Lands Commission .............. 15
3.1.6 Title Exceptions ............................................................................. 15
3.2 Land Trm~sfcr Agreement Behveen Agency and BFG .............................. 16
3.2.2 Rados Parcel ................................................................................... 16
3.3 Transfer and Acceptm~ce of Property ......................................................... 17
3.3.1 Property Transl'errcd to Port .......................................................... 17
3.3.2 Property Transfen'ed to BFG .................................................... i....18
3.4 Indemnities After Closing Date ................................................................. 19
3.4.1 Port Indemnity ............................................................................... 19
3.4.2 BFG Indemnity .............................................................................. 20
3,5 Environmental Matters ............................................................................... 20
3.6 Port-Agency Agreement ............................................................................ 20
3,6.1 Appropriation ................................................................................. 20
3.6.2 Funding .......................................................................................... 21
3.6.3 Utili×ation of Funds ....................................................................... 21
i
0671 ~ 0000 ~ 5 172405 04
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
PAGE
3.6.4 Repayment Obligation ................................................................... 2-2
3.7 Other Pre Closing Obligations and Actions ............................................... 22
3.7.1 BFG Subleases ............................................................................... 22
3.7.2 BFG Ground Lease with SDG&E .................................................. 22
3.7.3 BFG Lease With MTDB ................................................................ 23
3.7.4 Vacation of Marina Pm'kway ......................................................... 23
3,7.5 Lot Line Adjustments .................................................................... 23
3.7,6 Certificates of Compliance ............................................................ 23
3.8 Other Provisions ......................................................................................... 23
3.9 Form of' Deed:,; ............................................................................................ 24
Section 4. BFG RELOCATION ................................................................................. 24
4.1 Relocation Period ....................................................................................... 24
4.2 H Street Extension ..................................................................................... 25
4.3 Marina Parkway Realignment .................................................................... 25
4.4 Relocation Schedule ................................................................................... 26
4.4. l Adjustments to Re ocat on Schedule ............................................. 26
4.5 BF(~ Occupancy of South Campus During P, elocation Period .................. 27
4,6 Termination ot'Obligations Concerning the South Campus ...................... 27
4.7 Utilities and Sci'vices ............................................................................ ,~....27
Section 5. P, ELOCATION AND NEW CAMPUS FINANCE ASSISTANCE ......... 27
5.1 Payments ................................................................................................ L..27
5.2 PosbClosing Adjustments ............................................................ .~ ............. 27
5.3 Reimbursement of' South Cmnpus Property Taxes .................................... 28
5.4 New Campus Industrial Financing Assistance .......................................... 28
5.4.1 Annual Installments ....................................................................... 28
5,4,2 Relocation Period Pa~qnents .......................................................... 28
5.4,3 Post-Relocation Period Payments .................................................. 29
ii
106711 oo00~ 5,72405.04 ~,1~ t ~ 07/09/99 10:48 AM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued) ,
PAGE
5.4.4 Port Contribntion ........................................................................... 29
5.4.5 Port Loan Repayment .................................................................... 29
5.4.6 Payments to BFG Stadingin Fiscal Year 2010/201 i
Limiled to Actnal Receipts ............................................................ 30
5.4.7 Adjustments and Maximum Paymenl ............................................ 31
5,4,8 In General ....................................................................................... 31
5.4.9 Special Indemnity .......................................................................... 31
Section 6. NEW CAMPL S AND SOUTH CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT. ................ 32
6.1 Development Agreement ........................................................................... 32
6.1.I Permitted Uses ............................................................................... 32
6.1.2 Subsequent Approvals ................................................................... 32
6.1.3 Application of Subsequently Enacted Rules, Regulations
and Official Policies ....................................................................... 32
6.1.4 Other Governmental Permits, Approvals and Services ................. 33
6.1.5 Adjacent Land Uses ....................................................................... 33
6.1.6 lnI'rastrucmre, Fees and Exactions ........................ :::.."~.. .................. 33
6.1.7 Prior City Commitments ................................................................ 34
6,1.8 Term ............................................................................................... 34
6.2 BFG Obligations ................................................................................... z...34
6.2.1 Rados/Agency Parcels Usc and Development ........................
6.2.2 No Challenges; Cooperation .......................................................... 36
6.3 Port Cooperalion ........................................................................................ 36
6.3.1 Port ,lurisdiction and Control Over Land Uses .............................. 36
6.3.2 No Challenges ................................................................................ 36
6.4 Port and City/Agency Agreements Regarding South Campus
Development .............................................................................................. 37
6.4.1 Master Plan Amendment ................................................................ 37
6.4.2 RFP Process and Project Approval ................................................ 37
iii
'067'100001517240504 D__iii 07/09,99 10:48 AM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued) ~
PAGE
6.5 Covered Areas ............................................................................................ J7
Section 7. ENVIRONMENTAL M,ANAGEMENT ................................................... 38
7.1 General P 'incip es ...................................................................................... 38
7.1.1 Cc operation .................................................................................... 38
7.1.2 Deve opine ~t Objectives .......................................................... 38
7.1.3 Risk-Based Standards .................................................................... 38
7.1.4 Environmental Objectives .............................................................. 39
7.1.5 Shared Costs ................................................................................... 39
7.] .6 Man rests ................................................ 39
7.2 Allocation of Environmental Costs: South Cm'npus .................................39
7~2.1 General ........................................................................................... 39
7.2.2 Allocation ....................................................................................... 40
7.~.~ Costs A'te'Transfe' . .......................................... 40
7.2.4 Co~tss Associated' ~ With,' Importation o/'Dredged Material .............. 41
7.2.5 Costs Associated With D'~ ~' ,
edging ................................................ 41
7.2.6 Costs Associated With Irrigation and Ponds ................................. 41
7.2.'7 Costs Associated With Grading ..................................................... 42
7.2.8 Costs in Excess ofI~dustr a Use Standards .................................. 42
7.2.9 Costs Associated With Underground Storage Tanks Costs ...... :....42
7.2.10 Costs Associated With Demolition ................................................ 43
7.2.11 Costs Associated x~ith Groundwater Monitoring ........................... 43
7.2.12 C,osts Assocmted ¥~, ~th ' ' ' ~
.... Construction Dewatermg .......................... 43
7.2.13 Cost Limitation .............................................................................. 43
7.2.14 Contamination Discovery Cutoft: .................................................. 43
7.3 Mmmgement of Environmental Matters: South Campus .......................... 44
7.3.1 Management Responsibilities a~d Act v t es ......................... 44
7.4 Allocation of Environmental Costs and Management
Responsibilities Gr Other Identified Properties ........................................ 51
ma?l~oooolsl?24oSo4 D' ~ ~/ 07/09/99 10:48AM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
PAGE
7.4.1 Port Parcels m~d SDG&E Land North of H Street .........................
7.4.2 Rados Parcel mid City Parcel ......................................................... 54
7.4.3 Costs Associated With Dredged Material ...................................... 55
7.4.4 Costs Associated With Dredging ................................................... 55
7.4.5 Contamination Discovery Cutol): .................................................. 55
7.5 Other Terms and Conditions ...................................................................... 55
7.5.1 Cooperation .................................................................................... 55
7.5.2 Pemfitting ....................................................................................... 58
7.5.3 Plans ............................................................................................... 58
7.5.4 industrial [..se Standard .................................................................. 58
7.6 Indemnity and Other Provisions ................................................................ 58
7.6.1 General ........................................................................................... 58
7.6.2 lntemal Costs ................................................................................. 59
7.6.3 Consequential Dmnages ................................................................. 59
7.6.4 Penalties and Fines ......................................................................... 59
7.6.5 Other Funds .................................................................................... 59
Section 8. CLOSING .................................................................................................. 59
8.1 Closing; Closin. g Date ................................................................................ 59
Section 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................................................ :..i....60
9.1 Claims and Fees ......................................................................................... 60
9.1.1 Indemnity Obligations ................................................................... 60
9.1.2 NoticeofThird Party Claims ......................................................... 60
9.2 Force Majeure ............................................................................................ 61
9.2.1 Notice ............................................................................................. 61
9.2.2 Et'tbtls to Minimize ................................................ ~ ....................... 61
9.2.3 Option to Terminate ....................................................................... 61
9.3 Time of the Essence ................................................................................... 61
10671100001517240S04 '~"V 07/09/99 10:48AM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
PAGE
9,4 Independent Contractors ............................................................................ f~l
9.5 Dispute Resolutiola ..................................................................................... 61
9.5.1 Mediation ....................................................................................... 61
9,5.2 Institution of LegalAction ............................................................. 62
9.5.3 Arbitration of Specified Disputes .................................................. 62
9,6 No Joint Venture ........................................................................................ 63
9.7 Applicable I,aw .......................................................................................... 63
9.8 Notices ....................................................................................................... 63
9.9 Rules oi! Construction ................................................................................ 64
9. l0 Severability ................................................................................................ 64
9,11 Entire Agreement, Waivers, Amendments ................................................ 64
9.12 Further Action ............................................................................................ 65
9.13 Exhibits ...................................................................................................... 65
9.14 Parties to Bear Their Own Costs ................................................................ 65
9.15 Captions ..................................................................................................... 65
9.16 Assumption of Responsibility .................................................................... 65
9.17 Successors and Assigns .............................................................................. 66
9.18 Third Parties ............................................................................................... 66
.................. COMPARISON OF HEADERS ..................
-HEADER 1-
-HEADER 2-
This header acts as a placeholder for the first page!
-HEADER 3-
TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)
vi
10671100001517240504 '~__~t~l 07/09/99 10:48AM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued) ,
PAGE
PAGE
-HEADER 4-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
.................. COMPARISON OF FOOTERS ..................
-FOOTER 1-
, vv, ,.~ r~'~ ~ ~ atmr~vvv,~, A, ~. ,~ ,~.v~ '*'~ At~ n~ $ 106711.000015 172405.04 60
-FOOTER 2-
196711 090914 !72q95.01 106711.000015 172405.04
E
-FOOTER 3-
~172405 ~ v~ - Relocation Agreement/Po~ (replaces ~ ~ a ~, · n~ ~
...... a, 7/8/99 version~/07/09/99 ~:~.
10:48 ~
-FOOTER 4-
!95711 9OOOld !72~05.01 106711.000015 172405.04 07/09/99 OS:O~ 10:48 ~
E
-FOOTER 5-
hvA
!96711 90991~ 172~05.01 106711.000015 172405.04 07/09/99 OS:9q 10:48 ~
-FOOTER 6-
i
~ ~ ~nnnl ~ 1~< m r~/~o/o~ n~.~ a ~ 106711 000015 172405 04
S
This redlined drak, generated by CompareRite (TM) - The Instant Redliner, shows the
differences between -
ohginal document : J:~OCS~RSk0172405.01
and revised document: J:~OCSkJRSk0172405.04
vii
106711000015 17240504
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued
PAGE
CompareRite found 82 change(s) in the text
CompareRite found 11 change(s) in the notes
Deletions appear as Overstrike text
Additions appear as Double Underline text
RELOCATION AGREEMENT
THIS RELOCATION AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") is
made and entered into effective this 22d 13~' day of June July, 1999 ("Effective Date''), by and
between the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation ("City"), REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a redevelopment agency formed pursuant to
Health and Safety Code §§ 33000 et seq. ("Agency"), SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT
DISTRICT, a Port District formed pursuant to Harbors and Navigations Code App. 1, §§ 1 et
seq. (hereinafter referred to as "Port") and ROHR, 1NC., operating as BFGoodrich Aerospace
Aerostructures Group, a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of The BFGoodrich
Company (hereinafter referred to as "BFG"). All references in this Agreement to "City/Agency"
shall refer collectively to City and Agency. City, Agency, Port and BFG are from time to time
hereinafter referred to individually as a "party" and collectively as the "parties."
The parties agree as follows:
Section 1. RECITALS
1.1 Existing BFG Campus. BFG, Port and Agency own certain real property at
the Chula Vista Bayfront (the "Bayfront", as further defined in Section 2.8), in the City of Chula
Vista, CaIifornia. BFG is the owner of a manufacturing facility on real property located at the
Bayfront, as depicted on the attached Exhibit A (the "Existing Campus," as fn~h_%er defined in
Section 2.45).
1.2 Redevlelopment and Eminent Domain. The Port wishes to realign BFG and
Port ownership interests at the Bayfront to improve opportunities for development of Port
tidelands consistent with the Port's tidelands trust. Realignment of the ownership interest of.
BFG and the Port will result in acquisition of property uniquely situated to afford the Port
substantially greater Bayfront development opportunities. Accordingly, the Port has indicated its
intention, subject to compliance with all applicable California laws, to acquire the "BFG
Property" (as defined in Section 2.10) by power of eminent domain, since BFG has not
expressed any interest in the sale or other disposition of the BFG Property. By executing and
delivering this Agreement, the Port and BFG agree to avoid the necessity of eminent domain
proceedings, and to cause the realignment of the BFG Property and related properties, all as set
forth herein.
1.3 Purpose of Agreement and Related Agreements. The purpose of this
Agreement is to set forth the fundamental terms of the parties' contract concerning certain land
transfers, relocation of BFG's facilities to the "New Campus" (as depicted in the attached
Exhibit B and a~ defined in 8*~4ima-Z-6~ Section 2.71), creation of public thoroughfares,
106711.000015 172405.04 I
_/:>-/
?
management of environmental issues, and development and use of the property comprising the
New Campus and the South Campus. The parties intend to enter into the follo~ving additional
agreements containing further detailed terms and conditions regarding these matters (the '
"Related Agreem en ts"):
(a) Port-BFG Land Transfer Agreement;
(b) Agency-BFG Land Transfer Agreement;
(c) Development Agreement;
(d) Tidelands Use and Occupancy Permit; and
(e) Right of Entry Permit.
1.4 Reservation of Discretion. BFG acknowledges and agrees that,
notwithstanding the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Port, City and Agency reserve their
discretion to approve or disapprove all future actions contemplated hereby which require by law
the exercise of discretion and which Port, City and Agency cannot lawfully be committed to by
contract (collectively, "Discretionary Actions"). Such reservation of discretion shall apply to all
contemplated legislative and quasi-judicial actions including, without limitation, approval of land
use entitlements, CEQA compliance, the exercise of eminent domain, code enforcement and the
making of findings and determinations required by law. In the event that Port, City or Agency
shall take or fail to take any Discretionary Action with respect to the subject matter of this
Agreement, any such action or inaction shall not constitute a breach of such party's obligations
under this Agreement.
Section 2. DEFINITIONS
In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires:
2.1 "ADR Provider" ~hall have the meaning set forth in Section 9.5.1
2.2 "Affected Party" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 9.2.1.
2.3 "Agency" means the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a
political subdivision in the State of California exercising governmental functions and powers and
organized and existing under the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California
(Health and Safety Code Sections 33000, et seq.).
2.4 "Agency-BFG Land Transfer Agreement" means the Land Transfer
Agreement between Agency and BFG described in Section 3.2.
2.5 "Agency Fund" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.6.1.
10671100001517240504 2
?
2.6 "Agency Parcel" means the real property Agency owns on Bay Boulevard
south of Lagoon Drive, comprising approximately 3.65 acres, as shown on the Site Map attached
as Exhibit C.
2.7 "Agreement" means this Relocation Agreement.
2.8 "Bayfront" means the property located in the City of Chula Vista, Califomih
bounded by F Street and Lagoon Drive to the north, Interstate 5 to the east, J Street and Marina
Parkway to the south, and the San Diego Bay to the west.
2.9 "BFG" means Rohr, Inc., operating as BFGoodrich Aerospace
Aerostructures Group, a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of The BFGoodrich
Company.
2.10 "BFG Property" means the real property owned in fee by BFG located
south of the northerly boundary of the proposed H Street Extension comprising approximately
37.58 acres and as more particularly shown on the Site Map attached as Exhibit C.
2.11 "BFG Relocation" means the relocation and consolidation of BFG's
facilities and operations from the South Cmnpus to the New Campus as described in Sections 4
and 5.
2.12 "BFGSubleases" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.7.1.
2.13 "CEQA" means the California Environmental Quality Act, Public
Resources Code § § 21000 et seq. and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder.
2.14 "CHGC" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.7.1.
2.15 "City" means the City of Chula Vista, a municipal corporation having
charter powers. ,
2.16 "City/Agency" si)ail have the meaning set forth in the introductory
paragraph 4- of this Agreement. ~
2.17 "Claims andFees" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 9.1.1.
2,18 "Closing" shall have the meaning set forth in gee-fioe~ Section 8.1.
2.19 "Closing Date" shall have the meaning set forth in ~ Section 8.1.
2.20 "Combbted Campus Available Revenues" shall have the meaning set forth
in Section 5.4.4.
2.21 "Combb~ed Camptts Base Revenues" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 5.4.4.
000015 172405 04 3
/)-3
2.22 "Costs" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 7.2.1.
2.23 "Covered Areas" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6.5.
2.24 "Deferred Obligation" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 5.4.6.
2.25 "Demolition" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 7.2.10.
2.26 "Development Agreement" ..... .~,~ r~..~ ..... * ^ ........· ,~, ........
v.,j,, ~,,~: .................... ~ .................... ~ ......... ~ .................. shall
have the meaning set forth in Section 6.1.
2.27 "Developmeut ,4greentent Effective Date" shall have the meaning set forth
in Section 6.1.1.
2.28 "Development Agreemeut Statute" means Title 7, Chapter 4, Article 2.5,
§§ 65864 through 65869.5 of the Government Code.
2.29 "Developntent Platt" shall have the meaning set forth in
............. ~.~.) Section 7.3.1(g)(1)(i~.
2.30 "Disapproval Exception" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.1.6.
2.31 "DiscretionaryActious" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 1.4.
2.32 "Dispute" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 9.5.1.
2.33 " " '
Easement Area shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6.2.1(b).
2.34 "Effective Date" means the effective date of this Agreem~i~s set forth in
the introductory paragraph hereof.
2.35 "Entry Statement" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6.2.1 (b).
2.36 "Environmental Conditions" means the presence of Hazardous Substances.
2.37 "Environmental Claims" means any lawsuits or claims or requirements of
government agencies (including, without limitation, all cost recovery actions, suits, proceedings,
administrative orders, causes of action, judgments, injunctions, settlements, fines or panalties)
made by any person or entity resulting from, concerning, or arising out of or in connection with
Environmental Conditions, Environmental Releases or Environmental Remediation Activities.
Provided, however, that Environmental Claims shall not include fines or penalties imposed upon
a specific party by a government agency based on unreasonable actions by that party.
2.38 "Environmental Costs" means the Costs resulting from, concerning, or
arising out of or in connection with Environmental Conditions, Environmental Releases,
~06711.000015 172405 04 4
2:>-'/
?
Environmental Remediation Activities, and Environmental Claims; provided ho~vever that
Environmental Costs shall specifically not include consequential, or punitive damages.
2.39 "EnvironmentalLaws" means any federal, state or local law, statute,
regulation, rule, ordinance, permit, prohibition, restriction, requirement, agreement, consent or
approval, or any determination, directive, judgment, decree or order of any executive,
administrative or judicial authority at any federal, state or local level (whether now existing or
subsequently adopted or promulgated) relating to (a) environmental and/or toxic contamination
or pollution or (b) the protection of the environment, natural resources or public health or safety
from hazardous substances, materials, wastes, pollutants or contaminants.
2.40 "Environmental Matters" means all matters concerning, or arising out of or
in connection with Environmental Conditions, Environmental Claims, Environmental Costs,
Environmental Releases and/or Environmental Remediation Activities.
2.41 "Environmental Release" means any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring,
emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the
environment of any Hazardous Substance, including the abandonment or discarding of barrels,
containers, and other etos~ receptacles containing any Hazardous Substance.
2.42 "Environmental Remediation Activities" means the investigation,
administration, compliance, mitigation, remediation, cleanup or related actions resulting from,
concerning, or arising out of or in connection with Environmental Conditions, Environmental
Claims or Environmental Releases.
2.43 "Excluded BFG Property" means the property described in
Section 3.1 .l(b).
2.44 "Existing Approvals" means all Project Approvals applicdl~l~to the real
property comprising the New Campus as of the effective date of the Development Agreement.
2.45 "Existing Campus" means that certain real property owned or leased by
BFG described in Exhibit A, including the property leased from the Port, SDG&E, and
SD&AERC, located at the Bayfront on which BFG currently operates a manufacturing facility.
2.46 "Existing Rules, Regulations & Official Policies" shall have the meaning
set forth in Section 6.1.1.
2.47 "Fiscal Year" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 5.4.2.
2.48 "Force Majeure" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 9.2.
2.49 "Foster" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.7.1.
2.50 "Funding Request" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.6.2.
2.51 "General Plan" means the City of Chula Vista General Plan.
2.52 "H Street Boyle Study" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4.2.
2.53 "HStreet Extension" means the H Street Extension described in
Section 4.2 and shall include substantially all of the project elements (including without
limitation, utility lines and infrastructure), as depicted by the H Street Boyle Study.
2.54 "Hazardous Substance" means any material, waste, chemical, compound,'
substance, mixture, or byproduct that is identified, defined, designated, listed, restricted or
otherwise regulated under Environmental Laws as a "hazardous constituent," "hazardous
substance," "hazardous waste constituent," "infectious waste," "rhedical waste," "biohazardous
waste," "extremely hazardous waste," "pollutant," "toxic pollutant," "chemical constituent,"
"solid waste," or "contaminant," or any other formulation intended to classify substances by
reason of properties that are deleterious to the environment, natural resources or public health or
safety including without limitation, ignitability, infectiousness, corrosiveness, radioactivity,
carcinogenicity, toxicity, and reproductive toxicity. Without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, Hazardous Substances shall include any form of natural gas, as well as any petroleum
products or any fraction thereof, and any substance that, due to its characteristics or interaction
with one or more other materials, wastes, chemicals, compounds, substances, mixtures, or
byproducts, damages or threatens to damage the environment, natural resources or public health
or safety, or is required by any law or public entity to be remediated, including remediation
which such law or public entity requires in order for real property to be put to any lawful
purpose.
2.55 "Industrial Impacts" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6.1.5.
2.56 "ludustrial Use Standard" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 7.5.4.
2.57 "Injured Party" shall have the meaning set forth in Secti0~.3.
2.58 "Insthllment" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 5.4.1.
2.59 "InstallmeutAmouut Due" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 5.4.4. ·
2.60 "Installment Paymeut Date" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 5.4.1.
2.61 "Interim Use Period" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6.2.1 (a).
2.62 "Land Transfer Agreemeuts" means the Agency-BFG Land Transfer
Agreement and the Port-BFG Land Transfer Agreement described in Section 3.
2.63 "Long Term Lease" means the lease described in Section 3.1.2(a)(i).
2.64 "Marina Parkway Boyle Study" shall have the meaning set forth in Section
4.3.
06711 000015 172405 04 6
2.65 "Marina Parkway Realignmeut" shall have the metaling set forth in
Section 4.3.
2.66 "Master Plan" shaI1 mean the Master Plan of the Port District as amended
from time to time.
2.67 "MTDB" means the Metropolitan Transit Development Board.
2.68 "MTDB Leases" means the Commercial Lease dated September 19, 1957,
between SD&AERC and Rohr Aircraft Corporation, and the Railroad Lease Agreement dated
February 12, 1998, between SD&AERC and BFG.
2.69 "MTDB Parcel" means the real property described in Section 3.1.4(a).
2.70 "MTDB Railway" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.1.4(b).
2.71 "New Cam£us" means the real property north of H Street on which BFG
will consolidate and relocate its facilities (including the property to be acquired by BFG pursuant
to this Agreement), as sho~vn on Exhibit B, comprised initially of the property owned in fee by
BFG, the Rados Parcel, the Agency Parcel, the SDG&E Parcel, Port Parcel 1 and Port Parcel 2.
The MTDB Parcel (or any of the other foregoing properties) shall be included in the definition of
New Campus if it is transferred to BFG subsequent to Closing. In the event BFG elects to close
without receiving title to (or a possessory interest in) one or more of the foregoing properties, the
New Campus shall not include such properties unless title to (or a possessory interest in) such
properties is subsequently acquired.
2.72 "New Campus lndustrial Fiuaucing Assistance" shall have the meaning
set forth in Section 5.4.
2.73 "NewRules" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6.1.3.
%
2.74 "Notifying Party" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 9.1.2.
2.75 "Option Notice" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6.2.1(c)(3).~
2.76 "Original Purchase Price" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 6.2.1(c)(I).
2.77 "Parties" shall have the meaning set forth in the introductory_ paragraph 4- of
this Agreement.
2.78 "Permitted Uses" means all uses for which the Existing Campus is
currently used, including, without limitation, manufacturing and related operations (including all
activities associated with the research, development, manufacture, assembly, processing, testing,
servicing, repairing, storage and/or distribution of products and component parts and all activities
incidental thereto), accessory uses and buildings (including off-street parking and loading
facilities, administrative, executive and financial offices and incidental services, such as
106711000015 17240504
restaurants to serve employees) and all other uses of the same general character as the foregoing
that are consistent and in compliance with the Rules, Regulations and Official Policies applicable
to the Existing Campus as of the Closing Date; provided, however, that nothing herein sha~ll be
construed to permit any uses which are inconsistent with public health and safety.
2.79 "Port" means the San Diego Unified Port District formed pursuant to the .
San Diego Unified Port District Act, Harbors and Navigation Code App. 1, §§ I et seq.
2.80 "Port-BFG Land Transfer Agreentent" means the Land Transfer
Agreement between Port and BFG described in Section 3.
2.81 "Port Loan" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 5.4.4.
2.82 "Port Parcel 1," "Port Parcel 2," and "Port Parcels" means the parcels of
real property to be transferred by Port to BFG described in Section 3. 1.2.
2.83 "Port Property Agreements" means (a) the Lease between the City and
Rohr Aircraft Corporation dated March 20, 1959; (b) the Tidelands Use and Occupancy Permit
dated April 15, 1997, between Port and BFG; and (c) the Tidelands Use and Occupancy Permit
dated April 25, 1997, between Port and BFG.
2.84 "Project Approvals" means all General Plan and Specific Plan designations,
policies and procedures, zoning, oxvner participation agreements, design review, parcel maps,
tentative and final subdivision maps, environmental approvals (including CEQA approvals), lot
line adjustments, building permits, grading permits, preliminary and final development plans,
certificates of occupancy and all other land use, environmental and building approvals, permits
and entitlements applicable to the property comprising the New Campus.
2.85 "Rados Option" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6.2.1(c).
2.86 "Radbs Option Purchase Price" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 6.2.1 (c)(1).
2.87 "Rados Option Term" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 6.2.1 (c)(2).
2.88 "Rados Parcel" means the parcel of real property described in
Section 3.2.2(a).
2.89 "Receiving Parly" shall have the meaning set forth in Sccfion 7.7.5
Section 7.6.5.
2.90 "Related Agreements" means the agreements described in Section 1.3.
2.91 "Relocation Period" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4.1.
106711 000015 172405.04 8
?
2.92 "Relocation Schedule" means the schedule for relocation of BFG's
facilities described in Section 4.4.
2.93 "REP" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4. I.
2.94 "RFP" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6.4.2.
2.95 "Respoudiug Party" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 9.1.2.
2.96 "Rules, Regulations attd Official Policies" means the rules, regulations,
ordinances, laws, general or specific plans, zoning, and official policies governing development,
design, density and intensity of use, permitted uses, growth management, environmental review,
construction and building standards (with the exception of the Uniform Building Code and
similar uniform safety regulations, which may change from time to time) and design criteria
relating to development or use of real property.
2.97 "SD&AERC" means the San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway Company.
2.98 "SDG&E" means the San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
2.99 "SDG&E Lease" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.7.2.
2.100 "SDG&E Land" means the land that is the subject of the SDG&E Lease
between BFG and SDG&E covering the SDG&E Parcel and property owned by SDG&E south
of the New Campus as shown on Exhibit A.
2.101 "SDG&E Lines" shall have the meaning set forth in gection 3.1.3(b).
2.102 "SDG&E Parcel" means the parcel of real property descr/be~l in
Section 3.1.3(a).
2.103 "Sensitive Receptors" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6.1.5.
2.104 "SLC" means the California State Lands Commission.
2.105 "Site Map" means the site map shown on Exhibit C.
2.106 "South Campus" means the portion of the Existing Campus located on
property south of the northerly boundary of the proposed H Street Extension, including the South
Campus Leased Property, as shown on Exhibit A.
2.107 "South Campus Euvironmental Claims" shall have the meaning set forth
in Section 7.2.1.
2.108 "South Campus Euvironmental C~::di~i~::" Conditions" shall have the
meaning set forth in Section 7.2.1.
106711 000015 172405.04 9
?
2.109 "South Campus Environmental Costs" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 7.2.1.
2.110 "South Campus Environmental Releases" shall have the meaning set
forth in Section 7.2.1.
2.111 "South Campus Environmental Remediation Activities" shall have the '
meaning set forth in Section 7.2.1.
2.112 "South Campus Leased Property" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 4.6.
2.113 "Specific Platt" means the Bayfront Specific Plan of the City of Chula
Vista.
2.114 "Structures" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 7.2.10.
2.115 "Subsequent Approvals" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 6.1.2.
2.116 "Title Notice" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.1.6.
2.117 "Transfer Activities" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.6.1.
2.118 "Transfer Approval" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.1.5.
2.119 "Transfer Notice" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 3.1.4(c).
2.120 "Transfer Payments" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 5.1.
2.121 "Traosfer Properties" means the properties to be transferred in accordance
with Section 3.
2.122 "TUOP" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 4.1.
2.123 "Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances" shall have the '
meaning set forth in Section 7.2.9.
2.124 "Underground Storage Tanks" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 7.2.9. ~
2.125 "Underground Tank Regulations" shall have the meaning set forth in
Section 7.2.9.
000015 172405 04 1 0
O67
Section 3. LAND TRANSFER AGREEMENTS
The parties shall enter into "Land Transfer Agreements" concerning the transfer
of certain real property described in this Section 3 ("Transfer Properties") all upon the terms
and conditions described in this Section 3.
3.1 Land Transfer Agreement Between Port and BFG. Port and BFG shall
enter into the "Port-BFG Land Transfer Agreement" containing the terms and conditions
described in this Section 3 and such other terms as may be necessary or customary for a
transaction of this nature.
3.1.1 South Campus Transfers.
(a) Property to be Transferred to the Port. BFG shall transfer to the
Port the BFG Property including all buildings and improvements located thereon, except
for the Excluded BFG Property (defined below).
(b) Excluded BFG Property. Prior to the expiration of the Relocation
Period, BFG shall remove from the BFG Property personal property, furnishings,
fixtures, machinery, equipment, inventory, tools and the like (the "Excluded BFG
Property") and such property shall not be transferred by BFG to the Port. BFG shall
repair any damage to structural elements of buildings (walls, ceiling, foundations and
utility services) on the South Campus caused by removal of trade fixtures, provided that
such buildings are not intended by the Port to be demolished within 120 days of BFG's
relocation from the building.
3.1.2 Port Parcels.
(a) Property to be Transferred to BFG. The Port shall transfer to BFG
the following real l~roperty ("Port Parcels''):
(i) Port Parcel 1. The Port shall transfer to BFG a portion~of
the real property currently ground leased by BFG from the Port under the Lease dated
March 20, 1959, between the City and Rohr Aircraft Corporation (the "Long Term
Lease''), comprising approximately 9.99 acres, located north of the H Street Extension
and east of Marina Parkway, as sho~vn on Exhibit C ( "Port Parcel 1"). Port Parcel 1
includes buildings, improvements, fixtures and personal property, which are currently
owned, and will continue to be owned, by BFG.
(ii) Port Parcel 2. The Port shall transfer to BFG the real
property, comprising approximately 5.0 acres, located west of Port Parcel 1, in the
triangular area from the easterly edge of the existing Marina Parkway right-of-way, north
of the H Street Extension, and continuing ~vest to include portions of the existing Marina
Parkway and G Street rights-of-way and the Port-owned parcels west, south and north of
106711 000015 172405 04 1 1
b-II
such rights-of-xvay, as shown on Exhibit C ("PortParcel2"). Port Parcel 2 shall include
any buildings and improvements located thereon, including one (1) groundwater
monitoring well and related equipment.
(iii) Separate Parcels. The Port shall, at no cost to BFG, take all
steps necessary to create and convey to BFG the Port Parcels as separate legal parcels
according to applicable law.
3.1.3 SDG&E Property.
(a) Property to be Transferred to BFG. The Port shall convey to BFG
the land located within the New Campus comprising approximately 7.41 acres as shown
on Exhibit C (the "SDG&E Parcel"). The SDG&E Parcel is part of a larger parcel of
property recently acquired by the Port from SDG&E. The Port shall, at no cost to BFG,
take all steps necessary to create and convey to BFG the SDG&E Parcel as a separate
legal parcel according to applicable law.
(b) Condition of SDG&E Parcel. The Port and BFG acknowledge that
the SDG&E Parcel currently contains above-ground electrical transmission lines and
towers, related equipment, an underground natural gas line and an underground hot oil
line (collectively, the "SDG&E Lines''). BFG acknowledges that the conveyance shall
not include the SDG&E Lines. The SDG&E Parcel shall be conveyed to BFG subject to
an existing easement for continued use of the portions of the SDG&E Parcel on which the
SDG&E Lines are currently located as more fully set forth in that certain Quitclaim Deed,
Easement Reservation and Covenant Agreement between SDG&E and the Port
previously delivered to BFG and recorded in the Official Records of San Diego County.
3.1.4 MTDB Property.
(a), Property to be Transferred to BFG. The Port shall use its best
efforts to acquire and convey to BFG, or cause to be conveyed to BFG, the land currently
owned by SD&AERC between H Street and Lagoon Drive, as shown on Exhibit C (the
"MTDB Parcel"). City/AgenCy shall reasonably cooperate with Port's MTDB Parcel
acquisition efforts.
(b) Condition of MTDB Parcel. The parties acknowledge that the
MTDB Parcel currently contains an active rail line and related equipment (collectively,
the "MTDB Railway''), and the MTDB Railway must be legally vacated and a~)andoned
by MTDB and all users of the MTDB Railway prior to transfer to BFG. The Port shall
use its best efforts to cause the vacation and abandonment of the MTDB Railway by
MTDB and all users of the MTDB Railway. City/Agency shall reasonably cooperate
with Port's MTDB Railway vacation and abandonment efforts.
(c) Purchase of the MTDB Property. Promptly after Port acquires or
secures the right to acquire the MTDB Parcel, Port shall provide BFG written notice (the
"Transfer Notice") evidencing BFG's opportunity to acquire the MTDB Parcel from, or
106711000015 172405.04 12
D-lC.
?
through, Port. The parties acknowledge that the sum of $212,573 (equal to $2.00 per
square foot for the 2.44 acre/106,286.4 square foot parcel), has been prepaid by BFG for
the MTDB Parcel as a good faith estimate of its "fair market value." Within thirty (30)
days after delivery of the Transfer Notice, BFG or Port may elect by written notice to the
other to seek an adjustment (up or down) of the $212,573 prepayment for the MTDB
Parcel, based upon the "fair market value" of the MTDB Parcel in its then "as is"
condition at the time of delivery of the Transfer Notice. Promptly thereafter, Port and
BFG shall negotiate in good faith for a period of thirty (30) days to attempt to mutually
agree upon the "fair market value" of the MTDB Parcel. If the parties are unable to agree
upon a determination of"fair market value," then prior to the expiration of the 30-day
negotiation period, Port and BFG shall mutually appoint one (1) MAI appraiser to
determine the "fair market value" of the MTDB Parcel which shall be binding upon both
parties. Upon determination ofthe"fair market value"ofthe MTDB Parcel ($212,573,
or otherwise), or promptly thereafter, BFG shall acquire the MTDB Parcel from or
through Port, and an appropriate cash adjustment (if any) shall be made in the event the
"fair market value" of the MTDB Parcel is determined to be greater, or less than,
$212,573 based upon the foregoing criteria. If the Port is unable to acquire the MTDB
Parcel within two years after the Closing Date, or upon prior request by BFG, the
prepayment of $212,573 shall be repaid by the Port to BFG within 30 days.
3.1.5 Approval of Land Transfer by State Lands Commission. The
parties acknowledge that completion of the land transfers between Port and BFG will
require certain approvals by the SLC for the Port Parcels to be conveyed to BFG free of
the public trust (collectively, the "Transfer Approval"). Such determinations may
include appropriate findings by the SLC that the Port Parcels are no longer useful for trust
purposes. The parties shall use their best efforts to finalize and execute the Related
Agreements as rapidly as 15ossible and Port shall use its best efforts to ex,p.e,~ditiously seek
the Transfer Approval. ' -'
3.1.6 Title Exceptions. Each transferee party shall review the status of
title with respect to the Transfer Properties which such transferee party will receive, for
purposes of determining whether there are any title exceptions encumbering such
Transfer Properties which the transferee party reasonably elects to have removed. O~n or
before Jt:!y 15 August 16, 1999, each transferee party shall provide written notice (the
"Title Notice") to the other parties to this Agreement describing each exception which
such transferee reasonably elects to have removed from its respective Transfer Properties
(each, a "Disapproved Exception"). Each party to this Agreement shall, prior,to Closing:
(i) remove from any Transfer Property (whether owned, or not owned, by such party) any
Disapproved Exception pursuant to which such party is a beneficiary, and (ii) use
commercially reasonable efforts to remove from any then-owned Transfer Property any
Disapproved Exceptions that benefit third parties.
3.2 Land Transfer Agreement Between Agency and BFG. The Agency and
BFG shall enter into a Land Transfer Agreement ("Agency-BFG Land Transfer Agreement")
106711 000015 172405.04 13
D-IS
?
upon the terms and conditions described in this Section and such other terms as may be necessary
or customary for a transaction of this nature.
3.2.1 Agency Parcel.
(a) Property to be Transferred to BFG. The Agency shall transfer to .
BFG the "Agency Parcel."
(b) Condition of Agency Parcel. The Agency Parcel shall be cleared
and graded by the Agency without cost to BFG. Unless the parties otherwise agree,
grading shall be to the contours reasonably required by BFG.
(e) Purchase Price. The purchase price to be paid by BFG to Agency
for the Agency Parcel is $1,271,952. The purchase price shall be paid to Agency from
the funds deposited by the Port into Escrow for BFG's account pursuant to Section 3.6.1.
3.2.2 Ratios Parcel.
(a) Property to be Transferred to BFG. The Agency shall arrange
for the transfer to BFG of the land currently owned by Rados Bros. and located at the
comer of Bay Boulevard and Lagoon Drive, comprising approximately 3.02 acres, as
shown on Exhibit C (the "Rados Parcel").
(b) Condition of Ratios Parcel. The Rados Parcel shall be cleared
and graded by the Agency, without cost to BFG. Unless BFG and the Agency otherwise
agree, grading shall be to the contours reasonably required by BFG.
(c) Acquisition of Rados Parcel. BFG and the Agen.9.~y.,,acknowledge
that the Rados Parcel is currently privately owned. Ifa voluntary acquisition cannot be
arranged between the Agency and the owner of the Rados Parcel allowing the transfer of
the Rados Parcel tO BFG on the Closing Date, then the Agency shall agendize for
consideration by the Agency Board a Resolution of Necessity which, if adopted by the
Agency Board, would authorize the acquisition of the Rados Parcel by eminent domain.
BFG acknowledges and agrees that by entering into this Agreement, the Agency has' not
precommitted itself to commencement of eminent domain proceedings with respect to the
Rados Parcel and the Agency reserves the right, in its sole discretion to approve or
disapprove a Resolution of Necessity with respect thereto. In the event that Agency is not
able to acquire the Rados Parcel voluntarily, and either elects not to pursue eminent
domain or is unsuccessful in its pursuit, and as a result is unable to deliver pcz:cazian of
an Order of Possession for the Rados Parcel et as of the Closing, BFG shall have the
option, in its sole discretion, of electing either to (i)' terminate this Agreement, or (ii)
receive One Million Fifty-Two Thousand Four Hundred and Nine Dollars ($1,052,409) in
lieu of acquisition of the Rados Parcel. If, as of the ' ' ~
BFG elects to receive $1,052,409 in lieu of the Rados Parcel, and the Agency has
withdrawn all or part of this amount out of Escrow pursuant to Section 2.6.2, Agency
shall pay the amount of such withdrawal directly to BFG within I 0 days of receipt of
10671%000015 172405.04 14
notification of BFG's election, and BFG shall withdraw the balance (if any) up to the
amount of $1,052,409 out of Escrow. In no event shall Agency's disapproval ora
Resolution of Necessity with respect to the Rados Parcel constitute an Agency breach of
its obligations hereunder. In the event that Agency approves a Resolution of Necessity
with respect to the Rados Parcel, Agency agrees to file a condemnation action within
twenty (20) days of such approval and exercise best eflbrts to expeditiously obtain an
Order of Possession with respect thereto.(SUEJECT TO APPROVAL)
(d) Purchase Price. The purchase price to be paid by BFG to Agency
for the Rados Parcel shall be the amount paid by Agency to the private owner thereof,
whether determined through a voluntary agreement, by settlement, or through a court
proceeding, provided, however, in no event shall said purchase price exceed $1,728,048.
The purchase price shall be paid to Agency from the funds deposited by the Port into
Escrow for BFG's account pursuant to Section 3.6.1.
3.3 Transfer and Acceptance of Property "As-Is."
3.3.1 Property Transferred to Port.
(a) Acknowledgment of"As-Is" Transfer. Port acknowledges and
agrees that the BFG Property is to be conveyed to and accepted by Port in an "as-is"
condition, with all faults, and that, except as to those representations and warranties
expressly set forth in the Port-BFG Land Transfer Agreement, neither BFG, City or
Agency, nor any of their agents or employees has made any representations or warranties
of any kind in connection with any matter related to the condition, value, fitness or use of
the BFG Property.
(b) Release. Port hereby waives, releases, acquits, andnC-orever
discharges BFG, to the maximum extent permitted by law, of and from any claims,
actions, causes of ~,ction, demands, rights, liabilities, damages, losses, costs, expenses or
compensation whatsoever, direct or indirect, known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen,
that now exist or that may arise in the future on account of or in any way growing out of
or connected with the ownership, use or occupancy of the BFG Property or the Soutt~
Campus Leased Property prior to the Closing Date, including, without limitation, the
physical and environmental condition (including, without limitation an Environmental
Condition) of the property m~d any structures or improvements located thereon. In
connection with the foregoing release, Port acknowledges and expressly waive~ any of its
rights under California Civil Code section 1542, which provides as follows:
"A general release does not extend to claims which the
creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the
time of executing the release, which if known by him must
have materially affected his settlement with the debtor."
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the acknowledgment and release set forth in these
Sections 3.3.1(a) and (b) are not intended to, and shall not, release or discharge any
qo67t ~000015 172405.04 1 5
duties, obligations, liabilities, representations or warranties of BFG that are expressly set
forth in this Agreement or the Port-BFG Land Transfer Agreement, including, but not
limited to, the provisions of Section 7 hereof.
3.3.2 Property Transferred to BFG.
(a) Acknowledgment of"As-Is" Transfer. BFG acknowledges and
agrees that the Port Parcels and the SDG&E, MTDB, Agency and Rados Parcels are to be
conveyed to and accepted by BFG in an "as-is" condition, with all faults, and that, except
as to those representations and warranties expressly set forth in the Port-BFG Land
Transfer Agreement and the Agency-BFG Land Transfer Agreement, neither Port, City or
Agency, nor any of their agents or employees has made any representations or warranties
of any kind in connection with any matter related to the condition, value, fitness or use of
any of such properties.
(b) Release.
(i) Port. BFG hereby waives, releases, acquits, and forever
discharges Port to the maximum extent permitted by law, of and from any claims, actions,
causes of action, demands, rights, liabilities, damages, losses, costs, expenses or
compensation whatsoever, direct or indirect, known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen,
that now exist or that may arise in the future on account of or in any way growing out of
or connected with the ownership, use or occupancy of the Port Parcels and the SDG&E
and MTDB Parcels prior to the date the property in question is conveyed to BFG
including, without limitation, the physical and environmental condition (including,
without limitation an Environmental Condition) of the property and any structures or
improvements located thereon. In connection with the foregoing releas~i'B--~G
acknowledges and expressly waives any of its rights under California Civil Code
section 1542, which provides as follows:
"A general release does not extend to claims which the
creditor does not ~know or suspect to exist in his favor at the
time of executing the release, which if known by him must
have materially affected his settlement with the debtor."
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the ackno~vledgment and release set forth in these
Sections 3.3.2(a) and 3.3.2(b)(i) are not intended to, and shall not, release or discharge
any duties, obligations, liabilities, representations or warranties of Port that are expressly
set forth in this Agreement or the Port-BFG Land Transfer Agreement, including, but not
limited to, the provisions of Section 7 hereof.
(ii) City/Agency. BFG hereby waives, releases, acquits, and
forever discharges City/Agency to the maximum extent permitted by law, of and from
any claims, actions, causes of action, demands, rights, liabilities, damages, losses, costs,
expenses or compensation whatsoever, direct or indirect, known or unknown, foreseen or
106711 000015 172405.04 16
unforeseen, that now exist or that may arise in the future on account of or in any way
growing out of or connected with the ownership, use or occupancy of the Agency and
Rados Parcels and the vacated portion of Marina Parkway (and H Street to the exteht any
vacated portion thereof is acquired by BFG) prior to the date the property in question is
conveyed to BFG including, without limitation, the physical and environmental condition
(including, without limitation an Environmental Condition) of the property and any
structures or improvements located thereon. In connection with the foregoing release,
BFG acknowledges and expressly waives any of its rights under California Civil Code
section 1542, which provides as follows:
"A general release does not extend to claims which the
creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the
time of executing the release, which if known by him must
have materially affected his settlement with the debtor."
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the acknowledgment and release set forth in these
Sections 3.3.2(a) and 3.3.2(b)(ii) are not intended to, and shall not, release or discharge
any duties, obligations, liabilities, representations or warranties of City/Agency that are
expressly set forth in this Agreement, or the Agency-BFG Land Transfer Agreement,
including but not limited to, the provisions of Section 7 hereof.
3.4 Indemnities After Closing Date.
3.4.1 Port Indemnity. Port shall release, discharge, indemnify, defend
and hold harmless BFG from all claims, liabilities, losses, costs, and expenses (including,
without limitation, Environmental Costs resulting from an Environmental Release
occurring after the Closing Date) resulting from the Port's oxvnership, u~"0~ occupancy
of the BFG Property and the South Campus Leased Property on and after the Closing
Date. Provided, however that, with respect to South Campus property that BFG
continues to occupy after the Closing Date (pursuant to a Tidelands Use and Occupancy
Permit and/or a Right of Entry-Permit) during the Relocation Period, BFG shall relea=se,
discharge, indemnify, defend and hold harmless Port from all claims, liabilities, losses,
costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, Environmental Costs) resulting from
the acts or omissions of BFG after the Closing Date and during the term of any Tidelands
Use and Occupancy Permit and/or Right of Entry Permit.
3.4.2 BFG Indemnity.
(a) Port. BFG shall release, discharge, indemnify, defend and hold
harmless Port from all claims, liabilities, losses, costs, and expenses (including, without
limitation, Environmental Costs resulting from an Environn~ental Release occurring after
the Closing Date) resulting from BFG's ownership, use or occupancy of the Port Parcels,
the SDG&E Parcel and the MTDB Parcel, on and after the date the property in question is
conveyed to BFG. Provided, however, that this release shall not include claims,
liabilities, losses, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, Environmental
106711 000015 17240504 l 7
Costs) resulting from the acts or omissions of Port after the Closing Date, and Port shall
release, discharge, indemnify, defend and hold harmless BFG from all claims, liabilities,
losses, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, Environmental Costs) re~ulting
directly from such acts.
(b) Agency. BFG shall release, discharge, indemnify, defend and hold
harmless Agency from all claims, liabilities, losses, costs, and expenses (including,
without limitation, Environmental Costs resulting from an Environmental Release
occurring after the Closing Date) resulting from BFG's ownership, use or occupancy of
the Agency and Rados Parcels and the vacated portion of Marina Parkway (and H Street,
to the extent any vacated portion thereof is acquired by BFG) on and after the date the
property in question is conveyed to BFG; provided, however, that this release shall not
include claims, liabilities, losses, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation,
Environmental Costs) resulting from the acts or omissions of Agency after the Closing
Date, and Agency shall release, discharge, indemnify, defend and hold harmless BFG
from all claims, liabilities, losses, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation,
Environmental Costs) resulting directly from such acts. This release and indemnity shall
also include the City but only with respect to the vacated portion of Marina Parkway and
H Street to the extent any vacated portion of H Street is acquired by BFG.
3.5 Environmental Matters. The responsibilities of the Port, City/Agency and
BFG for the performance, management and costs of Environmental Matters and activities arising
in connection with or concerning (a) the BFG Property shall be as set forth in
Sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.5 and 7.6; and (b) the Port Parcels and SDG&E, MTDB, Agency and
Rados Parcels shall be as set forth in Section 7.1, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6. To the extent of any conflict
between Sections 3.1 through 3.4, on the one hand, and Section 7, on the other hand, the
provisions of Section 7 shall control ......
3.6 Port-Agency Agreement.
3.6.1 Appropriation. Prior to or concurrent with Port's execution of this
Agreement, Port shall appropriate and deposit into the Escrow Three Million Dollars~
($3,000,000.00) as the Port's sole contribution towards the following financial obligations
of the City and/or the Agency (collectively, the "Tra~sfer Activities"): (i) acquisition of
the Rados Parcel, (ii) transfer of the Agency and Rados Parcels to BFG, (iii) delivery of
title policies and endorsements for the Agency and Rados Parcels as reasonably requested
by BFG under the Agency-BFG Transfer Agreement, (iv) preparation of Phase~I and
Phase II environmental reports for the Agency and Rados Parcels, and (v) clearing and
grading of the Agency and Rados Parcels and Environmental Costs related to
Environmental Remediation Activities on the Agency and Rados Parcels required
pursuant to Sections 3.2.1(b), 3.2.2(b) and 7.4.2 hereof. Port and City acknowledge that,
of the Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) deposited hereunder, (a) One Million Two
Hundred Seventy One Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Two Dollars ($1,271,952.00) is
being deposited for the account of BFG to be paid to Agency at Closing for the Agency
Parcel; (b) One Million Fifty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Nine Dollars
106711000015 172405 04 1 $
?
($1,052,409.00) is being deposited for the account of BFG to be paid to Agency at
Closing for the Rados Parcel in the event that, at Closing, Agency has assigned to BFG
an Order of Possession of the Rados Parcel and rights to after-acquired title in the event
of condemnation; and (c) the balance of the Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00), (Six
Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Nine Dollars ($675,639.00)) is
being deposited for the account of Agency (to be segregated and maintained in a separate,
subescrow account denominated the "Agency Fund") to be applied toward the Agency's
costs of the Transfer Activities, including, without limitation, any costs of acquisition of
the Rados Parcel in excess of $1,052,409. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Agreement, under no circumstances shall BFG or the Port be required to pay Agency any
amount other than the amounts set forth in this Section 3.6.1 for the Transfer Activities,
and the Agency's obligation to perform the Transfer Activities shall exist and continue
irrespective of whether the amounts specified in this Section 3.6.1 are sufficient to fund
ali of the Transfer Activities.
3.6.2 Funding. Prior to the Closing Date, Agency may seek from the
Agency Fund advances for out-of-pocket costs to be incurred by the City and/or the
Agency directly related to the Transfer Activities. As a condition to any advance, the
Agency shall submit to the Port and the escrow holder a written request for funds (each, a
"Funding Request") setting forth the date of any out-of-pocket expense, the nature of the
expense, any invoices supporting the expense, and any other information reasonably
requested by the Port. Ali Funding Requests shall be reasonably approved by the Port
within five (5) business days after receipt; provided that Agency may not submit Funding
Requests more frequently than four times per calendar month. Following Port's approval
of a Funding Request, the escrow holder shall promptly deliver funds from the Agency
Fund to Agency in the amount of the approved Funding Request. At the Closing, the
escrow holder shall deliver to the Agency the balance of the funds remakniz~ in the
Agency Fund.
3.6.3 Utilization of Funds. Agency may utilize funds in the Agency
Fund for reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket expenses incurred directly in connection
with or arising out of the Transfer Activities, including, without limitation, fees for third
party consultants and contractors; funds required for the acquisition or condemnation of
the Rados Parcel; and closing costs (title insurance, escrow fees and transfer taxes)
related to the transfer of the Agency and Rados Parcels to BFG. Agency may not utilize
the funds for internal expenses related to the Transfer Activities including, without
limitation, general overhead; salaries or personnel expenses; fees paid to third t~arty
consultants if the services of such third party consultants could have been reasonably
provided by City or Agency; and photocopying, telephone and other office expenses.
Agency shall maintain reasonable records of out-of-pocket expenses incurred in
connection with the Transfer Activities. Any remaining funds in the Agency Fund at the
Closing shall be delivered to the Agency and may be used in Agency's sole discretion for
any purpose whatsoever; provided, however, in the event that BFG elects to receive
$1,052,409 in lieu of the Rados Parcel pursuant to Section 3.2.2(c), then Port shall be
reimbursed out of Escrow any remaining funds in the Agency Fund after Agency has
106711 000015 172405 04 l 9
used such funds as are necessary to perform its remaining Transfer Activities obligations
hereunder with respect to the Agency Parcel.
3.6.4 Repayment Obligation. In the event that the Closing does not
occur in accordance with this Agreement, unless othem, ise agreed by Port and
City/Agency any and all advances made by Port to the Agency shall be deemed to be a .
loan from the Port to the Agency, and shall bear interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum, from the date of the advance until paid in full. Any and all advances shall be due
and payable by the Agency to the Port within sixty (60) days after the scheduled Closing
Date. Agency shall promptly enter into a promissory note or other evidence of such loan,
upon the request of the Port, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth above
and upon other commercially reasonable terms as requested by the Port.
3.7 Other Pre Closing Obligations and Actions.
3.7.1 BFG Subleases. Prior to the Closing Date, Port shall notify BFG in
writing of its decision whether to terminate or leave in place the Sublease between BFG
and Community Health Group of California ("CttGC") dated June 6, 1994, and the
Month-to-Month Sublease Agreement between BFG and Foster Properties ("Foster")
dated July 24, 1998 (collectively the "BFGSubleases"). Any rent received by BFG
under the BFG Subleases after January 1, 1999, shall be remitted to Port as of the
Closing, and thereafter within 30 days of receipt by BFG. If Port elects to terminate one
or both leases, BFG shall cooperate (at no cost to BFG) in effectuating such terminations,
including giving 30 or 60 days' notice to CHGC and/or Foster, as applicable.
3.7.2 BFG Ground Lease with SDG&E. There is an existing ground
lease between BFG and SDG&E covering the SDG&E Parcel and other property
formerly owned by SDG&E shown on Exhibit A (the "SDG&E Lease")t'B~which the
Port is successor to SDG&E in ownership of the subject property. The Port shall forgive
all rent due under the SDG&E Lease from January 1, 1999, through the date such lease is
terminated. The SDG&E Lease shall be ternfinated in accordance with Section 4.6 of the
Relocation Agreement.
3.7.3 BFG Lease With MTDB. There are existing lease agreements
between BFG and MTDB concerning a portion of the MTDB Parcel and other property
owned by MTDB as shown on Exhibit C (the "MTDB Leases"). The Port shall assume
responsibility for all rent due to MTDB from BFG under the MTDB Leases applicable to
the South Campus from January 1, 1999, through the Closing Date.
3.7.4 Vacation of Marina Parkway. The transfer of Port Parcel 2 to
BFG will require the vacation of portions of the public roads known as Marina Parkway
and G Street. Prior to Closing, the City shall, at its sole cost, process the vacation of the
current alignment of Marina Parkway north of the proposed H Street Extension, vacate
G Street east of the new alignment of Marina Parkway as sho~vn on the Marina Parkway
Boyle Study, and convey the underlying property to the Port, whereupon the Port, in the
exercise of its land use authority, shall create separate legal parcels corresponding to Port
D-Do
Parcel 1 and Port Parcel 2. The vacated sections of Marina Parkway and G Street shall be
closed, and traffic diverted onto Sandpiper Way and G Street; provided, however, ~at in
the event that, after Closing, the vacated section of Marina Parkway and G Street
continue to be used for through traffic, Port shall lease to BFG, at no cost to BFG,
equivalent property for use as parking until such time as the vacated sections of Marina
Parkway and G Street are closed to through traffic. The exact size, configuration and
legal description of Port Parcel 1 and Port Parcel 2 shall be determined in accordance
with the final realignment plans for Marina Parkway, which shall be finalized in
sufficient time to permit the conveyance to the Port as provided above. The final
configuration of Port Parcel 2 is subject to BFG's reasonable approval, and shall in no
event be less than 3.3 net useable acres, unless a smaller parcel size is acceptable to BFG,
in its sole discretion. In addition, the Port, at its sole cost, shall grant City an easement
for right-of-way over an area agreed to by Port and City as the likely final alignment of
Marina Parkway from north of Sandpiper Way to G Street. The parties shall cooperate to
adjust the easement location to the extent required by the ultimate final Marina Parkway
alignment.
3.7.5 Lot Line Adjustments. Upon application by BFG, with the Port's
full cooperation, City shall process lot line adjustments/subdivisions necessary for the
extension of H Street, the realignment of G Street and Marina Parkway, and the
conveyance of the Port Parcels and the SDG&E and MTDB Parcels to BFG.
3.7.6 Certificates of Compliance. Upon BFG's request, City shalI use
its best efforts expeditiously to process certificates of compliance pursuant to the
California Subdivision Map Act confirming that the Port Parcels, the SDG&E Parcel, and
the MTDB Parcel constitute separate legal parcels upon and after the transfers provided
for herein ....
3.8 Other,Provisions. The Land Transfer Agreements shall contain such other
terms and conditions as are typically included in real property transfer agreements of a similar
nature, subject to the terms of this Agreement. The applicable parties shall negotiate these terms
in good faith; provided, however, that'the matters of(a) the condition of title; (b) the conditi6n of
the property; (c) Environmental Matters; and (d) the other matters specifically described in'this
Agreement shall be incorporated into the Land Transfer Agreements in accordance with the
terms of this Agreement.
3.9 Form of Deeds. The Transfer Properties shall be conveyed by standard title
company grant deeds, except for (i) the SDG&E Parcel which shall be conveyed by quitclaim
deed, (ii) the Rados Parcel which may be conveyed by assignment of an Order of Possession and
rights to after-acquired title in the event of condemnation, and (iii) the MTDB Parcel which may,
or may not, be conveyed by a grant deed depending upon the method of its acquisition. In
addition, the Rados Parcel and Agency Parcel shall be transferred subject to the non-
discrimination covenants required by California Health and Safety Code Section 33446.
106711 000015 17240504 21
Section 4. BFG RELOCATION
It is the intention of the parties that the relocation and consolidation of BFG's
facilities and operations from the South Campus to the New Campus (the "BFG Relocation") be
conducted in an orderly manner, as directed by 13FG in its sole discretion, subject to the
provisions of this Section 4. BFG shall be solely responsible for the management of the BFG
Relocation.
4.1 Relocation Period. The period from January 1, 1999 through January 1,
2003, shall be referred to herein as the "Relocation Period. ' As of the Closing Date and
throughout the balance of the Relocation Period, BFG and the Port shall enter into (i) a Tidelands
Use and Occupancy Permit ("TUOP") with respect to Building 45 and any other portion of the
South Campus which is utilized exclusively for BFG's ongoing business purposes, and (ii) a
nonexclusive Right of Entry Permit ("REP") with respect to any portion of the South Campus
which BFG no longer actively utilizes for ongoing business purposes. It is understood and
agreed that as BFG concludes business activities on portions of the South Campus during the
Relocation Period, BFG will provide the Port with written notification of that fact, and the
subject property shall be removed from the TUOP, at which time BFG shall surrender its
exclusive possessory rights to such portions of the South Campus in favor ofnonexclusive
possessory rights under the REP. At such time as BFG no longer requires nonexclusive
possessory rights to portions of the South Campus under the REP, BFG shall provide the Port
with written notification of that fact, and the REP shall terminate only as to those unused
portions of the South Campus. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any TUOP or REP for South
Campus property shall terminate no later than the end of the Relocation Period. Under the terms
and conditions of the TUOP, BFG shall be obligated to pay one hundred fifty percent (150%) of
fair market rental value for any property on the South Campus which BFG continu_~es to
exclusively occupy, actually or constructively, follo~ving the expiration of the Relocation Period.
Constructive occupancy shall mean any use or occupancy of a portion of the South Campus
which has a material, adve~rse effect upon a larger area of the South Campus, such as the
occupancy of a single building which materially, adversely impacts a viable development project
which encompasses the occupied building.
4.2 H Street Extension. The H Street Extension (including appropriate heavy
vehicle and other access to and from the H Street Extension and the New Campus, with traffic
signals, setbacks and related matters designed to ensure conformity bet~veen the H Street
Extension and the southern boundary of the New Campus) ("H Street Exteusion '') as ~hown on
Exhibit F hereto shall conform to the alignment described as Alignment 1, Profile C, in the Boyle
Engineering Feasibility Study dated June 1, 1997, (the "H Street Boyle Study"). Upon request
by City, Port, at its sole cost, shall grant City an easement for right-of-way over the alignment for
the H Street Extension reflected in the H Street Boyle Study. The H Street Extension shall be
completed by Port at Port's sole cost. Upon request, BFG and City/Agency shall cooperate with
Port concerning the planning of the H Street Extension; provided, however, that no actions
(including, without limitation, changes in the land-use designations for the proposed H Street
Extension) or construction west of Bay Boulevard shall be commenced during the Relocation
106711000015172405.04 22
Period concerning the H Street Extension without BFG's prior written consent. City/Agency
shall cooperate with the Port to provide for timely extension of H Street including, without
limitation, (i) all aspects of design, planning, engineering and construction of H Street frorfl
Interstate 5 to Marina Parkway with appropriate setbacks and buffers; (ii) relocation of above and
below ground utilities; and (iii) installation of traffic signals, sidewalks and related
improvements as may be reasonably necessary to facilitate vehicle and pedestrian access along '
the fully developed Bayfront. Port shall use its best efforts to complete the H Street Extension
on or before the earlier to occur of(a) December 31, 2009, or (b) the completion of Bayfront
development projects that require the H Street Extension to address cumulative traffic impacts.
If, for whatever reason, Port has insufficient funds to complete the H Street Extension in a timely
manner, Port agrees to meet and confer ~vith City to develop a plan for expediting such project
using alternative funding sources. Such funding sources may include, in City's dizzrcticn, City
funds allocated by the Port for City aze capital improvement projects as set forth in that certain
Memorandum of Understanding between Port and City that was approved by Port on June 20,
1995.
4.3 Marina Parkway Realignment. The realignment of Marina Parkway
(including appropriate heavy vehicle and other access to and from Marina Parkway and the New
Campus, ~vith traffic signals, setbacks and related matters designed to ensure conformity between
Marina Parkway and the western boundary of the New Campus) ("Marina Parkway
Realignment") as shown on Exhibit G hereto resulting from the land transfer between the Port
and BFG shall be in accordance with the Marina Parkway Realig~rnent Study dated
November 13, 1998 completed by Boyle Engineering (the "Marina Parkway Boyle Study").
The Marina Parkway Realignment shall be completed by Port at Port's sole cost. In conjunction
with the realignment of Marina Parkway, Port and City shall have the right to "cap" and leave in
place any and all utilities located beneath the current configuration of G Street and Marina
Parkway. City and Agency shall cooperate with Port to provide for timely realignment of Marina
Parkway including, without limitation, (i) assistance with creation of temporary easements and
dedication of new streets i~ the location of the newly configured Marina Parkway; (ii) all aspects
of design, planning, engineering and construction of Marina Parkway with appropriate setbacks
and buffers; (iii) relocation of above and below ground utilities; and (iv) installation of traffic
signals, sidewalks and related improvements as may be reasonably necessary to facilitate vehicle
and pedestrian access (including heavy vehicle access to the New Campus) along the Bayfront.
Port shall use its best efforts to complete the Marina Parkway Realignment on or before the
earlier to occur of (a) December 31, 2003, or (b) the completion date of Bayfront development
projects that require the Marina Parkway Realignment to address cumulative traffic i~pacts. The
parties shall use their best efforts to ensure that the realigned Marina Parkway is contiguous with
the western boundary of Port Parcel 2 (with appropriate setbacks and buffers), in the event that
the realigned Marina Parkway is not thus contiguous, Port shall convey to BFG the land in-
between the western boundary of Port Parcel 2 and the final realigned Marina Parkway, an
appropriate adjustment shall be made to the purchase price of Port Parcel 2 pursuant to Section
5.2, and the property thus conveyed shall be treated in all respects under this Agreement and the
Related Agreements as if such property had been included in the conveyance of Port Parcel 2.
10671100001517240504 23
?
4.4 Relocation Schedule. The parties shall agree upon a schedule ("Relocation
Schedule") under which BFG will relocate its operations and permanently vacate the South
Campus which BFG agrees to accomplish by no later than the expiration of the Relocation'
Period. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in the event of any disagreement
between the parties concerning the completion of the BFG Relocation or the Relocation Schedule
(provided that BFG completes the BFG Relocation by no later than the expiration of the
Relocation Period), BFG's decision concerning the completion of the BFG Relocation or the
Relocation Schedule shall be final and binding upon the parties. Concurrently with the execution
of this Agreement, BFG shall provide the Port and City/Agency with BFG's current preliminary
draft Relocation Schedule, which is provided for discussion purposes only and which shall be
updated periodically. It is anticipated that the Relocation Schedule will be revised and updated
on a periodic basis, with such updates being provided to the Port and City/Agency for discussion
purposes only.
4.4.1 Adjustments to Relocation Schedule. BFG agrees to meet and
confer with Port and City/Agency to effectuate adjustments to the Relocation Schedule
that are not adverse to BFG in the event that potential redevelopment opportunities for
the property south of H Street arise earlier than currently anticipated, including, without
limitation, the vacating of specific portions of the BFG Property in order to accommodate
the Port's development objectives. Furthermore, in the event Port elects to commence the
H Street Extension during the Relocation Period or Port and BFG agree to accommodate
redevelopment or interim use opportunities on the South Campus during the Relocation
Period, and such activity causes a material adverse impact upon the Relocation Schedule,
then Port shall pay to BFG its reasonable and actual incremental costs of accelerating the
Relocation Schedule to accommodate such construction activities including, without
limitation, the additional cost of vacating buildings, relocating equipment, and storing
supplies in advance of the initial time table set forth in the Relocation Schedule. Finally,
the Relocation Period shall be extended for any failure of Port or the City/Agency,
follo~ving written n, otice from BFG that such failure is interfering with BFG's Relocation
Activities, to transfer property and/or provide access or utilities to the New Campus in a
timely fashion, and such failure prevents BFG from completing necessary Relocation
Activities prior to the end oftl~e Relocation Period. ~
4.5 BFG Occupancy of South Campus During Relocation Period. Beginning
January 1, 1999, and throughout the Relocation Period, except for BFG's payment of ground rent
in the total amount of $50,000 to the Port for the year 1999 for the area currently ground leased
for "Building 45," BFG shall incur no (or, if it does incur, shall be reimbursed by Port'for)
ground rent, building rent, possessory interest taxes and property taxes associated with BFG's
use and occupancy of the land and improvements comprising the South Campus. BFG shall be
responsible for costs incurred in connection ~vith its business operations on the South Campus
during the Relocation Period, including labor, materials, and utility costs. The parties shall enter
into, amend, and terminate such agreements (including the Tidelands Use and Occupancy Permit
and the Right of Entry Permit referenced in Section 1.3) as may be necessary to appropriately
implement the terms of this Agreement concerning the BFG Relocation and the Relocation
Period.
4.6 Termination of Obligations Concerning the South Campus. BFG and
Port shaI1 enter into such agreements as may be necessary and appropriate to terminate BFG's
occupancy and obligations concerning that portion of the South Campus not owned by BFG
("South Campus Leased Property"), effective not later than the completion of the Relocation
Period, that are consistent with the tern~s hereof. These agreements shall include, without
limitation, termination of the Port Property Agreements, termination of the SDG&E Lease, and'
termination of the MTDB Leases applicable to the South Campus.
4.7 Utilities and Services. Prior to the expiration of the Relocation Period, City
shall, meet and confer with BFG to explore the feasibility of relocating the "G Street Pump
Station" to a location off of the New Campus.
Section 5. RELOCATION AND NEW CAMPUS FINANCE ASSISTANCE
5.1 Payments. In consideration of the property transfers and BFG's relocation
costs, the Port and BFG shall make the payments described in Exhibit D at Closing ("Transfer
Payments '9.
5.2 Post-Closing Adjustments. The parties acknowledge that the Transfer
Payments are, in part, based upon the estimated size of the Transfer Properties as shown on
Exhibit D and the contemplated configuration of H Street and Marina Parkway. Upon, or up to
three (3) years after the Closing, following completion of nexv or updated surveys, any party may
submit a written request to adjust the Transfer Payments to account for any difference between
the actual and estimated size of the Transfer Properties and/or configuration of H Street and
Marina Parkway. Following receipt of an adjustment request, the affected parties shall promptly
negotiate in good faith to make any necessary cash adjustment to the Transfer Payments. Unless
otherwise agreed by the affected parties, the cash adjustment shall be based on the difference
between the actual size of the subject property conveyed relative to its estimated s~e shown on
Exhibit D. For example (for illustrative purposes only), the estimated size of Port Parcel 1, as
shown on Exhibit D, is 9.~9 acres, or 435,164 square feet, and the purchase price of $3,481,312
is calculated based on a value of $8.00 per square foot (435,] 64 x $8.00 -- $3,481,312). If the
actual size of Port Parcel 1 as conveyed were 9.5 acres, or 413,820 square feet, unless BFG and
the Port otherwise agreed, the purchase price would be $3,310,560 (413,820 square feet x $8.00
= $3,310,560), and BFG would be entitled to a cash payment from the Port of $170,755
($3,481,312 - $3,310,560 = $170,752).
5.3 Reimbursement of South Campus Property Taxes. BFG shall Cwithin 30
days of submission of an invoice therefor by BFG) be reimbursed by the Port for any property
taxes (including possessory interest taxes) incurred by BFG concerning the South Campus
attributable to tax years or portions thereof falling within the Relocation Period.
5.4 New Campus Industrial Financing Assistance. BFG currently expects to
spend approximately $50 million in capital investment on the New Campus. Its Board of
Directors has authorized approximately $45 million for capital expenditures on the New Campus.
In connection there~vith, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Section, in addition
to the Transfer Payments to be made by Port and BFG, Agency shall provide financing assistance
10671100001517240504 25
T
to BFG with respect to industrial manufacturing facilities, and related offices and ancillary
support facilities, and equipment newly developed, rehabilitated, or installed on the New C, ampus
during the Relocation Period ("New Campus Indttstrial Fittattchtg Assistance").
5.4.1 Annual Installments. The New Campus Industrial Financing
Assistance shall be comprised of cash payments delivered to BFG in annual installmentg
(each an "Installment," collectively "Installments"). Installments shall be due and
payable on January 15th of each year beginning with the first January 15th following the
Closing Date (estimated to be January 15, 2000), and ending with January 15, 2025 (each
an "Installment Paytnent Date'S. Agency shall have no obligation to make Installment
payments after January 15, 2025.
5.4.2 Relocation Period Payments. Installments due and payable to
BFG on Installment Payment Dates beginning with January 15, 2000, through
January 15, 2003, respectively shall be determined based upon property tax information
derived from the immediately preceding County fiscal year (July 1 through June 30)
("Fiscal Year'S. The amount due and payable shall be equal to the positive difference, if
any, between (a) the amount of property taxes paid by BFG to all taxing agencies with
respect to the New Campus for immediately preceding Fiscal Year; and (b) the sum of
one percent (1%) of the County Assessor's valuation of (i) real and personal property
located on the New Can~pus as of the first day after the Closing Date, plus two percent
(2%) per year with respect to such real property; (ii) South Campus equipment and
facilities that have been relocated to the Ne~v Campus as of June 30 of the immediately
preceding Fiscal Year; and (iii) any real property contemplated as being part of the New
Campus by this Agreement that is acquired by BFG after the Closing Date by on or
before June 30 of the immediately preceding Fiscal Year. For partial Fiscal Year
1999/2000 the above calculations shall be modified by multiplying each-f'r~are within the
calculation by a fraction determined by dividing the number of days within the period
from the Closing l~ate to June 30, 2000, by three hundred sixty-five (365).
5.4.3 Post-Relocation Period Payments. Installments due and payable
to BFG on Installment Paymeflt Dates beginning on January 15, 2004 through January
15, 2025 shall be equal to the positive difference, if any, between (a) the amount of
property taxes paid by BFG to all taxing agencies with respect to the New Campus for
Fiscal Year 2002/2003; and (b) the sum of one percent (1%) of the County Assessor's
valuation of (i) real and personal property located on the New Campus as of thee first day
after the Closing Date plus two percent (2%) per year with respect to such real property;
(ii) South Campus equipment and facilities that have been relocated to the new Campus
as of June 30, 2003; and (iii) any real property contemplated as being part of the New
Campus by this Agreement that is acquired by BFG after the Closing Date by on or
before June 30, 2003. Installment payments calculated under this Section 5.4.3 shall be
subject to adjustments in accordance with the terms and conditions of Sections 5.4.6 and
5.4.7, below.
106711000015 172405 04 26
?
5.4.4 Port Contribution. In the event that property tax revenues actually
received by the Agency from the New Campus and South Campus, less amounts r~quired
to be set-aside and used for low and moderate income housing pursuant to California
Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2 (the "Low Income Set-Aside") for any Fiscal
Year commencing with Fiscal Year 1999/2000 and ending with Fiscal Year 2009/2010
("Combined Campus Available Revenues") do not exceed the Agency property tax
revenues actually received from the New Campus and South Campus for Fiscal Year
1998/1999 ("Combilted Camptts Base Revenues") by an amount equal to or greater than
the Installment payment due and payable to BFG with respect to such Fiscal Year as
determined under Section 5.4.2 and 5.4.3, above ("Installtnent Amount Due"), the Port
agrees to loan to the Agency, upon Agency request, an amount equal to the amount by
which the Installment Amount Due exceeds the positive difference between the
Combined Campus Available Revenues for such Fiscal Year and the Combined Campus
Base Revenues ("Port Loan"). Agency's obligation to pay to BFG any portion of an
Installment Amount Due with respect to which the Agency has requested a Port Loan
pursuant to the terms of this Section shall be contingent upon Port payment to the Agency
of such Port Loan proceeds.
5.4.5 Port Loan Repayment. Port Loan amounts shall accrue interest
annually at the Port's pooled interest rate adjusted quarterly from the date of payment to
BFG of the relevant Installment Amount Due, until repaid. The Agency shall be
obligated to repay the Port Loans in a maximum of ten (10) annual installments
commencing January 15, 2010, through January 15, 2019. Agency's Port Loan
repayment obligation in each year shall be an amount equal to the lesser of (a) the
positive difference, if any, between (i) the Combined Campus Available Revenues for the
preceding Fiscal Year, less Agency's Installment obligation to BFG with respect to such
Fiscal Year, and Combined Campus Agency Base Revenues, and (b) tw~n~ percent
(20%) of the then-outstanding Port Loan balance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the
event that during Fiscal Years 1999/2000 through 2009/2010 the Agency incurs an
"Accrued Surplus Balance" (defined in Section 5.4.6, below), regardless of whether or
not such Accrued Surplus Balance has been spent by the Agency, such amounts shall be
deemed a credit balance "available" for use for timely payments of annual installmcn~ts on
the Port Loan on up to 20% of the then-outstanding Port Loan balance, until the "credit
balance" is exhausted. Unless other~vise approved by the Port, Combined Campus
Available Revenues shall be used to satisfy this Port Loan repayment obligation as a
priority to all other uses or obligations, excluding, however, Agency obligations to pay
debt service with respect to existing or refunded Bayfront/Town Centre I Project Area tax
allocation bonds and certificates of participation. Any partial payments of the Port Loan
shall be credited first to accrued interest and then to principal. In the event that the Port
Loan is not fully repaid in accordance with the terms of this Section with the last
installment due on January 15, 2019 any remaining Port Loan balance shall be forgiven.
At City/Agency's election, repaid amounts shall be contributed towards the H Street
Extension capital improvement project or another joint Port and City/Agency project
agreed to by the parties.
106711000015 172405 04 27
5.4.6 Payments to BFG Starting in Fiscal Year 2010/2011 Limited to
Actual Receipts. If after subtracting any required Port Loan repayment required in
accordance ~vith Section 5.4.5, the remaining Combined Campus Available Revem~es for
any Fiscal Year commencing with Fiscal Year 2010/2011 and ending with Fiscal Year
2023/2024 do not equal or exceed Combined Campus Agency Base Revenues by an
amount equal to or greater than the Installment Amount Due, an amount equal to the
amount by which the Installment Amount Due exceeds the positive difference bet~veen
the remaining Combined Campus Available Revenues for such Fiscal Year and the
Combined Campus Agency Base Revenues ("Deferred Obligation ") shall not be
immediately due and payable, but shall be paid, plus interest at the rate of six and three-
fourths percent (6.75%) per annum, out of first available future Combined Campus
Available Revenues. Future Combined Campus Available Revenues shall be used to
repay the Deferred Obligations in priority to all other uses or obligations, excluding,
however, Agency obligations to pay debt service with respect to existing or refunded
Bayfront/Town Centre I Project Area tax allocation bonds and certificates of
participation, and Agency obligations to repay the Port Loan pursuant to Section 5.4.5,
above. Any partial payments of Deferred Obligations shall be credited first to accrued
interest and then to principal. In the event that any Deferred Obligations are not fully
repaid pursuant to the terms of this Section with the last installment due and payable on
January 15, 2025, any remaining Deferred Obligation amounts shall be forgiven.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Installment amount otherwise due shall be deferred
hereunder in the event that there are surplus Combined Campus Available Revenues,
from previous Fiscal Years which were not required to be used by Agency for purposes of
making previous Installment payments to BFG under Sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3, above, or
Port Loan payments under Section 5.4.5, above (collectively, "Accrued Surplus
Balance'~. Rather, regardless of whether or not such Accrued Surplus Balance has been
spent by the Agency, such amounts shall be deemed a credit balance "avallZible" for use
for timely payments of Installments due to BFG, until the credit balance, if any, is
exhausted. ,
5.4.7 Adjustments and Maximum Payment. If in any Fiscal Year from
2005/2006 through 2023/2024 with respect to which an Installment payment is due ahd
payable, Agency Property Tax Revenues from the New Campus fall below an amount
equal to Agency Property Tax Revenues in Fiscal Year 2004/2005 from the New
Campus, then the Installment amount otherwise due and payable to BFG shall be reduced
by an amount equal to the positive difference between Agency Property Tax Revenues in
Fiscal Year 2004/2005 and the amount of Agency Property Tax Revenues received for
such Fiscal Year. In no event shall the Installment Payment calculated under
Section 5.4.3 exceed $550,000.
5.4.8 In General. For purposes of Sections 5.4.1 through 5.4.7, above,
"property taxes" shall include fee ownership and possessory interest taxes assessed
against real and personal property, but shall exclude any special taxes, special
assessments or fees which might appear on BFG's property tax bill. Property tax
information required for calculations hereunder shall be derived to the extent possible
106711 000015 172405 04 28
D- E5
from the County Assessor Auditor, as appropriate. In the event that all of the tax
information necessary for the determination of an Installment amount in any given Fiscal
Year, or for any other determination required under this Section 5.4.8, is not available in
time to allow for the timely calculation and payment of such Installment by the relevant
Installment Payment Date, any payment due shall be made based on the then available
information, subject to modification once all relevant tax information is obtained.
5.4.9 Special Indemnity. In consideration of Agency provision of
financing assistance under this Section 5, BFG agrees to release, discharge, indemnify,
defend and hold harmless Agency from all claims, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses
(including without limitation Environmental Costs) arising out of Agency's provision of
financial assistance under this Section 5. In consideration of the Port's loan pursuant to
Section 5.4.4, BFG agrees to release, discharge, indemnify, defend and hold harmless
Port from all claims, liabilities, losses, costs and expenses (including without limitation
EnvirorLmental Costs) arising out of such loan.
Section 6. NEW CAMPUS AND SOUTH CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT
6.1 Development Agreement. The City/Agency and BFG shall negotiate and
process for City Council/Agency Board consideration a development agreement (the
"Development Agreement") governing use and development of the property comprising the New
Campus as authorized by ,~ic!~ 2.5 ~r,-,~,
et seq the Development Agreement Statute. The Development Agreement shall address such
issues as land use rights and obligations, infrastructure matters, public financing, environmental
issues, redevelopment ~d related matters, and, in keeping with the above objectives, shall
contain in substantially simjl~ fo~ the provisions set foah below.
6.1.1 Permitted Uses. Provided that BFG is not in default under this
Agreement or the Development Agreement (excepting minor or inconsequential matters
not affecting the substance of these agreements), and subject to the te~s and conditions
set foah below, BFG shall ha~e the vested right to implement all Pe~itted Uses and
operations on the New Campus that are consistent with the Rules, Regulations and
Official Policies existing as of the effective date (the "Development Agreement Effective
Date") of the Development Agreement (the "Existing Rules, Regulatioas and Official
Policies ").
6.1.2 Subsequent Approvals. In connection with the Relocation and any
New Can~pus development, BFG shall be obligated to obtain any and all pe~its required
under the Existing Rules, Regulations and Official Policies. City/Agency shall use its
best efforts promptly to process and implement all additional "Project Approvals"
reasonably necessa~ to implement the BFG Relocation to the New Campus and to CulSll
the goals, objectives, policies and plans shown and described in this Agreement and the
Development Agreement ("Subsequeat Approvals") consistent with Existing Rules,
Regulations and Official Policies. City/Agency shall cooperate and diligently work to
process to completion any Subsequent Approvals (including any and all initial studies
and environmental assessments and analyses (if any) required under CEQA) which are
required by law in connection with the BFG Relocation and implementation of the
Permitted Uses on the New Campus. Such cooperation shall include, without limitation:
a) Scheduling, convening and concluding all required public heatings; and b) Processing
in an expeditious maimer and in accordance with Existing Rules, Regulations and Official
Policies all applications for Subsequent Approvals. The City/Agency shall retain its
discretionary authority as to Subsequent Approvals, provided, however, such approvals
shall be regulated by the Existing Rules, Regulations and Official Policies.
6.1.3 Application of Subsequently Enacted Rules, Regulations and
Official Policies. Rules, Regulations, and Official Policies enacted or modified after the
Development Agreement Effective Date ("New Rules") shall be applicable to the New
Campus only insofar as they do not conflict with the Existing Rules, Regulations and
Official Policies, and only if their application will not materially modify, prevent or
impede the Permitted Uses or impair any of the rights granted BFG under this Agreement
or the Development Agreement. Any such New Rules that materially limit or restrict the
rate or timing of development on the New Campus shall be presumed to conflict with the
Existing Rules, Regulations and Official Policies. Provided, however, that this shall not
preclude the application to the New Campus of such subsequently enacted New Rules as
are (a) specifically mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or
regulations adopted after the Effective Date of the Development Agreement as provided
in Government Code Section 65869.5; (b) specifically mandated and required by a court
of competent jurisdiction; or (c) required as a result of facts, events or circumstances
presently unknown or unforeseeable that would have a material adverse impact on the
health or safety of the surrounding community.
6.1.4 Other Governmental Permits, Approvals and Services. BFG
shall apply in a timely manner for such other permits and approvals as rriay~be required
by other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the
implementation or, ny aspect of the Permitted Uses on, or provision of services to, the
New Campus (including, without limitation, districts and special districts providing flood
control, sewer, water and/or fire protection and agencies having jurisdiction over air ~
quality, solid wastes, and hazardous wastes and materials). City/Agency shall cooperate
with BFG in its efforts tO obtain such permits and approvals and City/Agency shall use its
best efforts to work with other governmental and quasi-governmental agencies so as to
limit to the extent possible the imposition of additional conditions, fees, dedications or
exactions by or through such agencies; provided, however, in no event shall ~
City/Agency's obligations hereunder require City/Agency to incur out-of-pocket costs.
6.1.5 Adjacent Land Uses. City/Agency acknowledges that
implementation and operation of the Permitted Uses on the New Campus will result in
noise, light, vibration and other effects normally associated with industrial and
manufacturing activities of the type carried out by BFG ("Industrial Imt~acts '~.
City/Agency shall consider such impacts when processing permits for the following
operations (the "Sensitive Receptors") on property adjacent to the New Campus:
10671~00001517240504 30
?
residential projects, schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, hospices, retirement homes
and daycare centers. City/Agency also agrees to meet and confer with BFG to discuss
project alternatives or conditions which might minimize Industrial Impacts where a
Sensitive Receptor operation is proposed within 1,000 feet of a New Campus facility
generating such impacts.
6.1.6 Infrastructure, Fees and Exactions. City/Agency shall use best
efforts to minimize or eliminate any City/Agency imposed public fees, dedications,
exactions or costs (including, without limitation, development fees, infrastructure fees, or
processing fees) that could be incurred by BFG in connection with relocation of its
operations or additional development of the New Campus in accordance ~vith Existing
Rules, Regulations and Official Policies or that would otherwise result from such
relocation, consolidation, and the installation of relocation and consolidation-related New
Campus improvements.
6.1.7 Prior City Commitments. City acknowledges and reaffirms all
previous commitments related to reimbursements or credits due to BFG by City
concerning the improvement costs previously incurred by BFG for the northern one-half
of Lagoon Drive.
6.1.8 Term. The term of the Development Agreement shall expire twenty
(20) years after the Development Agreement Effective Date.
6.2 BFG Obligations. In consideration of City/Agency agreements under the
Development Agreement, BFG agrees as follows:
6.2.1 Rados/Agency Parcels Use and Development.
(a) Temporary Use for Parking and Open Storage~"~'FG shall not
be prevented by the City/Agency from utilizing the Rados and Agency Parcels for
parking and the A~ency Parcel for open storage for a period of six (6) years after the
Effective Date of this Agreement (the "Interim Use Period"). However, BFG shall be
required to obtain all appropriate permits from the City/Agency in order to allow open
storage and parking on the Agency Parcel and parking on the Rados Parcel, and
City/Agency retains the right to impose reasonable conditions on such uses. During the
Interim Use Period, BFG agrees to use its best efforts (a) to minimize and screen open
storage of equipment and materials, and (b) not to use the perimeter of the New Campus
for open storage. BFG agrees not to use the Rados Parcel for open storage at any time
and acknowledges and agrees that such use shall not be pern~itted.
(b) City Easement for Enhanced Landscaping and Entry Feature
at Northeast Corner of Rados Parcel. Prior to the Closing, City/Agency shall be
granted an easement over a portion of the Rados Parcel as identified on Ex5ibit F
Exhibit H attached hereto ("Easement Area"). The easement shall be for the installation
and maintenance of a Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area "entry statement" which may
include enhanced landscaping, water features, statuary, monument signs and/or other
1067~ 1 000015 172405 04 3 1
?
quality architectural features ("Entry Statement"). City/Agency shall bear the
construction and maintenance costs of the Entry Statement. Prior to City/Agency
installation of an Entry Statement, BFG shall bear all costs related to improvements or
maintenance of the Easement Area. In the event that a BFG Development Project or
City/Agency proposal for an Entry Statement requires an adjustment to the Easement
Area, the parties agree to meet and confer with the goal of developing a mutually
agreeable adjustment that would reasonably accommodate each party's development
needs.
(c) Agency Option to Reaquire Rados. In the event that by the end
of the Interim Use Period, BFG has not committed to the development of the Rados
Parcel into a permanent use that is integrated with an industrial and/or office development
project on the New Campus, Agency shall have the option ("Rados Option ") to reacquire
the Rados Parcel on the terms and conditions set forth below:
(1) Purchase Price.
The Rados Option purchase price ("Rados Option Purchase
Price'') shall be the sum of (1) $1,052,409, (the "Original
Purchase Price'); (2) six percent (6%) of the Original Purchase
Price multiplied by the number of years BFG owns the Rados
Parcel prior to Agency exercise of the Rados Option; and (3) the
County's then most recent appraised value of any improvements
installed on the Rados Parcel.
(2) Option Term.
If the Rados Option is triggered (as provided abov.~)~the Rados
Option ("Rados Option Term ") shall commence upon the
expiration of the Interim Use Period and shall expire on the date
falling five (5) years thereafter. Not~vithstanding the foregoing, the
Rados Option shall terminate prior to the expiration of the Rados
Option Term in the event that (i) BFG requests in writing that the
Agency purchase the Rados Parcel for the Ratios Purchase Price
and the Agency fails to exercise the Rados Option pursuant to
Section 6.2.1(c)(3) within sixty (60) days after such request; or
(ii) during the Rados Option Term, Agency approves an Owner
Participation Agreement for the development of the Rad}>s Parcel.
(3) Option Exercise.
Agency shall exercise its option rights hereunder by notifying BFG
in writing of its intent to do so ("Option Notice"): The parties
shall then meet and confer to prepare all necessary conveyance
documents on terms consistent with the terms hereof. The Rados
Parcel shall be transferred in its then "as-is" condition. Agency
1067~10000!5 17240504 32
D
?
shall bear all standard escrow costs. The transfer shall occur
within ninety (90) days after the date of the Option Notice. The
Rados Option Purchase Price shall be paid in cash at close of
escrow.
(4) Retention of Rights.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, BFG shall retain the right to
convey the Rados Parcel to a third party at any time; provided,
however, that the Rados Option to reacquire, unless previously
terminated, shall run with the land and be binding upon such third
party. In addition, City/Agency shall retain the right to reacquire
the Rados Parcel at any time pursuant to its powers of eminent
domain.
6.2.2 No Challenges; Cooperation. BFG shall not oppose, challenge or
seek conditions or mitigation measures in connection with land use permits and other
approvals necessary for development of projects proposed within the Bayfront
Redevelopment Project Area consistent with, or less impactive than, the Existing Rules,
Regulations, and Official Policies applicable thereto. In addition, BFG shall reasonably
cooperate with City/Agency in its processing, approval and implementation of adjacent
developments to the extent necessary and reasonable to encourage land use, infrastructure
and traffic compatibility. Notwithstanding the foregoing, BFG shall reserve the right to
oppose, challenge or seek conditions or mitigation measures in connection with
(a) elements of a proposed Bayfront development project that would place Sensitive
Receptors within approximately 1,000 feet of the New Campus; or (b) any project or
activity that has a material, adverse impact on the uses or operations of the New Campus_;
provided, however, that this shall not include a right to challenge based ~'6"n market
competition.
6.3 Port Cooperation. Although Port will not be a party to the Development
Agreement, where such cooperation is~ reasonably necessary, Port agrees to cooperate in good
faith (at no additional cost to the Port) with BFG and City during the Relocation Period to
implement the provisions of the Development Agreement.
6.3.1 Port Jurisdiction and Control Over Land Uses. The Port shall
use reasonable efforts to avoid approving or facilitating Sensitive Receptors on, the South
Campus.
6.3.2 No Challenges. Port acknowledges that, in order to continue the
same Permitted Uses on the New Campus as it previously engaged in on the South
Campus, BFG may be required to obtain certain land use permits and other approvals
from City or other agencies. During the term of the Development Agreement specified in
Section 6.1.8, Port shall not oppose, challenge or seek conditions or mitigation measures
in connection with any such land use permits and other approvals necessary for
implementation of such Permitted Uses on the New Campus; provided, however that such
10671100001517240504 33
D-33
limitation shall not apply to different or expanded uses on the New Campus; provided,
further that such limitation shall not apply to Port's discretionary authority as lead agency
or otherwise in pursuing CEQA compliance. Similarly, during the same period, BFG
shall not oppose, challenge or seek conditions or mitigation measures in connection with
annexation of the BFG Property into the Port's Master Plan, or in connection with land
use permits and other approvals necessary for development of the South Campus
consistent with the Port's Master Plan, including industrial, commercial, hotel,
waterfront, open space and recreational uses.
6.4 Port and City/Agency Agreements Regarding South Campus
Development.
6.4.1 In General. Port and City/Agency agree that one of the primary_
purposes of this Agreement is to facilitate the redevelopment of the South Campus to its
highest and best use in a manner consistent with the Port's "Industrial Business Park"
land use designation. Towards that end. subject to the restrictions contained in Sections
4, 6 and 7 of this Agreement. Port. City and Agency agree to work together to encourage
the redevelopment of the South Campus and to limit uses of the existing South Campus
improvements beyond the Relocation Period to short term interim uses.
6,4.2 Master Plan Amendment. Port agrees to expeditiously process
and present for'Port Board approval a Master Plan Amendment for the South Campus
which imposes the Port's existing "Industrial Business Park" land use designation
thereon. Port staff agrees to exercise best efforts to complete the process by no later than
May 1, 2001.
6¢k,2 6.4.3 RFP Process and Project Approval. Prior to issuance of an
RFP ,:,,/th rezpc, ct to the South Campus Cgmmencing on the Effective Date:'l~o~ staff shall
meet and confer with City/Agency staff in order to develop a shared Port/City/Agency
vision. Such visio~shall then be incorporated into a Request for Proposal ("RFP") for the
South Campus and the Bayfront generally to be issued by the Port in soliciting developer
interest in the South Campus. Port agrees to expeditiously issue such RFP and diligently
process responsive developmen~ proposals obtained with respect thereto. In addition, Port
staff shall meet and confer with City/Agency staff to discuss mutual goals and concerns prior
to Port staff :ubmitta! of the P~P staff s recommendin~ to the Board of Port Commissioners
1:~ approval of a specific project or projects for the South Campus. At City/Agency request,
Port shall also schedule with the City Council/Agency Board joint public hearings on any
proposed project for purposes of considering City Ceunci!/Agcn~; Clty/Councd/Agency
Board and public input on such project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Port shall
reserve, to the maximum extent permitted by law, sole discretionary land use approval over
South Campus development.
6.5 Covered Areas. The two (2) blacked-out areas marked on the map attached
as Exhibit E are the Covered Areas. After completion of the site characterization to be conducted
for the South Campus, and prior to Closing, the Port and BFG shall meet and confer to consider
mutually agreeable revisions (if any) to the Covered Areas. The Covered Areas shall be
incorporated into any RFP(s) for the South Campus and the Bayfront issued by the Port to the
extent such RFP(s) may affect one (or more) of the Covered Areas. The RFP(s) will be prepared
in a manner to encourage developers to avoid any penetration of existing soils within the '
Covered Areas by either: (i) avoiding development in Covered Areas; or (ii) developing above-
ground Structures within the Covered Areas which do not involve any penetration of the soils,
including, without limitation, buildings with slab-on-grade foundations, roads, sidewalks or
parking areas. Port shall meet and confer with developers to consider appropriate modifications
to any Development Plan, or portions thereof, to avoid penetration of the soil within the Covered
Areas, and Port shall advise BFG of any development constraints which may require soil
penetration within any Covered Areas. Following the submittal of the above-referenced RFP(s)
and Port's reasonable attempts to modify any Development Plan (following meetings with the
developer and consulting with BFG) to avoid soil penetration within any Covered Area, to the
extent that the avoidance of soil penetration in or under the Covered Areas causes a material,
adverse impact on tke viaSi!ity cf the Development Plan or the financing of such Development
Plan, then South Campus Environmental Costs associated with necessary Environmental
Remediation Activities within the Covered Areas shall be allocated pursuant to Section 7.2.2,
below. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall preclude installation of below-
ground utilities in connection with development within Covered Areas of above-ground
structures that do not involve penetration of the soils, and any South Campus Environmental
Costs associated with Environmental Remediation Activities arising out of such installation of
below-ground utilities shall be allocated pursuant to Section 7.2.2. below.
Section 7. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Redevelopment of the Bayfront may require investigation, management and
remediation of environmental conditions. Terms and conditions concerning environmental
investigation, management, remediation and cost responsibility are set out below.
7.1 General Principles.
7.1.1 Cooperation. The parties recognize the paramount importance of
maintaining a cooperative rela,tionship to achieve effective implementation of the
environmental management provisions of this Section 7. To this end, the parties xvill~
maintain regular, periodic communications among those involved in implementing
Section 7. Regular meetings will be held. The parties will meet and confer in order to
develop mutually agreeable positions to present to agencies and other third parties in
implementing this Agreement. Implementing measures to help assure the maintenance of
· this cooperative relationship are set out in Section 7.5 below.
7.1.2 Development Objectives. The Port desires to provide for timely
development of the South Campus and, to that end, the parties agree that development
activities may commence during the Relocation Period, provided that such activities do
not interfere with BFG operations and relocation activities. If Port and BFG agree in
advance to such development activities, and if such activities adversely affect BFG's
operations or relocation activities, Port shall compensate BFG for such adverse effects.
10671100001517240504 35
?
7.1.3 Risk-Based Standards. The parties agree that Environmental
Remediation Activities implemented pursuant to this Agreement shall be based on risk-
based decisionmaking and shall utilize the most cost-effective, risk-based, industrial use
remediation standards and techniques possible to implement Environmental Remediation
Activities.
7.1.4 Environmental Objectives. The parties agree that Environmental
Remediation Activities will be designed to facilitate development consistent with the
Port's Master Plan utilizing risk-based standards.
7.1.5 Shared Costs. As more particularly described in Sections 7.2 and
7.3 below, South Campus Environmental Costs to remediate South Campus
Environmental Conditions in order to implement Port first-time post-Closing
Development Plans under this Agreement are shared costs, the allocation of which is
described in Section 7.2.2 below.
7.1.6 Manifests. Any hazardous waste manifest required to be executed
by any party in relation to Environmental Remediation Activities on the South Campus or
on the ~ New Campus shall be executed by the party or parties responsible for causing
the Environmental Release Condition, rather than the party or parties responsible for the
Environmental Costs ~ or environmental management with respect
to such Environmental Condition. If, after a diligent attempt to do so, the party or parties
responsible for causing the Environmental Rc!cago Condition cannot be identified, O~e
PoX and BFG shall j ...... ., execute the pertinent hazardous waste manifest. Nothing in
this Section 7.1.6 shall alter or amend any provisions of this Agreement regardin,~
allocation of Environmental Costs.
7.1.7 Management. Whenever this Agreement provides.ti'mt
Remediation Activities are to be undertaken pursuant to joint decision making, such
Remediation Activities shall be effectuated according to thejoint decisions of BFG and
the Port. irrespective of which party has current management responsibility for such
Remediation Activities.
7.1.8 No Waiver: Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of
rights or remedies pursuant to contract or applicable laws with respect to Environmental
Conditions in. or under property other than the New Campus or South Campus.
7.2 Allocation of Environmental Costs: South Campus.
7.2.1 General. Effective as of the date of this Agreement, and subject to
the conditions set out in Sections 7.2.3 through 7.2.14 below, BFG and the Port shall
share, in the manner described in Section 7.2.2 below, all costs, fees, out-of-pocket
expenses, losses, liabilities and damages (collectively, "Costs'~ resulting from,
concerning, or arising out of or in connection with: (i) "Environmental Conditions" in,
on, from or under the South Campus (including, without limitation, the buildings on the
South Campus) regardless of origin within the South Campus or outside the South
106711 000015 17240504
Campus (collectively, "South Campus Environmental Couditions"),
(ii) "Environmental Releases" in, on, from or under the South Campus (including~
without limitation, the buildings on the South Campus) (collectively "South Cam£us
Environmental Releases"), (iii) "Environmental Remediation Activities" in, on, around,
from or under the South Campus (including, without limitation, the buildings on the
South Campus) (collectively "South Campus Environmental Remediation Activities");
or (iv) "Environmental Claims" resulting from, concerning, or arising out of or in
connection with South Campus Environmental Conditions, South Campus Environmental
Releases or South Campus Environmental Remediation Activities (collectively, '~South
Campus Environmental Claims"). The Costs resulting from, concerning or arising out
of or in connection with South Campus Environmental Conditions, South Campus
Environmental Releases, South Campus Environmental Remediation Activities and
South Campus Environmental Claims are defined to be "South Campus Enviroumental
Costs." The costs of technical consultants and legal counsel selected jointly by BFG and
the Port pursuant to Section 7.3.1 (b) below shall be allocated pursuant to Section 7.2.2
below.
7.2.2 Allocation. The allocation of South Campus Environmental Costs
is as follows:
(a) For South Campus Environmental Costs from $0 to $3 million,
BFG is liable for 50 percent of such Costs and the Port is liable for 50 percent of such
Costs.
(b) For South Campus Environmental Costs from greater than
$3 million to $4 million, BFG is liable for 40 percent o£such Costs and the Port is liable
for 60 percent of such Costs .....
(c) For South Campus Environmental Costs greater than $4 million to
$5 million, BFG is'liable for 30 percent of such costs and the Port is liable for 70 percent
of such Costs.
(d) For South Campus Environmental Costs greater than $5 million,
BFG is liable for 100 percent of such Costs.
BFG shall be responsible for maintaining records of South Campus Environmental Costs
so that this allocation can be effectuated. Port shall have the right to review anrl
photocopy such records during normal business hours, upon reasonable advance notice to
BFG.
7.2.3 Costs After Transfer. After transfer of ownership of the BFG
Property to the Port, BFG shall not be liable for, and the Port shall be solely responsible
for, any South Campus Environmental Costs which result from, concern, or arise out of
or in connection with South Campus Environmental Conditions that occur after such
transfer, whether as a result of actions by Port, by subsequent owners or operators of
South Campus or by any third party; provided, however, that subject to Section 7.2.14,
D-
BFG shall remain solely responsible for any South Campus Environmental Costs that
result from, concern, or arise out of or in connection xvith South Campus Environmental
Conditions that occur in ,,','hole or in part as a result of BFG's activities, but only to* the
extent of such BFG activities, after such transfer and until BFG vacates the South
Campus or the portion thereof to which such costs pertain.
7.2.4 Costs Associated With Importation of Dredged Material. BFG
shall not be responsible for South Campus Environmental Costs resulting from or arising
out of or in connection with importation of dredged or fill material containing Hazardous
Substances by or at the direction of any party other than BFG whether such importation
occurs prior to or subsequent to the execution of this Agreement ....................... ;
7.2.5 Costs Associated With Dredging. Dredging by the Port in San
Diego Bay and in the Chula Vista Yacht Harbor shall not result in any obligations under
this Agreement. If Port dredging activities cause a water channel to be cut into the South
Campus, the New Campus, or any other Bayfront property or cause a material change in
the shoreline, the Port shall be solely responsible for any South Campus Environmental
Costs that result from such water channel or shoreline dredging. If any other Port
dredging activities on the South Campus, New Campus, or any other Bayfront property
result in South Campus Environmental Costs due to changes in groundwater flow or to
the shoreline beneath or adjacent to the South Campus, these South Campus
Environmental Costs shall be allocated pursuant to Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 above.
Digging or trenching in connection with installation of underground utilithe~ shall not be
construed as dredging, and shall not constitute an Environmental Release for which City,
Port or BFG may be liable with respect to any impact upon soils or groundwater. Any
South Campus Environmental Costs caused by digging or trenching on the South Campus
by City or Port in connection with installation of underground utilities shall be allocated
pursuant to Section 7.2.2 above.
7.2.6 Costs Associated With Irrigation and Ponds. The Port will
require any South Campus developer to meet and confer with BFG concerning any
planned irrigation activities and/or ponds on South Campus and to consider any
comments BFG may have concerning such activities or ponds. After such mee~ting:
(a) with respect to developer irrigation activities, ifBFG and the Port
determine that reasonable protective measures should be undertaken to address potential
impacts to soils or groundwater or to South Campus Environmental Remediation
Activities, the developer will be required to install those protective measures and the
costs of those protective measures will be allocated pursuant to Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2
above;
1067~00001517240504 38
(b) with respect to ponds, the developer will be required to install lined
ponds and BFG shall bear no responsibility for the costs of such liners;
(c) provided, however, that developer will not be precluded fror~
implementing a reasonable industry standard irrigation plan for the South Campus and
this Southern California Region.
7.2.7 Costs Associated With Grading. If any grading activities cause
South Campus Environmental Costs, these costs will be allocated pursuant to Sections
7.2.1 and 7.2.2 above; provided, however, if the Port conducts grading activities without
consultation with and receiving written approval by BFG within thirty (30) days (which
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld) and these grading activities cause South
Campus Environmental Costs, then the Port shall be solely responsible for such South
Campus Environmental Costs.
7.2.8 Costs in Excess of Industrial Use Standards. In no event shall
BFG be responsible for any South Campus Environmental Costs that exceed the costs
required to perform South Campus Environmental Remediation Activities to achieve
Industrial Use Standards for the South Campus and the Port shall bear and be responsible
for the incremental South Campus Environmental Costs of such South Campus
Environmental Remediation Activities in excess of Industrial Use Standards.
7.2.9 Costs Associated With Underground Storage Tanks Costs. Any
Environmental Costs incurred for the closure and removal of underground storage tanks,
and their associated piping and dispensers, that are subject to regulation pursuant to Cal.
Health & Safety Code § 25280 et seq. ( "Underground Storage of Hazardous
Substances") and 23 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 2610 et seq. ("Underground Tank
Regulations'~ (hereafter "Underground Storage Tanks") located on th6 ~uth Campus
shall be considered South Campus Environmental Costs subject to allocation in
accordance with S~ctions 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 above. The parties agree that if Underground
Storage Tanks exist on the South Campus that qualify under the Underground Storage
Tank Cleanup Fund established pursuant to Health & Safety Code §§ 25299.10 et seq.,
then the Port and BFG shall s~bmit and jointly pursue the processing of the application(s)
to the State Water Resources Control Board and the costs of preparing and pursuing this
application (or applications) shall be equally shared by BFG and the Port. The Port and
BFG shall submit applications to any similar fund established by a public agency or
governmental body for remediation, closure and/or removal of Underground Storage
Tanks, and the costs of preparing and pursuing these applications shall be equally shared
by BFG and the Port. Any reimbursement received by either BFG or the Port from the
Underground Storage Tank Fund, and any similar funds established for remediation,
closure and/or removal of Underground Storage Tanks will be paid to BFG and the Port
in proportion to their respective shares of such expenses pursuant to Sections 7.2.1 and
7.2.2 above.
106711.000015 17240504 39
?
7.2.10 Costs Associated With Demolition. The Port shall be responsible
for the dismantling, demolition, and removal (collectively "Demolition") of any
structures (excluding Underground Storage Tanks) and all associated materials (including
without limitation asbestos, lead-based paint, and light ballasts) located on the South
Campus, including the Demolition of, without limitation, buildings, pads, foundations,
parking lots, roads, sewers, storm sewers, utility trenches, and fences (collectively
"Structures"); provided, however, if any South Campus Structures are contaminated with
materials other than asbestos, lead-based paint, and/or light ballasts, the Port shall meet
and confer with BFG concerning the handling and disposal of such contaminated
Structures and any increased Demolition costs associated with those contaminated
materials shall be allocated pursuant to Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 above.
7.2.11 Costs Associated ~vith Ground~vater Monitoring. If the Port
becomes responsible for the management of groundwater monitoring in wells located on
the South Campus pursuant to Section 7.3.1 (a)(1), the Environmental Costs required to
perform the sampling, testing, and reporting activities described in Section 7.3.1 (a)(1)
shall be allocated pursuant to Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 above.
7.2.12 Costs Associated With Construction Dewatering. Any
increased South Campus Environmental Costs associated with temporary construction
dewatering activities shall be allocated pursuant to Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 above. If
permanent dewatering operations are permitted to occur by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board, San Diego Region, and if the Port allows a developer to install and
operate permanent dewatering operations on the South Campus, any increased South
Campus Environmental Costs that result from, arise out of or in connection with such
permanent dewatering operations shall be borne solely by the Port.
7.2.13 Cost Limitation. irrespective of whether BFG or'th~ Port has
management responsibility pursuant to Section 7.3, BFG and the Port shall not be
responsible under [his Agreement for any South Campus Environmental Costs except as
expressly provided for in Sections 7.2 and 7.3.
7.2.14 Contamination Discovery Cutoff. To the extent that BFG is~
liable for South Campus Environmental Conditions, it shall be liable only for South
Campus Environmental Conditions that are discovered within 15 years after Closing,
except that BFG's liability for South Campus Environmental Conditions that exist on any
portion of the South Campus shall be satisfied upon completion, pursuant to a ~
Development Plan, of the Port first-time, post-closing development of that portion of the
South Campus; provided, however, that, notwithstanding any prior termination of BFG's
responsibility under Section 7 for South Campus Environmental Remediation Activities
or South Campus Environmental Costs, BFG shall also be liable for any South Campus
Environmental Condition that is discovered within an area where such first-time
development has been completed if that Environmental Condition is discovered within
the aforesaid 15 years and requires remediation to comply with the Industrial Use
Standard that applied to that first-time development, in which case responsibility for the
1067H 000015 17240504 40
management and cost of such remediation shall be allocated pursuant to Section
7.3.1 (a)(4). For South Campus Environmental Conditions that come within the discovery
period established by this subsection, BFG shall have management responsibility for such
South Campus Environmental Conditions until its responsibility for such Conditions is
terminated or a particular exemption applies in accordance with Section 7.3.1 and the
South Campus Environmental Costs incurred in meeting this responsibility shall be
allocated pursuant to Sections 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.3.
7.3 Management of Environmental Matters: South Campus.
7.3.1 Management Responsibilities and Activities.
(a) General. BFG shall manage South Campus Environmental
Remediation Activities until no longer required to do so as provided belo~v, at which time
the Port shall become solely responsible for management of South Campus
Environmental Remediation Activities:
(1) No Further Action Letter; Certificate of Completion; or
Similar Document. If South Campus Environmental Remediation
Activities are undertaken pursuant to a Development Plan under
government agency oversight, BFG management responsibility
shall terminate upon the issuance of a no further action letter,
certification of completion, or similar document by the oversight
agency, and, furthermore, BFG's responsibility under this
Section 7 for that aspect of South Campus Environmental
Remediation Activities and for those South Campus
Environmental Costs shall terminate and be satisfied upon such
event. Not by way of limitation of the foregoing,-if,-t, he
performance of South Campus Environmental Remediation
Activities results in a government agency determination that the
only remaining tasks to be performed are the periodic sampling of
groundw, ater monitoring wells, the testing of samples from the
monitoring wells, and the preparation and submission to the ~
agency of reports on the results of such sampling and testing, then
the Port shall assume responsibility for conducting this sampling,
testing, and reporting and the costs of such activities shall be
allocated pursuant to Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 above; prqvided,
however, that if as a result of such groundwater monitoring
additional South Campus Environmental Remediation Activities
are required by a govemment agency, then:
(i) BFG shall have management responsibility for such
Remediation Activities if the Remediation Activities are for
conditions that occurred as a result of BFG activities, but
only to the extent of such BFG activities, and the costs of
10671100001517240504 41
D-q-I
?
such Remediation Activities shall be allocated pursuant to
Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 above; and
(ii) the Port shall have management responsibility for and be
responsible for the costs of such Remediation Activities if
the Remediation Activities are for conditions that occurre~
as a result of Port activities, but only to the extent of such
Port activities.
(2) Investigation Reports. If the only South Campus Environmental
Remediation Activities required by the appropriate government
oversight agency are investigation activities, BFG's management
responsibility for such South Campus Environmental Remediation
Activities so required shall terminate by a letter documenting
submission of the final report of investigation to the oversight
agency, and, furthermore, BFG's responsibility under this
Section 7 for South Campus Environmental Costs shall terminate
and be satisfied to the extent of such required investigation
activities. This condition shall conclusively be determined to have
occurred if after the passage of one year from the submission of the
final report of investigation to the oversight agency, the oversight
agency has not required the performance of any additional South
Campus Environmental Remediation Activity.
(3)Discrete Project Approvals. In the event that South Campus
Environmental Remediation Activities occur in stages or discrete
elements or parcels, then the termination of BFG's management
responsibility pursuant to Sections 7.3.1 (a)(1) or 7.'J~ (a)(2) shall
occur for each such stage or element or parcel as documented for
, or approved by the oversight agency by the methods described in
Sections 7.3.1(a)(1) or 7.3.1(a)(2), above, and, furthermore, BFG's
responsibility under this Section 7 for South Campus
Environmental Costs shall terminate and be satisfied to the ext~nt
of such stage or element or parcel.
(4) Reopener and Subsequent Event Provisions. If any Section
7.3.1 (a)(1)-(3) agency documentation contains a reopen~r
provision and the condition occurs that triggers the reopener
provision or a discovery of a South Campus Environmental
Condition occurs pursuant to Section 7.2.14, and either or both of
these events requires the performance of additional South Campus
Environmental Remediation Activities, then:
(i) if such an event occurs as a result of BFG activities, BFG
shall have management responsibility for such Remediation
106711 000015 17240504 ~-?
E::,-.-
?
Activities, but only to the extent of such BFG activities,
until completion of such management responsibilities is
achieved in a manner provided for by Sections 7.3.1(a)(1),
7.3.1(a)(2), or 7.3.1(a)(3) above, and South Campus
Environmental Costs for such Remediation Activities shall
be allocated pursuant to Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 above; aqd
(ii) if such an event occurs as a result of Port activities, the Port
shall have management responsibility and shall be
responsible for the costs of such Remediation Activities,
but only to the extent of such Port activities.
(5) BFG Post-Transfer Responsibilities. After transfer of ownership
of the BFG Property to the Port, BFG shall have no management
responsibility (or any other obligation or responsibility, as
provided in Section 7.2.3) for any South Campus Environmental
Remediation Activities that result from, concern or arise from or in
connection with any South Campus Environmental Condition
which occurs after such transfer of BFG Property to the Port;
provided, however, that, in addition to its responsibilities under
Sections 7.3.1 (a)(1)-(4) above, BFG shall remain solely
responsible for any South Can~pus Environmental Costs that result
directly or indirectly from activities of BFG, but only in proportion
to BFG's activities, after such transfer and until BFG vacates the
South Campus.
(6)Port Post-Transfer Responsibilities. Except for the management
obligations of BFG expressly provided for in S ecticrrl~ 7.3.1 (a)( 1 )-
(5) above, after transfer of ownership of the BFG Property to the
,, Port, management responsibility for South Campus Environmental
Conditions, South Campus Environmental Releases, and South
Campus. Environmental Remediation Activities is to be borne
solely by the Port.
(7) No BFG Management Responsibilities Regarding Standards in
Excess of Industrial Use Standards. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Sections 7.3. l(a)(1)-(5) above, BFG shall Wave no
management responsibility for any South Campus Environmental
Remediation Activities required to achieve standards in excess of
Industrial Use Standards for the South Campus; provided,
however, that until termination of BFG management responsibility
pursuant to Sections 7.3.1(a)(I)-(5) above, BFG may elect to
manage, to the extent of any writing signed by an officer of BFG
and by giving 30-days written notice thereof to the Port, any such
South Campus Environmental Remediation Activities required to
106711 000015 17240504
achieve standards in excess of Industrial Use Standards for the
South Campus.
(b) Selection of Technical and Legal Consultants. The technical
consultants and legal counsel retained by the Port and BFG for
implementing South Campus Environmental Remediation Activities shall
be selected jointly by the Port and BFG, after meeting and conferring;
provided, however, that neither the Port nor BFG is precluded from
retaining technical consultants and legal counsel of its own, at its own
expense, to assist it in implementing this Agreement.
(c) Demolition Activities. The Demolition of any Structures located on the
South Campus shall be the responsibility of the Port and shall be
performed by the Port; provided, however, that before the Port removes
any soils, except for residual soils that are directly associated with the
Structures and are necessarily removed with the Structures, the Port shall
consult ~vith BFG concerning such soils. If the Port demolishes any
Structure that results in exposing contaminated soils beneath such
Structure, the Port shall place a cap (temporary or otherwise) over such
soils until the Port begins the process of constructing new Structures in the
area of the Structure(s) to be demolished in accordance with a
Development Plan. If the Port chooses to demolish a Structure earlier than
would be necessary under an applicable Development Plan, then the Port
shall be responsible for any increased South Campus Environmental Costs
that result from such early Demolition action.
(d) Closure of Underground Storage Tanks. Closure and removal of any
Underground Storage Tanks located on the South Campus--s-t~all be
performed by BFG. An application or applications to the Underground
Sto!~age Tank Cleanup Fund or any other similar fund shall be submitted
and pursued by BFG and the Port when required by Section 7.2.9 above.
(e) Irrigation Activities. The Port shall not be precluded from implemeriting
a reasonable industry standard irrigation plan for the South Campus and
this Southern California Region.
(f) Well Installation, Operation, Maintenance and Closure.
(1) To carry out the management provisions of this Section 7.3, BFG
may need to install, operate, maintain or close one or more ~vells to
monitor or extract groundwater or soil vapor. After receipt of
reasonable advance notice from BFG, the Port and the City agree
to grant, on reasonable terms, access to portions of the property
within the Bayfront, or adjacent thereto, under their control,
including the BFG Property after its transfer, for the installation,
106711 000015 17240504 ~-~'
?
operation, maintenance and closure of groundwater monitoring,
soil vapor or extraction wells.
(2) Consistent with its cooperation responsibilities under Section 7.5
below, BFG shall not install, operate, maintain or close a
groundwater monitoring, soil vapor, or extraction well in a manner
that unreasonably interferes with the activities or property of the
Port or its tenants.
(g) Port Bona Fide Developer Exemption
(1) Criteria. This exemption from Section 7.3 management of environmental
matters requirements shall apply if the following criteria are met:
(i) A bona fide and viable development plan exists for the
South Campus or a portion of the South Campus and the
Board of Port Commissioners has selected, in accordance
with its established and normally applicable procedures, a
qualified developer to implement this development plan
(collectively "Development Plan '9;
(ii) The Development Plan requires the implementation of
South Campus EnvirorLmental Remediation Activities in
order to achieve the land use(s) established by the
Development Plan;
(iii) More than one remediation option, other than the no action
option, exists to implement such South Camtms
Environmental Remediation Activities; and
(iv) The BFG-selected South Campus Environmental
Remediation Activity would by itself materially adversely
affect implementation of the Development Plan by, for:
example, materially affecting the time of completion 6r
materially affecting the scope of the development.
(2) Decisions No Greater Than $5.6 Million. If at the time the above
criteria are met, South Campus Environmental Costs ha,}e not
exceeded $5.6 million (and implementation of the South Campus
Environmental Remediation Activity desired by the Port would not
cause such costs to exceed $5.6 million), the Port may select the
least costly South Campus Environmental Remediation Activity
that will implement the Development Plan while reasonably
eliminating the material adverse impact to the development project.
106711.000015 17240504 45
(3) Decisions Above $5.6 Million But No Greater Than $7 Million.
if at the time the above criteria are met, South Campus
Environmental Costs have exceeded $5.6 million but are no greater
than $7 million (or implementation of the South Campus
Environmental Remediation Activity desired by the ]Port would
cause such costs to exceed $5.6 million but not to exceed $7
million), then the Port shall not have the right to select the South '
Campus Environmental Remediation Activity without BFG's
concurrence. In such event, the Port and BFG shall meet and
confer in an attempt to select a mutually agreeable South Campus
Environmental Remediation Activity that complies with Section
7.1.3. If the Port and BFG are unable to agree on a South Campus
Environmental Remediation Activity, the matter shall be submitted
to binding arbitration pursuant to Section 9.5.3 below.
(4) Decisions Above $7 Million. If at the time the above criteria are
met, South Campus Environmental Costs have exceeded $7
million (or implementation of the South Campus Environmental
Remediation Activity desired by the Port would cause such costs to
exceed $7 million), then the Port shall not have the right to select
the South Campus Environmental Remediation Activity, and BFG
shall have the sole and exclusive right to select the South Campus
Environmental Remediation Activity.
(5) Implementation Costs. The costs incurred in implementing the
South Campus Environmental Remediation Activity selected under
this Section 7.3.1 (g) shall be South Campus Environmental Costs,
allocated pursuant to Sections 7.2 and 7.3 above. 'Th-~ provisions
of Sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.5 and 7.6 shall apply to the
, implementation of the selected South Campus Environmental
Remediation Activity except to the extent that those provisions are
inconsistent with this Section 7.3.1(g).
(h) Port-Directed Remediation
(1) This Section 7.3 (h) is an exemption from the provisions of
Section 7.3 governing management of environmental matters.
(2) The requirements of this Section 7.3(h) are as follows:
FIRST:
(i) Within thirty (30) days following the demolition of any
building on the South Campus, BFG shall commence an
additional environmental evaluation (which may include, if
106711.00001517240504 46
D-qb
?
appropriate, reasonable surface and subsurface
investigation) in the area of the demolished building.
(ii) Within ninety (90) days following the demolition, BFG in
consultation with the Port shall prepare a plan for
Environmental Remediation Activities for the pertinent
area (or an explanation as to why no remediation is then
necessary) and shall submit it to the Port for review.
(iii) In the event the Port agrees with the proposed plan for
Enviromnental Remediation Activities, then BFG shall
submit such plan to the applicable environmental agencies
for review and/or approval, and thereupon, within sixty
(60) days following receipt of all required governmental
approvals and permits, BFG shall commence the
remediation.
(iv) In the event the Port disagrees with the BFG proposal, then
the Port may direct a different plan for Environmental
Remediation Activities, provided that the estimated cost of
such plan (together with all other activities directed by the
Port under this Section 7.3 (h)) shall not exceed
$1,000,000. Thereupon, BFG shall submit such Port plan
to the applicable environmental agencies for revie~v and/or
approval, and thereafter, within sixty (60) days following
receipt of all required governmental approvals and permits,
BFG shall commence the remediation des~[ib.~ed in the
Port's plan.
SECOND:
(v) Within thirty (30) days following the delivery by the P,ort to
BFG of the detailed schematic plans of the Port's approved
developer, BFG shall commence an additional
environmental evaluation which may include, if
appropriate, reasonable surface and subsurface
investigation in the areas where such plans call for the
construction or installation of buildings or other
improvements.
(vi) Within ninety (90) days following the receipt of such
schematic plans, BFG in consultation ~vith the Port shall
prepare a plan for Environmental Remediation Activities
for the aforesaid areas (or an explanation as to why no
105711000035 17240504 47
remediation is then necessary), and submit it to the Port for
review.
(vii) In the event the Port agrees with the proposed plan for
Environmental Remediation Activities, then BFG shall
submit such plan to the applicable environmental agencies.
for review and/or approval, and thereupon, within sixty
(60) days following receipt of all governmental approvals
and permits, BFG shall commence the remediation.
(viii) In the event the Port disagrees with the BFG proposal, then
the Port may direct a different plan for Environmental
Remediation Activities, provided that the estimated cost of
such plan (together with ail other activities directed by the
Port under this Section 7.3(h)) shall not exceed $1,000,000.
Thereupon, BFG shall submit such Port plan to the
applicable environmental agencies for review and/or
approval, and thereafter, within sixty (60) days following
receipt of all required governmental approvals and permits,
BFG shall commence the remediation described in the
Port's plan.
(3) The said $1,000,000 shall be a shared cost pursuant to the
allocation of South Campus Environmental Costs under
Section 7.2.2, and shall also be counted for purposes of application
of Section 7.3(g).
7.4 Allocation of Environmental Costs and Management Res'p~sibilities for
Other Identified Properties.
7.4.1 Port Parcels and SDG&E Land North of H Street.
(a) Management Responsibility. BFG shall have environmental=
management responsibility for performing Environmental Remediation Activities, if BFG
determines that such activities are necessary, for the Port Parcels and that part of the
SDG&E Land that is located north of H Street.
(b) Cost Allocation.
(1) Port Parcel No. 1.
(i) BFG shall not be responsible for any Environmental
Costs relating to Port Parcel No. 1 that result from, concern
or arise from or in connection with Environmental
Conditions existing prior to BFG's ground lease of Port
Parcel No. 1, and the Port shall be responsible for such
10671100001517240504 48
?
Environmental Costs, provided, however, that the Port's
responsibility for the costs of such Environmental
Remediation Activities:
(A) shall be limited to those Environmental
Remediation Activities necessary to achieve
Industrial Use Standards,
(B) shall extend only until the types of requirements set
out in Sections 7.3.1(a)(1)-(3) above are met by the
Port; and
(C) if the agency documentation of the types of
requirements set out in Sections 7.3.1 (a)(1) - (3)
above contains a reopener provision and the
condition occurs that triggers the reopener provision
or a discovery of an Enviromnental Condition
occurs pursuant to Section 7.4.5, and either or both
of these events requires the performance of
Environmental Remediation Activities, then the
Port shall be responsible for the costs of such
Environmental Remediation Activities in the
proportion to the extent to which each, directly or
indirectly, caused such Costs.
(ii) BFG shall be solely responsible for Environmental Costs
relating to Port Parcel No. 1 that result from, concern, or
arise from or in connection with Environmem.al Conditions
caused by BFG or third parties that first occurred after BFG
, executed a ground lease for Port Parcel No. 1; provided,
however, that BFG's responsibility for the costs of such
Environmental Remediation Activities:
(A) shall be limited to those Environmental
Remediation Activities necessary to achieve
Industrial Use Standards,
(B) shall extend only until the types of reqmrements set
out in Sections 7.3.1(a)(1)-(3) above are met by
BFG, and
(C) if the agency documentation pursuant to
Sections 7.3.1 (a)(1)-(3) above contains a reopener
provision and the condition occurs that triggers the
reopener provision or a discovery of an
Environmental Condition occurs pursuant to
Section 7.4.5, and either or both of these events
requires the performance of Enviromnental
Remediation Activities, then BFG shall be
responsible for the costs of such Environmental
Remediation Activities.
(2) Port Parcel No. 2 and SDG&E Land North of H Street. BFG '
shall not be responsible for any Environmental Costs relating to
Port Parcel No. 2 or that portion of the SDG&E Land north of H
Street that result from, concern, or arise from or in connection with
Environmental Conditions existing prior to transfer of these
properties to BFG and the Port shall be solely responsible for such
Environmental Costs; provided, however, that the Port's
responsibility for the costs of such Environmental Remediation
Activities:
(i) shall be limited to those Environmental Remediation
Activities necessary to achieve Industrial Use Standards,
(ii) shall extend only until the types of requirements set out in
Sections 7.3.1(a)(1)-(3) above are met by the Port; and
(iii) if the agency documentation of the types of requirements
set out in Sections 7.3. l(a)(1)-(3) contains a reopener
provision and the condition occurs that triggers the
reopener provision or a discovery of an Environmental
Condition occurs pursuant to Section 7.4.5, and either or
both of these events requires the performanc,~-of
Environmental Remediation Activities, then:
(A) for a condition that existed prior to transfer of the
property to BFG, the Port shall be solely
responsible for the costs of such Environmental:
Remediation Activities, and
(B) for a condition that occurs after transfer of the
property to BFG, BFG shall be solely responsible
for the costs of such Environmental Rem[diation
Activities.
Provided, however, that any Environmental Costs which are incurred to remediate an
Environmental Condition that exists in, on or under Port Parcel No. 2 or SDG&E Land
North of H Street and that resulted from BFG activities, but only to the extent of such
BFG activities, shall be costs that are allocated pursuant to Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2
above.
106711000015 ~7240504 50
7.4.2 Rados Parcel and t--:,., ,
~..~ Agenc_x Parcel.
(a) Trigger. Agency shall complete investigation and c!can;:p clean-
~ of Rados and Agency parcel soils (I) wit?.in within the earlier of(l) six months ora
request by BFG; -~ c'~ within(or as soon as nossible thereafter if the investieation and
clean-up cannot be completed, despite Agency's diligent efforts, within such 6-month
time period): or (2) the time required by an agency order directing remediation of the
Rados and/or the Agency Parcel(s).
(b) Scope of ResponsibiliD,. Agency's management and remediation
obligations shall be limited to soils.
(e) Scope of Investigation. Agency shall conduct a Phase II-type
investigation, with a cone sub ect to BFG s reasonable speclficat~ons to determine
whether contaminants exist in soils on or beneath the Rados and Agency Parcels.
(d) Cleanup. Agency shall perform any necessary Environmental
Remediation Activities based on risk-based decisionmaking to utilize the most cost-
effective, risk-based remediation standards and techniques possible.
(e) Cost Responsibility. Agency shall be responsible for all costs of
investigation and Environmental Remediation Activities as required by subsections (a)
through (d) above. Agency shall not be responsible for Environmental Remediation
Activities or Environmental Claims:
(1) for contaminant conditions in groundwater;
(2) for environmental conditions caused by BFG;
(3) for environmental conditions caused after Closing, except
, for environmental conditions caused by the Agency in
performing Environmental Remediation Activities or
otherwise.
(f) Completion. Agency shall .exercise best efforts to obtain a No
Further Action letter from the County (or other governmental oversight agency with
_iurisdiction) that determines that "no further action" is required at the two parcels with
respect to Environmental Conditions of the soils. Agency's obligations under [his
Section 7.4.2 shall terminate ~:pcn .... :~ ~c~.,~t, ·
..... v ........ with respect to any portion of the
narcels for which Agency obtains such a No Further Action letter fc, r *'~- ...... ~-
7.4.3 Costs Associated With Dredged Material. BFG shall not be
responsible for Environmental Costs resulting from, or arising out of or in connection
with importation of dredged or fill material containing Hazardous Substances by or at the
direction of any party other than BFG onto the New Campus or any other Bayfront
property (excluding the South Campus which is addressed in Section 7.2.4), whether such
10671100001517240504 51
importation occurs prior to or subsequent to the execution of this Agreement. Pax shall
indcmnif5 ' '
................................. ~ ......... ~ FC C .......... SC Otl
7.4.4 Costs Associated With Dred2in2. Except for thc cost exclusions
associated with dredging activities set out in Section 7.2.5 above (which shall be equally
applicable to the New Campus), if any other dredging activities on Bayfront property
result in Environmental Costs associated with the New Campus due to changes in
groundwater flow or to the shoreline beneath or adjacent to the New Campus, these
Environmental Costs shall be allocated pursuant to Sections 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 above.
7.4.5 Contamination Discovery Cutoff. To the extent that Port and/or
City/Agency are liable for Environmental Conditions on the New Campus, the Port
and/or City/Agency shall be liable only for Environmental Conditions on the New
Campus that are discovered within 15 years after Closing, except that the Port and/or the
City's City's/Agency's liability shall be satisfied upon BFG's completion of first-time,
post-Closing permanent development (which shall not include interim uses, such as
parking or storage) of that portion of the New Campus; provided, however, that Port
and/or City City/Agency shall also be liable for any Environmental Condition that is
discovered within an area where such first-time development has been completed if that
Environmental Condition is discovered within the aforesaid 15 years and requires
remediation to comply with the Industrial Use Standard that applied to that first-time
development.
7.5 Other Terms and Conditions.
7.5.1 Cooperation.
(a) The parties agree to cooperate and coordinate in good faith and to
use best efforts to achieve the most cost-effective, risk-based, industrial use remediation
standards possible for the South Campus, the Ne~v Campus and any other Bayfront
property.
(b) The parties agree to meet and confer and to cooperate in proposing
and implementing any Environmental Remediation Activity developed pursuant to this
Agreement.
(c) With respect to activities on the South Campus and Port Parcels
and SDG&E Land North of H Street:
(1) BFG and the Port shall meet and confer, shall exchange
information about successful applications of cost-effective,
risk-based, and/or industrial use standards and other useful
information, shall develop proposed least cost industrial use
10671%000015 172405 04 DZ
remediation plans for Port or third-party development
proposals approved by the Board of Port Commissioners
(including Development Plans for the South Campus) in
order to match cost-effective environmental strategies with
land-use development programs, and shall cooperate in
presenting remediation proposals to relevant agencies.
(2) BFG and the Port shall cooperate in good faith with each
other regarding any communications or interactions with,
or appearances before, agencies with oversight or other
responsibility for the properties listed above. The goal is to
reach agreement on the substance of the communication or
the appearance. All written communications shall be sent
to such agencies only after BFG and the Port have met and
conferred regarding such communications and exchanged
drafts of written communications for review and comment.
All written communications and other documents shall be
exchanged between BFG and the Port within a reasonable
time prior to submission of the communication to allow for
review and exchange of comments. All discussions
between BFG and the Port regarding oral communications
shall occur within a reasonable time prior to the
communication with the agency. If emergency
circumstances preclude such prior review, then the Port or
BFG shall notify the other of the communication as soon as
practicable thereafter and provide the other with a copy of
any written communications. Final copies,.0f,~any
communication with an agency shall be sent to the other
party. BFG and the Port shall meet and confer a reasonable
time prior to making any appearance before or meeting
with agencies with oversight responsibility for the
properties listed above. ~
(d) With respect to activities on the Rados and Agency parcels:
(1) BFG and the Agency shall meet and confer, shall exchange
information about successful applications of cost-effective,
risk-based, and/or industrial use standards and other useful
information, shall develop proposed least cost industrial use
remediation plans for development proposals contained in
development plans in order to match cost-effective
environmental strategies with land-use development
programs, and shall cooperate in presenting remediation
proposals to relevant agencies.
10671100001517240504 53
(2) BFG and the Agency shall cooperate in good faith with
each other regarding any communications or interactions
with, or appearances before, agencies with oversight ar
other responsibility for the properties listed above. The
goal is to reach agreement on the substance of the
communication or the appearance. All written
communications shall be sent to such agencies only after
BFG and the Agency have met and conferred regarding
such communications and exchanged drafts of written
communications for review and comment. All written
communications and other documents shall be exchanged
between BFG and the Agency within a reasonable time
prior to submission of the communication to allo~v for
review and exchange of comments. All discussions
between BFG and the Agency regarding oral
communications shall occur within a reasonable time prior
to the communication with the agency. If emergency
circumstances preclude such prior review, then the Agency
or BFG shall notify the other of the communication as soon
as practicable thereafter and provide the other with a copy
of any written communications. Final copies of any
communication with an agency shall be sent to the other
party. BFG and the Agency shall meet and confer a
reasonable time prior to making any appearance before or
meeting with agencies with oversight responsibility for the
properties listed above.
(e) With respect to the San Diego Regional Water QtfiilTCy Control
Board proceeding to 4edesigt:tate redesignate the assigned beneficial uses of the aquifer
beneath the South Campus and the New Campus, the parties ~vill cooperate in good faith
and use best efforts to achieve ~ redesignation.
7.5.2 Permitting. Whenever a permit or approval ora government ~
agency is necessary to fulfill any provision of Section 7, the parties shall cooperate in
good faith to the maximum extent possible to secure such permit or approval.
7.5.3 Plans. Whenever Environmental Remediation Activities~or
Demolition activities are undertaken by any party, such party shall prepare, as
appropriate, health and safety plans, demolition plans, air monitoring plans, soil
transportation plans, groundwater dewatering plans, and any other plans required by
federal, state, or local law. The party preparing such plans shall coordinate in good faith
with the other parties and provide the other parties with a reasonable time to review and
comment on such plans in draft form before the final plan is submitted to the appropriate
agency(ies).
106711 000015 172405 04 54
7.5.4 Industrial Use Standard. "Industrial Use Standard" shall mean
the remediation standard adopted by the agency or agencies with relevant oversight
responsibility, either (i) on its or their own initiative, or (ii) in response to a request~ from
the Port and BFG for the most cost-effective, risk-based, industrial use remediation
standards and techniques for a development project in accordance with the Port's Master
Plan. The Port and/or BFG shall cooperate in any reasonable appeals from agency
decisions, provided neither the Port nor BFG shall be required to participate in the appeal.
For purposes of clarification, "industrial use" is not intended to be narrowly construed to
mean only heavy industrial (i.e. smokestack industries), but may include other
commercial, retail, hotel and similar uses.
7.6 Indemnity and Other Provisions.
7.6.1 General. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein to the
contrary, whenever this Agreeme. nt (in Section 7 or otherwise) specifies that Port or BFG
shall be responsible or liable, in whole or in part, for any Environmental Costs relating to
............ '~ .... ;~'; ;" **';~ ^ ........ the South Camous. the Port Parcels and/or the
SDG&E Parcel, the party assigned such responsibility or liability shall release, discharge,
indemnify and hold harmless the other party (Port or BFG, as applicable) from all or that
portion of said Environmental Costs for which the indemnifying party is responsible or
liable. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein to the contrary, whenever this
Agreement (in Section 7 or otherwise) specifies that City and/or Agency, on the one
hand. or BFG. on the other hand. shall be responsible or liable, in whole or in part, for
any Environmental Costs relating to the Agency or Rados Parcels, the party assigned
such responsibility or liability shall release, discharge, indemnif_v and hold harmless the
other party (City and/or Agency or BFG. as applicable) from all or that portion of said
Environmental Costs for which the indemnif_ving party is responsible or liable.
7.6.2 Internal Costs. Each party will be responsible for its own internal
costs and also for the costs of its environmental consultants and legal counsel, whether on
staff or external consultants or counsel.
7.6.3 Conseqn'ential Damages. No party to this Agreement shall be~
liable or responsible for any consequential damages incurred by any other party thai are
caused by or result from implementation of this Agreement, including, without limitation
from delays in Environmental Remediation Activities resulting from, concerning, or
arising out of or in connection with the South Campus, Port Parcels, SDG&E l}arcel,
Rados Parcel, or Agency Parcel, or from the performance of environmental management
responsibilities as set out in Sections 7.3 and 7.4 above.
7.6.4 Penalties and Fines. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement
to the contrary, no party shall be liable to the other party for penalties or fines imposed by
a government agency if such penalties or fines result from unreasonable actions of the
party incurring the penalty.
1O671 ~ 000O15 17240504 DD
?
7.6.5 Other Funds. Any monies or other consideration that any party to
this Agreement receives (the "Receiving Party'9 from a third party, including but not
limited to insurance proceeds, for payment or reimbursement of Environmental Costs
resulting from, concerning, or arising out of or in connection with properties described in
this Agreement or for any other purpose, shall be solely for the account of, and remain the
sole and separate property of, the Receiving Party (excluding, however, monies received.
with respect to South Campus Environmental Costs from the Underground Storage Tank
Fund or any other fund identified in Sections 7.2.9 or 7.3.1(d), which monies shall be
distributed in accordance with Section 7.2.9 above), shall not be included iu any way in
the accounting for or sharing of such Environmental Costs pursuant to this Section 7, and
shall not otherwise be included as an offset to or reduction of any other liability or
obligation which any party to this Agreement has to the Receiving Party.
Section 8. CLOSING
8.1 Closing; Closing Date. It is the intention of the parties that all the
transactions and agreements contemplated herein (with the exception of the transfer of the
MTDB Parcel) shall be concluded through a concurrent closing (the "Closing"). It is also the
intention of the parties that the Closing occur no later thano~.;r"~" oven September 8, 1999, or such
other date as is mutually agreed to among the parties (the "Closing Date"). Unless the parties
otherwise agree, the Closing shall not occur unless and until: (a) this Agreement and the Related
Agreements have been approved by the governing bodies of each of the parties; (b) the Board of
Port Commissioners has reviewed a site characterization of the South Campus and has exercised
its sole and absolute discretion to proceed with the transactions and agreements contemplated
herein based upon the results of the site characterization and to submit them for approval by the
SLC; (c) the SLC has approved the land transfers set forth in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 and all
other transactions and agreements contemplated herein for which SLC approval is legally
required; and (d) except for minor and inconsequential matters, all of the obligafi'oTl% of each
party to each of the other parties under this Agreement and the Related Agreements that are due
prior to or contemporaneously with the Closing have been met.
Section 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS
9.1 Claims and Fees.
9.1.1 Indemnity Obligations. In each provision in this Agreement ;vhere
any party has agreed to assume, share or retain, or to indemnify and hold any other party
harmless from, a liability or obligation, such assumption, sharing, retention or h~demnity
and hold harmless of the other shall be deemed to mean an assumption, sharing, retention
of and hold harmless from, and an indemnity against, all liability, losses, costs, expenses
and damages which the party indemnified hereunder may suffer from the failure of the
indemnifying party to pay or perform such assumption, sharing, retention and
indemnification, and all reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection therewith, and
costs of investigation, defense, settlement, judgments and collection thereof (such
liability, losses, costs, expenses and damages are referred to as "Claims and Fees").
9.1.2 Notice of Third Party Claims. The party seeking enforcement of
the obligations hereunder (the "Notifying Party") shall notify the other (the "Respottdittg
Part),") within 10 days of the Notifying Party's receipt of written notice from any third
party of any act, omission or occurrence with respect to which the Notifying Party intends
to seek Claims and Fees in accordance with this Agreement, and if requested by the
Responding Party, shall also supply to the Responding Party ail records, data, contracts .
and documents reasonably related to such third party claim to enable the Responding
Party to evaluate such claim for purposes hereof. Both parties shall attempt to agree upon
a mutually satisfactory attorney to represent them and to agree upon which party shall
control the defense of the claim and shall have the authority to approve any proposed
settlement or compromise. If no such agreement can be reached, or if the Responding
Party does not reply to the Notifying Party within 10 days from the date of such notice,
each party may designate its own attorney, whose fees shall be compensable as a Claim
and Fee to the party who is later determined to be entitled to be paid its Claims and Fees
by the other. Whether or not any such agreement can be reached or the Responding Party
does or does not reply, each party shall reasonably cooperate in providing information
and testimony to assist in the defense of the matter, and the costs thereof (including out-
of-pocket expenses) shall be a part of the Claims and Fees which shall be paid by the
party who is later determined to be responsible therefor under the assumptions or
retentions of liability and other provisions for indemnification under this Agreement.
9.2 Force Majeure. No party shall be held responsible or liable for an inability
to fulfill any obligation under this Agreement by reason of an act of God, natural disaster,
accident, breakage or failure of equipment, third-party litigation, strikes, lockouts or other labor
disturbances or disputes of any character, interruption of services by suppliers thereof,
unavailability of materials or labor, rationing or restrictions on the use of utilities or public
transportation whether due to energy shortages or other causes, war, civil disturl~gn_q,ce, riot, or by
any other severe and unforeseeable occurrence that is beyond the control of that party (a "Force
Majeure").
9.2.1 Notice. Any party (the "Affected Party") relying on a Force
Majeure shall (x) give the other parties written notice thereof within 15 days of first ~
becoming aware of the existence of such, (y) take all such actions as are reasonably
necessary or beneficial to terminate the act of Force Majeure as promptly as reasonably
possible and (z) request, in writing, an extension of time which shall be granted for the
anticipated period of the enforced delay, or for such longer period as may be mutually
agreed upon. ~
9.2.2 Efforts to Minimize. The parties shall use their reasonable best
efforts to minimize potential adverse effects from such Force Majeure.
9.2.3 Option to Terminate. In the event that the act of Force Majeure (x)
cannot be terminated within 30 days from the date of notice thereof and the continued
inability thereafter of the Affected Party to comply ~vith the provisions of this Agreement
shall cause the failure of material consideration to another party (the "Injured Party"), or
106711000015 17240504 57
?
(y) involves the failure of the party to make any of the land transfers provided for herein,
then, in either such event, the Injured Party shall have the right in its sole discretion,
notwithstanding any other provision of this Section 9.2, to terminate this Agreement upon
providing written notice of such termination to the other parties.
9.3 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of each and every obligation of.
the parties under this Agreement.
9.4 Independent Contractors. Each party is an independent contractor and shall
be solely responsible for the employment, acts, omissions, control and directing of its employees.
Except as expressly set forth herein, nothing contained in this Agreement shall authorize or
empower any party to assume or create any obligation or responsibility whatsoever, express or
implied, on behalf of or in the name of any other party or to bind any other party or make any
representation, warranty or commitment on behalf of any other party.
9.5 Dispute Resolution.
9.5.1 Mediation. In the event of any dispute or disagreement between or
among the parties arising out of or relating to the terms, conditions, interpretation,
enforceability, performance, breach, or any other aspect of this Agreement or any of the
Related Agreements ("Dispute"), such parties shall first attempt to resolve the Dispute
informally. In the event the Dispute is not resolved informally, prior to and as a
precondition to the initiation of any legal action or proceeding, the parties shall refer the
Dispute for mediation to the nearest regional office of Judicial Arbitration & Mediation
Service Inc. (JAMS), or any successor thereto or, if none, to the American Arbitration
Association (AAA) (the "ADR Provider"). The Dispute shall be mediated through
informal, nonbinding joint conferences and/or separate caucuses with an impartial third
party mediator who will seek to guide the parties to a consensual resolutio~ofthe
Dispute. The mediator shall be selected by mutual agreement of the parties from a list of
mediators with sigl3ificant experience in real estate matters to be provided by the ADR
Provider. If the parties are unable to agree upon the mediator, the ADR Provider shall
select the mediator. The medi.ation proceeding shall be conducted within 30 days (or any
mutually agreed longer period) after referral, and shall continue until any party involved
concludes, in good faith, that there is no reasonable possibility of resolving the Dispute
without resort to a legal action or proceeding. All costs of the mediation shall be shared
equally by the parties involved. Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and other
costs incurred in connection with the mediation.
9.5.2 Institution of Legal Action. In the event the parties are unable to
resolve the Dispute through mediation, in addition to any other rights or remedies, any
party may institute a legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to enforce any
covenants or agreements herein or to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof,
to recover damages for any default, or to obtain any remedies consistent with the purpose
of this Agreement.
106711000015 17240504 58
9.5.3 Arbitration of Specified Disputes. Any dispute or controversy
concerning or relating to environmental management matters described in
Section 7.3.1(g)(3) that is not resolved by mediation in accordance with Section 9.5.1
shall be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the terms and procedures set forth in
this Section 9.5.3.
(a) Selection of Arbitrator. The Port and BFG shall jointly select ar~
arbitrator who shall have the following qualifications and experience: (i) licensed
professional engineer; (ii) fifteen (15) years' experience in environmental remediation,
(iii) experience with risk-based environmental remediation, and (iv) experience with
industrial use remediation standards and techniques.
(b) Proceedings. The arbitration shall be conducted in the San Diego
office of JAMS (or AAA, as applicable) in accordance with its commercial arbitration
rules, except as specifically modified by this Section 9.5.3. If at any time JAMS ceases
to exist, the arbitration shall be conducted by the local branch of the American
Arbitration Association in accordance with its commercial arbitration rules, except as
specifically modified by this Section 9.5.3. The parties shall be entitled to conduct
discovery in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure § 1283.05, except that
the pernfission of the arbitrator is not necessary to conduct depositions. The parties shall
each pay fifty percent (50%) of the fees charged for the arbitration.
(c) Governing Law. The arbitrator shall base his/her decision in
accordance with the law of the State of California.
9.6 No Joint Venture. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to create any
form of business organization between the parties, including, without limitation, a joint venture
or partnership
9.7 Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of Cahforma.
9.8 Notices. All notices, demands and correspondence required or provided for
under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person, sent by certified mail, postage
prepaid or sent by a nationally recognized overnight courier that provides documentation of
delivery.
Notices to the Port shall be addressed as follows:
San Diego Unified Port District
3165 Pacific Highway
P.O. Box 120488
San Diego, CA 92112-0488
Attention: Executive Director
With a copy to:
106711000015172405.04 59
?
San Diego Unified Port District
3165 Pacific Highway
P.O. Box 120488
San Diego, CA 92112-0488
Attention: Port Attorney
Notices to the City shall be addressed as follows:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 9191 0
Attention: City Manager
Notices to BFG shall be addressed as follows:
BFGoodrich Aerospace Aerostructures Group
850 Lagoon Drive
Chula Vista, CA 91910-2098
Attention: Art Sellgren
With a copy to:
McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen
1331 N. California Blvd., Suite 600
P.O. Box V
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Attention: Geoffrey Robinson
And a copy*to:
BFGoodrich Aerospace Aerostructures Group
850 Lagoon Drive '
Chula Vista, CA 91910-2098
Attention: Group Counsel
A party may change its address by giving notice in writing to the other party in
the manner provided above. Thereafter, notices, demands and other correspondence pertinent to
this Agreement shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address.
9.9 Rules of Construction. The singular includes the plural; "shall" is
mandatory, and "may" is permissive. The parties acknowledge and agree that each of the parties
and each of the parties' attorneys have participated fully in the negotiation and drafting of this
Agreement. In cases of uncertainty as to the meaning, intent or interpretation of any provision of
this Agreement, the Agreement shall be construed without regard to which of the parties caused,
1067~ 1 000015 17240504 60
'I::>-00
or may have caused, the uncertainty to exist. No presumption shall arise from the fact that
particular provisions were or may have been drafted by a specific party, and prior versions or
drafts of this Agreement shall not be used to interpret the meaning or intent of this Agreement or
any provision hereof.
9.10 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, void or
unenforceable but the remainder of the Agreement can be enforced without failure of material
consideration to any party, then this Agreement shall not be affected and it shall remain in full
force and effect, unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the parties. Provided,
however, that if the invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement results in a
material failure of consideration, then the party adversely affected thereby shall have the right in
its sole discretion to terminate this Agreement upon providing written notice of such termination
to the other parties
9.11 Entire Agreement, Waivers, Amendments. This Agreement, together
with the attached exhibits, constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. This
Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and
supersedes any and all prior versions or drafts of this or any other agreement and all negotiations
or previous agreements, including, but not limited to, the Letter of Intent dated August 6, 1998,
between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. To the extent that
there are conflicts or inconsistencies between this Agreement and any prior agreement
(including, without limitation the Port Property Agreements), the provisions of this Agreement
shall prevail. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by
authorized representatives of the Port, City and BFG. The waiver by any party of any term,
covenant, agreement or condition contained in this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver
of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, agreement or condition, nor
shall any custom or practice which may grow up among the parties in the administration of this
Agreement be construed to waive or lessen the right of any party to insist upon performance in
strict accordance with all of the provisions of this Agreement.
9.12 Further Action. Each party agrees to take all further actions reasonably
necessary to implement this Agreeme~nt.
9.13 Exhibits. The following exhibits are incorporated herein and made part of
this Agreement.
Exhibit A: Existing Campus (reference: Section 1.1) ~
Exhibit B: New Cmnpus (reference: Section 1.3)
Exhibit C: Site Map (reference: ~ Section 2.105)
Exhibit D: Transfer Payments (reference: Section 5.1)
Exhibit E: Covered Areas (reference: Section 2.23)
Exhibit F: H Street Extension (reference: Section 4.2)
Exhibit G: Marina Parkway Realignment (reference: Section 4.3)
Exhibit H: Rados Parcel Easement Area (reference: Section 6.2.1(b))
105711000015 172405.04 61
?
9.14 Parties to Bear Their Own Costs. Except as specifically set forth in this
Agreement, each party to this Agreement shall bear its own costs, including, without limitation,
attorneys' and consultants' fees, incurred in connection with any negotiations, strategic planning,
analysis and due diligence related to this Agreement.
9.15 Captions. The headings and captions in this Agreement are solely for
convenience of reference and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of any of the terms o~'
this Agreement.
9.16 Assumption of Responsibility. Except as otherwise expressly provided
herein to the contrary, whenever this Agreement specifies that Port or BFG shall be responsible
or liable for any cost, activity or other obligation, such allocation of responsibility or liability is
intended to exist and apply only as between Port and BFG and shall not create or expand any
responsibility or liability to any other party, and shall not preclude any claims for responsibility
or liability against any other party.
9.17 Successors and Assigns. No interest in any right or remedy of any party
under or relating to this Agreement is subject to any assignment, hypothecation or other
alienation, whether voluntary or by operation of law, without the express prior written consent of
each party against whom such fight or remedy may be enforced, which each such party may
grant or withhold in its absolute discretion. Any purported assignment without such consent
shall be null and void.
9.18 Third Parties: Nothing in this Agreement, whether express or implied, is
intended to do any of the following:
(a) confer any benefits, rights or remedies under or by reason of this
Agreement on any persons other than the express parties to it; - ..,-~
(b) relieve or discharge the obligation or liability of any person not an express
party to this Agreement; or
(e) give any persor~ not an express party to this Agreement any right of :
subrogation or action against any party to this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties as of
the day and year first above ~vritten.
Port: SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
By:
Name:
Its:
City: CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation
106711.000015 ~7240504 62
D-toD-
By:
Mayor
Redevelopment Agency:
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA, a redevelopment agency
By:
Chair
BFG: ROHR, 1NC., operating as BFGOODRICH
AEROSPACE AEROSTRUCTUR]~S GROUP, a
Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary
of THE BFGOODRICH COMPANY
By:
Name:
Its:
Approved as to form:
City/Agency Attorney
Approved as to form:
Port Attorney
106711000015 17240504 63
D- 5
?
Exhibit A
(referenced in Section I. I)
Existing Campus
106711 000015 172405 04
Exhibit B
(referenced in Section 1.3)
New Campus
106711000015172405.04
1~-~,~
T
Exhibit C
(referenced in Section .... j 2.105)
Site Map
10671100001517240504
Exhibit D
(referenced in Section 5.1)
Transfer Payments
Acres * Price/SF Amount Payable
by Port to BFG
Port Acquisition of
of BFG's South Campus: 37.58 n/a $ !~.%7.514 $16,467,514
BFG Property Acquisitions: Amounts Payable
by BFG to Port, City
From Ci(¥.'
Agency Parcel 3.65 $ 8.00 $ $1,271,952
Rados Parcel 3.02 $ 8.00 $ !,052,q!9 $1.052.409
From Port:
Port Parcel 1 9.99 $ 8.00 $ $3,481,315
Port Parcel 2 (5.0 gross acres) 3.30 $ 8.00 $ !,!49,984 **$1.149.984
SDG&E Parcel 7.41 $ 2.00 ~ $645.559 **
MTDB Parcel 2.44 $ 2.00 $ $212.573
Total $ 7.8!2.793 $7,813,792
Cash Balance to BFG at Closing $ 8.~53.722 $8.653.721
NOTES:
* Acreages and resulting purchase prices subject to post-closing adjustment based upon verified
parcel sizes, in accordance with Section 5.2.
** The price to be paid by BFG for Port Parcel 2 is based upon the net usable acres of the parcel,
equal to 3.30 acres.
10671100001517240504
Exhibit E
(referenced in Section 2.23)
Covered Areas
10671~00001517240504
?
Exhibit F
(referenced in Section 4.2)
H Street Extension
106711 000015 172405.04
Exhibit G
(referenced in Section 4.3)
Marina Parkway Realignment
10671100001517240504
?
Exhibit H
(referenced in Section 6.2.1 (b))
Rados Parcel Easement Area
1067~1000015 17240504 07/09/99 10:48 AM
1:;)-'"'/I
EXHIBIT E
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT NAME: BF Goodrich Relocation Agreement
PROJECT LOCATION: Generally South of Lagoon Drive, West of Bay Boulevard, and North
and East of Marina Parkway in the Bayfront Redevelopment Project
Area
PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency
CASE NO: IS-99-21 DATE: February 26, 1999
A. Project Setting
The proposed project is located in the City of Chula Vista, in southwestern San Diego County,
California (Figure 1) and is generally located south of Lagoon Drive, west of Bay Boulevard, and
north and east of Marina Parkway in the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area. More specifically,
the proposed project involves the land transfer of eight non-contiguous parcels totalling 107.9 acres
located within the City's Bayfront Redevelopment Area. The eight parcels are located within an
existing industrial area and generally south of Lagoon Drive, west of Bay Boulevard, and north and
east of Marina Parkway (Figure 2). Land uses within the Bayfront Redevelopment Area include: the
316-acre Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge; the Chula Vista Nature Center and 26-acre
F&G Street Marsh; the industrial facilities and large parking areas occupied by BF Goodrich
Aerospace, Aerostructures Group (BFG) and other companies; commercial and medical buildings for
the Marina Gateway Business Park along Bay Boulevard, north of J street; restaurants and hotels
along Bay Boulevard, north of Lagoon Drive; the Chula Vista recreational vehicle park; the Chula
Vista Marina and related restaurant/commercial uses; Marina View Park; and a portion of the land
occupied by the San Diego Gas and Electric South Bay Power Plant.
The following provides a description of the existing and surrounding land uses for each of the eight
parcels that are part of the BFG Relocation Agreement.
1. BFG South Campus Fee Parcel (48.72 acres) - This parcel is roughly bounded on the north
by the proposed extension of H Street (from Bay Boulevard to Marina Parkway), the Mean
High Tide Line to the west, J Street to the south and Bay Boulevard to the east, and currently
consists of buildings and parking areas for BFG operations. Included within this parcel are
engineering areas, manufacturing and post-production areas, a tool storage yard, a chemical
storage yard, and an air flow test yard. Surrounding land uses include BFG facilities and
vacant land to the west, BFG facilities to the north, commercial uses and Interstate 5 (1-5)
to the east, and Marina View Park to the south.
2. BFG South Campus Leasehold (20.22 acres) - This parcel is bounded by the Mean High Tide
Line to the east, H Street to the north, Marina Parkway to the west and a vacant Port parcel
to the south. Current uses include buildings and parking areas for BFG operations, included
within this parcel are manufacturing areas, a waste treatment yard, a tool storage yard, a
material handling yard, and a salvage/scrap yard. Surrounding land uses include BFG facilities
to the north and east, vacant land to the south, and the Chula Vista Marina to the west.
~ Camp , ~, ~ ~
Oceanside XX ~ X ~ Suthedand )
'~~ ~ Escondido Reservoir
~ Solana BeaC~ uer~r~ ~ ~
~ Del Mar~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ /~ElCa~tan
~ [ PROJECT~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~-~% LOCATION ~ ~ _.
~ ~hibit 1
Regional Location
No Scale
EXHIBIT 2
\
3. Port Parcel 1 (9.99 acres) - This parcel is approximately bounded by the proposed H Street
extension the south, Marina Parkway to the west, and the Mean High Tide Line to the north
and east, and currently consists of buildings and parking areas for BFG operations. Included
within this parcel are manufacturing areas and tool storage areas. Surrounding land uses
include BFG facilities to the north, east and south, and a paved surface parking lot to the
west.
4. Port Parcel 2 (6.67 acres) - This parcel is located west of Port Parcel 1, in the triangular area
formed by the existing Marina Parkway right-of-way, the proposed realignment of Marina
Parkway to the west and G Street, and currently consists ora portion of Marina Parkway and
parts of the existing Marina Parkway and G Street right-of-ways in the northern area, a
portion ora paved surface parking lot in the southern area, and vacant land northwest of the
existing Marina Parkway/G Street intersection. The northern-most portion of the vacant land
onsite contains a small area of southern coastal salt marsh that is contiguous with the G Street
Marsh. Surrounding land uses include the G Street Marsh to the north, BFG facilities to the
east and south, and a paved surface parking lot to the west.
5. Rados Parcel (3.02 acres) - This parcel is located at the southwest corner ofF Street and Bay
Boulevard, and currently consists of abandoned industrial buildings and a parking area.
Facilities on this parcel have not been in use since at least 1990. The windows of the onsite
buildings have been broken and a fair amount of weeds are located within and around the
parcel. Fire and vandalism have destroyed portions of the interior of one of the buildings
Surrounding land uses include a parking lot to the north across Lagoon Drive, Bay Boulevard
and 1-5 to the east, vacant land to the south, and electrical transmission facilities, a rail line,
a parking area, and BFG facilities to the west.
6. City Parcels (3.65 acres) - These parcels are adjacent to and south of the Rados Brothers'
property and currently consist of a highly disturbed vacant lot. These parcels have been
vacant for at least 10 years and were previously used for auto wrecking uses and other
industrial uses. This area is not paved and is covered with vegetation dominated by
introduced and weedy species including non-native grasses, mustard (Brassica nigra,
Hirschfeldia incana), horehound (Marrubium vuJgare), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), and
fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum). A patch of giant cane (Arundo donax) is present
along the western fence near the railroad tracks. Occasional ornamental trees such as gum
trees (Eucalyptus sp.) and juniper (Juniperus sp.) are also present onsite. Stockpiled soils
from ongoing onsite remediation activities are located along the northern boundary of the site.
Surrounding land uses include the abandoned Rados parcel to the north, Bay Boulevard and
1-5 to the east, BFG facilities to the south, and electrical transmission facilities, a rail line, a
parking area, and BFG facilities to the west.
7. SDG&E/SD&AE North Parcel (7.6 acres) - This parcel is located between the existing BFG
campus and the properties fronting along Bay Boulevard between F Street and H Street. The
area currently consists of parking areas, above-ground electrical transmission lines and towers
and related equipment, an underground natural gas line, an underground hot oil line, and an
active rail line. This parcel is mainly surrounded by BFG facilities. Surrounding land uses also
include the abandoned Rados parcel and City "parcels" to the east.
Page 4
SDG&E/SD&AE South Parcel (8.0 acres) - This is the utility area that runs between H
Street and J Street. As with the SDG&E/SD&AE North Parcel discussed above, this parcel
currently consists of parking areas, above-ground electrical transmission lines and towers and
related equipment, an underground natural gas line, an underground hot oil line, and an active
rail line. This parcel is mainly surrounded by BFG facilities. Surrounding land uses also
include industrial buildings to the east, south of I Street.
B. Project Description
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista (City), the San Diego Unified Port District
(Port) and BF Goodrich Aerospace, Aerostructures Group (BFG) propose to enter into a three party
agreement outlining the terms under which certain land transfers will occur to facilitate the relocation
and consolidation of BFG operations onto a smaller land area, enabling redevelopment of
underutilized land by the Port and City.
Pxohr Incorporated has operated aviation and aerospace related manufacturing on the Chula Vista
bayfront for over fifty years. Within that time, significant expansion of the Rohr facilities has
occurred, including expansion onto fill land that is currently held in trust by the Port. In 1997 Rohr
Incorporated was acquired by The BF Goodrich Company and currently operates as BF Goodrich
Aerospace, Aerostructures Group. Figure 3 presents the existing BF Goodrich campus layout.
Due to a number of factors, including changes in manufacturing processes, increased efficiency, and
market changes, certain land and buildings within the BFG campus are not fully utilized. The purpose
of the proposed Agreement is to facilitate the consolidation of operations for BFG onto a smaller area
of land, allowing for the redevelopment of vacated lands, resulting in increased economic productivity
in a developed area of the City, and potentially reducing growth pressures on undeveloped areas. The
proposed consolidated BFG campus configuration is shown in Figure 4
Under the Agreement, approximately the 48.72 acres of land known as the "BFG South Campus Fee
Parcel" would be transferred to the Port. In addition, BFG would vacate their current leasehold
interest south of the proposed H Street extension (the "BFG South Campus Leasehold"). In
exchange, the Port would transfer fee title ownership of an approximately 9.99 acre area of land
referred to as "Port Parcel 1", to BFG. The Port would further transfer fee title ownership of an
approximately 6.67 acre area of land to BFG known as the "Port Parcel 2". In addition, the Port
agrees to an'ange for the conveyance of fee title ownership of the SDG&E and MTDB rights-of-way
that currently bisect the BFG property. The total acreage of these rights-of-way along the entire
existing campus (from F Street to J Street) is approximately 15.6 acres, with 7.6 acres being north
of the proposed extension of H Street (to be conveyed in fee to BFG) and 8 acres south of H Street
(fee title to be retained by the Port). An easement over this entire area would be retained by SDG&E
for the electrical transmission lines and other facilities.
The City agrees to convey properties that are currently owned in fee by the City to BFG, and agrees
to arrange for the transfer of an additional 3.02 acre parcel owned by the Rados Brothers. The
properties owned by the City include 5 parcels totalling 3.65 acres.
Page 5
Implementation of the land transfer provisions in the Agreement would therefore result in a
recortfigured campus for the BFG facilities that would generally be bounded by Bay Boulevard to the
east, the realigned Marina Parkway to the west, F Street/Lagoon Drive to the north and the proposed
extension of H Street to the South. The portions of the reconfigured campus that had not been
previously used by BFG include the City and Rados properties along Bay Boulevard and the area of
land between the existing alignment of Mahna Parkway south of G Street and the proposed
realignment of Marina Parkway. The "new" areas are proposed to be paved and used for parking
and/or storage. The SDG&E right-of-way is currently leased by BFG for parking and would be
retained in that use.
The total land area that would be available for redevelopment includes approximately 77 acres,
comprised of the 48.72 acres of the campus south of H Street plus the portion of the S DG&E and
MTDB rights-of-way south of H Street (approximately 8.0 acres), plus the existing 20.22 acre
leasehold area south of H Street. It should be noted that the 20.22 acre area, for which BFG's
current leasehold interest would be vacated, would not change in ownership and is currently
designated in the Port Master Plan as Industrial Business Park. This area was part ora recent Master
Plan Amendment that was previously analyzed in the Chula Vista Business Park Expansion and Port
Master Plan Amendment Final EIR (September 1997). Therefore, the Initial Study does not address
impacts associated with development of the BFG south leasehold area. Therefore, the total land area
that would be subject to redevelopment that has not already been analyzed in the Port Master Plan
Amendment EIR consists of approximately 5672 acres (BFG South Campus Fee Parcel and
SDG&E/SD&AE South Parcel).
Parcel Name Current Proposed Current Use Proposed Use Acreage
Fee Fee
Ownership Ownership
BFG south BFG Port BFG Campus- Manufacturing 48.72
campus fee Manufacturing (per existing
zoning)
BFG south* Port Port BFG Campus- Industrial Bus. 20.22
leasehold Manufacturing Park
Port Parcel 1 Port BFG BFG Campus- BFG Campus- 9.99
(BFG north Manufacturing Manufacturing
leasehold)
Port Parcel 2 Port BFG Parking Parking/Storage 6.67
(Marina Pkwy
realignment)
Rados Parcel Rados Bros. BFG abandoned Parking/Storage 3.02
industrial
buildings and
parking
City Parcels CV RDA BFG vacant Parking/Storage 3.65
~'_ ~ Page 8
SDG&E/ SDG&E/ BFG power power 7.6
SD&AE MTDB transmission/ transmission/
North rail/parking parking
SDG&E/ SDG&E Port power power 8.0
SD&AE transmission/ transmission/
South rail/parking parking
This parcel is pm~t of the Relocation A reement but is not included in the Initial Study environmental analysis since an
analysis of development of this parcel under the Port Master Plan was included in the Po~t Master Plan )anendmcnt [~IR
(1997).
C. Discretionary_ Actions
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista and the San Diego Unified Port District Board
of Commissioners propose to take formal action related to the approval of the Relocation Agreement
which, if approved, would result in the following activities: transfer of land as described above;
demolition of existing structures, foundations, pavement and ancillary facilities; and construction of
new buildings, pavement, landscaping and facilities. It should be noted that for the purpose of this
Initial Study, land uses that would replace the current uses on the parcels proposed for acquisition
by the Port that are not currently within the Port's Master Plan, are assumed to be developed in
accordance with existing land use designations of the City (i.e., General Industrial). This assumption
is made based on the fact that an amendment to the Port Master Plan to include these areas would
require a separate discretionary action by the Port and would be subject to separate and additional
environmental review under CEQA. The precise Port Master Plan land use designation that would
ultimately be imposed at this area is not known at this time.
Additional discretionary action by the State Lands Commission would be required to approve the
acquisition and disposition of real property by the Port. That action would be expected to occur alter
the consideration by the Port Board of Commissioners of the Relocation Agreement. The project as
currently proposed would not require discretionary action by the California Coastal Commission as
it would be consistent with both the Local Coastal Program (LCP) of the City of Chula Vista and
the Port Master Plan of the San Diego Unified Port District.
Transfer of the Rados property (3.02 acres) to BFG is proposed to occur through a process that
would involve acquisition and interim ownership of the parcel by the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Chula Vista. The Redevelopment Agency may need to exercise its eminent domain authority
to complete such acquisition. In such an event, discretionary actions on the part of the
Redevelopment Agency pursuant to an eminent domain acquisition process may also be required to
implement the proposed project.
D. Compatibility with Zoning and Plans
The proposed project is consistent with the current Port and City land use designations/zoning of the
project parcels.
Page 9
E. Identification of Environmental Effects
An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the 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 Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Thc following impacts have been determined to not occur or be less than significant A discussion of
each follows in the attached Initial Study: land use/planning; population/housing; air quality; traffic;
energy and mineral resources; public services/utilities; aesthetics; and recreation.
The following impacts have been determined to bc potentially significant unless mitigated. A
discussion of each impact and mitigation follows in the Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form:
geology; hydrology; biological resources; noise; hazards; and cultural resources.
F. Mitigation Necessary. to Avoid Significant Effects
Please refer to the Initial Study Environmental Checklist comments for a discussion of required
mitigation.
G. Consultation
1. Individuals and Organizations
City of Chula Vista: Joe Monaco, Community Development
San Diego Unified
Port District: Melissa Mailander, Environmental Review Coordinator
Wileen Manaois, Planner
JBG Environmental
Consulting: Julie B. Gaa
2. Reference Documents and Previous Environmental Studies
· Adrian Brown, ASTM Phase 1 Site Assessment, June 4, 1998
· KEA Environmental, Chula Vista Business Park Expansion and Port
Master Plan Amendment Final EIR (EIR-327), September 1997
· KEA Environmental, Town Centre VBayfront
Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final Program E1R (EIR 98-2), May 1998
· Keller Environmental Associates, inc., Midbayfront LCP
Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment Final EIR Volume II, July 1991
· SDUPD Port Master Plan, March 1998
· State of California - Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and
Geology Mineral Land Classifications, Aggregate Materials in the Western
San Diego County Production-Consumption Region, Special Report 153, 1983
Page 10
· Woodward-Clyde, Storm Water Conveyance System Investigation Report,
Rohr, Inc., Chula Vista, California, July 13, 1998
Two recent EIRs address the impacts of development of areas currently within the Port
Master Plan, including Port Parcel 1, Port Parcel 2, BFG South Leasehold and the extension
of H Street from Bay Boulevard to Marina Parkway. These are the Chula Vista Business
Park Expansion and Port Master Plan Amendment Final EIR (EIR-327), September 1997,
and the Town Centre I/Bayfront Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final Program EIR (EIR
98-2), May 1998. These EIRs adequately addressed impacts to those aforementioned
portions of the proposed project, and additionally, addressed cumulative and growth inducing
impacts within the general project area. This document, therefore, does not contain additional
analysis in these areas.
3. Initial Study
This 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 Mitigated 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 fi-om the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA
91910.
v~h~5/nmehtal Review Coordinator
Page 11
Case No. IS-99-21
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: BF Goodrich Relocation Agreement
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Joe Monaco, Community Development
(619) 691-5016
4. Project Location: Generally South of Lagoon Drive, West of Bay Boulevard, and North and
East of Marina Parkway in the Bayfront Redevelopment Area
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Chula Vista Redevelopmem Agency
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
6. General Plan Designation: General Industrial (BFG South Campus Fee Parcel,
Port Parcels l&2, SDG&E/SD&AE South Parcel)
Industrial/Research-Limited Manufacturing (Rados and City Parcels)
Public & Quasi Public (SDG&E/SD&AE North Parcel)
7. Zoning: Industrial General (BFG South Campus Fee Parcel,
SDG&E/SD&AE North and South Parcels)
Industrial Research & Limited (Rados and City Parcels)
Tidelands (Port Parcels l&2)
8. Port Master Plan
Designations (as applicable): Industrial Business Park (BFG South Campus Fee Parcel, Port
Parcels 1 and 2)
9. Date of Checklist: February 26, 1999
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated lmpact Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Result in substantial alteration of the existing or [] [] · []
planned land use of an area?
b) Conflict with general plan designation or [] [] · []
zoning?
c) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or [] [] · []
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
d) Be incompatible with existing land use in the [] [] · []
vicinity?
e) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., [] [] [] ·
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
f) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an [] [] [] n
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)?
Comments:
a-c) The proposed project, which would facilitate the consolidation of existing BFG operations onto a smaller area
of land and allow for the redevelopment of vaca~l lands in a manner consistent with the existing industrial, research
and manufacXuring land use designations, would not substantially alter the existing or planned land use of thc area.
Land usc plans and programs applicable to the project area include thc Chula Vista General Plan, the Bayfront
Specific PlanJChula Vista Local Coastal Program, and the San Diego Unified Port District Master Plan (Port Master
Plan).
Chula Vista General Plan
The General Plan land usc designations for the proposed project parcels are: Indnstrial/Rescarch-Limited
Manufacturing (Rados and City Parcels); General Industrial (BFG South Campus Fee Parcel, Port Parcels I & 2,
and SDG&E/SD&AE South Parcel), and; Public & Quasi Public (SDG&E/SD&AE North Parcel). The
lndnstrial/Research-Limited Manufacturing permitted usc classifications include research and development, light
manufacturing, warchonsing, and flexible-nsc buildings, which combine the above uses with office space. Tbe
proposed parking/storage use on the Rados and City Parcels would bc compatible with thc Industrial/Research
Limited designation. The General Industrial designation allows all uses identified for Industrial/Research~Limited
Manufacturing plus large-scale warehousing, transportation centers and public utilities. The proposed uses of the
BFG South Campus Fee Parcel (manufacturing), Port Parcel i (manufacturing), Port Parcel 2 (parking/storage),
Page 13
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated lmpact lmpact
and SDG&E/SD&AE South Parcel (power transmission/parking) are all compatible with the General Industrial
designation. The proposed use of the SDG&E/SD&AE North Parcel (power transmission/parking) would be
compatible with the Public & Quasi Public designation which allows schools, churches, hospitals, civic centers, fire
stations, and libraries, as well as public facilities. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with the City's
General Plan land use designations.
Bayfront Specific Plan/Chula Vista Local Coastal Program
Thc project parcels are within the City's coastal jurisdiction. Land uses within this area arc regulated by the
Bayfront Redevelopment Plan and the certified Chula Vista Local Coastal Program (LCP), which includes the
Bayfront Specific Plan. Thc Tidelands is also included in the City's LCP, for which thc Port Master Plan is the
overriding land use policy document (please sec thc following discussion).The Bayfront Specific Plan acts as the
zoning code for the Chula Vista Bayfront LCP area. The Bayfront Specific Plan designates the proposed project
parcels east of thc mean high tide line as Industrial General (BFG South Campus Fee Parcel), lndastrial Research
& Limited (Rados and City Parcels) and Landscaped Parking (SDG&E/SD&AE North and South Parcels). The
proposed uses of the BFG South Campus Fee Parcel (manufacturing) would be compatible with the Industrial
General designation. The proposed parking/storage use on thc Ratios and City Parcels would be compatible with
the Industrial Research & Limited designation. The proposed use of the SDG&E/SD&AE South and North Parcels
(power transmission/parking) is compatible with the Landscaped Parking designation. Thus, the proposed project
would not conflict with the City's LCP.
The Bayfront Specific Plan provides development objectives and policies on an areawide and subarea basis. The
Land Use and Development Intensity provision of the plan identifies seven subareas within the Bayfront Specific
Plan. The proposed project parcels currently in the City's jurisdiction are located in Subarea 2 - Industrial Area of
~he Bayfront Specific Plan. Subarea 2 consists primarily of the BFG industrial and manufacturing facilities which
are anticipated to remain with allowances for limited expansion. The relevant Subarea 2 objective is to provide
aesthetic improvements to existing and new industrial development. The proposed project would be consistent with
this objective.
Port Master Plan
The State Lands Commission has jurisdiction and authority over state tidelands on San Diego Bay; however, the state
legislature has granted much of this land in trust to the Port, including the Chula Vista tidelands and submerged
lands. For planning purposes, the Port has divided the tidelands into ten separate Planning Districts to facilitate the
preparation of Precise Plans for each of the districts. Port Parcel I and Port Parcel 2 are located within Planning
District 7, Chula Vista Bayt'ront. The recently amended Precise Plan for Planning District 7 designates Port Parcel
1 and the majority of Port Parcel 2 as Industrial Business Park and the portion of Port Parcel 2 north of G Street
as Marine Related Industrial. The Industrial Business Park land use designation in Planning District 7 was evaluated
recently in the Chula Vista Business Park Expansion and Port Master Plan Amendment Final EIR (September 1997),
certified by the Port on October 7, 1997. The proposed uses of Port Parcel 1 (manufacturing) and Port Parcel 2
Page 14
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
(parking/storage) would be consistent with the City's respective industrial use designations. The Port's Industrial
Business Park land use designations for the two Port Parcels are substantially similar (i.e., industrial) to those
designated for these parcels by the Chula Vista General Plan.
d) The proposed project, an agreement to facilitate the consolidation of BFG operations onto a smaller area of land
and allowing for the redevelopment of vacated lands with industrial uses, would be compatible with the existing
surrounding industrial and commercial land uses. Mitigation measures to reduce any potential incompatibility of
the proposed parking/storage area on Port Parcel 2 with the G Street Marsh to the north are included in Sections
IV - Water, VII - Biological Resources, X - Noise, and XIV - Aesthetics of this Initial Study.
e) The proposed project areas are deveh)ped or highly disturbed. There are no agricultural resources or operations
onsite or on adjacent properties.
f) The proposed project is located within an existing industrial area. The nearest residential area is located over
1/4 mile east of the project area across 1-5. Therelbre, the proposed project would not disrupt or divide the physical
arrangement of an established community.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Significantly alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human population [] r~ [] ·
of an area?
b) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local [] [] ~ ·
population projections?
c) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in
an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? [] ~ · []
d) Result in significant effects to existing housing [] [] [] ·
or create a demand for additional housing?
e) Displace existing housing, especially affordable [] [] [] ·
housing?
~" --/...~ Page 15
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
a) The proposed project is located within an existing industrial area. The nearest residential area is located over 1/4
mile east of the project site across 1-5. Therefore, no changes in the location, distribution, density, or growth rate
of human population would occur.
b) No net gain in employees/residents will occur as a result of the consolidation of BFG operations. Redevelopment
of 56.72 acres with manufacturing-related uses would result in the creation of up to 1,100 new jobs. It is anticipated
that these positions will be filled primarily from the local labor pool.
c) Growth inducing impacts of increased development in and around the project area is addresses in the Chula Vista
Business Park Expansion and Port Master Plan Amendment Final EIR and in the Town Centre I/Bayfront
Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final Program EIR.
d-e) There are no residential units located on the project parcels. Thus, the proposed project would not displace
existing housing.
Ill. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in, or expose people to potemial impacts inw~lving :
a) Fault rupture? [] [] · []
b) Seismic ground shaking? [] · [] []
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? [] · [] []
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? [] · [] []
e) Landslides or mudflows? [] rn · []
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil [] · [] []
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
g) Substantial changes in deposition or erosion of [] · [] []
beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream, or the bed of the ocean or a
bay?
h) Subsidence of the land? [~ · [] []
i) Expansive soils? [] [] · []
j) Unique geologic or physical features? [] [] [] ·
Page 16
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
The following discussion is based on the soils, geology, and seismic information contained within the following three
documents: Town Centre I/Bayfront Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final Program EIR (1998); Chula Vista
Business Park Expansion and Port Master Plan Amendment FEIR (1997); and Midbayfront Local Coastal Program
Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment FEIR (1991).
a-f, h,i) Soils and geologic units underlying the project area consist of previously-placed fill soils, bay deposits, and
natural soils of the Bay Point Formation. In general, fill soils underlie the majority of the project area uT a depth
of less than 10 feet below existing grade and typically consist of ftne- to coarse-grained sands with shell fragments
and varying amounts of silt. Bay deposits underlie the l'ill soils and range in thickness from 15 to 30 feet. The upper
3 to 5 feet of the bay deposits generally consist of soft, silty clays and clayey silts, with abundant organic material.
This extremely soft and compressible upper layer is generally underlain by medium-dense, silty fine sands.
Underlying the bay deposits are natural soils of the Bay Point Formation that typically consist of medium-dense to
dense, silty, fine- to medium-grained sands and poorly-graded, medium-grained sand with little silt content. Grading
of fill soils may result in localized instability of temporary excavation (construction) slopes. Implementation of
standard remedial measures during grading such as structural reinforcement of manufactured slopes and/or
removal/recompaction of potential unstable soils as recommended in site-specific geotechnical investigation reports
(please see Mitigation Measure II]-1 below) would reduce this geologic constraint to development to a level less than
significant. Uncontrolled fill soils and bay deposits are subject to differential ground settlement and are therefore
considered unsuitable in their present condition for the support of any additional fill and/or structures. Standard
remedial measures during grading such as removal of excess organic material and oversized rock fragments and/or
excavation/recompaction of fill, as recommended in site-specific geotechnical investigation reports (please see
Mitigation Measure III-I below) would reduce potential impacts as a result of settlement to a level less than
significant. Overall, there are no unusual or unmitigable soil or geologic conditions which would preclude
development on any of the project parcels.
The project is located in the seismically active southern California region and is likely to be subjected to moderate
to strong seismic shaking during the design limb of the project. There are no known fault traces within the project
area; however, this area could be seismically influenced by both local and regional fault systems. The nearest
"active" fault zones and faults include the offshore Coronado Banks Fault Zone (approximately 10 miles to the
southwes0, the Etsinore Fault Zone (approximately 40 miles to the northeast), the Rose Canyon Fault Zone
(approximately 5 miles to the north), and the offshore San Diego Bay faults (approximately one to two miles to the
west). Active faults are defined as those which exhibit Holocene displacement (i.e., sur~hce displacement within
approximately the last 11,000 years) or hisuTrical seismicity. The "potentially active" La Nacion Fault Z one is
located approximately two to three miles east of the project area. Potentially active faults are defined as those which
exhibit Pleistocene displacement (i.e., surface displacement older than two million years). A maximum credible
earthquake along any of the above active fault zones would result in ground shaking and seismic hazards relative
to potential liquefaction, tsunamis, and earthquake induced flooding and slope failures. These seismic hazards are
significant; however, standard seismic design criteria and conventional engineering techniques can be implemented
Page
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potenti',dly Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated lmpacl Impact
to reduce these risks to below a level of significance, including the use of special foundations and/or ground
modification in building foundations. The following mitigation measures would reduce potential geologic/seismic-
related impacts to a level less than significant.
Mii i nM' III-1
Prior to issuance of a final grading permit for development or redevelopment activities on the project parcels, a
detailed geotechnical investigation shall be approved by the City of Chula Vista or Port, as appropriate. The
investigation shall include field work (e.g., subsurface exploration, sampling) and laboratory analysis to determine
the exact location and extent of potential geologic/seismic hazards. All applicable remedial grading measures and
seismic design parameters recommended by the geotechnical investigation shall be shown on the final grading plans
and/or incorporated into contractor specifications prior to award of construction contracts, to the satisfaction of the
City of Chula Vista or Port, as appropriate.
Mitigation Measure 111-2
Random periodic field inspections shall be conducted m verify implementation of applicable remedial grading
measures and seismic design parameters in accordance with approved plans and permits. If observed conditions
and/or grading/consu-ucfion activities vary significantly from those documented in approved plans and permits, such
activities shall be halted temporarily or diverted away from affected area(s) and the City or Port notified
immediately to determine appropriate mitigation.
g) Please see Section IV. Water below.
j) There are no unique geologic or physical features onsite.
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
IV. WATER. WouM the proposal result in:
a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction [] [] [] ·
of water movements?
b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, [] · [] []
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
c) Exposure of people or property to water related [] [] · []
hazards such as flooding?
d) Discharge into surface waters, or other [] · [] []
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.,
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
e) Changes in the amount of surface water in any [] [] · []
water body?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either [] [] · []
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of [] [] [] ·
groundwater?
h) Alterations to the course or flow of floodwaters?
i) impacts to groundwater quality? [] [] · []
j) Substantially reduction in the amount of [] o [] ·
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies?
Comments;
a) The proposed project is not located in or directly adjacent to the San Diego Bay and would not involve any in-
water construction. Thus, no changes in currents or water movements are expected.
b,d,e) Drainage in the project area is currently controlled by an extensive subsurface storm water conveyance
system (SWCS) located at the BFG facility. Storm water runoff collected by the SWCS discharges into marshes
of San Diego Bay, J Street Channel (Telegraph Creek), and the Chula Vista Marina through four major ouffalls.
Ouffall Number 1 is located in the northern portion of Port Parcel 2, north of G Street. Each of the four catchment
Page 19
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
areas (ouffalls) is comprised of multiple storm drain inlets, box drains, and interconnected subsurface storm drains.
The final receiving water for storm water runoff originating from the project area is San Diego Bay.
All of the proposed project parcels, with the exception of the 3.65 acre City-owned parcel along Bay Boulevard,
portions of the SDG&E/SD&AE parcels (along the railroad), and the portion of Port Parcel 2 northwest of the
existing Marina Parkway/G Street intersection, are already covered with impervious surfaces including buildings,
paved parking areas, and paved outdoor storage areas. Development of the City Parcel, the SDG&E/SD&AE
Parcels, and the small portion of Port Parcel 2 would incrementally increase the amount of impervious surface area.
Therefore, changes in the absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff would
result. Additional surface water runoff is anticipated to be accommodated by the existing BFG SWCS. Although
the increase in storm runoff is relatively minor, if uncontrolled, this increase in runoff volumes could result in
erosive velocities at storm drain outlet facilities which discharge directly into natural marshes or the Bay. In
addition, rtmoff from unprotected graded areas could have significant water quality impacts relative to downstream
siltation/sedimentation within surrounding marsh habitats (the G Street Marsh).
Development/redevelopment of the project parcels with industrial-related uses would also increase the potential fi)r
urban rtmoff pollutants including hydrocarbons, organic wastes, nutrients, litter, hazardous chemicals, and pesticides
and fertilizers associated with landscaping. As a result, the proposed project would increase the volume, velocity,
and pollutant load transported by the storm drain system, which ultimately discharges into surrounding marshes and
the Bay. This increase is considered to be a significant impact. The following mitigation measures would reduce
impacts to water quality impacts to a level less than significant.
Mill Ii n M r -1
Prior to approval of project plans for development or redevelopment activities, a site-specific hydrology study shall
be approved by the City of Chula Vista or Port, as appropriate. This study shall identify the on- and off-site
facilities necessary to adequately convey surface runoff to avoid or minimize on-site ponding, which could impact
the integrity of building footings, and/or off-site flooding at downstream properties, this study shall also evaluate
measures to avoid or minimize flooding of low-lying areas during high tide conditions, the effects of wind-driven
waves generated from within San Diego Bay, flooding from the Sweetwater River, and erosion from inland or
coastal flooding. All applicable measures recommended by the hydrology study shall be shown on the face of final
grading and building plans and/or incorporated into contractor specifications prior to award of construction
contracts, to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista or Port, as appropriate. The hydrology study and mitigation
measures shall be in conformance with criteria set forth by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers tbr design of coastal
structures.
Page 20
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Mitigation Measure IV-2
Prior to issuance of a grading permk fi~r project development or redevelopment activities, a detailed erosion/siltation
control plan shall be approved by the City of Chula Vista or Port, as appropriate. This plan shall include, but shall
not be limited to, the following measures to protect existing downstream areas from erosion, scour, and sediment
deposition.
a) Install energy dissipaters, riprap aprons, water bars, or drop structures at all drainage outlets (e.g.,
subdrains, storm drains, culverts, brow ditches, and drainage crossings or swales) to protect downstream
areas from erosion, channel scour, siltation, and sedimentation.
b) Implement short- and long4erm stabilization (erosion control) and structural (sediment control) measures
to: (1) limit the exposure of graded areas to the shortest duration possible; (2) divert upslope runoff around
graded areas, and; (3) store flows and remove sediment from runoff before it leaves the construction site.
Stabilization measures may include dust control, surface roughening, hydroseeding, temporary and permanent
landscaping, mulching, matting, blankets, geotextiles, sod stabilization, slope protection (e.g., geogrid fabric),
tree protection (e.g., caging), and vegetative buffer strips. In addition, rubber hyplon liners shall be placed
on bare soil disturbed by construction activities when weather conditions indicate any possibility of rain and
the activities are temporarily suspended for any reason.
Structural measures may include slope drains and benching, subdrains, storm drains, culverts, brow ditches,
vegetation-lined drainage crossings or swales, silt fencing, brush barriers, hay bales, gravel bags, berms,
dikes, check darns, sediment traps, infiltration trenches, French drains, catch basins, desilting and detention
bas~$, and vegetative controls. Such controls would likely be required at the base of manufactured slopes
and/or areas adjacent to, or upstream of, major drainage courses and wetlands.
c) Maintain temporary and permanent landscaping on manufactured slopes, and use native or drought-tolerant
vegetation, where applicable, to reduce irrigation requirements.
d) Prevent tracking of soil from the construction site via gravel strips, temporary paving, sediment trapping
devices, and/or wheel washing facilities at access points.
e) Install/maintain gravel filters at all temporary drainage inlets.
l) Inspect/maintain all erosion and sediment control measures to ensure that they function properly during
the entire construction period. All desilting traps/basins shall be cleaned when filled to 10% of their capacity,
and all silt barriers shall be cleaned when accumulated sediment reaches six inches in depth. All areas planted
with erosion-control vegetation shall be monitored daily for vegetation establishment and erosion problems,
and any repairs and/or replacement of vegetation made promptly. Stabilization and structural controls shall
be inspected at least monthly and after every significant storm event, and shall be repaired or maintained as
needed to reduce sediment discharge. Access to these facilities shall be maintained during wet weather.
~.~ ~/t ~ Page 21
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
lmpact Incorporated Impact Impact
Mitigation Measure IV-3
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for project development or redevelopment, a Notice of Intent shall be submitted
to the State Water Resources Control Board, and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be
developed and implemented in compliance with the California General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit
of the NPDES. In addition to the stabilization and structural controls specified above, the SWPPP shall include,
but shall not be limited to, the following Best Management Practices (BMPs):
a) Implement material and waste management programs during grading and construction, including solid,
sanitary, septic, hazardous, contaminated soil, concrete and construction waste management, spill prevention,
appropriate material delivery and storage, employee training, dust control, and vehicle and equipment
cleaning, maintenance and fueling.
b) Implement routine procedures or practices after grading and construction to reduce the amount of
pollutants available for transport in the typical rainfall/runoff process such as a material use control program
including proper storage and disposal practices for potential pollutants (e.g., motor oils and antifreeze);
prohibiting storage of uncovered hazardous substances in outdoor areas; prohibiting the use of pesticides and
herbicides listed by the Environmental Protection Agency; and spill prevention/response and
shipping/receiving practices.
c) Install/maintain grease and oil traps or other filtration systems (e.g., fossil filters) at all permanent storm
drain inlets.
d) Implement a monitoring program involving the following inspection and maintenance procedures for all
post-construction storm water pollution control measures to ensure that they continue to function properly:
If ntilized onsite, permanent detention basins shall be cleaned when filled to 10% of their capacity.
Drainage inlet filters shall be inspected and maintained at a frequency appropriate to the type of filter
system used;
Landscaping sprinkler systems shall be maintained to prevent excess runoff due to leaking or broken
sprinkler heads;
Drainage facilities shall be routinely inspected and repaired as needed; and
Records shall be kept of all control measure implementation, inspection and maintenance.
Mitigation Measure IV-4
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for project development or redevelopment, all applicable short- and long-term
stabilization (erosion control) and structural (sediment control) measures and BMPs recommended by the
erosion/siltation control plan and SWPPP shall be shown on the face of final grading plans and/or incorporated into
contractor specifications prior to award of construction contracts, to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista or
Port as appropriate.
Page 22
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Mitigation Measure IV-5
During and after grading and construction, random periodic field inspections shall be conducted by the City of Chula
Vista, Port, or designated monitor to verify implementation of applicable stabilization and su-ucmral controls and
BMPs in accordance with approved plans and permits. If observed conditions and/or grading/construction activities
vary significantly from those documented in approved plans and permits, such activities shall be halted temporarily
or diverted away from affected area(s) and the City of Chula Vista or Port notified immediately to determine
appropriate mitigation.
Mitigation Measure IV~6
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Chula Vista or
Port that: (1) a hazardous materials business plan has been prepared and implemented in accordance with local,
state, and federal regulations; and (2) all local, state, and federal permit requirements to generate, use, store, and
transport hazardous materials have been satisfied.
c) The proposed project is located near the San Diego Bay and in the vicinity of the G Street Marsh. Thus, the
project parcels are subject to inundation during inland flooding, and likewise are susceptible to inundation during
tidal highs and wind-generated waves from with the Bay. Flood-prone areas would subject future structures and
facilities to potential flooding impacts if not properly designed. Potential flooding impacts would not result in a
significant constraint to future development or redevelopment within the project area, however, with implementation
of standard site design measures such as elevation of structures above the 100-year flood plain or high tide mark
and/or construction of levees, berms, or embankments.
f,g,j) The amount of new impervious surface that would affect groundwater recharge capability is limited. The
proposed project is not anticipated to include any structures or features that will interfere with the direction or rate
of flow of groundwater. In addition, the City has petitioned the RWQCB to remove the beneficial use designations
of the hydraulic subareas in the project area due to the presence of high levels of Total Dissolved Solids, including
saltwater intrusion. Thus, no significant impacts are anticipated.
h) The proposed project is not anticipated to include any structures or features that will interfere with the course
or flow of floodwaters.
i) Relocatinn of BFG activities onto a smaller land area would not materially affect their production processes. As
discussed in Section IX - Hazards, BFG is currently under a Cleanup and Abatement Order issued by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board. The Order specifies issues related to groundwater quality. The proposed project
would not affect BFG's responsibilities under the Order. New industrial uses proposed as a part of this project may
involve the generation, use, storage, treatment, disposal, or transport of hazardous materials. Such activities would
be regulated by local, state, and federal requirements to control the accidental release of hazardous materials.
Mandatory compliance with these regulations would reduce the potential for future groundwater contamination from
hazardous materials release(s) associated with the proposed project uses to a level less than significant. It should be
noted that redevelopment goals for the project area include uses other than industrial uses, and would further reduce
the potential for groundwater contamination since they would be more of a commercial nature and would not utilize
hazardous materials to the extent that industrial uses would. However, the specific type of uses envisioned for
Page 23
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Signiflcant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
lmpact Incorporated lmpact Impact
redevelopment are not known at this time and would require additional discretionary actions and additional
environmental review. Therefore, for the purpose of this Initial Study, the "worst case" land use circumstance is
assumed to be industrial.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Result in substantial additional air emissions or [] [] · []
deterioration of ambient air quality, beyond
Regional Air Quality Maintenance Plan
projections?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to [] [] · []
an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [] [] · r~
d) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, [] [] [] ·
or cause any change in climate?
e) Create objectionable odors? [] rn r~ ·
CommenB:
a-b) The proposed project would result in an increase of approximately 5,000 average daily trips (ADT) with a
corresponding increase of mobile and stationary source emissions from cars and equipment such as boilers and
generators. Mobile emissions from the proposed development, pursuant to existing land use designations, would
be consistent with SANDAG and San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) projections. Those projections
are based on development in accordance with current land use designations, including t hose presented in Section
I - Land Use and Planning. The proposed project would not exceed these designated land use intensities.
Development that propose the installation of stationary sources would be required to comply with applicable APCD
regulations. If they comply, long- term impacts would not be significant. As with groundwater quality, the likelihood
of industrial-related air quality impacts could be alternatively reduced in the future if commercial-related land uses
were adopted. However, such uses are not proposed as part of this project.
Short-term dust and equipment emissions would be generated during demolition and construction activities.
Demolition and construction activities would create a temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed. These
pollutants would be associated with site clearing, grading, excavating, and travel on unpaved roadways, and
combustion emissions from heavy construction equipment. The San Diego Air Basin is a state non-attainment area
for PM10 and the construction emissions would be considered a short-term adverse impact; however, the grading
is anticipated to be minimal as the existing terrain is relatively flat and project grading would be substantially less
than the South Coast Air Quality Management District's threshold of 177 acres of grading under a single operation
and the impact would not be significant.
Page 24
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact lmpact
Although the proposed project is not expected to result in significant air quality impacts, implementation of the
following standard procedures, measures, and/or requirements of the APCD identified in the Town Centre
I/Bayfront Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final Program EIR (1998) would ensure that no significant air quality
impacB would occur.
'~ i n r -
Prior to issuance of a final grading permit for development or redevelopment activities, the following measures shall
be included in the grading specifications, to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista or Port, as appropriate.
Water all active grading areas, including the exposed soil involved in the excavation and compaction operations, and
active haul roads, with frequency to keep soil moist at all times.
Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least two feet of clearance between
the top of the piled material and truck bed, in accordance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code,
Section 23114.
Limit truck speeds on unpaved areas to 15 mph or less via temporary signage, speed bumps, or other speed control
measures.
Sweep streets at least once a day if visible soil materials are carried out by project vehicles and equipment.
ii'in r -
Random periodic field inspections shall be conducted to verify implementation of applicable construction-related
measures identified in Mitigation Measure Vq in accordance with approved plans and permits. If observed
conditions and/or grading/construction activities vary significantly from those documented in approved plans and
permits, such activities shall be halted temporarily or diverted away from affected area(s) and the City or Port
notified iminediately to determine appropriate mitigation.
MT 'ti n M ' -
Prior tn issuance of a building permit for any facility containing stationary sources large enough to require APCD
permits, the project applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista or the Port, as
appropriate, that an "Authority to Construct" has been issued by the APCD for any such applicable equipment.
Mitigation Measure V-4
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the project applicant shall provide evidence to the satisfaction of the
City of Chula Vista or the Port, as appropriate, that the facilities and processes which require APCD permits have
been reviewed by the APCD, and that all required permits have been issued.
~' ~o~ ~ Page 25
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c) Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include the Marina View Park and the G Street Marsh. The increase
in traffic from development of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in or contribute to carbon monoxide
(CO) "hotspots" (areas of localized cO concentrations in excess of the state one- or eight-hour CO Standards);
therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
d) The proposed project would not alter climate.
e) Construction related dust and gaseotts emissions could be expected on a short-term basis. This in turn could
create objectionable odors at adjacent uses located downwind. These temporary odors may be a nuisance, but would
not constitute a significant impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to create long-term operations-related
objectionable odors.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUI~ATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [] [] · []
b) Significant alterations to present patterns of [] [] · []
circulation or movement Of people and/or
goods?
c) Hazards to safety from d~sign features (e.g., [] [] [] ·
sharp curves or dangerods intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Inadequate emergency access or access to [] [] [] ·
nearby uses?
e) Insufficient parking capal:ity on-site or off-site? [] [] [] ·
f) Hazards or barriers for Pedestrians or [] [] [] ·
bicyclists?
g) Substantial impacts on trinsportation systems? [] [] · []
h) Conflicts with adopted pglicies supporting [] [] [] ·
alternative transportationj(e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? i
i) Rail, waterborne or air t~affic impacts? [] [] · []
Page 26
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact impact
Comments:
a,b,e,g) No net increase in employOes or change in shif~ hours are anticipated to occur as a result of the
consolidation of BFG operations; as suclL no increase in vehicle trips would occur. No changes to the circulation
pattern on local roadways are expectedias a result of consolidation BFG operations as the facility would continue
to be accessed from existing entrances;i no new campus ingress or egress points are anticipated. No net loss of
parking spaces would occur as a result 0f consolidation of BFG facilities.
Approximately 5,000 average daily tril)s (ADT) are anticipated to be generated from the redevelopment of the
56.72 acres within the existing BFG sOU~ campus and SDG&E/SD&AE south parcels (SANDAG Vehicular Traffic
Generation Rates for the San Diego Region). This increase in vehicle trips in the project area is not anticipated to
significantly impact the local roadway t~etwork as immediate access to the proposed redevelopment areas would
be from the H Street and J Street exits offl of I-5. Dispersion of traffic onto major transportation facilities is expected
to result in less than significant traffic impacts and would not require road widening or improvements beyond that
currently planned (H Street extension andiwidening). Impacts associated with the extension and widening of H Street
from Bay Boulevard to Marina Parkway are addressed in the Chula Vista Business Park Expansion and Port Master
Plan Amendment Final EIR. Adequate parking would be required to be included in any proposed redevelopment
within the 56.72 acre area.
c) The proposed realignment of Marin4 Parkway does not include any sharp turns or curves. This project would
not result in realignment or widening o~Marina Parkway north of G Street
d) The proposed project is not anticipa~d to alter emergency access in the area.
t) The proposed project would not result In hazards or barriers for pedestrians and bicyclists. Bicycle access ahmg
Marina Parkway south of G Street would )ot be interrupted due to the proposed realignment as the existing segment
would remain operational until the new !ealigned segment is opened.
h) The proposed project would not con.~ict with any adopted policies supporting alternative transportation.
i) The proposed project would not impacl waterborne or air traffic. Abandonment of the MTDB rail line would not
result in significant impacts to rail movement since the line is currently of limited use.
~" --o~_~- Page 27
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. [ Would the proposal
result in: [
a) Significant change in diw~ rsity of species of [] [] · []
plants or animals (includi ~g trees, shrubs grass,
and aquatic plants, or ma nmals, birds, reptiles,
amphibians, fish, or inve xebrates)?
b) Impacts to endangered, ~ reatened or rare [] · [] r:
species or their habitats ~ ncluding but not
limited to plants, fish, in ects, animals, and
birds)?
c) Introduction of new speci ~s of plants or animals [] [] [] ·
into an area?
d) Impact to locally designa ed species (e.g., [] [] [] ·
heritage trees)?
e) Impact to locally designa ed natural communities [] · [] G
(e.g., oak forest, coastal aabitat, etc.)?
0 Impact to wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian [] · [] ~
and vernal pool)?
g) Impact to wildlife disper~, 'al or migration [] [] [] ·
corridors?
Comments:
a,b,d-g) The proposed project parcels are predominantly currently developed. Vegetation on the developed parcels
is limited to small amounts of ornamental landscaping along some parcel perimeters. Non-sensitive weedy species
are located within and around the Ratio: Parcel.
The 3.65 acre City-owned the Ratios parcel is not paved and is dominated by introduced and
weedy species including non-native mustard, Hirschfeldia incana), horehound (Marrubium
vulgare), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), grass (Pennisetum setaceum). A patch of giant cane (Arundo
donax) is present along the western fence railroad tracks. The patch of giant cane represents potential U.S.
Army Corps. of Engineers (ACOE) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Although giant
cane is an extremely invasive it is also classified as a facultative wetland plant. However, the ACOE
recognizes that railway ~ wetland characteristics as a result of fulfilling their purpose. Since
this depression area was and was not constructed in waters of the United States, a Section
4-04 permit will not be required Code of Federal regulation Part 328.3; November 13, 1986).
Page 28
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
lso present within the City Parcel is aI small stand of eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus sp.). These eucalyptus trees
would be removed from the site during grading for consolidation of BFG operations. Eucalyptus trees themselves
are not important biological resources; h~?wever, they may provide nesting opportunities fi)r raptor species such as
the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensist, American kestral (Falco sparverius), and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo
lineatus). Raptor species as a group .ar~ protected from hunting and nest destruction under the California Raptor
Protection Act and under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Potentially significant impacts could occur during
construction activities if a eucalyptus tr~e is removed that has an active nest of a raptor. The mitigation measure
listed below will ensure that no signific~t impacts to raptor species occur.
i i i r Il-1
Removal of the onsite eucalyptus trees sh~ll be conducted before or after the nesting season for the red-tailed hawk,
American kestral and red-shouldered h~wk (February to July).
According to the Chula Vista Busines~ Park Expansion and Port Master Plan Amendment FEIR (1997), the
northernmost portion of the vacant area n(~rthwest of the existing Marina Parkway/G Street intersection within Port
Parcel 2, contains a small area of southern coastal salt marsh. Southern coastal salt marsh is a highly productive
association of herbaceous and suffrutescCnt salt-tolerant hydrophytes that form a moderate to dense cover and ca ~
reach a height of one meter. Southern co: sial salt marsh occurs at the margins of bays, lagoons, and estuaries along
the coast from about Point Conception tc the Mexican border. Land development activities in these coastal areas
have reduced the occurrence of this habit it considerably. The southern coastal salt marsh onsite is contiguous with
the F&G Street Marsh. Southern coastal ~alt marsh is a sensitive wetland habitat. The southern coastal salt marsh
within Port Parcel 2 may contain a se asitive endangered plant species; salt marsh bird's beak (Cordylanthus
maritimus ssp.maritimus). In addition, l~o endangered bird species, Belding's savannah sparrow (Ammodramus
sandwichensis be~'ng0 and the light-foot~ clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) may be present in and around
the F&G Street Marsh. Thus, the los~, ff southern coastal salt marsh for development of Port Parcel 2 would
directly and indirectly contribute to significant cumulative effects to biological resources within the region. Thc
direct loss of southern coastal salt marsh Gat is potential habitat for the slat marsh bird's beak and that is potentially
occupied by the Belding's savannah sparrow and the light-footed clapper rail is considered a significant impact and
would contribute to cumulative effects ih the region. The following mitigation measure would reduce impacts to
biological resources to a level less than ;ignificant.
Mitigation Measure VII-2
No development within the southern co~ ~tal salt marsh of Port Parcel 2 shall occur. In addition, no development
shall occur within a 100-foot "buffer zone ' from this wetland consistent with the LCP. Human access tx) the onsite
marshlands and buffer areas within Port P trcel 2 shall be restricted through fencing and signs. This restriction shall
be enforced with trespass citations and nes.
Additional mitigation measures to reduce potential indirect impacts to sensitive biological plant and animal species
located within the G Street Marsh due to c )nstructlon and operational noise, lighting, and erosion/drainage to a level
less than significant are included in Sect ons X - Noise, XIV - Aesthetics, and IV - Water of this Initial Study.
"7 Page 29
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c) Any new plants introduced are anticipated to match the existing plant palette within the Bayfront Redevelopment
Area, and thus, no introduction of new~lant or animal species is anticipated.
VIII, ENERGY AND MINERAL RE ;OURCES. WouM the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted em rgy conservation r~ [] [] ·
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resou :ces in a wasteful and [] ~ · ~
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of avail tbility of a known [] [] [] ·
mineral resource that wo~ tld be of future value
to the region and the resi~ lents of the State?
Comment~;
a-b) No net increase in energy consum ~tion is anticipated as a result of the relocation and consolidation of BFG
operations. Redevelopment of 56.72 acre; with manufacturing-related uses would increase the use of energy in the
project area. All new development will be designed to comply with State Title 24 energy standards. Project facilities
using non-renewable resources such as :quipment which uses electricity and natural gas, will be energy efficient
in accordance with the California Adm inistrative Code, Title 20, Chapter 2, Subchapter 4, Article 4. Thus, no
conflicts with adopted energy conservat ~n plans would occur.
c) The project area was constructed w th engineered fill and does not contain any known mineral resource of
importance to the region (Chula Vista Bus ness Park Expansion and Port Master Plan Amendment FEIR, 1997, State
of California - Department of Consel ration, Division of Mines and Geology Mineral Land Classifications,
Aggregate Materials in the Western San E iego County Production-Consumption Region, Special Report 153, 1983).
IX. HAZARDS. WouM the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explc sion or release of [] · [] []
hazardous substances (inc [udthg, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemic als or radiation)?
b) Possible interference witl an emergency ~ [] D ·
response plan or emerger :y evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any healtl hazard or potential [] [] · []
health hazard?
Page 30
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Exposure of people to ex sting sources of
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in ~ reas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
Comments:
a,c) Construction, operation and mainter ance of the proposed project would result in additional use and storage of
hazardous materials such as petroleum [ roducts, solvents, bases, alcohols, and compressed gases. Depending on
the type of facility and manufacturing operation, acutely hazardous materials could also be used and stored.
Hazardous wastes generated may include petroleum waste products, waste solvents, and waste alcohols and bases.
The generation and use of hazardons wasl ,~s and materials in manufacturing or research and development processes
would require the removal of hazardous' vastes for treatment or disposal and the transport of hazardous substances
to and from the project site. Any future, ts well as existing activities involving hazardous substances are subject to
local, state and federal regulatory requ irements including the requirements of the County Department of Health
Services (DOH), the RWQCB, the AP£ D, the California Department of Health Services (CDHS), the Cali~brnia
Occupational Health and Safety Administ] ation (Cai-OSHA) and state and federal Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Such activities, as identified in thc Town Centre I/Bayfront Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final Program
EIR (1998), include:
Hazardous Materials Storage - A health' ~ermit for the storage of hazardous materials is required from the County
DOH. As part of this permit, a haza~ ~ous materials business plan is required to document the facility and site
cx~ntact, emergency response plan, emp oyee training, emergency equipment, site maps, and hazardous materials
inventory. Acutely hazardous material are also required to be registered with the County DOH.
Hazardous Waste Generation - An EP · identification number is required from the CDHS for the generation of
hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes are ~pically required to be removed from the site within 90 days from the time
of generation.
Industrial Wastewater, Treatment and ~ ~posal - A permit for the treatment and disposal of wastewater is required
from the City of San Diego Industrial W ~stewater Department. The City of Chula Vista Engineering Department
approves the permit issued by the City )f San Diego Industrial Wastewater Department and may have additional
requirements.
Storm Water Discharge - An NPDESIpermit is required from the RWQCB, including a stormwater pollution
prevention plan and monitoring/sampling plan. The Port also requires a detailed stormwater management plan with
specific restrictions and conditions.
Radioaclive Materials and Waste Storag~ - A radioactive materials license is required from the Health and Welfare
Agency of the CDHS for the use and st ~rage of radioactive materials and waste.
Page 31
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Operation of Heating~Cooling Systems permit for air discharge from these facilities may be required from the
San Diego APCD.
Injury and Illness Prevention - An inj ' and illness prevention plan is required from Cai-OSHA.
Mandatory compliance with regulatory ~ tndards of the various federal, state, and local agencies discussed above
would reduce any potential hazardous ma erials risks/health hazards to a level less than significant. Please refer to
Section IV - Water above for applicat le mitigation measures related to water quality impacts due to potential
contamination from hazardous material~
Existing onsite structures may contain asl .~stos and/or lead-based paint. The following mitigation measures would
reduce potential significant impacts to con ,auction workers from possible exposure to asbestos and lead-based paint
during demolition activities to a level le ,s than significant.
M'C 'i n r IX-
Asbestos and lead-based paint surveys of .~xisting buildings shall be conducted prior to any demolition activities, to
the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vis a or Port, as appropriate.
MiV ii nM' r IX-2
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any property where the resulks of an asbestos/lead-based paint evaluation
indicate the potential for hazardous mate 'ials at levels requiring mitigation, all remedial measures identified in the
evaluation shall be shown on the face of f nal grading plans and/or incorporated into contractor specifications prior
to award of construction contracts, to ~ satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista or Port, as appropriate.
b) The proposed project is not expecte( to interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans.
d) An ASTM Phase I Site Assessment wa, conducted for the existing BFG campus in June 1998 by Adrian Brown.
The Phase I study was completed as part ¢ f an ongoing Cleanup and Abatement Order issued by the RWQCB. The
proposed project would not imerfere with my existing investigation or remediation activities and may have the effect
of accelerating such processes. The asses ,ment indicated that nine specific locations within the overall BFG campus
appear to have been impacted by the relea ;e of hydrocarbons, solvents, metals, acids and/or salts. At each of these
nine locations, remediadon is either com[ lete, ongoing or planned. The Phase I report also concluded that several
locations on the BFG property contain or have contained activities that have a potential to cause impact to the
environment (i.e., an unauthorized releas~ of hazardous materials/waste). The Relocation Agreement acknowledges
the presence of known and potential coma nination areas, including underground storage tank locations, on the BFG
south campus and includes terms and cone itions concerning environmental investigation, management, remediation,
and cost responsibility. All known and st bsequently discovered hazardous waste contamination must be delineated
and remediated in accordance with exisl ing federal, state, and local policies and procedures to the satisfaction of
the designated lead agency. Such policies md procedures address the handling of any hazardous waste contamination
that may be encountered by constructior workers. As such, no significant hazardous waste exposure impacts are
anticipated.
~" _ ,.~ Page 32
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The Phase I report also identifies a knov n contamination site listed as Thermo King at 340 Bay Boulevard, on the
City Parcel on Bay Boulevard. After a ~andonment of the City Parcel by Thermo King, the City discovered that
an unauthorized release occurred from a I onsite underground storage tank. The tank has since been removed and
the City is curren0y in the process of corn ~leting remediation activities. Remediation is anticipated to be completed
by the City prior to close of escrow on his parcel.
e) Although flammable materials are ~tsed in manufacturing processes, the proposed project consists of paved/
developed parcels or parcels that do not contain and are not located adjacent to areas with flammable brush, grass,
or trees. Thus, no increase in flammal~ brush-related fire hazards is anticipated.
X. NOISE. Would the proposal resi ~ in:
a) Increases in existing nois ~ levels? [] [] · []
b) Exposure of people or se ~sitive biological ~ · [] []
resource species to sever: noise levels?
Comments:
a,b) Existing noise-sensitive receptors v 'ithin the project area include the Marina View public park and the Chula
Vista Nature Center and surrounding marshlands. The Belding's savannah sparrow, a noise-sensitive state
endangered bird species, has been identif ed in the marsh area near G Street. Primary noise sources in the project
vicinity include industrial and manufactur ng operations associated with the existing BFG operations and noise from
transportation facilities including I-5, the: ;an Diego Trolley east of I-5, and the SD&AE railroad west of 1-5. Noise
from the San Diego Trolley is not substan ially audible within the project area due to the "masking" effect of traffic
noise along I-5, and the railroad is not ret Marly used. Based on noise measurements conducted for the 1997 Chula
Vista Business Park Expansion and Port i~ laster Plan Amendment FEIR, existing noise levels in the project area are
generally below 60 dB(A) Leq except tbr areas immediately adjacent to I-5 which are in the 78 dB(A) CNEL range.
Traffic Noise
As discussed in Section VI- Transportatio #Circulation above, no net increase in employees or change in shift hours
are anticipated to occur as a result of t ~e consolidation of BFG operations; as such, no increase in vehicle trips
would occur. No significant changes :o the circulation pattern on local roadways are expected as a result of
consolidation of BFG operations as thc facility would continue to be accessed from existing entrances; no new
campus ingress or egress points are anticipated. As such, no increase in traffic noise is anticipated from
consolidation of BFG operations.
Page 33
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The 1997 Chula Vista Business Park Expansion and Port Master Plan Amendment EIR determined that no
significant traffic noise impacts to users 9f the Marina View Park would occur with development of the Industrial
scenario which was anticipated to resul; in an additional 4,000 one-way trips per day along the G Street/Marina
Parkway/J Street corridor. As discusse I above in Section VI - Transportation/Circulation, the proposed project
redevelopment is anticipated to result in an additional 5,000 ADT. It is expected that the majority of these 5,000
trips will similarly be along the G StreeqI~ [arina Parkway/J Street corridor and the same conclusions regarding noise
impacts would apply; no significant traffi~: noise impacts to users of the Marina View Park are expected as a result
of the proposed project redevelopment.
Project-related additional traffic is not ant cipated to result in significant noise impacts to visitors at the Chula Vista
Nature Center and associated trails be, :ause the marshlands surrounding the Center are anticipated to provide
adequate horizontal buffering to reduce ~rojected traffic noise levels to below applicable noise standards. Project
traffic volumes are not expected to rest It in significant indirect noise impacts to noise-sensitive biological habitat
within Sweetwater Marsh National W Idlife Refuge. In noise-impacted areas that are occupied by sensitive
songbirds, such species may acclimate to these elevated noise levels, particularly since traffic noise is more steady
than the sudden bursts of construction n rise activities (please see discussion below).
Construction Noise
Construction activities, especially use of I teavy equipment, would create short-term impacts at adjacent uses. Earth
moving (grading) and demolition are g ~nerally the noisiest activities during construction, with equipment noise
ranging from about 75 to 100 dB(A) at: 0 feet from the source. Construction noise impacts at the noise-sensitive
Marina View Park and Chula Vista Natt re Center, would not be significant with adherence to the City's nuisance
ordinance, which limits construction az tivities to the weekday hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Construction activities
adjacent to the G Street Marsh, howev{ r, could result in significant indirect impacts to noise-sensitive biological
habitat in noise-impacted areas that are ( :cupied by songbirds. In particular, birds that depend on vocalizations to
defend territories and attract mates ma be startled by sudden loud equipment noise and their nesting or breeding
behavior may be disturbed by such im ,rmittent noise intrusion. Mitigation Measure VII-2 above along with the
following mitigation measure would redm e potential construction-related impacts to noise-sensitive biological habitat
to a level less than significant.
Mitigation Measure X-1
Prior to grading activities for developmen: within Port Parcel 2 and the realignment of Marina Parkway where such
activities could result in significant indire, :t noise impacts to noise-sensitive biological habitat in the G Street Marsh
and onsite wetland area, a survey for ilq ~ presence of noise-sensitive animal species shall be conducted within the
potential noise impact exposure zone by a qualified biologist. If such species are present, the biologist shall monitor
the species' behavior during grading to de ermine if the species is being adversely affected by noise. If the biologist
determines that wildlife behavior is beinl [ significantly impacted by grading/construction-related noise, the City of
Chula Vista or Port shall be notified im nediately and such activities directed away from the area of impact. The
City or Port shall coordinate with the ~te and federal resource agencies to determine appropriate mitigation for
Page 34
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
noise impacts, including, but not limited t, ,, construction of temporary berms of other sound attenuation barriers or
restriction of grading/construction activities to less noise-sensitive periods of the day. Grading and construction shall
resume in the area after written confirn ~ation from the biologist, to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista or
Port, that the required mitigation mea~ ures identified during agency consultation have been implemented and,
through monitoring of the affected spt :ies' behavior, are effectively reducing indirect noise impacts to noise-
sensitive biological habitat to below ale ~el of significance.
Although the proposed project is not exp .~cted to result in any other potential significant construction-related noise
impacts, implementation of the followir g additional mitigation measure identified in the Town Centre l/Bayfront
Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final ] 'rogram EIR (1998) would ensure that no significant construction-related
noise impacts would occur.
M'' i nM X-2
Development or redevelopment activities within the project parcels shall comply with the applicable City of Chula
Vista nuisance ordinance, which limits :onstruction activities to the weekday hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Items a)
through d) below shall also be shown on the face of final grading plans and/or incorporated into contractor
specifications, as necessary, prior to aw~ rd of construction contracts, to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista
or Port, as appropriate.
a) When siting stationary equil ment such as generators and compressors, sensitive receptors shall be
sheltered from construction noise. ['his can be accomplished using existing barriers such as ground elevation
change and buildings, or tempora barriers such as plywood walls or noise blankets.
b) Several loud operations shoul~ )ccur simultaneously to decrease the duration of impacts resulting from
each of the actions completed se ~rately.
c) When pile driving, alternat and less intrusive construction methods such as vibration or hydraulic
insertion should be used (as avail~ ble) to lower noise levels.
d) Each internal combustion engin~ used fbr project construction shall be equipped with a muffler as required
by Caltrans Standard Specificatio~ 7-1.011, January 1988.
e) During grading and constructior random periodic field inspections shall be conducted by the City of Chula
Vista, Port or designated monitor t( verify implementation of applicable noise requirements for future project-
specific grading operations in acc, )rdance with approved plans and permits.
Page 35
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impart Incorporated Impact Impact
Operational Noise
The Marina View Park and biological ir abitat in the G Street Marsh/Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge
could be subject to significant noise impa :ts from daily operations associated with development and redevelopment
within the project parcels, if these uses ar,,. not designed with consideration to adjacent noise-sensitive areas. Typical
noise sources from such furore developm{ nt would include continuous noise from mechanical ventilation equipment,
routine noise from loading docks and tras~ t collection areas, and random noise events from human activities. These
activities are expected to be reduced to be ow a level of significance, however, with implementation of standard site
design and noise attenuation features si ch as orientation of facilities away from noise-sensitive areas, horizontal
buffers, berms, walls, and screening/sl~ ielding devices, and limiting hours of operation as included in Mitigation
Measure X-3 below.
Miti_~ation Measure X-3
Prior to approval of project plans for dev¢lopment or redevelopment activities, design review shall be accomplished
by the City of Chula Vista or the Port, as ~ppropriate, to ensure that noise attenuation features are incorporated into
project design, as necessary. Noise at enuation feature shall include, but shall not be limited to, orientation of
loading docks and trash collection facilit es away from noise-sensitive areas; use of streets, parkways, greenbelts,
parking lots, and landscaping as horizonta buffers; construction of berms, walls, or combination berm/wall barriers;
screening/shielding of loading dock and ~ ooftop mechanical ventilation equipment; and limiting hours of operation
to less noise-sensitive periods of the da ~. All applicable noise attenuation features and design measures shall be
shown on the face of fmal building pl ins and/or incorporated into contractor specifications prior to award of
construction contracts, to the satisfactio i of the City of Chula Vista or the Port, as appropriate.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. WouM th'~ proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need fo.' new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? [] [] · []
b) Police protection? [] [] · []
c) Schools? [] [] [] ·
d) Maintenance of public fa~ ilities, including [] [] · []
roads?
e) Other governmental servi :es? [] [] · []
Comments;
a-e) Please see section XII - Thresholds )elow for additional discussion of impacts to public services. The project
will not result in direct impacts to schoc (i.e., will not generate students).
~" _,.~ t~ Page 36
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Xll. THRESHOLDS. WouM the pr~ ~osal adversely impact [] [] [] ·
the City's ThreshoM Standards?
As described below, the proposer project does not
adversely impact any of the sever Threshold Standards.
a) Fire/EMS
The Threshold Standards require that fire and
medical units must be abl to respond to calls
within 7 minutes or less 85 % of the cases and
within 5 minutes of less 75 % of the cases.
The proposed project wr dd comply with this
Threshold Standard.
b) Police
The Threshold Standards require that police
units must respond to 84'~ of Priority 1 calls
within 7 minutes or less ~ td maintain an average
response time to all Prior ty 1 calls of 4.5
minutes or less. Police u ~ts must respond to
62.10% of Priority 2 call; within 7 minutes or
less and maintain an aver tge response time to ali
Priority 2 calls of 7 minu es of less. The
proposed project would c )mply with this
Threshold Standard.
c) Traffic
The Threshold Standards require that all
intersections must operat~ at a Level of Service
(LOS) "C" or better, witlt the exception that the
LOS "D" may occur duff ag the two peak hours
of the day at signalized ir tersections.
Intersections west of 1-80 J are not to operate at
,OS. No intersection
a LOS below the,~ !987,!
may reach LOS E or :" during the average
weekday peak hour. Inte :sections or arterials
with freeway ramps are e ~empted from this
Standard. The proposed )roject would not
cause LOS to fall below ! ~reshold levels.
Page 37
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Parks/Recreation
The Threshold Standard: Or Parks and
Recreation is 3 acres/l,0,)0 population. The
proposed project would c )mply with this
Threshold Standard.
e) Drainage
The Threshold Standards require that storm
water flows and volumes not exceed City
Engineering Standards. ]ndividual projects
would provide necessary improvements
consistent with the Drair~ ge Master Plan(s) and
City Engineering Standar ls. The proposed
project would comply wi~ h this Threshold
Standard.
0 Sewer
The Threshold Standards require that sewage
flows and volumes not ez :eed City Engineering
Standards. Individual pr~ iects would provide
necessary improvemen~ onsistent with Sewer
Master Plan(s) and City 1 ;ngineering Standards.
The proposed project wo~ dd comply with this
Threshold Standard.
g) Water
The Threshold Standards require that adequate
storage, treatment, and ~nsmission facilities
are constructed concurr~ fly with planned
growth and that water ~lity standards are not
jeopardized during growl I and construction.
The proposed project wo~ rid comply with this
Threshold Standard.
Commen~;
The proposed project consists of infill dev, :lopment in an area of highly developed infrastructure. Existing facilities
and service systems are available to acc )mmodate the proposed additional development.
Page 38
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE S (STEMS. Would
the proposal result in a need for ~ ew systems, or
substantial alterations to the folio ~ing utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? [] [] · []
b) Communications systems [] [] · []
c) Local or regional water ~atment or distribution ~ [] · []
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? [] [] · []
e) Storm water drainage? [] [] · []
f) Solid waste disposal? [] [] · []
g) Local or regional water ~pplies? [] [] · []
Comments:
a-e) Thc project could require some todification and extension of existing infrastructure to accommodate the
proposed and future facilities; howe er, adequate capacity within the existing infrastructure systems can
acconunodate the proposed project.
t) Regional solid waste planning incorp( rates projected Bayfront Redevelopment Area growth through SANDAG
forecasts. Bayffont Redevelopment Are~ growth has been adequately accounted for in SANDAG forecast figures.
Therefore, the proposed project is not a ~ticipated to significantly impact area landfills.
g) Local and regional water demands a id planning incorporates projected Bayfront Redevelopment Area growth
through SANDAG forecasts. Bayffont R, '.development Area growth has been adequately accounted for in SANDAG
forecast figures and has been address~ d in the Chula Vista Business Park Expansion and Port Master Plan
Amendment Fit~l EIR and the Town ~ entre l/Bayfront Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final Program EIR.
Therefore, the proposed project is not ~ ~ticipated to significantly impact lncal or regional water supplies.
~--~ ~ 3 '~ Page 39
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XIV. AESTHETICS. Would the pro[ osal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or enic highway? [] rn · []
b) Have a demonstrable ne ~tive aesthetic effect? [] [] [] ·
c) Create light or glare? [] [] · []
Comments:
a,b) The Chula Vista General Plan de ;nates two scenic roadways within the project area; Marina Parkway and
F StreeffLagoon Drive. Visual quality im >acts of the proposed project would intensify the existing urban character
of the area; however, views from these ;eenic road segments would not be significantly impacted because similar
u~s currently exist and proposed develoI: ment would be consistent with such uses. In addition, development of the
abandoned Rados and City Parcels win parking and storage areas would aesthetically enhance views from along
F Street and Bay Boulevard. No signific mt impacts to important viewsheds such as the Bayside Park and Marina
Way viewshed, the Chula Vista Natur: viewshed and the Bay viewshed are anticipated as views would not be
affected or the proposed developmen~ would be similar to existing development (Town Centre I/Bayfront
Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final Pi ogram E1R, 1998). Although the proposed project is not expected to result
in significant viewshed and visual qu: lity impacts, implementation of the following standard design review
procedures of the City and Port would nsure that future projects avoid potential impacts.
Mitigation Measure X1V-1
Prior to approval of project plans for de elopment or redevelopment activities, the City of Chula Vista or Port, as
appropriate, shall review individual project plans and building designs. Design review shall include
plan/architectural modifications, if neces: ary, to protect viewsheds and visual quality in and around the Tidelands.
c) The proposed project would intensify { xisting light in and around the BFG facilities. Implementation of mitigation
measure XIV-I above would ensure tl at potential light or glare impacts from the proposed project, including
potential indirect impacts from lighting to ;ensitive bird species potentially occurring in and adjacent to the G Street
Marsh, are reduced to a level less than ~ignificant.
~' - ,.~ ~ Page 40
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Ould the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological ',sources? ~ · [] []
b) Disturb archaeological re ~ources, including the [] [] [] ·
alteration or destruction ~ .f prehistoric or historic
archaeological sites?
c) Result in adverse physics [ or aesthetic effects to r~ [] [] ·
a prehistoric or historic ' ailding, structure, or
object?
d) Have the potential to cat ,e a physical change r~ [] [] ·
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
e) Restrict existing religiom or sacred uses within [] [] [] ·
the potential impact area'.
Comment~:
a) The project parcels are underlain by the Bay Point Formation which has the potential for containing important
paleontological resources (fossils) (Midb~ ffront Local Coastal Program Resuhmittal No. 8 Amendment FEIR, 1991,
Chula Vista Business Park Expansion and Port Master Plan Amendment FEIR, 1997). Although the project parcels
have been previously developed or are h ghly disturbed, there is the possibility that paleontological resources may
be encountered if excavation activities fo~ new development extend into previously undisturbed deposits of the Bay
Point Formation. The following mitigaticn measure would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to
a level less than significant:
Mitigation Measure XV-1
A qualified paleontologist shall be at ny pre-construction meeting to consult with the grading and excavation
contractors.
A paleontological monitor shall be or~ te on a half-time basis during original cutting of previously undisturbed
sediments of the deposits mapped as Ba,~ Point Formation to inspect cuts for contained tbssils. If the deposits are
discovered to be fossiliferous, then m( nitoring shall proceed; if on the other hand, they turn out to be barren
colluvial deposits, then monitoring shall not be continued.
In the event that well-preserved fossils are discovered, the paleontologist shall be allowed to temporarily direct,
divert, or halt grading to allow for recov, ~,ry of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the
recovering of small fossil remains such isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing
operation onsite.
Page 41
Negative
Dedaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Fossil remains collected during any sa rage program shall be cleaned, sorted, and cataloged and then, with the
ow er s permission, deposited in a sci, ',ntific institution with paleontological collections, such as the San Diego
Natural History Museum.
b-e) No significant archaeological or I istorical resources have been identified on the proposed project parcels
(Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment FEIR, 1991, Town Centre I/Bayfront
Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final Program EIR, 1998).
XVI. RECREATION. Would the pr~ ~osal:
a) increase the demand for ~ ~ighborhood or c~ [] c~ ·
regional parks or other re creational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreation opportunities? [] [] · ~
Comments:
a) No net increase in employees/resid~ ts is anticipated as a result of the relocation and consolidation of BFG
operatiorks. It is anticipated that the ne w positions created by the proposed future redevelopment will be filled
primarily from the local labor pool. Thl s, no increase in demand for recreational facilities is anticipated.
b) There are no recreational uses on ~e project parcels. The removal of existing BFG facilities on the south
campus and future redevelopment , this area could result in noise and air quality impacts during
demolition/constmction activities that ma, fffect recreational use ofthe Marina ViewPark. Similarly, construction-
related activities in the northern portiol of Port Parcel 2 and for the realignment of Marina Parkway may affect
recreational use in and around the G feet Marsh. Such impacts would be temporary and are not considered
significant.
Page 42
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDI3 GS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have thc potential to degrade [] · [] []
the quality of the environ nent, substantially
reduce the habitat of a tis a or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife p( ~ulation to drop below
self-sustaining levels, thr~ ~ten to eliminate a
plant or animal communi y, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a are or endangered
plant or animal or elimin~ te important examples
of the major periods of C ~lifornia history or
prehistory?
Connnents: Potential significant direct a~ d indirect impacts to biological resources, including impacts to sensiti,v,e
habitat (a smalI area of southern coastal s. tlr marsh) and associated sensitive plant and animal species (marsh bird s
beak, Belding s savannah sparrow, and light-footed clapper rail), and raptor species (red-tailed hawk, American
kestral, and red-shouldered hawk), wo~ Id be reduced to a level less than significant with implementation of the
mitigation measures identified previousl: in this Initial Study. This Initial Study also includes mitigation measures
to reduce potential impacts to paleontol( [ical resources to a level less than significant.
b) Does the project have the ~otential to achieve [] [] [] ·
short-term, to the disadw [tage of long-term,
environmental goals?
Comments: Proposed development woul I occur within an existing industrial area. The project would not achieve
short-term goals, to the disadvantage of 1 )ng-term, environmental goals. The project is reversible. The proposed
uses could be removed in the future.
c) Does the project have in: ~acts that are [] · [] []
individually limited, but umulatively
considerable? ("Cumula rely considerable"
means that the increment~ effects of a project
are considerable when vi~ red in connection
with the effects of past pt )jects, the effects of
other current projects, an I the effects of
probable future projects)
Commenls: The potential cumulative i npacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the
proposed project vicinity were previousl t adequately addressed in the 1997 Chula Vista Business Park Expansion
and Port Master Plan Amenthnent Final E [R and the 1998 Town Centre I/Bayffont Redevelopment Plan Amendment
Final Program EIR. The previous cumu ative impacts analyses concluded that potential cumulative impacts could
be reduced m a level less than signifi :ant with appropriate mitigation. The potential environmental impacts
associated with the proposed project ~ at are individually limited would not be cumulatively considerable with
implementation of the mitigation measm es identified above in this Initial Study.
~/~ -- 4 [ Page 43
Negative
Declaration:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Does the project have en' 'ironmental effects [] · [] []
which cause substantial a lverse effects on
human beings, either dir~ cfly or indirectly?
C..ommem~ The proposed uses have the ~otential for impacts to human health, as noted above in this Initial Study.
The use and storage of hazardous materi ~ls such as petroleum products, solvents, alcohols, and compressed gases
and the generation, storage and disposal o ! associated hazardous wastes, poses a potential impact to the construction,
operations, and maintenance personnel v orking with these hazardous substances. In addition, the use and storage
of hazardous substances poses a potential ndirect impact to other tenants/users of surrounding land uses in the event
of an unauthorized release. Mandato~ y compliance with federal, state, and local regulations would reduce any
potential human health impacts to a levei less than significant. This Initial Study includes mitigation measures to
reduce potential impacts to construction u orkers from possible exposure to asbestos and/or lead-based paint during
demolition activities to a level less than dgnificant.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS PO~l ENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant impact" or as indicated by the checklist on the previous pages.
[] Land Use and Planning [] Tr~ .nsportation/Circulation [] Public Services
[] Population and Housing · Biz logical Resources [] Utilities & Service Systems
· Geologic [] En ~rgy and Mineral Resources [] Aesthetics
· Water · Ha ,~ards · Cultural Resources
[] Air Quality · Nc [se [] Recreation
· M~' ndatory Findings of Significance
~' ~ ~7/ ~ Page 44
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULE NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECk atRATION will be prepared. []
I find that although the proposed projec~ could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a signific ant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on the an ached sheets have been added to the
project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATI( ~N will be prepared. ·
I find that the proposed project MAY h; ye a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ~,EPORT is required. []
I £md that the proposed project MAY h; ye a significant effect(s) on the environment,
but at least one effect 1) has been adequ ~tely analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards, a ~d 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis a; described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a "potentially significant impac' or "potentially significant unless
mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL I] 4PACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remai ~ to be addressed. []
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a sig aificant effect in this case because all
potentially significant effects (a) have b~ en analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR pursuant to applicable standards an~ l (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including r, ~,visions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project. []
~-nffture ' Date
Joseph Monaco, AICP
Environmental Projects Manager
City of Chnla Vista Community Develc ~ment Department
~"__43 Page 4S
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
BFG ! ~ELOCATION AGREEMENT
MITIGATION MO! ~ITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION AND PURPOSE
The California Environmental Qu~ lity Act (CEQA) requires a lead or responsible agency that
approves a project where a Mitig tted Negative Declaration (MND) has identified potentially
significant environmental effects, la adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or
required changes to mitigate or avt id significant environmental effects".
The City of Chula Vista is the le td agency for the BFG Relocation Agreement project. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration ,vas prepared for this project which addressed potential
environmental impacts and, where appropriate, recommended mitigation measures to reduce
identified significant impacts belc w a level of significance. A Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program is required to e ~sure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented.
The City of Chula Vista will adopt this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 0VIMRP)
after considering the MND and if ~ pproval of the project occurs.
The proposed BFG Relocation A ;reement may result in adverse impacts in the event of
substantial alterations to the propos ed project description. A monitoring and reporting program
would prevent adverse impacts by nsuring that the proposed project is developed in substantial
conformance with the project descrJ ~tion and design features used to conduct the analysis for this
MND.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILIT iS
The MMRP for the proposed proje~ :t will be in place through all phases of the project. The City
of Chula Vista has primary enforce~ aent role for the implementation of mitigation measures. The
City's Environmental Review Coor linator (ERC) will provide final approval for the completion
of the implementation of mifigatior measures. The ERC will appoint a Mitigation Compliance
Coordinator (MCC) who will be re )onsible for the actual monitoring of the implementation of
the mitigation measures. The MC will interface with the ERC, the City Engineer, the City
Landscape Architect, the Constructi ~ Supervisor, and the Construction Inspector(s), all who have
some responsibility for thc implem~ :ntation of the mitigation measures.
BFG Relocation Agreement City of Chula Vista
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro, ram MMRP-1 June 1999
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
San4949Natural(619) Diego, Viewridge 467-4251 Community CA 921 Avenue 23 Conservation Planning ' '~ 'Z '''~
FAX 467 4235
April 5, 1999
Mr. Joe Monaco
Community Development
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
ChulaVista, CA 91910
Comments on the Prop ased Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
BF Goe drich Relocation Agreement
Dear Mr. Monaco:
The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the above-
referenced mitigated negative declara ion (MND). The proposed project site is located in the City
of Chula Vista (City) in southwestern San Diego County (County). The City is currently
participating in the Multiple Species ( ;onservation Program (MSCP) and the proposed and future
projects should be consistent with the MSCP framework and guidelines. The property is situated
south of Lagoon Drive, west of Bay l loulevard, and north and east of Marina Parkway in the
Bayfront Redevelopment Project Are t. The project proposes the land transfer of eight non-
contiguous parcels totaling 107.9 acr, '.s. The City, the San Diego Unified Port District (Port) and
BF Goodrich Aerospace, Aerostructr res Group (BFG) will enter into a three party agreement to
facilitate the relocation and consolida :ion of BFG operations onto a smaller land area which
would enable redevelopment ofunde~ utilized land by the Port and City. Redevelopment would
include transfer of land, demolition o1'existing structures, foundations, pavement and ancillary
facilities and the construction of new auildings, pavement, facilities and landscaping. The total
amount of land that would be availab e for redevelopment would include approximately 77 acres
in addition to 20.22 acres of BFG lea ;ehold land owned by the Port.
Most of the 107.9-acre prope -ty currently is developed and is occupied by engineering,
manufacturing and post-production a-eas, chemical storage and salvage/scrap yards, buildings and
abandoned industrial buildings, parki~ tg areas, above-ground transmission lines and towers, rail
line and vacant and disturbed land. I he property also supports a small area of southern coastal
salt marsh that is contiguous with the F&G Street Marsh and is located in the northern-most
portion of vacant land that is part of;~ 6.67-acre parcel (Port Parcel 2).
,dr. JosePh Monaco
Page Two
April 2, 1999
The onsite coastal salt marsh habitat po :entially supports sensitive state and federally-endangered
plant and animal species such as salt m~ rsh bird's beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus),
Belding's savannah sparrow (Ammodrc ~us sandwtchensis beldtngi) and light-footed clapper rail
(Rallus longirostris levipes).
No development of the southen :oastal salt marsh habitat is proposed. In addition, the
project proposes a 100-foot buff'er that would protect the salt marsh. The salt marsh habitat and
the 100-foot buffer would be fenced an :i signs would be posted to exclude humans and pets. To
offset noise impacts from development of the remainder of Port Parcel 2 and the proposed
realignment of the adjacent Marina Par ~way to animals occupying the onsite salt marsh habitat,
the project proposes a survey of noise ~. ensitive species by a qualified biologist. If noise effects
appear to impact wildlife behavior, noi: e would be directed away from the area of impact and the
City and Port would coordinate with ti e Department and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(wildlife agencies) to determine appro~ date mitigation. Because of project development that
would occur on parcels that are in clos ~' proximity to the onsite coastal salt marsh habitat, lighting
is expected to intensify which could im ~act sensitive species. To offset light and glare impacts, a
review of the architectural design offu ute development on the project site is proposed.
The project proposes only the 1 ransfer of properties between the City, Port and BFG,
although the MND states that some of these properties are slated for redevelopment which could
include demolition and construction ac :ivities over a long period of time. Because of the extreme
sensitivity of coastal salt marsh habitat that include a portion of the F&G Street marsh that occurs
onsite and the nearby Sweetwater Mar ~h National Wildlife Refuge, the Department is concerned
that indirect effects such as noise and I ghting caused by these activities could adversely affect salt
marsh-dwelling wildlife species. Beca~ ~se the City is developing a subarea plan under the MSCP,
and the proposed project site would at join habitat that would be included in the regional plan, we
recommend that development of each )roject as well as the proposed realignment of Marina
Parkway, undergo separate environme ~tal review and address direct and indirect impacts (e.g.
noise, lighting, edge effects) to the sal~ marsh so that they are consistent with the general
guidelines in the MSCP.
We also request that focused s ~rveys for the Beldings's savannah sparrow and light-
footed clapper rail be conducted withi ~ the onsite salt marsh habitat prior to any development.
The proposed project's activities shou d be consistent with Table 3-5 of the MSCP and the
conservation guidelines outlined for tl' ese species. In addition, we request that mitigation
measures to offset impacts to these sp ~cies be discussed with wildlife agency staffs and described
in detail before any demolition or corn ruction activities occur on the property. Architectural
design that would include building hei hts, and the timing and duration of lighting and noise
caused by new development and cons' .ction activities should also be included in the discussions.
The effects of storm water run-off on Ihe water quality of San Diego Bay and the F&G Street
marsh should be addressed.
The Department appreciates ti te opportunity to review the MND for potential impacts to
salt marsh habitat and its plant and an mal inhabitants. We are available to work with the City,
Mr. Joseph Monaco
Page Three
April 2, 1999
Port and BFG in the development of aI ~propriate mitigation measures that would offset impacts to
salt marsh habitat and wildlife species ~ rom future development activities on the property as well
as the Marina Parkway realignment. P ease contact Ms. Stacy Hewitson at (619) 467-4229 if you
have questions or comments.
Sincerely,
William E. Tippets
Habitat Conservation Supervisor
cc: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Martin Kenney
Carlsbad
i~a~-~-~'c~ TUB
i,,x 5u a~, 3:91
' ."-?-~. ~
~T.~TE OF CALIFORN A - BUSINESS, TRANSPORI'ATIi )N AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA'f
DISTRICT 11
P.O. BOX 85406
SAN DIEGO. CA 92186-5406
(619) 688-6954
FAX: (619) 688-4299
March 30, 1999
11-SD-O05
P.M. 7.3-7.9
Ms. DeLicia Wynn (K.P. 11.7-12.6)
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814 C ~'1
Dear Ms. Wynn: ~
Draft ND for the B. F. Goodrict Relocation Agreement - SCH 9903!02~j.1
Caltrans District 11 comments ~ re as follows:
· A recent analysis of amp capacity at the southbound on-ramp to I-5 from
H St. reveals opera on at Level of Service C. The extension of H St.
together with the 5000 ADT traffic increase anticipated from
redevelopment will in:roduce a burden on operation of the H St. ramps,
yielding an undesiral~le Level of Service D. A traffic report should be
prepared to analyze impacts to the I-5 on-ramps at H St. initiated from
these improvements, nd to propose appropriate mitigation measures.
,, The traffic impacts a d mitigation measures should be based on existing
and Year 2020 traffi,~ volumes. The traffic report must include Ramp
Queue analysis a~d should also analyze impacts to the I-5
southbound/nodhbou~td on-ramps from H St. using the intersecting Lane
Vehicle (ILV) method,. )er the Highway Design Manual, Topic 406.
', The increase in traffic ',olumes due to redevelopment is aisc major at the J
St. ramps. We reque,,.t that the traffic report analyze operational efficiency
of the freeway ramps ;~t this location as well.
· Caltrans supports the concept of "fair share" contributions on the part of
developers toward pr~ sent and future mitigation of traffic impacts on State
Highway facilities. -
Jd 7UE 3:2,? PM CALTP~A~I$ PUB] i¢, T~A~IS FAX NO. 6i9 888 4299
Ms. DeLicia Wynn
March 30, 1999
Page Two
Our contact person for I-5 is Ed ~lajj, Route Manager, at (619) 220-5433. For Traffic
Operations our contact person ' Richard Coward, Branch Chief, at (619) 688-6610.
Sincerely, 4
Planning Studies Branch
BF/LS:ds
1255 imperial Avenue. Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101-7490
(619) 231-1466
FAX (619) 234-3407
March 25, 1999 SDAE 710 (PC 099)
Mr. Joe Monaco
Community Development Departmer
The City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Subject: NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGA'[ED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TRANSFER OF
PARCELS RELATING TO BF GOODRICH AEROSPACE, AEROSTRUCTURES GROUP
(BFG)
The San Diego Metropolitan Transit D 9velopment Board is a public agency created by state law.
MTDB is the sole member of the San :)iego and Arizona Eastern Railway Company (SD&AE), a
Nevada, nonprofit corporation, which owns portions of two of the parcels that are addressed in
the subject documents. The SD&AE s a common carrier under the jurisdiction of the Surface
Transportation Board. Freight service is operated by the San Diego and Imperial Valley Railroad
(SD&IV) under an operating agreemer with the SD&AE and MTDB. That operating agreement
has a remaining term of approximatel, 36 years. SD&IV currently operates freight on the
Coronado Branch Line, which appears to go through parcels 7 and 8 on Exhibit 2 to the Notice.
Those parcels are further described or, page 4 and 5. The project description on page 5 states in
part, "In addition, the Port agrees to ~ rrange for the conveyance of fee title ownership of the
SDG&E and MTDB rights-of-way that currently bisect the BFG property. [Emphasis added.]" The
total acreage of these rights-of-way a ong the entire existing campus (from F Street to J Street) is
approximately 15.6 acres, with 7.6 a~:res being north of the proposed extension of H Street (to be
conveyed in fee to BFG) and 8 acres outh of H Street (fee title to be retained by the Port). An
easement over the entire area would ,e retained by SDG&E for the electrical transmission lines
and other facilities." We are extrerr disturbed about this false and misleading statement with
regard to the property of the SD&AE.
We note further that on page 8, the r~ ~orts states, "The total land area that would be available
for redevelopment includes approxima ely 77 acres, comprised of the 48.72 acres of the campus
south of H Street plus the portion of l Se SDG&E and MTDB rights-of-way south of H Street
(approximately 8.0) acres), plus the e:dsting 20.22 acre leasehold area south of H Street.
[Emphasis added.]" The property of t~e SD&AE is not available for redevelopment, nor will it be
in all likelihood during the remaining ~-year-life of the operating agreement.
On page 26, under the title, Transpo ation/Circulation, it is indicated that the rail impacts would
be less than significant and (on page !7), the statement is made, "Abandonment of the MTDB rail
line would not result in significant inn acts to rail movement since the line is currently of limited
Subsidiary Corporations I~//~--!San___~ Diego Transit Corporation ~(_ Diego Tro[le~ iPc and !lr~'lSaa-~, ~ Diegc & Ar zcna Eastern Rad~ay CoP pa%
Mr. Joe Monaco
March 25, 1999
Page 2
use." There is no intent on the part ~f the SD&IV Railroad or SD&AE Railway to file for an
abandonment with the Surface Trans ~ortation Commission. In fact, the freight carrier is studying
potential uses to expand service on t le Coronado Branch Line. The above-referenced statements
are false, misleading, and are dispara~]ing of their rail business. We strongly urge that the report
be rewritten with regard to the Railre ad referenced and that all relevant sections note that the
railroad property will remain in the o~znership of the Railroad and in railway uses for the
forseeable future.
Further, we have done a quick examination of railway records and note that there are a number of
revocable licenses granting the formEr property owners rights to cross the railroad with vehicles,
pipelines, utilities, and to use a pottle n of the railway property for parking of vehicles. Those
railway licenses are typically subject co 30-day cancellation, and there is no assurance whatsoever
that any of those particular licenses ~vill be continued in the future, though it would appear that
some of those uses currently allowec on the railway property are contemplated to continue under
this redevelopment plan. To the ext~ nt that this is the case, we request you immediately notify
us, on behalf of the San Diego & Ari;ona Eastern Railway Company, as to which licenses you
desire the Railway to keep in effect f~r the benefit of the redevelopment.
Sincerely,
Jack Limber
General Counsel/Deputy General Mar ager
LTresc
L-MONACO.JLIMBE
ENVIRONSdlENTAL HEALTH COALITION
1717 Kettner Boulevard, Stite 100. San Diego, CA 92101 · (619) 235-0281 · Fax (619) 232-3670
e-mail: ehcoalition~qgc.ap¢.org · Web address: hnp://www.environmentalhealth,org
March,30, 1999
Board of Directors
B~a4z Barraza-gopp~, ~£esident Mr. Joe Monaco-- Community Development
Sharon Kalemk/atlan, Vice President City of Chula Vis
Project Hea~beal, Sa~ D~ego 276 Fourth Ave
Tony Pe.i.~, M^,'rre~.,~r Chula Vista, CA ! 910
MA,AC. Project RE: Proposed Mi~ igated Negative DecI~ration eND)for the BF Goodrich
Jo~ a,~o Relocation Agree nent
Scott Chatfield Dear Joe:
Marc Cummings Environm :ntal Health Coalition (EHC) has the following comments
Nathan Cummings Foundalion on the above fete: enced project.
Fclicia Eaws
co~.-i~ Page 8.
P~la F~ EHC is cc accrued about the statement that "...the Initial study does
Eliz=t~t~ uill not address imp& :ts associated with development of the BFG south leasehold
National School District area. While thi;, area may have been analyzed in the Port Master Plan EIR,
Ruth Heifetz conditions are ab~ ,ut to change so the whole project area needs to be
UCSD School of Medicine considered in con :ext. We are also concerned with the statement "The
c.u U.M, UCSD Sehoo~ of precise Port Mas er Plan land use designation that would ultimately be
Medicine imposed at this a~ ea is not known at this time." (Page 9) It seems that this is a
Project Wildlife critical piece of i~ formation that should be determined and analyzed as part of
Dan McKiman, Ph.D. this effort, ff this land swap enables development that was not possible under
~aark Mande~ existing conditior s, this analysis should address the impacts. We believe that
Ka.shi Comp~my the Initial Study (iS) should include all areas impacted since implications of
Com,nuaily Organizer the land swap we 'e not considered in the Port Master Plan Amendment EIR,
~y Po~,e, Again, we ask th-' t the parties undertake comprehensive planning for this area
Utility Consumers Action Network and not continue piecemeal the environmental analysis for this area.
Norma Sullivan
s~. ~iego ^.du~o. Society EHC is w concerned that the air quality impacts are not sufficiently
A2'bdiatm,~* ,,t,ted[t,r identtficvtion analyzed or adeq~ .ately mitigated. Given the high levels of health risks from
air toxics in our r :sion recently confirmed by the Environmental Protection
Executive Director
Diane Takvorian Agency's Cumul; .tive Exposure Project, this ND should adopt very
protective air qu: dity mitigations. This data shows that the cumulative risks
Mission Statement of cancer in this ~nmediate project area are already between 110-800 times
E~o.,.~.t~t }t~th Co~liao, i~above a healthfu level. Both the respiratory hazards and the reproductive
dedicated to the prevention and hazards are 25-5~ times higher. This is particularly critical since this IS does
our beahh, our communilies, and th~ not specify future industrial uses. Depending on what is developed at those
environment, We promote environ- sites, the air polk tion burden could be greatly increased. We would request
menial justice, monitavgovernment that the staff corn ider the results of the EPA study in its analysis and that a
Ix~llution. educate communities about full assessment o Y air toxics implications should be conducted. EHC further
recommends that new sources of air tcxics significant enough to fall under permit requirements
should not be allowed to locate at all an area that is expected to be used by so many people
both rec~'eationally and in residence.
Page 25-
Mitigation Measure V-3 should requi: that all Air District permits are obtained prior to
construction and that no building pern ts will be issued if variances to air pollution regulations
have been obtained by sources large el tough to require air permits. The current air district is
notorious for issuing improper varian¢ ~s. The proof is the unhealthful and poor quality of our
air. The ND should be revised to inch de "In no event shall a variance issued by the San Diego
APCD hearing board be relied upon t~ ~ satisfy this requirement."
Mitigation Measure V-4 should be ch~' nged to require that a "Permit to Operate" be the
requirement for occupancy permit. TI' e ND should be revised to include "In no event shall a
variance issued by the San Diego AP~ D hearing board be relied upon to satisfy this
requirement."
Page 31
EHC has similar concerns about issu~ ace of a negative declaration of a project that "would
r,,esult in the additional use and storag ,~ of hazardous materials...." The IS goes on to say that
Depending on the type of facility and manufacturing operations, acutely hazardous materials
could also be used and stored." This s of tremendous concern to us. It is clear that a number of
development proposals are moving fo~ ward on Port District and privately owned properties in the
close vicinity that will result in large n ambers of people in the area. People and toxics don't
mix. EHC is involved in trying to un, lo poor planning in the Barrio Logan neighborhood where
concentrations or' toxic air emitters an~t densely populated residential areas co-exist. We oppose
the conditions that could allow for the creation of another such scenario on the Chula Vista
Bayfront. The mitigations in the ND n ust minimally align with those in the Port's EIR and
should be greatly expanded and made ~nore protective of public health. Expansion of acutely
hazardous materials should be prohibi ed. Significant increases in hazardous waste generation or
air toxic~ emissions should be prohibi~ ed. It is not in the City of Chula Vista's interest to rely
solely on regulation to adequately prol ~ct public health. Mitigation requirements for this project
will be the added insurance the City n~ eds to ensure that public health and safety will not be
compromised as a result of future dew lopment.
Page 23
Again, we are very concerned with the statement that "New industrial uses proposed as a part of
this project may involve the generatio~ I, use, storage, treatment, disposal, or transport of
t~azardous materials" If there are new industrial uses proposed, we need full accounting of what
they are and what they will emit. This is not a subject that should be glossed over or only
vaguely addressed. Reliance on corn .lance with regulation is not a mitigation for impacts.
Further, it is unclear from the S how the land cleanup will be handled. Does the current
Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) address all of the contamination issues and the liability for
cleanup? Will a Phase I~ assessment ~ e conducted and is it a condition of the CAO? A copy of
the Relocation Agreement should be at :ached with this IS. Please provide a copy to EHC for
review.
Page 27
We are glad to see that this pro. eot would "not result" (which we read to mean "not
require") in the widening of Marina Pa rkway north of G Street. If this is an incorrect
assumption, we request that this be cla 'ified as this is a significant statement. If the project will
create pressure to widen Marina Parka ay in this area, either directly or indirectly, this needs to be
analYzed in this document. The wideni ag of Marina Parkway through the F and G Street Marsh
has very significant environmental im ~acts.
EHC requests that there be a response. :o comments on this document.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
Clean Bay Campaign
Po of San D ,g
~(" ~:!,~, and Lindbergh Field Air Terminal ~?~"" ~ ~'..
~% 3~%~ (619) 686_6200 . p.o. Box 488, San Diego, California 92112_o~~-
Via f~: 476-5310
Mr. Joe Monaco
Co~ity Development Depa~ment
City of Chula Vista
276 Fou~h Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
SUBJECT: BF GOODRICH RELOCATION AGREEMENT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Dear Mr. Monaco:
The San Diego Unified Port District (Port) acknowledges receipt of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the BF Goodrich Relocation Agreement. In accordance with
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15096, the Port, acting as a
responsible agency, agrees with the City of Chula Vista's proposal to prepare a mitigated
negative declaration for BF Goodrich Relocation Agreement project.
The Port has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and agrees with the
determination that although the project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there ~vilI be no significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on the attached sheets have been added to the project.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me (619) 686-6283.
MELISSA A. MAILANDER
Environmental Review Coordinator
cc: Dan Wilkens
Jeff Gabriel
Mike Hogan
File: 424
BFGoodrioh
Aerospace
Aerostrucfures Group
850 Lagoon Drive
Chulo Vista. California 919~0- 2098
FAX 619 - 691 - 3030
lane 14, 1999
Lyle W. Haynes
Assistant Director of Community Development
Community Development Department
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: BFGoodrich-Chula Vista Campus / Relocation Proiect
New Campus Industrial Financing Assistance
Dear Mr. Haynes:
Rohr, Inc. (operating as BFGoodrich Aerospace Aerostructures Group, or "BFG") is preparing to
enter into the Relocation Agreement ("Agreement") among the City of Chula Vista ("City'), the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency'), and the San Diego Unified Port
District ("Port"). The Agreement provides for the terms under which BFG is willing to relocate,
develop, and consolidate its manufacturing and industrial business operations into an area known
as the "New Campus", north of H Street.
A critical provision of the Agreement for BFG is the New Campus Industrial Financing Assistance
to be provided to BFG by the Agency. As you know, this has been an essential economic element
of the overall relocation project for BFG since discussions began on this project with the Agency
last summer.
Attached to this letter is a summary of BFG's current budget for this capital project. (Please note
that this budget remains subject to modification as actual work on the project proceeds.) As a
matter of corporate policy for BFG, proposed capital projects of this magnitude are subjected to
e:ctc~ss~ve ~uancial aiialysis and review, hi um~ to, tn~ company to approve such levels of capital
investment, several internal measures of economic yield for the investment must be met; of course,
the project must meet other business and operational objectives as well, for the investment to be
positively considered. The Agency assistance to be provided is necessary for the project to meet
FG s cap]tal mvestmeut standards, and BFG would not proceed with the project or the Agreement
without such assistance being provided by the Agency.
Very truly yours,
Arthur O. Sellgren
Manager, Facilities and Industrial Engineering
Rohr, Inc. a subsidiary of The BFGoodrioh Company, operating as BFGoodrich Aerospace/Aerostructures Group
BFGoodrich /
Chula Vista. Campus Relocation Project
SUMMARY OF
PRELIMINARY BUDGET
NORTH CAMPUS
FACILITIES PREPARATION ..
(BUll,DING IMPROVEMENTS) $20,786,000
MACHINERY AND EQUII:~MENT $18,948,000
COSTS $ 7,304,000
TOTAL $47, 038,000
Summary Report of Agency Property Disposition and Financial Assistance EXHIBIT G
BFGoodrich Relocation Project
Health and Safety Code Sections 33433
· Introduction
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33433, prior to a California Community Redevelopment
Agency holding a public hearing for the purposes of evaluating the merits of entering into an
agreement which includes the sale, lease, or transfer of Agency property, a report summarizing the
cost of the transaction to the Agency must be available for public review no later than f~een (15)
days prior to the public hearing.
The "Summary Report" must include a description of the following:
1. Cost of the agreement to the Agency - (acquisition, demolition, clearance, improvements and
financing interest etc.)
2. Estimated value of interest conveyed at highesUbest use allowed under the Redevelopment
Plan.
3. Estimated value of interest conveyed at the use and with the conditions contemplated by the
proposed transaction.
4. Explanation of difference in values, if any.
5. Explanation as to why the sale will assist in the elimination of blight
6. This report addresses all such items· In addition, because the project contemplates Agency
assistance pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33444.6, the report also includes an
explanation as to why the assistance iS-necessary for the economic feasibility of the project and
cannot be obtained on feasible terms in the private market.
The proposed Relocation Agreement by and between the City of Chula Vista ( ty ), Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency"), San Diego Unified Port District ('Port") and BFGooddch
("BFG") contemplates the sale of Agency, Port and BFG properties to effectuate a consolidation of
the BFG campus north of the proposed "H" Street extension ("Project").
The consolidation would result in a reconfigured campus for BFG generally bounded by Bay
Boulevard (east), "F" Street/Lagoon Drive (north), a realigned Marina Parkway (west) and the
proposed "H" Street extension (south). The relocation would then allow for redevelopment of
currently underutilized BFG properties south of "H" Street adjacent to the Chula Vista Marina in the
Bayfront Redevelopment Project area.
The property transfers are generally as follows:
1. BFG will transfer their fee oWned land (37.58 acres) south of 'H" to the Port.
2. Port will transfer various properties north of "H" to BFG totaling 26.51 acres: Port Parcels 1
and 2 (16.66 acres), SDG&E property (7.41 acres) and make best efforts to transfer the
MTDB property (2.44 acres).
3. Port will provide the Agency compensation for the Agency's "Bay Boulevard" properties (3~65
acres) and the privately owned Rados Companies property (3.02 acres) which the Agency will
then transfer to BFG. The Project also includes the following elements:
a. Vesting of entitlements.
b. Allocation of risks and responses for Hazardous Materials conditions for all purposes.
Summary Reporl: of Agency Property Disposition and Financial Assistance
BFGoodrich Relocation Project
Health and Safety Code Sections 33433
Cost t~
Property Disposition and Development Cost,~
The proposed Relocation Agreement contemplates the Agency receiving $3,000,000 as a lump sum
sefflement from the Port as compensation in full for: 1) the Agency owned parcels, 2) the privately
owned Rados Companies property (3.65 acres) and 3) hazardous materials remediation, demolition,
and grading costs necessary to deliver the properties to BFG for development. Based upon current
appraisals of the parcels and expected costs for performing all related transfer activities, the Agency
expects to receive from the Port; at least fair market value (FMV) for its properties.
1. Agency Parcels
The Agency currently owns five (5) parcels totaling 3.65 acres at 340-360 Bay Boulevard in the
Bayfront Project Area. The FMV for these properties at their "highest and best use" was recently
deterred through an appraisal conducted by a qualified MAI real estate appraiser under the current
zoning regulations at $8.00 a sq. ft. or $1,271,952. The Agency will receive $1,271.952 for the
properties under the Relocation Agreement in consideration for their transfer them to BFG. The
Agency property is regulated by the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan and certified Chula Vista Local
Coastal Program (LCP) which includes the Bayfront Specific Plan. The Specific Plan designates the
Agency parcels as Industrial Research-Limited, and the agreement contemplates the property being
conveyed to BFG for such uses. Therefore, the Agency is receiving FMV compensation for its
property and there is no difference in value between the property's "highest and best use" and the
value as conditioned by the proposed transaction.
2. Rados Property
The Rados property was also recently appraised by a qualified MAI real estate appraiser under the
current zoning regulations at $8.00 a sq. ff. (less $80,000 for demolition costs) or $972,400. It too is
regulated by the Bayfront Specific Plan and designated as Industrial Research-Limited. The Agency
made an offer to acquire the Property at the appraised FMV, but to date, the offer has not been
accepted. The Relocation Agreement contemplates that the City will pay whatever amount is
required to obtain the property through condemnation, not to exceed $1,724 million. The Agency
potentially could be responsible for additional site valuation costs if the Agency does not reach
agreement with the Rados Companies on fair compensation for the property, and it is later
determined in eminent domain court proceedings that additional compensation is required. Again,
unless the valuation is ultimately awarded at a higher than currently appraised value, there is no
difference in value between the property's "highest and best use' and the value as conditioned by the
proposed transactions. Even if a hlgher value is determined, it is expected that out of $3,000,000
allocated to transfer activities sufficient funds will be left to in effect, compensate the City.
3. Site Costs
After receiving FMV compensation for its properties and providing payment for the appraised value of
the Rados property, the Agency will have $755,638 to cover demolition, site remediation, and grading
costs (collectively referred to as "site costs") necessary to deliver the properties to BFG for
development.
Summary Report of Agency Property Disposition and Financial Assistance
BFGoodrich Relocation Project
Health and Safety Code Sections 33433
The current estimated cost for demolition is $80,000. The Rados property is currently in a blighted
condition with a vacant, burned out dilapidated industrial building of negative value. The estimated
demolition costs have been deducted from the Agency's offer price made to the Rados Brothers. The
Agency parcels are unimproved and therefore there are no demolition costs.
The Agency has been clearing soils contamination on its properties over the last several years
utilizing on-going budgeted Agency funds. The remaining estimated cost is approximately $75,000,
which is contemplated to be funded from the Port proceeds. The soils condition for the Rados
property is undetermined although preliminary site analysis indicates that soils issues should be
minor in nature. Grading costs are not expected to exceed $30,000 for both properties.
4. Property Cost Summary ..
The following table summarizes the Agency property disposition and site remediation costs to be paid
from funds provided by the Port District:
Port Funds: $3,000,000
Agency Property: $1,271,952
Rados Property: $ 972,410
Demolition: ' ' $ 80,000
Soils-Bay Blvd. $ 75,000
Grading: $ 30,000
$2,429,362
Funds Available for Soils/Remediation: $ 570,638
As indicated, from the cost projections, the Agency does not expect to suffer property disposition and
development "cost" as a result of this transaction. The financial exposure or risks to the Agency in
this regard are: 1) an increased property valuation judgement through the condemnation process for
the Rados Property and/or 2) if soils clean-up on the Rados property exceed the $570,638 remaining
amount from the Port contribution. The Agency feels this risk is highly unlikely. Therefore, the likely
maximum cost for the transfer activities will be significantly less than $3 million.
A,qenc¥ Industrial Financial Assistan¢~
Th.e Agency is flnancial!y assis?~ this pr~ct pursqant to. Health and Safety Code Section 33444.6
which allows the Agency to ass~ ii3 the fmarlcing:O? factliti~ ~ c~ equipment that will be used for
industrial or man~urtng purpoSes: In general, the Agency is contemplating assistance deemed to
be necessary in order to facilitate the private investment necessary to effectuate the consolidation.
Without the financial assistance as described.below, BFG has stated that the consolidation would be
infeasible and it would not proceed with the approximate $47 million private investment contemplated
by the Relocation Agreement.
Pursuant to a non-binding Letter of Intent (LOI) executed at the staff level by the Port, Agency, and
BFG in August 1998, BFG negotiated for "no increase in property taxes as a result of the relocation".
This "intent" was negotiated into a formula that provides financial assistance to BFG measured by the
total property taxes paid by BFG on the facility and equipment investment they make during the four
year relocation period. This assistance is to be paid in annual installments over the remaining life of
the project area (2024/25).
3
Summary Report of Agency Property Disposition and Financial Assistance
BFGoodrich Relocation Project
Health and Safety Code Sections 33433
The Agency does not receive all of the property taxes paid by BFG. Therefore, without "back-fill"
development on the south campus there is a financial exposure to the Agency. The Agency's
payments to BFG could exceed revenue received by the Agency from the north and south campus
combined. Included as Exhibit A is a summary spreadsheet which projects the maximum amount of
cost exposure to the Agency in the event that development on the south campus does not occur. As
indicated the current "worst case~ projection is that the Agency would experience a $1.15 million
shortfall over a ten year period with a stabilized annual shortfall of $129,000.
However, with development on the south campus, this shortfall can be made up entirely as identified
in Exhibit B. It should be understood that since BFG's assistance will be more than what the Agency
receives in property tax revenue from BFG, revenue generated by non-BFG development on the
south campus is being used to subsidize the BFG relocation.
The revenue shortfall is to be made up by a 10-year loan from the Port District at a floating variable
interest rate based on the Port District's pooled investment rate (currently at approximately 6%). The
Agency is obligated to begin repaying the loan plus interest, if any, after the first ten years of the
agreement from the increased property tax revenue received from south campus development. In the
event that revenue from south campus development is not sufficient for repaying the loan within (20
years of the effective date of the agreement) any unpaid balance is forgiven.
Summary Report "Bli,qht" Findin?
With the understanding that formal "blight" findings will be presented at the time the Agreement is
scheduled for Agency consideration, the following general statements illustrate how the Agreement
contributes to the elimination of blight:
1. The demolition of vacant, dilapidated, and burned out industrial buildings on the Rados
property and subsequent transfer to BFG as part of their consolidated campus.
2. The transfer of the unimproved Agency's Bay Boulevard properties to BFG as part of their
consolidated campus.
3. The clean-up of soils contamination, if any, on the Rados and Bay Boulevard properties.
4. The demolition of underutilized buildings on the south campus over the four year relocation
period creating an opportunity for planned and coordinated redevelopment adjacent to the
Chula Vista Marina.
5. The investigation, characterization and ultimately the clean-up of soils and groundwater
contamination on the south campus consistent with future development that otherwise would
not have occurred in the forseeable future.
6. Potential for improving the traffic circulation, currently constrained by poor east-west vehicular
access, including the extension of ~H" Street and realignment of Marina Parkway that will
increase the developability of vacant and/or underutilized properties.
7. Private investment of approximately $47 million in the modernization and physical
improvement of a major manufacturing facility and employer in Chula Vista.
4
EXHIBIT A
~ Zoo
EXHIBIT H
CI~ OF
CHULA VISTA
June 4, 1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
OG-O?-gg A09:40 IN
Rados Brothers CERTIFIED MAIL
Post Office Box 15184 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Santa Aha, CA 92735-0184
RE: Notice Of Public Hearing to be held on June 22, 1999 at 6:00 p.m. in the Chula Vista City
Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California regarding the Proposed
Adoption of Resolution of Necessity to commence Eminent Domain Proceedings with
respect to property located at 798 "F" Street,. Chula Vista
Dear Rados Brothers:
As you are aware, on November 30, 1998, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
("Agency~) presented you with an offer to acquire your property at ,798 "F" Street, Chula Vista,
(Assessor's Parcel Numbers 567-022-01 and 567-022-36) comprised of approximately 3.02 acres
("Property"). A copy of the Agency's offer letter is attached as Exhibit A.
The amount offered was $972,400 which Was based on an appraisal in accordance with California
Government Code Section 7267.2. This offer still stands. To date, however, you have not responded
to the Agency's purchase offer. Therefore, in order to proceed with the timely redevelopment of the
P~operty, the Agency must now consider its acquisition through the eminent domain process.
You are hereby served notice that the Agency will hold a Public Hearing on June 22, 1999, at 6:00
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible in the Chula Vista City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth
Avenue, Chula Vista, California, With the intention of considering a Resolution of Necessity to
acquire the Property through eminent domain.
The Agency is interested in acquiring your Property for the potential sale and transfer to BF Gooddch as
part of a larger redevelopment project with the San Diego Unified Port District. A brief description of the
proposed redevelopme.nt project of which the Property is an integral part is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
You have a right to be heard before the Agency at the above scheduled headng on the following matters
and issues, and to have the Agency give judicious consideration to your testimony pdor to deciding
whether or not to adopt the proposed Resolution of Necessity:
(a) Whether the public interest and necessity require the project;
(b) Whether the project is planned or located in the manner that will be the most compatible with the
greatest public good and the least pdvate injury;
(c) Whether the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project;
(d) Whether the offer for purchase required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to
the Owner of record;
(e) Whether the Agency has complied with ail conditions and statutory requirements necessary to
exercise the power of eminent domain (the "ri · ·
ght to take ) to acquire the property described herein,
as wgll as any other matter regarding the dght to take said property by eminent domain; and
(f) Whether the Agency has statutory authority to acquire the property by eminent domain.
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92010/(619) 691-5047
Rados Brothers
No~ce of Public Hearing - 798 "F" Street June 4, 1999
Page 2 of ?
The statutes which authorize the Agency to acquire the property by eminent domain for this proposed
project include inter alia California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1240.010, 1240.110, 1240.120 and
1255.410, and California Health and Safety Codes 3300, et. seq.
During the public hearing on June 22, 1999, the Redevelopment Agency will be asked to determine if
the above findings can be made concerning your Property. If these findings can be made, the Agency
will be requested to adopt a Resolution of Necessity which will authorize the Agency to acquire your
Property by eminent domain.
You have a right to just compensation for your Property. Please note, however, the amount of your just
compensation is not a part of this proceeding and will not be considered by the Agency in determining
whether a Resc~btion of Necessity should be adopted. Your non-appearance at this noticed hearing will
not prevent you from claiming greater compensation, in and as determined by a court of law in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.. This notice is not intended to foreclose future
negotiations between you and the representatives of the'Agency on the amount of compensation to be
paid for yodr property. If you elect not to appear and be heard, .you will only be foreclosed from raising
in a court:of law the issues which are subject of this noticed hearing and which are concerned with the
dght to take the property by eminent domain.
In order to appear and be heard regarding the adoption of the Resolutior~ of Necessity you must file a
wdtten request to do so within 15 days after the date of the mailing of this notice. Objections to the
intended actions a~;P, ijrnited as set forth below.
1) Your written request must be filed with: City Clerk
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
1) The written request must actually be on file within the above-referenced 15-day pedod. Failure to
a written request results in a waiver of your right to appear and be heard.
2) The written request should include a statement of why you believe the Agency should not proceed to
acquire your Property through eminent domain.
By designating which issues form the basis of your concerns and why, you will enable the Agency to
have a full and expeditious review of your opinion of the proposed acquisition of your Property.
Should you have any questions regarding this notice, your rights as set forth herein, or the project,
please do not hesitate to contact myself or Lyle Haynes, Assistant Director at 691-5047.
Sinc~erely,
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Attachment
cc: Glen R. Googins, Assistant City Attorney
Susan Bigetow, City Clerk
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CHULAVIS
November 30, 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Rados Brothers
Post Office Box 15184
Santa Aha, C,~ 92735-0184
RE: OFFER TO PURCHASE PROPERTY AT 798 ?STREET, CHULA VISTA
Dear Redes Brothers:
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Aoency") is interested in acquiring cedain real
property owned by the Rados Brothers located at 798 F Street, Chula Vista (Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 567-022-01 and 567-022-36) comprised of approximate!y 3.02 ~cras ("Property").
The Property is,~,10_c~.ted in the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area and is currently in an
underdeveloped and blighted condition. The'Agency has been evaluating the feasibility of acquiring
the Property for general redevelopment purposes and/or for the potential sale and transfer to BF
Goodrich ("Goodrich") as part of a larger redevelopment project with the San Diego Unified Port
District ("Port"). The Port/Goodrich Proper'b/Transfer and Re!ocation Project ("Project") contemplates
the consolidation of Goodrich operations to the north of the proposed extension of"H" Street thereby
allowing for a coordinated and integrated master plan development of current Goodrich and Port
properties south of "H" Street. The subject property is necessary for the Project.
The Project is subject to completion of various property transfer and relocat on agreement negot ations
between the Port Goodrich and Agency. However, absent the Project, the Agency is still interested
m acquiring the property in order to remove a blighted property condition and prepare it for future
redevelopment opportunities of the Property and surrounding properties within the Bayfront Project.
As part of the Agency due diligence, an appraisal of the Property was done by Kevin Thane, MAI,
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, from Lipman, Stevens, Marshall & Thane, San Diego·
included as Exhibit A to this letter is an Executive Summary of the fair market valuation as determined
in the aforementioned appraisal. Mr. Thane extended an opportunity to your property manager, Les
Brown, to accompany him on a visual inspection of the property and provide input regarding the
property. Mr. Thane was verbally authorized to inspect the property by Mr. Brown, but'his invitation
to attend was declined.
OFFER TO PURCHASE FOR FAIR MARKET VALUE
Bas'ed upon the appraisal received (with a valuation date of NOvember 6, 1998), and other related due
diligence information about the subject Property, the Agency hereby offers to purchase the Property
at the appraised fair market value of $972,400 subject to the following terms and conditions: (1) final
approval,of a Purchase Agreement by the Agency Board; (2) transfer of fitle to the Property free and
clear of all liens and encumbrances, including leasehold interests by February 15, 1999; and (3)
Agency final approval of the physical condition of the Property. The Agency will pay all escrow, title;
recording and other customary closing costs. Property taxes will be prorated as of close of escrow.
The Agency believes that the amount of $972,400 constitutes just compensation for the property.
276 FOURTH AVENUE · CHULA VISTA · CALIFORNIA 91910 · (619) 691-5047 · FAX (619)476-5310
Re(los Brothers
Page 2' of 2 November 30, 1998
However, the purchase price .assumes that there are no hazardous materials conditions on the
Property such as contaminated soils in need of remediation. If a hazardous materials condition is
discovered as part of the Agency's further due diligence, the purchase price may be amended
accordingly.
If these general terms are acceptable, please sign the enclosed Offer Acceptance statement and
return it to the City of Chula Vista, Community Development Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula
Vista, California 91910 by no later than 5:00 p.m., Monday, January 4, 1999. If you accept the offer,
Agency staff will expeditiously prepare and present to you a Purchase Agreement. Once we have
finalized a Purchase Agreement, it will be presented to the Agency Board for their consideration. If
the Purchase~.Agreement is approved, escrow will be opened and we can proceed to close the
transaction expeditiouSly in accordance with its terms.
If these general terms are not acceptable in order to 'allow for the AgenCy to voluntarily acquire the
Property,:the Agency may t"~en consider whether or not to acquire the Property through the process
of emin~ent domain. Before this would occur howevei-, the Agehcy would send you additional notice
and invite you to speak to the Agency Board at a public hearing'specifically scheduled for such matter.
REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT P~OPOSALS
California Healtt'f~'h-d Safety Code Section 33339 and the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan provides that
pdor to formally proceeding with any Agency sponsored project, the owners and tenants of the subject
property shall be given the opportunity to present their own properly development proposals.
Accordingly, if you do not want to accept the offer to purchase provided above, cr you simply want to
propose an alternative to the Project, the Agency hereby requests that you submit your proposal(s)
To th= Agency (toeetherw~th your response to the Agencyoffe. to purchase b · no
' ) ~ later than 5:00 p.m.,
Monday, January 4, !999. Although the Agency is not oblioated to approve your p,'oject propcsal, il
will consider it in determining whether or not to proceed w~th the acquisition of the Property for the
currently contemplated purposes.
If the Agency does not receive your proposal by January 4, 1999, you will be deemed to have waived
your rights to submit and have considered any alternative project proposal. We look forward to hearing
from you. Please direct any questions or concerns to Lyle Haynes, Assistant Director of Community
Development.
Sincerely,
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Enclosure
cc: David Rowlands, City Manager
Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager
Lyte Haynes, Assistant Director of Community Develooment
'(~len Googins, Assistant City Attorney
Roger J. Roelle, Real Estate Administrator, The Rados Companies
ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER
By signing below, I, , as the authorized representative
of the property owners for the property located at 798 F Street, Chula Vista, California
91911, (with CoQnty of San Diego Assessor's Parcel Numbers of 567-022-01 and 567-022-
36) agree to accept the offer of $972,400 for the property from the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") on the terms and conditions set forth in the Agency's
letter to me dated November 30, 1998. I further agree and understand that this agreement
remains s~ubject to approval of a Purchase Agreement by the Agency Board, and agree to
cooperate fully with the City/Agency staff in their efforts to expeditiously present the
Purchase Agreement for consideration.
RADOS BROTHERS
By:
Date:
[Print Name]
[Print Title]
H:[Home~Comm~3e¥[Hayne$10~fAcc December 1. 1998 (1:2~M)
,EXHIBIT A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Property 798 F Street at the southwest comer of Bay Boulevard and F
.. Street, Chula Vista, Califomia
Purpose Estimate the fair market value
Land.Area 3.02 acres of gross land area
Buil~ling Area 52,407 square feet of gross floor area comprised of a 26,000
square-foot metal industrial building, 16,807 square-foot steel
frame and stucco industrial buildir~g and attached 9,600
square-foot wood frame office building.
Building Age/Condition Built in thr~e phases during 1954 (manufacturing), 1962
(office), and 1970 (metal industrial/warehouse). The condition
of the property is poor. Portions of the attached office building
is fire damaged.
Occupancy Vacant
Estate Valued 'The fee-simple estate
Date of Value November 6, 1998
Land Value $1,052,400 ($8/ft.)
Improvement Value ($80,000) (No value. Estimated cost of demolition)
Concluded Net Value $972,400 (Sales Comparison approach)
Marketing Time 6 months
Date of Report November 12, 1998
Appraiser Kevin M. Thene, MAI
EXHIBIT B
The proposed Relocation Agreement by and between the City of Chula Vista
("City"), Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency"), San Diego
Unified Port District ("Port") and BFgoodrich '("BFG") contemplates the sale of
Agency, Port and BFG properties that will effectuate a consolidation of the BFG
campus north of the proposed 'H" Street extension;
The COnsolida~on would result in a reconfigured campus for BFG generally
bounded by Bay Boulevard (east), "F" Street/Lagoon Drive (north), a realigned
Marina Parkway (west) and the proposed "H" Street extension (south). The
rel~3cation would then allow for redevelopment of currently underutilized BFG
I~roperties south of "H" Street adjacent to the Chala Vista Marina in the bayfront
Redevelopment Project area.
The property transfers are generally as follows:
1. BI~-~II transfer their fee;'owned land (37.58 acres) south of "H" to the
Port.
2. Port to transfer various properties north of "H" to BFG totaling 26.51 acres:
Port Parcels 1 and 2 (16.66 acres), SDG&E property (7.41 acres) and
make best efforts to transfer the MTDB property (2.44 acres).
3. Port to provide the Agency compensation for the Agency's "Bay
Boulevard" properties (3.65 acres) and the privately owned Rados
Companies property (3.02 acres) which the Agency will then transfer to
BFG.
~V?~
ii!IJ!i;
~~~~
- - --
/\ 1_ ,
EXHIBIT H
June 4, 1999
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
06-07-99 A09 :40 IN
Rados Brothers
Post Office Box 15184
Santa Ana, CA 92735-0184
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
RE: Notice of Public Hearing to be held on June 22, 1999 at 6:00 p.m. in the Chula Vista City
Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California regarding the Proposed
Adoption of Resolution of Necessity to commence Eminent Domain Proceedings with
respect to property located at 798 "F" Street; Chula Vista
Dear Rados Brothers:
o
As you are aware, on November 30, 1998, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista
("Agency") presented you with an offer to acquire your property at 198 "F" Street, Chula Vista,
(Assessor's Parcel Numbers 567-022-01 and 567-022-36) comprised of approximately 3.02 acres
("Property"), A copy of the Agency's offer letter is attached as Exhibit A.
-"--
The amount offered was $972,400 which W<'lS based on an appraisal in accordance with California
Government Code Section 7267.2. This offer still stands, To date, however, you have not responded
to the Agency's purchase offer. Therefore, in order to proceed with the timely redevelopment of the
Property, the Agency must now consider its acquisition through the eminent domain process,
You are hereby served notice that the Agency will hold a Public Hearing on June 22,1999, at 6:00
p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible in the Chula Vista City Council Chambers, 276 Fourth
Avenue, Chula Vista, California, with the intention of considering a Resolution of Necessity to
acquire the Property through eminent domain.
The Agency is interested in acquiring your Property for the potential sale and transfer to BF Goodrich as
part of a larger redevelopment project with the San Diego Unified Port District A brief description of the
proposed redevelopment project of which the Property is an integral part is attached hereto as Exhibit B,
You have a right to be heard before the Agency at the above scheduled hearing on the following matters
and issues, and to have the Agency give judicious consideration to your testimony prior to deciding
whether or not to adopt the proposed Resolution of Necessity:
(a) Whether the public interest and necessity require the project;
(b) Whether the project is planned or located in the manner that will be the most compatible with the
greatest public good and the least private injury;
(c) Whether the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project;
(d) Whether the offer for purchase required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to
the owner of record;
(e) Whether the Agency has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements necessary to
exercise the power of eminent domain (the "right to take") to acquire the property described herein,
as w~1I as any other matter regarding the right to take said property by eminent domain; and
(f) Whether the Agency has statutory authority to acquire the property by eminent domain.
1-/-1
276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 920101(619) 691-5047
Rados Brothers
Notice of Public Hearing - 798 "F" Street
June 4,1999
Page 2 of 2
The statutes which authorize the Agency to acquire the property by eminent domain for this proposed
project include inter alia California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1240.010, 1240.110, 1240.120 and
1255.410, and California Health and Safety Codes 3300, et seq.
During the public hearing on June 22, 1999, the Redevelopment Agency will be asked to determine if
the above findings caD be made concerning your Property. If these findings can be made, the Agency
will be requested to adopt a Resolution of Necessity which will authorize the Agency to acquire your
Property by eminent domain.
You have a right to just compensation for your Property, Please note, however, the amount of your just
compensation is not a part of this proceeding and will not be considered by the Agency in determining
whether a Resdlution of Necessity should be adopted, Your non-appearance at this noticed hearing will
not prevent you from claiming greater compensation, in and as determined by a court of law in
accordance with the laws of the State of California. ,This notice is not intended to foreclose future
negotiations between you and the representatives of the Agency on the amount of compensation to be
paid for your property. If you elect not to appear and be heard, you will only be foreclosed from raising
in a courfof law the issues which are subject of this noticed hearing and which are concerned with the
right to take the property by eminent domain.
In order to appear and be heard regarding the adoption of the ResolutioJ'l of Necessity you must file a
written request to do so within 15 days after the date of the mailing of this notice. Objections to the
intended actions aLe,Jjroited as set forth below.
1 ) Your written request must be filed with:
City Clerk
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
1) The written request must actually be on file within the above-referenced 15-day period. Failure to file
a written request results in a waiver of your right to appear and be heard.
2) The written request should include a statement of why you believe the Agency should not proceed to
acquire your Property through eminent domain.
By designating which issues form the basis of your concerns and why, you will enable the Agency to
have a full and expeditious review of your opinion of the proposed acquisition of your Property,
Should you have any questions regarding this notice, your rights as set forth herein, or the project,
please do not hesitate to contact myself or Lyle Haynes, Assistant Director at 691-5047.
Sin~~
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Attachment
cc: Gle'n R. Googins, Assistant City Attorney
Susan Bigelow, City Clerk
CS/lH;yg H:\Home\CommDev\Haynes\bfg notice of pUblic hearing letter 614/993:23 PM
;/- d-.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
, .
~
~V?-
:J8t__:
~""""i:~~
--:..~ -
EXHIBIT A
CIlY OF
(HULA VISTA
November 30, 1998
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CERTIFIED MAIL. RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Rados Brothers
Post Office Box 15184
Santa Ana, C~ 92735-0184
RE: OFFER TO PURCHASE PROPERTY AT 798 F STREET, CHULA VISTA
Dear Rados Brothers:
,
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") is interested in acquiring certain real
property owned by the Rados Brothers located at 798 F Street, Chula Vista (Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 567-022-01 and 567-022-36) comprised of approximately 3_02 acres ("Property").
The Property is..lof3ted in the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area and is currently in an
underdeveloped and blighted condition. The Agency has been evaluating the feasibility of acquiring
the Property for general redevelopment purposes and/or for the potential sale and transfer to BF
Goodrich ("Goodrich") as part of a larger redevelopment project with the San Diego Unified Port
District ("Port"), The Port/Goodrich Property Transfer and Relocation Project ("Project") contemplates
the consolidation of Goodrich operations to the north of the proposed extension of "H" Street thereby
allowing for a coordinated and integrated master plan development of current Goodrich and Port
properties south of "H" Street. The subject property is necessary for the Project.
The Project is subject to completion of various property transfer and relocation agreement negotiations
between the Port, Goodrich and Agency, However, absent the Project, the Agency is still interested
in acquiring the property in order to remove a blighted property condition and prepare it for future
redeveloprnent opportunities of the Property and surrounding properties within the Bayfront Project.
As part of the Agency due diligence, an appraisal of the Property was done by Kevin Thene, MAl,
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, from Lipman, Stevens, Marshall & Thene, San Diego.
Included as Exhibit A to this letter is an Executive Summary of the fair market valuation as determined
in the aforementioned appraisal. Mr, Thene extended an opportunity to your property manager, Les
Brown, to accompany him on a visual inspection of the property and provide input regarding the
property, Mr, Thene was verbally authorized to inspect the property by Mr. Brown, but his invitation
to attend was declined.
OFFER TO PURCHASE FOR FAIR MARKET VALUE
Bas'ed upon the appraisal received (with a valuation date of November 6, 1998), and other related due
diligence information about the subject Property, the Agency hereby offers to purchase the Property
at the appraised fair market value of $972,400 subject to the following terms and conditions: (1) final
approval ,of a Purchase Agreement by the Agency Board; (2) transfer of title to the Property free and
clear of all liens and encumbrances, including leasehold interests by February 15, 1999; and (3)
Agency final approval of the physical condition of the Property, The Agency will pay all escrow, title;
recording and other customary closing costs. Property taxes will be prorated as of close of escrow.
The Agency believes that the amount of $972,400 constitutes just compensation for the property.
;.1-3
276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910. (619) 691-5047' FAX (619) 476-5310
Rados Brothers
Page 2 of 2
November 30, 1998
However, the purchase price assumes that there are no hazardous materials conditions on the
Properly such as contaminated soils in need of remediation, If a hazardous materials condition is
discovered as part of the Agency's further due diligence, the purchase price may be amended
accordingly.
If these general terms are acceptable, please sign the enclosed Offer Acceptance statement and
return it to the City of Chula Vista, Community Development Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula
Vista, Califomia 91910 by no later than 5:00 p.m., Monday, January 4,1999. If you accept the offer,
Agency staff will expeditiously prepare and present to you a Purchase Agreement. Once we have
finalized a Purchase Agreement, it will be presented to the Agency Board for their consideration. If
the Purchase, Agreement is approved, escrow will be opened and we can proceed to close the
transaction e~'peditiously in accordance with its terms. .
If these general terms are not acceptable in order to allow for the Agency to voluntarily acquire the
Property,Jhe Agency may then consider whether or not to acquire the Properly through the process
of emin_eht domain. Before this would occur however, the Agency would send you additional notice
and inVite you to speak to the Agency Board at a public hearing specifically scheduled for such matter.
,
REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
California Healtttai'fd Safety Code Section 33339 and the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan provides that
prior to formally proceeding with any Agency sponsored project, the owners and tenants of the subject
property shall be given the opportunity to present their own property development proposals.
.A.ccordingly, if you do not want to accept the offer to purchase provided above, cr you simply want to
propose an alternative to the Project, the Agency hereby requssts that you s~brr.it your proposal(s)
t:) th", Ai;S;;(;;Y (together with your response to the Agency offer to purchase) by no later than 5:00 p.m"
Mendoy, J2"uary 4, ~999. Although the Agency is not obligated to approve you; p;ojE:ct propcsal, it
will consider it in determining whether or not to proceed with the acquisition of the Property for the
currently contemplated purposes,
If the Agency does not receive your proposal by January 4, 1999, you will be deemed to have waived
your rights to submit and have considered any alternative project proposal. We look forward tohearing
from you. Please direct any questions or concerns to Lyle Haynes, Assistant Director of Community
Development.
Sinc~
Chris Salomone
Community Development Director
Enclosure
cc: David Rowlands, City Manager
Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager
Lyle Haynes, Assistant Director of Community Development
Glen Googins, Assistant City Attorney
Roger J, Roelle, Real Estate Administrator, The Rados Companies
CS.Y9 (H:\Home\CommDe'l\Haynes\Letters\RadasOff.Llr November 30,1998 (2:23PM)
fI-<I
r!TY nF r:~l I' IJ. \IIC:T"-.
I.
~.
,-
ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER
By signing below, I, ,as the authorized representative
of the property owners for the property located at 798 F Street, Chula Vista, California
91911, (with CoLinty of San Diego Assessor's Parcel Numbers of 567 -022-01 and 567-022-
36) agree to accept the offer of $972,400 forthe property from the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") on the terms and conditions set forth in the Agency's
letterto me dated November 30, 1998. I further agree and understand that this agreement
remains subject to approval of a Purchase Agreement by the Agency Board, and agree to
,
cooperate fully with the City/Agency staff in their efforts to expeditiously present the
Purchase Agreement for consideration,
RADOS BROTHERS
,
By:
-"--
Date:
[Print Name]
[Print Title]
H:\HomeICommDe'/\Haynes\OffAcc December 1, 1998 (1:22PM)
f/-S(;"
EXHIBIT A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Properly
798 F Street at the southwest corner of Bay Boulevard and F
Street, Chula Vista, California
\
Purpose
Estimate the fair market value
Land Area
3.02 acres of gross land area
-
Building Area
52,407 square feet of gross floor area comprised of a 26,000
square-foot rnetal industrial building, 16,807 square-foot steel
frame and stucco industrial building and attached 9,600
square-foot wood frarne office building,
-.--
Building Age/Condition Built in three phases during 1954 (manufacturing), 1962
(office), and 1970 (metal industrial/warehouse). The condition
of the property is poor. Portions of the attached office building
is fire damaged.
Occupancy Vacant
Estate Valued The fee-simple estate
Date of Value November 6, 1998
Land Value $1,052,400 ($8/ft.)
Improvement Value ($80,000) (No value, Estimated cost of demolition)
Concluded Net Value $972,400 (Sales Cornparison approach)
Marketing Time 6 rnonths
E)ate of Report Novernber 12, 1998
Appraiser Kevin M. Thene, MAl
.,
H:\HomeICommDevIHaynes\Radas.ExB December 1,1998 (1:22PM)
f/-C:.
EXHIBIT B
Proiect DescriDtion
The proposed Relocation Agreement by and between the City of Chula Vista
("City"), Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency"), San Diego
Unified Port District ("Port") and BFGoodrich ("BFG") contemplates the sale of
Agency, Port and BFG properties that will effectuate a consolidation of the BFG
campus north of the proposed "H" Street extension.
\
The consolidation would result in a reconfigured campus for BFG generally
bounded by Bay Boulevard (east), "F" Str.eetlLagoon Drive (north), a realigned
Marina Parkway (west) and the proposed "H" Street extension (south). The
relocation would then allow for redevelopment of currently underutilized BFG
properties south of "H" Street adjacent to the Chtlla Vista Marina in the Bayfront
Redevelopment Project area.
,
The properly transfers are generally as follows:
1, B~-will transfer their fee. owned land (37.58 acres) south of "H" to the
Port.
2. Port to transfer various properties north of "H" to BFG totaling 26,51 acres:
Port Parcels 1 and 2 (16.66 acres), SDG&E properly (7.41 acres) and
make best efforts to transfer the MTDB property (2.44 acres),
3. Port to provide the Agency compensation for the Agency's "Bay
Boulevard" properties (3.65 acres) and the privately owned Rados
Companies properly (3.02 acres) which the Agency will then transfer to
BFG.
.,
fI-7
>-
<
m
"
.I:
.S!
..
~
O~
Oa
fl~
lm.<:
~'
,
,
-
-
.L3!1IJ.S .1'..
o
c
~
w
-
~
o
.
>
'"
.
o
.
'"
>
~
~
o
.
>
'"
.
3311J,8 ..~
~:,
(0'
f
jl
o
;;
,""
> .
'"
1Il:t =
0- -
Li
,
AYM)lHYd YHUI't'W f
'Ill
I~
,...
i~
,;::
I
,;
,_.,mm.,'
:~:: 1(
:~:: :
....-.., ,
, ,
, ,
i 0 ~
: Ifrr-- .
,_ ,I:,' I' f~l
. t~J
~ r"=r-----"\
..... :~r---' \
~ii-l'
: it !
I II ,
'" ,
::: :
," ,
t1! M l
::: :
I II ,
'" ,
I" ,
,It ,
'II I
LJ~_______~
m
..
"
c-
"'~
o~
~j!
,,-
.
w~
..'
,,"
w
..
"
..
o
..
..
W
::>
0.-
:;0
<w
UW
o
ClQ.
!LO
ala:
0.
3= -,
w
z
"'_A.~"'';-._' -, ".'"..:.~. ,.~.",,'.'
,
,1 1
, ,
! lQ!
f !
:...__n_J
,
,
,
,
,
,
o
z
W
"
'W
-'
w
z
::l
o offi w
III zS g
~ c::> t=
q ~g S
H:lIHC %
II. lLllI Z
CJ ~a:l -c
u. 11I0 III
III %1- :E
m~;
>CIt!~
Ilj.
2;0
Uw
ll:l~
~:
~..'
..
"
"
c
..
,..
"
c
o
c
-'
:c
c
~
o
I!!
..
"
o
..
w
..
"
'"
t=
..
X
w
ill
..
o
..
"
3:
w
'"
m~
"
..
o
..
o "
c "
o ..
.. .,
110
(0
"
..
.,
ll~l~
, ,
, ,
u
,
>
'"
3:
~
'"
~
'"
z
..
'"
"
\
~---i
!i j
1 ~ j
'\ L.____
i
l_________
,~,
,-,
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA
STATEMENT
ITEM NO.
MEETING DATE O7/13/99
ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION /~ t~O CONDITIONALLY APPROVING
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OF $595,000 TO AVALON COMMUNITIES, LLC
FOR THE ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF PEARTREE
APARTMENTS
S UBM Il'rED BY-' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR.~::~/~r~/_..~ ~__~
REVIEIMED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTO~'~ ~ ~ ~
~CKGROU
The Agency has received a request from Avalon Communities, LLC (Avalon) to provide financial assistance
in the amount of $595,000 to finance a proposed acquisition and rehabilitation project involving a 119 unit
family apartment complex known as Peartree Apartments located at 1025 Broadway. Avalon is proposing
to improve the units and provide quality housing and long term affordability to families who are at or under
50% of the area median income (AMI).
Avalon has compiled an experienced team of housing professionals and has been successful in meeting
the affordable housing needs of cities and counties. Avalon's multi-family project provide highly amenitized
communities that promotes "pride of ownership" among residents. CUrrently, Avalon is in the pre-
development phase of over 300 units of affordable housing projects in the counties of San Diego, Los
Angeles, and Fresno.
At this time staff is recommending that the Agency conditionally approve the resolution. This preliminary
action is necessary in order for Avalon to submit an application to the State Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (TCAC) by July 15, 1999. The tax credit allocation will be used to substantially finance the
estimated $10 million dollar project. If successful in obtaining a tax credit allocation from TCAC, Avalon
expects to return to the Agency in September 1999 requesting final approval for financial assistance.
That the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista conditionally approve financial assistance of
$595,000 to Avalon Communities, LLC for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Peartree Apartments.
sit. MM,ssi EC ME
The Housing Advisory Commission supported the Peartree Apartment Multi-family acquisition and
rehabilitation project at the meeting of January 27, 1999. If the Redevelopment Agency loan is conditionally
approved, the Housing Advisory Commission will review the developer agreement prior to submittal for
Redevelopment Agency consideration.
PAGE 2~ ITEM NO. ~
MEETING DATE o7/13/99
Previous Proposal
On February 2, 1999, the City Council held a public hearing and adopted resolution 19353 (attached as
Exhibit B) approving the issuance of multi-family housing revenue bonds for the acquisition and
rehabilitation of Peartree Apartments by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority
(CSCDA) on behalf of Avalon. CSCDA is a Joint Powers Authority established in 1987 by the League of
California Cities and the California State Association of Counties.
On March 9, 1999 Avalon received a bond allocation from CDLAC. However, due to the volume of
applications, CDLAC experienced incredible over-subscription. In order to accommodate all of the bond
requests, CDLAC awarded both tax-exempt financing and taxable bond financing to the applicants,
including Avalon. Avalon did not receive the expected amount in tax-exempt financing which created a
difficult situation since the project was expected to be financed primarily with tax-exempt bonds, tax credits,
and Redevelopment Agency funds. In response to the financial limitations imposed by CDLAC, Avalon
eventually was unable to structure a financing plan which was acceptable to all parties involved. In
addition, Avalon was unable to reconfigure a financing team before the CDLAC deadline of June 8, 1999
and subsequently decided to withdraw their proposal.
Avalon is now proposing to apply for the new tax credit program with an application deadline of July 15,
1999. The State recently issued new program guidelines that are based on a merit point system giving
preference to projects that can demonstrate readiness, increase affordability levels, and which have a
financial commitment from local government.
The Proposed Project
The Peartree complex is located in the western portion of the City and consists of 119 units in need of
rehabilitation. Avalon plans to substantially upgrade the interior and exterior building. The Peartree
complex offers two pools, a recreation area, a classroom for adult classes, storage areas, laundry rooms,
and garages.
The proposed unit mix and sizes are as follows: Five (5) One Bedroom units measuring 650 square feet;
One Hundred Nine (109) Two Bedroom units measuring 850 square feet; and Five (5) Three Bedroom units
measuring 1042 square feet. Avalon has estimated the level of rehabilitation at $16,000 per unit. This
amount falls within the industry standard for substantial rehabilitation projects of this size.
Although the City has provided a portion of affordable housing through new construction in the eastern
portion of the City, this project represents an opportunity for the acquisition and rehabilitation of a large
multi-family rental project on the western side of the City which will help to revitalize the neighborhood.
PAGE 3~ ITEM NO. ~
MEETING DATE 07/13/99
Protect Development Costs
Development costs are one of the key variables determining the need for subsidies, it is important that
those costs be reasonable. At a total project cost of approximately $10,000,000 including land, the average
unit cost of $85,000 is consistent with typical affordable multi-family development within the City. The
Peartree Apartments is a family complex, which is a larger and older building requiring substantial
upgrades to meet current building code standards. The rehabilitation of existing housing stock is important
and is a necessary component of the City's affordable housing strategy of increasing affordable housing
opportunities and revitalizing neighborhoods throughout the City.
Table 1 delineates the entire development project costs associated with the Peartree Apartments.
Table 1
Development Costs
Use Amount Per Unit
Land/Acq uisition Costs $6,209,000 $52,177
Rehabilitation Costs $1,892,100 $15,900
Soft Costs $140,411 $1,180
Contingency $206,490 $1,735
Contractor Profit $142,800 $1,200
Developer Fee $719,919 $6,050
Construction Loan Interest and Fees $613,540 $5,156
Application Fee $70,737 $594
City Permit Fees $75,000 $630
Relocation Fund $60,000 $504
Total $10,129,997 $85,126
Income and Rent Restrictions
All units will be affordable to Iow income families earning at or under 50% of AMI as determined by HUD.
The Agency regulatory agreement will govern the use of the project and will restrict all 119 units for Iow-
income affordable housing.
Fifty percent (50%) of the AMI for a household size of four is $26,250. Rents on the 5 - 1BR units will be
approximately $492. Rents on the 109 - 2BR units will be approximately $591; and rents on the 5 - 3BR
units will be approximately $682. The restricted rents will increase with increases in the AMI.
In the event a current tenant household's income exceeds the affordable income requirements, that
household will not be evicted. Although Avalon has done its due diligence in surveying the residential
income of the complex, Avalon estimates a maximum of five percent (5%) of the families may not qualify.
These non-qualifying families will not be displaced, but will be phased out through attrition.
PAGE 4, ITEM NO. ~'
MEETING DATE o7/13/99
Undue Gain
It is important that any financial assistance provided has the effect of making the units more affordable and
not creating undue gain for any party. The developer will receive a "Developer Fee" estimated at $719,912
or approximately 7.1% of total project costs and consists of profit and overhead for developing the project.
Avalon has agreed to defer approximately $150,000 of their developer fee over a ten-year period in order to
make up the remaining gap in financing the project. A review of acquisition rehabilitation projects
throughout the County which have been financed by the same method as Peartree had developer fees
ranging from 5% to 8% of total project costs. This puts Avalon's proposal within a reasonable developer
fee range, which is supported by an industry standard. The developer's fee is highly regulated by TCAC
guidelines
Financial Assistance
Financing and development of this project will be a joint private/public partnership. The developer is
proposing to use Iow income housing tax credit financing, a permanent bank loan, defer a portion of the
developer fee, and the Agency loan to support the estimated $10,000,000 cost of the project. Staff is
proposing to loan Avalon $595,000.
Table 2 identifies the financing resources and total project cost per unit for Peartree Manor.
Table 2
Financing Resources
Fundin,q Sources Amount Per Unit Cost
Permanent Loan $3,703,426 $31,121
Federal Tax Credits $3,681,196 $30,934
Deferred Developer Fee $149,996 $1,260
State Tax Credit Proceeds $2,000,379 $16,810
City Participation $595,000 $5,000
Project Total $10,t 29,997 $85,126
Subsidy Analysis
Staff is recommending that the Redevelopment Agency provide financial assistance of $595,000 This
amount is reasonable given the debt service coverage ratio of the project and a maximum tax credit
allocation amount. The Agency's assistance equates to $5,000 per unit which amounts to a leveraging of
$17.0 to $1 of City funds. This leveraging ratio is calculated by dividing the total project cost of
$10,129,997 by the amount of the Redevelopment Agency loan of $595,000.
/
PAGE 5, ITEM NO. ~
MEETING DATE o7/1 "~/99
Rental Income Analysis
^ccordin9 to the prelimina~ proforma provided by Avalon, Peartree ^par~ments is expected to accumulate
approximately $778,320 per year in gross receipts and $12,376 in facility income for a total of $790,696.
After all operating expenses of $388,636 and debt service payments of $$49,618 have been paid, it is
anticipated that there will be approximately $52,443 available in residual receipts after year one. However,
due to the substantial amount of rehabilitation expected to occur and the fluctuation in the construction
market it is hi§hly unlikely that the Redevelopment Agency will receive a portion of the residual receipt
income in the first few years.
It is important to note that in this type of financing arrangement, the Redevelopment Agency has negotiated
to receive 90% of the residual receipt income. In similar financing arrangements, usually related to non-
profit organizations the Redevelopment Agency has arranged to receive 50% of the residual receipt
income. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency is next in line for repayment after the operating expenses
and debt service have been paid. Avalon has agreed to be subordinate to the Redevelopment Agency
loan. It is anticipated that this will encourage Avalon to generate sufficient residual receipt income to not
only repay the Redevelopment Agency loan, but to receive payment on their portion of the deferred
developer fee.
City Risks and Miti.qation Measures
There are two areas of risk which the Agency need to be cognizant. Listed below are these risks and
measures staff has incorporated into the transaction to reduce these risks:
Risk One - No Repayment of A.qency Loan. The Agency will be providing $595,000 in the form of
a 6 percent simple interest loan to the developer to assist with the development costs of the
project. Repayment of the loan will be made from ninety percent (90%) of the residual receipts,
which is the amount left over after all expenses are deducted from the income received.
Mitigation: The Developer and its joint venture partners have significant experience
and an excellent track record with this type of development project. In
addition, the developer has agreed that their deferred developer fee will
be subordinate to the Agency loan.
Risk Two - Subordination of A.qenc¥ Loan: It is expected that the Agency loan will be subordinate
to the permanent bank loan on the property. Should the developer or a subsequent owner be
unable to perform under the conditions of the loan, the Agency will not be responsible for
repayment of the loan. However, the Agency loan will be in jeopardy of being repaid.
Mitigation: The presence of other major financial commitments, such as the tax credit
investments, means that other stakeholders depend on the short and
long-term success of the project. By its nature, affordable housing
presents some, but very limited market risk because of the deeply
discounted rents. Finally, while the Agency is vulnerable due to its
subordinate financing, it helps to attract the necessary private financing.
PAGE 6, ITEM NO, ~)
MEETING DATE 07/13/99
Assuming all financial commitments are secured, construction is scheduled to begin in late October 1999
with completion of the project estimated by June 2000,
Redevelopment Agency Loan Terms and Conditions
The Agency loan of $595,000 will be made on the following terms:
1. The loan repayment will be secured by a Deed of Trust recorded against the property.
2. The term of the loan shall be sixty (60) years.
3. The outstanding balance shall accrue with simple interest at 6% per annum.
4. Payment of principal and interest on the Agency loan shall be made, on an annual basis, out of a fund
equal to ninety percent (90%) of the "Residual Receipts", rental income from the project minus debt
service and reasonable operating expenses.
5. The deferred developer fee will be subordinate to the Agency's loan.
6. Developer will be required to operate the project consistent with the Regulatory Agreement covenants
imposed by the Agreement.
7. Avalon will apply for tax credits from the Tax Credit Allocation Committee
8. Avalon will provide 100% of the units (119 units) to households earning at or under 50% AMI.
9. In the event a current tenant does not meet the income requirement, that tenant will be phased out of
the complex through attrition.
Rehabilitation Efforts
The scope of work is considered to be extensive rehabilitation and will include interior painting, new
carpeting, new cabinets, new appliances, blinds, sinks, vinyl flooring, and bathroom renovation. The
exterior of the building will be painted, fascia boards repaired, exterior window fascia, metal encasings,
roof, gutters and downspouts will all be replaced. The landscaping will be upgraded along with creating a
tot lot and upgrading the pool and laundry facilities.
The rehabilitation efforts will take place through a phasing process. One or two of the units will be vacant
to accommodate a tenant family while their unit is being rehabilitation. Avalon anticipates completing the
rehabilitation of the units through an in-house rehabilitation process designed to minimize tenant disorder.
PAGE 7, ITEM NO,
MEETING DATE
Crime Free Multi-Housing Program
According to the City of Chula Vista Police Department, Peartree Apartments has one of the highest calls
for service record. The implementation of the recently approved Crime Free Multi-Housing program at
Peartree is highly recommended by the Police Department, A main component of the Crime Free Multi
Housing Program will be to obtain cooperation of apartment owners to make recommended improvements
to the complex in an effort to reduce the rate of break-ins and establish a friendly association with the police
and apartment residents and to create a safe living environment for the Peartree residents.
Summary
It is staff's recommendation that the Agency adopt the resolution conditionally approving financial
assistance of $595,000 to Avalon for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the 119 unit Peartree Apadments
for the following reasons:
· The proposal's effectiveness in serving the City's housing needs and priorities as expressed in the
Housing Element of the General Plan and the HUD Consolidated Plan.
· The proposal's development and operating feasibility, financing sources and the role of the City and the
Agency in providing financial assistance or incentives.
· It is the intent of the City to attempt to provide affordable housing opportunities to households earning
at or below 50% of AMI in order to receive future Fair Share credits.
The Peartree acquisition project is proposed by Avalon Communities, LLC who are commitied to affordable
housing, The financing structure of the project is sound. The proposed Agency assistance meets the
Agency's underwriting goals of reasonable project costs and leveraging of Agency resources. The project's
unit mix and affordability support the Agency housing goals.
F ,M
If ultimately approved, the loan amount of $595,000 will be drawn from the Low/Moderate fund (current
balance of $4.0 million). Since staff is not requesting an appropriation of funds at this time the only fiscal
impact of approving this resolution will be staff time involved in the preparation and review of the loan
agreements, staff reports and monitoring activities for program compliance. Funds for staff services are
budgeted in the staff services portion of the Housing Division budget.
Exhibit A Locator Map
Exhibit B Resolution 19353
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE OF $595,000 TO AVALON COMMUNITIES, LLC FOR
THE ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OF PEARTREE
APARTMENTS
WHEREAS, Avalon Communities, is proposing an acquisition/rehabilitation project
involving a 119 unit family apartment complex known as Peartree Apartments located at 1025
Broadway; and
WHEREAS, Avalon Communities, LLC ("Developer") will apply for tax credits from the
Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) for the Project; and
WHEREAS, Developer has requested financial assistance from the Agency in the
amount of $595,000 in Low and Moderate Income Housing funds to be used for gap financing for the
Project; and
WHEREAS, the rehabilitation of multifamily rental units like the Project is consistent with
and called for by the City's General Plan Housing Element, Consolidated Plan, and California Health
And Safety Code; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") desires to provide Developer with
a development loan of $595,000 to be used for gap financing for the Project and;
WHEREAS, the use of said funds for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the Project
complies with all applicable laws pertaining to the use of Low and Moderate Income Housing funds; and
WHEREAS, the Agency provision of funds to the Project will improve the City's supply
of multifamily rental housing through rehabilitation activities; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Advisory Commission, upon hearing and considering all
testimony, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, and considering all factors relating to the request
for financial assistance, has recommended to the Redevelopment Agency that the appropriation be
approved because the Commission believes that the Agency's financial participation in the development
Project will be a sound investment based on Developer's ability to effectively serve the City's housing
needs and priorities as expressed in the Housing Element and the Consolidated Plan and the cost
effectiveness of the Agency's financial assistance based upon the leveraging of such resources; and
WHEREAS, the loan agreement setting forth the terms for the $595,000 Agency loan
to the project is in process of negotiation and will be brought forward for Agency consideration at a later
date.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Chula Vista does hereby conditionally approve a loan in the amount of $595,000 from the Agency's Low
and Moderate Income Housing Set-Aside fund to Developer for the acquisition and rehabilitation of the
Project subject to the Agency's approval of an Affordable Housing Cooperation and Loan Agreement
which shall include, at a minimum, the following terms and conditions:
1. The loan will be secured by a Deed of Trust and Promissory Note for the properly on behalf of
the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista.
2. The term of the loan shall be for sixty (60) years.
3. The outstanding balance shall accrue with simple interest at 6 percent per annum.
4. Payment of principal and interest on the Agency loan shall be made, on an annual basis, out
of a fund equal to ninety percent (90%) of the "Residual Receipts", rental income from the
Project minus debt service and reasonable operating expenses.
5. The deferred developer fee shall be subordinate to the Agency's loan.
6. Developer will be required to operate the Project consistent with the Regulatory Agreement
required by the affordability and use covenants imposed by the Agreement.
7. The agreement shall include and such additional terms and conditions consistent herewith
required by the Agency.
8. Avalon shall provide 100% of the units to household earning at or below 50% of the area
median income.
9. In the event a current tenant does not meet the affordability requirement, said tenant shall be
phased from the complex through attrition.
10. This conditional approval remains subject to final approval by the Agency in its sole discretion.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Chris Salomone y
Director of Community Development
[(ENTER AUTHOR*S INITIALS) C:~atwood~resos~p ea d~ee [July 8, 1999 (11:20am)]
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
MINUTES
HOUSING ADVISORY COMMISSION
Wednesday January 27, 1999 Housing Conference Room
3:30 p.m. Legislative Buildin,q
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL - 3:37 p.m.
PRESENT: Chair Madrid, Members Clayton, Dufresne, Ahamed, Worth
ABSENT: Helton, Lopez-Gonzalez
STAFF: Housing Coordinator Arroyo, Community Development Specialist
II Atwood, Administrative Secretary Hernandez
1. MSC (Madrid/Clayton) to approve December 9, 1998 minutes (5-0-2 Helton, Lopez~Goozalez
absent).
MSC (Madrid/Ahamed) to excuse Members Helton and Lopez-Gonzalez from January 27, 1999 meeting
due to illness and other business commitments (5-0-2 Helton, Lopez-Gonzalez absent}.
2. PEARTREE APARTMENTS ACQUISITION/REHABILITATION PROPOSAL -
Ms. Atwood gave a brief summary on the Peartree Apartments acquisition/rehabilitation proposal. She
stated that the City received from California Statewide Communities Development Authority an
application to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) for mortgage revenue bonds to
purchase and rehabilitate the Peartree Apartments located at 1025 Broadway, Chula Vista. As part
of the IRS regulations, the City of Chula Vista has to hold a TEFRA hearing. The California Statewide
Communities Development Authority is to be the issuer of the bonds, not the City. However, since
they are looking to issue bonds in the City of Chula Vista for this proiect, the City Council has to hold
this hearing.
Mr. Arroyo mentioned that these are tax exempt bonds, that is why it requires local jurisdiction to hold
this hearing even though the City is not the issuer.
Ms. Atwood stated that the initial proposal outlined, of the 119 units, ali 100% would be affordable
to households earning at 60% of the area median income. Staff is negotiating with the developer to
provide 10% of the 119 units at household income at 50% of the area median income. The 119 units
will maintain an affordability period of 60 years. The multifamily housing revenue bonds will only
provide tax credits at the (~0% level of affordability, therefore leaving a gap of approximately $275,000
needed to provide the additional level of affordability for 10% of the units at 50% of area median
income. Ms. Atwood stated that staff has come to a negotiation at approximately $150,000 that the
City will be willing to loan Avalon Communities in order to get that level of affordability at 50% for
10% of the units.
Ms. Atwood stated that Avalon Communities has estimated the per unit cost of rehabilitating the 119
units including interior and exterior rehabilitation at $10,165 with land and acquisition costs at $55,571
per unit. Other fees including contingencies, developer fees, and property tax fees will be
approximately $8,767 p~r unit for a total per unit cost of $72,502. Staff supports this proposal
!
because it will help to improve a large apartment complex and also increase affordability. Ms. Atwood
also mentioned that the City approved a new program called Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program
through the Chula Vista Police Department which will assist in creating a safe environment for the
Peartree residents. This will be the first complex that would be integrate into this program. This
program will work with the developer to create a safe environment through landscaping, interaction
with police officers in the complex, and also with dead bolt locks and other safety features that would
be included into the project.
Mr. Arroyo added that this particular site has been identified by the Police Department as having one
of the highest calls for service in the City. This program has been proven effective in other cities.
Staff feels that this program will help this project in reducing crime and stabilizing that area. Mr.
Arroyo indicated that this is a very unique opportunity to get this program under way and the developer
plans to conduct educational programs for the residents. Mr. Arroyo stated that even if Council
approves this proposal, the developer still has to compete for CDLAC allocation of bond issue along
with hundreds of other cities throughout the State.
Member Worth asked if the current residents are going to be replaced.
Mr. Arroyo responded no. The developer's objective is to maintain and give priority to the current
residents if they meet the income criteria. The developer does not expect any major turnover because
the majority of current residents are within the income levels. Regarding the rehabilitation, it will be
phased with some tenants moving from one unit to another in order to do the rehabilitation and avoid
relocation. Mr. Arroyo indicated that there will be new management in the complex.
Chairman Madrid asked what kind of funds are going to be used for the $150,O00 that the City is
proposing to lend the developer.
Mr. Arroyo responded that the source of funds will be coming out of the Redevelopment Low/Mod fund
since the project is in a redevelopment area (Southwest Redevelopment Area).
Mr. Arroyo indicated that Avalon Communities has a good track record and they plan to hire local
contractors.
Member Dufresne commented that it seems expensive to rehabilitate the project at a rate of $72,000
per unit.
Mr. Arroyo responded that part of the reason related to that is the affordability level. It is not only
buying the improvement of the project, but it is also bringing the rents at below the fair market level.
Chairman Madrid indicated that actually the price per unit is reasonably. She indicated that she has
seen projects come in at that price and higher.
Ms. Atwood gave the breakdown of the size of the units. She indicated that there are five one
bedroom units, 109 two bedroom units, and five three bedroom units.
Mr. Arroyo indicated that if this project receives CDLAC's approval, it won't be until then that staff will
come back to Council with a financial package which will involve the proposed $150,000 loan. The
developer will come back to brief the Commission on more specific details of the project.
Member Worth asked that when this developer comes in to give their summary on the project, could
they bring in something like charts or designs for the Commission Members to keep.
2
MSC (Madrld/VVorth) the Housing Advisory Commission supports the Peartree Apartments Multi-family
acquisition rehabilitation project (5-0-2 Helton, Lopez-Gonzalez absent).
3. STAFF REPORTS - None
4. MEMBERS COMMENTS -
Member Worth mentioned that she would like an update on previous projects that the Commission
approved, recommended and or supported along with their packets that they receive monthly.
Mr, Arroyo responded that he will update the Com~nission monthly or every other month on the status
on projects that the Commission has voted on.
5. ADJOURNMENT - 4:10 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting of February 24, 1999.
(=
EXHIBIT B
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
REVENUE BONDS FOR THE ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION
OF PEARTREE APARTMENTS BY THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE
COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the
"Authority") is authorized pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 6500
et seq. and the terms of an Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, dated
as of June 1, 1988 (the "Agreement"), among certain local agencies throughout the State of
California, including the City of Chula Vista (the "City"), to issue revenue bonds in accordance with
Chapter 7 of Part 5 of Division 31 of the California Health and Safety Code for the purpose of
financing multifamily rental housing projects; and
WHEREAS, Avalon Communities, LLC (collectively, with any related entity, the
"Borrower") has requested that the Authority issue multifamily housing revenue bonds in an
aggregate principal amount not to exceed $7,000,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of providing
financing for the acquisition and rehabilitation of a 119-unit multifamily residential rental project
located at 1025 Broadway, Chula Vista, California which shall be comprised of 119 units
affordable to households earning between 50% and 60% of the area median income and generally
known as Peartree Apartments ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Bonds will be "private activity bonds" for purposes of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, prior to their issuance, private
activity bonds are required to be approved by the "applicable elected representative" of the
governmental units on whose behalf such bonds are expected to be issued and by a governmental
unit having jurisdiction over the entire area in which any facility financed by such bonds is to be
located, after a public hearing held following reasonable public notice; and
WHEREAS, there has been published, at least 14 days prior to the date hereof, in
a newspaper of general circulation within the City, a notice that a public hearing regarding the
Bonds would be held on the date hereof; and
WHEREAS, such public hearing was conducted on said date by the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista, at which time an opportunity was provided to interested parties to present
arguments both for and against the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the members of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista (this
"Council") are the applicable elected representatives of the City; and
WHEREAS, it is intended that this resolution shall constitute the approval of the
issuance of the Bonds required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 9 of the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista
as follows:
Section 1. The above recitals are true and correct
Section 2. The Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the
Authority for purposes of financing the Project. It is the purpose and intent of the Council that this
resolution constitute approval of the Bonds for the purpose of (a) Section 147(f) of the Code by
the applicable elected representative of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in
which the project is located, in accordance with said Section 147(f), and (b) Section 9 of the
Agreement.
Section 3. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly
and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents that they
deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and
intent of this resolution and the financing approved hereby.
Section 4. The City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista shall forward a certified
copy of this Resolution and a copy of the affidavit of publication of the hearing notice to:
Ana Marie del Rio, Esq
Qrrick, Herrington,& Sutcliff LLP
Old Federal Reserve Bank Building
400 Sansome Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Section 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Chris Salomone Jo)~'~ M.~'K~heny " ~ ~
Director of Community Development C~y / ~,
[(ENTER AUTHOR'S INITIALS) M:\HO M E\COMMDEV\RESOS\ENTER DOCUMENT NAME {Januar~ 27, 1999 (11:13arn)]